CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TO SLAVERY

This essay springs from debates I have had with Christians about the Bible. I have been told many times that the Bible is the infallible "Word of God". In response, I have quite reasonably pointed to Biblical attitudes to the practice of slavery. Remarkably, despite the fact that there is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible, many Christians have sought to defend the Bible on this matter. Some have been so emotionally attached to the notion that the Bible is the "Word of God" that they have even gone to the point of defending slavery. Below I outline arguments used to defend the Bible, and I subject them to scrutiny.

THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE REPORTS SLAVERY DOESN'T MEAN IT'S CONDONED

Let us go back and look at what the Bible actually says about slavery. Does the Bible merely mention slavery in passing (say in mentioning that a certain person had slaves) or does it offer guidance about whether people should have slaves or not.

In Leviticus 25:42 God commands that fellow Israelites must not be sold as slaves but in 25:44 God commands "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

So they have not only been told by God that they may buy slaves (and who they may buy), but they have also been told that the slaves they have bought may be made slaves for life and even used as inherited property. This is not a case of the Bible reporting the fact of slavery in some indirect way - it is a series of direct moral commandments. And since they treat different races of people differently there is an element of racism to them.

Now some people seek to excuse this teaching by arguing that slavery was very common at this time. But merely because other tribes of people practised slavery doesn't mean to say that the Hebrews had to as well. There was nothing forcing God to give these commandments to the Hebrews - after all God is supposed to be all powerful and all good. Yet he clearly tells the Israelites that they may buy people, keep them as their possessions for life and even will them to their children.

There is also a direct command from God : "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21). Setting aside the question of the proper treatment of slaves, this passage implicitly recognises the validity of someone owning a slave as his property when it argues "since the slave is his property". Slavery is one of the most profound of moral issues. For a person to be bought, owned or sold by another person as their property is fundamentally immoral yet as these passages demonstrate the Bible accepts the practice without question - indeed it endorses it.

THE NEW TESTAMENT REPEATEDLY TELLS MASTERS TO TREAT THEIR SLAVES WELL

So far as I am aware there are only two places in the New Testament which deal specifically with how masters are to treat their slaves. They are contained in the letters to the Christian communities at Ephesus and Colossae. Since the letters were written specifically to Christian communities the comments regarding slaves would have been directed at slave masters who were Christians. The comments contain no hint of disapproval of slavery, and are very brief, for example: "Masters, be fair and just in the way you treat your slaves. Remember that you too have a Master in heaven." Colossians 4:1. Paul doesn't explain what he means as "fair" and "just". His brief comments fall short of the extensive teaching of pagans such as Seneca. In addition to generalised comments urging people to treat their slaves "gently" and "kindly", in documents such as the Epist 47 Seneca addressed specific issues and situations, always urging better treatment - and he successfully championed the rights of slaves in the Roman empire. Seneca condemned the growing fashion of the time of not allowing slaves to initiate conversation or respond to masters. He urged friendly conversation towards slaves and urged masters to seek counsel from their slaves, and to share their meals and meal times. Seneca induced Nero to appoint magistrates to hear complaints of cruelty (JA Farrar, Paganism and Christianity, 1910 p82/83).

I would just note in passing that the New Testament directs itself to the obligations of slaves to their masters much more frequently and in depth than vice versa. For example, the New Testament tells slaves that they should "obey your human masters in all things" (Colossians 3:22). "Slaves are to submit to their masters and please them in all things. They must not answer them back " (Titus 2:9). "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling; and do it with a sincere heart, as though you were serving Christ" (Ephesians 6:5). "Slaves submit to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. God will bless you for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved suffering because you are conscious of his will." " (1 Peter 2:18). Some of this teaching is really unedifying and unjust.

However in pointing to the (brief) teaching in the New Testament relating to the masters obligations to his slaves, Christians have entirely lost the point. It is not so much this teaching which I have challenged, but the acceptance of people owning slaves in the first place. Even assuming Christian slave masters always treated their slaves in ways which we would consider "fair" and "just", that doesn't make their ownership of people acceptable and moral. After all, many men in the past had numerous wives and concubines (indeed many of the great heroes of the Old Testament did) and no doubt some of them treated their numerous wives and concubines well - but merely because they treated their wives and concubines well certainly doesn't mean that having numerous wives and concubines was or is acceptable and moral. I find it disturbing that so many Christians are unable to see that one person owning another (or indeed many) as their property is of itself fundamentally wrong.

JESUS/PAUL/EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT SLAVERY

This particular response is very common from Christians - and there are a number of variations on this theme (such as "Paul didn't want Christians to get a reputation for being political trouble makers", or "it was too dangerous for Jesus/Paul to condemn slavery"). Incidentally it is surprising the number of Christians who wish to downgrade slavery to a matter of mere politics - they seem unable to see the moral significance of slavery.

So Jesus and Paul were not in a position to do anything about slavery? Merely because one is not in a position to do anything about an injustice doesn't mean one cannot have a view about it and say that the injustice is wrong. No doubt early Christians couldn't do much about murder or adultery in most of the world at that time, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have a view about murder or adultery and condemn them. Yet despite the fact that slavery was all around them neither Paul nor Jesus condemned slavery.

