The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gregory of Nyssa the first Christian to oppose slave trade

Theology
#21

Again it depends upon what kind of slavery you are talking about. If you refer to the kind of slavery that was practised in early America, then “yes”. Virtually all Christians strongly object to slavery of that kind. But some of us do not see the “slavery” practised in New Testament times as “unmitigated evil” for the following reasons"

  1. It was often voluntary servanthood, where a person sold himself into servanthood in order to pay off a debt (a special kind of loan).

  2. The servant’s freedom could be purchased, either by himself if he could raise the money, or by someone else.

  3. Normally, the servants were not abused, and in the rare cases where they were, it was nowhere near the extent to which the Africans were abused in America.

#22

Hi Paidon –

You say -

Again it depends upon what kind of slavery you are talking about. If you refer to the kind of slavery that was practised in early America, then “yes”. Virtually all Christians strongly object to slavery of that kind. But some of us do not see the “slavery” practised in New Testament times as “unmitigated evil” for the following reasons"

I see what you mean - and I think there is a middle way here between my tentative musings and your point here. The slavery practised in Christian households during New Testament times and the times of earliest Church Fathers was – at least ideally – of the type that you describe:

  1. *It was often voluntary servanthood, where a person sold himself into servanthood in order to pay off a debt (a special kind of loan).

  2. The servant’s freedom could be purchased, either by himself if he could raise the money, or by someone else.

  3. Normally, the servants were not abused, and in the rare cases where they were, it was nowhere near the extent to which the Africans were abused in America.*

Yes on reflection I agree with you in terms of domestic slaves/servants (although I’m pretty sure that non-domestic slavery under pagan Roman rule was invariably a very terrible thing – slave labour in salt mines, agriculture, in construction projects, slaves as gladiators etc)

I think Christians would only have held slaves as householders within the context of the governance of a benign pater familias exercising a loving discipline over his charges. In wider Roman society household slavery could also be a relatively benign institution – but the slave was still under the absolute power of his/her owner and had no independent rights as such – therefore, with a cruel master, they could be subjected to arbitrary beatings, castration or even execution without recourse to legal protection. I’m sure that with the humanisation of slavery that took place in the Pauline Gentile Church, Christian masters were on the whole of the loving and caring kind – and it makes sense to see the comments of some early Church Fathers, seemingly in support slavery, in this context. We can and certainly should defend the honour of the early Church regarding slavery on these grounds.

However – I still think it wonderful that Gregory the Universalist spoke out against the whole institution of slavery when he did. The trouble with the language of the Pauline Epistles and the Apostolic Fathers regarding slavery is that – in a new setting where the Christian religion had become that of the state imperial power – it so easily become twisted into double speak. So I think at this point Gregory’s critique - rooted in his theology of the universality of human dignity and worth in the eyes of God - was truly prophetic.

Blessings

Dick

(I had no idea this would be such a difficult and controversial topic :laughing: . Sorry – and peace to all)

#23

I wish I’d put a question mark in the title to this thread :laughing:

#24

if i have time when i’ve got the book back, i will try to get a quote from Dave Tomlinson’s How To Be a Bad Christian up. there is a poignant tale of a grandmother who had her grandson read to her from the Bible when her eyes failed, but she didn’t want to hear anything by Paul, as it had been used attrociously by her old masters to justify the awful institution of slavery.
Paul may’ve had something other in mind, but those same verses were used to justify the horrific unmitigated evil of slavery in America (and quite likely in the rest of the western “christian” world before the various countries banned it)

#25

There was actually as strong amount of racism (especially anti-Semitism among non-Semites; and I mean the racial version of that, not merely anti-Judaism) in those days as in the days of early America. (Certainly moreso than today, and we still have it today. :wink: )

The Greeks and Romans regarded everyone else as barbarians and thus fit only for enslavement or extermination, although the Greeks usually didn’t care to exterminate. Romans saw the barbarians (with some real correctness) as a danger to the borders of the empire, and so as a rule actively sought to push out and subjugate/destroy barbarian areas when opportunities to do so arose. Some of that was a cultural factor, but there were racial factors, too, as in the reason “their” cultures were like “that” was due to being of inferior and even subhuman breeding.

