The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gregory of Nyssa the first Christian to oppose slave trade

Its good to know that Gregory of Nyssa, the Greek Orthodox Universlalist theologian, was also the first Christian writer to directly oppose the slave trade. Well done Gregory for the double truth :smiley:

gosh…and how long did the rest of Christendom ignore him before it realised slavery was wrong too?
yeesh

That could be useful - do you have a primary source for that?

Well here’s me seconday source with all of the primary source references in it

academia.edu/1485109/The_Fir … an_Slavery

:slight_smile:

Wow. This is so TIMELY for me.

I’m currently reading MIDNIGHT RISING, a biographry of John Brown. Brown was a devout Christian and “abolitionist fanatic” who effectively triggered the U.S. Civil War by organizing a raid on the Armory in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, with the intent of fomenting a slave revolt. He was captured by Robert E. Lee (then a loyal Federal officer) and subsequently tried and hanged. But his eloquent writings and speech while awaiting his execution denouncing the brutality and blasphemy of slavery, and his unwillingness to be a pacifist in the face of OTHERS suffering, being beaten and dying radicalized many in the otherwise passively anti-slave North.

The only people Brown WOULD NOT MEET WITH while awaiting the gallows were pro-slavery southern clergy. He could not abide those who had contorted their faith in a way that allowed them to sanction human bondage.

It got me thinking - how many issues today are as IMPORTANT? So many well-meaning people in the North had the same view of Slavery as many of us have of ECT theology: It’s wrong. It hurts millions. It’s a blasphemy against Christ. But “live and let live”, abide, don’t make waves, “give it time”, it will eventually sort itself out.

I think no. I think changes are triggered by people who make no peace with injustice. Who fight for truth, even at personal sacrifice.

Am I a Universalist? HELL, YES.

Dick, slavery is a fascinating issue, and one I have quite an active interest in (so I hope this thread takes off). I note that Arnobius the Elder (n.d.-330, many years before Gregory of Nyssa) was explicitly opposed to enslaving the free-born (but not explicitly opposed to liberating existing slaves; though I think this has more to do with undermining the foundations of slavery, as Paul did, and the early church’s general aversion to war and uprisings), stating that God could have no purpose or find no pleasure in it. It should also be noted that many early church fathers were opposed to (holding magisterial office and) capital punishment, which in ancient times was the loss of civic status through death, exile or enslavement. Tertullian (160-225, also many years before Gregory of Nyssa), though a rather odd pacifist, also includes amongst his list of unchristian acts, capital punishments and “binding anyone” (as distinct from “imprisoning anyone”), though I cannot discern whether he is speaking of enslavement here.

Hi Andrew –

Well I guess Gregory seems to have been the first Church Father to oppose slavery without qualification of any sort (although I agree that even with Paul’s letter to Philemon we have a tendency towards abolition through humanising the institution). Since Gregory was a Universalist (I was convinced of this when I read Morwena Ludlow’s essay about him) I was wondering if his belief in Universal Salvation informed his universalising of the political principle of freedom and dignity to all – that’s my hunch.
I’ll have a ponder about other stuff in your post and Nottirbd’s post and will get back to you both tonight – several thoughts have occurred to me already but I have a busy bee day ahead.

All very good wishes

Dick :slight_smile:

Yes, I think Paul really undermined slavery, similarly to ol’ Arnobius, simply by just condemning slave-traders/traffickers (andrapodistais) as “lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious” and “contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Timothy 1:10-11). That’s as good as opposing slavery without any qualifications, in my view.

