Talk:Christianity and slavery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance within African diaspora.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

I moved this from Bible-based advocacy of slavery to more closely parallel Christian views of Jesus, Christian views of homosexuality, Old Testament views of women, Islamic views of homosexuality, etc. -- Queerudite 06:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] ==

This article is ridiculous in its white washing of Christianity's stance on slavery. Christians didn't join the abolitionist movement until the Deists, Freemasons and Unitarians had been writing about their concept of individual human rights and the conflict of slavery with their non-biblical vision of the God of Nature for more than a century. It wasn't until this movement took hold in some Christian Protestant Denominations that any Christian even considered the possibility that slavery might be wrong. 2/11/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.238.14 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I added a rather more balenced view of the question. A list of biblical passages relevant to slavery is only scratching the surface of a complex and ongoing question. I also summarised the passages rather than quoting them. It's easy for anyone interested in the exact wording to look them up. New sections discussing the Christians who were involved in the abolitionist movements, both in the US and Europe, would certainly be welcome, as well as maybe expanding on the positions of the churches other than Baptist. DJ Clayworth 07:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't delete challenging sections

Balanced does not mean removing the supporting evidence. Although you removed all the pertinent passages related to Biblical endorsements of slavery, I note that you did retain selected quotes in opposition to slavery (ie. "In Christ, there is neither slave nor free.") In addition you used a lot of flowery language "tacitly endorsed" as though Christianity had a long history of questioning this practice. If the support is truly tacit, then by all means please back up this claim.

I realize that this is a challenging subject, but removing factual information that is presented in a frank & neutral way does not provide balance or elucidation of the complexities of this subject. Also, your feeling that the Biblical passages "only scratch the surface" (I wholly agree, as would many Christians) does not take into account those who feel that the Bible is the literal word of God. You're welcome to provide an opposing viewpoint or interpretation, but removing relevant biblical passages is really uncalled for. In fact, it seems ridiculous to talk about Christian views of slavery or other social issues without quoting the bible, please see: Christian views of Jesus, Christian views of homosexuality, Old Testament views of women, etc. -- Queerudite 04:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bible quotes and tacitness

I wrote "tacitly endorsed" because the Bible does not explicitly support slavery (You won't find a quote 'slavery is a good thing'). I don't think that's any different from what you were trying to say. However it is obvious that the Old Testament writers in particular assume slavery to be a normal part of life, and don't make any statement saying 'slavery is a bad thing' either. All I actually did was to make all the same points that are made in the passages you quote, but without quoting them. Can we not explain what the Bible says without having to quote it in detail every time? We can make the bible passages references rather than quotes. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think "tacitly endorsed" is deliberately misleading, because it implies the Bible is silent on the issue of slavery. This is far from the truth. Slavery was a common part of daily Hebrew life, and was addressed frequently in the Bible. Furthermore, the proslavery apologists most ardently believed that the Bible was not tacit in its (their view) endorsement of slavery, that it was explicit; and we have a responsibility to acknowledge that point of view in a neutral way. To put it in a modern context, some people believe that the Bible is silent on the issue of embroyonic stem-cell research, abortion, etc. Others hold a different view. Both should be represented.
Also, your summary of the Biblical quotes don't accurately represent the full complexity of the passages. For example:
  • "especially restricting masters with regard to their slaves" You fail to note the passages restricting slaves with regards to masters. In particular, the ones directing slaves to obey their masters as though they were God, even when their masters are harsh.
  • "the Israelites are prohibited from absolutely enslaving their fellow Israelites" But you don't mention how the same passage states explicitly "you may buy slaves" from neighboring countries.
  • "A slave was in some ways property" Rather than "some ways", it would be more clear to explicitly describe the ways or specifically quantify them in some way. (see weasel words)
  • "a master ... could be punished for killing them." This is the most misleading of all, I believe, because it doesn't indicate how a slave could be beaten to near-death without recourse or how slaves who were killed were given lesser treatment than free men (in terms of the financial renumeration and punishment).
  • "From Exodus onward God is portrayed as he 'who brought you out of slavery in Egypt'". Should really illustrate this with the Bible passages. "From Exodus onward" is very vague, and I'm only familiar with Old Testament passages to this effect.
And the passages you DO choose to quote: "who brought you out of slavery in Egypt", "In Christ, there is neither slave nor free.", "we are all slaves of God", all address the solitary point of view that you've chosen to represent on this issue.
I feel like this article would be much better if we tried to collaborate rather than replace, and thereby include many points of view. -- Queerudite 01:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why not leave the Old Testament history to slavery to the wiki Slavery in the Hebrew Bible and more narrowly focus this article on the evolving attitudes toward slavery (of differing types) within the Christian sects? OT references are relevant inasmuch as Christianity is/was a branch of Judaism, but the Old Testament was not written by Christians and do not reflect the evolving beliefs of that particular religion.64.109.54.114 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I've replaced my introduction but left your quotes in place. Is this OK? DJ Clayworth 15:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the introduction should include something about the history of slavery and Christianity. In particular, how the abolition of slavery was not promoted by Christians for centuries and how Christians used the Bible to justify slavery at the start of abolitionist movement (and after its success). You removed this from the original introduction without explanation. Right now, the introduction makes it seem like there was never any conflict over this issue, aside from objections by the KKK. -- Queerudite 02:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I expanded the intro somewhat, though I didn't really change the content. Once I got beyond the first "Early Attitudes" section, however, the article is a mess- pardon me for saying so. The subtopics and chronology are all over the map. Is this an encyclopedia article, or just a tête-à-tête between people who love or hate religion? I'd like to help clean this article up, but I'm not quite sure where to begin! Mingusboodle (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity

