Apart from the general beliefs that all Christians share, such as that God exists, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that Jesus died for our sins and rose again, we would most likely find plenty to disagree on. Unfortunately, these disagreements could preclude our fellowshipping together as Christians, even though the Bible is at the core of our belief system. - Darius Jankiewicz.
Something that I've noticed when I listen to (and join in on) back-and-forth in Christian circles concerning various social issues is that there are typically at minimum two sides. Mind you, I generally do not like dividing nuanced issues into two "sides", but for the sake of simplicity, I will do that here.
One side tends to be more conservative. Not all those who tend to this side agree on everything, and some will be more conservative than others. However, on the whole, the conservative side claims to be standing in unity with traditions the church has held for 2,000 years and longer. It will also claim to rest on the authority of Scripture. Concern tends to be that deviation from these traditions often coincides with deviation from Scripture. The emphasis tends to be on a plain reading of Scripture.
There also tends to be a more liberal side. Again, not all those on this side agree on everything, and some will be more liberal than others. However, on the whole, the liberal side will not shy away from critiquing long-held church traditions - yet it may also disagree that something the conservative side deems as "traditional" has quite been so for all of history. The liberal side will be composed of people who uphold the authority of Scripture as well as those who do not regard it so highly. However, concern tends to be that Scripture is being misinterpreted, and emphasis tends to be on broad themes and principles found in Scripture.
As it turns out, today in 2021 is not the only time where we've seen this divide play out. This has also played out in the US around the time of the Civil War. The church was divided concerning the issue of slavery. Yet the issue was seen as more than just a moral one. It was deemed by many to be an issue of biblical authority.
What I hope to do in this blog post is looks at similarities in the rhetoric surrounding how the church approached slavery and how it approaches hot button social issues today, with a particular emphasis on complementarian versus egalitarian positions. Please note I am not trying to compare the oppression of one group to another.
I am merely trying to point out similarities in arguments and rhetoric used.
Pro-Slavery vs. Anti-Slavery Hermeneutics
It can be hard to look back at those who championed a pro-slavery viewpoint. It is even more jarring, especially for me as a relatively conservative Bible-believing Christian, to see that in the eyes of preachers during the time of the Civil War, particularly southern preachers, the pro-slavery position was perceived as the one which upheld biblical authority.
The fact that the bible was inerrant, infallible, and supremely authoritative was something pro-slavery preachers would remind their congregants when speaking about the issue.
James Henry Thornwell, a Presbyterian clergyman, wrote an influential address where he made this clear:
“In answering this question [is slavery a sin], as a Church, let it be distinctly born in mind that the only rule of judgment is the written word of God. The Church knows nothing of the intuitions of reason or the deductions of philosophy, except those reproduced in the Sacred Canon. She has a positive constitution in the Holy Scriptures, and has no right to utter a single syllable upon any subject, except as the Lord puts words in her mouth. She is founded, in other words, upon express revelation. Her creed is an authoritative testimony of God, and not a speculation, and what she proclaims, she must proclaim with the infallible certitude of faith, and not with the hesitating assent of an opinion."
Darius Jankiewiscz in his article examining the pro-slavery hermeneutic says of Thornwell's address, "This statement sets a hermeneutical foundation for the Southern way of reading the Bible. For the Southerners, the Scriptures were to be read in the plainest way possible, with the husks of human reason, culture, philosophy and all other influences peeled away."
Charles Hodge, an ardent defender of slavery, would say in his 1860 publication Bible Argument on Slavery:
"The great question, therefore, in relation to slavery is, what is right? What are the moral principles which should control our opinions and conduct in regard to it? Before attempting an answer to this question, it is proper to remark, that we recognize no authoritative rule of truth and duty but the word of God."
Again we see this emphasis on the authoritative word of God and the centrality of Scripture, seen as going hand-in-hand with the issue of slavery. Indeed, the preachers and Christians who held to the pro-slavery position felt it was not only moral, but it was the only right conclusion to come to with a plain and clear reading of Scripture.
Pro-slavery preachers would often call out Christian abolitionists for not doing so, and in some sense as being swayed by what was popular:
"St. Paul was inspired, and knew the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was only intent on obeying it. And who are we, that in our modern wisdom presume to set aside the Word of God, and scorn the example of the divine Redeemer, and spurn the preaching and the conduct of the apostles, and invent for ourselves a "higher law" than those holy Scriptures which are given to us as "a light to our feet and a lamp to our paths," in the darkness of a sinful and a polluted world? Who are we that virtually blot out the language of the sacred record, and dictate to the majesty of heaven what he shall regard as sin and reward as duty? Who are we that are ready to trample on the doctrine of the Bible, and tear to shreds the Constitution of our country, and even plunge the land into the untold horrors of civil war, and yet boldly pray to the God of Israel to bless our very acts of rebellion against his own sovereign authority? Woe to our Union when the blind become the leaders of the blind! Woe to the man who dares to "strive against his Maker!" - Henry Hopkins, from his pamphlet The Bible View of Slavery.
