Edwards and Slavery

I split the thread so that we could focus our attention on Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God in Marco's original post.

I believe there is much to gain from Edwards' work. I love Sinners in the Hands of An Angy God. It's probably one of the greatest sermons of the last few hundred years. I agree that Edwards was one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Christendom.

But, what do we say to those who rightly point out Edwards' seemingly contradictory practice of slaveholding? While Edwards was ahead of his time in much of his theology, why do you think he couldn't see the hypocrisy of owning slaves?

I feel comfortable asking the question here, because I trust that we all we have level heads when thinking about this.

What say ye?

He lived in a time period where slavery was heavily practiced. He never harmed nor mistreated a slave (see Iain Murray biography). Obviously, his exegesis would be flawed. Since, scripture nether condones or condemns slavery.

I'm not really sure how to take that. Th way I see it is that it likely was so ingrained into the function of society at the time that anybody who owned a farm and didn't have slaves was unproductive (I'm totally assuming here). I won't pretend that is a worthy excuse, nonetheless, it seems to be a logical one, to me.

Marco wrote:

He lived in a time period where slavery was heavily practiced. He never harmed nor mistreated a slave (see Iain Murray biography). Obviously, his exegesis would be flawed. Since, scripture nether condones or condemns slavery.

Cool.

But many will hear that and say it doesn't matter how he treated them, because he taught freedom in Christ, yet didn't allow these to be free.

It is my opinion, that those in the faith who reject Edwards' work because of slaveowning, are missing out on some great stuff. He definitely was a brilliant man.

I personally believe that we can't just "give him a complete pass" on the issue and call him "a man of his day." While the Bible doesn't condemn slavery as it is in the Bible, I do believe American slavery was wrong and was sinful.

I think Sherard Burns (a black man who was under Dr. Piper) summed up Edwards well in "Riches of Edwards for All Races" If I can find the link to the sermon, I'll post it.

well, i think it would be even harder to imagine the apostle Paul announcing ---submit to your master in godliness (1pt 2). Paul never denounced slavery, because the gospel is not freedom from social injustices. Dont get me wrong, I believe heavily slavery is wrong. But, we dont want to pervert the gospel into a social one.

Paul never condemned slavery because it was outside the domain of the kingdom. But, he never endorsed it either. In fact, in his letter to philemon he didnt tell philemon to be free he told him to return to his owner.

Marco wrote:

well, i think it would be even harder to imagine the apostle Paul announcing ---submit to your master in godliness (1pt 2). Paul never denounced slavery, because the gospel is not freedom from social injustices. Dont get me wrong, I believe heavily slavery is wrong. But, we dont want to pervert the gospel into a social one.

Paul never condemned slavery because it was outside the domain of the kingdom. But, he never endorsed it either. In fact, in his letter to philemon he didnt tell philemon to be free he told him to return to his owner.

True. The gospel doesn't promise freedom from social injustice. However, should the Christian be the one doing the injustice?

I think that's the question many have.

Again, I personally love Edwards, and I believe he would have eventually "gotten it." I think it's also important that we don't try to smash our 21st Century concept of slavery into an 18th Century context.

I think a lot of people's objections also come because of his Calvinistic stance, and therefore attack him and say Calvinism must be wrong, since one of the greatest of them was a slaveowner.

Please excuse me if it seems like I am playing "devil's advocate" (no pun intended). These are just the objections I receive when speaking of Edwards.

Thanks for chatting with me about this, Marco.

Marco wrote:

well, i think it would be even harder to imagine the apostle Paul announcing ---submit to your master in godliness (1pt 2). Paul never denounced slavery, because the gospel is not freedom from social injustices. Dont get me wrong, I believe heavily slavery is wrong. But, we dont want to pervert the gospel into a social one.

Paul never condemned slavery because it was outside the domain of the kingdom. But, he never endorsed it either. In fact, in his letter to philemon he didnt tell philemon to be free he told him to return to his owner.

One of the reasons I believe Paul took that approach toward service to your master was because it's no different than the approach we must have towards our heavenly father, or to our parents, or, in a way, to our spouses. I also believe he said this because, in essence, we are slaves for Christ. We have very little freedom outside that which has been layed out for us in His word, and we are to do as He has commanded us to, or there will be consequences.

As I said earlier, I'm not justifying Edwards' slave owning, but I do believe that we all have skeletons in our closets, and I believe we do things every day that God forgives us for, because we don't even know that they're displeasing to Him. That's just me, of course.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/HBHP/exhibit/03/index.html

I wrote this on another message board this morning, after reading several articles similar to the one above:

If it is indeed true that most slaves during the 1700s were not enslaved based upon biological racism or "scientific" racism as the one article puts it, and being Black was not the basis of servitude at that particular time, should that change the way we feel about that particular time in history, when it comes to slavery?

