Case in point: today, I stumbled across this blog post:
Long story short, one blogger is reacting to what a celebrity that married young called "biblical marriage" and making several arguments, some strong and some laughable, supporting her own view instead.
Biblical literalists often point out that Colossians encourages women to submit to their husbands, so that must be biblical marriage. This blogger said several things that I agree with, including that at that misogynistic time, that was the only respectable model of marriage, and that in similar passages, Paul advocates those men with power treat their slaves and children well, as well as to love their wives enough to die in their place. But then we come to a comment that just rubs me the wrong way.
Eventually the Church moved to the forefront of abolition because we understood this truth: Just because the bible contained instructions about how to treat slaves in a context and culture where it was acceptable to hold slaves does not mean slavery is a godly practice or part of God's intended purpose for creation.
Hold up. Take a few steps back. The abolition movement in America began in the late 18th century, and officially culminated with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 (after which it was instead the civil rights movement.) In those times, religion was even more prevalent than it is today. In America, "religious freedom" generally meant "You don't have to be a Catholic" or "Pick your flavor of Christianity." Other religions were ignored or minimized, and atheism was basically unheard of except as an insult that implied lack of moral restraint (more comments on the "but no one can be moral without (my) god!" sentiment in another post.) Of course the church led the abolition movement. It was also the biggest player in opposing it and supporting slavery. That's because virtually everyone in America at the time was christian, and even if they were not christian, that was not something they would have been open about. Think of how relatively small the abolitionist movement was in society. That means that far more christians were for slavery or didn't mind it than those who were specifically against it.
Really think about it. Who were the biggest advocates against abolition? The Southern plantation owners who made so much more profit because they did not have to pay the slaves for their work. You know what else the South is famous for? Ebullient greetings and the Southern Baptist Church.
Given that both slave-ownership and church attendance were so high, there has to at least be some overlap between the figures, lots of christians who supported slavery. And I'm sure it was easy, especially with verses like Ephesians 6:5 (Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ) and 1 Peter 2:18 (Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the unjust) to convince them that slavery was okay. Slaves were flat-out ordered in the word of god to be obedient to their masters, regardless of whether they were treated well or not.
Abolitionists probably preferred Deuteronomy 23:15 (You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you) or 1 Corinthians 7:21 (Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) These say, if a slave has any chance not to be a slave, he should be allowed to escape. This is the current popular interpretation, that all people have dignity and deserve better than slavery. But in case you didn't notice by my slipping into the old testament, there are very few verses that seem to absolutely say "slavery is to be avoided." There are far, far more that fit into the pattern of, "slaves obey your masters," than "treat everyone with respect and dignity." The only new testament verse I could find that encourages vaguely against slavery said IF there's a chance to get out, take it. That actually sounds much more like "obey your masters" if you dwell too long on the idea.
(Not all slavery verses fit into either category. There are also a fair number of "both slave and free" verses, generally implying "everyone" just with more words, and a few that talk negatively about slavery to sin - but only because it prevents you from being a slave to god. In fact, you might conclude from that slavery IS the pattern for life from a christian worldview, because all humanity is supposed to be slaves to god otherwise they are WRONG.)
Yes, this is all my speculation of former attitudes or popular verses. But since many of us, myself included, like observing that the civil rights movement has never stopped, just moved on to encompass new groups as the older ones got vaguely closer to equality, I'd like to tie this in to a subject we've all heard of. The current hot-button equal-rights-for-all issue is whether or not gay people are allowed to marry each other. Religion loves yelling in that political debate. On the two sides I generally hear a few specific arguments within religion (yes, I'm ignoring my own demographic: the atheists that argue from an ethical perspective rather than a religious one.) On the one side, I hear that homosexual-anything is an abomination (fyi, gay marriage really wasn't even remotely a thing back in the Roman Empire, and accordingly, nether Jesus nor any of his friends and followers, said anything for or against it. However, I think it's worth noting that when I was little, and raised in a church, I thought that the main reason "gays" were so awful was that by definition all of their sex was outside of marriage. 13 years ago, gay marriage wasn't legal anywhere in the states; we're making some progress at least.) On the other side, I hear "the first thing god declared "not good" is for man to be alone (i.e. without a life and/or sexual partner, which we can infer because the solution to the problem was the provision of a wife,)" which sort of rubs me the wrong way in that it implies that the wife is an object to be given. Both sides claim to have the bible "right." As an atheist, I don't care because it doesn't hold a place of authority in my life, but I'm not entirely fond of either side.
Have you noticed yet the point I'm trying to make here? No matter the debate, christians on both sides of it will find bible verses that can be taken literally on their own or interpreted in context to support their argument. So much for an inerrant bible that can only speak truth and goodness into people's lives. Honestly, if you take the bible in context and in full, I cannot find anything that truly says "slavery should end." In fact, what I think most honestly sums up the bible's take on slavery is Leviticus 25:44-46, which, in Kara's paraphrase says 'enslave anyone from any other group, but make sure your own group remains racially and socially superior.' Oops. The bible is actually in support of racially motivated slavery and inequality. Lucky for society, most of America ignores that verse either because it's Leviticus, which no one has read, or because instead of saying "your own group" it specifically says "the people of Israel" so it's harder to "literally" apply to ourselves.
If you take the bible literally, you will almost never wind up on the right side of history. The bible may have been socially progressive for the first century C.E. But we've progressed since then and the bible, which has not been re-written, will always be behind. It does advocate slavery. It does encourage unequal marital relationships. (Maybe that's what's so offensive about gay or lesbian marriages. There's no built-in sexism, so they can actually be equal, but people in their patriarchal mindsets, can't figure out what to think, so they get angry instead.)
Stuff like this... It is by no means the reason I decided I was not a christian, but it is one of many reasons why, even if I decide I'm a theist, I will never be a christian again.
All the bible verses in parentheses following their reference are ESV translation. The one in single quotes is marked in context in my blog as my own paraphrase. I don't go out of my way to misrepresent the bible. But I certainly have no qualms pointing out the truths I see now that I would have hated to hear as a christian.
