Slavery and Christianity

[ATraveller]

As I mentioned above, Gangra (and several other early Councils) were considered law by the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.

What’s your point?
If you insist on reiterating this, then I’ll reiterate this:

The Church is composed of people. It was unfortunate. They had grounds not to keep the system but chose not too. Gangra was a local council and the Oriental Orthodox Church among others rejected the council (not necessarily on the topic of slavery) according to Wikipedia. Ecumenical councils, let alone local ones, aren’t binding for the whole of Christianity as many Eastern Churches demonstrate and especially with Protestants.

I’m not denying there were Christians who were pro-slavery. Again, is there a point?

My response is from a non-Catholic perspective so the authority of the Ecumenical councils in my replies don’t reflect Catholic theology.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Levitcus was abolished remember. Surely you know how people react when Levitcus is used against homosexuality.

So you’re saying people should follow the practices of neighboring nations?

I brought up the quotes from Leviticus because almost without fail pro-slavery Christians will delve headfirst into moral relativism by stating that the Israelites were a product of their place and time. That Is simply untrue and requires ignoring what God said in order to defend God.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’m not denying there were Christians who were pro-slavery. Again, is there a point?

Absolutely. The Bible, the basis of what Christians believe is right, good, and true, is for slavery. Christians through history who defend slavery can point to quite a few passages to support their positions. Christians who are against slavery have had to rely on vague calls for kindness, ignoring swaths of words from God himself, engaging in moral relativism, and playing fast and loose with language. Yes, people are fallible and I can accept that. A perfect deity has no such excuse. Christianity is tainted with the legacy of slavery (as have other faiths) and certainly can not claim a moral authority on the subject. When we have people today defending slavery one has to wonder what happened to compassion.

My response is from a non-Catholic perspective so the authority of the Ecumenical councils in my replies don’t reflect Catholic theology.

Understood, but with these slavery threads it’s usually multiple Christians defending it versus me. While you aren’t bound by the Ecumenical Councils, others in this thread are. If I can make my point clear ahead of time that a Catholic can’t distance him or herself from the Church’s history of slavery, the better the discussion will be.

 

[Mboo]

Comment savez-vous qu’il ne l’a pas fait? N’oubliez pas que tout ce que Jésus a dit ou fait n’a pas été écrit dans les Écritures (Jean 21:25).

The gospels relay the essential. To condemn slavery, which was a normal practice at this time, would be so revolutionary that it is impossible that any evangelist nor epistle not to mention it, and above all, tradition has never declared inherently bad slavery. it is impossible if Jesus did it

 

[Mboo]

Perfectly agree, but it was better to give this answer to those who say that slavery is inherently bad.

 

[ATraveller]

The Bible, the basis of what Christians believe is right, good, and true, is for slavery. Christians through history who defend slavery can point to quite a few passages to support their positions. Christians who are against slavery have had to rely on vague calls for kindness, ignoring swaths of words from God himself, engaging in moral relativism, and playing fast and loose with language.

Well, no, as I’ve mentioned 1 Tim 1:10-11, which is also from God Himself.
Christians against slavery can and had used the Bible against it that are solid. The problem is you approach it in a way that only so-called fundamentalists would do (such as young Earth creationism). Such an approach wasn’t taken by even a number of Early Church Fathers because they ignore things like covenant theology, progressive revelation, exegetical methods and etc.

A perfect deity has no such excuse.

That’s the thing between a theist and an atheist. For the former, human standards don’t apply to deities whereas the latter, they do. That’s a leap of faith, which of course atheists reject.

Christianity is tainted with the legacy of slavery (as have other faiths) and certainly can not claim a moral authority on the subject.

Then who does? Atheists certainly don’t as many were fine with it too and some even justified it.
The most powerful abolition force started with the Methodists and Quakers. A King of France also phased it out in the 1300’s but not to the same effect.

 

[Isearch]

As I mentioned above, Gangra (and several other early Councils) were considered law by the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.

If this is true (I have yet to see the passage from the chaldonian council’s decrees and the transcript of their meetings), this seems to be a stinging blow for both Western and Eastern Churches (but the anti-chalcedonian churches and the Nestoriodule churches seems to be at the advantage in this case). How will Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox answer this objection? A dogmatic council seems to hold that slavery isn’t a moral evil.

One of the posters here is attempting to be consistent in holding to the belief that slavery isn’t intrinsically evil and that this institution simply is too open to abuse (hence it was abolished).