Nottirbd, I don’t exactly want to get into another interminable debate about the merits/failures of pacifism, but I just wanted to quickly comment/rant on a few of your thoughts. Pacifists have never intended to be passive in the face of another’s suffering. In fact the Quakers, who are radically pacifist, were the very first body to condemn slavery in America, well before it reached the popular discourse. Alternatively, (I’ll toot my own horn), I’m a pacifist and an active neo-abolitionist (and modern slavery is not in the popular discourse now either, indeed as a topic it’s actually marginalized by most). To be honest, most Christian activists I personally know who are actually doing something productive about social injustice are the pacifists. Also the North was most certainly not “passively anti-slave”. Massachussets was, after all, the very first State to abolish slavery and did so well before any war took place (although not necessarily for the best of reasons). A number of pacifist abolitionists also tirelessly circuited the North providing arguments and sermons on the issue, including the Reverend Adin Ballou (who is a very dear and bright light to me, both on theology, such as Universalism, and social justice activism). And popular education is absolutely essential for any lasting inward change (well beyond threatening people with violence). Lastly, I don’t believe the violence of the Civil War was particularly successful in liberating American slaves because it didn’t bring about reconciliation between both masters and slaves (one of the purposes of the Kingdom of God, and as articulated in the Book of Philemon, in my opinion; I highly recommend Vernard Eller’s commentary). Sure, the war was spectacular and quicker, but it left hatred, animosities, countless deaths, and took us from slavery and into segregation. It didn’t address the spiritual root of the problem. Godbless brother.

Also, in his letter to Philemon Paul told him explicitly that he (Paul) could have ordered him to free Onesiphorus, but he expected Philemon to do the right thing on his own volition.

Hi Andrew -

Here are some thoughts. The context of some of the earliest Church Fathers being pacifist, anti-the death penalty and (at least in part) opposed to slavery seems to me that the State which waged wars, executed rebels and criminals, and made enslavement legal was the Roman State that was persecuting Christians in the name of its barbaric Sate Religion.

It seems to me that some of the Fathers of the persecuted Church adhered to these peacable values not because they had a positive ‘gospel’ concept of anything like universal rights and dignity, but rather purely because they were against the Roman Sate. I’m not knocking them for this but in the case of Tertullian for example – not one of my favourite little bunnies from history :unamused: – the resulting resentful and negative mix was rough. As you say dear friend Tertullian was an odd kind of pacifist – decidedly ‘funky’ I would suggest :laughing: . True he said that no Christian could serve in the imperial army or as an imperial magistrate. But he was supportive of slavery, laid the foundations for the persecuting church of later years in his writings on church discipline, and was one of the big time fathers of hard ECT with his horrible fantasies about Christians having the opportunity in the world to come to laugh to scorn at agonising despair of their former tormentors.

What strikes me as remarkable about Gregory of Nyssa is that he was writing when the Church had become the Imperial church, but in this corrupting context was putting forward a positive vision of a world without slavery (completely at variance with the views of his contemporaries and even those of his close associates). The article I gave the link to is well worth a read. And of course I am making a very partisan point here – Gregory of Nyssa’s concept of universal dignity was a corollary of his views on Universal salvation.

I completely agree with all that you have to say about the huge role played by Christian pacifists in the abolition of the slave trade – and the role played by Christian universalists I might add (the early Quaker abolitionists like sweet hearted John Woolman had a strong strand of hopeful universalism in their theology that informed their social concern.

Last point – I have become aware of some interesting dialogues that have taken place between Christians who hold to a limited just war theology, Christian pacifists, and Christian peace builders. I think there is some common ground between these traditions – although the discussion does tend to turn knock about when pacifism as been debated here.

Blessings

Dick

Here is an atricle about the Quaker abolitionist John Woolman :slight_smile:

At age 23 his employer asked him to write a bill of sale for a slave. Though he told his employer that he thought that slavekeeping was inconsistent with Christianity, he wrote the bill of sale. Later he refused to write the part of a will that included disposing of a slave and in that case, convinced the man to set the slave free. Many Friends believed that slavery was bad — even a sin — but there was not a universal condemnation of it among Friends. Some Friends bought slaves from other people in order to treat them humanely and educate them. Other Friends seemed to have no conviction against slavery whatsoever.

Woolman took up a concern to minister to Friends and others in remote places. He went on his first ministry trip in 1746 with Isaac Andrews. They traveled about 1,500 miles round-trip in three months, going as far south as North Carolina. He preached on many topics, including slavery, during this and other such trips.