Later on in his pamphlet, Hopkins would get even more scathingly clear:
“.... it would be mere moral cowardice in me to suppress what I believe to be the truth, for the sake of popularity. It can not be long before I shall stand at the tribunal of that Almighty and unerring Judge, who has given us the inspired Scriptures to be our supreme directory in every moral and religious duty. My gray hairs admonish me that I may soon be called to give an account of my stewardship. And I have no fear of the sentence which He will pronounce upon an honest though humble effort to sustain the authority of His Word, in just alliance with the Constitution, the peace, and the public welfare of my country.”
This doubling down on the infallibility and authority of Scripture was part and parcel of the pro-slavery hermeneutic.
Much was made of Ephesians, where Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. The pro-slavery Christians would then say, "Who are we to deny this divinely ordered institution?" There it was in Ephesians, plain and clear as day. Their position was one that stood with the long-held traditions of the church. Indeed, James Thornwell would say in his address at the General Assembly:
"We stand exactly where the Church of God has always stood – from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, from Christ to the Reformers, and from the Reformers to ourselves. We stand upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief cornerstone. Shall we be excluded from the fellowship of our brethren in other lands, because we dare not depart from the charter of our faith? Shall we be branded with the stigma of reproach, because we cannot consent to corrupt the Word of God to suit the intuitions of an infidel philosophy? Shall our names be cast out as evil, and the finger of scorn pointed at us, because we utterly refuse to break our communion with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with Moses, David and Isaiah, with Apostles, Prophets and Martyrs, with all the noble army of confessors who have gone to glory from slave-holding countries and from a slaveholding Church, without ever having dreamed that they were living in mortal sin, by conniving at slavery in the midst of them? If so, we shall take consolation in the cheering consciousness that the Master has accepted us. We may be denounced, despised and cast out of the Synagogues of our brethren."
The pro-slavery position, on the whole, saw itself as not only one that upheld the authority of Scripture, but also the one that adhered to the good traditions of the church throughout history.
The abolitionist hermeneutic, in contrast, was viewed by pro-slavery Christians as speculation.
Christian Abolitionists tended to make anti-slavery arguments by drawing out bigger themes across Scripture, such as creation, the Fall, and redemption in Christ. Also emphasized was the historical context of the Israelites and ancient Roman culture. This can be seen in writer Ellen G. White’s writing on the matter:
“It was not the apostle’s work to overturn arbitrarily or suddenly the established order of society. To attempt this would be to prevent the success of the gospel. But he taught principles which struck at the very foundation of slavery and which, if carried into effect, would surely undermine the whole system.”
This is from her work The Acts of the Apostles, pages 159-160, published in 1911.
White here is drawing attention to the Roman government today. Paul was not living in a democratic government. Rather, he was living under a tyrannical government as a member of a conquered people. To dismantle the social institution of slavery was an impossibility. Yet, White argues, in his writings, he strikes at the very foundation of slavery.
This seemed like shady theological reading to pro-slavery Christians, who saw such historical arguments as being dismissive of what was plain and clear in Scripture.
To muddy up matters, not all Christian abolitionists adhered to a high view of Scripture. One early abolitionist, William Garrison, in his Selections from the Writings and Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison with an Appendix, stated:
“To discard a portion of Scripture is not necessarily to reject the truth, but may be the highest evidence that one can give of his love for truth.”
Of course, to those who were pro-slavery, this and other abolitionist arguments like it became reason to associate the abolitionist argument with a disregard for the authority of Scripture.
The “abolitionist hermeneutic” was to be viewed with suspicion.
There were, no doubt, true Bible-believing abolitionist Christians such as William Wilberforce and John Newton. Amazing Grace is of course a hymn that is most recognized even by those who do not attend church regularly. Still, even the "conservative" abolitionists were seen as twisting Scripture.
For example, Galatians 3:28, a verse abolitionists referred to in order to point out the Apostle Paul’s planting the seed of abolitionism, was viewed incredibly differently by pro-slavery preachers.
The Christian abolitionists who referred to it were seen as having an improper interpretation of Galatians 3:28 in light of other things Paul and the other apostles wrote concerning directives to slaves (“slaves obey your masters”). Slavery was seen as a divinely ordered institution, woven into the fabric of created order. The point of Galatians was to say in Christ we are free, of course, and share the same inheritance - but this did not in any way mean the apostle meant to do away with slavery. Or why else would Paul have also told slaves to submit to their masters?
To be against the institution of slavery seemed to fly against the plain and clear words of Scripture.
“... anti-slavery Christians tended to focus on the grand themes of Scripture, such as the love of God, his moral law, creation in the image of God, freedom, equality, redemption and restoration. It was these grand Scriptural themes—or 'abstract principles' so reviled by pro-slavery theologians—that provided a hermeneutical lens for interpreting difficult passages of Scripture” - Darius Jankiewicz.
While anti-slavery Christians would point to a progression of Scripture and how society in the US at 1860 was not the same as that of ancient Rome, pro-slavery Christians would point to all the examples in Scripture of Old Testament laws regarding slaves, the Old Testament patriarchs who owned slaves, and the household codes commanding slaves to submit to their masters.
