That time I publicly argued against Biblical slavery with leaders of church & state, who then put me on trial
Yes, I once found myself caught up in a high-level dispute with several church and government leaders regarding whether the South was right to allow slavery, if in fact the Bible allowed for it, and if elected officials who hold such positions should be supported or not. Those in favor of the last part included an established pastor, a member of the state legislature, and a candidate for office. At its climax, the chairman of a leading prolife organization brought me up on charges.
The hullaballoo started on the heels of a great victory, when our local abortion clinic was bought out by the prolife community and bulldozed to the ground. Chattanooga became the largest city in the country with no abortion clinic. The prolife community was looking at options for what to do with the grounds. One Creative Christian Entrepreneur of the bunch (CCE) proposed that we create an “Imago Dei Museum," which would exhibit not only how abortion is rooted in the loss of the understanding of the Image of God in mankind, but also how other historical tragedies such as American slavery, certain genocides, and the treatment of Native Americans have the same root. The CCE and I were colleagues, and I wrote a piece in our newsletter sharing the cool idea.
Not so cool for some. A leader in the Presbyterian church protested the museum idea and fired off a long, detailed, several-page letter to the above-mentioned prolife group’s entire board of directors. I was a member of the board. With great vigor he argued for the Biblical backing of Southern slavery. It was well written, scholarly, and highly sourced.
He noted that Abraham and other Old Testament saints were slaveholders. “Slavery is mentioned in two of the ten commandments as a normal relationship," he wrote. “Christ himself lauded the spiritual maturity of a slaveholder.” He quoted the Apostle Paul, who did not condemn slaveholders: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1). For his defense, he named Charles Hodge, John Calvin, George Whitefield, Augustine, John Chrysostom and various church councils.
“Whereas abortion is unlawful because God’s Word declares it to be so, slavery as an institution is lawful in the sight of God,” he concluded. “It is inherently blasphemous to attempt to be more humanitarian than God himself. Therefore, we cannot condemn slaveholders merely because they owned slaves.” And, most ominously, the prolifers were considering “a plan which could contribute to the death of our Christian civilization."
Well, this whole thing was quite a head-scratcher. The CCE and I worked with a local think tank whose involvements included a good bit of Christian Right politics, and, even more so, a focused effort on racial reconciliation: city-wide crusades with black keynote speakers, leadership development programs with a high degree of African American representation, and many other very targeted efforts. I told many of the black leaders I worked with that their concerns that strange and unfriendly beliefs existed in the conservative Christian community were unfounded and paranoid. And now I was getting a dose of their reality.
The letter writer was a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), the largest of the Bible-believing Presbyterian denominations, which runs nearby Covenant College, my alma mater. My father was also an ordained minister in the PCA and I was baptized in the PCA. The conservative Presbyterians are Chattanooga’s oldest and most influential denomination. The Ruling Elder (RE) was no lightweight.
Purchase books by Dean W. Arnold at Amazon and at deanwarnold.com
To make it even more complicated, he had a lot of good arguments. Much of his letter dealt with misperceptions of the Confederacy and Southern slavery, of which I could largely agree. He noted that much of abolitionism was led by godless non-Trinitarians. I could see that. He shared a particular concern that a focus on the sins of Southern slaveholders would absolve blacks today of turning from any sins such as sexual immorality, anger, etc., that contribute to the current statistics of missing fathers and crime. I think he makes a good point there, and anyone who has followed me recently on social media knows that I have been criticizing the Black Lives Matter organization quite a bit for their official commitment to sexual perversion, abortion, abolition of private property, and witchcraft. All of us need to repent and turn to Christ. All ethnicities.
In the same way that the glaring unbiblical positions of Black Lives Matter outweigh the valid concerns they have for legitimate areas of racial injustice, the views of RE in his letter, many of them good, were outweighed by his glaring commitment to upholding Southern slavery as Biblical. But how to refute him? I knew he was wrong, but that’s not enough. (A lot of cult leaders and heretics know the same.) And yet, his Biblical arguments seemed, on their face, pretty solid.
Enter the Scholar. He was serving as an adjunct professor at the time for Covenant College, when not traveling to Edinburgh for an extra degree related to Scottish leaders and political activists. Also an elder in the PCA, and an author of several books, he was appalled, like me, with RE’s Biblical defense of Southern slavery. A meeting was called to hash out the issues. Attendees included me, the Scholar, the CCE, a local history teacher, a medical doctor, the RE, and RE’s pastor. Little progress was made in changing my views or the views of RE, which is unfortunate, because the story takes a serious twist, as I will soon explain.
At this point, we must wade into the specific items on the question of whether slavery is Biblical. Some may think this is unnecessary, but I assure you, it is quite important for many Christian souls who still hold this position.
