Did the Christian Church Ever Support Slavery

[MattRose]

What role, if any, did the christian church play in facilitating slavery? I have listed below links to what I feel is a particularly relavent Papal Bull from the catholic church and would like your comments. Were the protestant churchs officially involved in slavery?

Dum Diversas.
Church's condoning of evil goes way back - The Irish Times - Wed, Jul 27, 2011
Dum Diversas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's one from someone who had it translated from latin.
Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Dum Diversas (English Translation)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

George Whitefield, a leading figure in the so-called "Great Awakening", campaigned strongly (and successfully) for the legalization of slavery in Georgia, where it was outlawed until 1751.

In retrospect, Christians tend to claim the "odd ones" at the fringes as their own, stating that the societal advances that have been hard-won over many centuries were actually part of "true" Christianity from the very start. Nothing could be further from the truth, though:
Protestants and Catholics alike SUPPORTED slavery for the most part, up until the 19th century and beyond. And as far as I'm concerned, they had stronger scriptural support than the abolitionists.

Or, to cite various people on the topic:

"Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage" - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

"... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example" - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

 

[Arthra]

I recall John Woolman as being one of the early opponents to slave holding in the United States:

John Woolman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and there was the Abolitionist movement ...

But here's something I didn't know till I looked it up today in wikipedia:

Abolitionism in the West was preceded by the New Laws of the Indies in 1542, in which Emperor Charles V declared free all Native American slaves, abolishing slavery of these races, and declaring them citizens of the Empire with full rights. The move was inspired by writings of the Spanish monk Bartolomé de las Casas and the School of Salamanca. Spanish settlers replaced the Native American slaves with enslaved laborers brought from Africa and thus did not abolish slavery.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

It's complicated:

The Catholic Church and Slavery

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MattRose]

I guess this has been hashed out on here before and/or there is ample evidence to prove the church, especially the catholic church were former slavers.

Anyone think differently?

 

[razeontherock]

Matt, didn't I see you covering this in another thread somewhat recently? Anyway, there's a difference between what various churches have been in favor of, and G-d's basic message to our species. Along those lines the first time I ever saw the 2 words, papal and bull, used in the same sentence was not very long ago. I still get a kick out of it and find it very appropriate. What kind of bull does the pope pass off on his followers these days? On second thought I don't want to know, but surely it must be better?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As long as there's wriggling space in terms of interpretation, it'll always boil down to:

"Individual churches DID support slavery, but TRUE Christianity never did."

And of course, you can always point to the abolitionist goofballs who were derided as filthy liberals perverting the scriptures to suit their own agenda, subverting society and endangering the very integrity of Christian civilization.

It's only in retrospect that these outsiders are embraced as the champions of True Christianity. I predict that perhaps less than fifty years from now, the same will happen to today's liberal churches and their stance on various controversial topics.

So, the better question to ask is: "Does the Bible support slavery?"
Of course, that's a question of interpretation, but the thing is: you find more passages on the regulation of slavery (how it's permissible to beat them as long as they get up after a day or two; how you ought to proceed with their spouses and children and so forth) than either vague suggestions that it might not be such a good idea (Paul telling the escaped slave to return to his master, but stating that it might be better if the master released him). You'll either find vastly more passages on this than on the pet peeve of today's conservatives, namely homosexuality. All they've got going for them is an epistle of Paul's that lists sex with male prostitutes among other sexual deviations that ought to be avoided.

In terms of scriptural support, I'd definitely conclude that abolitionism is the "liberal" stance - a retroactive interpretation of Scripture that can be read into the text, but is by no means undisputable.

 

[MattRose]

Matt, didn't I see you covering this in another thread somewhat recently? Anyway, there's a difference between what various churches have been in favor of, and G-d's basic message to our species. Along those lines the first time I ever saw the 2 words, papal and bull, used in the same sentence was not very long ago. I still get a kick out of it and find it very appropriate. What kind of bull does the pope pass off on his followers these days? On second thought I don't want to know, but surely it must be better?

Yeah, I was't getting anyone to respond in the other thread except for one guy, so I thought I would see if anyone else really thought that some churches or sects (are Baptist's, Methodist's, etc. called sects?) didn't support it in the past.