In this time period of the 18th Century, it was still believed that "God created all men equal." It wasn't until Darwin arrived upon the scene with his "On the Origin of Species" that the thought of men not being created equal started to take its place. He believed that man evolved from more primitive species, and that some of man hadn't evolved as well, opening the door for "scientific" support for racism.

Could it have been that those who owned slaves in the 18th Century simply saw slavery as a means of capital gain, regardless of race? Could that be the reason so many free Blacks also owned slaves? What happened first? Slavery? Or scientific racism?

Why would Paul have instructed believers to obey masters, if slavery is explicitly condemned in the Bible?

Quote :

1Ti 6:1 ¶ Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and [his] doctrine be not blasphemed.

1Ti 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise [them], because they are brethren; but rather do [them] service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

It seems as if Paul is saying that some masters were believers, and should not be despised, because they are brothers.

So, what do we then do with Jonathan Edwards? Yes, he owned slaves. He also lived in the 18th Century, before the rise of "scientific slavery", and many slaves were also White, just under the nicer name of indentured servants.

Could we be too harsh on Edwards? Could it be that he was a sincere brother who didn't see slavery as racism? Considering the entire body of work that Edwards produced, and his clear understanding of God and that all men were totally depraved and unworthy of God's grace, could it be reasonable to believe that Edwards did not participate in slavery based upon an assumed inferiority of the Black race?

I think it's very important that we not take our 21st Century understanding of racism and slavery and smash it into a 18th Century context without at least examining the history involved. And while we aren't trying to interpret Scripture here, I believe interpreting history involves a "hermeneutical" historical principle. One thing is still most needed. Context. Context. Context.

Of course, all this rests on the above statements.

Just some thoughts.

It's hard for me to answer your question, because I dont see slavery condemned in the NT.

The reason I say that is because it was a slave culture. What I mean by that is, no NT writer calls for a revolt agaisnt slavery in their culture. Thats why I say they don't condone it, but they don't condemn slavery either.

Marco wrote:

It's hard for me to answer your question, because I dont see slavery condemned in the NT.

The reason I say that is because it was a slave culture. What I mean by that is, no NT writer calls for a revolt agaisnt slavery in their culture. Thats why I say they don't condone it, but they don't condemn slavery either.

What's good, Marco? Not disagreeing with you bro.

My bad. I misread you--ignore my post!

This might help as well. This is an email correspondence I had with Thabit Anaybwile (author of the decline of african american theology)



Hi Marco,



Here's the basic spiel I use when teaching the NT (Titus, for example).
There's more that could be said, but this seems to help.



A Note on Slavery and the New Testament

It is difficult to read certain section of the New Testament without
reacting to references to slaves and the instructions given to them. Our
reaction can be rather strong, or leave us uncomfortable or puzzled,
particularly given this country's history of chattel slavery and the role
the church played in sometimes actively justifying slavery and other times
remaining a silent bystander. But how are we to respond to the Bible's
references to slavery?



We should keep at least two things in mind.



First a general historical point. The slavery of the 1st century during
which the New Testament (NT) was written was radically different form the
slavery practiced in the United States. In NT times, slaves could own
property, marry and maintain families, move about in society, and sometimes
were adopted/given family-like treatment or status. As a rule of practice
and a matter of public law, none of this was true in the American colonies
and the new Republic. Proponents of slavery not only violated these basic
human rights but justified the practice by arguing against the humanity of
African people, in some cases to the point of asserting that Africans had no
soul. The U.S. system of chattel slavery was significantly more brutal than
anything Paul could have imagined as he wrote these instructions.



More specific to Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus are two other points.
One, Paul is primarily concerned with the witness of the gospel, not
justifying slavery as such. Paul sees that the behavior of the slave and
the master either honors or blasphemes God ( I Tim. 6:1). The treatment
given in this relationship between master and slave is to reflect their
status as brothers in Christ, a status greater than their social class. "In
Christ there is neither bond nor free.". Two, Paul clearly argues against
slavery as it would come to be practiced in the American colonies. In the
opening sentences I Timothy, as he is describing the "lawful use" of the law
(I Timothy 1:8-11), he lists "manstealers" (rendered "kidnappers" or "slave
traders" in some translations) as unrighteous persons engaged in acts
contrary to the law. Again, Paul shows primary concern for the gospel by
adding the summary clause in verses 10 and 11, "and for whatever else is
contrary to sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the
blessed God, which he entrusted to me."



So, our sensibilities and convictions in opposition to slavery - whether
that of 150 years ago in the American colonies or that practiced today in
parts of Africa and elsewhere - are right and understandable. But, we
should not mistake the Bible or Paul to be supporters of that dehumanizing
and barbaric institution established in the transatlantic slave trade.



Hope that helps.

T-