Essay:The Bible, Slavery, and Mental Gymnastics. An exchange with Creation Ministries International

Introduction
In October 2017 Creation Ministries international published an article entitled "Why do people worship false gods?". Needless to say I found this somewhat ironic, given that they are an organisation that are, in my view, essentially dedicated to the worship of a book.

I wrote a short comment: ''"Why do people worship false gods?" asks the people who worship a book that endorses slavery, legitimizes racism, and celebrates genocide. Oh the irony!"''

Lita Cosner, the author of the article, responded:

"We don't worship a book, we worship the God who gave us a book that helped to end slavery, gives the only answer for racial reconciliation, and calls us to self-sacrificial love of our enemies even to the point of death for the Gospel. Without God's Word, why not enslave and kill others who aren't just like you? I mean, if it's all survival of the fittest, why should I get all sentimental about human beings who aren't part of 'my tribe'. Christianity gives us the only basis for caring about all humans, because we're all closely related via Adam and Eve, and Christ died to save people of every tribe, tongue, and nation."

I then responded with a further comment which is the subject of this essay.

My original comment
"I don't doubt you think you don't worship a book but your actions say otherwise. Your entire organization is dedicated to the purpose of idolizing that book.

''God never *gave* you the Bible, which is, at best, a very arbitrarily assembled collection of texts and letters, written by men. The notion that it is divinely inspired is ludicrous. Supposedly God is not the author of confusion and yet what book has caused more confusion? There are literally tens of thousands of different sects of Christianity and among them there would scarcely be a Bible verse that is not a point of contention.''

''You claim that your book helped end slavery. That is revisionist at best. If we look at the example of slavery in the American South, while it is true that there were Christian abolitionists, it should be recognized that this was in spite of what the Bible said, not because of it. Leviticus 25:44-45 expressly allows slave trade. Exodus 21:20-21 allows beating of slaves. The New Testament isn't any better, instructing slaves to "obey their masters, even the cruel ones…". Nowhere is slavery prohibited. Do I really need to embarrass you by quoting the slave-holders who were very happy to cite the Bible in their support?''

Also, I hate to break it to you but slavery has not been ended around the world.

''You ask "why not enslave and kill others"? Simple; if that is allowed then others are free to enslave and kill me. That is a form of the Golden Rule (I particularly like Martin Luther King Jr's version; "To accept injustice for anyone is to invite it for everyone") and the law of reciprocity, which is a secular moral principle that can be traced historically to well before Christianity appropriated it in Matthew 7:12."''

Lita Cosner's response
The complete text of Lita's response can be found in the article Does the Bible condone slavery? on the Creation Ministries International website.

Rebuttal
Lita Cosner:"If you come to Scripture looking for something to criticize and isolate passages out of context, no doubt you will find something to be outraged about."

Firstly, if you are going to accuse me of taking passages “out of context” then you had better be prepared to state exactly where you think I have done so, what you believe the correct context to be, and why. The two specific passages about slavery that I cited, Leviticus 25:44-45 and Exodus 21:20-21, are quite clear in endorsing slave trade and the beating of slaves. It is difficult to see how you could argue otherwise.

Secondly, this is not about expressing outrage. I am simply pointing out the obvious regarding the question of whether the Bible really is a message from a “god”, or the work of mere men; That a divine work would not be expected to contain such moral inconsistency.

When engaging with Biblical literalists I always like to bring up the slavery laws in the Bible and then sit back and enjoy the mental gymnastics that results. You certainly haven’t disappointed with some Olympic class gymnastics routines throughout your article and in the comments from other believers.

The reason this kind of reaction occurs, in my opinion, is that people today almost instinctively know that slavery is wrong, and yet, for those who believe the “Word of God”, they also cannot deny that the Bible explicitly endorses it. This causes a conflict for those who want it to be a source of moral guidance, and it is quite extraordinary the lengths that some will go to in an attempt to rationalise away the problem.

For example, Greg A. wrote in the comments:

Greg A.:'“The Bible allows some types of slavery but certainly does not “condone” it. “Allows” means tolerates whereas “condones” means approves of it. If you read all the Bible’s verses about slavery (the entire Bible is the proper context of biblical questions) then the obvious conclusion is that God allowed slavery but He certainly did not command or condone it.”'

If we’re going to be pedantic about semantics, I used the word “endorse”. It was you, Lita, who used “condone”, but I digress. One can almost picture Greg’s head about to explode as he frantically grasps at straws playing a word game in an attempt to wish away the moral conflict.

