Slavery existed in all cultures before the Christian era and prior to the establishment of Israel. The Bible must be understood within its cultural-societal milieu. What the Bible did at every stage is lessen the injustice of slavery. The laws enacted in what we know as the Law--1st five Books of the Hebrew Bible--were more lenient towards slaves than that of the surrounding cultures.

 

When it comes to the New Testament, its authors are writing to a very small minority within the Roman Empire with absolutely no power to change any of the society's more's by fiat. However, what the New Testament said about slaves would be the impetus that would one day end slavery. There were some 60 million slaves in the Empire at that time. Christians gave them more status than any other group in that day. Paul gave them equal status to every other person within the church. The same is true of women.

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28, 29) That's a pretty amazing statement considering the surrounding culture in the Roman Empire.

 

In Philemon, the Apostle Paul seeks to persuade a Christian slave owner to receive a runaway slave and not punish him because he became a Christian believer while meeting up with Paul. Paul admonishes the slave owner to receive the runaway slave, not as a slave, but as a brother because he was now a brother in Christ. Taking Paul's reasoning to its logical conclusion, one would see that being a slaveholder was not consistent with the Christian ethic.

 

You have to take into account how deeply entrenched slavery was in the culture and how little power the Christian church had. Rather than start a movement to end slavery, they started a movement to change people's hearts and out of a changed heart would come the ethic that would end slavery and a host of other societal evils.

 

The same kind of argument may be made about whether the Bible supported polygamy or not. The Patriarchs had multiple wives. But again, one must realize that this was the norm for their society. What the Bible does is tell stories about these families and from the stories you can see that bad consequences came from having multiple wives and the kinds of jealousies and rivalries this inevitably caused. While the Hebrew Scriptures do not outright outlaw it, the point being made by the narrative is that it is not conducive for families and the community as a whole.

 

When it comes to the New Testament, Jesus said marriage was to be between one man and one woman. He saw this as the original intention of God at creation. Later, the Apostles would say that any one considered for church leadership must be the husband of one wife. In other words, pagans who had multiple wives, upon conversion to Christianity were welcomed into the church but they were not to be appointed to leadership because their family structure did not represent God's intention for marriage. To tell these converted pagans to separate from their multiple wives would have been disastrous for the women. Best thing to do was to keep polygamists from leadership and Christians would realize polygamy was not right and it would die out among Christians.

 

Excellent post. :thumb:

OldGrappler, is it just me, but weren't late Biblical through Medival Christians really accepting to non believers and new Christians? Where did this go?

 

Being sincere here...where is this sentiment of tolerance today? Did this die in the with the "New World"?

Thanks for the question. I am not quite sure what you mean by accepting of non believers and new Christians. Could you expand on what you mean?

 

For now I'll just give you my first reaction. I think when Christianity has been less than meek it is when it has gained worldly power. The first 300 years the Christian faith was an outsider community. It was known for its love. The Romans took notice of this and they wrote about it.

 

Inquisitions occurred because the church got power and the old adage is true, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Christians weren't exempt from this. Mixing the Church with political power has never been a good idea.

 

Another aspect of this question can go a different direction. What is the meaning of tolerance? To me tolerance means that I can discuss issues and respect other's opinions even though I may disagree with them. I have a friend who is a Hindu. I have had several discussions with him about religion. I ask questions of him and he asks questions of me. I try to convey to him what I think is really important for Christians and I ask him what is really important to him.

 

I have another friend who is an atheist. We have had deep discussions about the violence of the 20th century and the underlying causes. I thought we may clash over some of it but it was a meaningful dialogue.

 

I have at least two friends who are gay. One I haven't really talked to about this issue, though he knows my faith commitments. We are quite cordial and have talked about religion on several occasions. With my second friend I have talked a great deal about this issue, trying to understand him and what he thinks. I have not sugarcoated my beliefs for him. He seems to appreciate that.

 

In none of these cases have I compromised my convictions and have stood by them. There is a way to discuss highly emotional issues in a way that shows respect for others and their ideas even though we may not agree. Our friendship is not dependent on agreement but mutual respect. I do not befriend someone only if they will agree with me. And in the event we may disagree about very important matters, I don't end the friendship because it isn't based on uniformity.

 

That to me, is tolerance. Tolerance doesn't require that I agree with someone or that person agrees with me. So I think true tolerance still exists. False tolerance occurs when a person wants someone who disagrees with them to at the same time think their differing views are equally moral and good for human flourishing. This may not be the case at all and to try to make someone act as if it is, is actually a form of bullying. The problem right now is that the US is in a cultural shift. We are now in a post-Christian culture and it is hard for both sides to be respectful. Many Christians believe the sky is falling and there needs to be a return to the more's and ideas of the past. Many post moderns think that old ideas have been superseded and instead of try to understand them and see why they have been valued they dismiss them. Obviously this is a broad generalization, but i think this may explain some of the rancor in our culture between Bible believing Christians and people with a more secular mindset.

 

At least this is my take. Hellcat, did this start to get at what you are asking?

Did I miss where someone was trying to justify slavery?

^ OP was a statement that basically said the Bible condones slavery because it only limits it and doesn't have an explicit statement prohibiting it.

Thanks for the question. I am not quite sure what you mean by accepting of non believers and new Christians. Could you expand on what you mean?

....

 

At least this is my take. Hellcat, did this start to get at what you are asking?

 

Getting there. I guess I was basing off of things like the willingness of church leaders to place Christmas on a pagan holiday date to try to include and minister to those people.

 

Maybe I just struggle to understand why some followers get so angry and sometimes violent and often ostracizing over social issues when early Christian leaders were willing to deal to gain followers.

 

And to be clear...I am follower just a more liberal one.

Hellcat, you surprised me with the direction of your question. I am going to have to think about this. I must admit my recollection of church history in the period after Constantine's "conversion" is a bit sketchy. I will be heading out for the fourth of July and a few days next week. I don't think I can answer your question before then.

 

There are those who do not see the church acquiescing to pagan practices as a positive (there is another explanation for how the birth of Christ came to be celebrated on Dec. 25). Even today in some countries it is hard to tell the difference between a "Christian" feast celebrating a well-known Christian from the past with the former feast that was to a pagan deity.

 

Let me show my biases--we all have them. I tend to view Christianity as a counterculture movement, most often siding with the poor, and fighting injustice, and evil in society. One of my favorite leaders from Church history is John Wesley. He led a movement that changed the culture of England. England in the end of the 17th century and beginning of the 18th century was quite depraved. Gin was a bad influence. He and his preachers went about seeking to change England one heart at a time. In the process, as people were converted or became more committed to their faith they began see injustice in their society and to act to change it. Result was a change in child labor laws, help for alcoholics, and William Wilberforce persevering until slavery was ended in the British Empire. Many other positive changes came, as well.

 

Have a great 4th of July. We are blessed to live in a country that affords us unbelievable liberties.