ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
There is no way to launder one's way into a legitimate human trafficking enterprise.
RL Dabney: "A Defense of Virginia and the South"
- Thread starter Ben Zartman
- Start date
- Status
There is no way to launder one's way into a legitimate human trafficking enterprise.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed, but that wasn't the original question. The original question is [along the lines of] when does owning stolen goods become "okay." The problem is when you apply that same reasoning to other stolen items.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Still not quite apposite, Jacob.
A whole argument has to be made that persons are property that can properly be owned by others (even the "property in them" contention has theological problems, as do the outright "they are property" arguments). Persons and real estate are not the same (the OT orders life for life not for real estate).
Further, it's easily enough resolved with respect to persons--if manstealing has occurred, at whatever point such is established, there is an obligation to emancipate all being held as a consequence of such. The justice is to be done to that party still held in bondage.
One nation going to war against another (to take the 1066 example) is a different matter, particularly with respect to the justness of the war. Apart from that, long after the fact, it's no longer a matter of returning something taken to the one from whom it was taken. The sons of the Normans have not taken anything from the sons of the Saxons, though they might have received something by inheritance that their Norman fathers took from their Saxon fathers. There are complications here that do not obtain in the case of persons held in slavery.
That person ought to be freed who remains in slavery as a consequence of manstealing. Land or other valuables taken in war may or may not need later to be returned. There are a number of factors at play here that are not at play in the same way with respect to manstealing.
Peace,
Alan
A whole argument has to be made that persons are property that can properly be owned by others (even the "property in them" contention has theological problems, as do the outright "they are property" arguments). Persons and real estate are not the same (the OT orders life for life not for real estate).
Further, it's easily enough resolved with respect to persons--if manstealing has occurred, at whatever point such is established, there is an obligation to emancipate all being held as a consequence of such. The justice is to be done to that party still held in bondage.
One nation going to war against another (to take the 1066 example) is a different matter, particularly with respect to the justness of the war. Apart from that, long after the fact, it's no longer a matter of returning something taken to the one from whom it was taken. The sons of the Normans have not taken anything from the sons of the Saxons, though they might have received something by inheritance that their Norman fathers took from their Saxon fathers. There are complications here that do not obtain in the case of persons held in slavery.
That person ought to be freed who remains in slavery as a consequence of manstealing. Land or other valuables taken in war may or may not need later to be returned. There are a number of factors at play here that are not at play in the same way with respect to manstealing.
Peace,
Alan
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What about slaves in Roman times? They were usually acquired via conquest.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
To reiterate: I am not advocating slavery. I am persuaded that a theological anthropology sees the manumission of slaves. But I am equally concerned that we don't overshoot the target. The apostle Paul simply doesn't have our modern hangups about slavery. And the Roman Empire was just as much "manstealing" as the African tribesman.
And as Athenagoras points out, they had no problem with fellowshipping with Christian slaveowners.
And as Athenagoras points out, they had no problem with fellowshipping with Christian slaveowners.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
In this case it is a point of regression as Dr. Strange has much more eloquently explained. Even putting the best spin on 'conquest', if the acquired people were stolen before hand then a transfer of ownership doesn't make them legitimately possessed.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Jacob:
Making slaves out of those against whom you've been fighting instead of killing them is not the same thing as what happened when the Christian West became involved in chattel slavery.
Never mind that, though. Put the worst spin on Roman slavery and assume that a lot of it was simply immoral. I've already addressed why I think Jesus and Paul did not command that 40-50% of the entire population be immediately manumitted: had they done so, the story we find in the Bible and the early church would not have been one of gospel spread but of utter revolutionary political and social ferment.
Instead, a book like Philemon clearly suggests that emancipation is a proper part of the response to the gospel (rather than the gospel itself). Had Paul said to Philemon that he was to free Onesimus period, there would have been a frenzy and the NT would have been seen by all, and reduced to, a revolutionary tract, like the Communist Manifesto.
Rather, Paul made clear what he expected Philemon to do with regards to his now Christian brother (and still slave) Onesimus. It's hard to imagine that Philemon did anything other than what Paul counseled. But it was counsel, not a command, which would have subverted the message of the gospel.
Christians were then in no position to do anything other than live out the faith in their own lives (again the SOM). They had no political power or legislative influence. For instance, the Bible taught that one should not marry a non-Christian. But if one is in such a marriage, the Christian should remain. Some day, they would be able to make laws forbidding marriages between Christians and non-Christians. But not for now.