Now, if you think Greg’s response is reasonable, I’ll offer this analogous statement to see if you think it would also be a sound justification for a more contemporary ethical issue:

“The Roman Catholic Church allowed pedophile priests to continue molesting children, but certainly did not command or condone it.”

Would the above statement, if true, absolve the Church of moral culpability or responsibility?

My point is that allowing something, with knowledge that it is occurring, is the same as “condoning” it. If the god of the Bible can command “Thou shalt not steal”, then He could, if He was really against slavery, have commanded “Thou shalt not own another person as property”, but didn’t. An omniscient god would also have foreseen the problems that such an omission would cause.

Lita Cosner:“If you actually look at the context of the entirety of Scripture and study it fairly, you will find it to be a remarkable book, even if you only look at it as a body of literature”

I will happily concede that the Bible is important as literature, and is useful for providing a context to understand a lot about Western culture, where Christianity has been prevalent. It is also essential for understanding various atrocities and injustices that have been carried out in its name throughout history, which we need to ensure never happen again.

“(of course, I believe it to be the divinely inspired Word of God, and treat it as such).”

I understand that YOU believe that, but why should anyone else believe it?

'“I don’t have the space in a short reply to survey the inspiration, transmission, and translation of Scripture, but I have co-authored a little booklet about it that you can buy for less than the price of a latte, if you care to hear about it. It’s called How Did We Get Our Bible? And Is It the Word of God?”'

Which has no real evidence to back it up. How, exactly, can you establish that a book is divinely written/inspired without experiencing first-hand a direct intervention from the deity in question to authenticate the claim? That’s why “Thou shalt not test the Lord thy God” doesn’t cut it as an excuse. There can be no authority without authentication.

“There are not ‘tens of thousands of sects’ of Christianity, that’s wildly inflated by more than an order of magnitude.”

The World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press, 2001 edition) gives a figure of 33,820 denominations. Of course an exact number is difficult to determine, and it depends on the definition of sect/denomination, but I notice that you have provided no reference or evidence to support your claim that it is “wildly inflated”.

“You can do some quick web searches to educate yourself on the matter, if you like.”

I am afraid it is you who needs educating, and you should have taken your own advice. If you had you would have found that searching for “number of sects of Christianity” gives over a dozen links that support a figure of tens of thousands. But let’s, just for the sake of argument, accept that the figure is an order of magnitude or two lower; mere thousands or hundreds. Does that really make your position any better? Hardly...

Your contention, essentially, is that there is a god who has provided a vitally important message for us via the Bible. Is it unreasonable then to expect that such a message would be clear and unambiguous? So, how is it possible that such a multitude of sects/denominations of Christianity have arisen, largely over disagreements in its interpretation?

Christians can’t even agree on what mode of baptism is expected (sprinkling or full immersion), and, if you are going to argue that such details aren’t important, then why is baptism important, or indeed the interpretation of ANYTHING in the Bible important? You would have to believe that “God” is monumentally stupid to leave "His" believers in such a position.

'“And would you really prefer a single authoritarian entity that would ruthlessly enforce theological standards? Such organizations tended not to tolerate atheists.”'

What I would “prefer” is irrelevant to what is true. And besides, isn’t it generally believers, like yourself, who crave such a thing?

For example, Dan M., after accusing me of ranting, ranted in the comments:

Dan M.:'“He, (Jesus) is God and you’re not! He makes the rules and you don’t! So you can either submit and accept forgiveness or go your own way, (separation from God)! There really are only two choices!”'

It’s obvious that Dan is longing for the time when a Christian theocracy can be established to brutally enforce what he thinks are the rules (which no doubt just happen to match his own personal moral preferences). Be careful what you wish for, Dan!

Lita Cosner:“It is not revisionist to claim that Christianity helped to end the slave trade.”

I never said that it was! If you care to go back and read what I actually wrote, which you even quoted in your article so there’s no excuse, I said “You claim that your book helped end slavery. That is revisionist at best.”, which was in response to your claim “...we worship the God who gave us a book [i.e. the Bible] that helped to end slavery...”

In other words I was contesting your claim that *the Bible* helped end slavery, not Christianity. Please address what I actually said, not a straw man that you wanted me to say.

'“William Wilberforce is universally recognized as one of the main abolitionists responsible for ending the slave trade in England, and his writings stating that his Christian faith was instrumental in his beliefs is public record. Furthermore, his associates in the Clapham sect were similarly motivated by Christianity and their literal reading of the Bible.”'

Which is an irrelevant straw man argument because I actually acknowledged that there were Christian abolitionists in my original comment.

