Steve Ridgell posed an interesting question to me. Could the situation of military men in the New Testament be similar to that of slaves and slave owners? Could it be a case of “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:20)?
I need the input of some of you who know church history. I know that the early church did not advocate the elimination of slavery, but do you suppose Christians felt free to buy slaves?
Some thought questions for the weekend.
Tim,
i always grew up hearing that the institution of slavery in those times operated differently than that of 18th-19th century Britain/America. Maybe that’s not true? Or maybe it’s true, but there was *also* the uglier kind of slavery during that time?
i mean the question we’re really addressing, right, is why didn’t Christians oppose slavery *as an institution*? It seems the entire approach to such was just the righteous-yet-subversive behavior of the individual. ‘Behave so well that evil-doers are ashamed of themselves’ or something like that, right? But why not just say, “look, you shouldn’t ever OWN anyone period”? Even when Paul addresses Onesimus in Philemon, the “attacks” on slavery are ridiculously subtle. “Receive him back as a brother.” “Remember that you’re indebted to me spiritually far more than Philemon is indebted to you economically.” etc. What do you think?
(By the way, i understand some of the restoration leaders in the 19th century bought slaves or moved out of state for the express purpose of freeing their slaves. Have you read of this?)
–guy
Guy,
I’m not well-versed on the subject of slavery in the Restoration Movement. Here’s a little bit from the ever-authoratative Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_of_Christ#Race_relations
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
There is an important work on this subject, but unfortunately it is one I haven’t read yet: Jennifer Glancy’s Slavery in Earliest Christianity. If I had read it I could help this discussion more so than I’m able.
The can be accessed as a brief preview on Google Books though. She treats with “the first Christian slaveholders” in chapter 2.
I’ll see if I can’t locate the book at the theological library and will share what I find, if possible.
Best, Matt
In some states if a slave owner freed a slave he was still responsible for the behavior of his former slave and may have had to post a bond or some kind of financial surety in case the slave misbehaved. This discouraged slave owners from freeing their slaves. Other states did not have this requirement so some people did move to other states in order to free their slave(s).
I believe B.W. Stone moved to Indiana in order to live a state that did not support slavery. I think (not positive about this) that the Lipscomb family moved out of Tennessee for a while due to their opposition to slavery.
However, it is important to note that even most of those opposed to slavery did NOT believe in the equality of the races, though a few did. Lipscomb wrote a piece about a former slave girl that had been adopted by a white family. Some complained about her attending a white church and partaking of the supper. Lipscomb chided those that complained and pointed out she was always the last to drink of the cup so no one ever had to drink after her. When I read the account I see not a hint that Lipscomb thought it inappropriate that the black girl be required to drink last. We are ALL children of our times.
FWIW,
Randall
I haven’t seen new comments here and on a couple of other blogs. Did y’all get raptured and I got left behind?
Hesed,
Randall