Similarly, Christians could not simply abolish slavery apart from calling for revolution. But they could in their own lives and worlds, or at least be as kind and considerate to those in such a position that they hadn't put there. And there is evidence that Christian influence paid no small part in the withering away of Roman slavery.
But what about when Christians held all the levers? This is the sad situation that prevailed with the re-introduction of slavery in the West and why the 1818 GA adopted the statement that it did.
That 1818 GA refused to call for immediate universal abolition (fearing chaos if such was not properly planned for) but did call for emancipation, recognizing the incongruity of chattel slavery in a nation governed largely by professing Christians:
We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ . . . it is manifestly the duty of all Christians who enjoy the light of the present day, when the inconsistency of slavery, both with the dictates of humanity and religion, has been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to use their honest, earnest, and unwearied endeavours, to correct the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery throughout Christendom, and if possible throughout the world.
This was adopted unanimously, not by the Covenanters, the Seceders, or even a church split into OS and NS, but by the united PCUSA with full Southern representation present.
No, the PCUSA GA would not bar slaveholders solely on that basis from communion, but condemned nonetheless the practice of slavery. This was not the Roman Empire in the 3rd c. AD, in which the church was still "under the cross" and had no public say. I believe, as did the 1818 statement, and as I believe that you do, Jacob, that the tenor of the gospel was opposed to such, especially as slavery in the 19th c. applied only to Africans (in our context) and was openly said to be unthinkable for whites.
Dabney's position was out of harmony not just with the Covenanters but with the tenor of broader American Presbyterianism.
Peace,
Alan
Making slaves out of those against whom you've been fighting instead of killing them is not the same thing as what happened when the Christian West became involved in chattel slavery.
Never mind that, though. Put the worst spin on Roman slavery and assume that a lot of it was simply immoral. I've already addressed why I think Jesus and Paul did not command that 40-50% of the entire population be immediately manumitted: had they done so, the story we find in the Bible and the early church would not have been one of gospel spread but of utter revolutionary political and social ferment.
Instead, a book like Philemon clearly suggests that emancipation is a proper part of the response to the gospel (rather than the gospel itself). Had Paul said to Philemon that he was to free Onesimus period, there would have been a frenzy and the NT would have been seen by all, and reduced to, a revolutionary tract, like the Communist Manifesto.
Rather, Paul made clear what he expected Philemon to do with regards to his now Christian brother (and still slave) Onesimus. It's hard to imagine that Philemon did anything other than what Paul counseled. But it was counsel, not a command, which would have subverted the message of the gospel.
Christians were then in no position to do anything other than live out the faith in their own lives (again the SOM). They had no political power or legislative influence. For instance, the Bible taught that one should not marry a non-Christian. But if one is in such a marriage, the Christian should remain. Some day, they would be able to make laws forbidding marriages between Christians and non-Christians. But not for now.
Similarly, Christians could not simply abolish slavery apart from calling for revolution. But they could in their own lives and worlds, or at least be as kind and considerate to those in such a position that they hadn't put there. And there is evidence that Christian influence paid no small part in the withering away of Roman slavery.
But what about when Christians held all the levers? This is the sad situation that prevailed with the re-introduction of slavery in the West and why the 1818 GA adopted the statement that it did.
That 1818 GA refused to call for immediate universal abolition (fearing chaos if such was not properly planned for) but did call for emancipation, recognizing the incongruity of chattel slavery in a nation governed largely by professing Christians:
We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ . . . it is manifestly the duty of all Christians who enjoy the light of the present day, when the inconsistency of slavery, both with the dictates of humanity and religion, has been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to use their honest, earnest, and unwearied endeavours, to correct the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery throughout Christendom, and if possible throughout the world.
This was adopted unanimously, not by the Covenanters, the Seceders, or even a church split into OS and NS, but by the united PCUSA with full Southern representation present.
No, the PCUSA GA would not bar slaveholders solely on that basis from communion, but condemned nonetheless the practice of slavery. This was not the Roman Empire in the 3rd c. AD, in which the church was still "under the cross" and had no public say. I believe, as did the 1818 statement, and as I believe that you do, Jacob, that the tenor of the gospel was opposed to such, especially as slavery in the 19th c. applied only to Africans (in our context) and was openly said to be unthinkable for whites.