Arabs, pale-skins with red hair, blacks, slavs from the central Asian steppes (from which we get the word “slave” in the first place): these people had to fight against Greco-Roman racism even when otherwise aggressively successful inside the Pax Romana.

Tribalism was just as much or even more a factor, too–the racial aspect could be plausibly regarded as an extension of tribalism. Recall that most African slaves sold to white European and American markets weren’t captured by white slavers?–the same factors but affected the Mediterranean world, too, but arguably even moreso (because of more physically obvious differences).

Once urbanization started, there was even an urban/heathen factor in play: those who lived outside the cities were regarded by those in cities as being effectively animals. On the other hand, strong non-urban tribes regarded those in cities as being weak and dishonorable, fit only at most for slavery!

(This urban/heathen factor even affected early Christian evangelical outreach: there is strong evidence that Christians didn’t bother much with evangelism outside cities until after the fall of western Rome!–about at the time Patrick began evangelizing Ireland, actually, which is why he was regarded as so avant-garde. I’m currently finishing up The Barbarian Conversion, which features a lot of careful research on this topic.)

It’s true, btw, that much of the Civil War was over the question of state’s rights, which is pretty important to me as a southerner. But I also have to remember that the main right being challenged was whether the federal government had the right to force states to stop enslaving people. :frowning:

(There were some other state rights issues, too, but those weren’t the topics over which we went to war. As much as I like to pretend otherwise when playing Civil War strategy games. :wink: )

#26

Hi Jason –

I think that when people say that the Romans were not racist they meat that Roman citizenship was extended widely in the Empire to people of all races and colours – if they submitted to Pax Romana. However – this being so – everything you say is also true. Those who resisted Pax Romana or who were recalcitrant under Roman rule were identified with the un-Roman world of cosmic chaos to be destroyed and subdued. This is one of the reasons they had such problems with the Jews –although many Romans were impressed by austere Jewish monotheism and some became godfearers. I understand that they made special concession to the Jews about Emperor worship – and saw them as an ungrateful and recalcitrant people because this was not enough to ensure their passivity. It’s a complex picture – but the upshot of the ways Romans crystallised their perception of the barbaric ’other’ could result in oppression just as barbaric as that practised by Christians against black Africans and Native Americans in the early modern period. A barbarian could redeem themselves in Roman eyes by showing exceptional bravery – the typical Roman virtue. I’ve always found the story of Caractacus the British Chieftain being dragged in chains in triumph through Rome to address the Senate and tell them all Romans are a bunch of scum and the British will never surrender; he was greeted with a round of applause and received a state pension. There is also the story of a lion who fought bravely against gladiators in the arena and, in the eyes of crowd, his wild beast – representing the forces of chaos – became a Roman lion. Funny lot the Romans – but the depraved cruelty that kept the peace in Rome is beyond doubt.

It is a very terrible thing that when ‘Christina Europe expanded and was confronted by Africans and Native Americans their reaction seems to have exceeded Roman cruelty – because the barbarians could not be redeemed in any way – even by shows of fortitude. They were the unhuman, the reprobate, the children of Ham, the totally other.

Again – although I’d nuance the stuff I originally posted with reference to Andrew’s. Paidon’s and your points, it still strikes me as a thing of note and wonder that Gregory could call for the end of the slave trade when in government rather than opposition (as it were). Three cheers for the prophet Gregory I say.

Blessings

Dick

#27

You can read a short statement of Gregory’s concerning slavery by checking out the following link:

branemrys.blogspot.ca/2010/07/gregory-of-nyssa-on-slavery.html

#28

Thats’ great Paidion!

A vast improvement on my link to an academic essay on our man (people will actually read this :laughing: ) And I thought - ‘why not just copy and paste in the quote from the link?’ - so here it is:

Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery

’I got me slave-girls and slaves.’ For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God? God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?

St. Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes; Hall and Moriarty, trs., de Gruyter (New York, 1993) p. 74

Thanks again old chum

Dick

#29

I’ve produced an edited version of Eric Denby’s article on Gregory of Nyssa and the slave trade (with my comments) for those of you who may be interested (well I think Gregory as abolitionist plus universalist is significant, and if you a really interested too, open the link for the original given above and see the full article with footnotes and bibliography). In his conclusion to the article Denby states that –

If one thing begins to become clear it is the consensus, among scholars, that no one before Gregory of Nyssa spoke against slavery and, unfortunately, no one picked up his torch for almost a thousand years. The point of dissention occurs when trying to accurately prove that Gregory of Nyssa was in fact the first abolitionist but luckily that does not seem to stop scholars from attempting.

Ok; so Eric Denby – in a paper submitted to Central Michigan University, Senior Seminar on Ancient Slavery, Fall 2011 - argues that Gregory was an abolitionist as is evident from his Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes - typically regarded as the first instance of an ancient writer denouncing the ownership of slaves and the institution of slavery – and in other writings and sermons. (This does not mean Denby has said the last word on the subject – of course – but the paper does seem to give a good review of the relevant literature)

I’ll give you the relevant stuff plus comments from the article in a couple of posts. This first post gives the textual evidence from Gregory:

**Abolitionism in Gregory’s Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes ect-

***335,5. I got me slaves and slave-girls. What do you mean? You condemn man to slavery, when his nature is free and possesses free will, and you legislate in competition with God, overturning his law for the human species. The one made on the specific terms that he should be the owner of the earth, and appointed to government by the Creator - Him you bring under the yoke of slavery, as though defying and fighting against the divine decree.

335,11. You have forgotten the limits of your authority, and that your rule is confined to control over things without reason. For it says Let them rule over winged creatures and fishes and four-footed things and creeping things (Gen, 1,26). Why do you go beyond what is subject to you and raise yourself up against the very species which is free, counting your own kind on a level with four-footed things and even footless things? You have subjected all things to man, declares the word through the prophecy, and in the text it lists the things subject, cattle and oxen and sheep (Ps 8,7-8). Surely human beings have to been produced from your cattle? Surely cows have not conceived human stock? Irrational beasts are the only slaves of mankind. But to you these things are of small account. Raising Fodder for the cattle, and green plants for the slaves of men, it says (Ps104/103,14). But by dividing the human species in two with ‘slavery’ and ‘ownership’ you have caused it to be enslaved to itself, and to be the owner of itself.

336,6. I got me slaves and slave-girls. For what price, tell me? What did you find inexistence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling the being shaped by God? God said, let us make man in our own image and likeness (Gen 1,26). If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable (Rom 11,29). God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?***

Gregory …asks the question how can you ―condemn man to slavery, when his nature is free and possesses free will‖ given to man by God. He says that by doing so, slave-owners are in effect defying and fighting against the divine decree. Nyssa continues that slave-owners are in competition ―with God, overturning his law for the human species in their presumed superiority over other men.

Gregory then goes on to condemn those who own slaves, saying that ―you have forgotten the limits of your authority [and that you are] counting your own kind on a level with four footed things and even footless things, alluding to Genesis 1:26, which states that God spoke ― ‘let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth’. Gregory of Nyssa asks his parishioners how they could go against the very species which is free and points out that ―irrational beasts are the only slaves to mankind.

In these first two paragraphs of his homily, Nyssa is in effect chastising those who own slaves, possibly comparing them to heretics, with the fact that they have gone against God‘s command of dominion over beasts and four-legged creatures. He closes the second paragraph with a strong condemnation, stating that ―by dividing the human species in two with ‘slavery and ownership‘ you have caused it to be enslaved to itself, and to be the owner of itself.

D.B. Hart emphasizes this point: if Christians practiced the mercy that God commands of them, then the divisions of wealth and poverty, of master and slave, would no longer exist, for all things would be held in common, and all would be equal.It seems that Gregory of Nyssa did not suffer fools! Above all, as Kimberly Flint-Hamilton points out, the Fourth Homily lays out a complex philosophical argument based on the premise that masters and slaves are equal in the eyes of God – this was an idea generally accepted by Christians of Nyssa‘s time. She further asserts, as I do, that Gregory naturally moves the argument against slavery further, and that if slave and master are equally human, then are they not equal in the eyes of God, thus unable to be bound to one another.

