[Vision2020] Wrong About the Bible : A Response to Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson's Doctrine of Slavery

[News of Christ Cult]

 *http://www.joshualetter.org/slavery/theology.htm

**Wrong About the Bible : A Response to Steve Wilkins
and Douglas Wilson's Doctrine of Slavery*
**
by Rev. Jack Davidson
Pastor, Cascade Presbyterian Church
Eugene, Oregon


People who believe in the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible can be
confused by its teaching on slavery. A recent example is found in *Southern
Slavery as it Was*, by Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson, who argue that
since the Bible regulates slavery, then "Christians who owned slaves in the
[American] South were on firm scriptural ground."1 According to these
authors "[t]he Bible permits Christians to own slaves provided they are
treated well,"2 and slavery is a "wonderful issue upon which to
practice"3submission to the Bible.

Wilkins and Wilson's assessment of slavery is rejected below because it
misinterprets the Bible, subjecting it to scorn for something it does not
teach. Moreover, such an interpretation unwittingly silences any rational
objection to the establishment of a contemporary slave state. The first
section of this paper presents slavery as a distortion of labor and a result
of man's fallen condition. Those who like Wilkins and Wilson think the Bible
approves of slavery as long as slaves were treated well are mistaking its
approbation of labor as an endorsement for mankind's perversion of labor
into the form of slavery.4 Why do the Scriptures regulate slavery and yet
simultaneously command us to love our neighbor as ourselves? Only when
slavery is recognized as a perversion of labor is such a question
satisfactorily answered.

The second section of this paper further discusses the New Testament's
regulation of slavery, specifically Colossians 4:1. I argue that while a
type of perpetual and/or racially based servitude like Southern slavery
might be in view in the letter to the Colossians or other letters of the New
Testament, it is not so *exclusively*. There were many kinds of slavery in
the ancient world, and it is likely that certain kinds of servitude seemed
more legitimate to the Apostles than others. Consequently, it is misleading
to present the New Testament passages which regulate slavery as if any one
of those forms were primarily in view or endorsed.

A final section suggests an evaluation of Southern slavery based on three
principles. The positive evaluation of Southern slavery expressed in *Southern
Slavery As It Was* assumes that since slavery is addressed by the New
Testament and since the South had a social institution of the same name,
then the latter should receive the same support as it is thought the former
received by the Apostles. To the contrary, it is not unproven assumptions
about the Apostles' attitudes toward slavery that should guide our thinking
but clearly derived principles of Scripture. The final section suggests a
method of evaluating any form of servitude utilizing three principles
derived from Scripture - the dignity of man, a right to just compensation,
and freedom from oppression.

*1. Creation and Slavery*

The failure to properly distinguish between the institution of labor,
established and sanctioned by God in creation, and the perversion of that
institution by fallen man into the form of slavery is the critical mistake
Wilkins and Wilson have made. They believe that "in a fallen world, an
institution like slavery will be accompanied by many attendant evils."5 Such
an acknowledgment falls short of the truth. The circumstances attending
slavery are indeed evil, but slavery *itself* is a result of a fallen world.

God created mankind without slavery. In Genesis 1:27- 28 we are told "God
created man in His own image . . . male and female He created them." Adam
and Eve are told to "fill the earth and subdue it." Before the fall
procreation - "fill the earth" - and work - "subdue it" - were tandem
privileges and responsibilities planted in the heart of mankind and in which
they were to find physical pleasure, creative joy, intellectual
satisfaction, and overall purpose. The subjection of creation envisions
dominion over all animal life ("the fish of the sea and the birds of the air
and over every living creature that moves on the ground [1:28]") and all
plant life ("work it and take care of it [2:15]"). Thus, as the image
bearers of God, mankind is given mastery over all of life in creation, but *not
dominion over other men*. Regarding the Genesis account one commentator has
noted, ". . . the author's purpose seems not merely to mark man as different
from the rest of the creatures; the narrative seems just as intent on
showing that man is like God as well."6 Man is not given charge over his
fellow man, only the lesser creatures. As such his life and labor is marked
by a measure of freedom, self-sufficiency, and self-determination which
ought not be encroached upon by others. Commenting upon the creation of
mankind in his *City of God*, Augustine writes, ". . . he did not wish a
rational creature, made in his own image, to have dominion save over
irrational creatures; not man over man, *but man over the beasts*."7

After the fall in Genesis 3:17-24 mankind is cursed and labor takes on a new
aspect. In particular, Adam is told, "Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will
produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the
field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to
the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you
will return." Because of his sin, the submission of creation to him is
reversed and frustrated (Rom.8:20-22). Labor thus becomes filled with strife
and hardship.

