Jonathan Rowe has provided a couple of interesting discussions (one, two) regarding the founding of the United States and the problem of slavery. Even so, a couple statements seem problematic and pursuing them might be valuable as a defense:
And Christianity, properly understood, is entirely compatible chattel slavery and demands believers submit to government period, even if it said government is a pagan tyranny as was Nero’s, arguably the ruler Paul told believers to submit to in Romans 13.
and
Chattel Slavery presents a damned if you do damned if you don’t dilemma for the Christian Nation thesis.
I’ve read the texts that deal with slavery in the Bible and I have concluded that the Bible does not abolish chattel slavery. When confronted with proof-texts like Colossians 3:22 — “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” — I am unconvinced by the responses that such really wasn’t chattel slavery, but something else. They strike me as “weasel out” responses.
And Colossians 3:22 isn’t the only place the Bible seems to indicate it’s “okay” with slavery. I don’t read the Bible as commanding slavery. But rather, not abolishing it, that is permitting it.
The anti-liberationist view of orthodox Christianity does provide a rational response. Look, life is a vapor and what matters is where you spend eternity. If you are a slave and a Christian and your master is unsaved, in terms of cosmic reality, you are in a FAR better position than him.
The anti-slavery biblical position strikes me as a liberationist reading of the Bible. And I see biblical liberationism using more of a “loose” hermeneutic (that is, not the proof texting, the Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God hermeneutic).
But what is “proof-texting”? If it is the religious equivalent of “quote mining” then one might suggest that finding select founding documents to make a singular point amounts to the same things. If it is taking material out of context, then establishing a contextual argument is necessary to evidence a fallacy. Historicism will not advance the argument.
Now, I do believe that he made a valuable point that Christianity was, at this time and in this nation, not wholly consistent on the matter of slavery. But let’s not forget the Missouri’s admission was a compromise with Maine’s admission (and, for those who care, that is why Oklahoma has a panhandle). And was the Constitutional question whether slavery was guaranteed in the Constitution, or whether it was not prohibited by it? (I think that question is answered by both the Missouri Compromise and the 3/5 ruling, as well as much, much more — slavery could be prohibited.) Slavery was danced around for a long time, but the problem was not merely that of the Christian (then or now), but for the liberal as well. (Was it to be Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness or was it to be Life, Liberty, and Property?) The result seems to be thus: Even the secular nationalist will have the same problem. Shall we not more properly conclude liberalism alone could not resolve the slavery issue without a partnership with Christianity?
This brings up an issue (a tangent, and not a part of Rowe’s conversation) that is pertinent to today’s situation. It is a part of popular discourse to class anyone who rejects “liberalism” necessarily takes the position of supporting the class constructs that liberalism opposes (to varying degrees). So we are called racists if we disagree with the methodology used by today’s popular left. We are called bigots if we oppose the elimination of marriage elitism and refuse to let a select group redefine our private social constructs. These arguments are always, and I think that conclusion is easily maintained, on the false dilemma of only two choices. For us the challenge is not clarify that Christianity is neither conservative nor liberal. I don’t know that this will stop the nonsense arguments, but at least it counters them intelligently.
April 25th, 2010 | 11:31 pm | #1
“Slavery was danced around for a long time, but the problem was not merely that of the Christian (then or now), but for the liberal as well. (Was it to be Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness or was it to be Life, Liberty, and Property?)”
Collin, are you suggesting that the slavery issue presented the liberal with a genuine dilemma between the pursuit of happiness and property ownership–as if the liberal conception of property ownership entailed the idea that the ownership of slaves was also, self-evidently, an unalienable right endowed upon us by our Creator?
April 26th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #2
Yes. Absolutely. The more serious problem is that it is not a recognized or accepted dilemma. Liberals today are deluded by their idea of “progress” and a better world.
Liberalism is, after all, a child of the modern age which also revived slavery after Christianity had generally purged it from Europe. The only direct anti-slavery move that I know of for liberalism was the combination of liberalism and Christianity in the efforts of Wilberforce. Though I still hold that they are not compatible as world views, there are components which work together, and Wilberforce did that quite well. Yet his mentor, John Newton, has not come across as any sort of liberal.
Colonialism, to some extent capitalism, and slavery were products of the Renaissance’s Age of Exploration and rebellion against Christianity.
A better argument for Rowe, imo, would have been that protestantism made a wrong move when it partnered with liberalism in its efforts against Rome. That got Christianity branded as the cause of these problems, which it is most certainly not.
Now back to the more specific point of your query: The pursuit of happiness replaced property in the Declaration as the founders attempted to avoid slavery, but could not eliminate it entirely. The compromise approach to controlling it was not adequate as the Missouri Compromise was consummated in a border wars with Kansas and brought John Brown to the forefront. Iirc, Kansas was a very conservative Methodist area. Liberalism could not solve the problem that it created. It took the morality of the Christian voice. The liberal misses his dilemma with slavery, just as they miss their eugenics dilemma wrt infanticide, euthanasia, and abortion.
April 26th, 2010 | 5:39 pm | #3
The notion that slavery is contrary to the will of God is a relatively recent development, and not entirely Scriptural.
See Thornton Stringfellow’s exegesis and defense of it here: http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html
“The result seems to be thus: Even the secular nationalist will have the same problem.”
True, but shouldn’t a “Christian nation” have the answers in regards to such a seemingly important issue as to the keeping of others in bondage? Whatever happened to moral absolutes and moral clarity?
It’s true that the abolitionists used some of the language and ideals of Scripture to argue against slavery, but these ideas were often seen to be as revolutionary against the Christian tradition as the notion of gay marriage is seen by some today. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in part over the debates and disagreements over this issue (slavery, not gay marriage).
April 26th, 2010 | 6:31 pm | #4
James,
Recent? Please read the info linked to from Christianity Today.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html
I don’t accept the “Christian nation” thesis, but only want to correct the problem that there is a dilemma only for the Christian.
April 26th, 2010 | 6:42 pm | #5
Of course slavery is contrary to God’s will. All sort of political domination was only part of the mixed blessing state that humanity experiences after the Flood, when the original blessing of creation (1:28-31) is reinstated with a few qualifications, including the noteworthy omission of a second “it was very good.” Warfare and slavery are part of this mixed-blessing, muddy state of life. They were not part of the Edenic state that Jesus spoke of as the divine intention for marriage (and presumably other human relations, too).
April 26th, 2010 | 7:59 pm | #6
Collin, secularism (and/or liberalism) simply substitutes one set of problems for another, I think. So, if you’re suggesting that liberalism offers no moral absolutes, that seems to me to be an obvious statement. As it stands in 2010, it happens to stress certain values over others and, fortunately for many, it stresses liberty and equality over “property”.
Will it always be so? Who knows.
April 28th, 2010 | 10:52 pm | #7
It seems to me that Christianity cuts the heart out of slavery through the back door. When Christian masters and slaves are commanded to treat one another as ” beloved brothers” the slave/ master relationship is changed forever.As for non-Christians,it is tough to “love your neighbor as yourself” and own slaves.Unless one is a Christian in name only,knowingly committing sin,or blinded by cultural influences.
April 28th, 2010 | 11:04 pm | #8
1) The slaves in the US were not part of a country that lost a war. They were people who were abducted and sold to people who did not care about how they were acquired and in turn sold to other people who did not care about how they were acquired. 2) “I am unconvinced by the responses that such really wasn’t chattel slavery, but something else. They strike me as “weasel out” responses.” Some research would show it is not. I know because I did a paper in college about slavery in the Greek and Roman world and it bore little resemblance to the US version.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact