<center><b><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.joshualetter.org/slavery/theology.htm" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><span style="font-weight: bold;">http://www.joshualetter.org/slavery/theology.htm
</span></a><br><br></span></b><b>Wrong About the Bible : A Response to Steve
Wilkins<br>
and Douglas Wilson's Doctrine of Slavery</b><br><b></b><br>
by Rev. Jack Davidson<br>
Pastor, Cascade Presbyterian Church<br>
Eugene, Oregon</center><br><br><br>
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 <u>Southern Slavery as it Was</u>, 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."<sup>1</sup>
According to these authors "[t]he Bible permits Christians to own
slaves provided they are treated well,"<sup>2</sup> and slavery
is a "wonderful issue upon which to practice"<sup>3</sup>
submission to the Bible.<br><br>
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.<sup>4</sup> 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.<br><br>
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 <i>exclusively</i>. 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.<br><br>
A final section suggests an evaluation of Southern slavery based
on three principles. The positive evaluation of Southern slavery
expressed in <u>Southern Slavery As It Was</u> 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.<br><br>
<b>1. Creation and Slavery</b><br><br>
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."<sup>5</sup> Such
an acknowledgment falls short of the truth. The circumstances
attending slavery are indeed evil, but slavery <i>itself</i> is a
result of a fallen world.<br><br>
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 <i>not dominion over
other men</i>. 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."<sup>6</sup> 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 <i>City of God</i>, 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, <i>but man over the
beasts</i>."<sup>7</sup><br><br>
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.<br><br>
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"<sup>8</sup> 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."<sup>9</sup><br><br>
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."<sup>10</sup> 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."<sup>11</sup> Unless he works, his real identity is only
"theoretical" because work manifests and externalizes who he
is.<sup>12</sup> At the most fundamental level work can be
understood as "basic social reality" and "a means of loving God
by serving human needs."<sup>13</sup><br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<sup>14</sup><br><br>
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 <i>even if
slavery had never existed.</i> 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.<br><br>
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 - ". . . <i>if you can gain your
freedom, do so</i>."<sup>15</sup> He never says that to a
husband
or a wife!<br><br><br>
<b>2. Colossians 4:1 and Slavery in the Ancient World</b><br><br>
Certain passages from the New Testament<sup>16</sup> 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."<sup>17</sup> 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.<br><br>
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,<sup>18</sup> 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,<sup>19</sup> poverty, debt,
contractual,<sup>20</sup> restitution,<sup>21</sup> or
birth.<sup>22</sup> Most of these kinds of servitude were not
perpetual.<br><br>
For example, Colossians 4:1 cited as support for the legitimacy
of Southern slavery<sup>23</sup> 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.<br><br>
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.<sup>24</sup> 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>Evaluating Southern Slavery</b><br><br>
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.<br><br>
<ul><b>1) Dignity of Man</b></ul>
Exodus 21:16 forbids the foundation upon which American slavery
rested. <i>He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found
in his hand, shall surely be put to death.</i> 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.<br><br>
<ul><b>2) Just Compensation</b></ul>
Jeremiah 22:13 complains, <i>Woe to him who builds his house by
unrighteousness and his chambers by injustice, Who uses his
neighbor's service without wages</i>. Making someone work
without just compensation is equivalent to "unrighteousness" and
"injustice." The <i>laborer</i>, Paul writes in 1 Timothy 5:18,
<i>is worthy of his wages</i>. Leviticus 19:13 says <i>You shall
not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him</i>. . . . 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.<br><br>
<ul><b>3) Freedom from Oppression</b></ul>
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 forbids returning any slaves who escaped
from the surrounding nations. <i>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</i>. 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,<sup>25</sup> the Hebrew
prophets promise unmitigated destruction to nations practicing
slavery.<sup>26</sup> 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.<sup>27</sup> 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.<br><br>
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 kind<sup>28</sup> or from
among other nations.<sup>29</sup> 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.<sup>30</sup><br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<b>No Defence Against a Modern Revival of Slavery</b><br><br>
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"<sup>31</sup> 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."<sup>32</sup> 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 <sup>33</sup>
believed slavery ". . . may be, and perhaps is, . . . essential
to an imperfect society."<sup>34</sup> 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?<br><br>
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.<br><br><br>
<center><b>Appendix A<br><br>
Presbyterians And Slavery</b></center><br><br>
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 . . .",<sup>35</sup> an inflammatory issue
which obscured the true meaning of the war <sup>36</sup> through
a campaign of "abolitionist propaganda,"<sup>37</sup> giving "an
issue to radical revolutionaries by which they could provoke
animosity against the South."<sup>38</sup> From this viewpoint,
