Much has been said and insinuated about the history of Christianity and slavery. Unfortunately, many Christians, especially in the South, defended the abhorrent practice. However, today’s critics of Christianity often have a distorted view of the role the faith played in the turbulent 1800’s and the debate over slavery.
Much of the division (between North and South) was economical instead of religious. The industrialized North had less need for cheap (free) labor. The South with the expansive farms, especially cotton, needed a large labor force. Southern states had already been hindered by tariffs that placed them at a distinct disadvantage to the North. The most economical (not moral) solution was slavery.
Some in the North owned slaves. Some in the South didn’t. Some in the North abused and mistreated the slaves they owned. Some in the South were extremely kind to the slaves allowing them a great deal of freedom.
Despite the existence of slavery across the nation, the prevailing culture in the South was that slavery was needed for the economy to function. The North did not have such worries and they purposely compounded the problem by the tariffs they enacted.
The story of Southerns supporting slavery is less one of Christians defending what they saw as a biblical practice, but one of fallen people trying to use the Bible to defend their culture of sin. To fight against slavery in the South was to fight against the very culture of which you were a part.
You ignore history if you say that all Christians or even all Southern Baptist Christians supported slavery. In the 1700’s many Baptist from the South went on record against slavery as “a violent deprivation of the rights of nature” and that Baptist should “make use of every legal measure to extirpate the horrid evil from the land.” They went against the grain of their culture and fought against what they saw as an evil.
The formation of the Southern Baptist denomination is, like the succession of the South, more complicated than just the issue of slavery. Much like the states in the South, the Baptist churches saw an increase in power being centralized in the Baptist denomination. They were in favor of more local autonomy and did not agree with forced edicts from the denomination. Many were in favor of the denominational split, but for the issue of autonomy not slavery. When the denomination broke away in 1845 it did not formally endorse slavery.
Former Southern Baptist president James Bruton Gambrell (1841-1921) speaking about the split from the Northern Baptist:
There were thousands of men in the South who were Abolitionists – I, myself, was an Abolitionist.
At that time, many of the slaves had become Christians themselves. Many of the most ardent and eloquent of the slaves to speak out against the practice were those that had become Christians. They saw what the Bible had to say and knew that what was happening to them was not Biblical.
You can tell that the “biblical” defense for slavery put forth by the southern defenders was more an excuse than an actual argument. Much of their points were pure fabrications. Suffice it to say, they are not just on shakey ground morally, they are on shifting sand biblically.
Table of Contents
Old Testament Arguments
They had such ignorant beliefs as to say that Cain was fathered by the serpent in the garden, resulting in Africans. (Show me that verse!) Many said that when Cain was made black by God as the mark that God placed on him to prevent someone killing him. They may go down to Noah and say his son Ham was cursed and that curse was that he was black, making him lower than his brothers. This too is nonsense. The passage actually refers to Canaan, Ham’s son. It never mentions anything about him being black.
Many fell back on the fact that the Old Testament patriarchs owned slaves, but it is a completely different form than slavery in the 1800’s. The Israelites came out of slavery. They knew what it meant to be treated that way, so their form of “slavery” was completely different. Not to mention the fact that they were to free their slaves every seven years (God took this very seriously, see Jeremiah 34).
New Testament Arguments
They may have also held to the New Testament mentions of slavery, none of which specifically condone slavery. And again this was part of the Old Testament form of slavery. Plus, they ignore numerous passages from Paul. He tells slaves to gain their freedom if they can (1 Corinthians 7:21). He says that we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28), no differences between slave and owner.
Then, the passage that they most likely used more than any other is the one that dooms their position. In Ephesians 6, Paul tells slaves to obey their earthly masters as if they were obeying Christ. Leaving it at that, it sounds like something slavery defenders could hang their hat on. However, Paul commands masters to treat their slaves “in the same way” or like Christ. Each was to regard the other as like Christ. How much abuse and misuse could go on if masters were to treat their slaves as they would treat Christ?
Who Led Abolition?
I may have spent more time than I needed dismantling the biblical defenses of those opposed to abolition, but I wanted to illustrate the point that those in support of American slavery were not holding to the biblical position but rather cherry-picking verses to defend the henious practices of their culture.
As to the question of who ended slavery, or at least contributed to the fall, it is a mixed bag, as usual. Yes many of the more liberal denominations (though they weren’t as “liberal” then as now) contributed to the end of slavery. But it was also dreaded “evangelical Christians” who played a prominent role in the demise of slavery both here and abroad.