I will, however, address the claim that these abolitionists used their “literal reading of the Bible” to justify their position. Abolitionists were acting in spite of what the Bible says about slavery; Where the Bible specifically addresses slavery (e.g. Exodus 21, Leviticus 25) it endorses it, so abolitionists avoided those passages. Instead they tended to cite more generalised moral instruction like Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:30-31, which, ironically, reflect secular moral principles (the Golden Rule and reciprocity) that Christianity appropriated, as I alluded to in my original comment.

Indeed, just think of how much easier the abolitionists goal would have been, and how much earlier it might have been achieved, if those pro-slavery passages were not in the Bible at all.

“Regarding Scripture’s statements about slavery, again, I only have the space for an overview,”

I am already quite familiar with the Bible’s position on slavery, so you’re not telling me anything that I don’t already know.

'“but simply put, we can divide the slavery regulations into those for Israelites and non-Israelites. Israelites could only be indentured servants, not lifetime servants (unless they so preferred their situation with their master that they asked to be lifetime slaves).”'

Or their master gave them a wife (Exodus 21:4) to essentially blackmail them into staying because the wife, and any children, would NOT be freed with them...

'“They were to be freed after 7 years and compensated generously for their time. They were also protected by several laws; they were not chattel. If a man took a female slave for a concubine, she had certain rights and could not simply be discarded.”'

None of which is relevant, but I notice that you’ve conveniently omitted the obligations of conjugal slaves. If a master wanted their slave to have sex with them and/or bear his children, could she refuse? What was the minimum age for a conjugal slave?

I would like you to think about those questions for a minute if you’re going to persist in pretending that Biblical slavery is somehow a “nicer” kind of slavery than in more recent times.

“Non-Israelites could be enslaved for life.”

Correct! And congratulations, because we’re half-way and you just answered the question you posed in the title of your article “Does the Bible condone slavery?”; Yes. It does!

I hope you can actually set some of your readers straight on this too, because I have lost count of the number of times I have debated Christians who claim that slavery in the Bible is *just* indentured servitude, which simply isn’t true. Perhaps that should be put on the CMI website under “Arguments that Christians should not use”.

'“However, they also had certain rights, including Sabbath rest in the household of their master. They could not be wantonly mistreated.”'

Lita, it’s obvious that you don’t understand what the actual ethical problem is with slavery. The mandated treatment of slaves is irrelevant. There will always be bad masters, and a well-treated slave is still a slave, who was not free to leave, and didn’t have the same rights as others, which might have included the right to own property, to vote, or decide who they wanted to marry.

I could offer examples of slaves in the American South who were well-treated (although it is clear that many others were treated brutally). They were fed, clothed, and housed. Some were treated, quite literally, as family. And some of them were even happy to be in that condition. So what?

Does that make it right?

No. The ethical problem isn’t treatment, it’s OWNERSHIP. What is unethical is the idea that a human being can be owned by another, and that is something that the Bible EXPRESSLY allows.

“If you accepted Scripture for what it truly is, the Word of God, you would have to deal with its depiction of Jesus, the Son of God, and His claims about our need to be saved from sin.”

I AM treating it for what it obviously truly is given its moral inconsistency. Your contention that it is the “Word of God” is yet to be proven, and so far you haven’t done much of a job at doing so.

'“But we also have to ask: what would the alternative be? Israelites might be enslaved because of extreme poverty or because of being convicted of a crime. Slavery is not ideal, but it beats starving to death or being executed for a crime. Non-Israelites would be taken as slaves in armed conflict—again, most people would choose slavery to death.”'

I have heard this ridiculous apologetic many times before, and there are a number of problems with it:

Firstly, you are presenting a false dichotomy; slavery and death aren’t the only choices.

Secondly, if you really believe that this is an ethical solution then why aren’t we using it to solve the refugee crisis around the world today?

Thirdly, and this is likely going to be difficult for you to answer honestly, given the character of Jesus as described in the gospels, what do you think HIS solution to the problem would be? In essence, WWJD? I find it difficult to believe that you would think Jesus would actually advocate enslaving people, over charity, for instance.

'“In the New Testament, we must remember that Christians were a small minority. The Roman government had a way of squashing movements that openly called for slave revolts. But Christians had a way of gently subverting the order. Paul addressed slaves as people capable of choosing godly submission in the context of their slavery, but the really subversive part is that he called slave owners to treat their slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. Really read the letter of Philemon and try to come to a conclusion other than that Paul wants Philemon to free Onesimus. In fact, church history indicates that Philemon did exactly that, and Onesimus became a leader in the early church.”'