Yet even in the curse, mankind is assured of survival through labor as it
remains a means by which he may still experience the goodness of God. Adam
and Eve are told they will still be able to make it through life by the
means of labor. John Calvin writes that "the asperity of this punishment . .
. is mitigated by the clemency of God, because something of enjoyment is
blended with the labors of"8 and offers this paraphrase of the curse:
"Although the earth, which ought to be the mother of good fruits only, be
covered with thorns and briers, still it shall yield to thee sustenance
whereby thou mayest be fed."9

Thus, after the fall, labor is the means given by God from which sustenance
for life is gained and by which man resists "the gravity of his fallen
nature."10 The close association of man with his responsibility to labor as
seen in the opening chapters of Genesis has prompted some to view labor as
". . . a matter of being, of character, of what makes man man."11 Unless he
works, his real identity is only "theoretical" because work manifests and
externalizes who he is.12 At the most fundamental level work can be
understood as "basic social reality" and "a means of loving God by serving
human needs."13

Slavery, on the other hand, such as practiced in antebellum America, has no
part in God's order. It is a perversion of labor, a means by which man
rejects the truth about identity and reality as established by God.
According to an ancient father of the church, if mankind needed slavery God
would have created a slave along with Adam and Eve. Since He didn't, slavery
can only be the result of the fall.

God has made men sufficient to minister to themselves or rather to their
neighbor also. . . . For to that end did God grant us both hands and feet,
that we might not stand in need of servants. Since not at all for needs sake
was the class of slaves introduced, else even along with Adam had a slave
been formed; but it is the penalty of sin and the punishment of
disobedience.14

If slavery is a perversion of the original idea of labor, then the texts of
the Bible instructing masters and slaves deserve the highest level of
interpretive caution. Regardless of how disfigured the form of labor is in
slavery, it is still labor being addressed. Although it is a perversion of
God's creational structure for work, slavery is still an embodiment of work,
and the relationships therein are still work-like. In essence, the Bible
would have taught what it teaches about labor *even if slavery had never
existed.* For this reason instructions regarding "masters" and "slaves" are
culturally relevant even in the absence of what we know as "slavery" because
certain principles of labor are made clear, e.g., fair treatment of
employees, working honestly and industriously, etc.

Moreover and for the sake of argument, even if the correspondence between
Southern slavery and the slavery of the ancient world were exact, the New
Testament instruction would only be evidence that masters and slaves were
instructed by Christianity's redemptive message and teaching. The mere fact
of instruction to masters and slaves is not "firm scriptural ground" for
owning another human being, but only proof that the redemptive message of
the Bible reaches labor and relationships in whatever forms they are found
even if it is the worst form of slavery. It does not vindicate, legitimize,
or permit any or every form in which labor might exist. Inferences beyond
this burden the Bible with an endorsement it does not give. If the Bible's
evaluation of slavery is sought one need only listen to what the Apostle
Paul says to slaves themselves - ". . . *if you can gain your freedom, do so
*."15 He never says that to a husband or a wife!


*2. Colossians 4:1 and Slavery in the Ancient World*

Certain passages from the New Testament16 have been recently cited which
purport to make it clear that "nothing could be plainer than the fact that a
Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good
standing in a Christian church."17 As stated above, it is not plain that
Southern slavery and the slavery being addressed by the New Testament
precisely correspond. The degree to which they do must be determined before
any application can be made. Slavery or servitude resists a single
definition. Many forms of servitude existed in the ancient world. The Bible
does not categorically condemned "slavery" per se, because it would condemn
many forms of labor, some more legitimate than others, which existed
throughout the ancient world, all semantically identified by the same term.

The Hebrew and Greek terms for "slave" or "servant" in the Bible describe
many different arrangements and circumstances other than those of a slave in
the Antebellum South. If we observe that the terms "slave" or "slavery"
express many forms of servitude or employment in the ancient world,18 it is
clear that certain forms unlike the slavery of the American experience are
in view. In the ancient world and in the literature of the Bible, voluntary
and involuntary servitude results for different reasons - war,19 poverty,
debt, contractual,20 restitution,21 or birth.22 Most of these kinds of
servitude were not perpetual.

For example, Colossians 4:1 cited as support for the legitimacy of Southern
slavery23 calls for masters to "give your bondservants what is right and
fair" but it probably meant something different for the slave owners of
ancient Colossae than we might initially think. For a Southern master "just
and fair" provision meant he provided his slaves with food, clothing,
shelter, and/or maybe permission to leave the plantation for an evening out.
For a Colossian master it generally meant basic humane treatment, but,
depending on circumstances, it may have included the right to pursue freedom
according to the well- established route of manumission practiced by the
Roman world of the first century, something not allowed an American slave.

Between the years of 81-49 B.C. it is estimated on the basis of the five
percent tax for all servants set free that over 500,000 slaves became
freedmen through this process.24 It is likely that such a practice was known
and common throughout all the cities and regions of the Roman empire
addressed by the New Testament writers, including Colossae. If ancient forms
of slavery included the possibility of liberty through manumission, then the
right of a slave to seek his freedom could be in view when Paul calls upon
the Colossian masters to be "just" and "fair." Admittedly, the command to be
"just" and "fair" may be addressed to situations such as existed in the
South, but we have shown above that it would at the same time have in view
certain forms of servitude in which the pursuit of freedom was allowed and
encouraged.