Moreover, the moral issue isn't just one of slavery in society in general. The moral issue is whether Christians participate in the moral evil of slavery as slave owners. When Paul wrote his letters to the early Christian communities he urged them (quite emphatically) not to get involved in certain activities which were common at that time but which he thought were morally wrong. Yet in addressing the slavery issue he writes

"Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for they are the brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are believers whom they love." (1 Timothy 6: 1-3)

In writing this passage Paul confirms that early Christians owned slaves (since he refers to "Christian masters"). But rather than addressing the Christian masters and warning them that owning people is immoral; he addresses the slaves instead and actually tells them they "must" consider their masters "worthy of all respect". He accepts the validity of Christians owning slaves without question.

The contrast with the Essenes who were contemporaries of Paul could not be sharper. Paul tells slaves in emphatic terms to consider their Christian masters "worthy of all respect" yet Philo of Alexandria recorded (approvingly) that the Essenes not only refrained from indulging in the immoral practice themselves, but also condemned others for owning slaves (Philo of Alexandria, Samuel Sandmel 1979 p 33). Yet apparently it was too dangerous for Jesus (supposed to be the "Son of God" no less), or Paul and early Christians to do either of these things. Incidentally, one Christian told me that I was "one of those delusional people who think that Christianity should work for the world." I don't think such attitudes need any further comment!!

BUT THE BIBLE TEACHES US TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOUR

The precept to love one's neighbour is found in Leviticus 19:18 (surprisingly it doesn't appear in the 10 commandments - listed in Exodus and Deuteronomy). But it is in the very same book of Leviticus that God tells the Israelites that they may buy slaves from the people around them. If God considered slavery incompatible with loving one's neighbour he would hardly have then gone on to tell the Israelites "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you... and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life." (Leviticus 25:45-46).

Similarly, no doubt Paul believed that one should love one's neighbour but if he had thought this was incompatible with slavery he would hardly have told slaves that they "must" consider their masters, be they Christians or non-Christians, "worthy of all respect" (1 Timothy 6: 1-3). There is no suggestion from this passage that Paul thought slavery wrong - he accepts the validity of Christians owning slaves without question - what concerns him is that slave masters are accorded respect by their slaves. As Professor JL Holden, former Principal of Cuddesdon Theological College in the UK writes of Paul "He voices no hint of objection to slavery in itself, and in this respect falls below the humane ideals of Stoics of his time like Seneca" (Ethics and the NT 1973 p25). And the Cambridge University theologian Don Cupitt, Dean of Emmanuel College admits that "slavery is commanded in the Old Testament, accepted in the New, and coexisted with Christianity for centuries." (Crisis of Moral Authority 1972 SCM Press p90).

Such sentiments as "loving one's neighbour" are common to most ethical codes. Confucius, the Chinese atheist (551-479 bc) often referred to Jen, and when asked what this meant he said "It is to love all men." (Analects XII.22). Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask what value these sort of generalised statements have in practice. Chapman Cohen argued in Christianity and Ethics 1945: "The mere enunciation of superficially attractive moral precepts does not - to modern minds, at least - constitute a man a great moral teacher. Moreover, general precepts of the nature of those attributed to Jesus are necessarily vague in character, and correspondingly useless in practice."

A few years ago the chaplaincy of a top English University held a debate between two Christians on how to respond to families immigrating into the UK. Both speakers said they were devout Christians and both specifically appealed to the precept "loving one's neighbour" in debate. What became increasingly clear during the debate was that each speaker had a different view of what is meant by "loving" one's neighbour and each had a different view of how this "love" should be applied. One man concluded that immigrant families should integrate themselves into "Christian" culture and preferably the "Christian" religion. The other man thought that their cultural differences and their religion should be respected and embraced as valuable to English culture. They both thought they were applying the precept "loving thy neighbour" but at the end of the debate they came to diametrically opposed views and conclusions!

What I have demonstrated is that precepts like "loving one's neighbour" mean different things to different people, and are of little value in practice. Most people are "against injustice" and in favour of "loving one's neighbour" just as most people are in favour of motherhood and apple pie. Simply because someone teaches or accepts a generalised precept, tells us nothing about what their attitude will be to a particular issue.

It is also interesting to ponder what God might think is meant by "loving one's neighbour". In Leviticus God commands Moses and the Israelites to "love one's neighbour" but then shortly afterwards in Deuteronomy he commands the Israelites to kill their neighbours such as the Hittites and other tribes without mercy. "You must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy" Deuteronomy 7:2. "Do not leave alive anything that breathes" Deuteronomy 20:16. A curious way of loving one's neighbour. When I've pointed this out to Christians I've been surprised by the willingness some have shown to defend such teaching. Yes it was right and proper to kill them all - all the women, slaves, children, babies and animals. They were wicked. The irony that it might actually be rather wicked to kill without mercy seems to have escaped some Christians. But it shows that their own concept of "loving one's neighbour" is so elastic as to be meaningless. Incidentally, for anyone who believes that the Hittites really should have been exterminated I invite them to read the entry "Hittites" in the Encarta CD Rom .