In 1754 Woolman wrote Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes. He subsequently refused to draw up wills transferring slaves. Working on a nonconfrontational, personal level, he individually convinced many Quaker slaveholders to free their slaves. He attempted personally to avoid using the products of slavery; for example, he wore undyed clothing because slaves were used in the making of dyes. He was also known in later life to abjure riding in stagecoaches, on grounds that their operation was too often cruel and injurious to their teams of horses.

In Woolman’s travels, whenever he received hospitality from a slaveholder, he insisted on paying the slaves for their work in attending him. He would also refuse to be served with silver cups, plates, and utensils, on grounds that slaves were forced to dig such precious minerals and gems for the rich. On one occasion in his early adulthood, he did convey the ownership of a slave in someone’s will, but was later so filled with remorse over the act that he went back, found the individual so injured, and made monetary reparations sufficient to sustain that person in freedom for some years. He observed that some owners used the labor of their slaves to enjoy lives of ease, and found much more fault with this practice than with those owners who treated their slaves gently, or even worked alongside them.

Woolman worked within the Friends’ tradition of seeking the guidance of the Spirit of Christ and patiently waiting to achieve unity in the Spirit. He went from one Friends’ meeting to another and expressed his concern about slaveholding. One by one the various Quaker Meetings began to see the evils of slavery and wrote minutes condemning the practice.
In his lifetime, Woolman did not succeed in eradicating slavery even within the Society of Friends in colonial America; however, his personal efforts changed Quaker viewpoints. In 1790 the Society of Friends petitioned the United States Congress for the abolition of slavery. The fair treatment of people of all races is now part of the Friends’ Testimony of Equality. Woolman’s colonial-era success in persuading his fellow Quakers on this issue is credited with giving Quakers in the early days of the USA the moral authority to labor with people of other Christian traditions over it.

Woolman was also committed to the Friends’ Testimony of Simplicity. While he saw considerable success in his retail business, he eventually decided that it demanded too much of his time, distracting him from the more important matter of fulfilling the calling that God had given him to spread truth and light among Friends and others. Thus he decided to give up his career as a tradesman, subsequently making his livelihood instead as a tailor and an orchardist.

In considering his change in careers, Woolman also undoubtedly reflected on the fact that the emerging modern world of trade entailed the virtual enslavement of people in faraway places. This theme, economic injustice and oppression, became dominant in his Journal and other writings. In his later career as a tailor, he refused to use or wear dyed fabrics because he had learned that many workers in the dye industry were poisoned by some of the noxious substances used therein.

Woolman also lived out the Friends’ Peace Testimony by protesting the French and Indian War. He went so far as to refuse paying those colonial taxes that supported the war.[1] In one of his prophetic dreams, which he meticulously recorded in writing, he acted as an interlocutor between two heads of state in an effort to prevent a war.

Woolman showed unusual insight for his time, in that he lived and worked among the Indians, recognizing that the Spirit moved among them also. He showed concern for the poor, for animals and for the environment. His Quaker witness qualified as one of the earliest precedents to modern campaigns and sensibilities in those areas.

I think it a mistake to associate the “slavery” of the first few centuries A.D. in Rome and other places in the region to slavery as it was in United States. Much of the slavery in those early centuries came about as a result of people who owed a debt greater than they could pay (there was no provision for bankruptcy in those centuries). A person could literally sell him/herself to pay off his/her debts. Once a person’s debts were paid, he was free.

I don’t think Paul was attempting to abolish the practice at all. I cannot see that he suggested it to Philemon. But he did try to improve relationships between “slaves” and “masters”:

Eph 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ.
Col 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
Col 4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

One could even argue from the following passage that Paul advocated the retention of slavery — although he suggested to slaves that they take any opportunity they could in order to gain their freedom. This could happen either if the slave worked long enough to pay his debt, or if someone else paid his debt for him.

Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. (I Corithians 7:20,21)

Can you imagine a Christian giving this advice to one of the black slaves in early America?

Yes, the “slavery” of the first few centuries was a quite different institution from the forced slavery of Africans.

Indeed, you do not find the word “slave” in the King James Bible. The word “δουλος” is invariably translated as “servant”. Undoubtably the δουλοι more resembled servants than they did slaves.