To summarize, one ought not to assume a one-to-one correspondence between
Southern slavery and the slavery addressed by the New Testament or that any
particular endorsement was given to the forms addressed. The Bible's
teaching on government provides a helpful illustration. If the New Testament
commands the Christian to "submit himself to the governing authorities (
Rom.13:1)" it does not mean the Scripture endorses dictatorship or
oppression. Just as slavery is a kind of work, corrupt government is still a
form of the ideal instituted and ordained for our well-being. It is our
attitude towards God's institution not an uncritical endorsement of
government's distortion by us that is being addressed. Similarly the New
Testament's instruction to the master/slave situation is not an endorsement
of slavery but of right relationships within the field of labor.

*Evaluating Southern Slavery*

Since the Bible includes a variety of arrangements under the heading of
servitude, and since it includes some forms more legitimate than others,
this would explain why the writers of the Bible do not categorically condemn
the institution of slavery. Instead, the Scriptures' attitude toward slavery
is determined by evaluating practices and circumstances which invariably
accompany particular forms of slavery, in the light of particular principles
taught in Scripture. The following texts and examples offer a possible
foundation for such a method, with attention given to three areas: the
dignity of man; his right to just compensation; and the guarantee of freedom
from oppression, all of which were systematically denied in American
slavery.


   *1) Dignity of Man*

Exodus 21:16 forbids the foundation upon which American slavery rested. *He
who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely
be put to death.* The laws given to Moses regarding servitude forbid
kidnaping, the chief point of origin for slave trade in the ancient world
and the singular source of American slavery. Notice the condemnation is
two-fold: the one who kidnaps and sells the man is condemned but so is
anyone found in possession of such a man. A man taken against his will could
never be considered the rightful property of anyone. Someone found in
possession of stolen property is never condemned outright to death in the
Bible, but someone found in possession of a human soul is put to death. The
sentence of death therefore indicates there are no circumstances under which
a kidnapped man can ever rightfully become anyone's property. The unique
nature of man is furthered emphasized by noticing the difference between
Exodus 21:16 where the Hebrew term is "man," and Deuteronomy 24:7 where the
Hebrew term for "soul." The variation demonstrates how different a kidnaped
man is to be thought of than any kind of property. He is not property but a
living soul. The penalty is death to anyone trying to possess him.


   *2) Just Compensation*

Jeremiah 22:13 complains, *Woe to him who builds his house by
unrighteousness and his chambers by injustice, Who uses his neighbor's
service without wages*. Making someone work without just compensation is
equivalent to "unrighteousness" and "injustice." The *laborer*, Paul writes
in 1 Timothy 5:18, *is worthy of his wages*. Leviticus 19:13 says *You shall
not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him*. . . . The Bible gives no permission
for the employer to be racially discrete in such matters. These are warnings
to societies built upon the back of uncompensated labor. Who is our
neighbor? In Luke 10:29-37 Jesus surprised everyone when He gave a Samaritan
as His answer, someone his listeners believed racially inferior to
themselves.


   *3) Freedom from Oppression*

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 forbids returning any slaves who escaped from the
surrounding nations. *You shall not give back to his master the slave who
has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell in your midst, in the place
which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him, you
shall not oppress him*. Slaves who escaped from surrounding nations to
Israel enjoyed protection from extradition and were allowed to live where
they pleased. Israel was a unique social island in the ancient world. As the
mouthpiece of God, with a conscience born out of their own experience as
slaves,25 the Hebrew prophets promise unmitigated destruction to nations
practicing slavery.26 The "stranger" clauses which warn against the
oppression of aliens within Israel's borders are invariably connected with
the remembrance of Israel's time of slavery in Egypt.27 Perhaps Israel's
aliens were frequently runaway slaves who would have been oppressed or
returned to their owners elsewhere, but found freedom for the first time in
Israel.

Admittedly, the principles of justice and equity do not always seem applied
in the Old Testament in a way that seems satisfactory to us. There are texts
which describe Israelites having slaves/servants from their own kind28 or
from among other nations.29 In light of Israel's condemnation of certain
forms of slavery and their refusal to extradite fugitive slaves, such texts
are best understood as referring to servitude resulting from either
voluntary social contracts no longer extant or ancient military practices of
enslaving people conquered in battle.30

Under the scrutiny of the principles above - the dignity of man, just
compensation, and freedom from oppression - the Bible's implicit
condemnation of Southern slavery is a necessary and irrefutable inference.
>From the beginning of his captivity to the end of his life, the American
slave was taken against his will for profit, stripped of his humanity,
treated as property and handed down as a kidnaped man from generation to
generation along with his posterity. If he attempted escape he was hunted
down with dogs. If he was found he was returned to his master and usually
punished with severity. It was a racially based system of forced labor
presuming a perpetual right to all material benefits of the slave's labor.
There were families in the South who genuinely and prophetically resisted
the system, establishing close relations while extending friendship and
hospitality to many under bondage, but no amount of anecdotal evidence
cancels out the systematic denial of paramount social concerns which took
place in a culture and nation capable of immediate redress.

