Eliezer of Damascus was the trusted slave of Abraham. He managed all of Abraham’s worldly affairs. He was, until Ishmael and Isaac arrived, Abraham’s heir-apparent. We have no reason to believe that he ever tasted the business end of a whip. We have no reason to believe that he was malnourished or ill-clothed or mistreated in any way. We have every reason to suspect that he partook in the prosperity of Abraham.
I prefer my life to his. Freedom is of great benefit, and I desire for all to have it (1 Corinthians 7:21).
Plaguing our conversation about slavery, however, is the ill-founded, overly emotional, untrue presumption not only that freedom is generally preferable to slavery, but that there is no lower level of existence than that of a slave. This is only true if you embrace libertarianism wholeheartedly. For my part, would I choose to be a slave? That depends. A slave to whom? And what are my other choices? I would much rather be Abraham’s slave Eliezer than…
-
…A Lame Beggar in First-Century Jerusalem. To be a slave was to have someone to provide your food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment (such as it existed). Beggars had it far worse. Since they could not work, no one wanted them as slaves. They lived or died by the generosity of passers-by.
-
…An Inmate in the Texas Prison System. Before you get all high-and-mighty about how superior American culture is to slavery-permitting ancient Judea, take a moment to consider the fact that one in three black men in America can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. Yes…I know…you don’t have to lecture me on it…American prisons have color TV and yada, yada, yada. But whatever the amenities, our prison system is an environment in which 200,000 inmates in 2011 were raped. Entirely because of prisons, there are actually more men raped than women every day. Add to that the utter pointlessness of prison life. We think we are so advanced, but Hannibal Lecter was not all wrong when he said, “We live in a primitive time, don’t we, Will? Neither savage nor wise. Half measures of the curse of it; a rational society would either kill me or put me to some use.”
Call me crazy, but I’d much rather live what we imagine to be the life of Eliezer of Damascus than to pass aimless days behind bars trying to avoid sexual predators.
-
…A Steelworker in Andrew Carnegie’s Homestead Mill.
The life of a 19th-century steel worker was grueling. Twelve-hour shifts, seven days a week. Carnegie gave his workers a single holiday-the Fourth of July; for the rest of the year they worked like draft animals. “Hard! I guess it’s hard,” said a laborer at the Homestead mill. “I lost forty pounds the first three months I came into this business. It sweats the life out of a man. I often drink two buckets of water during twelve hours; the sweat drips through my sleeves, and runs down my legs and fills my shoes.”
For many the work went without a break; others managed to find a few minutes here and there. “We stop only the time it takes to oil the engine,” a stop of three to five minutes, said William McQuade, a plate-mill worker in 1893. “While they are oiling they eat, at least some of the boys, some of them; a great many of them in the mill do not carry anything to eat at all, because they haven’t got time to eat.
The demanding conditions sapped the life from workers. “You don’t notice any old men here,” said a Homestead laborer in 1894. “The long hours, the strain, and the sudden changes of temperature use a man up.” Sociologist John A. Fitch called it “old age at forty.”
For his trouble, the average worker in 1890 received about 10 dollars a week, just above the poverty line of 500 dollars a year. It took the wages of nearly 4,000 steelworkers to match the earnings of Andrew Carnegie.
Did Eliezer labor for Abraham? Of course he did. Did he labor in any way approximating the experience of these men? Hardly. And his compensation, measured in terms of quality of life, was far better.
-
…Any Lifelong Minimum-Wage Employee. Of course, there’s a place for minimum-wage jobs. I made minimum wage as a college student delivering pizzas. You’ve got to start somewhere. But no one can build a life around long-term minimum-wage employment.
I’m not saying that you can’t survive on minimum-wage employment. People are creative in making ends meet, and other sources of funds are often involved. Nevertheless, even if you can scrape by on minimum-wage employment for now, eventually age or illness will incapacitate you for your job, and it is nearly impossible for someone working a minimum-wage job to save enough to provide for the needs of old age.
-
…An Abandoned Senior Adult in a Cheap Nursing Home. All of the adjectives in that sentence are important. Not all nursing homes are cheap. Not all senior adults in them are abandoned. But a study from fourteen years ago reported that 44% of nursing home residents claim to have been abused themselves and that 95% have been neglected or have witnessed the neglect of another resident. And every pastor has seen the nursing home resident who has absolutely nobody visiting them or overseeing their care.
Our libertarian culture promotes independence, which certainly has its benefits. Perhaps we see less clearly its drawbacks. Our families are dissolving and our economic system builds no lasting bonds or obligations between employers and employees. Independence is a wonderful thing when you’re young and healthy, but all of us begin life as a dependent, and most of us will end life as one. Highly independent societies are less suited to meeting the needs of those seasons in our lives.
We adapt to this in the United States, of course, by growing government more and more. A full 53% of the entitlement budget goes to senior adults. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid amount to 60% of the federal budget. Whatever you think about where things stand now, it is possible to become a slave to the government. In some ancient Oriental societies, in fact, every citizen was considered to be a slave to the state.
Covenantal Employment
One way of understanding the life of Eliezer of Damascus is to recognize the better forms of slavery as a confluence of work and family. Family is covenantal. For us, in our economic system, the workplace is merely contractual. Although we are thankful for the many benefits of our capitalist wage-labor economy, something inside us keeps yearning for and trying to recover the benefits of covenantal slavery without succumbing to the many ills and wrongs of slavery that led us to abandon it.