Honestly, I don’t know what to make of that. This is like having a church believe that direct abortion to save a mother’s life can be moral because the infant is arguably the conscious aggressor. But then having the same instituion argue for its abolition because one cannot prove if the infant is deliberately killing his or her mother. In other words, the belief that slavery can be exercised without abuse seems to have no basis in reality.

 

[goout]

Mike, you read the bible with the fundamentalists. Not much else to say.
Why do you as an atheist side with the fundamentalists?

 

[goout]

Using the same thinking we can blame atheists for the sins of Stalin and his utopian vision of the perfect godless society.

How can atheism promise such good things, while Stalin murdered tens of millions of people?
A “perfect deity” such as Stalin has no excuse.
(Cue the exculpatory attempt to distance atheism from mass murder)

 

[Genesis315]

Voluntary exchange is the most obvious and common example. Someone may voluntarily exchange a lifetime of reasonable services in exchange for food, a home, etc. Just like one can exchange a small scope of services for a small scope of time (as is done every day and which most of us currently participate), there’s nothing per se wrong with exchanging a fuller scope (although, it is easy to see how it would be open to abuse the broader the scope becomes).

From what I understand, involuntarily it could be just as a punishment for a proportionally grave crime (this remains, for example, in the US Constitution) or as restitution for other inflicted damages, etc. None of this would be contrary to the natural law in and of itself, but again, as experience showed, it can be ripe for abuse.

As mentioned earlier, experience has led moralists to leave such just forms to the theoretical.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well, no, as I’ve mentioned 1 Tim 1:10-11, which is also from God Himself.

Even if you want to put Paul at the same level as God, then it’s a contradiction. You can’t take one word of Paul and claim it supersedes the hundreds upon hundreds words where God gives his people the explicit details on how to mistreat slaves. I know the mantra of apologetics is “Oh, that doesn’t count,” but you can’t just ignore the vast majority of what the Bible says on slavery.

Christians against slavery can and had used the Bible against it that are solid.

Besides a stray word from Paul what could abolitionists point to that said there should be no slavery? I’m not talking about the “let’s be nice” passages, but the ones that say God didn’t mean what he said when he gave all those details on how to beat slaves to death, sell their daughters, blackmail those who’d paid their dates.

The problem is you approach it in a way that only so-called fundamentalists would do (such as young Earth creationism). Such an approach wasn’t taken by even a number of Early Church Fathers because they ignore things like covenant theology, progressive revelation, exegetical methods and etc.

The more one says “the Bible says X, but it reeeeally means not X” it just crumbles any claims when one wants to then say “the Bible says Y, and it means Y”. The burden of having integrity is to accept that words have meaning, even if it goes against what we want to believe.

If a person says something unfortunate. most people aren’t going to allow the speaker to claim he meant the opposite. The exception for most people, of course, if the Bible says something. It’s truly special pleading.

That’s the thing between a theist and an atheist. For the former, human standards don’t apply to deities whereas the latter, they do. That’s a leap of faith, which of course atheists reject.

Are you suggesting that because God is not human that it’s ok that he tells people to do evil? Parents aren’t the same as children, yet parents have to consider what’s best for children. A deity who is allegedly perfect should understand that.

Then who does? Atheists certainly don’t as many were fine with it too and some even justified it.
The most powerful abolition force started with the Methodists and Quakers. A King of France also phased it out in the 1300’s but not to the same effect.

You do realize that there weren’t a whole lot of outspoken atheists at that time. You claim that “many” atheists at the time justified it. Can you back up that statement? Also, I said in an earlier post that there were Christians fightiing slavery. (Some) Christians were anti-slavery, but Christianity was not until much later.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If this is true (I have yet to see the passage from the chaldonian council’s decrees and the transcript of their meetings), this seems to be a stinging blow for both Western and Eastern Churches (but the anti-chalcedonian churches and the Nestoriodule churches seems to be at the advantage in this case). How will Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox answer this objection? A dogmatic council seems to hold that slavery isn’t a moral evil.

Good call. I should have posted a link. Here’s the relevant text:

268
caesarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, cap.j.; “We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, you read the bible with the fundamentalists. Not much else to say.
Why do you as an atheist side with the fundamentalists?

I already pointed out the importance of language and the folly of making up whatever meanings best suits one’s desires. One thing I’ll add is that you present a false dichotomy. One can avoid playing fantasyland with word meanings while at the same time not believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Using the same thinking we can blame atheists for the sins of Stalin and his utopian vision of the perfect godless society.

