Background information
Christianity has been used to justify slavery since the religion began. It can be argued that Christian beliefs have been used to justify slavery since the dawn of the religion, such as when the Apostle Paul wrote in the Bible that slaves were to “obey their owners”. The use of religion in justification was widespread during the Atlantic slave trade when European countries colonized the Americas and brought Africans to their newly acquired colonies. This type of slavery was especially justified by prominent theologians in the South of the United States during the early 19th century, who argued that it was a justifiable practice based on their interpretation of the Bible.
Relevant data
The practice of slavery in Europe was abolished in the early 19th century, but slavery in the United States continued to be legitimized by the Christian religion. This justification was particularly visible in the South where pro-slavery theologians cited passages from the Old and New Testaments to support their views. They believed that the Bible lifted the responsibility of caring for slaves away from the slaveholders and placed it in the hands of the Lord. Slavery was therefore seen as a “divinely ordained institution” and many Christians began to accept it as a part of their religious and moral code.
This belief was also supported by a group of southern churches who shared a common defense of slavery. This group held that slaves should still obey their masters, citing a passage from the Bible. The expectation of obedient servitude was heavily relied upon by slaveholders, who deeply relied on the religious justification of their actions and the enslavement of others in their attempt to keep them in captivity.
Perspectives from experts
According to professor John Baumgartner who wrote Enduring Foundations: Slavery in the 21st Century, “Religion, especially Christianity has been and is used to justify and support economic, social and political systems that enabled slavery”. He argues that the use of the Bible to justify slavery, as well as its prevalence in Christian churches in the United States, is evidence of its influence in the debate. He further suggests that “Christianity has been one of the major contributing factors to the global history of slavery”.
Professors Mary Catherine Laconsay and Richard H. Immerman discuss in their book Slavery and Christianity: The Motion of Belief how this debate over whether Christians should condone slavery had reached a fever pitch by the 1830s. Many of the slaveholders held firm to their biblical interpretations and refused to “accept an ethic which moved away from the consequences of their labor”. The proponents and opponents of slavery continued to battle for views, with both sides citing their points of view from religious texts.
Own insights and analysis
Christianity has been used to justify and support the practice of slavery for centuries, and its justification of enslavement has been a major source of contention from the beginning. Religious scholars have suggested that this interpretation of Christian scriptures has resulted in the justification of a moral code, one that allows for masters to treat their slaves however they please as long as there is a “divinely ordained order”. This type of justification of slavery has caused much strife among people of faith, and it has resulted in a large amount of division in the Christian community.
The story of Christianity and slavery is a complex one, and it is still debated among those of faith today. While many people believe that it is wrong to use Christianity to justify the enslavement of others, there still remains a significant group of people who are holding fast to their interpretation of the Bible. This debate may continue for some time, but what is clear is that the history of Christianity and slavery will remain intertwined in the stories of faith, oppression, and justice.
Notion of ‘Curse of Ham’
One of the most prominent interpretations of Christianity used to justify slavery is the notion of the “Curse of Ham”, which states that slaves are descendants of a man cursed by God in the Old Testament. This interpretation was used to advocate for the enslavement of African-Americans, as well as other racial minority groups, based on skin color and economic status.
This notion was popularized by 19th century ministers and writers, who wrote that the curse indicated that God had ordained slavery and that slaveholders had a responsibility to take care of their slaves. The Curse of Ham was then used to legitimate the system of racial hierarchy and the logic of slavery, with many Christian churches and theologians seeing the superior race as their God-given right to rule over those deemed inferior.
Christian slaveholders
In addition to Christian theologians and writers, many Christian slaveholders used their faith to justify the enslavement of African-Americans. A notable example of this is Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general during the American Civil War. Lee was an outspoken proponent of slavery, claiming that it was both a Christian duty to own slaves and an institution ordained by God. He is also cited as saying that “slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil”, but that “it is the foulest blot on our government”.
The same can be said of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, two founding fathers of the United States who were also Christian slaveholders. These prominent figures used their religious beliefs to justify the ownership of human beings, stating that slavery was necessary and justifiable in order to maintain the patriarchal system of power and to protect white society from potential violence by its black citizens.
Abolitionists
On the other side of the debate were Christian abolitionists, who fought against slavery on both moral and religious grounds. These activists argued that the Bible did not condone the enslavement of human beings and that slaveholders were committing a great sin against their fellow man. They also believed that all men were created equal, and that any kind of servitude or subjugation was a violation of God’s will and human rights.
Prominent abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Sojourner Truth, and John Brown advocated for the liberation of slaves through both violent and nonviolent means. Their activism was based in part on their faith, and they argued that slavery was a sin and that it must be abolished in order to align with God’s law and moral code.
Modern-day implications
The debate surrounding the use of Christianity to justify slavery still exists today, and it is still a contentious issue within many faith communities. In the United States, this debate is particularly pertinent when it comes to issues such as immigration and the civil rights movement, and it is an issue in the public discourse of many other countries as well. As people of faith grapple with the implications of slavery, it is important to be aware of the ways in which Christianity has been used to justify the oppression of others.
It is also important to consider how certain interpretations and ideologies related to faith can be used as a tool for exploitation and harm. In this way, it is important to remember the human suffering endured as a result of slavery and to be mindful of the ways in which the use of religion can be weaponized to oppress and subjugate vulnerable populations.
Legacy of religious justifications
Despite the ongoing debate over whether Christianity should condone slavery, it is clear that the legacy of religious justifications for enslavement will continue to haunt the faith and its adherents for years to come. The scars of slavery still exist in the form of modern racial issues and disparities, and it is important to recognize how certain interpretations of faith can be weaponized to further oppress marginalized populations.
The legacy of Christianity and slavery should be remembered not only as a source of human suffering, but also as a reminder of the ways in which certain interpretations and ideologies based on faith can be used for exploitation and harm. It should serve as an impetus for open and honest dialogue regarding the moral implications of enslavement, and as an opportunity to reflect on the need to be cognizant of how faith can become a tool of oppression.
