The Bible, Slavery, and the Christian Influence on the Abolition Movement
There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
(Galatians 3:28)
The ideal of equality set forth by the Apostle Paul in the Book of the Galatians has not always been the norm – slavery existed in Western contexts despite Biblical principles contrary to the practice. Despite the strong influence that Christianity has had on American ideals and morals, this is one area where the West and America had fallen far short of the “Image of God” concept found throughout Scripture. Most are familiar with recognizable historical events surrounding the issues of slavery. Abraham Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation”, the happenings surrounding the U.S. Civil War and the issuing of the 13th Amendment which permanently and formally ended the practice of slavery in the United States of America. The institution of slavery is perhaps the most recognized of all historical topics in American history. What many may not be as aware of, is the role which Christendom played in the abolition movement. The Christian call for equality, as pictured in the above citation of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, was the ultimate reason for slavery ending.
On both the European and American fronts, there were faithful Christians who opposed the institution of slavery for what it was: A denial of the humanity, personhood, and importance that God has ascribed to a group of people. A cursory reading of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, will reveal a narrative on the topic of slavery which may not always be as simple as we would like. However, the whole of Scripture reveals foundational concepts which prescribe universal views of human dignity – the way in which humans are to be treated and viewed by others. In addition to many of those foundational concepts (The chief of which, I would argue, is the Imago Dei/Image of God), Scripture also gives obvious and clearprescriptions on the topic of slavery. Before an exploration of Christianity and the abolitionist movement can be explored, it will be helpful to explore these prescriptions to properly understand the context of Biblical views on slavery. It will also serve to assist in answering any of the common claims which point to Christianity and Old Testament Israel as perpetrators and supporters of practicing slavery. It is a complex topic, but it is a topic that if dealt with faithfully, reveals more than meets the eye.
Types of Slavery in the Old Testament
The Book of proverbs offers some guidance surrounding critics, actually, guidance that can often apply to any argument: “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). It is common to see detractors of Christianity ascribe to Scripture a number of negative views. That if not fully supporting slavery, Scriptural passages at least turn a blind eye to it. Simply, their argument revolves around the supposed obvious contradiction of a loving God vs. a God who would allow and perhaps even perpetuate slavery. Morton Smith and R. Joseph Hoffman, in What the Bible Really Says, deliver a common detraction to the topic of the Bible and slavery: “There is no reasonable doubt that the New Testament, like the Old, not only tolerated chattel slavery…..but helped to perpetuate it by making the slaves’ obedience to their masters a religious duty. This biblical morality was one of the great handicaps that the emancipation movement in the United States had to overcome”.156 The above argument summarizes much of the modern view held by opponents towards Christianity and its involvement with slavery. Opponents of Christianity often lack the historical and cultural knowledge to fully understand what is happening in Biblical passage. A cursory look throughout history, especially in the abolitionism period of the 19th century, a simple argument like the one above would be see as unfair at best. Smith and Hoffman would be correct in claiming that Christianity never directly condemns slavery, but it did create a cultural set of moral norms which led to slavery ending.
Slavery in the Bible vs. what has been seen in the western world is not a one size fits all situation. The types of slavery can be so different that using the term ‘Slavery’ does not even properly apply to all situations found within the Bible. There is one important conceptual paradigm that should be mentioned. In Matthew 19 Jesus is having a discussion with the Pharisees, and as was common, they attempted to trap him. They asked him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (VS.3). Jesus responded by informing them that divorce is not the pattern God desires. The Pharisees, believing they had captured him asked, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away” (VS. 7). Jesus responded to their trap with a claim, explaining that just because something existed in the Old Testament (Divorce in this example), did not mean that was the standard or ideal that all should live by. Jesus Explained: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (8-9). Moses in the Old Testament had allowed an exception for divorce but this was in contrast to other dictates found about marriage in the Old Testament. Like, when Jesus mentioned, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Vs. 6). This is an allusion and reference to Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”. The covenant of marriage had been misrepresented to allow divorce and this was not the ideal with which Jesus viewed marriage. Allowing such a flippant approach to marriage would ultimately lead to a weakening of the family, and therefore, culture at large. Just as Jesus flipped the paradigm on how to properly view marriage, that conceptual framework can also be applied to the topic of slavery. Many of the prescriptions found within the Old Testament define attempts to regulate the practice of slavery. The spirit of the New Testament does much the same with the topic of slavery as Jesus did with divorce. Paul, especially, in his letters challenges the hardness of Old Testament practice with a spirit of equality and love. While versions of slavery/indentured servitude were practiced in the Old Testament, Paul lays out a better path forward.