One of my Dad’s lifelong friends was Bill Spikes. They were adolescent boys together. Bill was dating Winnie when my dad was dating my mom. Winnie and Mom were cousins and they both attended the little country church where I spent the first eleven years of my spiritual life. There’s a funny story about the time they decided to sing in the choir just to be able to sit near their sweethearts, only to discover as the service was about to begin that they had chosen WMU Sunday to sit down in the midst of an all-female choir.
Bill was a farmer, but farming wasn’t always good to Bill. Dad went off into education, then into politics, then into business. Eventually, in 1987, the last business that Dad started—the one that succeeded—relocated its manufacturing operations into a facility in Monette, Arkansas, where Bill was living. Bill Spikes came onto the Ashley Lighting payroll right away.
Bill had long been a smoker, as had Dad. Bill paid for a lot more tobacco than he enjoyed, however. The warehouse was perennially littered with cigarettes from which Bill had taken one or two puffs, only to set them down in order to free his hands for work and then leave them forgotten on the steel crossbeam of a pallet rack. The amount of smoke he actually inhaled, unfortunately, was enough to give him lung cancer in the mid-1990s. He sought treatment, of course, but as is so often the case, the cancer got the better of him. His health declined. He found himself unable to work much, then unable to work at all. In 1997 (just a few months before Dad also died of cancer), Bill succumbed to the disease and died.
Throughout his illness, no matter how many hours he actually was able to work, Bill’s paycheck kept coming to him. Indeed, after he died, Bill Spikes kept getting paid, until Dad’s accountant read him the riot act and told him he could get into serious trouble for such a thing (In posting about this, I’m making some assumptions about statutes of limitations). Dad felt both a desire and an obligation to care for his sick friend and employee as well as for his family.
I submit to you that my father’s actions are anti-capitalistic. Great Christianity; bad business. I also submit for your consideration that he was acting more like a master and less like an employer. He had ceased to barter with Bill Spikes for goods and services in exchange for a wage. Instead, a deeper, more covenantal relationship took charge.
Dad did not do this sort of thing for everyone. He did not do it for others who were his friends. He did not do it for others who were fellow church members with us. The fact that Bill worked for Dad, in conjunction with Dad’s feelings toward Bill, motivated Dad’s actions.
The employer/employee thing is a transaction. The master/slave thing is a relationship. The transactional part of Bill’s life had ended. He could provide no goods or services for the company. Dad nonetheless felt an obligation toward Bill, not just because of their friendship, but because Dad felt that Bill was under his charge in some way. Under systems of slavery, masters are under obligation to care for their slaves and to provide for their needs. This has been true in almost every slaveholding system. The slaves’ food comes from the master. The slaves’ housing comes from the master. The slaves’ clothing comes from the master. The slaves’ medical care comes from the master. This obligation to care for slaves commenced before the slaves were able to contribute much in the way of work and well after the precipitous decline in their productivity due to old age. It was a cradle-to-grave obligation. The proximity of slave-master instruction to family instruction in the New Testament is informative. Together these “household codes” address the relationships among those who are part of the family. Although there were wage-workers in the epoch (James 5:4, and, indeed, the categories of “slave” and “wage-worker” were not mutually exclusive), slaves were more than workers; they were members of the household.
Now, I’m a free-market capitalist. I do not like this slave system. I do not like it for a number of reasons. Masters often were incentivized to provide the minimum level of care: the poorest food in the household, the worst clothing, the leakiest shelter, and the most rudimentary medical care. I do not like the way that it robs people of their freedom to pursue other alternatives. I also do not like the way that it gives labor no financial incentive to excel in their work. The slave who is more efficient or diligent in his work does not profit thereby. As a result, the only incentive left to give to slaves to elicit their labor is to threaten violence (which Christian masters were forbidden to do in Ephesians 6:9) or to make them so much a part of the family and to make them love you so much that they want to see the whole enterprise succeed. That’s difficult to do with a large workforce, so I favor instead the capitalist system of letting owners and employees have a joint financial stake by which employees get paid for their labor and owners get to make a profit from their efforts.
I will, however, offer this caveat: The biggest drawback of our wage-labor economy is the way that companies take the best years of people’s lives and then send them on their way. I like better than that the relationship between Dad and Bill. I like better than that the relationship between Abraham and Eliezer. I like the idea of employers and employees having, where it makes sense, a more covenantal relationship in which employers take some responsibility for the welfare of their employees. I’m not saying that I want the government to mandate anything like that; I’m just saying that I admire it and see the value of it.
Conclusion
Of course, however good a master Abraham was to Eliezer, you still have the horrible treatment he gave to Hagar. The achilles heel of every system of slavery has been the sinful hearts of the slaveholders. There’s the fatal flaw of slavery that has rendered it unworkable. It places too much power into the hands of sinful men, and they abuse it. But let us not pretend that the Thirteenth Amendment put away forever the abuse of the poor and weak at the hands of the rich and powerful. Jesus told us that we would always have the poor with us. Alas, the same is true of the heartless rich.
Not all of the rich are heartless, however. Slavery in and of itself, separated from the stupidity of racial superiority theories and from the cupidity of robber-barons, can never be the best existence for any human being, but has sometimes been far from the worst.
Bart, another interesting and useful read. It got me thinking about this. Perhaps at any time any one of us can think of some life/existence that would be better (we think) than the one we are in. To what extent should we just accept and run “the race that is set before us” and to what extent should we hope/try/strive to get out of that race into another?
