Slavery - is it Biblical or not?

LadyEagle you are mean. I thought this was a theological, philosophical discussion.

Now you had to go and make it all practical.

 

The most comprehensive biblical defense of slavery that I have ever seen was written by Thornton Stringfellow in 1841.

A BRIEF EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY ON THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY

http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/stringfellow/stringfellow.html

"I propose, therefore, to examine the sacred volume briefly, and if I am not greatly mistaken, I shall be able to make it appear that the institution of slavery has received, in the first place,
1st. The sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age.
2d. That it was incorporated into the only National Constitution which ever emanated from God.
3d. That its legality was recognized, and its relative duties regulated, by Jesus Christ in his kingdom; and
4th. That it is full of mercy."

 

WOW I was not even going to participate in this thread, but I have to comment on this. As far as the op is concerned yes slavery, in and of itself, is scriptural; however, to claim that Stringfellow's defense is the most comprehensive you have seen regarding the subject is a FAR stretch. Fact of the matter is Stringfellow is defending the concept of blacks as the cursed race, erego, slavery is their godly and rightful place in society. What a sickening, morally repugnant, and unbiblical viewpoint. I would hope that you, a Christian, are not defending his defense of the American institution of slavery..... :tear:

 

Stringfellow mentions the curse of Canaan on the second page and says that the Africans of his day may be descended from them, but he also looked forward to the day when they might be emancipated (p. 32). The book does not justify slaveholding on the basis of a cursed race, but it argues carefully from Scripture regarding slaveholding per se, and it does it well.

Which brings us back to the distinction mentioned several times already. Just because slavery is a scriptural institution doesn't mean that the American system was scripturally defensible.

(And my own addition is, just because the American system was objectionable doesn't mean that the abolitionists held the higher ground.)

 

More "wisdom" penned by Thornton Stringfellow in Scriptural and Statistical Views in Favor of Slavery (1856):

"The guardianship and control of the black race, by the white, in this Union, is an indispensable Christian duty" (p. 105)

"The South did not seek or desire the responsibility, and the onerous burden, of civilizing and christianizing these degraded savages" (p. 144)

"The census shows that slavery has been a blessing to the white race in these slave States. They have prospered more in religion, they have more homes, are wealthier, multiply faster, and live longer than in New England" (p. 137)

"slavery, in these States, has been, and now is, a blessing to this race of people in all the essentials of human happiness and comfort. Our slaves all have homes, arc bountifully provided for in health, cared for and kindly nursed in childhood, sickness and old age; multiply faster, live longer, are free from all the corroding ills of poverty and anxious care, labor moderately, enjoy the blessings of the gospel, and let alone by wicked men, are contented and happy." (pp. 137-138)

 

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, pictures aren't a Biblical way to debate.

My bad. (again)

 

Pipedude,
Part of my disagreement with you is that I don't think slavery was a "scriptural institution".
The Bible says it existed and gave principles for behaviour for people having to live in that situation.
Not the same as the Bible saying it was right.

No, there is not a 3 word verse that says "Slavery is wrong." Anymore than the other missing verses such as "Abortion is wrong". "Infanticide is wrong." Or many others.

But the Bible does say all of those things are wrong by giving principles of right behaviour. And sometimes by more general prohibitions such as the prohibition against "man-stealing".

 

You're in good company, as many great thinkers have said the same. Yet many others have disagreed.

Defining just what you mean, and sticking to it no matter what, helps the debate a little. For instance, I mentioned in an earlier post the idea of enslavement for penal purposes. On a slightly different note, who believes it to be wrong (as the courts have ruled) to require prisoners to work and earn their keep? They call it slavery and forbid it--but I favor it.

One thing that characterized the antebellum antislavery debate was a routine wobbliness of terminology. There were other factors as well that clouded the matter irremediably. Things are no better now.