Christians' Thoughts & Culture ali | 18 Aug 2007 08:52 pm
An alternate solution to the American Civil War?
Tim Keller, in a message All things are yours, shared his understanding of Mark Noll’s book America’s God:
The Evangelical Church was on the verge of really doing what it wanted to do in the 1830’s and 1840’s which was essentially convert America, essentially get to the place where America was an evangelical Christian country and society. And then something happened. And what happened was everybody waited for the Church…the Evangelical Church to turn to the big thing dividing the country which was slavery and to come up with what does the Bible say. And guess what? The Christian Church was too deeply emeshed in its own cultural differences, and read their cultural differences into the Scripture, and they couldn’t agree on what the Bible said about slavery and as a result, according to Mark Noll, we had to go to war…Because the Church couldn’t work out the[ir] differences and because the Church couldn’t come to the Bible and say, “Here’s the answer”. And I think if the Church had spoken as a unified body, at that time with the power that it had, we wouldn’t have had to go to war.
Interesting theory, and it led me to wonder how Tim Keller or Mark Noll think the Church could have figured out that issue. Received wisdom now days says that slavery is wrong, but biblically it is not that clear. It is true that 1 Timothy 1:8-10 condemns “enslaving” (the NET Bible has “kidnapping” and the Mosaic Law also condemns this), but if slavery itself is sinful, Christians are hard pressed to explain its inclusion in the Law, an inclusion that goes so far as making provision for those who chose to remain slaves to their master for the rest of their lives. Recognising this, is there a way Christians in the North and South could have come to a Biblical solution that addressed the terrible injustices occuring in their country? I think perhaps so.
Now I’m not American and I don’t know a lot about the American Civil War so feel free to educate me if some fact of history mitigates against the solution below, but I do think the Evangelical Church in United States could have found agreement in what Scripture had to say about the issue of slavery at the time along the following lines.
The slavery legislated in the Mosaic Law was quite different from that in America. The Law gave slaves rights and protections that were to be enforced and the New Testament’s instructions to Christian slaves and masters reflect the laws that applied to Hebrew slaves and masters (compare Leviticus 25:39-43 and Ephesians 6:5-9; Leviticus 25:42 and 1 Corinthians 7:21 for example).
There is also the often unrecognised truth that slavery in the Bible is not restricted to one people group: Israelite and foreigner, Christian and non-Christian - all could be slave and master.
Imagine, then, if the American Evangelical Church could have come together and agreed that the Bible taught slavery is not the ideal state for Christians, but that it provides guidelines for the good and protection of those in slavery and, importantly, that anyone (white or black) could be bought and sold as slaves* and anyone (white or black) could own slaves. By allowing white people to be included as slaves and black people included in the ownership of slaves, the real issue that plagued America would have been cracked open: Racism.
And then what would have happened?
* Interestingly, the prohibition of forced enslavement in the Bible would also have needed addressing in light of the way black slaves were introduced into America.
on 21 Aug 2007 at 9:17 am 1.One Salient Oversight said …
There was some level of debate at least amongst the Presbyterian Church. Reformed theologian Charles Hodge supported slavery for a while, but mainly as a political stance. The Presbyterian church in America at the time was split on the issue - predictably, churches in the South supported slavery while churches in the north did not. Hodge, principal of Princeton Theological Seminary, was a northerner who chose to support slavery in order to keep the church from fracturing. In 1846, however, he changed his mind after being convinced that it was not biblical. The civil war started in the 1860s, so Hodge changed his tune long before the country fought out the issue.
I’m also reasonably certain that Evangelical Christians in the North were very much anti-slavery.
on 21 Aug 2007 at 9:34 am 2.One Salient Oversight said …
Actually I think Charles Finney and other revivalists were opposed to Slavery too.
on 22 Aug 2007 at 7:59 am 3.ali said …
I seem to remember that Finney et al were anti-slavery and it’s long been my understanding that North were against and South were for. I think my solution, while it may not have pleased anyone, is Biblical. I find it difficult to understand how someone can be persuaded from the Bible that slavery is always wrong, so it might be worthwhile me looking up Hodge’s take. Like I said, I understand that to say slavery is sin is to call God’s law into question.
on 23 Aug 2007 at 1:10 pm 4.Chasing the Wind » Christian Carnival CLXXXVI said …
[...] presents An alternate solution to the American Civil War? posted at Kiwi and an Emu.. Considering, many years too late, how Christians in Northern and [...]
on 24 Aug 2007 at 3:33 am 5.Michael Patrick Leahy said …
You might find my article:
” American Slavery and Christian Faith:
How Sam Harris and Other Atheists Misrepresent History”
http://www.christianfaithandreason.com/slaveryandthebible.html
relevant and interesting to your post.
on 24 Aug 2007 at 7:58 am 6.ali said …
Thanks Michael. I had a read of your article and it was informative. I would especially like to look up the books you list in Appendix 2 when I have the time.
I guess my view is that to take the Golden Rule and apply it to this issue is far too general. It is obvious that Paul in the New Testament allows for the possibility that Christian slave owners are able to love their slaves while still being their masters, i.e. it’s not a slam dunk argument at all.
I certainly believe that slavery as practiced in the Southern United States was wrong, but I still have to be convinced that slavery per se is. In fact, in terms of social welfare, I think the Mosaic Law’s approach to Hebrew slavery could well be viewed as superior. Instead of the government giving people money for doing nothing, an Israelite could sell himself, be treated as a hired servant and released at the end of the seven year cycle (if desired). American slavery, on the other hand, was racist, severe and usually permanent. It also grew from forbidden forced enslavement. In other words it contradicted Hebrew slavery in the OT Law in almost every way, and it was the Law’s position on Israelite slavery that Paul’s writings seem to be based on. American slavery did have parallels with non-Israelite slavery in the Mosaic Law, but even in that case, the practice of American slavery went beyond the allowance of the Law.