In the final words of his homily, Nyssa asks what price is human existence worth. What price can you ―put on rationality?‖ If mankind is made in the image of God, and has given authority over beasts and fowl to man, then who can actually take dominion over humans other than God Himself? I would affirm that Nyssa, as many other scholars agree, makes the point that only God has the command and ownership of humans. ―To God alone belongs this power … God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself spontaneously recalled us to freedom.

In essence, if God owns man, yet man owns another, then does man not assume to be like God? This is the heart of Gregory of Nyssa‘s Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes and seemingly a core foundation of his theology. This theme of God‘s likeness and creation of man will constitute a large part of Gregory‘s doctrine and is the main scriptural reference offered in this homily. As Daniel Stramara insists ―perhaps not one aspect of Gregory‘s theology … was so revolutionary as that of the abolition of slavery based on humanity‘s being created in the image of god.‖

There are additional instances in the Fourth Homily that point to Gregory of Nyssa‘s disdain for slavery, from his disapproval of man treating other men like cattle, to his question of how one can place a price on the head of a man created in God‘s likeness and with God‘s love, all of which creating the stunning and fierce attack on slavery that it is known for.

Gregory of Nyssa made extensive use of his interpretation of the bible. In Genesis 1:26,God grants man dominion over beasts, birds, animals, and other irrational creatures. The verse states that God created man in his likeness, and as seen in the Fourth Homily, Gregory asks what price can a man place on another, one who was created with the unconditional love of God?

This subject of God‘s creation is a foundational tenet in most instances of Gregory‘s teachings and writings with regards to slavery and servitude. And although he too uses slavery as metaphor, both as man enslaved to sin, as well as man‘s servitude to the Lord, these uses were seen as routine metaphorical devices in teaching gentiles the relationships men have with God and with evil, and I assert not as a means of justifying the slave institution. The main guiding factor in Nyssa‘s theology of slavery is how can anyone claim this type of authority, of master and slave, when it is only God‘s to possess. It seems based on this fact that Gregory was able to offer a biblical justification to the abolition of slavery, one that continually presents itself in his work, and is anathema to many contemporaries‘ understandings.

In addition to the other writings of Gregory of Nyssa, there are his Easter Sermons including his In Sanctum Pascha, which contain references to slavery. It was ordinary and somewhat customary for propertied Christians to manumit (free) their slaves during the Easter season as a way of following in Christ‘s example. Easter was a time when ―all myths of eminence in power are overturned at Easter. Gregory‘s Easter sermon was most likely in 379 AD and would have preceded his Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes. J. Kameron Carter suggests that during the sermon Nyssa connects the death and rising of Christ with that of the abolition of slavery.

Gregory preaches that ―the prisoner is freed, the debtor forgiven, the slave is liberated by the good and kindly proclamation of the church, not being rudely struck … and [not] released from beatings with a beating … but released and acknowledged with equal decency. While he did not outwardly command his parishioners to free their slaves, the language presented above is as clear as one could get without it literally being written on the wall.

Gregory of Nyssa calls for the manumission (freeing) of slaves, not only in the Fourth Homily but also In Sanctum Pascha, as an act that is in accordance with Christ‘s teachings of mercy and compassion and perfectly justified within God‘s commands. Gregory continues, this time a bit more poetically: ―

‘’You Masters have heard … do not slander me to your slaves as praising the day with false rhetoric … [but] bring up the prostrate from their corner as if from their graves, with the beauty of the ceased blossom like a flower upon everyone’’.

Of first consequence is his command to ―not slander‖ him with ―false rhetoric; what he is commanding his parishioners to do is literal and should be interpreted as such. Secondly, for the betterment of Christendom, he instructs his parishioners to allow their slaves freedom, thus allowing their inner beauty to ―flower upon everyone. There is no ambiguity in this passage. Once again, Gregory of Nyssa finds slavery an abhorrent institution and wants slaves freed from the yoke of their fellow-man.