I will quote from the Scholar’s writings in response to RE’s letter and the follow-up meeting:
“[The RE] was right to insist that we not put a blanket condemnation on all involuntary servitude, for Biblical law does permit it under some circumstances. But that is a distinct issue from whether southern Black chattel slavery exemplified those circumstances. As I understand it, Biblical law permits slavery under the following conditions:
1. Voluntary slavery—what in modern times we call indentured servanthood . . .
2. Involuntary slavery as payment of debt . . .
3. Involuntary slavery as payment of restitution and retribution for crimes against persons . . .
[These were] not the nature of southern Black chattel slavery and need not concern us here.
4. Involuntary slavery as a merciful substitute for the execution of persons—including whole populations—defeated in just warfare. . . “
“But this is manifestly not the real means by which the Blacks imported to America’s south were originally enslaved. Almost without exception they were either (a) victims (as were the vast majority) of brutal raiding parties by private persons and groups into the African interior from the coast to supply the market demands of the slave trade, or (b) victims of unjust warfare between wicked, pagan, tribes, or (c) victims of unjust parents who sold them into perpetual slavery contrary to the requirements of Biblical law. None of these methods of enslavement meets the requirements of Biblical law.”
What does the Bible actually teach about slavery?
“ . . . the vast majority were kidnapped, and Scripture forbids manstealing; slavery that begins with manstealing is wrong.” [My note: I Timothy 1:10 names as lawless “murderers, fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers,” etc. And Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."]
“The crux of [RE]’s mistake in this might be his failure to distinguish carefully between national (ethnic) Israel and all other nations . . . That God would permit His people to enslave those they conquered in warfare is understandable. But this happened on a civil level, and I think a case can be made that no nation today can claim the civil relation to God that Israel had, and therefore that no nation today can claim the right to enslave others through warfare.”
“ . . . If RE is going to defend Southern Black slavery of the 17th through 19th centuries, he’s going to have to argue that it met the conditions of Scripture: the capture of enemies in just war by a nation that could legitimately claim to be acting as the representative of God on earth in fighting pagan control of God’s land. I don’t think he’s going to be able to pull that off, all his appeals to great saints of the past notwithstanding.”
I found these arguments to be persuasive, as did many others involved with the discussions, and I was able to put the controversy to rest. Or so I thought.
Two years later, I learned that RE was running for the state legislature. I was aghast. In my short stint as a leader in the Christian Right movement, I had helped to elect a state senator, a handful of legislators, the first Republican congressman in decades, and had run black candidates against liberal Democrats. A loose coalition of friendships had been formed across racial lines. The last thing we needed was a vocal Christian right, prolife candidate, who was a self-starting advocate for the Biblical defense of Southern slavery.
I contacted RE’s campaign and told him I would publicly expose his pro-slavery views if he did not step down from the race. I had upset the proverbial hornet’s nest, but even in my rash righteous anger, I figured as much would happen, and I had counted the cost. As it happened, the pastor of the church where RE was on the board of elders was now the chairman of the prolife organization previously mentioned. I was told to back off of my commitment to make RE’s views known. If I didn't, I would be brought up on charges of "dividing the prolife community."
The author with Jane Roe (Roe v. Wade) around the time of the slavery debates.
It was ugly. RE was the “prolife” candidate, and if he was upended, the prolife cause would be harmed. The pastor/chairman scheduled a trial the next week to determine if I should be removed from the board of directors. He told me I was “stirring up dissension among brothers” and “slandering a brother.” I asked him if the same would be true if I made public a candidate’s views in favor of abortion. He said he did not believe the two views were comparable.
A few days later, RE dropped out of the race. But that did not stop the trial for my removal the following week from moving forward. We convened. The chairman moved to have me removed, and an elected official and good friend seconded the chairman’s motion. The charges were delineated and heated discussion ensued. I remember almost none of it. (I had personal issues going on and a new business and various city-wide activities on my agenda. Defending the righteousness of abolition was hardly at the top of my to-do list.) According to the minutes of the meeting, the motion was tabled to a subsequent meeting. On that later day, the vote did not pass.
It has been 25 years. What have we learned?
1. For starters, no scandal has arisen in our area of an elected official who holds Biblical views of Southern slavery. That may seem like a rather small accomplishment, but just one month after this ordeal in Chattanooga, an Alabama state senator and candidate for U.S. Congress became the unpleasant subject of national opinion pieces for this problem. “Candidate uses Bible to justify blacks’ slavery,” and “Bible Backed Slavery, says a Lawmaker,” according to headlines. (Chattanooga Times 5/13/96, Associated Press 5/10/96). He lost in the primary.