Believe it or not, I didn't catch the "Bull" double ententre until you pointed it out. Nice one.

 

[MattRose]

As long as there's wriggling space in terms of interpretation, it'll always boil down to:

"Individual churches DID support slavery, but TRUE Christianity never did."

And of course, you can always point to the abolitionist goofballs who were derided as filthy liberals perverting the scriptures to suit their own agenda, subverting society and endangering the very integrity of Christian civilization.

It's only in retrospect that these outsiders are embraced as the champions of True Christianity. I predict that perhaps less than fifty years from now, the same will happen to today's liberal churches and their stance on various controversial topics.

So, the better question to ask is: "Does the Bible support slavery?"
Of course, that's a question of interpretation, but the thing is: you find more passages on the regulation of slavery (how it's permissible to beat them as long as they get up after a day or two; how you ought to proceed with their spouses and children and so forth) than either vague suggestions that it might not be such a good idea (Paul telling the escaped slave to return to his master, but stating that it might be better if the master released him). You'll either find vastly more passages on this than on the pet peeve of today's conservatives, namely homosexuality. All they've got going for them is an epistle of Paul's that lists sex with male prostitutes among other sexual deviations that ought to be avoided.

In terms of scriptural support, I'd definitely conclude that abolitionism is the "liberal" stance - a retroactive interpretation of Scripture that can be read into the text, but is by no means undisputable.

Yes, I agree that the liberal heretics of today will be seen as great forward thinkers by the people of tomorrow. In fact I would be interested if anyone had any proof that the implementation of any serious social change (supported by many) was ever blocked permanently. And I don't want anyone saying that sex with children has been promoted as it is only promoted by a very small minority.

 

[razeontherock]

Mandatory Prince joke aside, these forward thinking social changes all have their "seed in itself" in the Bible. G-d was telling us all this from the beginning, but not in an in your face way that would stop society from functioning. IOW, the Holy Ghost is a gentleman, and the Lord is longsuffering.

He is able to sustain us through injustice, and chooses such peaceful measures rather than riding into town on a high horse.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Mandatory Prince joke aside, these forward thinking social changes all have their "seed in itself" in the Bible. G-d was telling us all this from the beginning, but not in an in your face way that would stop society from functioning. IOW, the Holy Ghost is a gentleman, and the Lord is longsuffering.

He is able to sustain us through injustice, and chooses such peaceful measures rather than riding into town on a high horse.

Why bother with the Old Testament, then? Seems awfully specific and nitpicky for someone who just wants people to figure it out with a little nudge here and there.

Wasn't ordering the public stoning of the wood collector in Numbers 15 pretty much "in your face"?

What about the blasphemer in Leviticus 24? Is a public stoning by the whole assembly gentle and longsuffering?

Or what about killing three thousand people because they imagined god as a golden calf, thus disregarding a commandment that Moses, unbeknownst to them, had just received? (Exodus 32)
Isn't that a bit like burning your child with a blowtorch because he's painted you with green skin?

[/derail]

 

[razeontherock]

Why bother with the Old Testament, then?

This is a reasonable question, and I fear that so many venture into it's pages having no idea what they are entering.

The NT is written to those that know the OT, with rare and brief exception. ALL of Paul's writings reflect his rabbinic training, and only a surface level of understanding can be gleaned w/o knowing the background. So that is why we read the OT, to enrich our understanding of the NT.

Wasn't ordering the public stoning of the wood collector in Numbers 15 pretty much "in your face"?

This question, in various forms, has often been all over CF lately. Before treading into the OT, Deut 28 is a necessary first stop to see what you are looking at. The Covenant is one that guarantees death, and that's what Israel got. So proudly they declared "all this will we do!" Never stopping to consider Adam and Eve couldn't keep even one law.

Yet for all this, G-d was extending and revealing His Mercy. Israel indeed acted the role of Christ as suffering servant, on behalf of all mankind. Surely you have seen Jews and C's debate Isaiah 53? Jews say it refers to Israel, and they are correct. C's say it refers to Christ, and they are correct.

Those gory stories you object to so, are yet another level of revelation of Christ's suffering, to set you free to partake in the Spirituality you have enjoyed.