Very interesting. In our era, I dare say Woolman wouldn’t own a computer…

Well, it could be and sometimes was more like indentured servitude or serfhood.

But the people who were bought and sold as slaves, or forcibly captured as a result of raiding or formal war (whether as combatants or not), and their children and descendants, would probably have recognized the forced slavery of the Africans as being in principle similar.

Yes I agree with you here Jason – certain types of Roman slavery were relatively benign – but conditions and prospects of slaves working in salt mines etc were just as dreadful as African slaves in the American South. And I note that the penalty reserved for runaway slaves was crucifixion – so Jesus shared the company of both slaves and rebels in his death. And of course the famous slave rebellion lead by Spartacus resulted in the deaths of thousands of rebel slaves crucified along the Appian Way.

I’m not convinced that Paul had an idea of the notion of abolishing slavery and the ideas of the Church Fathers prior to Gregory of Nyssa are decidedly mixed on this issue. I think the mustard seed of the Gospel took and takes/time to germinate – and its’ saving message is holistic – personal and social, this world and the world to come.
The germination period did, for a time, produce mixed yields that required sifting – on the one hand Paul and the Apostolic Fathers arguably humanised slavery, on the other hand, they did give ammunition to those who would explain away this degrading institution as unimportant.

The examples I’m going to give now are from Franz Overbeck’s ‘The Ancient Church and slavery in the Roman Empire’ cited in Joachim Kahl’s bitter book ‘The Misery of Christianity’ (see pages 31 – 41)

Ignatius of Antioch, first century Apostolic Father and student of the Apostle John, forbade Christian slaves to demand redemption at the expense of the local Church (which perhaps has to do more with priorities with the allocation of church funds when the Church believed ‘the time was short’ rather than evidence of support of slavery per se.)

In the Epistle of Barnabas –early second century and appealed to as an authoritative writing by both Cement and Origen - slaves are instructed to revere their owners as the ‘likeness of God’ (rather than slavery being condemned because all are made in the likeness of God and are free in Christ).

Tertullian, first half of the third century - tried to convince slaves that freedom and servitude in the world were a meaningless sham – mere appearance compared to true freedom in Christ, who liberated men from servitude to sin. (This, arguably, by misusing Paul ‘s double meaning to the two concepts of slave and freedman in 1 Cor. Vii, 20-22 – that those who are already oppressed are really freedmen of Christ - factual slaves were persuaded that they ought to be indifferent to their lack of freedom. In Tertullian’s case he may well have feared insurrection and seen a measure of social stability at any cost preferable to insurrection because stability – even oppressive and in some ways demonic stability -enables the spread of the Gospel better than chaos.

I found Andrew’s example of Arnobius the Elder fascinating; clearly the seed iwasgerminating in him (and he was writing in the first half of the fourth century). That he was opposed to enslaving the freeborn is a progressive insight going in the right direction – although if I understand it aright he did not advocate the liberation of existing slaves.

Lactantius, a pupil of Arnobius the Elder and adviser to the first ‘Christian Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, argued that: ‘Since we measure all human things, not with the yardstick of the body, but with that of the spirit, our slaves, although they are differently situated from ourselves as far as the body is concerned, are nonetheless not our slaves – we regard them as our brothers in spirit and as our fellow slaves in religion and call them this’. So again In the first part of the fifth century the Imperial Church theologian, Augustine, argued that those who were not slaves give thanks because Christ and his Church did not make free men of slaves, but good slaves of bad slaves) and Overbeck comments sardonically that Augustine thus showed what an excellent oil the new religion (Christianity) was for the machinery of the masters in society).

At the end of the fourth century the ‘Christian’ Emperor Gratian decreed that emancipation of slaves owned by the Church was impossible – because the clergy could not set free slaves that were effectively owned by God. (Gratian was a contemporary of Gregory of Nyssa)

I think nearly all Christians today apart from the lunatic ‘Rusdoony Reconstructionist Dominionist fringe’ see slavery as an unmitigated evil. And the fact that this evil was not apparent to all Christians throughout the ages alerts me to the dangers of the over spiritualisation of the Gospel.