2. I feel confident today confronting both sides of the issue. As mentioned before, I have been particularly critical of Black Lives Matter and its immoral and leftist agenda. See here and here and here. Perhaps one reason so few are willing to speak up about certain obvious moral flaws in parts of the black community and the protest movement is that they wonder deep down if they haven’t done all they need to do regarding loving their black neighbors. I have a long way to go on that matter, but I know I have done a few things. I do not fear being called a racist. I know who I am and what I am, and this very strange event in my past regarding the confrontation of views of Biblical slavery has played a part in that confidence.
3. It is a bit surreal for me to look back on this event after 25 years. One great lesson is Jesus’s admonition to “love your enemies.” A couple of my bitter opponents in this heated battle are friends in good standing today. One of my main allies soon became bitterly estranged (until perhaps recently). “Hearts come, hearts go,” according to a song by Noel Paul Stookey (of Peter, Paul, and Mary fame), and you never know whether current enemies will become friends—or vice versa. And that is one of many reasons that Jesus’s advice makes a lot of sense. Don’t burn a bridge further, no matter how bad it looks.
I have controversies I am slogging through today, just as then, and revisiting this story has reminded me to “speak the truth in love.” Never stop speaking the truth—and in my career I’ve done a good bit of that—but always do it with a lot of love. I can afford to do more on that score.
Related, I cannot exclude the possibility of spiritual warfare or demons attacking the prolifers around this time. I visited the minutes of the meetings to write this article, and during this very controversial time, we were in the heart of trying to pull off an historic event. A year later, we brought the late Jane Roe to town (from “Roe v. Wade”—real name: Norma McCorvey) where she publicly denounced for the first time her involvement in the historic Supreme Court case. An acting troupe performed the actual debate of the Supreme Court to a large audience. Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) and Mary Doe (Sandra Cano) put up plaques in Chattanooga’s National Memorial for the Unborn renouncing the lies undergirding the Supreme Court decisions. (The grounds became home to the National Memorial for the Unborn. The Imago Dei Museum never materialized.) McCorvey confessed that her story that she was gang-raped on a pool table was a lie. Cano, who never requested an abortion, says the papers claiming she did were forged. There is no other place that can boast such historic testimony. And all this mess during the preparation and planning could have derailed it all.
Jane Roe’s (Norma McCorvey’s) historic plaque at the National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga.
As mentioned before, I cannot remember much of the scuffle-up. The pastor/chairman insisted that if I was not removed, he would resign from the board of directors. But according to the minutes, we were both still on the board together a year later, around the time the historic event was accomplished. I’m grateful.
4. It is so important to know what the Scriptures actually teach. Not all, but much of the racial divide in this country is related to an incorrect interpretation of the verses on slavery addressed in this article. (There is also the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham—actually Canaan—often mistakenly attributed to Africans.) I have good friends who still believe Southern slavery was Biblical. Most things stand or fall on how we interpret Scripture.
Those who follow me know that I have moved on from Protestant Christianity to the unified ancient Church of Eastern Orthodoxy. Protestantism has over 30,000 sects today because the anchoring belief of “Sola Scriptura” leads to everyone deciding for themselves how to interpret the Bible. Instead of one Pope, we have 30,000 popes. (Eastern Orthodoxy has no pope.) You can read more about that here, but my larger point is that being part of the ancient Church Tradition can save you a lot of time, like avoiding a rabbit trail of thinking that maybe the Scriptures approve of Southern slavery. Polygamy is also not condemned in the New Testament. It takes the broader church to clear that one up as well. Looking back, while a lot of well-intentioned people, including myself, were trying to figure this issue out on our own, that method often leads to well-intentioned delusion, or at least well-intentioned time wasting and misdirection. In this matter, we were fortunate to have the Scholar around to articulate some points that the Church Fathers and Orthodox Councils already stipulated.
5. We don’t need to repent, but we do need to “renounce.” Many white people, when asked to repent of slavery, rightly reject the idea. They cannot repent for something they did not do. However, as this article clearly shows, it is by no means certain that many people close to them do not hold pro-slavery views. People living today can “renounce” such views without having to repent (unless they personally held the view and are recanting). During this episode in Chattanooga, the Scholar made another excellent contribution by detailing the difference:
All men, inheriting sin from Adam, need to repent of sin; but only rapists need repent of rape, only liars need repent of lying, and only those involved in unbiblical slavery need repent of unbiblical slave holding. . . . They need not to repent of this but (a) confess its evil, lest their silence imply approval, and (b) to express their grief for the suffering that it caused both then and in ensuing generations. These things can be done without implying moral culpability for sins in which they did not share, and I believe they ought to be done, not merely as a gesture toward today’s Blacks but as a genuine expression of truth.
In the spirit of this admonition, several of us gathered together at Chattanooga’s Ross’s Landing on July 7, 1994, and read a document “Renouncing the Sins of Southern Slavery” that I wrote for the occasion.