However, the slavery found within the Old Testament is not the same version of slavery commonly known to most American/Westerners. Because of a need to define terms and correctly understand what type of slavery occurred in the Bible, I will spend the next numbered sections defining the types of slavery/indentured servitude found within the Bible.
1. Chattel Slavery: This is the form of slavery that is recognizable to most Americans – because it was the dominant form practiced in the U.S. In this system, people are considered to legally be the property of others. It is generational in nature, meaning that those in slavery are bought and sold forever and have no freedom or recourse on their own ability to exit the system. Not only are the individuals held in slavery bound within this system, so were their children and any succeeding generation. Especially after the slave trade became illegal in the United States, this system was propped up and supported heavily.
2. Indentured Servitude: This is a common practice within the Bible, especially in the context of Old Testament Israel. This was commonly practiced as a means of financial restitution – think of it as an ancient comparison to modern bankruptcy laws. Several examples of this financial/indentured servitude exist in side the Old Testament. Indentured servitude as economic relief or debt repayment: Some who were in desperate need or simply could not pay debts were allowed to be granted voluntary servitude. Below are a few of the guidelines: “Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment” (Exodus 21:2). Another passage from Deuteronomy is even more descriptive in nature:
If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)
It is obvious from the two cited passages that Scripture is not affirming a slavery similar to the chattel slavery most Americans are familiar with. Instead, these passages present a pattern of indentured servitude that revolved around matters of finance. It could be argued that it was never God’s intention for slavery/indentured servitude to exist in Israel. It is also obvious that it was never His intention for sin to exist. However, as sin did exist in the Old Testament and brought with it economic ramifications for the poor, these examples of servitude serve to show a pattern of economic relief for individuals. A far cry from claims of human degrading slavery. Without a social welfare system as found within most modern western countries, this debt relief system was an early version of a social safety net to protect the economically vulnerable.
3. Voluntary Criminals placed in Involuntary Slavery for Restitution: How many prisons existed in Old Testament Israel? Certainly not an adequate amount to accommodate all the potential prisoners it could be housing. In a world where prisoners needed to pay for their crime, a system had to be in place. Exodus 22 describes: “Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep…..Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft” (Exodus 22:1,3). In these cases, the Mosaic Law allowed for an involuntary servitude for a period of time. Once the restitution had been made, this thief or criminal would be set free. Without a developed prison system, this was the best way to punish theft.
4. Slavery for Non-Hebrews: Leviticus describes a situation outside the context of the last few “Indentured Servitude” related topics:
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have — you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. ‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. ‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.” (Leviticus 25:44–46)
This is an obvious outlier as compared to the first three items discussed. This passage is describing a situation more similar to the chattel slavery Americans are familiar with. This is an obvious breaking of the “indentured servitude” pattern and it must be addressed. A) The Old Testament did not establish slavery. It also did not create many other improper patterns of living like poverty and war. Slaves inherited and passed down from one generation to the next existed, just as poverty and war had existed.
B) Even foreign slaves could not be characterized as existing under a system as severe as western chattel slavery. Despite the difficulty in dealing with the generational slavery described in Leviticus 25:44-46, it is helpful to understand that slavery stipulations even for foreign slaves were vastly different than those found in America from the 17th-19th centuries. 1) Slaves were allowed the ability to attempt escape and if successful, to stay free: You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). 2) The form of slave trade made popular in America was criminalized in the Old Testament. The pattern made popular by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, stealing and kidnapping Africans against their will and selling them into slavery was banned in Old Testament Israel: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Kidnapping was vigorously opposed with the threat of death. 3) Slaves were to be treated properly, and if certain criteria of treatment such as imposing physical harm were violated, that slave was to be freed: And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth” (Exodus 21:26-27).
C) Moses prescriptions not God’s. Were all the prescriptions set forth by Moses meant to be the authoritative, inspired, and divine words of God? Could it have been that some of the laws presented in Mosaic Law were meant to only apply to the people of Israel in a civil manner? It could be that certain sections of Mosaic Law were not meant to be interpreted as universal moral dictates directly from God. I would posit that sections of the law were born out of a practical nature. There were certainly going to be situations that arose within the Old Testament that needed to be addressed. Moses may have done this by addressing certain cultural happenings, like slavery, in a purely civil manner. Meaning, that the prescription concerning slavery was not meant to be the words or views of God, it was purely Moses’ human attempt at defining and outlining the acceptable practice of a commonly seen cultural activity – like slavery.
