The 4th century saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote:
You are condemning to slavery human beings whose nature is free and characterised by free will. You are making laws that rival the law of God, overturning the law appropriate for humankind. Human beings were created specifically to have dominion over the earth; it was determined by their creator that they should exercise authority. Yet you place them under the yoke of slavery, as though you are opposing and fighting against the divine decree. (Gregory of Nyssa – In Ecclesiasten Homiliae – Homily IV)
Perhaps the earliest Christian critique of the institution of slavery, this homily is of particular note for not being ‘biblical’. By this term, I refer to the notion, however cleverly nuanced, that our Christian moral principles can and should be derived from Scriptures, but not disobey or go beyond it.
While the Bible prescribes a passably humane treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:2,8,26-27; Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Ephesians 6:9, among others), it never sought to abolish nor fully condemn the institution of slavery. Yet, virtually all contemporary Christians have gone above and beyond Scripture’s stance on slavery, just as Gregory of Nyssa did over 1600 years ago.
Whenever I encounter ‘hot-button’ social issues in the church, be it women ordination, or LGBT affirmation, the manifold disagreements to such can usually be reduced to a single axiom: Scriptures does not affirm such things. Yet, Christians throughout church history, by following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, have come to create a better world. When the British Empire abolished slavery in 1833, it is precisely this spirit being enacted. What a different world we will live in, if they followed the ‘biblical’ prescription in 1 Peter 2:18:
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (NIV)
Clarifying Potential Objections
I anticipate some objections to my views above. Firstly, some Christians metaphorize of slavery to mean any hierarchical relationship, such as between a boss and a worker. To this claim, I recommend reading the epistle to Philemon, where Paul is returning Onesimus – literally a slave – to Philemon.
A second common objection is that biblical slavery was less inhumane than 19th-century American chattel slavery. This is a historically false claim. Ancient Near Eastern debt-slavery is no less exploitative. In fact, debt-slavery was one of the principle causes of the Bronze Age Collapse.
According to historian Mario Liverani, by the late Bronze Age (1500 – 1150 BCE) debt slavery became permanent due to the impossibility of paying debt (p.26). In previous times, such as the Middle Bronze Age (1900 – 1600 BCE), Mesopotamian rulers would issue edicts for the remission of debts and freeing of enslaved debtors. By the close of the Bronze Age however, these edicts were barely issued (ibid.). Indebted individuals were forced to flee to bordering states or to remote regions, becoming mercenaries or bandits (p.27). These people became known as Hapiru (ibid.). The Canaanite kings feared that indebted farmers (Hupsu) would ally with the Hapiru to create uprisings, one of which killed the Aduna, the king of Irqata (p.28). The institution of debt slavery towards the end of the Bronze Age therefore caused large-scale demographic crises, economic collapse and political instability.
A third objection arises apart from Scriptures. While Protestants only need to contend with Scriptural injunctions, both Catholics and Orthodox Christians need to negotiate with Holy Tradition. As an Anglo-Catholic, I also regard Tradition as a crucial aspect of faith, and do not take this objection lightly.
My view is that, just as Scriptures is a Living Word allowing us to accept the spirit of the law over the letter, likewise Tradition is not static. Throughout history, Holy Tradition has evolved and reformed in response to the needs of current times, while maintaining its fundamental spirit. Past examples include the Counter-Reformation and the Uniate Churches (For more information on the Uniate Church, I recommend reading Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy’s book Lost Kingdom). A present example (under debate) would be the call to allow married and female priests in the Amazonian Basin.
Conservative Yet Forward-Looking
As a final clarification, my article is not suggesting the abandonment of traditional perspectives on these social issues. Rather, I hope to demonstrate that, whatever adjectives we qualify our Christianity with – conservative, traditional, Bible-believing – our view of faith need not limit ourselves to Scriptural injunctions ossified in stone. We should be careful about immediately perceiving those who move beyond these Scriptural prescriptions as necessarily heterodox, for even the most conservative among us are heir to a living, evolving, slowly-sifting Christian faith tradition.
Perhaps the Spirit moves us towards ever-expanding beyond what ‘the letter’ seemingly dictates, a trajectory towards universal ecclesia and understanding of God’s will for us. If true, then we can dispute with fellow Christians without assuming them to have strayed from the Gospel for disagreeing with us.
The Stranger Beyond the Gate 