Many, including Wheaton professor Mark Noll, argue that there is a tremendous link between the Christian revivals of the 19th century and abolition politics. He said the Civil War can be seen “as the last chapter in the Christian story of the Second Great Awakening.” It was their biblical opposition to slavery that drove Christians into politics, particularly in the North to the Republican party. Historian Richard Carwardine said, “Republicans acquired their essential moral engery” from conservative Protestants.
In England, William Wilberforce was the catalyst behind the elimination of the slave trade. He fought bravely against current culture and his own party to end the slave trade in England and its colonies. Besides that, his faith encouraged him to fight for better treatment of workers who were being exploited.
History is replete with Christians who fought against slavery and other societal ills. The Christian takeover of the Roman Empire led to the end of the slave trade there. Currently Christians are working against poverty, homelessness, AIDS, etc.
You ignore the contribution of Christians to the good of history at your own expense. To deny the contributions they made to the betterment of soceity would be to wrap yourself in ignorance as a blinder, simply because you disagree with a position.
One could say that those who are against gay marriage are the “intellectual heirs” of those who were opposed to abolition. However, one could also aruge that those Christians who are merely suiting their own faith to whims of the current culture are actually the true heirs of the slavery-supporting southern Christians. (The better analogy in my mind is the one of abortion and denying full status as a human to one group or another.)
I would say that neither is the actual, whole truth and that the issues are seperate questions that should be evaluated in their own merit instead of merely using past illustrations as current condemnation.
Nice job aaron. I agree that abortion is a good analog to slavery.
So what’s a good historical xian analog for hx, if not a human rights one?
Again, I don’t think there are really any “good analogies” because each issue is so different. While I think abortion is better than gay marriage as a comparision to slavery, I still think there are obvious differences between the two.
As to what would be a possible analogy for homosexuality and Christianity, possibly feminism (the desire for women priest’s, etc.) Both deal seemingly with an issue of human rights on the surface, but have far greater circumstances under the simplistic view of many.
As with feminism, desiring essential human rights for gay people is a good thing. Everyone should be in agreement that no one should have their rights revoked simply because they were gay. But then do we connect legal recognition of gay unions with heterosexual marriage?
The same may have been said for early feminism (many of which were pro-life by the way). They should have fought for equal protection, voting and the like. But then do we disregard the scripture that calls for men alone to be pastors and priests? Is it actually harmful for children and families to have mothers away from the home during the formative years?
Is is the same to deny the a woman the right to vote and the “right” to become a pastor? Is it the same to deny a gay person the right to property and the “right” to have a gay marriage legally recognized?
There are similarities and there are differences between the issues. I think we usually do more harm than good when we seek to cram a current issue into past light. We usually see the past more clearly (hindsight and all) and so we can force our political or social opponent into a bad light by equating them with a past evil – as people have attempted to do with slavery and Nazis.
We also have to take into account the old adage that “history is written by the winners,” so not all that we “know” about history is true. Currently we may say that “history is written by the academia.” Which means Christians may be viewed negatively in situations when they should not be or at least the situation deserves more scrutiny than a simple decleration of “rightness.”
Aaron, in response to your original comment (from your earlier post), I can only say that if there is a Godwin’s law for slavery, then I am not the guilty party. I enthusiastically agree with you that claims about intellectual heirdom are pointless. Seeker used Christian abolitionists are a yeah but point, and my response was to say that it was not a convincing argument at all.
My comments were not at all meant to suggest that modern Southern Baptists carry any of the pro-slavery beliefs that their 19th Century counterparts did. Nor do I believe that modern Congregationalists have any reason to pat themselves on the back for work that was done by their descendents. Similarly, I don’t think that you, as a Christian, should feel personally responsible for what the church has done to non-Christians in the past. But I do think that you ought to be sensitive to it, and you ought to be looking very carefully for modern-day versions of Biblically-rationalized oppression.
And also, I do get your “sinner” argument, but I don’t accept it at all. Sin is, by definition, a perjorative term, and it carries a lot of weight. In particular, it carries an extreme amount of violent connotation with gay men and women (and others), because of how much oppression and bigotry they have faced from religious sources in the past. It wasn’t so long ago that the term “sinner” could be followed by a beating. I really don’t care who was perpetuating that violence, but it happened–and it still sometimes happens–and you have a responsibility, if you want to be a decent person, to be aware of and sensitive to that history.
Regarding the use of sinner, I do agree that perhaps it has been used in the past as a social label that put people on the outside. However, in our modern zeal to not hurt anyone’s feelings unncessarily, we have sometimes shied away from using more accurate terminology, like “sinner.” While euphemisms can sometimes remove the pejorative or stigmatic nature of a label (good thing), we must also remember that words like “sin”, though not to be used lightly, have a severity that is intended, and meaningful when used appropriately.