the injustice of slavery was manufactured by "radical and
Unitarian"<sup>39</sup> forces born of the Enlightenment and
"driven by a zealous hatred of the Word of God."<sup>40</sup>
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"<sup>41</sup> and ignore the antagonism toward slavery
stretching back to the ancient church.<br><br>
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."<sup>42</sup> 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."<sup>43</sup> The abolition of
slavery was, in his mind, a "contemplation worthy of the most
exalted soul."<sup>44</sup> 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.<br><br>
<b>1801 Declaration of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in
America</b><br><br>
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.<sup>45</sup> The 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."<sup>46</sup> In 1801 the same denomination
declared,<br><br>
<ul>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 <i>treated by national
authorities as a crime</i>. 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).<sup>47</sup></ul>
In 1802 McLeod published a treatise denouncing slavery as "a
manifest violation of four precepts of the
decalogue"<sup>48</sup> and arguing by inference "the whole
decalogue is violated."<sup>49</sup> His answer to those
objecting that slavery was tolerated in the early Church, bears
repeating:<br><br>
<ul>. . . [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
<i>that</i> religion which is righteousness and
peace.<sup>50</sup></ul>
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."<br><br>
<b>1818 Declaration of the Presbyterian Church</b><br><br>
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:<br><br>
<ul>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 <i>always</i> 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.<sup>51</sup></ul>
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."<sup>52</sup>
Presbyterian writers and subsequent assemblies debated the
precise meaning and implications of the 1818
declaration,<sup>53</sup> but it stands as typical of the
sentiments expressed among Presbyterians.<br><br>
<b>Albert Barnes, Robert L. Dabney, and James
H.Thornwell</b><br><br>
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."<sup>54</sup> Barnes wrote <i>An Inquiry into the
Scriptural View of Slavery</i> 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."<sup>55</sup> 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."<sup>56</sup> 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.<sup>57</sup><br><br>
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.<sup>58</sup>
Rejecting 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. . . ."<sup>59</sup><br><br>
<b>George Armstrong and Cortland Van Renssleaer</b><br><br>
The Southern reaction to Barnes is exemplified in George
Armstrong's <i>The Christian Doctrine of Slavery</i>. Armstrong,
the pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Norfolk, Virginia,
presents an argument typical of many works of the
era,<sup>60</sup> stating ". . . it appears to us too clear to
admit of either denial or doubt, that the Scriptures do sanction
slave-holding."<sup>61</sup> 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."<sup>62</sup> Like Dabney
and others, he agreed the slave trade was wrong because it
involved the crime of kidnaping,<sup>63</sup> but considered any
condemnation of owning slaves to be "a direct impeachment of the
Word of God."<sup>64</sup><br><br>
Armstrong's work was critically reviewed by Cortland Van
Rensselaer, editor of <i>Presbyterian Magazine</i> 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,<br><br>
<ul>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.<sup>65</sup></ul>
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."<sup>66</sup> 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"<sup>67</sup> 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."<sup>68</sup><br><br>
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:<br><br>
<ul>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.<sup>69</sup></ul>
While it is true that no monolithic movement against slavery
existed within the early church<sup>70</sup> and the church
frequently offered justification for servitude,<sup>71</sup>
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"<sup>72</sup> 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."<sup>73</sup> Other early church writers speak of
Christians purchasing slaves in order to free them <sup>74</sup>
or of St. Melania, a millionaire Roman of the fifth century, who
exhausted her fortune purchasing liberty for thousands of
slaves.<sup>75</sup> John Chrysostom arguably "the most
prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher
ever heard in a Christian pulpit,"<sup>76</sup> 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."<sup>77</sup><br><br>
<b>Conclusion</b><br><br>
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?"<sup>78</sup> The answer of a 19th century
Presbyterian churchman bears repeating.<br><br>
<ul>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 . .
. . <i>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</i>. . . 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).<sup>79</sup></ul>
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.<br><br><br>
<center>ENDNOTES</center><br><br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_1_"></a><sup> 1</sup>Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson,
<u>Southern Slavery As It Was</u><em> </em>(Moscow: Canon P,
1996)17.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_2_"></a><sup> 2</sup> Wilkins et al. 12.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_3_"></a><sup> 3</sup>Wilkins, et al. 12.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_4_"></a><sup> 4</sup> Guenther Hass "The Kingdom and
Slavery: A Test Case For Social Ethics" <u>Calvin Theological
Journal</u>, 28 (1993) 74-89.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_5_"></a><sup>5</sup> Wilkins, et al. 10.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_6_"></a><sup> 6</sup> John Sailhammer Genesis
<u>Expositor's Bible Commentary</u><em> </em>Frank E. Gaeblein
ed. v.2 p.37 Zondervan P. Grand Rapids 1990.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_7_"></a><sup> 7</sup> Book 19:15-16 Loeb Classical
Library trans. W.C. Greene.
Augustine City of God VI no.416<em> </em>Harvard University P.