How can atheism promise such good things, while Stalin murdered tens of millions of people?
A “perfect deity” such as Stalin has no excuse.
(Cue the exculpatory attempt to distance atheism from mass murder)

Ha! That’s some pseudologic there. Take it from me, an atheist capitalist, even communists wouldn’t call Stalin “a perfect deity”. A cursory look at Russian history shows the Russian people didn’t worship their leaders like gods.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Catholics should not be flirting with the idea that slavery, however defined, is allowed in some circumstances in modern society. If past societies have allowed it, however, it is forbidden now.

 

[Magnanimity]

This thread seems to be a particular instance of a general tendency to quote biblical passages that one finds troubling and then criticize the Bible/God/Christianity for what one finds troubling. Not that anyone here needs my help, but I’d like to jump right in anyway because this is an interesting subject.

First, although the point is almost universally lost on contemporary atheists (e.g., the 4 horsemen), all religious texts are borne from particular religious communities. These texts do not stand on their own, and they are not the equivalent of perspicuous articles in The Economist magazine, which just anyone could pick up, read and interpret quite apart from the community. I myself would never presume to pick up the Quran, read it by myself and then go tell the Muslim what it means (or the Mahabharata or a Koan, and on it goes). If I’m outside of the religious tradition, I will go to the tradition to try to find out what they say it means. This approach to religious texts and practices seems so obviously to be the only rational approach that I continue to be boggled at the presumption of some atheists in their handling of the Bible. It is a bizarre and too often repeated practice. Perhaps @Mike_from_NJ here is not doing this, but it certainly comes across that way.

Second, not all slavery is created equal, as has been argued by others above. A good piece of scholarship that illustrates this is Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study.

Third, I take the following to be a moral principle that would be universally adhered to: the dehumanizing mistreatment of anyone is abhorrent (a gross moral wrong). If it could be established that all forms of slavery/servitude throughout all times and in all places have been instantiations of dehumanizing mistreatment, then it would follow that it is and has always been a moral wrong. But, that would first have to be argued for. The book I cite above argues against that suggestion. Not all varieties of slavery/servitude are created equal. Some have been much worse than others.

Fourth, I think in objections like Mike is raising there is an underlying assumption of what might be called an existential approach to freedom, like Sartrian “absolute freedom” (or maybe a Nietschean “will to power”). There seems to be a presumed belief here that humans are and should be entirely free. But, whatever freedom humans have is constantly constrained, limited and hemmed-in from all sides. This is the condition in which we persist. Absolute freedom is myth which could never be realized by creatures such as humans. Who among us does whatever she wants whenever she wants it? No one. Whatever freedom we enjoy (say, as a middle-class contemporary Westerner) is deeply constrained, conditioned, limited, hemmed-in…

 

[Magnanimity]

Also, just to wax theological for a moment, St. Paul opens his letter to the Romans with the following language, “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God…” (NABRE). To thrive as a human is to be a slave of God. I wonder whether a people (Israelites) and a religious group (Christians) can tolerate human slavery/servitude under certain conditions because of their internal awareness of their own slavery to God. Just a thought.

 

[ATraveller]

Even if you want to put Paul at the same level as God, then it’s a contradiction. You can’t take one word of Paul and claim it supersedes the hundreds upon hundreds words where God gives his people the explicit details on how to mistreat slaves. I know the mantra of apologetics is “Oh, that doesn’t count,” but you can’t just ignore the vast majority of what the Bible says on slavery.

That’s precisely what you’re doing. God was speaking through Paul just as He spoke through Moses. I thought this would have been obvious but apparently not.

Besides a stray word from Paul what could abolitionists point to that said there should be no slavery? I’m not talking about the “let’s be nice” passages, but the ones that say God didn’t mean what he said when he gave all those details on how to beat slaves to death, sell their daughters, blackmail those who’d paid their dates.

Go back to 1 Tim 1. And yes, God was speaking through Paul, which is Sunday school material.

The more one says “the Bible says X, but it reeeeally means not X” it just crumbles any claims when one wants to then say “the Bible says Y, and it means Y”. The burden of having integrity is to accept that words have meaning, even if it goes against what we want to believe.

Whatever. At this point, you just want to view it however you want to and not in line with the approaches that started in the Early Church. Maybe we should read the Psalms in the most literal way possible despite the fact they weren’t meant to be read that way. Let’s ignore how the early Christians approached Scripture.