I think the instructions in 1 Corinthians 7 are helpful in this regard. Serve in whichever situation you find yourself. If you can improve your lot, go for it.
Another excellent post. Robert, “To what extent should we just accept and run “the race that is set before us” and to what extent should we hope/try/strive to get out of that race into another?” I have no idea what Bart will say, but I immediately thought of Paul and his God given ability to be content in whatever circumstances (“Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.”). Then, in Philemon (of all letters in the NT where he is not at all condemning slavery to his… Read more »
“Slavery may be bad, but things could be worse!”
…
🙂
Not an inaccurate summary.
Of course, in a world where every nation has, at least de jure, outlawed slavery, we’re not having a serious debate about whether slavery is bad today or whether we ought to reinstitute it. Rather, since it seems to me that the topic of slavery is a rather convenient location for us to break our arms patting ourselves on the back—to exonerate ourselves while chastising our forefathers (among our favorite pastimes)—I think it is worthwhile to point out that we do things that are as bad as or worse than slavery.
Do you disagree, Chris?
Bart,
I agree there are other problems that also need to be addressed, but I do not believe that was the point of this post. It’s a common dodge to try and divert attention from one problem by pointing to another. In this case, slavery in the Bible is a real problem – but hey! There are worse things out there! (though I daresay your list includes some pretty peculiar things that you consider worse).
Chris, I wasn’t trying to dodge anything. I stated my intention in the post: I am trying to point out that people discuss slavery from emotional points of view that are not rational, presuming that slavery is inherently and axiomatically among the worst possible fates that a human being could suffer. By doing so I am trying to move people beyond those perspectives. You are, of course, correct that the rationale for this series is apologetic in nature. The task that Christians face is to separate Jesus Christ from Jim Crow. I don’t deny or dodge at all that I’m… Read more »
I can understand a lame beggar and an abandoned senior adult – both terrible situations from which there is no likely escape. But I have known a number of lifelong minimum wage earners who were quite happy with their lives, though no doubt they could have wished for more. Inmates will have an end to their sentence and whatever terrible things may have happened to them in prison will be in their past whereas Eliezer of Damascus would have been a slave for life. Not to mention the fact that prison is not intended to be an enjoyable experience, which… Read more »
Granted, I’ve carefully chosen my example against which to contrast these situations. That’s sort of the point. All I’m reaching for here is to show that the best slave situation is better than a broad swath of the worst free situations. When people acknowledge that, it changes the calculus of the conversation a little, I think. Eliezer has guaranteed care into his old age even when he is past his working prime. That’s his advantage over the minimum wage person. As for the prison comparison, actually the commission of crimes was one way that many people entered slavery. In my… Read more »
Bart,
Where does the Bible sanction slavery as a sentence for crime?
Chris,
I’m not talking only about biblical slavery. I’m talking about ancient slavery in general. To discuss New Testament teachings about slavery, don’t you think we have to have the broader Greco-Roman practice in mind? After all, Onesimus’s enslavement to Philemon would not have been following any Old Testament guidelines, right?
Bart,
Let’s not move the goalposts. You said you were doing an apologetic regarding biblical slavery. You also say it’s better to be Eliezer than to be in a Texas prison and you explained that by saying crime is one way people became enslaved, but if that wasn’t a way people in the Bible became slaves, then it’s hardly relevant to defending what the Bible says about slavery.
Exodus 22:1-4
John’s scripture in Exodus 22:3 does suggest a person could be sold into servitude to pay off his crime.
Chris, I’m not sure we’re reading the same material. To me it seems that if I had rather be Abraham’s slave than Mother Teresa or me — it doesn’t exactly matter whether Mother Teresa or I are in the Bible. I am still making a statement about biblical slavery. To me it seems the main problem is that Bart isn’t saying what you want him to say.
John,
You and Chris are reading the same material, here and in the bible. Remember though that Chris does not possess the Holy Spirit so when he reads the scripture, he cannot understand the things of God. For Chris it may as well be Popular Mechanics.
Thank you, John. Chris, you do rightly note that the goalposts need to stay in one place. I have the right, however, to call my own plays. So, John has rightly pointed out that even in the Old Testament code, slavery was one punishment available for certain crimes. And yet, what is “biblical slavery”? What does the adjective “biblical” mean there? Must it mean “established by the Bible” or can it not also mean “encountered within the Bible”? Within the Bible we encounter Egyptian slavery, Hebrew slavery, Babylonian slavery, Persian slavery, and Greco-Roman slavery. All of these are “biblical slavery.”… Read more »
Bart, When you deliver an apologetic, the focus is on the thing you want to defend. I assume you were not trying to defend forms of slavery not instituted by God. On your syllogisms, one and three miss the point. While I think people can rightly criticize the slave language of the Christian’s relationship to Christ, that is not what people focus on when looking at the morality problem. Rather, it is the fact that the OT instituted and regulated slavery – including sex slavery – while the NT says very little about it, other than (1) tacit acceptance (Philemon),… Read more »
Les, Come now, surely you can do better than that! Most Christians will acknowledge that us godless pagans can understand the Bible at a textual level, even if we are incapable of understanding its spiritual significance. Thus Christians have Jewish commentaries and will even consider what non-religious folks have to say about the Bible. I’m not arguing interpretations here, I’m talking very basically about what the Bible says. No spiritual insight needed. Now, it does take a particular kind of willful ignorance to read what the Bible has to say about slavery and not see it for the atrocity it… Read more »
Speaking of understanding the text, just gave Exodus 22:1-4 another look and I see what I’d overlooked in verse 3. That answers my question: there is one situation in which a lawbreaker might be sold into slavery for his crime. Let a rich man steal and he can just pay off his penalty. Let a poor man steal and he’ll be sold into slavery. A just system indeed.