Cambridge mcmlxix p.187 (my emphasis).<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_8_"></a><sup> 8</sup> p.174.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_9_"></a><sup> 9</sup> <u>Calvin's Commentaries</u> v.1
p.175 Baker Book House Grand Rapids reprinted 1989.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_10_"></a><sup> 10</sup> "Labor" C.W. Carter
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible v.3 1975 p.847.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_11_"></a><sup> 11</sup> Udo Middelmann
<u>Pro-Existence: The Place of Man in the Circle of Reality</u>
Intervasity P. Downers Grove 1974 p.35.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_12_"></a><sup> 12</sup> Middlemann.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_13_"></a><sup> 13</sup> James. F. Childress and
John Macquarrie ed. <em>Westminster Dictionary of Christian
Ethics</em> (Philadelphia: Westminster p. 1986)
Ronald Preston "Doctrine of Work" p.686.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_14_"></a><sup> 14</sup> John Chrysostom "Homily XL
1Cor.15.29" ed. Philip Schaff <u>A Select Library of the
Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers</u><em>
</em>"Homilies on First Corinthians"(Peabody: Hendrickson P.
1994) v.12 p.248.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_15_"></a><sup> 15</sup> 1Corinthians 7:21.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_16_"></a><sup> 16</sup> Wilkins, et al. 17-18
1Timothy 6:1-4a, Eph.6:5-9.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_17_"></a><sup> 17</sup> Wilkins, et al. 18.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_18_"></a><sup> 18</sup> 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).<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_19_"></a><sup> 19</sup>2Chron.28:5-15.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_20_"></a><sup> 20</sup>Ex.21:2, Lev.25:39.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_21_"></a><sup> 21</sup>Ex.22:3.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_22_"></a><sup> 22</sup>Ex.21:4.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_23_"></a><sup> 23</sup> Wilkins, et al. 18.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_24_"></a><sup> 24</sup> Tenney Frank "The Sacred
Treasury and the Rate of Manumission" <u>American Journal of
Philology</u> 53 (1932).<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_25_"></a><sup> 25</sup>Deut.26:6-8 c.f. Exodus
1:6-15; 6:5; Ps.102:20.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_26_"></a><sup> 26</sup> Amos 1:6, 9.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_27_"></a><sup> 27</sup> Lev.19:34, Ex.22:21,
Ex.23:9, Deut. 1:16, 10:17,19, 27:19.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_28_"></a><sup> 28</sup>Ex.21:3-4, 7-11.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_29_"></a><sup> 29</sup>Lev. 25:44-46.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_30_"></a><sup> 30</sup>2 Chron.28:8-15.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_31_"></a><sup> 31</sup> Wilkins, Wilson 11.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_32_"></a><sup> 32</sup>Wilkins, Wilson 39.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_33_"></a><sup> 33</sup>c.f Appendix B.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_34_"></a><sup> 34</sup>James H. Thornwell, "The
Rights and the Duties of Masters" <u>God Ordained This War</u>
ed. David Chesebrough (University of South
Carolina P: Columbia, 1991)177-192.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_35_"></a><sup> 35</sup> Wilkins et al. 12.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_36_"></a><sup> 36</sup>Wilkins, Wilson 11.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_37_"></a><sup> 37</sup>Wilkins, Wilson 23.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_38_"></a><sup> 38</sup>Wilkins, Wilson 36.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_39_"></a><sup> 39</sup>Wilkins, Wilson 12.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_40_"></a><sup> 40</sup>Wilkins, Wilson 13.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_41_"></a><sup> 41</sup>Wilkins et al. 12.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_42_"></a><sup> 42</sup>qtd. in William Lee Miller
<u>Arguing About Slavery</u> (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1996)
187.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_43_"></a><sup> 43</sup>qtd. in William Lee Miller
193.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_44_"></a><sup> 44</sup>qtd. in William Lee Miller
187.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_45_"></a><sup> 45</sup>Wilkins 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.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_46_"></a><sup> 46</sup><u>Reformation Principles
Exhibited by the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America</u>
(1806), "Part One, A Brief Historical View of
the Church, II, iii, last paragraph.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_47_"></a><sup> 47</sup><u>Reformation Principles
Exhibited by the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America</u> Part
Two, Declaration and Testimony, 29.4
emphasis mine.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_48_"></a><sup> 48</sup>Alexander McLeod <u>Negro
Slavery Unjustifiable, A Discourse</u> (New York: T&J Swords
1802) 5.<br>
McLeod's entire work, 28 pages long, is available online-
