It has been noticed by a number of people that slavery has received “positive” evaluation by some Evangelical Christians in recent days. For the best of my understanding this has been mostly from American Evangelicals. This is a curious thing. I was raised up in white American Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity, and it was pretty much a given that slavery is bad. Some have argued this weird reversal by some flows from American Exceptionalism as well as American Conservativism. The two can work together. While American Conservatism is pretty fluid (very different today from what it was in the 1980s to say nothing of the 1880s), the basic idea behind “conservatism” is that answers to today’s problems are likely to be found by looking into the past, as opposed to “progressivism” where answers for today’s problems are best seen by looking to new ideas hithertofore untried. American Exceptionalism is the belief that the United States of America is a unique, special nation in the sight of God, founded on divine principles for a divine purpose. Bringing the two ideas together, then, makes it tempting to try to excuse or at least explain some of the past atrocities— Slavery, “Manifest Destiny,” Institutionalized Racism, and lots and lots of (seemingly unnecessary) Wars. Still, slavery is a strange one since worldwide, slavery is almost universally disparaged today (even where it is practiced on some level in the present).

The case of the Philippines is very interesting. It also had institutionalized racism and slavery during its colonial past. It also has somewhat of an exceptionalistic view of itself today. Many Filipinos will state (incorrectly) that the Philippines is the only “Christian nation” in Asia and argue (correctly, I believe) that the Philippines is key to future mission work to the world. Despite the similarities to the US, I have never heard a single Filipino pastor or theologian speak positively of slavery. Why is that? I think it is pretty obvious. In the Philippines, the formerly enslaved and racially marginalized are now in charge. They have no positive attraction to the former system. In the US, the enslavers still have much of the power, and so faults of the past are easier to overlook.

A related problem among many Christians is that their test for religious or theological orthodoxy is the Bible. Now when I say “The Bible” here I am not referring to a carefully studied and developed theology built with God’s special revelation as its foundation. I am referring here to “Where does it say that in the Bible.” That is, “prooftext it.” As N.T. Write notes, “Sola Scriptura” means one starts of Holy Scripture and gives it priority. That does not mean that one only looks at the Bible or that there is nothing else considered. This is different than what is more common in Roman Catholic circles, where recent decisions of the church take priority and then one slowly works back to Scripture.

Stephen Bevans gave several “tests” for orthodoxy as it relates to good (versus bad) contextualization of Theology. However, since he also has famously stated that “All theology is contextual,” it can be argued that the tests have relevance for theology in general. He came up with 11 tests a few years back. (See (121) Annual Brown Lecture Series: A Talk by Stephan Bevans – YouTube). I played with the tests, I added one or two, and changed the groupings somewhat. Frankly, he described his tests as a work in progress, so I don’t feel bad about putting my thoughts out there. I ended up with 8 tests grouped together into three areas— God, Church, and Culture. A good contextual theology does not need to pass all 8, and not all tests are equally important, but all of them are helpful in pointing toward whether a theology is “fair or foul” (as Bevans describes it).

So let’s take a theological position and explore it by these tests. The theological position is as follows:

SLAVERY IS NOT JUST A BAD IDEA, IT IS A SIN

Now since all theology is contextual, I could (and maybe should) add “within our present context.” However, I would like to keep it as broad as possible and see where things go.

Test #1. Word of God. Is the theological position harmonious or dissonant with the World of God? Notice, I am not saying, “Is it Biblical?” Again, we are not talking about prooftexting. For example, “Is cocaine Biblical” in one sense is nonsensical since cocaine is never mentioned in the Bible. But we can explore the use of or abuse of cocaine through the lens of Scripture.

The Mosaic Law allows slavery. As such, many would say that slavery is not sinful. The problem is that there is no strong link between “legal” and “moral.” In fact, much of the Sermon on the Mount appears to emphasize this point. One can live by the letter of the law and still be sinful before God. I don’t want to dig into this one too deep because this is the one that people spend so much time with. However, it is worth noting that while slavery is permitted, it is heavily regulated. In fact, Jews could not enslave Jews. In the New Testament, Paul implores that Philemon not to have Onesimus remain a slave of his now that he is a fellow Christian. Still, slavery is allowed legally. However, liberation from enslavement is a common and powerful theme in the Bible. Jesus in Luke 4 identifies Himself as a liberator. The Bible makes it clear that we are all equal before God by birth and design. Just about the only place where slavery is viewed positively is in being a servant (slave) of God. However, that servanthood is also seen as liberating. Generally, if one looks at it, slavery is legal with limitations under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, slavery is regulated by Roman Law, but the church is not to judge people differently based on their status. However, legal does not imply moral. Slavery is generally looked at negatively in the Bible. It does appear that a world where God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven, would have no institutional slavery. None of this is hugely compelling, but those who take the stance that the Mosaic Law has slavery and so slavery is not wrong, are doing a poor job with Scripture.