Chris,
“Considering all the moral positions taken in the NT, it should seem odd at the very least that slavery is not forbidden outright.”
“I’m talking very basically about what the Bible says…”
Really? Case rested.
Les,
Your self-justification is mind blowing. The desperate struggles of the religious who have no solid ground on which to base their position so they must struggle to score the cheapest of points, typically failing to even do that if people are paying attention. But here I am, sinking to your level. Since you have yet to say anything approaching an argument, I’ll kindly just ignore you until you say something worth the time.
Thanks Chris. I started out this short conversation with John I believe anyway. We’re all good.
“Since you have yet to say anything approaching an argument..”
Because I never intended to make an argument with you. That’s why you haven’t seen “anything approaching an argument.”
See, there’s your trouble: False assumption. If there were no accommodations for slavery in the Old Testament at all, one would still face the problem that Jesus did not advocate for the abolition of those extant forms of slavery that existed around Him during His ministry. So, it is relevant to consider every form of slavery that would have been known to Him.
Bart,
So your apologetic is regarding Jesus’ silence, not the Mosaic law’s establishment of slavery?
Right,
The most troublesome aspect for Christians is Jesus’ silence. Not that the Old Testament passages are not problematic for Christians, but because of progressive revelation and the way that the New Testament makes use of the Old Testament, in my opinion, the New Testament situation is more troublesome.
Of course, dealing with the New Testament requires dealing with the Old in some fashion or another, but I’m saying that it also involves dealing with the overall nature of slavery worldwide as first-century Jews knew it.
Bart, you wrote, “The achilles heel of every system of slavery has been the sinful hearts of the slaveholders.” I say a hearty “amen” and add that sin/sinful hearts is the Achilles heel of every system (which goes to the heart of your response to Chris, imo). I really appreciated the story of Bill Spikes. Oh, how many times have I seen an establishment take the best years of a man’s life and presume on his loyalty, only to cast him aside after they have sucked most or all of the benefit they could get out of him. (This happens… Read more »
Agreed at all points.
I’m guessing you’ll eventually get to this in your series (unless I missed it somewhere else), but it seems to me that a big problem with declaring that slavery is inherently sinful/wrong is that the Bible refers to us as slaves of God. I would point to John MacArthur’s thorough treatment in his book titled “Slave”. I greatly appreciate your work to help us think biblically on such a tough issue in our day.
Bob,
The previous post addressed that question, although perhaps not at sufficient depth for your liking?
Hey Bart, my reading here has been quite hit and miss lately, so please forgive the oversight. I just read the previous article, and yes, I think you covered the issue well. Obviously there’s always more that could be said, but I think you did a good job and offered some very useful perspective. I was also glad to see the Johnny Mac quote – his book “Slave” holds a special place in my heart as the Lord used it to bring me to surrender my life to Christ.
Grace and peace brother. Thanks for your efforts for the Kingdom.
Bart,
Excellent. Of course, we have grown to expect “excellent” from you. Thank you for blessing me with this post, today. I feel like a smarter man from reading it….and, that takes a lot of doing; believe you me.
David
I appreciate the fact that the bible calls us slaves of God, but let’s not take the analogy too far. Earthly slavery is not a picture of our relationship to Christ. We enter into the relationship voluntarily, and once even in that relationship we are free to obey or disobey. We are also called children and friends and the bride of Christ, so the slave analogy only goes so far. I don’t think you can say that the bible calls us the slaves of God so slavery isn’t bad. If earthly slaves were invited into slavery, came of their own… Read more »
Hi Bill, You raise some valid points. However, the Bible calls God our Father, but there are plenty of men who have been pathetic fathers – should we therefore infer that God is not a real Father? Since the Old Testament does offer a positive type of slavery that was beneficial to the slave by removing the danger of poverty, and since the Bible does call us slaves of God, I would argue that the concept of a slave is rightly understood as it is defined by our relationship to God. The fact that man has distorted it just like… Read more »
Bill Mac, I think this exemplifies some of what I was getting at in my first post. If by “slavery” all you can imagine is the chattel slavery of blacks in triangle trade or the cotton plantations of nineteenth-century America, then you’re right, that makes a mighty poor analogy of our relationship with God. However, slavery has come in many more varieties than just those. “We enter into the relationship voluntarily.” So did some slaves (Deuteronomy 15:12-17). “…once even in that relationship we are free to obey or disobey.” So are slaves (2 Kings 5:15-27, unless you meant to suggest… Read more »
Very good breakdown…. All of us tend to view slavery from one extreme or the other. Understanding the breadth and context of how slavery existed is very beneficial…especially as we teach our relationship to each other within the fellowship of believers. Governments view slavery much differently than the church lives out slavery.
You’re right, I’m reading this mostly through the lens of American slavery. I know you aren’t trying to do this, but I just get this feeling (not from the recent articles, but from a few of the comments in the threads), that some would like to use the bible to sanitize American slavery into something noble and benevolent.
You know, you’re 100% correct. There are people in the world trying to do precisely that.
Hey Bill,
I just wanted to echo Bart’s reply, and also clarify that if that’s how my comment came across that is certainly not what I meant. American slavery embodied a great deal of sin that is worthy of rebuke.