There are some obvious potential pitfalls with a view such as this:
By saying only Moses, not God, is responsible for the troubling slavery prescription in Leviticus 25, it opens the door to a very slippery slope. That slope being: If certain portions of the Mosaic Law are outside the dictates and moral desires of God (Like Slavery), how do you define which of Moses’ prescriptions are to be separated from God’s? If this process is employed unfaithfully, it could place whole sections of the Mosaic Law in danger of being delegated as un-authoritative Scripture. As Christians, we believe that all of Scripture is inspired by God. If that is true, and certainly all orthodox Christians believe Scripture is inspired by God, how could He inspire a section of Scripture like Leviticus 25:44-46 that regulates and allows for chattel-like slavery? An important distinction provides clarity here: On one hand you have the view of God giving all Scripture as inspired and authoritative. On the other, there is the possibility that Moses was acting outside of inspiration and merely giving civil or governmental guidance on how to approach and regulate slavery. Some nuance may help to find a solution. Rejecting Leviticus 25:44-46 as merely the words of Moses denigrates and weakens the view that Scripture is inspired and authoritative. On the other hand, believing that God inspired those words as purely His views calls into question the goodness of God. Especially when considering the whole of Scripture and the emphasis God places on ethical treatment of humans under the umbrella of the foundational Imago Dei concept. There has to be a way to reconcile the contradictory nature of this Leviticus passage. The solution I would propose goes as follows:
- Slavery is outside of the realm of treatment God deems as moral, just, and right.
- All Scripture is inspired by God, including the section on chattel-like slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46.
- God allowed Moses to write and give regulation to slavery, but for a reason outside of Him viewing it as morally acceptable.
- The reason for why God inspired that section of Scripture will be found in section “D” below. “C” and “D” should be viewed as 2 part argument.
D) The hardness of their Hearts: For some reason, God allowed the continued practice of slavery within Old Testament. While the practice continued, there were obvious attempts to humanize and increase the fair treatment of slaves – even of the foreign Non-Hebrew variety. Still, the idea that God would allow slavery to continue when he could have ended it would seem disingenuous of His character. It is here that the earlier conceptual framework provided by Matthew 19 elucidates the topic. In Mathew 19:8, Jesus responded to the Pharisees by saying, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives”. Jesus changed and abrogated an Old Testament law because it was not the ideal. What would actually have been the ramifications if God had instituted strict divorce restrictions like Jesus did in Matthew 19? Possibly something very negative, and since their hearts were characterized as “hardness”, The Mosaic Law had included a divorce exception. Perhaps the Israelites of the Old Testament had not yet reached a level of societal and moral evolution that would have allowed for the strict divorce restrictions presented by Jesus. Was it possible that severe societal dysfunction could have occurred because of potential strict Old Testament divorce laws? Would the Israelites of old have societally digested those laws? Or would they have rejected, abused, and cajoled their way out of applying them? Perhaps they would have found loopholes or maybe they would have wholesale used the strict divorce prescriptions espoused by Jesus as excuses to practice all forms of philandering. This could have wreaked havoc on the family unit; and the family unit was the core of how Israel was to propagate itself and maintain national unity and cohesion. If the family failed – maybe God’s eternal plan to bring the Christ through the people of Israel would fail? Eternal consequences were always a possibility.
What does all the detailed discussion of Matthew 19, divorce, and societal affects have to do with slavery? Just as the Israelites were not able to handle strict divorce proceedings, as proposed by Jesus in the NT, because of their hardened hearts. I will make the same argument for the reason Leviticus 25:44-46 is included in Scripture, along with the permission of lifelong and generational slavery of foreigners in the Old Testament. Would the ending of slavery been possible during this period? Keep in mind, this is a period over 3,000 years in the past. Surely, it is not hard to ascertain that God would have opposed slavery. However, was it possible to disseminate that view into a culture that was steeped and intertwined with slavery? Were the Israelites of the time societally advanced enough to digest and apply such a radical principle like the abolition of slavery? In an almost strictly agrarian culture, would the planting, harvesting and dissemination of crops and food throughout the culture have even been possible without slaves? What would the moral and ethical implications of slavery ending in Israel be? Would they have found loopholes in the indentured servitude model and found a way to abuse individuals to an even greater level? All good questions, and they do all exist under the umbrella of a slippery slope type argument, but these are legitimate questions that must be asked. In the end, the character of God throughout Scripture is consistent – He is always fair and even handed. Knowing this, if God decided to permit slavery (albeit with restrictions that were revolutionary for their period) just as he permitted divorce, there was a reason for it. I would argue that this reasoning centered on the “hardness of heart” issue described in Mathew 19 along with the lack of societal advancement to handle the abolition of slavery on a moral and economic/infrastructural level. Maybe The Israelites were not ready for that step forward, and the effects of sin would rule on in the practice of slavery. At least, until a future time when it could be ended.