Around and around the two sides would go.
In the year 2021, though, the more mainstream position is one ardently against slavery. Few would accuse those who look back and see the evil of slavery as being antibiblical as throwing out biblical authority. It's good to question what has changed.
Still, the very same conservative/liberal hermeneutics surround hot button social issues today.
Modern Day Conservative vs. Liberal Hermeneutics
Nowadays, the church at large does not argue about slavery (though there are still a few fringe groups who do). We do, however, argue about men, women, gender, and sexuality.
Here I will highlight some recent modern-day quotes which I believe will hearken back to the rhetoric we just saw from pro-slavery and anti-slavery Christians.
From the PCA Report on Women made in 2017:
"When the PCA was formed, objection to the ordination of women as pastors and elders was an animating issue. We agreed upon it and rallied around it (all of us, men and women) because we rightly saw that it was an issue of biblical authority."
Later on, in the report, it reads:
“Paul's counsel is clear: women may learn, but may not teach or exercise authority over men. Yet, almost every word of verse 12 is contested."
Here we can see that what is being discussed - in this case, women's ordination - is not seen as just a secondary doctrinal issue, but as an issue of biblical authority. It is a doctrinal issue of the highest degree. Also, we can see that what is being emphasized, as tends to be the case from a more "conservative" hermeneutic, is a so-called "plain reading" of Scripture.
Just as the pro-slavery Christians saw Christian abolitionists as glossing over texts telling slaves to submit to their masters, we see the more conservative side on women's ordination critiquing the egalitarian side of "contesting every word" of 1 Timothy 2:12.
Moving on, here is a quote from Denny Burke in a recent article of his:
"History has proven that complementarianism is a second order doctrine that frequently implicates first order doctrines. In this way, complementarianism isn’t like other second order doctrines (e.g., baptism). Historically, we don’t see a lot of evidence for differences over baptism being a gateway to denial of first order doctrines. The same is not true of people who depart from biblical teaching on biblical manhood and womanhood. Those departures are often followed or accompanied by more serious departures."
Here Denny Burke is making the argument that departing from complementarian theology is akin to departing from biblical teaching. Again, it's more than a moral issue. It's more than some second order issue. It's a matter of biblical authority.
Here's a quote from Mark Dever who draws this out even more explicitly in his article Young Vs. Old Complementarians (2008):
"But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accommodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture."
Again we see a concern that those who depart from what is being held as traditional and biblical are being more shaped by the culture than by Scripture, just as we saw from concerned pro-slavery Christian peachers.
My last example will be Al Mohler's recent response to Saddleback Baptist Church ordaining three women preachers in the SBC:
“In truth, the issue of women serving as pastors fueled the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. The question was instantly clarifying. The divide over women serving in the pastorate served as a signal of the deeper divide over the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Simply put, the only way to affirm women serving in the pastoral role is to reject the authority and sufficiency of biblical texts such as 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. There is more to the picture, but not less.”
These are all very strong words put out by rather prominent leaders in the evangelical church.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the same appeal to the authority of Scripture is also made when people discuss the traditional (non-affirming) LGBT+ view vs. affirming LGBT+ view as well.
Again, in the case of complementarian versus egalitarian hermeneutics, we have a "plain and clear" reading of Scripture contrasted with one that emphasizes taking another look at the historical context and the broader narrative of Scripture.
There are many Bible-believing Christians who do hold Scripture in high regard who are egalitarian. Yet they are not seen as doing so for the way they seem to be "re-interpreting" what seems to be so clear and for "glossing over" and "contesting" Scriptural texts.
Even Tim Keller says that an egalitarian hermeneutic by necessity "loosens" Scripture.
I can understand, as someone who holds to the apparently more "liberal" hermeneutic, why it seems this way. There is a lot of going back, re-examining historical context, as well as re-examining the text.
Yet it's also interesting to see how similarly this debate is playing out to the divide that happened in the church regarding slavery.
Take from that what you will. I will admit the similarities did seem quite stark to me, and I wonder if there is something to be learned from this. As someone who comes from the PCA, which was part of the Presbyterian stream that split in 1861 on the side of James Thornwell in order to continue to be pro-slavery, it seems good to learn from our past.
I do not want to make it seem that those who fall on the "liberal" side are always right. Back in history, while there were abolitionists who held Scripture in high regard, there were those like William Garrison who seemed totally fine to disregard bits of Scripture because it was convenient to do so, or seemed right to do so in their eyes. As someone who does find this rather important, I would be united with Garrison in his anti-slavery position, but not his position on Scripture.
I hope this post has been interesting, as it has for me as I've gone back to read works written by pro-slavery Christians and abolitionist Christians during the time of the Civil War.
It is also my hope that we learn from our not too distant past.
Further Reading
I cited most of the articles I used. However, there is one that I read that I didn't get a chance to cite.
If you get the chance, check out Trapped by His Hermeneutic by Ted Booth (2018).