During his Homilies on the Lord’s Prayer Gregory of Nyssa goes so far as to instruct his followers on the dangers of violence and anger towards servants. He is offering a homily on Matthew 6:12, which states ―and forgive our debts as we have also forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one. Nyssa does not focus on the debt of money, or goods, but that on the hurtful actions towards one another, the debt owed to each other. In a striking passage in his homily Gregory contends that as ―

‘’your heart burns with anger … [and you wish] to punish those who cause you grief. You do not stop to think, when you are inflamed with anger against your servant [slave], that it is not nature itself but a tyrannical power that has divided humanity into slaves and masters’’.

This is another fine example of Gregory‘s contempt for man -made institutions, ones created from power, greed, and maliciousness, all of which continue to create and perpetuate the institution of slavery among other worldly ills.**

#30

My scattered thoughts on Gregory, universalism and abolitionism

Gregory of Nyssa was a merciful doctor of the Universalist Church. The Christian hope underlying his treatise ‘De anima et resurrectione’ is that God’s “end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last…to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him…But this is nothing else…but to be in God Himself.

Gregory’s universalism is obviously compatible with the idea of human dignity and worth being universal to each and every human being. In addition his theology that concentrates on humankind’s unity in resurrection rather than its division in the fall facilitates abolitionist egalitarianism. By way of contrast, a strong doctrine of fall and depravity has been, by the likes of St Augustine to rationalise an unjust social order, including the existence of slavery

Gregory taught an exalted doctrine of man being made in the image of God and of human freedom - In this commentary on the Song of Songs, Gregory metaphorically describes human lives as paintings created by apprentices to a master: the apprentices (the human wills) imitate their master’s work (the life of Christ) with beautiful colours (virtues), and thus man strives to be a reflection of Christ. This doctrine is consonant with abolitionist egalitarianism – the equality of all in God’s image – as is his belief that no man should play God by owing another. The Homily on Ecclesiastes implies a ransom theory of atonement – God frees us from the slavery of sin rather than exempting us from the deserved punishment of his wrath. This liberative model of atonement is very compatible with a social gospel of abolitionism (whereas penal substitution can/has been used to justify social oppression – although this has not always been the case).

In ‘De anima et resurrectione’ when describing the final resurrection, Gregory attest – through the voice of his sister Macrina that, “all the souls in their entire number will come out of their invisible and scattered condition into tangibility and light. Macrina seems to have been Gregory’s mentor in Universalism. Denby states that –

***One of the least studied aspects of Gregory‘s life is his older sister Macrina and the inspiration she may have had on his theology. She was likely born in 327 A.D. into a family who had long established themselves as committed Christians. She was the eldest of ten children and upon her father‘s death became a ―pillar of strength for the family

Gregory of Nyssa calls her teacher in many texts, and although only four years her junior, sees her as someone to emulate and strive to be like. Among the many writings of Gregory that survived the destruction of time, his most biographical work is the Life of Saint Macrina.

One of the more revealing aspects of Macrina‘s compassion is found in the ‘Vita Macrina’. Gregory writes of the time in which Macrina persuaded her mother to give up her customary mode of living ‘’… and the services of her maids [servants] … and to put herself on a level with the many by entering into a common life with her maids, making them her sisters and equals rather that her slaves and underlings’’. Although there is evidence of other communal Christian spaces, there is little doubt that Macrina‘s urging of manumission was a long held belief inequality that she possessed and that must have transferred to Gregory in some way. In fact, T.J. Dennis presents a compelling argument, writing that the combination of the new monastic‘ life and Macrina‘s influence, along with Nyssa‘s already seeded hatred for slavery, did in fact make the Fourth Homily an attack on the institution of slavery.***

#31

Final post - then that’s it. I’m sure more can be said about the earliest Church Fathers and abolitionism. Denby describes the current scholarly consensus thus -

**To frame Gregory of Nyssa‘s view on slavery it is necessary to know what other church leaders and Fathers thought about the institution, if only to place Nyssa‘s uncommon attack in the proper context. Peter Garnsey argues that slavery ―was accepted by church leaders and tolerated within the Christian community at large. He continues by saying that although many Church fathers may have believed slavery was against the ―spirit of Christianity they most likely also agreed that to abandon it ―would fatally destabilize society.