The New Testament and Slavery
The New Testament contains far less about the details of slavery then does the Old Testament. The mentions of slavery in the New Testament mostly fall under two categories: 1) Admonitions to submit to masters, and, 2) Admonitions to masters, requesting that they treat slaves fairly and justly. If one was looking for obvious condemnation of slavery, this will not appear in the New Testament. Passages like Ephesians 6:5-9 and Colossians 3:22-4:1 do not give the fire-breathing condemnation of slavery most would desire:
Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Masterand yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him. (Ephesians 6:5-9)
Colossians 3:22-4:1 echoes much of the same message that this Ephesians passage does. Considering Christians and the west have negative views of slavery because of Biblical principles, one would think that the Bible would come out in stronger opposition to slavery. If clarity and clear definitions describing the evil of slavery is what you are looking for– that just does not appear in the New Testament. There are reasons for this, and some of that will be explored in the following sections.
Understanding the context from which New Testament writers operated is important to recognize. Christianity was a new sect with very low numbers and almost no cultural respect or influence. They were viewed as the weird kid on the block of the 1st century. Finding themselves at odds with two of the major influences of that time: Both the Roman Empire and its religious and cultural practice, and the Jewish system. Paul the Apostle in both Acts and his epistles displays this strain with both of the mentioned systems. Christianity held strong ideological differences with Rome, especially concerning Emperor worship and the pagan sacrificial system. Pliny the Younger, a Roman Governor, wrote to Emperor Trajan asking for advice in 111 AD. As part of the “repentance” from Christianity one act was required, “that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance” and the punishment for refusal to do so was, “I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished”.157 The takeaway is, that if Christians were being persecuted in such a manner, it is obvious they did not hold the societal influence in the Greco-Roman world to influence slavery. Paul, would have been writing roughly fifty-sixty years prior to this letter exchange between Pliny and the Emperor. Imagining that slavery could be addressed as a moral evil on a societal level is simply outside the means of Christians during this period. A group of Jewish sectarians (how they were viewed by Rome at the time), with odd claims about their leader rising from the dead, and culturally unrecognizable and strange moral rules were really just viewed as wacky and uncultured cultists. This made any influence on slavery as impenetrable and unlikely as the fall of Rome itself. It would be centuries before Christianity would wield enough power to make any change on a number of social issues.
While most of the New Testament references to slavery fall into the categories of slaves being told to be agreeable, and masters told to be kind, The Apostle Paul does offer a third option in his letter to Philemon. While slavery is not directly condemned in the New Testament, it does lay the foundation for the eventual abolition of slavery. Slavery as an institution would never be abolished until the hardness of human hearts softened. The tool to soften those hearts was not an argumentative essay detailing the evils of slavery – it was the Gospel. The Gospel possessed the means to deal with the root cause of slavery’s existence: The cold, selfish, greedy, and general evil that resides in the heart of humans. Paul presents a mirroring of that Gospel infused in his approach to slavery. In the Book of Philemon, he writes a letter to Philemon requesting fair treatment for Onesimus. Onesimus, was a runaway slave that still legally belonged to Philemon. This is where Paul deviates from the traditional Master-Servant mutual respect model found in other parts of his writings. Paul says this, “Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 15-16). Paul assaults the traditional master-slave relationship with the truth of the Gospel. That truth being that entering into the Christian faith dissolves all other political, social, and economic boundaries and presents familial relationship inside Christianity as the chief relational connection.
