|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 24, 2009 16:47:18 GMT -8
This is going to be a quick synopsis of my view, but the topic came up elsewhere and I thought it would be a worthwhile discussion to start. For my analysis of slavery in the Old Testament, take this link: Slavery/Servitude in the OTThis thread, however, is specifically related to slavery in the New Testament. Anyway, I see the attitude toward slavery as thus in the New Testament: Slavery should be discouraged and peaceful efforts could (should?) be made to free slaves (see the book of Philemon), but it was not a top priority issue for the church in it's infancy for several reasons: a) Christians did not have power to change the laws b) Slaves who became Christians had an obligation first and foremost to reflect Christ and Sermon on the Mount teachings to their non-Christian masters. Social issues took a temporary backseat to the central issue of the propogation of the gospel. It is therefore very consistent that when the church did assume more political power, slavery should have been abolished, as it was eventually on Christian principles. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2010 20:42:59 GMT -8
I've always been fascinated by the role of the Christian faith on anti-slavery movements spanning from the late years of the Roman Empire up through the abolition of slavery in England and in the United States.
During my reading through "A Reason for God" by Timothy Keller, I discovered some additional facts I wasn't aware of.
First, I wasn't aware that when western European [supposedly Christian] nations begin enslaving Africans it was met with fierce opposition by the Papacy. I had always kind of wondered how the transition from slavery being eschewed in the late Christian Roman period to being embraced in the colonies occurred. Not without a fight, apparently. I'm curious to find out more.
Secondly, Keller highlights the life and work of William Wilberforce in England (one of my favorite personalities from Christian history). But one detail I was unaware of was that when Britain finally outlawed slavery the government instituted a program in which slave owners were compensated for their slaves by the government as a way to silence their objections to loss of income due to abolition. This amount of compensation at one point equaled almost half of the British government's financial budget! Talk about kingdom ethics!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 14, 2010 7:55:33 GMT -8
I've always been fascinated by the role of the Christian faith on anti-slavery movements I’m rather fascinated by the role of the Christian faith on both sides of the fence. It is particularly interesting how people of the same faith use the same book and draw exact opposite conclusions. As I said, you can get everything you like out of that book.  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 14, 2010 16:15:22 GMT -8
I've always been fascinated by the role of the Christian faith on anti-slavery movements I’m rather fascinated by the role of the Christian faith on both sides of the fence. It is particularly interesting how people of the same faith use the same book and draw exact opposite conclusions.. so do i. but which perspective on the bibles view of slavery do you think is most accurate? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 15, 2010 5:42:33 GMT -8
I assume you want me to say that I believe the Biblical anti-slavery argument is more accurate. Maybe that’s the case, but I’m not sure. As far as I’m informed (please correct me if I’m wrong) the Bible doesn’t give us much unmistakable information about what God thinks about the institution of slavery as such. That’s why the abolition of slavery in the U.S. has not been put through by Christian sentiment but through a mainly politically and economically motivated war*.
The best people can do is derive arguments from some passages and that’s always kind of dodgy. Concerning the Christian pro-slavery argument, I think the argument of “nullum crimen sine lege” (no crime without law) has some force. After all, this is a principle you yourself applied to more than once on other issues. If Jesus had been against slavery, I expect he would have explicitly said so. Apparently he didn't. Fair enough.
*Mind the words of Honest Abe: ”My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that”
Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 17, 2010 17:27:33 GMT -8
Indeed, the Bible doesn't take a definitive stance on the subject for 2 reasons:
1) the kind of slavery that existed in the New World was different than slavery in the ancient world
2) the early Christians weren't in a position to abolish slavery*, so they focused on spreading the faith in a corrupted system and encouraging the free will release of slaves by their masters (see the book of Philemon)
I've written more on this elsewhere on the forums, but I can't remember where off the top of my head.