But since slavery is permitted in the Mosaic Law, I think it is worth exploring the Great Commandment. If the Great Commandment sums up the Mosaic Law— giving understanding of God’s will for our behavior— it seems unreasonable to explore slavery in terms of Mosaic Law and not explore it in terms of the Great Commandment, and its corollary… the Golden Rule. Can slavery be seen in terms of “loving our neighbors as ourselves” or “doing unto others as we would have them do unto us”?

Test #2. The Character of God. Does the statement, SLAVERY IS NOT JUST A BAD IDEA, IT IS A SIN, consistent with the character of God? Again, God prefers to be seen as Liberator, giver of freedom, breaker of bonds. God also deals with people directly, not through an “owner,” as vicar, for a slave. This is not in itself compelling, but certainly undermines some theories of racial enslavement where one race must “care” for another (through enslavement). What a self-serving idea!

Test #3. God’s Creation. This test gives a less ambiguous result. Science tells what we already know from reading the beginning of the Bible. We are all siblings. Genetically, we are so slightly different from each other that the use of the term “race” is dubious. The old arguments for “sub-humans” breaks down. Any institutional slavery must be understood as equals “owning” equals.

Test #4. Local Church. This one doesn’t seem as applicable since the tests are associated with the localization of theology. However, I think it can be looked at regarding slavery in historical terms as well as present terms. The test for the local church is multi-layered. Did the theology develop organically out of the local church? Is it understandable by the local church? Is it used by the local church? The abolitionist movement historically was most definitely something the developed through official proponents, but also developed very much at grassroot levels through many different individuals. Today, this same concern theologically shows itself in Liberation Theologies all over the world. Additionally, the concerns regarding human trafficking in the secular setting is (I hope) starting to bring questions before the church. Most definitely various Liberation Theologies are understandable and used by churches throughout the world. Even for denominations that balk at these theologies, I believe the concept of Jesus as Liberator is understandable and (potentially) inspirational to churches at a holistic level. The Exodus of the Israelites is often a rallying point to this sort of theological perspective and its applicability is pretty obvious, I think, to most Christians. A dominant theme in the Bible is that God gave freedom to the Israelites— giving them liberation from enslavement.

Test #5. The Universal Church. Is the localized theology open to interaction, dialogue, challenge from the broader faith? The abolition movements and liberation movements most certainly have, so I think this one passes the test well.

Test #6. Fruit of the Spirit. Does the application of this theology demonstrate itself in the church in the increased visibility of the Fruit of the Spirit? Rejecting slavery as a sin, and identifying the slave as fully human and deserving a liberation, seems to be a clear application of both the Great Commission and Golden Rule (as noted above). But it also relates to the outward demonstration of Love and of Peace (as in peacemaker). Certainly, reading the book of Philemon, Paul argues that Philemon as a good Christian should free Onesimus. Much of the arguments could be used generally, not merely to this specific slave.

Test #7. Cultural Resonance. Does the theology speak to a cultural longing or concern that seeks to be addressed? Historically, the abolition movement most certainly did do just that. But the concerns of human trafficking, sex slavery, economic slavery and the like are concerns that are front and center in many parts of the world… both inside of the church and outside… today.

Test #8. Cultural Tension. Theology and the Church should always challenge the broader culture in some way. It should never fully reflect the culture, but in some ways will seek to subvert it. Historically, the theology against slavery challenged the economic system associated with slavery and colonialism that commoditized humans, and essentially said that power and wealth were more important than humans. Is that a problem we still have today? Absolutely. In fact, it should flow beyond the narrow bounds of the issue of institutionalized slavery and question our whole economic system. Now for those who are nervous that I am getting ready to challenge Capitalism— well, I am. However, Socialism has the same problems. In fact, I don’t think an economic system exists today (on macro-scale at least) that isn’t challenged by the theology on slavery in its broader implications. Pointing out problems may not give solutions, but it is a start.

I talk about these tests in my book. Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions: Munson, Robert Harold: 9798387687976: Amazon.com: Books

Looking at these tests as a whole, I think a compelling case can be made that slavery is sinful in the sight of God. If one wishes to make the case that it wasn’t sinful back when there was not a system in place for voluntary employment, I don’t have interest in fighting that one. I certainly believe that sin does always have a cultural component. But I believe the argument that “Slavery cannot be sinful because the Mosaic Law permitted it” is a horribly bad take. Many things were permitted legally that were sinful. We need to explore deeper than that.