Roman law gave Philemon the ability to punish Onesimus for his attempted, rather, successful escape. However, Paul displays God’s morality as superior to that of the prevailing civil power. Paul is doing something that is mirrored in the life and ministry of Jesus – especially in the Sermon on the Mount. He flips and challenges the accepted moral practice of the time with radical and seemingly contradictory moral prescriptions. This is evident when Paul requests that Philemon receive Onsesimus as, “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” (Philemon 16). Paul challenges the concept of slaves being viewed as merely property, instead they are to be viewed as brothers and as equals. Paul presents this view more fully in the Book of Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Paul requested that Onesimus be viewed no longer as a slave, but as a member of Christ’s Church and body. He also displays an ideal of equality in Galatians 3:28, that partnered with the Philemon letter, sowed the seeds of a future in the West where slavery would no longer exist. The New Testament shows an image of the church where the enslaved and the masters are equals in Christ. It may not have been possible to fight for that equality on a civil/governmental level, but Paul and others could demand it in the church.
Christianity and the Abolition Movement
Gregory of Nyssa, an early church father, said this about the topic of slavery. He presents an argument that demonstrates the incompatibility of Christianity and slavery:
You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and you make laws opposed to God and contrary to His natural law. For you have subjected one who was made precisely to be lord of the earth, and whom the Creator intended to be a ruler, to the yoke of slavery, in resistance to and rejection of His divine precept. …How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself, to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures…? 158
Gregory of Nyssa, worked and ministered in the area of modern day Turkey as one of the Cappadocian Fathers. He is considered the first Early Church Father to create and issue an argument against slavery during the patristic period. Other examples could be cited to define the relationship between Christianity and the abolition movement. However, for the sake of brevity and relevance to the context of readers, starting with the western context (Instead of Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century), will yield the most fruit.
William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833) was a British citizen, politician, and principal leader of the movement to abolish slave trading. During the late 1700s, Wilberforce ascended as a prominent politician. English slave traders were heavily involved in raiding and trafficking along the African Coast. The business was extremely lucrative, and the slave trade had integrated itself as a vital part of the British economy. The textbook triangular trade system was employed successfully by the English. Goods would be sent to Africa, Slaves would then be transported to the Americas, and sugar, cotton, and other relevant goods were then sent back to Europe. As Wilberforce grew in influence, he eventually found the boldness to address parliament in 1789:
“So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the [slave] trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition”.159 This began a very public and nasty battle by Wilberforce and the abolition movement to curb and destroy the Atlantic slave trade. 1789 was the initiation of Wilberforce’s public battle, but it would not be till many years that his goal was reached. He introduced a bill in 1789 that found some support, however, he was eventually outmaneuvered by others in support of the trade. Hopefully, he did not think that victory would soon be on the horizon, because it was not. Bills introduced to parliament by Wilberforce included the following years: 1791, 1792, 1793, 1797, 1798, 1799, 1804, and 1805.
Wilberforce a devout Christian, held many other interests outside abolishing the slave trade. His Christianity colored his whole worldview, and his philanthropy coupled with his desire to make a positive Christian impact on society was legendary. In 1787 he initiated a society with the help of the King which would contest, “for the encouragement of piety and virtue; and for the preventing of vice, profaneness, and immorality”.160 It would later became known as the Society for the Suppression of Vice. His desire to bring change was mirrored in his many other charitable efforts. He became involved with advocating for child chimney sweeps, who were being kidnapped and forcibly brought into the workforce as a type of forced slavery. He gave away nearly a quarter of his income to the poor. He founded other philanthropic groups such as, The Society for Bettering the Cause of the Poor, and the Antislavery society, to name only two. Wilberforce’s strong drive to bring about change, especially concerning the slave trade, was driven by a strong and authentic Christian faith. He himself had a tumultuous personal crisis of faith just a few short years before his campaign to end the Atlantic slave trade.
He described his early years in Parliament as pointless and self-indulged, “The first years in Parliament I did nothing—nothing to any purpose. My own distinction was my darling object”.161 A radical shift was on the horizon for Wilberforce. Wilberforce came into contact with an old professor by the name of Isaac Milner, a professor at Cambridge. In the years leading up to the late 1780s, Milner had a profound effect upon Wilberforce, who found himself seeking an inner peace – and ultimately finding a robust and socially impactful Christianity.162 He wrote to his friend, William Pitt, and described himself as: “no more be so much of a party man as before”.163 He wrote, in 1787, in his journal the following words which declared war on the slave trade: “Almighty God has set before me two great objectives…The abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners”.164 Wilberforce, in one of his writings makes a penchant Christian argument against slavery, “Inasmuch therefore, as we are repeatedly and expressly told that Christ has done away all distinctions of nations, and made all mankind one great family, all our fellow creatures are now our brethren; and therefore…..forbid our keeping the Africans, any more than our own fellow subjects, in a state of slavery”.165 Wilberforce was in a greater discussion of Old Testament slavery. Specifically, he was discussing the Old Testament prescriptions against slavery of a Jewish countryman, but the allowance of slaves who were foreigners to Old Testament Israel. Wilberforce is arguing in the above quote that the distinctions of race and creed are null, as Christ has made all humans part of one great family. Much like the ideal of equality presented by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Galatians.