Instead of condemning "slavery" and leaving us to wonder at what exactly is
being condemned, the Bible definitively condemns the features or elements of
the system and so effectively condemns all such institutions for all time
regardless of what they are called. The rejection of slavery's invariable
attendant circumstances by way of the principles outlined above is superior
to a categorical rejection of slavery because it checks the tendency of man
to bend the truth. If the Bible simply spoke against "slavery" per se, it
would be easy enough to practice it under a different title and claim a kind
of compliance. If, however, the specific practices of a system are
condemned, the pretense of compliance is not possible because anywhere the
assumptions or practices are identified, the system under any designation is
exposed.

*No Defence Against a Modern Revival of Slavery*

Without a principled approach in the evaluation of slavery there is no
substantial objection to a contemporary revival of slavery, precisely as it
was practiced in Antebellum South. Advocates of Southern slavery tell us not
to "hem and haw"31 when confronted with the slavery texts, but they do some
hemming and hawing themselves. On the one hand they attempt to defend
Southern slavery from the Bible, railing against the "humanistic and
democratic culture [which] regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil,"
and yet conclude "[n]one need lament the passing of slavery."32 We must
cynically ask, "Why not?" Wouldn't migrant workers be better off in the
United States as slaves? The proprietary interest of the master in the slave
might actually provide the motivation for better health care and housing
conditions. If there is nothing really wrong with participating in the
systematic denial of freedom, and if slaves are properly fed and clothed,
the financial investment of an owner might moderate many hardships in the
life of the slave, providing a higher level of care than they might receive
otherwise. Southern theologian, James H. Thornwell 33 believed slavery ". .
. may be, and perhaps is, . . . essential to an imperfect society."34 If, as
some assert, the Scriptures support slavery provided there is good
treatment, and if slavery in itself is not evil, why shouldn't we have
similar forms of slavery today?

Arguing for divine permission for the institution of Southern slavery
ignores the Bible's condemnation of all the components of such an
institution. To establish Southern slavery's legitimacy on the basis of
superficial similarities in terminology shared with the circumstances of
servitude in the ancient world ignores the principled opposition of the
Bible; burdens Scripture beyond its intention; and blurs critical
distinctions between God's institution of labor and man's perversion of it
into slavery. No one can maintain he is treating his fellow man right while
simultaneously holding him as a slave as practiced in the Southern system of
slavery. Any attempt to persuade otherwise has no foundation in the Bible
but only in a mindset that made the abolitionism of the 19th century so
necessary.


*Appendix A

Presbyterians And Slavery*

The rejection of slavery by the church is presented by Wilkins and Wilson as
a recent development coming from "[o]ur humanistic and democratic culture .
. .",35 an inflammatory issue which obscured the true meaning of the
war 36through a campaign of "abolitionist propaganda,"
37 giving "an issue to radical revolutionaries by which they could provoke
animosity against the South."38 From this viewpoint, the injustice of
slavery was manufactured by "radical and Unitarian"39 forces born of the
Enlightenment and "driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God."40 Such
opinions focus too much attention on a thin band of intellectual history
developing during the late 17th century such as "the capture of Harvard by
the Unitarians in 1805"41 and ignore the antagonism toward slavery
stretching back to the ancient church.

The time previous to the rise of abolitionism in America was riddled with
deep conflict over slavery. As early as 1820 luminaries of the Republic such
as John Quincy Adams believed slavery "the great and foul stain upon the
North American Union."42 Adams envisioned the "dissolution of the Union for
the cause of slavery and a war between the two severed portions of the
Union" resulting in the "extirpation of slavery from this whole continent."
43 The abolition of slavery was, in his mind, a "contemplation worthy of the
most exalted soul."44 The maturing of America's seminal commitment to human
dignity as reflected in the convictions of Adams intersected with
theological turmoil throughout the churches of America. In this appendix the
roles and views of some Presbyterian denominations and their ministers
provide a sample of a national conscience deeply agitated by the slavery
issue, hoping for a gradual end of the institution and attempting interim
compromises, but ultimately drawn into the war prophesied by Adams.

