Read the writings of Jefferson Davis or other Confederates. They specifically cite the Bible as a reference condoning slavery. Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating it as an institution.
I will answer your point as follows. You make no distinction whatsoever between "religiosity" and "theology." The former assumes institutional form. The latter does not: it is the on-going search for God which has characterized the human race since time immemorial [as my friend hosepipe puts it, humans just naturally tend "to evolve toward God;" that is the essence of what it means to be fully human].
Theology is not a religious sect nor church. It is the intellectual, moral, divinely-informed foundation of the sects, of the churches. Christian theology, for instance, expresses through many different institutional forms, or particular churches. There is a distinction of category needed here.
When I speak, I speak as the observer that I am, who is Christian. I always try to speak in terms of Christian theology -- as inspired by the New Testament primarily, together with its root, the Old Testament -- not in terms of the doctrines of any particular church. My preference is always for unity, not dissociation, especially where the Body of Christ is concerned.
Jefferson Davis was not a theologian. A huge part of his motivation was States' Rights: The sovereign state is a covenant of its people who have the right to determine and manage their own affairs. Of course, the "affairs" of a goodly part of the Confederacy required at least acquiescence to, if not outright defense of, the morally reprehensible system of slavery. Their agricultural model was wrong-headed to begin with, to put it mildly (and ultimately could not have survived as an economic proposition, given the rise of the more efficient, industrial economy). As you know, America waged a civil war over these issues, the bloodiest war that Americans have ever fought in our history.
Slavery ended first in Great Britain, thanks to William Wilberforce and his associates.
In your last you said in so many words, why didn't God step in and change things?
Well maybe that's just exactly what He did, through the spiritual insight and Christian commitment of Wilberforce and his colleagues....
Just possibly, God prefers to work through such men as He calls -- enlightened by the Holy Spirit -- as His "stewards" and even "co-creators," with Him and in Him....
On these grounds, I wholly disagree with your statement: "Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating [slavery] as an institution."
Jeepers, GunRunner: Wilberforce and his friends were "the camel's nose in the tent" on the slavery issue. They drove the issue with such passionate intensity, as a profound moral and spiritual problem, as an appeal to Christian conscience (and their audience was Christian) until virtually no rational argument could be advanced against their (Christian) case.
That was the death-knell of slavery, right there.
Thanks for writing, GunRunner!
I wholly disagree with your statement: "Christianity was quite late in the game when it came to finally eliminating [slavery] as an institution."Are you aware that, based on Biblical passages, some Freepers are not opposed to slavery?
This was written by a Freeper within the past two years:
My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.The comment was removed by a moderator, but survives in subsequent posts. (I can FRmail the URL to you if you want, but I see no point in posting further details on this thread.)
The point of my post is that Gunrunner's comment "Read the writings of Jefferson Davis or other Confederates. They specifically cite the Bible as a reference condoning slavery" is not limited to a century and a half ago. Some Biblical literalists apparently still find nothing wrong with slavery.
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." --Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." --United States Senator James Henry Hammon (I can also say that this sentiment of Ham causing black people to be cursed by God was still spoken of by Christians in the South even in the 1970s because I grew up hearing it. I do not know if it still is spoken of today. It severely retarded the development of basic civil rights for black people. )
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible where slavery is described as an unholy or unrighteous or immoral institution. Paul didn't even tell Philemon that he was unholy or unrighteous or immoral for owning slaves. Jesus Christ himself never spoke a single word about slavery. Exodus 21:20-21 could have been enacted into law by state legislatures during the slave days of the South.
Even more fascinating is that Leviticus 25:44-46 (ESV) clearly articulates that the institution of slavery isn't desirable (so there's some healthy self-awareness going on), but nevertheless, it's okay for it to be practiced for whatever reason:
44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Israelite slaves could leave after 7 years and take their family with them. Oops. No, that's not right.
Exodus 21:5-6 (ESV)Just a guess, but there were probably one or two Dads (okay, most of them) who said they loved their master when they probably wanted to kick him in the groin, just so they could be with their family. Praise God! Praise God!
5But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' 6then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
Robert Ingersoll's commentary on this particular prescription was thus: Did any devil ever impose upon a household, upon a father, so cruel and so heartless an alternative? Who can worship such a god? Who can bend the knee to such a monster? Who can pray to such a fiend?
Epictetus, the Greek philosopher who was once a slave, used a version of the Golden Rule to say simply that no one should own a slave because no one would desire to be owned as slave. I missed a similar line of reasoning anywhere in the Bible.
Paul's commentary on the subject was mostly about how to be a good slave so the Roman masters didn't view Christians as bad slave stock, not wanting to upset the apple cart. God was renowned for protecting his faithful, so I never understood why Paul didn't let loose with something that would have made William Lloyd Garrison proud and then let God slay the Romans who came to put a stop to this abolitionist Jesus follower. That would have been an awesome story.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matt 22:37-40