Are you suggesting that because God is not human that it’s ok that he tells people to do evil? Parents aren’t the same as children, yet parents have to consider what’s best for children. A deity who is allegedly perfect should understand that.

I can’t speak for Catholics or even all Protestants, but God is God. He created the world, why He would order such harsh and frightening things is beyond my comprehension. What He wills isn’t the same as a human. Parents and children are still humans.

You do realize that there weren’t a whole lot of outspoken atheists at that time. You claim that “many” atheists at the time justified it. Can you back up that statement? Also, I said in an earlier post that there were Christians fightiing slavery. (Some) Christians were anti-slavery, but Christianity was not until much later.

Search Josiah Nott. He was an atheist who bashed the Bible. He justified slavery. This was when the Methodists and Quakers appeared.
David Hume encouraged a peer to invest in a plantation.

 

[AlNg]

The Church still does not condemn as intrinsically evil the just acquisition of title to someone’s reasonable services while treating them with human dignity, even for lifetime.

Where is this teaching, you refer to, written down? Do you claim that this is an infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?
I disagree with a teaching which says that you can buy title to someone’s services for a lifetime against their will. I am assuming here that this person has committed no crime. I would say that it is intrinsically and absolutely evil for a white European male slavemaster to buy title to the services of a black African young woman for a lifetime and against her will.

 

[HarryStotle]

Leviticus 25:44 instructs God’s people that they may acquire slaves from neighboring nations. If God was against the practice of slavery and was trying to wean people off the practice (as some claim) then surely he would want his people to have more slaves who in turn will breed even more slaves.

Let’s start with the passage above, but let’s consider it in context – the entire context.

39 If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

47 If resident aliens among you prosper, and if any of your kin fall into difficulty with one of them and sell themselves to an alien, or to a branch of the alien’s family, 48 after they have sold themselves they shall have the right of redemption; one of their brothers may redeem them, 49 or their uncle or their uncle’s son may redeem them, or anyone of their family who is of their own flesh may redeem them; or if they prosper they may redeem themselves. 50 They shall compute with the purchaser the total from the year when they sold themselves to the alien until the jubilee year; the price of the sale shall be applied to the number of years: the time they were with the owner shall be rated as the time of a hired laborer. 51 If many years remain, they shall pay for their redemption in proportion to the purchase price; 52 and if few years remain until the jubilee year, they shall compute thus: according to the years involved they shall make payment for their redemption. 53 As a laborer hired by the year they shall be under the alien’s authority, who shall not, however, rule with harshness over them in your sight. 54 And if they have not been redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children with them shall go free in the jubilee year. 55 For to me the people of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

A few points:

1. The “acquiring” of slaves from residents or “from the nations” does NOT indicate anything other than those “so impoverished that they sell themselves to you.” It doesn’t mean slaves were acquired by force or similar means. Ex 21:16 explicitly forbids kidnapping under penalty of death: Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death.
2. The “right of redemption” remained even for resident aliens and those “from the nations” who could “pay for their redemption in proportion to the purchase price.” This means they were essentially indentured servants with a right to redeem their lives after paying off the price of their purchase. This could, in fact, be used as a “grace” where the Israelites could have purchased a foreign slave who could have been badly mistreated by foreign slave owners/traders, but given an avenue to freedom by a Hebrew buyer.
3. A Jubilee Year (every 50 years) meant all slaves and indentured fellow Israelites had to be freed whether or not they had paid the price of their redemption.
4. There is no indication of how many foreign slaves were kept or how they were treated, although your “granddaddy passage” does need to be considered separately, which I will do below.

In the meantime, a further take on the passage:

Answering Leviticus 25: 44-46 – The Bible Condones Slavery?

As far as mistreating slaves without punishment, the granddaddy passage has to be Exodus 21:20-21. It allows for slave owner to kill his slave with a rod so long as the slave doesn’t die the same day he’s beaten.

Again, the entire context of this passage is important, especially the fact that it spells out in the first verse that what is being treated specifically are “Hebrew slaves” (vs. 1). Given that with Hebrew slaves (See previous passage from Lev) "no one shall rule over the other with harshness (Lev 25:46), the overriding consideration here would be to spell out what is meant by harshness or unjust treatment.

The entire chapter attempts to characterize just treatment as lex talionis, hence…

Continued…