Dabney's position was out of harmony not just with the Covenanters but with the tenor of broader American Presbyterianism.
Peace,
Alan
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I agree with everything Rev Strange said. If this is true, then the Apostle Paul failed to address this point. In which case, the slave owner should have been barred communion. But we know from Athenagoras's writings that the opposite was the case.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Jacob:
Your last post is not responsive to what I've said.
It need not be if you so choose, but I've already dealt with why I believe that Paul's position on emancipation of one's fellow Christian in servitude was one of implication rather than direct command.
Given that, Paul was not barring anyone from communion for a practice that he did not order ended but that stood contrary to the spirit of the gospel.
I have nothing further to say if the discussion continues to fail to advance on the points already made.
Peace,
Alan
Your last post is not responsive to what I've said.
It need not be if you so choose, but I've already dealt with why I believe that Paul's position on emancipation of one's fellow Christian in servitude was one of implication rather than direct command.
Given that, Paul was not barring anyone from communion for a practice that he did not order ended but that stood contrary to the spirit of the gospel.
I have nothing further to say if the discussion continues to fail to advance on the points already made.
Peace,
Alan
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I understand what you are saying, but I am also drawing inferences based on American religious life. For example, did Alexander Macleod go beyond Scripture? Said another way: should he have barred someone like Jonathan Edwards from communion?
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Jacob:
Why didn't you say so?
Should the buying, selling, and keeping of slaves have made one liable for ecclesiastical censure?
Let me answer: I think that MacLeod's arguments are essentially sound. Had most of the church thought so, it's likely that involvement in slavery would have made one liable for such (beyond just the Covenanters and company). I think, for instance, that someone today involved in such would be liable to censure.
Since, however, many were not persuaded by MacLeod's arguments, especially in the mainline church (the PCUSA), slave-holding and the like were not censurable actions.
Had I lived back then, I likely would not have thought them censurable (I do come from Hattiesburg, MS, after all!). Had more been persuaded and thought them censurable, men like Hodge (who wished for emancipation but did not find slave-holding censurable) might have believed otherwise.
I do literally have a meeting to "run to" so I'll just leave it here for now. Good talking!
Peace,
Alan
Why didn't you say so?
Should the buying, selling, and keeping of slaves have made one liable for ecclesiastical censure?
Let me answer: I think that MacLeod's arguments are essentially sound. Had most of the church thought so, it's likely that involvement in slavery would have made one liable for such (beyond just the Covenanters and company). I think, for instance, that someone today involved in such would be liable to censure.
Since, however, many were not persuaded by MacLeod's arguments, especially in the mainline church (the PCUSA), slave-holding and the like were not censurable actions.
Had I lived back then, I likely would not have thought them censurable (I do come from Hattiesburg, MS, after all!). Had more been persuaded and thought them censurable, men like Hodge (who wished for emancipation but did not find slave-holding censurable) might have believed otherwise.
I do literally have a meeting to "run to" so I'll just leave it here for now. Good talking!
Peace,
Alan
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I am afraid that I have not been well enough to participate at length in this discussion, but I will make a belated effort to post one half-decent contribution. I think part of the problem when discussing issues of church discipline is that, all too often, we tend to think of ecclesiastical censures in a penal manner that is contrary to the gospel. Such censures should only even be inflicted after patient remonstrance with a person and only when they show themselves impenitent. Paul does not start his discussions on master and bondservants with a threat to excommunicate the former, but he modifies the relationship in line with Christian principles.
For instance, he says, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal" (Colossians 4:1), which significantly modified the type of relationship they were meant to have with one another. (Does anyone seriously think slaveholders in the British Empire-United States did so?) It would only become a matter of discipline if it became clear that the masters were stiff-neckedly refusing to obey this injunction. In a pagan context like the Roman Empire, this approach was evidently the most prudent way of dealing with the issue.
Another point worth considering is that in the context of the British Empire or the antebellum United States, being nations blessed with a wide and diffuse knowledge of the gospel, it does not necessarily follow that the church's approach should have been exactly the same as that of the apostles. In this case, the position of these countries was more analogous to Old Testament Israel (not exactly, of course), which may have warranted the church to initially take a firmer line on the issue. To use a modern example, many of us are aware that black slavery has been reinstituted in Libya. We also know that much human trafficking (a modern form of the slave trade) goes on across the US-Mexican border. If we knew of a church member who was making money from such iniquitous traffic, would that the church be within its rights to censure that person should they remain impenitent?