We may need to handle adulterers with care, since they often carry a lot of guilt and pain – they are often not hardened criminals bent on hurtying everyone. At the same time, we need to acknowledge the severity of their actions, and “sin” fits the bill.
Slavery is an evil and a sin, and we should call it such, rather than be worried about how slave owners will be viewed by society. They should be ashamed.
"Sin" is a purely religious term and therefore irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. And I can't think of a more basic human liberty than being free to choose one's own mate, regardless of what religious fanatics think.
Stewart, I agree that I should be sensitive to the past sins of those in whose path I claim to follow. I also agree that unfortunately “sinner” has been used as a pejorative thrown at different groups of people to justify henious acts.
As seeker said it should be used carefully, but it should not be disallowed because the word is supposed to care some weight to it.
Sinner, regardless of how much we do not like it, is an apt term for each of us. We have each done things that are wrong in our life. The question is how do we respond to that situation. Do we ignore the facts and pass it off as meaningless or do we seek to do something about our situation? Christianity tells us that we don’t have to do anything about our situation, only accept what has already been done for us.
Louis, I basically agree that what is regarded as a sin could be irrelevant to civil rights. But you currently have every right to choose whatever mate you would like. You can decide today that you want to be with this person for the rest of your life. You could ever get virtually all of the benefits of a marriage through other means (power of attorney, etc.). What you currently do not have is the government acknowledging your relationship as a marriage.
Do not victimize yourself so much and do not underestimate the progress that has been made by those seeking equal rights for gay people. You (regardless of any position on the matter) are a lot farther along to what you want than you were 50, 20, even 10 years ago.
The victim mentality that too many groups get into (Christians included) is detrimental to our society. Gay people have been persecuted, so have Christians. Gay people are being persecuted, so are Christians. Neither is relevant to a discussion on public policy. I do not deserve to be heard more than you because Christians were burned to death because they would not recant their faith. Neither, do you deserve to be heard more because some gay people have been beaten to death because of their sexuality. Both are tragedies, but neither makes any of our points more valid.
Aaron – I think you are exposing a common logical fallacy in the argument from persecution
– Appeal to Pity
Or maybe Appeal to Fear?
1. The solution you propose regarding trying to assemble the same rights via various legal means as are accorded by marriage is ludicrous. Depending on one’s state of residence, these protections can be dispensed with in court, are incomplete and expensive. Besides, why should we have to go through all that when a marriage certificate would do the same thing and give our families far better protection? Just because your religion forbids it doesn’t mean that I, as an American citizen, should be penalized. This is tyranny. This is theocracy. This is un-american.
2. Comparing xian and gay persecution is also ludicrous. I agree that certain countries, islamic and communist, persecute xians, but they also persecute gays – both of which I deplore. However, gays are not persecuting xians in this country while it is quite clear that xians continue their two millenna campaign of persecution against gays. The two are not comparable. And it’s not buying into victim-psychology to recognize what’s happening in this country. It’s time you employ your supposed “love” for me and see things through my eyes for once and not through the dogmas of your religion.
Oh, I understand that many Christians disagree with many gay people. I also sadly acknowledge that some people have unjustifiably used my faith as a weapon against gay people – even to the point of physical violence (which by the way, I denounce in the strongest possible way.) But I think two things need to be looked at.
1) Christians being persecuted is not just a current thing in some far off Islamic countries. Christianity has been persecuted from it's very founding, not to mention the Founder. But just as I, personally, cannot claim to be persecuted because of those that came before me or are being persecuted now, you cannot claim for yourself the whole of gay persecution. It is entirely possible and probable that you have suffered some form of discrimination, but I do not think you have suffered persecution (as I haven't as well). Persecution is having your life put at risk because of your beliefs. You are free to be open and gay without any real free that someone or the government is going to arrest you or kill you because of your sexual orientation. Gay people and Christians are not free to do that in Muslim nations. That is where I view the difference between persecution and discrimination.
2) Sometimes disagreement is equated with persecution or discrimination. Just because I may disagree with you about whether gay marriage should be recognized by the federal government does not mean that I want to persecute you. That is a political difference of opinion. I have read numerous people that are liberal and supportive of gay rights say that they do not want gay marriage. I have even read gay people who are not in favor of gay marriage. Disagreement may lead (and sometimes does) to persecution, but they are not the same by default.