*1801 Declaration of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America*

The harbinger of American religious conflict over slavery within
presbyterianism might be the events of 1800 when the Reverend Alexander
Mcleod, a Presbyterian minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America, serving in New York, refused to accept a call to become the
minister of a congregation because slaveholders were in the
congregation.45The record states further, "The Presbytery now having
the subject regularly
before them, resolved to purge the Church of this dreadful evil. They
enacted that no slaveholder should be retained in their communion."46 In
1801 the same denomination declared,


   The holding of human beings, of whatever race or colour, as slaves,
   being in every aspect opposed to the word of God, and inconsistent with the
   principles of the gospel of Christ, a gross infringement upon the rights of
   man, and so a sin against God, should be held and *treated by national
   authorities as a crime*. Nor can any constitution of government be
   just or moral which does not provide against the commission of such a crime
   within its jurisdiction (Exod 21:16, 1 Tim 1:9-10, 1 Cor 7:21, Rom 13:4, Isa
   58:6).47

In 1802 McLeod published a treatise denouncing slavery as "a manifest
violation of four precepts of the decalogue"48 and arguing by inference "the
whole decalogue is violated."49 His answer to those objecting that slavery
was tolerated in the early Church, bears repeating:


   . . . [I]f such practices are not formally mentioned and condemned in
   the New Testament, the principles from which they proceed are reprobated in
   the strongest terms. The whole system of slavery is opposite to the spirit
   of *that* religion which is righteousness and peace.50

For those who could not afford to simply release their slaves because of
their investment, McLeod wrote, "Do justice, however. Deal mercifully with
your servant. When the wages which might have annually earned shall have
amounted to the purchase money, and lawful interest, set immediately at
liberty from your control."

*1818 Declaration of the Presbyterian Church*

McLeod's reaction to slavery is echoed by the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in 1818. When the assembly dealt with the issue of
slavery in America, they issued the following declaration:


   The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, having taken into
   consideration the subject of SLAVERY, think proper to make known their
   sentiments upon it to the churches and people under care. We consider the
   voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another as a gross
   violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature, as utterly
   inconsistent with the law of God which requires us to love our neighbor as
   ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of
   the gospel of Christ, which enjoin that 'all things whatsoever ye would that
   men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' Slavery creates a paradox in
   the moral system; it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings in
   such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral action. It
   exhibits them as dependent on the will of others whether they receive
   religious instruction; whether they shall know and worship the true God;
   whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall
   perform the duties and cherish the endearments of husbands and wives,
   parents and children, neighbors and friends; whether they shall preserve
   their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity.
   Such are some of the consequences of slavery - consequences not imaginary,
   but which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which the
   slave is *always* exposed often take place in fact and in their very
   worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place, as we
   rejoice to say that in many instances, through the influence of the
   principles of humanity and religion on the minds of the masters, they do
   not, still, the slave is deprived of his natural right, degraded as a human
   being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of a master who
   may inflict upon him all the hardships and injuries which inhumanity and
   avarice may suggest.51

The Assembly's declaration is thorough, calling for "the unwearied endeavors
to correct the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible to efface
this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of
slavery throughout Christendom, and if possible throughout the world" and
"exertions to EFFECT A TOTAL ABOLITION OF SLAVERY."52 Presbyterian writers
and subsequent assemblies debated the precise meaning and implications of
the 1818 declaration,53 but it stands as typical of the sentiments expressed
among Presbyterians.

*Albert Barnes, Robert L. Dabney, and James H.Thornwell*

The centrality of the Bible to the debate over slavery is aptly demonstrated
in the remark of Northern theologian Albert Barnes that "there is not a
judge on any bench who would pronounce a decision that would be clearly
contrary to a principle laid down in the Sacred Scriptures; there is not a
department of government that would not admit that if the Bible has settled
a question, it is final."54 Barnes wrote *An Inquiry into the Scriptural
View of Slavery* as a challenge to the prevailing attitude toward slavery
exhibited in the opinions of Southern Presbyterian theologians such as
Robert Dabney and James Thornwell. For Dabney and Thornwell slavery was
necessary because a human being responsible enough to act as a slave was
still not responsible enough to be a free man. The relationship was
construed paternally. A slave is like a minor child in his mental capacity,
but unlike a child, he never matures. He is "deemed by the law unfitted for
his own safe control" and placed "in the hands of a citizen supposed by the
law to be more competent."55 Even though the arrangement was involuntary, to
attack such an institution was tantamount to overthrowing the hierarchy of
relationships taught by the Bible, not unlike an attack on "the
righteousness of the parental authority over minors, and indeed every form
of governmental restraint of magistrates over individuals not grounded in
conviction of crime."56 Slavery was "[a] social element in all states, from
the dawn of history until the present period" and "the slightest caution"
against it could not be found in the Bible.57

Against the arguments of Dabney and Thornwell, Barnes' three hundred and
eighty four page treatment stands as the superior exegetical and ethical
treatment of slavery during his era, arguing cogently that the slavery of
the South not be confused with conditions of apprenticeship or
serfdom.58Rejecting Dabney's assertion that questioning slavery was an
attack on the
hierarchy of the family, Barnes remarked "the relation of parent and child
is a natural relation, that of master and slave is not. . . . Nature not
force, has made the condition of a minor. . . ."59

