A New Kind of Christianity - Brian McLaren [37]
But all four of these lines of argument come to rest on a fifth, the argument that the Bible defends and legitimizes slavery. Consider this catalogue of quotes from various protagonists in the novel:
“The Bible is a pro-slavery Bible, and God is a pro-slavery God.”
“The North must give up the Bible and religion, or adopt our views of slavery.”
“Slavery is right, and its enforcement is according to the Scripture.”
“Slavery is taught in the Bible, and instituted in heaven.”
“God has ordained slavery.”
“Slavery was made perpetual by the positive enactment of heaven.”
“There cannot be found…in the Bible a single injunction to slaveholders to liberate those held by them in bondage.”
“[To speak against slavery]…is to abominate the law of God, and the sentiments inculcated by his holy prophets and apostles.”
“[A slave] cannot sunder bonds which bind him to his earthly master, without breaking those which unite him morally to his Redeemer.”
A number of Old Testament passages are quoted as definitive by proslavers in Nellie Norton: Exodus 21:2–6 (relating to the slavery of poverty-stricken Hebrews), Deuteronomy 15:16–17 (also relating to the slavery of poverty-stricken Hebrews), and Genesis 9:26–27 (relating to the curse of Canaan, used to legitimize racism). But the key text was Leviticus 25:44–46 (relating to the buying, keeping, and inheriting of slaves):
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
The King James Version’s placement and punctuation of the nonrestrictive clause “which thou shalt have” seemed to render slavery nothing short of a command. It’s no wonder, in light of these verses from the Bible, that a character would say to the young Nellie, “There is nothing, not one word, in the Old Testament to condemn, but very much to establish, enforce, and regulate slavery.” But it’s not only the Old Testament to which proslavers go to defend the practice. The New Testament and even the Golden Rule supported slavery in their minds. In fact, they saw in slavery a form of Christian neighborliness, because it put slaves in better conditions than they had experienced in Africa and exposed them to soul-saving Christian influences as well, a theme known as “the Ennoblement of the Heathen,” which was also used to justify inhumane treatment of native peoples.
So characters in the novel joyfully cite the three New Testament passages that exhort slaves to be obedient to the masters: Ephesians 6:5–8; Titus 2:9–10; and Colossians 3:22–24. No wonder a character in the novel concludes:
In the catalogue of sins denounced by the Savior and His Apostles, slavery is not once mentioned…not one word is said by the prophets, apostles, or the holy Redeemer against slavery…. The Apostles admitted slaveholders and their slaves to church membership, without requiring a dissolution of the relation.7
As I reread these lines of reasoning, a sick feeling gnaws in my stomach. This way of using the Bible is indistinguishable from the way I heard the Bible used today on Christian radio and the way I saw it used today in blog discussions. I’ve seen this way of using the Bible employed in countless sermons and books all my life, up until today. Protestants, Pentecostals, Catholics, and Orthodox could all be found proving points by referring to Scripture in exactly the way the proslavers did. In fact, I myself have used the Bible