It is difficult for me to "see things through [your] eyes." I have and I do attempt to do that on a regular basis. It is impossible for me to seperate my faith from the way I view the world, just as you feel it is impossible for you to seperate your sexual orientation, but I do strive to understand better the struggles and issues that gay people and others I disagree with face.
Recently, I had to severly chastise some of my youth (especially boys) because of their attitudes to the death of another student who said he was gay. I am ashmaed to say that some of them thought it was funny or at least laughed with others who did. I found that repugnant and very disheartening. I aslo found it sad that none of them ever shared a kind word with him.
What was telling was that behind everything it wasn't that they hated him – they were scared of him. He was different from them and the only way they knew how to react to that was to make fun of him. That is what most adults continue to do as well. Liberals and gay people don't understand Christians so they ridicule them. Conservatives and Christians don't understand gay people so they mock them. I continue to work to help my youth see all people as "priceless" regardless of anything else.
Augument is pointless, really. Suffice it to say that I don't claim the "whole" of gay persecution for myself, but I have had my share. Like when I was confronted and threatened by a teen male on the street (one of the jack-booted thugs enforcing the hetero-hegemony) and am always aware of the threat whenever I walk down the street. The threat is always there.
Of course, this leads to fear of you xians and your attempts to thwart our aspirations. How could it not? And we all know where fear leads…
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/020206ukViolen…
I'm sorry that you had to encounter some idiot threatening you on the street, but how is that Christianity fault?
All the ills of society you lay squarely at the feet of Christianity, while claiming the positives for your ideals. I'm not sure what has or hasn't been influenced by Christianity, but I can tell you that threats of violence are in no way Christian.
Aaron,
I am interested to hear your take on people who identify with Christianity who kill abortion doctors. Their justification is that they are defending life.
Based on the Christian ethos, are they justified? Is this or is it not different than someone protecting babies from a serial killer?
The easy, short answers to this are:
1. Mainstream evangelicalism does not support killing abortion doctors, for a couple of reasons.
a. Xianity does not support vigilante justice, but rather, civil justice
b. Xianity does not practice "two wrongs make a right." Killing doctors is wrong.
2. If we believe that we are killing babies, are we right to obstruct clinics via non-violent protests, and by fighting for just legislation, a la the civil rights movement? Absolutetly. Abortion is absolutely about civil rights (the right to life) of children. Most xians believe that the methods used by the black civil rights movement in america are consistent with xianity.
Do not get me started on the “pro-life” idiots who kill abortionists. They are a huge disgrace to Christians and the to pro-life community. I question their credentials in both camps.
You wrote: “It is entirely possible and probable that you have suffered some form of discrimination, but I do not think you have suffered persecution (as I haven’t as well). Persecution is having your life put at risk because of your beliefs. You are free to be open and gay without any real free that someone or the government is going to arrest you or kill you because of your sexual orientation.” Since you don’t know me or the incidents of my life, I thought that was rather presumptuous so I decided to refute it with one event I endured. It’s entirely different in this country for gays than for xians. If you can’t believe that, then too bad for you.
Louis is right, gays have *way* more power per capita in our media and government than christians do. I think it is time to panic. ;)
Would that it were so.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/020206shooting…
Oh, I do agree that looking at everyday actions, gays see more discrimination (and persecution as much as it happens) than Christians do in America. I totally acknowledge that fact. I also apologize for assuming. I do not know your life story, but I knew that you live in California which has a reputation of being more accepting. Even here in SC, of the few gay people that I know, none have had their life threatened by anyone. As I said earlier most people are scared of them. (Reminds me of that My Name is Earl episode where that were trying to "hook up" this guy with a girl. Then they found out that he was gay, so they go running out the house like a bomb threat. That is the reaction of (unfortunately) most Southerners toward gay people – not violence, but irrational fear.)
The argument could be made that Christians face the more up hill battle in the media than do gays. Name a show on network television that portrays gays in a negative light. Now name a show that portrays Christians in a negative light. I think the latter far out numbers the former.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that is persecution. It merely warrents as discrimination, but that is something that you should be aware of as well.
Christians are in a much better position than gays in America right now, but the tide is shifting the other way. Perhaps it will stop with both being equal (as it should), but I fear it will swing wildly the other way.
I find it hard to believe that a country where some 70% of its population is xian will ever "swing wildly" against them. And, remember, until very recently, gays were portrayed (when noticed at all) by the various media as either psycopathic criminals or suicidal losers. We're finally being portrayed as human beings. How horrible!
It'd be nice if all people were treated as as "priceless." Unfortunately, reality is very different from the ideal. xtianity should support this ideal. Too bad it doesn't. Why?