*George Armstrong and Cortland Van Renssleaer*

The Southern reaction to Barnes is exemplified in George Armstrong's *The
Christian Doctrine of Slavery*. Armstrong, the pastor of the Presbyterian
Church in Norfolk, Virginia, presents an argument typical of many works of
the era,60 stating ". . . it appears to us too clear to admit of either
denial or doubt, that the Scriptures do sanction slave-holding."61 Armstrong
argued that slave-holding in the Old Testament was "expressly permitted by
divine command, and under the New Testament . . . nowhere forbidden or
denounced, but on the contrary, acknowledged to be consistent with the
Christian character and profession."62 Like Dabney and others, he agreed the
slave trade was wrong because it involved the crime of kidnaping,63 but
considered any condemnation of owning slaves to be "a direct impeachment of
the Word of God."64

Armstrong's work was critically reviewed by Cortland Van Rensselaer, editor
of *Presbyterian Magazine* provoking an exchange of letters between the two
men. What began as a critical review of his work, quickly escalated into the
exposure of serious differences regarding slavery lying beneath the veneer
of consensus among Northern and Southern Old School Presbyterians. In
response to Armstrong's insistence that "the word of God contains no
deliverance, express of clearly implied, respecting emancipation" Van
Rensselaer objected that a hermeneutic or interpretive guideline for
situations not expressly envisioned in Scripture was necessary for dealing
with American slavery and he wrote,


   The Church has a right to expound, and to apply, the word of God, in
   reference to all the relations of life, and to all the changing aspects of
   society. The exposition and application must, of course, be consistent with
   the spirit and principles of the Bible, but they are not limited to the mere
   word of its letter, nor to any general or universal formula of expression.
   From the nature of the case, exposition requires enlargement of scriptural
   statement, and application implies a regard to providential developments and
   to the varying circumstances of social and public life. . . . The Church
   has, in every age, the right to expound the sacred Scriptures according to
   the light granted by the Holy Spirit, and to apply its interpretation to all
   cases, judged to be within its spiritual jurisdiction.65

Van Renssaleur reasoned that "Christians, whose minds and hearts are imbued
with the spirit of their Lord, cannot regard with complacency an institution
whose origin is wrong, and whose continuance depends upon the inferior
condition of a large class of their fellow-men."66 At the outset of the
exchange spanning over the months of 1858, Van Renssaleur offered to
"cordially acquit" Armstrong "of any intention to contribute to the
propagation of extreme opinions"67 but in the end he complained, "I fear
that, without intending it, you have lowered the tone of public sentiment
wherever your influence extends, and have impaired the obligations of
conscientious Christians on this great subject."68

In course of debate it was argued that the provenance of anti- slavery
sentiment was found in a movement within Christianity itself. One
Presbyterian churchman wrote as follows:


   That slavery has been an incubus, crushing out the manliness of master
   and servant, and has prostituted the moral tone in our Church, is a truth
   acknowledged in some form by nearly every man of note in her communion. The
   moral sense of the world being at variance with oppression, has often forced
   this admission from those who upheld slavery. And the genius of Christian
   civilization undermining this institution throughout the world, the
   untrammeled utterances of good men in all parts of our Church, have, at
   various times, united in its strong condemnation.69

While it is true that no monolithic movement against slavery existed within
the early church70 and the church frequently offered justification for
servitude,71 nevertheless, the incompatibility of slavery with the
Scriptures was felt by an impressive few whose opinions eventually
triumphed. As early as the first century Clement of Rome reminded the church
"that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they
might ransom others"72 indicating that some early Christians actually sold
themselves into slavery in order to free slaves. The preaching of Gregory of
Nyssa has been described by one writer as "the most energetic and absolute
reprobation of slavery."73 Other early church writers speak of Christians
purchasing slaves in order to free them 74 or of St. Melania, a millionaire
Roman of the fifth century, who exhausted her fortune purchasing liberty for
thousands of slaves.75 John Chrysostom arguably "the most prominent doctor
of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian
pulpit,"76 claimed that "Christ came He put an end to this. . . . So that it
is not necessary to have a slave: or if it be at all necessary, let it be
about one only . . . if you collect many, you do it not for humanity's sake
but in self-indulgence. Since if it be in care for them, I bid you occupy
none of them in ministering to yourself, but when you have purchased them
and have taught them trades whereby to support themselves, let them go
free."77

*Conclusion*

The abolitionism of the nineteenth century has been recently represented by
authors Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson as an evil born of humanistic error
which brought America into further error. They ask, ". . . who cannot lament
the damage done to both white and black that occurred as a consequence of
the way it was abolished?"78 The answer of a 19th century Presbyterian
churchman bears repeating.