And this big picture of the captives being set free is no derail!

 

[Ave Maria]

Some sects have condoned slavery.

 

[dazed]

As long as there's wriggling space in terms of interpretation, it'll always boil down to:

"Individual churches DID support slavery, but TRUE Christianity never did."

And of course, you can always point to the abolitionist goofballs who were derided as filthy liberals perverting the scriptures to suit their own agenda, subverting society and endangering the very integrity of Christian civilization.

It's only in retrospect that these outsiders are embraced as the champions of True Christianity. I predict that perhaps less than fifty years from now, the same will happen to today's liberal churches and their stance on various controversial topics.

So, the better question to ask is: "Does the Bible support slavery?"
Of course, that's a question of interpretation, but the thing is: you find more passages on the regulation of slavery (how it's permissible to beat them as long as they get up after a day or two; how you ought to proceed with their spouses and children and so forth) than either vague suggestions that it might not be such a good idea (Paul telling the escaped slave to return to his master, but stating that it might be better if the master released him). You'll either find vastly more passages on this than on the pet peeve of today's conservatives, namely homosexuality. All they've got going for them is an epistle of Paul's that lists sex with male prostitutes among other sexual deviations that ought to be avoided.

In terms of scriptural support, I'd definitely conclude that abolitionism is the "liberal" stance - a retroactive interpretation of Scripture that can be read into the text, but is by no means undisputable.

I think it does. Noah, the righteous man that walked with God, cursed his son and his son's descendants to the life of slavery.

 

[razeontherock]

Noah, the righteous man that walked with God, cursed his son and his son's descendants to the life of slavery.

1) Noah had 3 sons. Your phrase is intentionally misleading?

2) Chapter and verse? (Must be in Genesis)

3) Noah's "righteousness," when examined, means nothing more than he was physically human.

 

[dazed]

1) Noah had 3 sons. Your phrase is intentionally misleading?

2) Chapter and verse? (Must be in Genesis)

3) Noah's "righteousness," when examined, means nothing more than he was physically human.

I think Noah was more than just a human. He was the reason why God didn't do over. God, with His power to see in to the future, must realized the righteous man that He walked with and spared the do over condoned slavery.


Noah Cursing Ham
Bible Story

And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Genesis ix, 18-27.

 

[razeontherock]

I think Noah was more than just a human. He was the reason why God didn't do over. God, with His power to see in to the future, must realized the righteous man that He walked with and spared the do over condoned slavery.

Nothing about this suggests Noah "condoned slavery." How can you fail to see the significance of this?

None of this addresses Noah's humanity as the reason he was spared.

None of this has anything to do with the thread title. Have you examined what Jews have to say about any of this?

 

[SanFrank]

This is a reasonable question, and I fear that so many venture into it's pages having no idea what they are entering.

The NT is written to those that know the OT, with rare and brief exception. ALL of Paul's writings reflect his rabbinic training, and only a surface level of understanding can be gleaned w/o knowing the background. So that is why we read the OT, to enrich our understanding of the NT.



This question, in various forms, has often been all over CF lately. Before treading into the OT, Deut 28 is a necessary first stop to see what you are looking at. The Covenant is one that guarantees death, and that's what Israel got. So proudly they declared "all this will we do!" Never stopping to consider Adam and Eve couldn't keep even one law.

Yet for all this, G-d was extending and revealing His Mercy. Israel indeed acted the role of Christ as suffering servant, on behalf of all mankind. Surely you have seen Jews and C's debate Isaiah 53? Jews say it refers to Israel, and they are correct. C's say it refers to Christ, and they are correct.

Those gory stories you object to so, are yet another level of revelation of Christ's suffering, to set you free to partake in the Spirituality you have enjoyed.

And this big picture of the captives being set free is no derail!

well written brother

what shall i add except i am a slave to Christ ... this has set me free from the world

 

[MattRose]

well written brother

what shall i add except i am a slave to Christ ... this has set me free from the world

We want you back! We saved you a seat and all.

 

[SanFrank]

We want you back! We saved you a seat and all.

To the world? No thanks. Don't you know to be a slave in Christ is to be a servant, a brother, and a friend of Christ's? No whips or beatings involved.