Trevor Dennis comprehensively offers arguments and justifications that early Church Fathers used in his article ―Man beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery. Because of its illustrative value, I quote it in full:

  1. Masters and slaves are equal in the sight of God (Paul’s position and a common place among the Fathers);

  2. Slavery was not part of God’s original plan for man, but was established by him as a result of the Fall and man’s inherent sinfulness (found in Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster, and in Augustine, in The City of God , where it is given its most famous expression);

  3. Slavery is beneficial to the slave as a remedy for his own sin or as a correction of his stupidity (this, of course, smacks of Aristotle, but it is found not only in Basil, but also in Ambrose and Augustine);

  4. Only the body of a man can be enslaved, not his mind nor his soul (Ambrose and Ambrosiaster).

One of the prevailing justifications, found in both the writings of Augustine and John Chrysostom, among others, is that although many church leaders viewed slavery as a sin and not natural, it was the fall of Adam that allowed for the institution to be accepted: in essence, the doctrine of original sin. These sentiments are also found in writings from Basil of Caesarea, Nyssa‘s older brother and mentor, and Gregory of Nazianzus, a close family friend.

Additionally, another prevailing theory is that through the use of slavery as a metaphor society and Church fathers, in effect, gave their unspoken approval to the institution. Oddly enough, while ancient slavery started to decline, due to the lack of wars, among other issues, the development of the slave metaphor grew into a sophisticated symbol of man‘s relation to God and, in return, ―this dogmatization of slavery legitimated and glorified an inhuman institution.

It seems that if the Church used this so-called ―evil institution when describing man‘s relationship with Christ, then how could common Christians find fault in slavery? Perhaps one of the biggest proponents of this metaphor (but not of slavery) was Paul, who taught that when one becomes baptized he or she gave up all claims of social standing and, in a way, their life became that of a slave to Christ.

Not only was slavery justified through use as a metaphor, as natural to man, or as a social and economic stabilizer, but justifications were also interpreted as if words from God Himself, through the early Christian Father’s understanding of scripture. Peter Garnsey states that the early Christians ―inherited the problem of Biblical enslavements that were apparently …designed by Go and how could slavery be wrong if God ways, though mysterious, [were]never unjust.‖

…Joseph Hofbeck, while studying the major texts of the Church Fathers… claims that “in spite of their active compassion for individual slaves, the Church Fathers did fully endorse slavery as an institution; [that] they did very little for its abolition; [and] they extensively used the slave experience in their religious language.”

Finally, if the Bible was the guiding text of Christianity, then the fact it does not call for the abolition of slavery was just another reason used by Church leaders to continue the practice. There are even laws, in the Old Testament, that concern ―the purchase, treatment, and freeing of slaves. Gregory of Nyssa himself uses scripture as well, but inversely; he quotes the bible not to justify slavery as his contemporaries may have, but to denounce the institution and call for the abolition of the practice.**

Anyway - I think its worth keeping an eye on Greogory of Nyssa studies!

#32

Here’s an interesting blog by a Forum member -

cafechurch.org/content/austr … rn-slavery

#33

That is an interesting blog article and an equally interesting church in a pub he belongs to. He also has the blog: Saints and Slavery**
(cafechurch.org/content/saints-and-slavery-part-i).

Thanks
Steve

#34

Yes Stef, I think he’s done a great job in both blogs and I look forward to the next in the series :smiley:

#35

Thanks for your kind words, friends. And thank you Dick for sharing my posts here. It wasn’t appropriate that I spend too much time on it in my post, but it’s very significant that (according to Ramelli) Origen and Macrina the Younger drew their progressive social views (abolitionism ultimately coming to the fore in Gregory of Nyssa) directly from their universalism. Universalism (including hypothetical universalism) is a great foundation and drive for progressive social views. If anyone had any questions about slavery, I’m happy to try and answer them. I will also try and post up an account on Saint Patrick here int he New Year (he will be excluded from my more formal blog posts due to an odd controversy amongst some Christians).

#36

Hi Andrew,

Dick directed me to this post on your blog recently and I found it very challenging and intriguing. I’ve got your blog bookmarked now and am really looking forward to the next in the series. :slight_smile: As an American who found out recently he had some slave owners as ancestors, I am especially interested in this topic.

Thanks and
Merry Christmas!