   It is often objected to the present course taken to destroy slavery,
   that it is not the one we desired and thought best. It is true that many
   philanthropists have devised schemes which they thought best adapted for its
   final destruction. It is but fair to acknowledge that those States where it
   existed had the clearest knowledge of the system and had any scheme devised
   by man been effectual, doubtless theirs would have been the one. But it is
   not the doing of man; the hand of the Lord is evidently at work . . . .
   *It seems very proper that man's wisdom should not have the honor of
   this work, because we delayed it so long, and threw so many obstacles in the
   way of its accomplishment, that we proved ourselves unworthy to be the
   instruments of its destruction*. . . when there seemed the least human
   probability of the thing being done, then the Lord led us by a way we knew
   not. In this we have only another illustration of the common course of God's
   providence. Seldom are we led by the way we expect, even to the
   gratification of our wishes; and it is well-nigh never by the means and
   methods anticipated. But so the result is attained, let us be content even
   though our wisdom was not consulted in its achievement. We can have but
   little faith in the sincerity of those friends of emancipation who
   perpetually prate about the wrongs done us in taking away our negroes
   (emphasis mine).79

The use of the Bible to defend Southern slavery by Presbyterians such as
Thornwell, Dabney, and Armstrong eventually exasperated the patience of
America, setting into motion the only means by which emanicipation could be
won. On the other hand, Presbyterians like McLeod, Van Renssaleur, and
Barnes also reasoned from the Scriptures. Their arguments resonated with the
conscience of a nation and helped to deliver a faltering republic out of
slavery. Wilkins and Wilsons' complaints about the manner of such a
deliverance seem to underestimate the sheer strength of slavery's tyranny, a
tyranny defended by a cadre of theologians to whose opinions their own bear
resemblance.


