How Antebellum Pastors used the Bible to Defend Slavery
The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures.
Richard Furman
Unless it can be shown that slavery is a sin… the dispute is ended.
Thornton Stringfellow
A conversation about Slavery (part 2)
This is part 2 of an imaginary conversation I had in my head with Answering the Music Man author Steven Lewis. I have never corresponded with him but have incorporated his ideas from his chapter.
Mt. Toll Productions and Steven Lewis PhD
________________________
MTP: In your chapter from Answering you wrote that, “Barker’s condemnation of the modern notion of slavery is admirable and correct”. Why did you say that?
Lewis: Slavery in the modern sense invokes images of kidnapping, bondage, forced servitude, cruelty, rape, racial hierarchy, and over-all dehumanization.
MTP: So, are you saying that slavery in the Antebellum South was morally wrong?
Lewis: Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
MTP: But biblical slavery was not immoral?
Lewis: No! I still maintain that modern chattel slavery was a vastly different social enterprise than the slavery that was permitted in the Bible.
MTP: We covered that in the previous conversation. Let’s move on to the topic of this conversation. Are you aware that Antebellum pastors used the bible to justify slavery.
Lewis: Yes, I am aware of that.
MTP: Have you ever read any of their writings defending slavery?
Lewis: Can’t say that I have.
MTP: Allow me to share one example with you. A Baptist minister named Thornton Stringfellow in his book “Slavery Defended from Scripture,” argued that slavery was consistent with biblical teachings and that abolitionists were misguided in their interpretation of the Bible.
Stringfellow wrote,
“Now, here are laws that authorize the holding of men and women in bondage, and chastising them with the rod, with a severity that terminates in death. And he who believes the Bible to be of divine authority believes these laws were given by the Holy Ghost to Moses. I understand modern abolition sentiments to be sentiments of marked hatred against such laws—to be sentiments which would hold God himself in abhorrence if he were to give such laws his sanction. But he has given them his sanction; therefore, they must be in harmony with his moral character.”
MTP: Was Stringfellow wrong to defend slavery based on the bible? Was his reasoning contrary to the biblical teaching?
Lewis: No, but as you may know, there were also many christians from that era who saw slavery as immoral and used the bible as their justification.
MTP: That’s true. For example, Frederick Douglas used his belief in God to argue against slavery. He condemned the religious slaveowner as hypocritical and not truly christian. And then there was William Wilberforce, an 18th century antislavery advocate, who helped outlaw slave trade in Briton. He opposed white on black slavery, “not by examining passages on slavery” but rather, on the idea that “racial” slavery was contrary to the value that God places on every human being. Can that idea be supported by scripture?
Lewis: Of course it can! There are plenty of scriptures telling us this.
MTP: I know that’s what christians like to believe, but it’s not really what we see in the bible, is it?
Lewis: We believe that we were created in the image of God.
MTP: Yeah, and then, according to Genesis, God promptly destroyed the entire human race. Wouldn’t that invalidate the concept of that every human being is valuable?
Lewis: No, but…
MTP: Other abolitionists believed that southern christians twisted the bible and deliberately misunderstood what it actually teaches. Would it surprise you that pro-slavery Antebellum pastors made the same comment about abolitionists?
Lewis: It would not surprise me.
MTP: Let me quote a couple of examples for you. Stringfellow wrote this in 1841,
“It is to be hoped, that on a question of such vital importance as this… we shall be seen cleaving to the Bible, and taking all our decisions about this matter, from its inspired pages. With men from the North, I have observed for many years a palpable ignorance of the divine will, in reference to the institution of slavery. I have seen but a few, who made the Bible their study, that had obtained a knowledge of what it did reveal on this subject.”
Lewis: Interesting!
MTP: He also wrote that…
“We (southern christians) have to put on our armor to suppress a rebellious spirit, engendered by false doctrine, propagated by men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, who teach that the gain of freedom for the slave, is the only proof of godliness in the master.”
MTP: Both sides were saying that their opponents were not good christians. So, who was right, christian abolitionists like Wilberforce or pro-slavery christians like Stringfellow?
Lewis: I am leaning toward Wilberforce, because of his stance that 19th century slavery was based on racism, which is just one of many reasons why christians oppose evolution. (I actually found this argument on a christian blog)
MTP: Wait a minute, did you actually just blame Darwinism for 18th and 19th century slavery?
Lewis: Darwinian evolution can easily be used to suggest that some “races” are more evolved than others.
MTP: So, you’re pointing the finger of blame for slavery at Darwinism? Do you really think that any of the Antebellum christians who supported slavery would ever consider using Evolution as their justification?
Lewis: They believed that blacks were inferior.
MTP: Of course they did. A Presbyterian minister from South Carolina named James Thornwell wrote, “we are profoundly persuaded that the African race in the midst of us can never be elevated in the scale of being. As long as that race, in its comparative degradation, coexists, side by side, with the white, bondage is its normal condition.”
Lewis: Like I said, they believed that blacks were inferior.