The topic of slavery immediately brings up strong negative emotions in our Western culture, and considering the horrific treatment of those in slavery and the callous disregard of many slave owners that is right. But let’s not blind ourselves to the facts in favour of our distaste. The way the Bible speaks about slavery does not allow us to make the blanket statement that all slavery is sin.
on 24 Aug 2007 at 9:31 am 7.Diane R said …
Here is an interesting side fact. If we either hadn’t gone to war with England in 1775 or would have lost that war (the Revolutionary War), slavery would have been abolished in our colonies by 1815 thanks to legislation passed by the English Parliament because of Lord Wilberforce’s work.
Another more pertinent fact:
The Second Great Awakening really reached mostly the poor frontier people in the South, not the wealthy plantation owners. I wonder what would have happened if the revival had reached them?
What would happen if evangelical Christianity was reaching the more educated and wealthy here in teh USA? Or in NZ? Hmmmm…
on 30 Aug 2007 at 12:24 pm 8.Aaron said …
Thoughtful post, Ali. I too stay clear of blanket condemnations of slavery because of the clear biblical evidence that at least in some circumstances the practice may be the best alternative.
I grew up in Texas, which was one of the confederate states that seceded from the union (actually, while slavery was the issue that gave rise to the conditions for the war, the real bone of conention was states’ rights; most southerners didn’t even own slaves, but the southern states resented the federal government’s encroachment on what they believed was their right to legislate their own affairs. Ironically, the confederates considered themselves fighting against their own enslavement to Lincoln and the north).
Even though Scripture does not condemn the practice in absolute terms, I think you are right that the slave trade and the racial component clearly made the American practice immoral.
Early American Baptists stood in two worlds on this issue. On the one hand, they believed the gospel, which equalizes all human distinctions in Christ (Gal 3:28). Against the stream of the culture, Baptists allowed slaves to become full members of their churches (my own church, founded in 1800, shows historical records of a number of black members who were slaves prior to the Civil War; Kentucky was a slave state, but it was neutral during the war). On the other hand, they were people of their times; even though slaves could become church members, they were usually seated in their own section, often times in a balcony area, away from the white members. And even though slaves could vote in church business meetings, you can imagine that they were often under pressure to vote as their masters desired or face consequences at home.
This is my heritage. I’m not proud of all of it, but it is what it is. Our ability to see more clearly on this issue than our forbears should make us consider what issues we are blinded to in the present that future generations will look back on and say, “What were they thinking?”
on 01 Sep 2007 at 5:32 pm 9.ali said …
Diane, yes, interesting thought about the split from Britain. Might have saved a lot of bloodshed - twice.
As for reaching the educated and wealthy, Tim Keller seems to be wanting to reach the culture makers in New York, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future.
Aaron, thanks for the added info. It seems far more human to see the reason for the war being protests about the involvement of the Federal Govt in state issues - also it seems very American. Interesting how the US fought to cede from Britain and then became Britain-nesque to the South. Is there a theme of increasing individualism running through all of the US’s history?
The other facts re. the Baptist Church and Membership was interesting too. As always, history cannot be reduced to simple motives and explanations. We have made ourselves far more complicated than that!
on 08 Sep 2007 at 4:28 am 10.Aaron said …
“Is there a theme of increasing individualism running through all of the US’s history?”
Certainly, individualism is a major part of American culture (it is inherent to democracy). But the issue of federalism has always been contentious. At the beginning, the United States was made up of 13 individual colonies in a loose affiliation. The states had systems of government that preceded the federal government, and their voluntary entrance into a union is what made them the United States. My thinking on that is that if a state enters a union voluntarily, it has a right to secede voluntarily. So on the issue of slavery, I side with the north, but on the issue of state’s rights, I side with the south. It would have been a difficult decision had I been alive back then which side to line up with. Maybe I would have just moved to Kentucky (my present home), which was neutral during the Civl War.
on 08 Sep 2007 at 8:34 am 11.ali said …
Hey Aaron,
The key word in that quote is “increasing”, my thought being that individualism has manifested itself in more and more situations, down to the point now where even families have been seceded from and the individual is not just the basic unit, it is the only valid unit.
This is not the domain of the US only - other democratic Western states have similar culture, but I think there are levels of individualism and the US is infected by it to a startling degree.
But then, that’s only my perception. I have not been to the States since I was four and didn’t really get a chance to take in the culture because I was in hospital a lot of the time and got stuck in an elevator the rest of the time.
on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:25 pm 12.Aaron said …
Yes, I think your perception is accurate, although it seems to be common to the West and not just to the U.S. From my perception, liberalism seems to be a driving force for individualism. Liberalism has led to the breakdown and now redefinition of the family. Liberals are the ones who are now calling for “children’s rights,” that is, the rights of children NOT to be under the disciplinary authority of their parents.
Of course, what now goes by the name of “conservatism” likewise has an individualistic element to it as well. Conservatives (like myself) strongly emphasize personal responsibility and accountability, and I think rightly so.
I guess “individualism” is a slippery word.
It sounds like your trip to America was not the greatest. I have lived here my whole life. I have ridden up and down many elevators. Not once have I been stuck in one.
on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:33 pm 13.ali said …
Yes, well, I was four and couldn’t reach the button to get out.
on 09 Sep 2007 at 12:38 pm 14.ali said …
Yes, I agree about the need for individualism in some senses, but I don’t know that I have come across anything I would consider to be the best compromise between individualism and community. Obviously the Church comes to mind, but unfortunately it’s the Church theoretical, not the Church actual, and I still am not sure how it all works together. Perhaps voluntary surrender of individualistic rights is the key, but then that also can be abused…