The Corinthians passage does not describe the Holy Spirit as a slave-master; the one who has done the purchasing is Jesus (or God the Father); the Holy Spirit is the gift of God to the redeemed person. However since the three persons of the Trinity are in actuality one God, it is not generally useful to try and separate out their functions. DJ Clayworth 17:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I completely mischaracterized the Holy Spirit passage, you're right. I apologize. Thanks for catching it.
The reason I separated them is because I'm aware that some Christians do not believe in the Holy Trinity, but believe rather that each of the three is distinct and individual (see Nontrinitarianism). However, I was at a loss for how else to title the section, so I called it the Trinity (disgruntling Nontrinitarianists) and then separated each of the "manifestations" (disgruntling Trinitarianists). *shrug* I can't win! -- Queerudite 02:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] worldwide abolition

The introduction says: "In both Europe and the United States, progressive Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movements." Now I'm not a Christian myself, but I believe in "giving the devil his due," so to speak. A more inclusive statement would be to the effect of "Slavery has been almost totally abolished around the world by Christians." Jonathan Tweet 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um, there's a big problem here

There's a page called Christianity and Slavery, which appears to have the same general point as this article, but yet has rather different content. How did this happen? Homestarmy 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I merged that article into this one, I think that does it. Radagast83 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Jonathan Tweet 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "virtuous"

Deleted "virtuous" from Biblical Figures who owned slaves. Virtuous is a value-judgment and POV, regardless of whether or not the figures are presented as "virtuous" within the context of texts mentioning them. --Chalyres 09:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification probably needed here...

"Some members of fringe Christian groups like the Christian Reconstructionists, the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan still argue that slavery is justified by the Christian doctrine today." This may be read to imply the Ku Klux Klan are a Christian organisation. I see no information in Wikipedia on the page for that organisation that shows this to be the case, and am not sure that this is the case. If this is so, this sentence should probably better read "... Reconstructionists and the Christian Identity movement argue..... The Klu Klux Klan also support this argument." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.177.68 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] biased

It looks like it was written by someone trying to justify how the Bible is anti-slavery and how any time Christians have been pro-slavery they have gone off the true path. Some neutral reporting of facts would be far better. Sad mouse 20:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The neutrality of the Catholic Encyclopedia (used as a source for how good slaves had it under Christianity) on this matter is suspect, as they had a considerable amount of incentive to whitewash things. There must be some more neutral scholarship on the issue. grendel|khan 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia references have been removed and appropriate tags added. 24.4.253.249 05:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What criteria of WP:RS do you claim that the Catholic Encyclopedia fails to meet that would justify your removal of those citations, only to go immediately back and add {{cn}} tags? -- Cat Whisperer 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the Catholic Encyclopedia citations. Please do not delete citations to a reliable source; this is never the correct way to make a biased article unbiased. -- Cat Whisperer 11:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, it's a tertiary source; we should use better.
  • Secondly, it's a century old. Much research has been done on this since.
  • Thirdly, it's tendentious and partisan; some of its statements are true, many are half-true, and some few are false; citing it permits all of them,
A responsible editor would look up a modern secondary source on ancient slavery like Finley or Sainte Croix. If that is beyond his resources, he would at least consult that infinitely superior work, the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
All of the above are good ideas for improving this article. What I don't understand is why you don't follow one or more of your ideas, instead of just hacking out what qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Your revert only served to make the article worse in this regard, as well as re-introducing a typographical error that I took the effort to fix. The mere existence of better sources is no justification for removing the sources we currently have, especially if you aren't going to make any effort towards incorporating the new sources you mention. -- Cat Whisperer 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia does not meet the criteria of an unbiased source. 24.4.253.249 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scope

The scope section has been dropped recently. It needs to go back in, so I have put it back in, with an additional remark about how Christian views have not all been the same, which is pretty uncontroversial! Mitchelltd 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CHristianity and the Atlantic Slave trade

Strange the largest slaving in the history of humanity was the Atlantic Slave trade conducted by Christians. No section on that? Now i am against all of this but i have noticed Islam and Slavery doesnt get spared. I have noticed Slavery in Modern Africa is all Islam.One would almost think someone was trying to wipe out know history. Every single place Christianity went outside of Europe it brought death and horror to those that meet it [citation needed]. Was it because of Christianity or Europeans is the key question, or a combination.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of the efforts towards the conversion of the slaves or of the slave versions of Christianity. --84.20.17.84 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
During the nineteenth century one of the principal loci of opposition to abolitionism was the southern religious establishment.
I have some problems with this line. Although the split between Baptists over slavery is very relevant to this article, the support of slavery in the South was obviously an economic position more than anything. This line makes it sound like the South would have supported abolition if only the established religion would have let them. That's so rediculous that it cheapens the entire article. I've deleted it. If someone wants to reinsert it, fine, but please support the statement and consider rewriting it. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery in the Americas

I created section 5, Slavery in the Americas, and I put a few existing sections under that heading. I'm going to work on organizing the subheadings, without changing the existing article. If we can get this article organized, maybe it'll be easier for us to clean up the individual sub-topics. Mingusboodle (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serfdom

The section on serfdom was pretty flippant, so I cleaned it up a bit. The only problem is that I couldn't find much reliable material on the relationship between the institution of serfdom and Christianity, which is the whole point of the article. If someone could add a few sentences to that effect, that would be great.--Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)