That said, I do think that what Bart is driving at concerning the nature of slavery – and the fact that it is not inherently wrong in and of itself – will greatly help us in focusing on the actual sin in American slavery, which is actually still very much alive today.
Bob, Very good and insightful comment. Bart, So, let me see if I’m understanding you right. You are saying that slavery, in and of itself, was just another economic way that a society operates….for example; there’s capitalism, communism, dictatorships, kings, socialism…and slavery is just another way that society was set up to do business. Owner/Employee and Boss/Worker and Owner/Slave are all just ways that a society tries to operate businesses. AND, that American slavery was wrong and sinful, because of the way that a lot of the Owners treated their slaves like property…some even treated their slaves worse than they… Read more »
I think that this gets pretty close to the arguments of Southern slave holders in the Antebellum period and their theological chaplains who said that slavery was in the Bible and that in a Christian society like theirs, they were doing it well and humanely and were caring for their slaves in a Christian way. It was considered a “positive good.” They tried to regulate slavery and make it a Christian institution and would do so through prohibiting over the top beatings and sexual relations between Master and Slave and things like that. Then, they would say that the system… Read more »
Bravo. (since we don’t have a “like” button)
Alan, I would love for that to be the solution, if only I were convinced that it were valid analysis/exegesis. Here’s my reaction to your comment: A: “I think that this gets pretty close to the arguments of Southern slave holders in the Antebellum period and their theological chaplains who said that slavery was in the Bible and that in a Christian society like theirs, they were doing it well and humanely and were caring for their slaves in a Christian way. It was considered a ‘positive good.’ They tried to regulate slavery and make it a Christian institution and… Read more »
Bart, you say to Alan that you “find that exegetical case to be unconvincing.” I agree. I am not “satisfied” with what I find, but my method of Bible study does not seem to allow me to find just what Alan has found or what I would like to find. In your post “Why We Find It Difficult to Talk about Slavery,” Chris R. said something to Les P. about what he was showing from the Bible made Les uncomfortable. Les replied that he was not uncomfortable about what the Bible says. Though I mostly agree with Les, and disagree… Read more »
I am traveling today, so I cannot respond in detail. I will try to write a post tomorrow or respond here in more depth. After reading all of your statements, we agree on more than we disagree on, I think – but what we do seem to disagree on has significance. As always, looking forward to more dialogue! I just stopped for a quick lunch on the road and can’t type a long response on my phone.
Thanks!
Alan, this is the essence of the trajectory you speak of I believe…”The reason that Jesus did not address the institution of slavery is because he was not addressing the kingdoms of this world but was explaining what things were to be like in God’s Kingdom and the manifestation of that Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven through his followers who make up the church.” That way of thinking makes a lot of people stumble through how to handle man’s desire and God’s royal law.
You make excellent points IMHO.
“I think that I am on solid ground when I say that the trajectory of NT ethics is toward spiritual freedom in Christ that plays out in every area of life, including economics, labor arrangements, and human slavery.”
Yes!
And Thank you for the historical analysis.
Or as another put it,
“Let there be no mistake here—the logic of the Christian gospel is contradictory to the institution of slavery generally, and as the gospel of salvation progresses through history, one of the necessary results is the gradual eradication of all slavery. Jesus Christ really is the ultimate Jubilee.”
“The Early Church was actually quite effective in changing the slave system of the Greco-Roman society that they were in, but they did so through the Church telling a different story.” Agree and that is the way forward today – not by calling on the federal government to make more laws – or necessarily but holding conferences and summits (not to say that these are all bad by any means) but by actually preaching the gospel of Christ in thereby transforming the culture with the Christ and gospel centered way of thinking and interacting with it. This is my view,… Read more »
The thing is though, that when we talk about being politically impotent and relatively powerless in society, we are talking about the Early Church. My problem with Douglas Wilson’s thesis in Black & Tan is that he applies that perspective to the white Christians in America who DID have political and economic and social power. They controlled everything. So, the responsibility is different. If we DO have power to bless others and serve others and set captives free, then we should do so – or use that power to influence others. William Wilberforce is a good example of this, I… Read more »
A: “So, back to Bart’s point on slavery. We can definitely affirm that we should all be slaves to Christ. And, we can also say that some forms of human slavery might be better than other forms of degradation comparatively. But, the higher truth is that Jesus sets the captive free and that freedom and blessing extends out from us spiritually and ultimately affects every area of life that we have dominion over. If we DO have economic and political power, then we should use it to bless and benefit those who do not and I think that that is… Read more »
I am confused about Abraham. Why would he be anything more than an example of a Pagan who believed Yahweh?
He pretty much handed over his wife to a ruler who had more scruples than he did. And so on all the way over to him and Hagar, etc.
I would think his example for us would be of a pagan living in a pagan world who heard from the “One True God” and believed him. Other than that, what is the point? If Abraham had a slave that means it was God’s design?
This is a good point, Lydia. Not everything described in the Bible constitutes the will of God.
Alan: Exactly!