Wilberforce was hamstrung by poor health for much of his life. This did not deter him in his efforts to change the cultural thinking on slavery. The opponents of Wilberforce and the abolition movement began to feel pressured, choosing to fight back. Wilberforce and the abolitionists would eventually find victory in 1807 as part of their battle in parlimanet, when their attempt to ban the slave trade was finally accomplished. Eventually, in 1833, slavery throughout the British Empire would be made illegal. Wilberforce’s health had pushed him out the public spotlight, and just three days before he died, he was informed that slavery had been abolished. When considering the effect of Wilberforce, historian G.M Trevelyan said this, “one of the turning events in the history of the world”. The banning of the slave trade in the British Empire should be viewed as one of the great steps forward in world history, thank God for William Wilberforce.
Abolition in the American Context
In the coming pages, the focus will shift to one major context. Specifically, America and the period leading up to the U.S. Civil War. This is one of, if not the most, recognized periods concerning the topic of slavery. As has been apparent throughout this work, Christianity and the Bible played a pivotal role in informing views in the context of nineteenth century America. Sadly, the Bible was used by pro-slavery activists almost as often as by anti-slavery activists. No time will be spent in exploring that sad reality, because the Biblical passages centering on slavery have already been explored lengthily in previous sections. The use of Christianity by pro-slavery movements would best be explained by poor exegesis of Scripture, and an air of selfishness and hardness of heart that focused more on economic benefits than human decency. The saturation of a culture with the Bible/Christianity ultimately means that either side of a potential issue (like slavery) will use that framework to push forward, even if it is at the expense of others. Despite the negative stances championed by some; the Bible offered motivation, foundation, and spiritual guidance to a nation. Ultimately, slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment but none of it would have been possible without the guidance of Christianity and the system of values presented by it.
Many remember only Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation as the pinnacle of ending slavery. Especially with the historical significance surrounding the Civil War, it is common for many to remember the abolitionists as only a footnote of the nineteenth century. The abolitionists were not a particularly popular group. In the South, they were viewed as a threat to the way of life that made society function. Abolitionism was often met with disdain – even violence. The more intellectual and peaceable form of abolitionism was often overshadowed by the violent actions of a few – John Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry comes to mind. When one considers the violence and level of publicity surrounding the Harpers Ferry incident, it is not hard to imagine why abolitionists were so disliked. The South could no longer define abolitionists as lacking “the courage of its opinions”166 after Brown’s raid. The Richmond Enquirer defined the raid as, “The Harper’s Ferry invasion has advanced the cause of Disunion more than any other event that has happened since the formation of the Government…”.167 Existence as an abolitionist was not a popular one – Brown was almost universally decried as wayward, and many abolitionists were now seen as true threats to slavery. The disgust for Brown was just a fiery example of how pro-slavery activists felt about abolitionists.
Abolitionists were not popular, but how did Christianity inform the views they held on the slavery topic? In the next pages, exploring that topic will be the goal. One example is Angelina Grimke’s Appeal to Christian Women of the South. Grimke’s pamphlet, attempted to analyze slavery with a lens of Biblical truth. She responded to many of the Biblical justifications for slavery made by pro-slavery activists. Grimke’s writing is incredibly unique for two reasons: 1) It was addressed to women, 2) Herself being a southern woman, her family even owning slaves, allowed for a unique perspective. It was not written from the lofty and industrial North but from the very context in which slavery thrived. In her opening, Grimke makes an appeal to Christian unity with a reference to John 15: “But I feel an interest in you, as branches of the same vine from whose root I daily draw the principle of spiritual vitality — Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel an interest in you, and often has the secret prayer arisen on your behalf, Lord ‘open thou their eyes that they may see wondrous things out of thy Law’ “.168 Modern readers may not recognize terms in Grimke’s work, but this was language southern women entrenched in a strongly Christian culture would have immediately picked up on. She proceeds to place obedience to God as superior to any human law. Especially if those human laws were sinful in nature, “I know that this doctrine of obeying God, rather than man, will be considered as dangerous, and heretical by many, but I am not afraid openly to avow it… If a law commands me to sin I will break it; if it calls me to suffer, I will let it take its course unresistingly. The doctrine of blind obedience and unqualified submission to any human power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism”.169 Blind and ‘unqualified’ submission to civil authorities, especially when contrary to the morality of God, is considered by Grimke to be unjustifiable. Towards the end of her work, she reminds her readers the danger of angering God: “Can you not, my friends, understand the signs of the times; do you not see the sword of retributive justice hanging over the South, or are you still slumbering at your posts”.170 Perhaps the Civil War was the retributive justice she mentioned in the above quote.