Paul asking for the converted slave to be freed, if that was indeed what he was doing, would not have been unusual. I’m sure that you’re aware a significant fraction of citizens in the Ancient Roman Empire were freed slaves. Manumission was common, for a variety of reasons, including compassionate ones. So, appealing for release of a friend from slavery was hardly a subversive act, or an indication that Paul was an abolitionist. If he had appealed to ALL slave holders to free their slaves that would be another matter, but alas, he didn't.

'“If Christianity was not abolitionist at its core, why would Christians in the first centuries after the completion of the NT call for the end of slavery? Gregory of Nyssa was perhaps the first Christian to openly condemn all forms of slavery as against God’s will, and he was quite early.”'

That is easily refuted; If Christianity was abolitionist at its core, why was slavery not immediately abolished wherever it was established as the state religion?

That some early Christians were abolitionists is also not surprising. There always were abolitionists. Some were converted to Christianity and maintained their political views. These early Christians would likely never have seen a Bible in anything like its current form, and even if they had they probably wouldn’t have been able to read it, because the vast majority of people at that time were not literate. So, they may not have even known what the OT said about slavery, other than what they were told, and who knows what they were told? So, again, their abolitionist position had nothing to do with what the Bible said.

'“Of course slave-holders quoted the Bible to try to justify their actions, just like wife-beaters might quote the Bible to try to justify their abuse. But that doesn’t mean that it’s a valid reading of Scripture.”'

And who determines what a “valid” reading is? You? EVERYONE thinks that they have a valid interpretation. That is the whole problem. The worst thing then that YOU can say about the wife-beater or slave-holder is that they aren’t interpreting the Bible correctly. If they are, in fact, interpreting it correctly their actions would be “moral”, according to you.

Ironically, I’m willing to give the Christian God, if He did exist, more credit than you do here, because I cannot believe that a god could be so stupid to leave such an ambiguous message that it could be interpreted to justify virtually any unethical act.

'“And yes, it is a sad reality that slavery still exists in places around the world. But historically speaking, it is much more notable that slavery isn’t accepted in the majority of the Western world.”'

You still haven’t explained why it took the best part of two thousand years to get around to abolishing slavery.

“And if you do just a bit of research, you would find that there are many Christian ministries dedicated to ending modern-day slavery, as well.”

Which is laudable. I’m all for that. But as I’ve pointed out several times now, that has NOTHING to do with what the Bible says on slavery.

“Where are the purely secular societies for abolition?”

You’ve not heard of Amnesty International? Greenpeace? The United Nations?

“It’s almost as if people who deny the divine image in humanity have no reason to sacrifice to see the disadvantaged treated with dignity.”

It’s almost as if you shot your mouth off before doing any research...

“Yes, science has shown that people around the world are genetically similar, but that has not been the actual basis of abolition;”

Where did I say that it was? This is yet another straw man from you, and at this point I’m beginning to wonder whether it is just carelessness on your part or a deliberate effort to mislead your readers into thinking that you have legitimately addressed my argument.

The socio-political reasons behind abolition are complex, but basically it boils down to people, after experiencing the harsh realities of the slave trade, coming to the realisation that slavery was harmful, not only to the slaves, but to the societies that allowed it.

“Christianity has been.”

Simply saying that doesn’t make it so, Lita. You’re flying in the face of the facts. As I already acknowledged, there were Christian abolitionists, but there were also pro-slavery Christian groups. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention was initially formed primarily to advocate for slavery.

“It’s no good to point to scientific data that could theoretically serve as a basis for societal change and give that as evidence against the thing that has been the basis of societal change.”

And it’s no good to form an argument about something I never claimed. That’s called a straw man!

“But I would suggest that there is a deeper basis for your rejection of Scripture, because if you accepted Scripture for what it truly is, the Word of God, you would have to deal with its depiction of Jesus, the Son of God, and His claims about our need to be saved from sin.”

Of course you cannot resist but insult me by throwing in the old “Y’all rejecting Gawd, because Y’all just wanna sin” routine.

Let me make a few things clear to you. My disbelief has NOTHING to do with sin. I simply don’t find the case for any religion, including Christianity, convincing. And, when I engage with Christians and they try to defend their position they are, like you, abject failures at it, and then I’m told “Well, you just gotta have faith”. Well, no I don’t! If there is a good reason to believe something then you don’t need faith. I have to wonder why your religion values it so much...

“I would urge you to look at these things a bit more closely.”

Ditto. I’m sorry Lita, but you’ve accomplished little but to embarrass yourself, and you’ve only reaffirmed the perception that your organisation produces poorly researched articles full of wishful thinking, fact-bending, straw men, and other fallacies...