I also offer an example from the New Testament. Karen Armstrong in her book The End of Silence 1993 (p48/49) writes of the Pharisees "They instituted some important and humane reforms, many of them positive for women, who were given rights of inheritance and divorce that would not become common in the Christian world until the 19th century." She also notes that "The Pharisees did not regard themselves as priests in the old sense, however, but took part in the synagogue as ordinary members of the congregation". The New Testament virulently accused them "of being exclusive, hypocritical and elitist in their behaviour, but the opposite may have been the case."

Similarly in her widely acclaimed book A History of God 1993 p97 Armstrong notes that in St Matthews Gospel Jesus makes "violent and rather unedifying diatribes against 'the Scribes and Pharisees', presenting them as worthless hypocrites." She remarks that this is "a libellous distortion of the facts and a flagrant breach of the charity that was supposed to characterise his mission." To be fair to Karen Armstrong she doubts that Jesus actually made these verbal attacks - rather they probably reflect later tension between Jews and Christians. Indeed I suspect the same. However in debate with Christians they have seemed unwilling to allow for this possibility. The Bible is "the infallible Word of God" and that is that I've been told. Well if Jesus really did utter these words then he too seems to have a very elastic concept of the notion of loving one's neighbour. The way he resorts to name calling is undignified and offensive and falls short of the way people ought to treat each other.

MOST PEOPLE TODAY ARE SLAVES

Accepting this proposition for one moment, one is entitled to ask how does this affect the morality of slavery? Does the presence of slavery today suddenly make slavery in the ancient world acceptable and moral? We know that adultery takes place in modern society - does the presence of adultery today mean that adultery in the ancient world was acceptable and moral?!!

The possibility that some people today are slaves doesn't make slavery acceptable. For one person to own another as his property is an affront to our common humanity. Slavery is immoral today, it was immoral yesterday, and it was immoral 2000 years ago. Some of the early Cynics recognised this over 2400 years ago and condemned slavery (A History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell 1946 p241). It is surprising that some Christians have yet to recognise it also.

WHAT ABOUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The Ten Commandments are listed in two different places - in Exodus 20: 1-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21. Is there a commandment that one should not keep slaves? No! Now God (being "all powerful") was perfectly at liberty to tell the Israelites not to keep slaves. Given how important a moral issue slavery is it is hardly asking much from God for him to command the Israelites to refrain from the evil practice. But he doesn't.

However the ownership of slaves does feature in the Ten Commandments. For example in the 10th commandment God commands that one should not covet one's neighbour's property including his slaves (or indeed anything that belongs to the neighbour). The fact that someone has a slave is taken for granted without any moral objection. The validity of one's neighbour owning a slave (like owning his ox or donkey) is implicitly accepted.

Incidentally, one of the commandments includes "for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me" Exodus 20:5-6. I would just point out that jealousy is a rather unattractive attribute (especially coming from a being that is supposed to be "all powerful and all loving"), and punishing children for the sin of their fathers is iniquitous and unjust.

YOU HAVE TAKEN THE BIBLE OUT OF CONTEXT

It has been suggested to me that I've taken the Bible out of context. Let us imagine, for one moment that there were 10 references to slavery in the entire Bible. Furthermore, let us imagine that nine out of these ten references clearly condemned slavery. Given this scenario, it would indeed be unfair to conclude that the Bible accepted slavery, and to criticise it for doing so.

This scenario is not however the true scenario. There is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. Even evangelicals such as the popular British author John Stott admit this ("Scripture regulates but nowhere condemns slavery" Issues facing Christians Today 1984 p195). Moreover, in the Old Testament the Israelites are given explicit permission to buy and own slaves for life, even to will them to their children. The Ten Commandments implicitly accept the validity of neighbours owning slaves without question. And in the New Testament we discover that early Christians owned slaves (unlike the Essenes) and far from condemning this (as the Essenes would have done) the New Testament teaches that slaves owned by such Christian masters "must consider their masters worthy of all respect". As Richard Holloway, the present Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh put it to a British newspaper recently "We have recently abandoned the text's tyranny over women as we abandoned its justification of slavery" (Sunday Times 11-10-98).

It would seem an appropriate moment to remind the reader that Bertrand Russell records that the followers of Antisthenes, of the Cynic school of philosophy, condemned slavery. (A History of Western Philosophy 1946 p241). Similarly Dr Abram Leon Sacher former Chancellor Emeritus, Brandeis University, writes of the Essenes "As a society, the Essenes were the first to condemn slavery as a violation of human fellowship. It is reported that they bought and freed slaves owned by others" 1994 Encarta CD Rom Encyclopedia. And some of the Stoics were none too sure about slavery either.

If the Bible really was the word of God we would at the very least expect it to condemn the ownership of one person by another, and we could expect it to be far more humane and enlightened than any human source of morality. But this simply isn't the case. The Bible not only accepts the practice of slavery without question - it even falls well short of the best human thinking about the subject. The Bible can't possibly be the infallible word of God.