The American Anti-Slavery Society, the largest and most organized of American abolitionists, displays Christian language throughout its founding document. In Declarationof Sentiments of the American Anti-Slavery Society it says, “The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah…..These are our views and principles – these our designs and measures. With entire confidence in the overruling justice of God, we plant ourselves upon the Declaration of our Independence and the truths of Divine Revelation, as upon the Everlasting Rock”.171 The society acknowledges that abridging liberty is only God’s responsibility. More specifically, they write that they are solidly focused on the truths of Divine Revelation, a distinctly Christian theological principle. Using the terminology “Everlasting Rock” describes the eternal nature of God; God being eternal leads to an undeniable implication. If God is eternal in nature, then so are the principles and morality that God reveals to humanity.
Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote and published Uncle Tom’s Cabin, in 1852, a novel which is written from an anti-slavery mindset. Many believe that it served to raise interest in the institution of slavery, further polarizing the divide between the North and the South. Harriet Beecher Stowe was a native of the North and wrote the book in hope to reveal the evil and horror of chattel slavery in the United States. Her Christian faith was strongly represented in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and it is obvious the Christian influence on the Abolition movement was present in her work. Christian terminology is such an important part of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the direct exclamations on faith and religion being so obvious, that the novel is often described as taking the, “form of a sermon”.172 In chapter 18, Uncle Tom the namesake of the book, attempts to evangelize and convince another slave to become a Christian. The slave he is evangelizing responds, “I looks like gwine to heaven,’ said the woman; ‘an’t thar where white folks is gwine? S’pose they’d have me thar? I’d rather go to torment, and get away from Mas’r and Missis’” .173 Prue, the slave Tom attempted to evangelize was so locked into the institution of slavery, that she could not even look to heaven as relief from her deplorable state. It is obvious to her that even if she made it to heaven, the presence of her masters in heaven would prolong her plight of slavery. Torment in an eternal hell was favorable to having to spend eternity in heaven with her masters. Keeping in mind that this novel was directed at a mostly Christian audience sets the tone for how impactful this passage was. This passage makes it painfully apparent how terrible slavery was, and how it was viewed by abolitionists – heaven was an undesirable outcome if it meant slavery would be there too. Stowe uses Christinarhetoric throughout her book to argue that slavery is morally unacceptable, and especially with Tom’s plight, to show that Christian love and truth can overcome slavery as an institution.
Charles Finney, a famous abolitionist and pastor wrote to Theodore Weld, with comments that described the current state of abolitionism and American unity:
“Brother Weld, is it not true, at least do you not fear it is, that we are in our present course going fast into a civil war? Will not our present movements in abolition result in that?….Abolitionism has drunk up the spirit of some of the most efficient moral men and is fast doing so to the rest, and many of our abolition brethren seem satisfied with nothing less than this. This I have been trying to resist from the beginning as I have all along foreseen that should that take place, the church and world, ecclesiastical and state leaders, will become embroiled in one common infernal squabble that will roll a wave of blood over the land. The causes now operating are, in my view, as certain to lead to this result as a cause is to produce its effect, unless the public mind can be engrossed with the subject of salvation and make abolition an appendage.”174
Finney is describing a potential nation-wide struggle that would ultimately only end in a civil war. His words would be prophetic, less than thirty years later the bloody Civil War spread violently throughout the United States. What Finney feared came to fruition. What he feared was the obstinacy of the pro-slavery crowd versus the obstinacy of the anti-slavery crowd. Neither was willing to bend and the struggle had no potential to end in a peaceful manner. The years leading up to the Civil War became especially contentious. Legal issues like the Missouri compromise and fugitive slave laws only further polarized the two groups. Finney wished to see an abolition of slavery that proceeded out of authentic Christian conversions. Slavery did not end in this manner, instead, it ended through violent military conflict. The often pacifist language that accompanied many exclamation of abolitionist language was not found present during the Civil War. Regardless of the unfortunate bloodshed that occurred, the goals of the 19th century abolitionists had finally been reached. Without their attempts to demonstrate the moral evil of slavery it is doubtful the Republican Party would have been able to bring their influence into the political realm. The Christian language and input was obvious, the few examples described in this section patently display that fact. The ideal of Paul found in Galatians 3:28, “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, was closer to being a reality. After the end of the Civil War and the passing of the thirteenth amendment, much progress still needed to be made – but the Christian call for equality had put the nail in the coffin of slavery. The death blow had been dealt, it would just take the Civil War to finally bring slavery to an end.