*because they didn't possess any political power
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 18, 2010 2:16:58 GMT -8
Indeed, the Bible doesn't take a definitive stance on the subject for 2 reasons: 1) the kind of slavery that existed in the New World was different than slavery in the ancient world I guess you refer to the distinction between “slave societies” and “societies with slaves”? Or maybe you meant something else. Either way, the essence of slavery has always been the same: already Aristotle defined slaves as somebody else’s unfree property (and if I do some research I’m sure I find even older sources. But for the argument at hand, Aristotle is old enough). So in the times of Jesus, the problematic part of it already existed. 2) the early Christians weren't in a position to abolish slavery*, so they focused on spreading the faith in a corrupted system and encouraging the free will release of slaves by their masters (see the book of Philemon) *because they didn't possess any political power Not being in the position to abolish something doesn’t mean not being in the position to address, postulate or even publically reject something and take a firm stand. And the book (or letter) of Philemon can barely be taken as an example of an abolitionist sentiment. The author (Paul or whoever) merely asks for the release of one particular slave to whom he has a cordial relation. The best one can derive from this is the awareness of the author, that being free is better than being a slave. But it contains no rejection of slavery as such. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2010 7:17:56 GMT -8
Mo- I want to specifically address your comments, but I did find the other thread I was referring to and I'm going to take advantage of the new ability to merge threads. Some of what I say there applies to your points above. So, here goes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2010 7:29:19 GMT -8
Hmmm. It moved it to the top of the thread! I'm going to try and move it to the bottom but I'm new at this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 21, 2010 18:31:06 GMT -8
Well, I was more talking about the fact that in the ancient world slavery was often temporary or chosen in order to pay off debts or gain protection, it did not tend to be race-based but rather economically driven, and it often did not attempt to control every facet of the slaves lives as the worst examples of New World slavery did. (see the link to the slavery/ servitude in the OT above for more on that).
The point is not super important, though.
Does the post at the top of the thread answer my view on this?
As far as Paul goes, he did take a very radical stance in his culture regarding the societal status of women and slaves:
Galatians 3:26-29
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Colossians 3:11
11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
However, Paul wasn't going to advocate violence to bring this reality about in the human realm. Rather, he appealed to this higher standard in the trust that, over time as these ideas spread, they would radically alter the society (which they did when slavery was outlawed in Christian Rome). I think in Philemon we see Paul modelling how to begin changing entrenched ideas about slavery. It would have to be gentle at first until the gospel took root, but once people awakened to the gospel, it could be more forceably preached.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 21, 2010 18:36:02 GMT -8
Also see this:
1 Cor. 7:21-22
21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.
Oh, and also as a sidenote, you've got to understand that to Paul physical slavery wasn't the worst condition of a man bur rather spiritual slavery was (Romans 6:6)
1 Cor. 9:19
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 29, 2010 3:35:25 GMT -8
Well, I was more talking about the fact that in the ancient world slavery was often temporary or chosen in order to pay off debts or gain protection, it did not tend to be race-based but rather economically driven, and it often did not attempt to control every facet of the slaves lives as the worst examples of New World slavery did. (see the link to the slavery/ servitude in the OT above for more on that). The point is not super important, though. My top beef with slavery is not racism but the part of being s.o. elses property. Racism is a topic of it's own, it's bad with or without slavery. Does the post at the top of the thread answer my view on this? I don't think so. Maybe I've overseen something though. As far as Paul goes, he did take a very radical stance in his culture regarding the societal status of women and slaves: Galatians 3:26-29 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.Colossians 3:11 11Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.Here is the same problem as in Philemon: No rejection of slavery as such! Look: he says "There is neither (...) male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Does that mean he is against the existence of the sexes? How could he, the existence of the sexes is God's very own idea. Likewise, when he says "There is neither (...) slave nor free" we can't derive that he is against slavery. I think in Philemon we see Paul modelling how to begin changing entrenched ideas about slavery. It would have to be gentle at first until the gospel took root, but once people awakened to the gospel, it could be more forceably preached. You are reading more into this passage than there is, in my opinion. Oh, and also as a sidenote, you've got to understand that to Paul physical slavery wasn't the worst condition of a man bur rather spiritual slavery was (Romans 6:6) And that's probably why Paul's writings are of no avail when it comes to showing that Christianity is against the earthly institution of slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 29, 2010 17:10:14 GMT -8
You don't think there is a substantial difference between temporary or semi-willingly entered into financial-based slavery and life long racial based forced slavery?
Obviously he's not against the existence of the sexes (I'm going to assume you're convinced of that) Paul is making the point that male and female, though different in the eyes of the world, and even different in specific endowments, are nevertheless equal in the eyes of God. In regard to favor and access to God, the distinctions of sex are irrelevant.
Likewise, even though the world continues to see distinctions between slave and free, Paul is declaring that slavery does not affect a person's favor and access before God.