ENDNOTES

 1Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson, *Southern Slavery As It Was** *(Moscow:
Canon P, 1996)17.
 2 Wilkins et al. 12.
 3Wilkins, et al. 12.
 4 Guenther Hass "The Kingdom and Slavery: A Test Case For Social
Ethics" *Calvin
Theological Journal*, 28 (1993) 74-89.
5 Wilkins, et al. 10.
 6 John Sailhammer Genesis *Expositor's Bible Commentary** *Frank E.
Gaeblein ed. v.2 p.37 Zondervan P. Grand Rapids 1990.
 7 Book 19:15-16 Loeb Classical Library trans. W.C. Greene. Augustine City
of God VI no.416* *Harvard University P. Cambridge mcmlxix p.187 (my
emphasis).
 8 p.174.
 9 *Calvin's Commentaries* v.1 p.175 Baker Book House Grand Rapids reprinted
1989.
 10 "Labor" C.W. Carter Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible v.31975
p.847.
 11 Udo Middelmann *Pro-Existence: The Place of Man in the Circle of Reality
* Intervasity P. Downers Grove 1974 p.35.
 12 Middlemann.
 13 James. F. Childress and John Macquarrie ed. *Westminster Dictionary of
Christian Ethics* (Philadelphia: Westminster p. 1986) Ronald Preston
"Doctrine of Work" p.686.
 14 John Chrysostom "Homily XL 1Cor.15.29" ed. Philip Schaff *A Select
Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers** *"Homilies
on First Corinthians"(Peabody: Hendrickson P. 1994) v.12 p.248.
 15 1Corinthians 7:21.
 16 Wilkins, et al. 17-18 1Timothy 6:1-4a, Eph.6:5-9.
 17 Wilkins, et al. 18.
 18 Employees (Gen.27:40; 29:15; 29:20; 30:26; 1Sam.4:9); royal servants (
Gen.40:20; 41:10; 50:7, Ex.5:21, 7:10, 10:7, 2Sam.16:19); soldiers (2Sam.2:12;
3:22; 8:7); ambassadors (2Sam.10:2-4); worshippers of God or idols (Ex.3:12,
9:1; Deut.4:19; 8:19).
 192Chron.28:5-15.
 20Ex.21:2, Lev.25:39.
 21Ex.22:3.
 22Ex.21:4.
 23 Wilkins, et al. 18.
 24 Tenney Frank "The Sacred Treasury and the Rate of Manumission" *American
Journal of Philology* 53 (1932).
 25Deut.26:6-8 c.f. Exodus 1:6-15; 6:5; Ps.102:20.
 26 Amos 1:6, 9.
 27 Lev.19:34, Ex.22:21, Ex.23:9, Deut. 1:16, 10:17,19, 27:19.
 28Ex.21:3-4, 7-11.
 29Lev. 25:44-46.
 302 Chron.28:8-15.
 31 Wilkins, Wilson 11.
 32Wilkins, Wilson 39.
 33c.f Appendix B.
 34James H. Thornwell, "The Rights and the Duties of Masters" *God Ordained
This War* ed. David Chesebrough (University of South Carolina P: Columbia,
1991)177-192.
 35 Wilkins et al. 12.
 36Wilkins, Wilson 11.
 37Wilkins, Wilson 23.
 38Wilkins, Wilson 36.
 39Wilkins, Wilson 12.
 40Wilkins, Wilson 13.
 41Wilkins et al. 12.
 42qtd. in William Lee Miller *Arguing About Slavery* (New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1996) 187.
 43qtd. in William Lee Miller 193.
 44qtd. in William Lee Miller 187.
 45Wilkins and Wilson's suggestion on page 10 of their booklet that slavery
is vindicated if one merely steps back in time is slightly ironic in light
of McCleod's account.
 46*Reformation Principles Exhibited by the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America* (1806), "Part One, A Brief Historical View of the Church, II, iii,
last paragraph.
 47*Reformation Principles Exhibited by the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America* Part Two, Declaration and Testimony, 29.4 emphasis mine.
 48Alexander McLeod *Negro Slavery Unjustifiable, A Discourse* (New York:
T&J Swords 1802) 5.
McLeod's entire work, 28 pages long, is available online-
http://covenanter.org//McLeod/negro.htm.
 49McLeod 5.
 50McLeod 17.
 51Record of General Assembly.
 52Record of General Assembly.
 53c.f. "Slavery in the Church Courts" *The Danville Quarterly Journal,* 4
(Dec. 1864 516-556).
 54Albert Barnes *An Inquiry into the Scriptural View of Slavery* (Parry &
McMillan, Philadelphia, 1855 reprinted by Negro History P Detroit, 1969) 21.
 55R.L. Dabney *Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney* v 3 332 c.f. James H.
Thornwell, "The Rights and the Duties of Masters" *God Ordained This
War*ed. David Chesebrough (University of South Carolina P: Columbia,
1991)177-192.
 56R.L. Dabney *Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney* v 3 332.
 57qtd. in Charles A. Anderson "Presbyterians Meet the Slavery Problem"
(Journal of Presbyterian History March, 1951) 9.
 58Barnes 44.
 59Barnes 42.
 60C.f. Josiah Priest *Bible Defence of Slavery* *Bible Defence of
Slavery*Josiah Priest (Rev.
W.S. Brown, Glasgow, Ky, 1853 republished by Negro History Press, Detroit,
1969); James H. Thornwell, "The Rights and the Duties of Masters" *God
Ordained This War* ed. David Chesebrough (University of South Carolina P:
Columbia, 1991)177-192.
 61George D. Armstrong *The Christian Doctrine of Slavery* (Charles
Scribner, 1857 reprinted by Negro Universities Press, 1969) 145.
 62Armstrong 145.
 63Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson give contemporary expression to the
convictions of Armstrong condemning the slave trade but insisting that
[o]*wning
slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who
believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way *(*Southern Slavery
As It Was *p.21).
 64Armstrong 16.
 65Armstrong 145.
 66*Dr. Van Rensselaer's Reply to Dr. Armstrong *(Presbyterian Magazine.
Feb.1858 65-85) 77.
 67*Dr. Van Rensselaer's Reply to Dr. Armstrong *24.
 68*Dr. Van Rensselaer's Reply to Dr. Armstrong *26.
 69*Dr. Van Rensselaer's Second Rejoinder. *.
 70"Slavery in the Church Courts" 517.
 71c.f.. James Moorhead *American Apocalypse: Yankee Protestants and the
Civil War 1860-1869* (New Haven: Yale University P, 1978) 82-128.
 72c.f. David Davis *The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture* (Ithaca:
Cornell University P, 1966) 62-90.
 73 Letter to the Corinthians 55 ed. J.B.Lightfoot and J.R.Harmer *The
Apostolic Fathers* (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House P, 1984) 80.
 74Allard 37.
 75Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Bk.2.
 76Paul Allard, "Slavery" *The Catholic Encyclopedia* vol.14(New York:
Encyclopedia P, 1913) 36-39.
 77C. Baur, "John Chrysostom" *The Catholic Encyclopedia* vol.8 (New York:
Encyclopedia P, 1913) 452.
c.f Philip Shaff "The Life and Work St. John Chrysostom" intro. *Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers *Commenting on the devotion of those who have compiled
Chrysostom's sermons a compiler's "wife was so jealous of his devotion to
Chrysostom that she threatened to burn his manuscripts."!
 78John Chrysostom "Homily XL 1Cor.15.29" ed. Philip Schaff *A Select
Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers *"Homilies
on First Corinthians"(Peabody: Hendrickson P. 1994) v.12 p.248.
 79Wilkins and Wilson 39.
 80"Slavery in the Church Courts" 548 (Regrettably, the positive
identification of the author is unknown).

(c) 2000 Jack Davidson


-- 


Juanita Flores
Advocate for the Truth from Jesus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070202/dd7eec2d/attachment-0001.html