It should come as no surprise to readers that Christians were responsible for the first anti-slavery writings in the new world. One of those was written by Samuel Sewall (A puritan) wrote The Selling of Joseph (1700), an obvious allusion to the Old Testament story in which Joseph was sold into slavery. In it he says, “It is most certain that all Men, as they are the Sons of Adam, are Coheirs; and have equal Right unto Liberty, and all other outward Comforts of Life”.175 Christians are often ridiculed for our complicity in slavery, but that characterization is only half the story. Everyone was complicit in slavery, the whole western culture was steeped in the practice. It is impossible to define one group or people as responsible for slavery. It has been around almost as long as there have been humans. The real point that brings enlightenment, is not who allowed slavery – everyone did – but who was responsible for stopping it? The answer should be obvious by this point.
The work of all the Christian abolitionists seems to at times be lost to the greater topic of the Civil War. The work of these Christians should be viewed as a radical deviation from the status quo; from the normalized standard of slavery that had not just existed in the west, but was a symbol of evil throughout the history of humanity. Slavery was disrupted, not just from the halls of government, but from above. The transcendent truths of Christianity had overcome the hardness found in human hearts. Presenting a view of humanity that allowed for all people to be viewed as human. Not some long and arduous social evolution from on generation to the next, rather, a tsunami of Scriptural truth brought about slavery’s end.
156. Smith, Morton and R. Joseph Hoffman, eds. (1989), What the Bible Really Says. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. 145-146.
157. Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, 112 AD. https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html#:~:text=It%20is%20my%20practice%2C%20my,participated%20in%20trials%20of%20Christians.
158. Maxwell, Francis. Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery (Chichester and London: Barry Rose Publishers, 1975), 32.
159. William Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England. From the Norman Conquest in 1066 to the year 1803, 36 vols (London: T. Curson Hansard, 1806-1820), 28 (1789-91), cols 42-68.
160. By the King, A PROCLAMATION, For the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue, and for the Preventing and Punishing of Vice, Profanities, and Immorality. https://digital.nls.uk/broadsides-from-the-crawford-collection/archive/144782600?mode=transcription
161. “William Wilberforce, Antislavery Politician”, Christianity Today: Christian History, August 8, 2008, accessed December 14, 2022, https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/activists/william-wilberforce.html
162. Colson, God and Government, 109-110.
163. Ibid.
164. Ibid, rom the Journal of William Wilberforce, 1787.
165. Wilberforce, William. A Letter on the Abolition of the slave trade, Addressed to the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of Yorkshire. London, 1807. Edited and introduced for the web by Dan Graves. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/wilberforce
166. Oswald G. Villard, John Brown: A Biography 1800-1859 {New York, 1929), 474.
167. Richmond Semi-weekly Enquirer, October 25, 1859.
168. Grimké, Angelina Emily, and African American Pamphlet Collection. Appeal to the Christian women of the South. [New York, American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836] Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/11007392/.
169. Ibid.
170. Ibid.
171. American Anti-Slavery Society. Declaration of sentiments of the American anti-slavery society. Adopted at the formation of said society, in Philadelphia, on the 4th day of December, . New York. Published by the American anti-slavery society, 142 Nassau Street. William S. New York, 1833. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/rbpe.11801100/.
172. Bercovitch, S. The Cambridge History of American Literature. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 90.
173. Stowe, Harriet Beecher, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. 2002. New York, Oxford University Press. 121.
174. Weld-Grimké Papers, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan. It was published in Gilbert H. Barnes and Dwight L. Dumond (editors), Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld, and Sarah Grimke (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1965), pp. 318-320.
175. Sewall, Samuel, “The Selling of Joseph: A Memorial (1700)” (1700). Electronic Texts in American Studies. 26.
Chandler Fayard 