I am going to discuss a controversial topic. From time to time, I see believers comment on the 'sin' of slavery.
I had a conversation with this with a Methodist from the northern half of the US. I told him there is a problem with calling slavery a sin. For one thing, the Bible doesn't call it a sin. Abraham was righteous before God and he owned servants. God specifically allowed Israel to make slaves of virgin females from distant nations after a battle. There were laws governing slavery, including freeing slaves.
Israelites were not allowed to return run-away slaves and a slave could be freed for a serious injury. There were limitations on it. There were different laws for foreign slaves, for Hebrew male v. female slaves.
I recently read something about Southern Baptists supporting slavary in the 1800's, comparing that to their views on ordination of women. Doctrinally, roughly at least, I see the SBC case for slavery being permitted.
One of the Abolitionist arguments at the time was that it was unloving to one's brother to own slaves, but the men who said that, and people who say that today.... I can't find their name written in the Bible with a comment that says they loved the brethren. But I can find that for the slaveowner Philemon. He had love, and he had a slave.
There are a lot of problems with the trans-Atlantic slave trade. For one thing, it was based on race in a way that slavery in Biblical times was not. Restraining people in an uncomfortable position while many of them died from the treatment and the disease, until the ships smelled like death was very horrific. There were slave owners who were apparently quite cruel in the South. (I don't know that that is true of all of them.) The system was intertwined with a racial supremacy worldview to justify it, which wasn't Biblical.
Now, one thing I've been contemplating is some of the issues with liberal theology. First is the move away from more literal interpretation of scripture. The SBC, for example, followed that originally on slavery. Abolitionists would look at broader principles about love and argue their case. But since then, liberal theology which largely involves unbelief in the scripture has evolved.
I noticed that some of the abolitionist churches were descendants of the Separatist 'Pilgrim' churches in the northeast. Some of the UCC congregations have that heritage. Actually, as you go west, the UCC has ethnic congregations that can be somewhat conservative, but as you go to the east, the people can get crazy liberal, supporting forms of sexual perversion as social justice. They are congregational so it can change based on the congregation.
But some of the thinking of liberals seems to be along these lines-- that God has gradually been nudging people toward a set of modern values. These days, that could be pro-abortion and bodily autonomy for women, feminism/egalitarianism in marriage and church leadership, supporting LGBT, etc. The Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament, could be explained away as partly the work of men. There are even those who think God's morality has changed and shifted to a more moral modern way of thinking as God learned... according to their theology. What is really alarming if support of sexual perversion as part of so-called 'social justice' is blamed on the Spirit... considering Christ's teaching about the unforgiveable sin.
I haven't read all the volumes of theology, but I wonder if there is a theological root here... the idea that God wants to move to some set of moral principles not explicitly in scripture that are a bit higher standard... that might have been open to more liberal interpretations of scripture.
Of course, the original Congregationalists were very much into moral decency and following scripture. I gather that the Congregationalists in the 1800s had a high sense of ethics, as some may today. But combining some of the trends of unbelief in scripture with accepting whatever 'social justice' movement-- even those diametrically opposed to scripture and moral decency-- led to some of the morally bankrupt versions of religious liberalism and promotion of perversion under the banner of 'social justice' that we see today.
Of course, I am thinking about being pro-abortion, pro gay 'marriage' and the sexual perversion that goes along with it. The PCUSA is from a different historical stream than the Congregationalists, but they are talking about accepting polyamory. And of course, this isn't that big of a surprise if they are okay with homosexual sex.
Maybe some of you are familiar with the evaluation of theology in the UCC and just the general trend of their pulpit preaching, or other liberal groups that were abolitionist early on that followed this track. I am not saying all abolitionist groups went liberal on moral issues. the AME was abolitionist. Parts of the PCA were abolitionist, also. These groups hold to more traditional views when it comes to marriage versus homosexual perversion. (The AME may have a 'liberal' faction on this issue.)