And if this is the case, then Christians are not to use these distinctions against each other.
If this is the case, then the logic can be extended: if Christians found themselves suddenly in a place to influence or make laws according to their conscience, how could they avoid but making laws that reflect the egalitarian nature of the gospel?
No, he doesn't come straight out and say slavery should be abolished, but he sets up a principle at odds with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 29, 2010 17:18:14 GMT -8
I am reading into the passage. We are in agreement that far. Whether it is warranted is I guess what we disagree with.
I don't agree that Paul is useless for anti-slavery argument. Rather, some of Paul's ideas lend credence to the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 30, 2010 4:35:56 GMT -8
You don't think there is a substantial difference between temporary or semi-willingly entered into financial-based slavery and life long racial based forced slavery? I didn't say that. I'm saying that the problematic part of slavery (people being property) already existed back in the day. And forced slavery, slave trade and all the dirty stuff already existed back then as well, even if there were more shades of grey. Obviously he's not against the existence of the sexes (I'm going to assume you're convinced of that) Paul is making the point that male and female, though different in the eyes of the world, and even different in specific endowments, are nevertheless equal in the eyes of God. In regard to favor and access to God, the distinctions of sex are irrelevant. Likewise, even though the world continues to see distinctions between slave and free, Paul is declaring that slavery does not affect a person's favor and access before God. Thus far, it's all understood and agreed upon. And if this is the case, then Christians are not to use these distinctions against each other. Southern slaveholders did argue that keeping slaves was actually a service for Christ, because the wild heathen were converted to Christianity and their doomed souls thereby saved. Their priciples don't stand much at odds with Paul's: It's easy to argue that in Cesars kingdom they are masters and slaves but in the Lord's kingdom such classifications don't exist. No, he doesn't come straight out and say slavery should be abolished, but he sets up a principle at odds with it. As I pointed out in the beginning, the former part of this sentence is the problem, while the latter is a possible but not obligatory deduction. I guess all there is to say in this tread has been said by now (at least on my part) and I'm ready to move on now. The last word is yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 2, 2010 10:01:43 GMT -8
I'll give it to you, Mo. I think we're in more agreement than it might seem.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 9, 2015 4:47:51 GMT -8
"First, I wasn't aware that when western European [supposedly Christian] nations begin enslaving Africans it was met with fierce opposition by the Papacy. I had always kind of wondered how the transition from slavery being eschewed in the late Christian Roman period to being embraced in the colonies occurred. Not without a fight, apparently. I'm curious to find out more." Josh
Considering Pope Pius' letter of encouragement to Jefferson Davis one would have reason to doubt any opposition at all to slavery, let alone fierce opposition. The history of the RCC shows various popes and prelates offering varying commentary on the subject, especially where "just" and "unjust" slavery was the subject.
The final statement on slavery in Scripture, Rev. 18:13, seals the deal for me. "And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men."
Believing the Protestant position that the Whore of Rev 17 is the RCC and her Papacy, what kings and merchants have concocted with her over the centuries is awfully intriguing, if not sickening. Rev. 18 offers a run-down of how the metaphoric, symbolic 'city' functioned. I doubt 1 or 2 percent of Roman Catholics know the history of their church.
The RCC has owned many businesses over the centuries, and now owns many, like shipping lines, finance companies, lots of stock market playing, etc. It is a business/financial empire. Slavery was part of that. The Papacy is famous (infamous) for a 'do as I say, not as I do' ethic, which often saw or sees various encyclicals coming from popes which were and are opposed to actual handling of matters and positions taken around the world on various issues. JP2 would come here and make speeches about how great America and freedom are, then go down to South America and make speeches directly opposite of things he said here. I marveled at it, and how the press never bothered with it, yet just reading the speeches showed the duplicity of the Papacy, and the end justifies the means mentality and policy.
Jesuit missionaries owned slaves. The great endorser of capital punishment for heretics, Thomas Aquinas, endorsed 'just' slavery. Baptized Catholics as slaves was considered unjust, regardless of position in society.
I agree that slavery in the Bible is a subject of considerable, centuries old debate. I agree with Josh that it was not God's intention to overthrow the Roman empire's social fabric, and that being a slave to sin is worse than being a physical slave to an earthly master. Especially when being born-again makes one a slave to Christ, which actually makes one the Lord's freeman, 1 Cor. 7:22.
|
|