For instance, he says, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal" (Colossians 4:1), which significantly modified the type of relationship they were meant to have with one another. (Does anyone seriously think slaveholders in the British Empire-United States did so?) It would only become a matter of discipline if it became clear that the masters were stiff-neckedly refusing to obey this injunction. In a pagan context like the Roman Empire, this approach was evidently the most prudent way of dealing with the issue.
Another point worth considering is that in the context of the British Empire or the antebellum United States, being nations blessed with a wide and diffuse knowledge of the gospel, it does not necessarily follow that the church's approach should have been exactly the same as that of the apostles. In this case, the position of these countries was more analogous to Old Testament Israel (not exactly, of course), which may have warranted the church to initially take a firmer line on the issue. To use a modern example, many of us are aware that black slavery has been reinstituted in Libya. We also know that much human trafficking (a modern form of the slave trade) goes on across the US-Mexican border. If we knew of a church member who was making money from such iniquitous traffic, would that the church be within its rights to censure that person should they remain impenitent?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I get what you are saying. I don't think it is a 1:1 correspondence in all areas. I'll to explain.
1. With the exception of a few American allies in the Middle East, the practice is illegal in all UN countries. So the church member would be violating not only US law, but international law.
2. Many slaveowners inherited a system they did not always ask for. Freeing the slave often made life more difficult for the slave (as the slave was now at the mercy of a system in which he was not ready to participate--which is what happened anyway after 1865).
3. You imply that master didn't treat his slaves humanely. Some did. Some didn't. We have testimonies from slaves to both effects.
4. Human trafficking today almost always involves prostitution and drugs--like in the key US allies Albania and Kosovo.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I will point out a self-directed irony. It appears that I am playing Devil's Advocate on this question. I'm really not. I am exploring the implications and entailments of different ethical positions.
I'm currently reading a monograph on Gregory of Nyssa where it talks about his anti-slavery views.
http://www.hansboersma.org/articles...the-heavenly-future-in-saint-gregory-of-nyssa
I'm currently reading a monograph on Gregory of Nyssa where it talks about his anti-slavery views.
http://www.hansboersma.org/articles...the-heavenly-future-in-saint-gregory-of-nyssa
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
So, if US law or international law condoned it would there be any place for church censure?
That is not really an argument, as no one said freedom was easy.
As we learn from Solomon Northup's experience, not all slaveholders were equally bad. I am willing to grant that some may even have been slaveholders in name only. However, the real issue is the legal status of slaves in the antebellum United States and the iniquity that was supported by law.
American slavery often involved fornication, adultery, the break up of families, white supremacy, cruelty and so on.
For my part, I am not justifying the modern virtue-signalling obsession with this subject or the endless cycle of white guilt to extract money for perverse reasons.
I have downloaded it, thanks.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
True, but that is different from the essence of slavery. If a master did that, and if he were under the jurisdiction of a church, then discipline is involved.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
In the US/British Empire context, I do not think the two can really be separated. The existence of the system was contingent on marriage and family break up, sexual immorality, and cruelty. It could not really have continued otherwise.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I can agree with that. And to make irony even worse, the most notorious Civil War general, Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slave owner, refused to ever break up families (and this was before he was converted). His reasoning was less than Christian, though: he didn't want a lot of demoralized workers.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
here is the tl;dr (too long; didn't read) version:
1. Man has moral free agency, which is counter-intuitive with slavery.
2. The imago dei means (among other things) that Man is Royal, which means he can't be a slave.
Here is Boersma's longer account in Embodiment and Virtue.
The image of God in human beings is visible in their rule over the animals. One can justify slavery only by first reducing rational human beings to the level of irrational animals. Hence Nyssen’s rhetorical questions, “Surely human beings have not been
produced from your cattle? Surely cows have not conceived human stock?” Defenders of slavery, Gregory charges, fail to take note of the radical distinction between humans and animals (155)
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Samuel Rutherford said much the same thing in relation to slavery:
A man being created according to God’s image, he is res sacra, a sacred thing, and can no more by nature’s law be sold and bought, then a religious and sacred thing dedicated to God.
Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex: The Law and the Prince. A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People (London: John Field, 1644), Q.13.2, p. 91.
Frederick Douglass made a similar argument, especially with reference to evolutionary science ... which might scare liberals if they ever found out.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