I had a conversation with this with a Methodist from the northern half of the US. I told him there is a problem with calling slavery a sin. For one thing, the Bible doesn't call it a sin. Abraham was righteous before God and he owned servants. God specifically allowed Israel to make slaves of virgin females from distant nations after a battle. There were laws governing slavery, including freeing slaves.
Israelites were not allowed to return run-away slaves and a slave could be freed for a serious injury. There were limitations on it. There were different laws for foreign slaves, for Hebrew male v. female slaves.
I recently read something about Southern Baptists supporting slavary in the 1800's, comparing that to their views on ordination of women. Doctrinally, roughly at least, I see the SBC case for slavery being permitted.
One of the Abolitionist arguments at the time was that it was unloving to one's brother to own slaves, but the men who said that, and people who say that today.... I can't find their name written in the Bible with a comment that says they loved the brethren. But I can find that for the slaveowner Philemon. He had love, and he had a slave.
There are a lot of problems with the trans-Atlantic slave trade. For one thing, it was based on race in a way that slavery in Biblical times was not. Restraining people in an uncomfortable position while many of them died from the treatment and the disease, until the ships smelled like death was very horrific. There were slave owners who were apparently quite cruel in the South. (I don't know that that is true of all of them.) The system was intertwined with a racial supremacy worldview to justify it, which wasn't Biblical.
Now, one thing I've been contemplating is some of the issues with liberal theology. First is the move away from more literal interpretation of scripture. The SBC, for example, followed that originally on slavery. Abolitionists would look at broader principles about love and argue their case. But since then, liberal theology which largely involves unbelief in the scripture has evolved.
I noticed that some of the abolitionist churches were descendants of the Separatist 'Pilgrim' churches in the northeast. Some of the UCC congregations have that heritage. Actually, as you go west, the UCC has ethnic congregations that can be somewhat conservative, but as you go to the east, the people can get crazy liberal, supporting forms of sexual perversion as social justice. They are congregational so it can change based on the congregation.
But some of the thinking of liberals seems to be along these lines-- that God has gradually been nudging people toward a set of modern values. These days, that could be pro-abortion and bodily autonomy for women, feminism/egalitarianism in marriage and church leadership, supporting LGBT, etc. The Old Testament, and parts of the New Testament, could be explained away as partly the work of men. There are even those who think God's morality has changed and shifted to a more moral modern way of thinking as God learned... according to their theology. What is really alarming if support of sexual perversion as part of so-called 'social justice' is blamed on the Spirit... considering Christ's teaching about the unforgiveable sin.
I haven't read all the volumes of theology, but I wonder if there is a theological root here... the idea that God wants to move to some set of moral principles not explicitly in scripture that are a bit higher standard... that might have been open to more liberal interpretations of scripture.
Of course, the original Congregationalists were very much into moral decency and following scripture. I gather that the Congregationalists in the 1800s had a high sense of ethics, as some may today. But combining some of the trends of unbelief in scripture with accepting whatever 'social justice' movement-- even those diametrically opposed to scripture and moral decency-- led to some of the morally bankrupt versions of religious liberalism and promotion of perversion under the banner of 'social justice' that we see today.
Of course, I am thinking about being pro-abortion, pro gay 'marriage' and the sexual perversion that goes along with it. The PCUSA is from a different historical stream than the Congregationalists, but they are talking about accepting polyamory. And of course, this isn't that big of a surprise if they are okay with homosexual sex.
Maybe some of you are familiar with the evaluation of theology in the UCC and just the general trend of their pulpit preaching, or other liberal groups that were abolitionist early on that followed this track. I am not saying all abolitionist groups went liberal on moral issues. the AME was abolitionist. Parts of the PCA were abolitionist, also. These groups hold to more traditional views when it comes to marriage versus homosexual perversion. (The AME may have a 'liberal' faction on this issue.)