Here’s a scorecard on the ongoing dialogue between myself and Chris Roberts…myself and Alan Cross, for those who are trying to keep up, as far as I can tell it: 1. The slavery that William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglass opposed was evil Bart: Agree Alan: Agree Chris: Agree 2. All slavery, regardless of how it is conducted, is evil. Bart: Disagree Alan: Agree Chris: Agree 3. The slavery commended in the Bible is spiritual and metaphorical, and is unconnected with actual slavery to some significant degree. Bart: Disagree Alan: Agree Chris: Disagree 4. The New Testament position is an unequivocal… Read more »
1. agree
2. disagree
3. disagree
4. disagree
5. agree
6. agree
7. agree
And, here’s David’s answers to this, as well….in case anyone was wondering…. 🙂
I’m still thinking through a lot of this but as it stands right now I think I can say;
1 agree
2 disagree
3 disagree
4 disagree
5 agree
6 agree
7 agree
My thinking has been honed and sharpened thanks to this series from Bart – thanks again Bart!
Re #3, surely you do not mean that slavery in the OT was just metaphorical or that NT slaves weren’t really slaves? The only instance in which the slavery language is spiritual (though not, I think, metaphorical, per se) is when Jesus uses it of Christians – according to the Bible, human beings (Christian and otherwise) are supposed to obey God’s every command and are supposed to seek to follow the will of their master on any action they take. Any deviation from their master’s will merits punishment. In the case of Jesus, I don’t really object to his use… Read more »
Chris,
If you’ll go back and take a look, I disagreed with #3.
Neglected to comment on #6 and #7.
Re #6, which principles are those? A slave owner can show compassion to his slave while still profiting from his labor. And while I daresay that love for one’s fellow human being precludes owning that human being, God evidently saw things differently.
On #7, racism and racial superiority are certainly wrong. Racial and cultural superiority were engrained on OT Jewish life but Christianity, growing in the melting pot of ancient Rome, could not continue it in the same form.
That I chose “much” rather than “all” gives some indication of my acknowledgement that a slave owner “can show compassion to his slave while still profiting from his labor.” It’s just that the true economic bonanza of slavery comes from driving slaves abusively and providing for them in a miserly fashion. You have to feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate slaves. You have to do so for their children and then for them in their old age. Wage-paying becomes more attractive when you truly start to undertake those burdens of slaveholding without extracting herculean amounts of labor from the slaves. Thanks… Read more »
Here’s my 1.5¢ scorecard 1. Agree, with the understanding that the system was evil, but that all Christian slaveholders did not behave equally as evil within the system 2. Disagree 3. Disagree 4. Disagree 5. Agree, with the understanding of “to the extent we have eradicated it” — Iow, it still exists in some places and forms 6. Agree 7. Agree (And all this with the understanding that all our finger-pointing at past evil does not make 21st Christian Americans less evil than our forebears, just evil in different ways. It is easy to condemn in others what we approve… Read more »
Question:
Would it have been wrong in the mid 1800s for a church to receive into membership a godly man who owned slaves?
Les,
And thus, the SBC came into being….
David 🙂
I know Vol. But I really wonder what people think. Is it possible that a godly Christian church member could also be a slave owner? Would the church then have absolutely erred in admitting him into membership or nor necessarily erred?
I am still trying to wrap my head around “godly slave owner”. It is one thing to become a new believer while you own slaves and then treat them as a brothers in Christ even in a culture that promotes putting runaway slaves to death. It is quite another to be a “godly slave owner” seeking to institutionalize the bondage of another human being in a land that declared all humans are endowed by their creator…. They had to declare them “less than human” to live in that cognitive dissonance. And that is what they did. And yes, many worried… Read more »
Lydia,
I do understand the difficulty. But then there’s this:
“Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have **believing masters** must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.”
There is no qualification here. No admonition to free their slaves. Just instructions both ways.
“There is no qualification here. No admonition to free their slaves. Just instructions both ways.”
Les, if you are taking that as justification then the fact our country was founded was sin.
Is there no room in determinism for people/nations/tribe to mature in their thinking about bondage, human value, etc?
BTW: Where is the admonition for the believer to get rid of his extra wives?
“Les, if you are taking that as justification then the fact our country was founded was sin.” I’m not. “Is there no room in determinism for people/nations/tribe to mature in their thinking about bondage, human value, etc?” There is room in God’s sovereignty over all things for societies to move past sinful manifestations of slavery such as occurred in the 1600s into the 1800s in the US. The gospel trajectory would end up there, as was already happening in some quarters in the US at the time. “BTW: Where is the admonition for the believer to get rid of his… Read more »
“There is room in God’s sovereignty over all things for societies to move past sinful manifestations of slavery such as occurred in the 1600s into the 1800s in the US. The gospel trajectory would end up there, as was already happening in some quarters in the US at the time. ” Well, I am not a determinist and I believe man has volition so I do think that 19thC “godly” Christian slave owners should have known better that buying a human for hard labor and bondage was sinful. Or that separating families was NOT living out the Gospel. What rotten… Read more »
The mid-19th century “godly slave owner” is probably a deal breaker today because it is so close to declaring slavery to be a positive good. Ah, yes, John C. Calhoun, the good Christian master lifts the savage out of ignorance and hopelessness. No one is so indelicate to say it quite so pointedly but we’ve clearly been in the neighborhood. This is probably one reason we white folks in our mostly white churches have difficulty with a genuine multi-racial congregation. Can you watch the mixed congregation as the learned reverend expounds on this general theme? We’re thinking sterile academics and… Read more »
“The mid-19th century “godly slave owner” is probably a deal breaker today because it is so close to declaring slavery to be a positive good.”
Close, but no cigar.
And I will say I think a godly man who was also a slave owner in mid 1800s could be a faithful Christian and church member.