Let the slave grinding at the mill run out into the field
Let him look up into the heavens and laugh in the bright air
Let the enchained soul, shut up in darkness and in sighing
Whose face has never seen a smile in thirty weary years
Rise and look out; his chains are loose, his dungeon doors are open;
And let his wife and children return from the oppressors scourge
They look behind at every step and believe it is a dream
Singing: the sun has left his blackness and has found a fresher morning
And the fair moon rejoices in the clear and cloudless night

For empire is no more and now the lion and wolf shall cease
For everything that lives is holy
For everything that lives is holy
For everything that lives is holy
For everything that lives is holy

What is the price of experience? Do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
And in the withered field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain
It is an easy thing to triumph in the summers sun
And in the vintage and to sing on the wagon loaded with corn
It is an easy thing to talk of patience to the afflicted
To speak the laws of prudence to the homeless wanderer
To listen to the hungry ravens cry in wintry season
When the red blood is filled with wine and with the marrow of lambs

It is an easy thing to laugh at wrathful elements
To hear the dog howl at the wintry door, the ox in the slaughter house moan;
To see a God on every wind and a blessing on every blast
To hear sounds of love in the thunder storm that destroys our enemies house;
To rejoice in the blight that covers his field
And the sickness that cuts off his children

While our olive and vine sing and laugh round our door
And our children bring fruits and flowers

Then the groan and the dolour are quite forgotten
And the slave grinding at the mill
And the captive in chains and the poor in the prison

And the soldier in the field
When the shattered bone hath laid him groaning among the happier dead
It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me

William Blake

I think slavery is wrong period. But a big difference between Roman slavery and slavery as practiced in the USA is the racist aspect. I don’t remember reading anything indicating that ancient slavery was based on race, wasn’t it more a consequence of economics or being a member of a defeated country or a rebellion?

The problem with using a pacifist approach to abolition in the US, I think would have been the time factor involved. Many people, both slaveholders and nonslaveholders were racists who really believed in the inferiority of the black people. (Obviously I don’t believe this, but people did then.) So while you are waiting to peacefully convince these people they are wrong, which I think would have taken a long time, people are still suffering in slavery.

Jim Crow and ‘seperate but equal’ laws were bad, no doubt. But at least families were not sold away from each other, people could move around, etc. At that, a lot of Jim Crow was the result of rich people trying to keep two peoples, poor whites and poor blacks, who really had a lot in common, from getting together. And there was lots of racism in the ‘good North’ too. Racism is part of the sickness of sin, I think.

Also, a lot of the Civil War was over states rights, including the right to succede from the Union. Slavery was a kindling issue for the war but it was not the only one.

I wiffle-waffle on the whole pacifist thing. I agree we are to turn the other check, forgive our enemies, etc. as individuals but does that apply to nations. Should we have just let Nazi Germany take over??? How about the Imperial Germany of WWI?
Shound the Imperial, serf holding Russia been allowed to advance beyond poor Poland?

On the other hand, what might have happened if we had responded as a true Christian nation after 9/11 and done a type of Marshall Plan for the poor areas of the Middle East? Maybe we missed a fantastic opportunity. See, I wiffle waffle.

I believe the pacifistic approach of Ghandi and Rev. Martin Luther King worked becauce the people who were targeted by it did, indeed, have morals. Also, modern communications (expecially once news films and then TV came on the scene) enabled a wide number of people to see/hear what was going on.

Consider, would Ghandi’s approach have worked if the Nazis had taken over India?

HI Lizbeth –

I agree with all that you have to say about Roman slavery – yes it certainly wasn’t based in racism. It’s a matter of great perplexity that it was the ‘Christian’ empires of the early modern period (Catholic and Protestant) that crystallised out race based slavery – and slavery in its most de-humanising form.

I also agree with you about the problematic of pacifism – and I note that Martin Luther King was not an absolute pacifist. I know I’m not going to satisfy my very dear pacifist friends on this site – but I basically think we do need to consider/use combinations of limited just war theory, passive resistance and active peacemaking and conflict resolution as appropriate.

