My move to Atlanta in 1994  gave me my first exposure to the remarkable colonial history of the East Coast.  We Texans think something is historical if it happened while Tom Landry was coach of the Cowboys.  When people living in South Carolina speak of "the War," they could mean the Civil War (though they'll say "there was nothing civil about it") or the Revolutionary War.  It is a fascinating region.

With one exception.  While traveling in Charleston one day, Janet and I came upon the "slave trading warehouse."  This was the place where slaves were brought to America on ships and sold at market.  I can still remember the building, and my revulsion upon seeing it.  I believe that racism is the greatest sin in America, the failure which keeps us from addressing our other failures.  Racism makes crime in south Dallas a "black" problem and drug abuse in north Dallas a "white" problem, when they're all our problems.

Given our tragic history with racism, treating the subject of slavery in the Bible is a bit repugnant for us.  However, a very common assertion regarding the topic of homosexuality and the word of God is that the biblical injunctions against this lifestyle are outdated, as is its acceptance of slavery.  If we can prove that the Bible was wrong on the latter, we can believe that it is wrong on the former.  The issue of slavery in the Bible is a large and comprehensive subject, far more wide-ranging than we will consider in these brief essays.  I'll try to limit our study to the barest of essentials, so we can relate it to the larger question which brings it to our attention.

Slavery was an accepted part of life in Old Testament times.  We know of no culture or ancient literature which questioned its existence or necessity.  Persons became slaves in a variety of ways: they were born to enslaved parents (Genesis 17:23), purchased (Gen 37:28), or sold themselves to pay a debt (Leviticus 25:39-55).  Breaking into a home was punished by enslavement (Exodus 22:3); prisoners of war were commonly enslaved (Joel 3:6).  The children of Israel enslaved the Canaanites they conquered in the Promised Land (Judges 1:28).

Slaves in Israel were considered to be property, and could be bought and sold (Ex 21:32).  They were granted protection against murder, permanent injury, or undue physical labor (cf. Ex 21:20, 26; 23:12).  Hebrew household slaves were circumcised (Gen 17:12), and included at religious meals (Ex 12:44).  But why did the Old Testament not decry this practice in general, and move to free all those enslaved?

In many ways, it did.  There were several ways a Hebrew slave could be freed (a process called "manumission").  An individual could be purchased and set free (Exodus 21:8).  A slave permanently injured by his master was to be set free (Exodus 21:26).  Hebrews were to be held as slaves for no longer than six years (Deuteronomy 15:12).  And the Jubilee Year, which occurred every 49 years, was to free all Israelite slaves (Leviticus 25:50).

But still we ask, why did the Old Testament sanction this practice at all?  In fact, it simply recognized a fact of all ancient civilization.  And its rules minimized this evil, protected its victims more fully than did any other society, and provided means for their eventual freedom.  But the New Testament would bring God's word on the subject to much fuller expression.

In the Old Testament era, the primary way persons were enslaved was through capture in war.  But in the first century AD, the breeding of slaves swelled their numbers enormously.  And large numbers of people sold themselves into slavery as a means of improving their quality of life.  Owning and using people as slaves was so commonplace in the Roman Empire that not a single ancient writer is known to have condemned the practice.  But all that would begin to change with the advent of the Christian movement.

What was the New Testament attitude toward this institution?  And how does this stance affect our study of the issue of homosexuality?

Slavery in the Roman era was dramatically different from the despicable practice as we know it in American history.  If you had been walking through any first-century Roman city, you would not have been able to distinguish between slaves and free.  Patterns of work, relationships, or faith were no different between the two.  Slaves served not only to do manual labor, but also as doctors, nurses, household managers, and intellectuals.  They administered funds and cities.  They were typically given an excellent education at the expense of their owners, so that philosophers and tutors were typically slaves.

Even more amazing to us, it was common for people to sell themselves into slavery to secure such privileges.  A person who desired citizenship in the Empire could achieve it by enslaving himself to a citizen, then purchasing his freedom.  Slavery was more a process than a condition.  While there is no doubt that many slaves were abused physically, sexually, and socially, it is also true that at least as many were part of the more privileged strata of society.  And the total dependence of the Roman economy upon the labor of slaves made it impossible for the Empire to conceive of abolishing this institution.  If an economist were to propose that we refuse all goods and services imported from outside America, we'd be equally surprised.

Does the New Testament then argue for slavery?  Absolutely not.

In summary, what is the New Testament's view of slavery?  No writer attempted to lead his readers to end the institution per se, as this was not possible in the Roman Empire.  Those initiating such an uprising would have been quickly annihilated as rebels and threats to Caesar.  But several other facts should be noted as well.

First, Paul abolished even the possibility of racial or social discrimination for followers of Jesus: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28).  Every believer is our sister or brother.  The ground is level at the foot of the cross.

Second, wherever the apostolic church spoke to this issue, it did so with a view to freedom and equality.  Paul appealed to Philemon to see his slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother" (v. 16).  Clement, a friend of Paul, wrote in his letter to the Corinthians (ca. AD 90), "We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others.  Many, too, have surrendered themselves to slavery, that with the price which they received for themselves, they might provide food for others" (ch. 55).  And Ignatius (died AD 107) wrote to Polycarp: "Do not despise either male or female slaves, yet neither let them be puffed up with conceit, but rather let them submit themselves the more, for the glory of God, that they may obtain from God a better liberty."

Third, the New Testament church gave those who were enslaved a family and a home.  This was one reason why so many of the earliest believers were slaves.  Pastors and congregational leaders were drawn from the ranks both of slaves and free.  Christians made no distinction between the two, for their Father welcomed all as his children.

Last, not a single New Testament leader owned slaves or condoned such, even though many had the means to purchase them (cf. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barnabas).  Their example inspired William Wilberforce and countless other Christians to do all they could to abolish slavery, and we thank God that they were successful.

It is therefore an extremely unfair accusation to claim that the Bible was "wrong" or "outdated" on the issue of slavery, and thus on the subject of homosexuality.