Your phrasing is somewhat begging the question. You call him a godly man while also asking about his place in the church based on his slave owning. It seems one would first ask whether it is possible to be a “godly man” while owning slaves. It’s already plain how you will answer that question, disturbing as that answer may be.
Chris,
Can a person be admitted into church membership in mid 1800s if he or she is also a slave owner, and said church still be being a faithful church in doing so?
And, to your point, can a person be a godly man while owning slaves in mid 1800s?
Could a person be a godly man while committing adultery? Murder? Theft? Hatred? Have we not already established that the chattel slavery of the 19th century absolutely violated a number of biblical precepts?
A person may be faithful in some areas while not being faithful in others. We don’t require a person to be sinless to become a church member, but we obviously think some things disqualify a person.
Temple prostitution was a common and everyday institution at the time of the NT. Should 1st century Christians be admitted to membership if they frequented temple prostitutes?
Can a person be godly and own slaves? According to the Bible, God is okay with slavery, so I guess so. Is such a person morally good? No.
Bill Mac,
I appreciate the intent of what you say. But did God regulate believers’ actions in these areas adultery? Murder? Theft? Hatred? i.e. did he tell adulterers to be good adulterers and do their adultery as unto God (Eph. 6)? And then there’s Philemon.
Then Bill Mac, there are these passages: Bondservants,[a] obey your earthly masters[b] with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6 not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant[c] or is free. 9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is… Read more »
Les: We’re not talking about being good slaves. We’re talking about participating in an endeavor that no one can credibly argue was not absolutely forbidden by scripture. American chattel slavery was borne out of greed, racial supremacy, and kidnapping. Did you see the quote I posted from Jefferson Davis?
Bill, “American chattel slavery was borne out of greed, racial supremacy, and kidnapping.” No one here that I can see is arguing that. And the slavery in the 1st century was evil through and through. But it was nevertheless a society with slavery built in. As has been noted here already, there is no NT evidence that anyone said, “stop it! and “free your slaves!” On the contrary, the NT (see verses above) tells people living in that kind of culture how they should then live as Christians. How to treat their slaves well and how as a slave to… Read more »
So slavery is ok as long as you didn’t start it? If somehow slavery was again made legal in this country and we started enslaving some poor tribesmen from one place or another, our response as pastors or elders should not be to advocate abolition but rather how to treat our slaves well? And you would accept into your membership slave owners? I don’t know if there is anyplace in the world where slavery is legal, but if there was and we sent missionaries there, would we want them to buy up some slaves as long as the culture allows… Read more »
No Bill Mac I am not saying slavery is ok at all. And I don’t mean this the way it is going to come across, but your argument is with the NT instructions about slavery, not with me. And I didn’t say I nor anyone else shouldn’t advocate that slavery end (assuming I woke up one day living in such a culture). Chattel slavery is wrong. Simply wrong. But Christians growing up in and living in such a culture have certain obligations per the NT to live biblically even in a crooked and perverse culture. I know it’s not the… Read more »
Bill Mac, I keep coming back to this. “Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants[a] regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2 Those who have ***believing masters*** If a believer (note how scripture assumes a believer could be a slave owner) per the bible should **never** own a slave, then why doesn’t it just say so? Why the commands as how to be a Christian slave… Read more »
Les,
“Chattel slavery is wrong.”
Can you tell me the difference between OT slavery, 1st century slavery, and chattel slavery? Please do so without words like “greed” or “racism” since these were not always a feature in 19th century America, and were not absent from Rome or ancient Israel and thus are not distinct features of chattel slavery.
Les,
“Why doesn’t say something like, “Masters, free your slaves!?””
Indeed.
Chris,
I’m fairly tied up for a while. I’ll be back later tonight.
Les: If American slavery was wrong, then participating in it was wrong. 2+2 doesn’t equal 5. You haven’t really answered the question: What does treating them well look like? What does a good Christian slave owner do with a disobedient slave? Christianity was born in a slave owning culture. American slavery was born in an ostensibly Christian culture. There is a difference. Yes, slave owners were instructed to treat their slaves well. I dare say a lot of 1st century slave owners became Christians after they already had slaves. But American slave owners had no such excuse. They already had… Read more »
No, I don’t have a problem at all with the NT commands for slaves and masters. I’m not an expert on the culture in that time period, but as I say, Christianity was born into the Roman period and slavery was part of that culture. Social justice is not wrong but social justice was not a big imperative for the early church. I have no problem believing that the slavery commands were for that culture alone, and perhaps by extension intended for other master/servant situations in the future. Slave were told to obtain freedom if they could. Masters were not… Read more »
Chris,
Sorry for the long delay. With kids home from university, I relish getting time to spend with them, such as last evening.
“Can you tell me the difference between OT slavery, 1st century slavery, and chattel slavery?”
I’m not sure how to respond to this. Chattel slavery was a feature in some manner in all slavery as far as I know. I’m certainly not an expert on every kind of servitude that may have been practiced in all generations.
