Jon
5.No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6.No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such
Christian views on slavery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: ,
Christian views on slavery are varied both regionally and historically. Slavery in different forms has been imposed by Christians for over 18 centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this remained well into the Middle Ages and beyond.[1] Most Christian figures in that early period, such as Augustine of Hippo, supported continuing slavery whereas several figures such as Saint Patrick were opposed. Centuries later, as the abolition movement took shape across the globe, groups who advocated slavery’s abolition worked to harness Christian teachings in support of their positions, using both the ‘spirit of Christianity’, biblical verses against slavery, and textual argumentation.[2]
The issue of Christianity and slavery is one that has seen intense conflict. While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in the abolition of slavery, the Bible sanctioned the use of regulated slavery in the Old Testament and whether or not the New Testament condemned or sanctioned slavery has been strongly disputed. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views.
[edit] Biblical referencesMain article: The Bible and slavery
The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant or hired worker.[3]
[edit] Old TestamentHistorically, slavery was not just an Old Testament phenomenon. Slavery was practiced in every ancient culture: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion.[4]
In the book of Genesis, Noah condemns Ham and his descendents to perpetual servitude: “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Gn 9:25). T. David Curp notes that this episode has been used to justify racialized slavery, since “Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham’s descendents as black Africans”.[5] Anthony Pagden argued that “This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument–rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science — why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another.”[6]
The Canaanites settled in Palestine, rather than Africa, where Ham’s other sons, Cush and Put, mostly likely settled. Noah’s curse only applied to Canaan, and according to biblical commentator, Gleason L. Archer, this curse was fulfilled when Joshua conquered Palestine in 1,400 B.C. The Canaanites were put under the subjection of the Israel people.[4]
Some forms of servitude, customary in ancient times, were condoned by the Torah.[7] Hebrew legislation maintained kinship rights (Exodus 21:3, 9, Leviticus 25:41, 47-49, 54, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), marriage rights (Exodus 21:4, 10-11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage), personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of conduct (Exodus 21:8, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind, and Leviticus 25:39-41, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Exodus 21:8, 11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Leviticus 25:40-45, 48, 54, providing for Hebrew indentured servants, and Deuteronomy 15:1, 12; 23:15, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind).
Hebrews were forbidden to kill slaves,[8] force a slave to work on the Sabbath,[9] return an escaped slave of another people who had taken refuge among the Israelites,[10] or to slander a slave.[11] It was common for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.[12] It was seen as legitimate to enslave captives obtained through warfare,[13] but not through kidnapping[14][15] for the purpose of enslaving them. Children could also be sold into debt bondage,[16] which was sometimes ordered by a court of law.[17][18][19]
The Bible does set minimum rules for the conditions under which slaves were to be kept. Slaves were to be treated as part of an extended family;[20] they were allowed to celebrate the Sukkot festival,[20] and expected to honor Shabbat.[21] Israelite slaves could not to be compelled to work with rigor,[22][23] and debtors who sold themselves as slaves to their creditors had to be treated the same as a hired servant.[24] If a master harmed a slave in one of the ways covered by the lex talionis, the slave was to be compensated by manumission;[25] if the slave died within 24 to 48 hours, it was to be avenged[26] (whether this refers to the death penalty[19][27] or not[28] is uncertain).
Israelite slaves were automatically manumitted after six years of work, and/or at the next Jubilee (occurring either every 49 or every 50 years, depending on interpretation), although the latter would not apply if the slave was owned by an Israelite and wasn’t in debt bondage.[29] Slaves released automatically in their 7th year of service, which did not include female slaves,[30] or[31][32] did,[33] were to be given livestock, grain, and wine, as a parting gift[34] (possibly hung round their necks[19]). This 7th-year manumission could be voluntarily renounced (for example, the Bible says, if the slave wishes to stay with a wife that his owner gave to him), which would be signified, as in other Ancient Near Eastern nations,[35] by the slave gaining a ritual ear piercing;[36] after such renunciation, the individual was enslaved forever (and not released at the Jubilee).[37] Non-Israelite slaves could be enslaved indefinitely and were to be treated as inheritable property.[38]
[edit] New TestamentDuring the first century New Testament times, slaves converted to Christianity, were regarded as freedman brothers in Christ and included in Christ’s kingdom inheritance.[4] These slaves were told to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ, with morals, faithfulness, and respectfullness (Ephesians 6:5-8 KJV).[4] Slaves were told by Paul the Apostle in his first Corinthian Epistle that they were to seek or purchase their freedom whenever possible. (I Corinthians 7:21 KJV) [4]
Avery Robert Dulles points out that “Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution”, and adds that the writers of the New Testament did not oppose slavery either.[39]
In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men.[40][41][42][43][44] Masters were also told to serve their slaves in the same way.[45] Slaves were told that their suffering was similar to the suffering that Christ endured.[46] Paul also puts forward that (NIV version) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[47]
The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery, being used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists.[48] In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master Philemon. Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus as a beloved brother in Christ.[49] Cardinal Dulles points out that, “while discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, [Paul] does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had.”[39]
According to tradition, Philemon did free Onesimus, and both were eventually recognized as saints by the Church. T. David Curp asserts that, “Given that the Church received Philemon as inspired Scripture, Paul’s ambiguity effectively blocked the early Fathers of the Church from denouncing slavery outright.” Curp points out that St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon on Philemon, considers Paul’s sending Onesimus back to his master a sign that slavery should not be abolished.[5]
In the Epistle of Paul to Titus, Paul appears to support the servitude of slaves: “Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.” [50]
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul stated (here in the New American Standard Bible wording) that “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called” while specifically adding that “Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.”[51]
[edit] History of institutional slavery This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2010)
The Church initially accepted slavery as a social institution in antiquity and even into the Early Medieval period. Some Catholics such as Saint Bathilde, Saint Anskar, Saint Wulfstan and Saint Anselm campaigned against slavery and the slave trade. By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been largely abolished throughout Europe, although enslavement of non-Christians remained an open question[citation needed]. Although Catholic clergy, religious orders and even popes owned slaves, Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537. A number of Popes issued papal bulls condemning enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials; however, these were largely ignored despite the threat of excommunication[citation needed]. In spite of a resounding condemnation of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, the American Catholic Church continued to support slaveholding interests until the abolition of slavery.[52] The Church has maintained its teaching against slavery and continues to campaign against it in whatever form it takes around the world.
Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of slavery
1.For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
2.The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
3.Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
4.St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
5.No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6.No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
mThe Church initially accepted slavery as a social institution in antiquity and even into the Early Medieval period. Some Catholics such as Saint Bathilde, Saint Anskar, Saint Wulfstan and Saint Anselm campaigned against slavery and the slave trade. By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been largely abolished throughout Europe, although enslavement of non-Christians remained an open question[citation needed]. Although Catholic clergy, religious orders and even popes owned slaves, Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537. A number of Popes issued papal bulls condemning enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials; however, these were largely ignored despite the threat of excommunication[citation needed]. In spite of a resounding condemnation of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, the American Catholic Church continued to support slaveholding interests until the abolition of slavery.[52] The Church has maintained its teaching against slavery and continues to campaign against it in whatever form it takes around the world.
Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of slavery
1.For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
2.The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
3.Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
4.St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
5.No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6.No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
7.But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.[53]
Slavery and Middle Ages serfdom were not synonymous, nor was serfdom the evolution of slavery. Serfs chose whom they married, they did not have their families broken up, they paid rent for their land and worked the land at their own pace. Under the agreement that serfs owed their lord a set amount of labor per year, it was agreed upon beforehand and looked similar to hired labor. Serfs rented land from lords, but feudalism was a mutual obligation, not brutal ownership. Lords also upheld their end of a contract to those renting their land.[54]
[edit] In the Roman EmpireMain article: Slavery in ancient Rome
Slavery was the bedrock of the Roman and World economy. Some estimate that the slave population in the 1st century constituted approximately one third of the total population.[55] An estimated one million slaves were owned by the richest five per cent of Roman citizens. Most slaves were employed in domestic service in households and likely had an easier life than slaves working the land, or in mines or on ships.[56] Slavery could be very cruel in the Roman Empire, and revolts severely punished, and professional slave-catchers were hired to hunt down runaways, with advertisements containing precise descriptions of fugitives being publicly posted and offering rewards.[57]
The Book of Acts refers to a synagogue of Libertines (Λιβερτίνων), in Jerusalem.[58] As a Latin term this would refer to freedmen, and it is therefore occasionally suggested that the Jews captured by Pompey, in 63 BC, gathered into a distinct group after their individual manumissions.[19] However, the Book of Acts was written in Greek, and the name appears in a list of five synagogues, the other four being named after cities or countries; for these reasons, its now more often suggested that this biblical reference is a typographical error for Libystines (Λιβυστίνων),[19] in reference to Libya (in other words, referring to Libyans).[59][60]
[edit] Christianity’s changing viewEarly Christian thought exhibited some signs of kindness towards slaves. Christianity recognised marriage of sorts among slaves,[61] freeing slaves was regarded as an act of charity,[62] and when slaves were buried in Christian cemeteries, the grave seldom included any indication that the person buried had been a slave[citation needed].
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), archbishop of Constantinople, preaching on Acts 4:32-4:33 in a sermon entitled, “Should we not make it a heaven on earth?”, stated, “I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they set at liberty…
Nevertheless, early Christianity rarely criticised the actual institution of slavery. Though the Pentateuch gave protection to fugitive slaves,[63] the Roman church often condemned with anathema slaves who fled from their masters, and refused them Eucharistic communion.[64]
Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century regarded slavery as consistent with Christian theology[citation needed]. For example, the Protestant Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts owned the Codrington Plantation, in Barbados, containing several hundred slaves; all slaves in the plantation were branded on their chests, using the traditional red hot iron, with the word Society, to signify their ownership by the Christian organisation – the Church of England has since apologised for the “sinfulness of our predecessors” with this instance in mind.[65][66] Today, nearly all Christians are united in the condemnation of modern slavery as wrong and contrary to God’s will.
It is contended that as slavery fell into moral disfavor, some Biblical translations began to translate references to slavery[citation needed] using softer language, and often replacing the word ‘slave’ with the word ‘servant.’ Others say the word “slave” carried with it a different meaning at the time the Bible was written,[67] and that while the key aspect of slavery is ownership by another, sometimes “servant” better conveys to a contemporary audience what the text originally meant.[68]
Rosamond Press 
Leave a comment