MTP: Yes, but it was not based on Darwinism. First off, when antislavery advocate Richard Furman wrote his famous letter to the Governor of South Carolina in defense of slavery in 1822, Darwin would have been 13 years old. The Origin of Species was published 37 years later in 1859. Blaming 18th and 19th century slavery on Darwinism and evolution is a bit of stretch. It feels like a lame attempt to retrospectively switch the blame for slavery away from the bible where it belongs. The fact is that none of the antebellum pastors who supported slavery did so based on arguments of evolution. All of them, without exception, supported slavery based on the bible. So, back to the question. Which side was right? The Antebellum christians or the northern anti-slavery Christians? Both sides used the bible as their justification. One of them had to be wrong.
Lewis: That’s a tough question. Who do you think is right?
MTP: Neither of them.
Lewis: How can that be?
MTP: For me, the issue isn’t whether they are pro-slavery or anti-slavery. What makes them both wrong is that they both based their stance on the bible. Secularists have longed maintained that anything you want to believe, you can find support for it in the bible. But, if I had to choose which side actually had a biblical basis for their argument, I would have to say that the Antebellum pastors did. Their theology was better. The bible does not condemn slavery. It’s that simple.
Springwell says,
“This position is impregnable, unless it can be shown that slavery is a sin. Holy Scripture… is an authoritative testimony of God, and not a speculation. The question, then, is brought within a narrow compass: Do the Scriptures directly or indirectly condemn slavery as a sin? If they do not, the dispute is ended, for the Church, without forfeiting her character, dares not go beyond them.”
MTP: Wilberforce might not have examined passages on slavery to base his argument, but the antebellum christians certainly did. And I quote, “the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Were they wrong?
Lewis: No, but…
MTP: The point is that they found no scripture that condemned slavery as a sin. Right?
Lewis: That’s true, they did not. But…
MTP: So, is slavery a sin?
Lewis: (Silence)
MTP: Let me make a comparison. Is homosexuality a sin?
Lewis: Yes.
MTP: How do we know that?
Lewis: The bible clearly say that it is.
MTP: Leviticus 18:22?
Lewis: Yes, and others.
MTP: About six others, I believe. Can you quote any of those verses for me?
Lewis: Not verbatim, but the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination.
MTP: Right! And based on those 6 or 7 verses you believe that homosexuality is a sin, right?
Lewis: Yes! That’s what the bible teaches.
MTP: According to Strong’s concordance there are 75 references to the word “slave or slaves” in the bible; 25 of them occur in the New Testament. And yet, not a single one of them condemns slavery as immoral. Do you know of a scripture that says slavery is immoral?
Lewis: No but…
MTP: So, wouldn’t that make Antebellum christian slaveholders correct in their argument?
Lewis: Not necessarily.
Thus, sayeth the Lord…
MTP: So, let’s imagine for a second that Mosaic law had said that slavery was an abomination? Do you think that might have prevented Antebellum slavery? Stringfellow wrote that “Christians should produce a ‘thus saith the Lord’ both for what they condemn as sinful, and for what they approve as lawful, in the sight of Heaven.” What if there were verses in the bible that said something like this?
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. Thus, sayeth the Lord, “you must not enslave others as you have been enslaved. It is an abomination.”
Thus, sayeth the Lord, “Do not take for yourselves slaves of any kind, neither of fellow Israelites nor foreigners residing among you. Pay them their wages daily because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise, they may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin.”
Lewis: But the bible doesn’t say that.
MTP: That’s exactly the point. This is why Antebellum pastors were able to use the bible to defend slavery. That’s a logical conclusion, don’t you think?
Lewis: Yes, but…
MTP: In your article you quoted atheist Michael Shermer. You remember that, right?
Lewis: Yes.
MTP: Shermer says, “Imagine how different the history of humanity might have been had Yahweh not neglected to mention that people should never be treated as a means to someone else’s ends but should be treated as ends in themselves. Would this have been too much to ask from an all-powerful and loving God.” Do you remember how you addressed that?
Lewis: I do!
MTP: You said, and I quote, “It is irresponsible to make any sort of judgment that God should have outlawed slavery in the Bible from the start to save humanity from centuries of what became such a cruel, inhuman enterprise.” Irresponsible? Why did you use that word? Is it considered irresponsible to question the character of God?
Lewis: We believe that God is above reproach and…
MTP: Yeah, yeah… we get it, but still, secularists might say that it would be irresponsible of an all-powerful and loving God to NOT save humanity from centuries of such a cruel, inhuman enterprise.
Lewis: Yeah, but…
MTP: So, I only see two ways of looking at the issue of biblically sanctioned slavery. First, if the god you believe in really is benign, has foreknowledge of all future events and could have prevented centuries of human suffering but chose not to, then we must question the character of such a god. Second, perhaps Barker is correct when he says,
“If the God of the Old Testament were more than a fictional character, he might have been free to rise above the culture of his authors to denounce slavery. Instead, we had to wait millennia to abolish the biblically approved practice on our own, a progress that was hampered by faith in an ancient deity.”
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin. James 4:17
Lewis: I’ll be praying for you, Dale.
MTP: That won’t be necessary.
Checkmate!
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum