It seems like it is taken as a given by many Americans that owning slaves is a sin.
I had a conversation a few years ago with a man with a theology degree... not a pastor... and a law degree. He said something about slavery being a sin. I disagreed with him. Abraham and Isaac owned slaves and aren't called sinners for it. Philemon had love for the brethren, but he owned a slave, Onesimus. Paul was writing either to get Onesimus freed. But he does not condemn Philemon as a sinner for owning Onesimus. He does not urge him to repent. Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. Peter tells servants to submit to their masters, not only the good and considerate, but also the harsh ones.
The Old Testament regulates slavery. It does not forbid it. Israelites who went out to war against distant nations that would not take a peace treaty were expressly allowed to keep the virgin females as slaves, and they could also marry these slaves. Male Hebrew slaves were to be set free after seven years.
To add a bit of nuance, when Israelites were sinning in the time of Ezra by charging their brethren 1% interest (I'm assuming simple interest), and then on top of that taking debtors who did not pay as slaves, Ezra rebuked them for doing so. They had spent money to redeem fellow Israelites already. Charging interest to fellow Israelites was the actual sin in the law of Moses, not owning slaves.
Of course if you point this out in America and you aren't Black, you might get labelled a racist.
The Hebrew system of slavery was different from the transatlantic slave trade. There were some wicked practices like shackling people on the boat until many of them died, leaving other slaves in there with the stench of death. Also, kidnapping was a death penalty crime if the perpetrator were caught in the act. But obtaining slaves in war did not (necessarily) fit into this category. It seems likely transatlantic slaves were generally captured prior to being transported.
In some ways, Greek slavery may have been more humane. Romans might have been better in treatment than Transatlantic, potentially, if the slave did not end up in a brothel.
I notice that theological arguments from abolitionists in the 1800s were a bit looser theologically, based on loving one's brother. I haven't read that deeply. Southern arguments for slavery were a bit tighter on biblicist exegesis. For students of revival in the colonial era. George Whitfield, having seen the relative prosperity of southern colonies up north suggested that the new Georgia colony might be more prosperous if it had slaves, and slavery might not be as bad for those who were already accustomed to it.
While I appreciate living in a legal system without slavery (if we had it, who knows if you wouldn't be one), I kind of wonder if the trajectory of some of the liberal denominations up north, such as some of those those that grew out of the churches of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Separatists, tending away from tight exegesis to broader principles on this contributed to the general trend. Then you end up with people who think that the Bible is written for and in a morally deficient culture, but God's overall arching theme was to lead people toward modern liberal democratic ideals, like voting, universal suffrage, feminism, LGBT rights, etc. And then there are those who think that God has changed and become more enlightened and 'liberal' over time (my words for the concept.)
I had a conversation a few years ago with a man with a theology degree... not a pastor... and a law degree. He said something about slavery being a sin. I disagreed with him. Abraham and Isaac owned slaves and aren't called sinners for it. Philemon had love for the brethren, but he owned a slave, Onesimus. Paul was writing either to get Onesimus freed. But he does not condemn Philemon as a sinner for owning Onesimus. He does not urge him to repent. Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. Peter tells servants to submit to their masters, not only the good and considerate, but also the harsh ones.
The Old Testament regulates slavery. It does not forbid it. Israelites who went out to war against distant nations that would not take a peace treaty were expressly allowed to keep the virgin females as slaves, and they could also marry these slaves. Male Hebrew slaves were to be set free after seven years.
To add a bit of nuance, when Israelites were sinning in the time of Ezra by charging their brethren 1% interest (I'm assuming simple interest), and then on top of that taking debtors who did not pay as slaves, Ezra rebuked them for doing so. They had spent money to redeem fellow Israelites already. Charging interest to fellow Israelites was the actual sin in the law of Moses, not owning slaves.
Of course if you point this out in America and you aren't Black, you might get labelled a racist.
The Hebrew system of slavery was different from the transatlantic slave trade. There were some wicked practices like shackling people on the boat until many of them died, leaving other slaves in there with the stench of death. Also, kidnapping was a death penalty crime if the perpetrator were caught in the act. But obtaining slaves in war did not (necessarily) fit into this category. It seems likely transatlantic slaves were generally captured prior to being transported.
In some ways, Greek slavery may have been more humane. Romans might have been better in treatment than Transatlantic, potentially, if the slave did not end up in a brothel.
I notice that theological arguments from abolitionists in the 1800s were a bit looser theologically, based on loving one's brother. I haven't read that deeply. Southern arguments for slavery were a bit tighter on biblicist exegesis. For students of revival in the colonial era. George Whitfield, having seen the relative prosperity of southern colonies up north suggested that the new Georgia colony might be more prosperous if it had slaves, and slavery might not be as bad for those who were already accustomed to it.
While I appreciate living in a legal system without slavery (if we had it, who knows if you wouldn't be one), I kind of wonder if the trajectory of some of the liberal denominations up north, such as some of those those that grew out of the churches of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Separatists, tending away from tight exegesis to broader principles on this contributed to the general trend. Then you end up with people who think that the Bible is written for and in a morally deficient culture, but God's overall arching theme was to lead people toward modern liberal democratic ideals, like voting, universal suffrage, feminism, LGBT rights, etc. And then there are those who think that God has changed and become more enlightened and 'liberal' over time (my words for the concept.)