Bill Mac, “What does treating them well look like? What does a good Christian slave owner do with a disobedient slave?” The bible tells the master how to treat the slave, and all others for that matter. “Christianity was born in a slave owning culture. American slavery was born in an ostensibly Christian culture. There is a difference. Yes, slave owners were instructed to treat their slaves well. I dare say a lot of 1st century slave owners became Christians after they already had slaves. But American slave owners had no such excuse. They already had the biblical commands against… Read more »
Les: The bible does tell masters not to threaten their slaves, and to give them what is just and fair. Was keeping slaves in 19th century America just and fair? What crime was committed by the Africans so that slavery was their just punishment? How is owning another person because you believe them to be inferior, and making them work so you don’t have to, fair? The same bible tells people to submit to one another and to treat them as we would want to be treated. In what scenario does that justify owning another human being? Did masters submit… Read more »
Bill Mac, “A few proof texts aside, I cannot see how a fair reading of the entire NT results in the godly slave owning society of the 19th century.” First, referring to those texts as “proof texts” seems like you’re trying to minimize their relevance to this subject. In my view, they are foundational to the subject. Second, the 19th century slave owning *culture* was not godly. It was judged by God. But that doesn’t mean that individuals were not godly as slave owners in the midst of that society. Third, on this particular back and forth between us, you… Read more »
Hi Les, The reason I called them proof texts is not because they aren’t relevant, but that they must be understood in the whole message of the NT which, in my view, simply doesn’t allow the word “godly” and “slaveowner” to be accurately used to describe what happened in 19th century America. It seems the slaveowner, even if adhering to those slavery texts, must ignore pretty much the rest of the NT. In fact, I find it hard to imagine how they actually obeyed even those slavery texts, because it demands that enslaving those of another race is both “just”… Read more »
Bill Mac I’m willing to go a little more on your last questions. But it will be later. At a gas station now and lots of things I need to get done on my Haiti ministry. So maybe later today or tonight.
Thanks
Bill Mac, Sorry for the long delay. Lots going on these last few days. You last said, “I know you are tiring of this exchange but if you come back, could you please explain to me how owning someone of another race for forced labor is either just or fair?” Bill what I’m saying is that what happened in 1st century slavery as a system was wrong. But, the NT not only didn’t call for it to be done away with, but the NT instructed Christians how to live and conduct themselves Christianly within that pagan system. Slavery per se… Read more »
Les,
And thus, the SBC was started….
David 🙂
Would the church who considered receiving the godly slaveowner as a member also receive his godly slaves as members? Would they have had the same rights and privileges as church members as the men who owned them?
And I don’t mean did this ever happen, I mean would this have been the norm?
I’ve just been reading that many plantation owners were not keen on their slaves attending church or even learning to read, lest they get the idea that some of the teachings of Jesus might favor the equality of all men. What an idea.
Bill, I’d be curious to see the source on that. I can see not wanting them to read, but Christianity was frequently a tool of colonialism. Masters liked teaching their lessers to submit to those in authority, to be content in every circumstance, to look forward to heavenly reward rather than earthly, etc. On these points, Christianity did the job very well. Just consider this well known spiritual: “I got shoes, you got shoes, all God’s children got shoes! When I get to Heaven gonna put on my shoes I’m gonna walk all over God’s Heaven!” So the slaves were… Read more »
“I can see not wanting them to read, but Christianity was frequently a tool of colonialism. Masters liked teaching their lessers to submit to those in authority, to be content in every circumstance, to look forward to heavenly reward rather than earthly, etc. On these points, Christianity did the job very well.” It depends on what “Christianity” you are talking about. Yes, the Calvinist Boers instituted A partied and we see the same trajectory in much of Protestantism and Catholicism. But what about the Quakers? Ana Baptists (they were not monolithic so forget Munster) and so on. They read scripture… Read more »
Chris: It was random browsing. Nothing authoritative.
2. All slavery, regardless of how it is conducted, is evil.
Bart: Disagree
Alan: Agree
Chris: Agree
*We have heard Bart’s explanation.
*I assume Chris agrees that the OT condones slavery, but believes it to be wrong in doing so.
*I would be interested in hearing Alan’s explanation of God seemingly condoning slavery in the OT. (perhaps I missed it somewhere).
I’m pretty sure “do unto others” and “love your neighbor as yourself” is difficult to reconcile with enslavement, forced labor, and “reasonable” beatings.
“Why doesn’t say something like, “Masters, free your slaves!?””
Indeed.”
It does. It says, “Love your neighbor as yourself”. If “yourself” does not want to be a slave, what more would you need by way of admonition?
How much more clear does it need to be? You want a God that forces people to behave righteously. And when He doesn’t. That means something very strange to you. God is controlling every molecule, eh?
Lydia, God tells people to do things like “observe the Sabbath day” and “do not take God’s name in vain” and “do not do anything with your private parts not specifically permitted of man and wife” and “do not marry people who are not Christian” and the list goes on and on. One might assume “love your neighbor as yourself” also covers items such as “do not murder” or “do not steal” it should also cover “help those in need” yet God felt the need to mention those items specifically. We are never told not to engage in slavery. The… Read more »
Chris, We are also not being rescued from hundreds of years of slavery under a pagan dictator. are you suggesting that pagan thinking did not influence the Jews and their thinking? when I look at the law I look at it with that backdrop in mind. they literally had to become acquainted with Yahweh. it makes total sense to me He would do it in a way they could relate to. Marry a Christian? read that through the lens of first century Palestine under Roman rule and the challenges of being a “Christian” in a Hebrew culture under Roman rule.… Read more »
Lydia,
It sounds like you’re backtracking from your claim that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a command for masters to free their slaves.
I hope not. My thinking is along the lines of getting there and how that takes place in the grand narrative. Going forward…going backwards, etc.
That is one reason it is so important for professed followers of Chirst to never allow group think to influence them enmasse like we saw more recently with German Christians in the late 30’s.
I am not one who believes God is controlling every molecule so that influences how I approach this. I think we are responsible for our decisions and our behavior.