Hi everyone -

Just to check things out – of course you don’t have to agree with my view about abolitionism being something that gradually revealed itself from a seed planted by Christ and Paul the Apostle (and the wheat grew up with the tares). I just find it is the best way of making sense of the evidence from the Church Fathers.

Hi Andrew – I know you are interested in keeping this thread going. I’ll tell you what I’ve got readily available –
Extracts from Mark Heim’s ‘Saved from sacrifice’ about how he Bible was used by the slaveholders in a distorted way, to uphold oppression, but re-appropriated by the slaves as a liberative text that spoke to their condition.

Some good stuff from ‘The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God’ by Lee Griffith (which is on the ‘Hellbound’ the movie recommended resources list). Lee Griffiths looks at abolitionism in the states and examines the difference between pacifist and non-pacifist responses to slavery. Interestingly he also loos at the difference between ECT abolitionists (who viewed America as being under the judgement of God’s wrath because of slavery) and Universalist abolitionists (who viewed slavery as a manifestation of wrath that should be banished from God’s peaceable kingdom)

Some stuff from Boyd Hilton’s ‘Age of Atonement’ that looks at the problematic views of Wilberforce the great evangelical British abolitionist – he strove for the abolition of slavery fearing the British Empire was under God’s judgement, but agitated for oppressive laws against the urban poor who were tantamount to the slaves of the Industrial Revolution’ (so in my view his greatness was flawed because his vision was not truly universal)

Regarding ‘slavery’ in the modern world – I guess this could mean enslavement of the working poor by unjust economic policies in many countries of the world today. Also it could mean the resurgence of slavery in Islamicist sates (I do have some stuff on this but I feel too tired to flame the board with it).

Finally, I didn’t really mean to start a discussion here – just wanted to point out what I’d learnt about Gregory of Nyssa. When the thread dries up I think I will post something on his thoughts rather than just giving a link – I think Gregory’s abolitionism plus universalism important to our story.
Blessings

Dick

Last though: I’ll tell you what – see the last post as a sort of ‘menu’. I f anyone is interested in any other stuff I’ve alluded to above – and does a request post – I’ll see what I can do. Nor equests – no posts as it were :laughing: .

Regarding Christian Pacifism – I guess that’s a separate issue that needs to be revisited eirenically than it has been in the past sometime (although Christian pacifists do feature vividly in the history of abolitionism and played an instrumental part in the struggle to ‘change hearts and minds’). Perhaps even if war is sometimes inevitable, it is always more important to win the peace and to plan for winning the peace. The heroic gentleness of the likes of John Wolman may seem otherworldly to some – and even within the Quakers such inspirational saints of gentleness are rare, because Quakers are not world renouncers – but his struggle, in which he never used the end to justify the means, was certainly leaven in the dough for abolitionism.

request!
have been enjoying this thread. lots of food for thought!
Sobornost, i have to say i find it refreshing to have found friends like you that are more or less local that share many of my views and even have some knowledge (unlike me lol) to back them up :smiley:
i love the ideal of pacifism. i do agree we had to kick the nazis’ warty behinds in WW2, and there have been other conflicts where the alternative would’ve been contrary to the ideals of pacifism (and thus i am sure many pacifists would’ve chosen the lesser of two evils and fought, though who knows…i know the Christadelphians (a sect i respect) were conscientious objectors in WW2, however they did their bit and tended wounded soldiers etc), so there was a place for them and a role to play which supported the effort without actually betraying their consciences.
however it does necessarily follow that it was right for others to fight. sadly i doubt the motives were as pure as simply going out to deliver the Jews and other minorities being killed by the nazis as well as rescue Poland etc, and more about stopping the nazis before they were able to take over Britain or North America, but it played a part, i am sure.

i guess in times like that, the alternative to fighting was to submit to a reality that itself was worse than war, and thus (like the classic example of defending a child from a paedophile) i’m sure would’ve spurred many pacifists to fight. a sad time for anyone to find themselves in…i don’t honestly know how i would’ve coped and i pray to be spared such a choice.