<a href="http://covenanter.org//McLeod/negro.htm" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://covenanter.org//McLeod/negro.htm</a>.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_49_"></a><sup> 49</sup>McLeod 5.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_50_"></a><sup> 50</sup>McLeod 17.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_51_"></a><sup> 51</sup>Record of General
Assembly.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_52_"></a><sup> 52</sup>Record of General
Assembly.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_53_"></a><sup> 53</sup>c.f. "Slavery in the Church
Courts" <u>The Danville Quarterly Journal,</u> 4 (Dec. 1864
516-556).<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_54_"></a><sup> 54</sup>Albert Barnes <u>An Inquiry
into the Scriptural View of Slavery</u> (Parry & McMillan,
Philadelphia, 1855 reprinted by Negro History P
Detroit, 1969) 21.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_55_"></a><sup> 55</sup>R.L. Dabney <u>Discussions
of Robert Lewis Dabney</u> v 3 332 c.f. James H. Thornwell, "The
Rights and the Duties of Masters"
<u>God Ordained This War</u> ed. David Chesebrough (University of
South Carolina P: Columbia, 1991)177-192.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_56_"></a><sup> 56</sup>R.L. Dabney <u>Discussions
of Robert Lewis Dabney</u> v 3 332.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_57_"></a><sup> 57</sup>qtd. in Charles A. Anderson
"Presbyterians Meet the Slavery Problem" (Journal of Presbyterian
History March, 1951) 9.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_58_"></a><sup> 58</sup>Barnes 44.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_59_"></a><sup> 59</sup>Barnes 42.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_60_"></a><sup> 60</sup>C.f. Josiah Priest <u>Bible
Defence of Slavery</u> <u>Bible Defence of Slavery</u> 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" <u>God Ordained
This War</u>
ed. David Chesebrough (University of South Carolina P: Columbia,
1991)177-192.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_61_"></a><sup> 61</sup>George D. Armstrong <u>The
Christian Doctrine of Slavery</u> (Charles Scribner, 1857
reprinted by Negro Universities Press, 1969) 145.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_62_"></a><sup> 62</sup>Armstrong 145.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_63_"></a><sup> 63</sup>Steve Wilkins and Douglas
Wilson give contemporary expression to the convictions of
Armstrong condemning the slave trade but
insisting that [o]<em>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 </em>(<em>Southern Slavery As It Was
</em>p.21).<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_64_"></a><sup> 64</sup>Armstrong 16.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_65_"></a><sup> 65</sup>Armstrong 145.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_66_"></a><sup> 66</sup><em>Dr. Van Rensselaer's
Reply to Dr. Armstrong </em>(Presbyterian Magazine. Feb.1858
65-85) 77.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_67_"></a><sup> 67</sup><em>Dr. Van Rensselaer's
Reply to Dr. Armstrong </em>24.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_68_"></a><sup> 68</sup><em>Dr. Van Rensselaer's
Reply to Dr. Armstrong </em>26.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_69_"></a><sup> 69</sup><em>Dr. Van Rensselaer's
Second Rejoinder. </em>.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_70_"></a><sup> 70</sup>"Slavery in the Church
Courts" 517.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_71_"></a><sup> 71</sup>c.f.. James Moorhead
<u>American Apocalypse: Yankee Protestants and the Civil War
1860-1869</u> (New Haven: Yale University P,
1978) 82-128.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_72_"></a><sup> 72</sup>c.f. David Davis <u>The
Problem of Slavery in Western Culture</u> (Ithaca: Cornell
University P, 1966) 62-90.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_73_"></a><sup> 73</sup> Letter to the Corinthians
55 ed. J.B.Lightfoot and J.R.Harmer <u>The Apostolic Fathers</u>
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House P, 1984)
80.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_74_"></a><sup> 74</sup>Allard 37.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_75_"></a><sup> 75</sup>Constitutions of the Holy
Apostles Bk.2.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_76_"></a><sup> 76</sup>Paul Allard, "Slavery"
<u>The Catholic Encyclopedia</u> vol.14(New York: Encyclopedia
P, 1913) 36-39.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_77_"></a><sup> 77</sup>C. Baur, "John Chrysostom"
<u>The Catholic Encyclopedia</u> vol.8 (New York: Encyclopedia P,
1913) 452.<br>
c.f Philip Shaff "The Life and Work St. John Chrysostom" intro.
<u>Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers </u>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."! <br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_78_"></a><sup> 78</sup>John Chrysostom "Homily XL
1Cor.15.29" ed. Philip Schaff <em>A Select Library of the
Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers </em>"Homilies
on First Corinthians"(Peabody: Hendrickson P. 1994) v.12
p.248.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_79_"></a><sup> 79</sup>Wilkins and Wilson 39.<br>
<a name="1107f99d48024970_N_80_"></a><sup> 80</sup>"Slavery in the Church
Courts" 548 (Regrettably, the positive identification of the
author is unknown).<br><br>
© 2000 Jack Davidson<br>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br><br>Juanita Flores<br>Advocate for the Truth from Jesus