#37

Like Steve, Dick recently directed me to your blog, as well, Andrew. And like Steve, I’ll go ahead and bookmark it, because I both find it challenging and intriguing-- and I wish I had a “pub church” of my own! :smiley:

I found it especially interesting that you mentioned the ten institutions of slavery, as defined by the UN:

Child labor
Child soldiery
Child trading
Debt slavery (indentured servitude)
Forced labor
Forced marriage
Forcing in war
Human trafficking
Labour trafficking
Organ trafficking

I like to think that if I had been alive during the slave trade, I would have been an abolitionist. But, when faced with reality, I must recognize that I very well may have recognized slavery according to social convention. That is, had I been a Northerner, I probably would have thought it illegal and immoral. Had I been a Southerner, I probably would have considered it legal, passively opposing it at best. (Hopefully, by the grace of God, I would have been a Quaker sympathizer, just as I am today!)

It’s a sad realization to recognize that I am so easily swayed by cultural norms. But, really, how different am I today? For example, I strongly oppose the cruelty and injustice of the modern labor system, with overseas adults and children literally slaving away in factories so that I might have a fresh new pair of “Walmart” jeans. Almost everything we own, I imagine, bears the toil and tears of a disadvantaged foreign laborer – a slave.

Can we stop it? Why don’t Christians do more? Is it not the duty of a Christian – and perhaps especially a Christian universalist – to protest modern slavery? We praise the Quakers, the abolitionists, and the activists of old, but are we really that different than the Confederates ourselves? :confused:

#38

Alex, I’m glad you enjoyed it. Slavery’s an interesting topic, I think, especially within Christian traditions. My earliest known ancestor came to Australia as a convict warden. I’m not sure how historical it actually is, but according to legend, he had a reputation of, and got officially reprimanded for, excessively beating convicts. Beatings and lashings were generally low at the time apparently, but you know you’re a violent man when you gain a rep for beating convicts. Good thing we can march beyond our forefathers, eh? (And hopefully our children will march far beyond us too).

My friend (who pastors the church) drew attention to the importance of Gregory’s universal “image of God”. And I think it’s great that (the vast majority of) Christians can build upon this foundation in progressive ways. Adin Ballou, an abolitionist (and universalist) who I am terribly smitten by, used this as one of his four core beliefs, that directed him towards abolitionism:

“My own avowed religious principles and ideas — the universal fatherhood of God, the universal brotherhood of men, the all-redeeming grace of Christ, the final redemption of all men — these all, in their practical application, tendencies, and results, not only suggested, but required, necessitated the course I felt myself sacredly bound to pursue.”
— Ballou, A (1886), ‘Autobiography of Adin Ballou’, p.332, The Vox Populi Press, Massachusetts

Incidentally, I can say that I have adopted all of Adin’s religious principles (even if we disagree on a couple of particulars). I’ve just got to put those principles into action!

Kate, it really can be overwhelming to confront our own complicity in modern slavery. There is probably very little of what we trade today that does not benefit us, at some point, by coming through the hands of a slave. It probably depends on individual constitutions, but it’s important we don’t become too paralysed (that’s easy to say though). There are several “easy” ways in which we can all address modern slavery, even though they still come at a cost for us. And there are some other ways for those who decide to pick abolitionism as their primary cause. I will post on those ideas soon. Either way, there are no ways to address slavery overnight. We just slowly chip away and live in hope for a life, as Gregory said, where “there will be neither disease, nor curse, nor sin, nor death, so slavery also along with these will vanish away.”

#39

Just curious Andrew,

Since you mentioned elsewhere that you “haven’t intentionally prayed a lot over the last few months and generally have done little over the last two years”, in Stale Conversation with the Master of the Universe; do you see your opinions as a christian ideal or a social ideal in nature? I get this confused in your posts; you seem to be more concentrated on social equality, and the christians like Gregory of Nyssa and Origen seem to help to christianize your social quest. How can you leave God out of such a personal quest and at the same time appeal to Christian theologians, whom, I would think, would never “intentionally” avoid prayer. This seems to be a paradox to me?!

#40

This is really interesting, Andrew. I do hope you’ll post here when you write a new blog post. Enjoying exploration of your church’s site. :slight_smile: