A Black Theology of Liberation (James Cone, 1970)

Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY

Forward to the 1986 Edition

... The dominated classes need to transform their suffering, not submit to it. Submission to suffering is a form of annihilation, but transformation of suffering rekindles a faith that gives life. Only the faith that is born today, in the "today" of struggle, can give meaning to the future ... - Paolo Freire

Preface to the 1986 Edition

Theology is not universal language about God. Rather, it is human speech informed by historical and theological traditions, and written for particular times and places. Theology is contextual language -- that is, defrined by the human situation that gives birth to it. No one can write theology for all times, places, and persons ...

Chapter 1: The Content of Theology

Liberation as the content of theology

Christian theology is a theology of liberation ... There can be no Christian theology that is not identified unreservedly with those who are humiliated and abused. In fact, theology ceases to be a theology of the gospel when it fails to arise out of the community of the oppressed ...

Theology can never be neutral or fail to take sides on issues related to the plight of the oppressed ...

Sadly, for most of its history and by far the greater part of it, Christianity has advocated submission. All one needs to be aware of is the little book Philemon, and then the parables wherein Jesus accepts slavery as a fait accompli.

will be that I will read it, following Cone's advice, "as contextual language"

Of course, the interpretative mode that you notice -- is exactly the reason for Cone's book and also exactly the reason for Freire's interest in it

Certainly my understanding has been greatly tempered by textual criticism. I'm afraid that if I were to revise the NT it would come out rather similar to President Jefferson's version.

Plus, of course, the authorship of Philemon is doubtful anyway.

Thanks for the reply.

Theology is contextual language -- that is, defrined by the human situation that gives birth to it.

This opinion is meaningful for many nonbelievers, but seems meaningless for believers. The context for the believer is the believer's own political opinions. You must have noticed this.

Christian theology is a theology of liberation ... There can be no Christian theology that is not identified unreservedly with those who are humiliated and abused. In fact, theology ceases to be a theology of the gospel when it fails to arise out of the community of the oppressed ...

The Christian Holy bible endorses slavery, yet being owned by another person is oppression.

Are Black Liberation churches pro gay civil rights, such as marriage?

And when (for example) you claim "Christian holy bible endorses slavery," what you do, by your own reading, is to endorse a particular rightwing reading of these old texts: the black churches certainly have a long-established reading that differs from yours, by placing some primacy on the Exodos narrative

Cone, in 1970, wrote in a particular context: the civil rights struggles had been largely won de jure but not de facto -- prejudice was still rampant and often socially acceptable, integration was the law but angry opposition was still common. In his 1986 preface, he notes a number of issues (such as sexism) to which he had been blind in 1970 and discusses the need for better class analysis.

1 Paul 2:18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. --- How do you interpret this?

Ephesians 6:5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; --- How do you interpret this?

Colossians 3:22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; --- How do you interpret this?

Exodus 21:2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. --- How do you interpret this?

Leviticus 25:44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. --- How do you interpret this?

What do each of these passages mean to you and how did you come to your conclusions?

Someone once told me that, although we now recognize slavery as an evil, it may once have represented a small progressive step forward: his thinking was that the victors, in prehistoric and in ancient wars, simply murdered the conquered, and that the habit of converting the vanquished into slaves (rather than corpses) might sometimes have been a real ethical improvement

There is something of that flavor in the story of Joseph, whose brothers originally intend to kill him but are persuaded instead to sell him into slavery: even if one does not want to regard it as history, the entire narrative makes sense as a moral fable, indicating that enslavement may be a temporary setback, whereas murder is permanent

The developmental path, from the story of Joseph sold into slavery, to the Exodos escape-from-slavery narrative, and then to the prescriptions you cite from Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, seems clear enough

In the seventh year, he shall go out free obviously imposes a limitation on slavery

Many of the prescriptions in Leviticus 25 impose similar limitations, although the limitations in Leviticus 25 explicitly benefit the cultural insider and not the cultural outsider. The peculiarity of the distinction, of course, seems unfair -- but the peculiar unfairness has evidently been noticed for many many centuries: the Midrash Rabbah, in collecting rabbinical comments on that section of Leviticus, manages to understand the entire section simply as an injunction to treat the poor justly while passing in silence over the text's distinctions between cultural insiders and outsiders. The Midrashic approach seems inevitable, since the larger text necessarily forces some discomfort from a careful reader about precisely this distinction between insider and stranger:

You must not torment a stranger nor oppress him: for you were strangers in Egypt. You must not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict them in any way ... I will surely hear their cry. Exodus 22:21-23
And you must not oppress a stranger: for you know the stranger's heart, having been strangers in Egypt. Exodus 23: 9
And if a stranger comes into your country, you must not torment him; treat the stranger living among you as if born among you, and love him as yourself, for you were strangers in Egypt: I am the LORD ... Leviticus 19:33-34
He defends the orphan and widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing; so you must love the stranger, having been strangers in Egypt. Deuteronomy 10:18-19

I think, therefore, that Leviticus 25 illustrates a well-known distinction between morality and human law: the human law, in the passage you cite, reflects the customs at the time the texts were compiled but such custom does not always meet the moral requirements insisted upon, again and again, elsewhere in the texts

Finally, what we have from Paul are one-sided fragments of correspondences, written to particular persons at particular places and times, and so advice given by Paul cannot always be understood as universal and timeless

but the Holy Bible is still endorsing slavery.

In the seventh year, he shall go out free obviously imposes a limitation on slavery

I agree, but slavery is still endorsed, just a nicer slavery than one we can imagine. These steps may have been a small positive step forwards, but the Holy Bible is still saying slavery is OK.

Someone once told me that, although we now recognize slavery as an evil, it may once have represented a small progressive step forward: his thinking was that the victors, in prehistoric and in ancient wars, simply murdered the conquered, and that the habit of converting the vanquished into slaves (rather than corpses) might sometimes have been a real ethical improvement

Laconicsax wanted me to tell you he predicted this specific response.

I like your reply, but I feel you are arguing around the claim, the Holy Bible is cool with slavery.

But the texts do not present simple timeless solutions that can be applied handily without effort to whatever problem is at hand: they are full of contradictory tensions

The texts also teach that one may argue (as in the story of Abraham arguing against the destruction of Sodom) and that one must contend (as in the story of Israel wrestling with the angel)

So let us argue the matter:

Leviticus 25 says If your brother becomes poor and unable to support himself, help him as you would help a foreigner and stranger. But what does this mean? One has read earlier in Leviticus 19 treat the stranger living among you as if born among you, and love him as yourself. Surely, the intent can only be If your brother becomes poor, love him as yourself. And Leviticus 25 then says If your brother becomes poor and sells himself to you, do not work him as a slave but treat him as a hired worker -- which can only mean when he offers himself into slavery, respect his dignity. And now Leviticus 25 says Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. One comes here suddenly face-to-face with the sticking point of the law. One has already been told repeatedly, twice in Exodus and again in Leviticus 19, to remember you were strangers in Egypt -- and the whole thrust of the Exodos narrative is not simply strangers in Egypt but slaves in Egypt, so one can scarcely help reading Leviticus 19 as treat the slave living among you as if born among you, and love him as yourself. The standard thus turns curious circles: one must treat the brother/fellow-Israelite as well as a stranger/slave; one must love the stranger/slave as one loves as oneself and must treat the stranger/slave as if born a brother/fellow-Israelite. The meaning seems clear

"But the texts do not present simple timeless solutions that can be applied handily without effort to whatever problem is at hand: they are full of contradictory tensions "

Ahem. How do I put this...

When you understand more about why such an effort is required in order to make all "holy" texts applicable to today's problems, I believe you will understand exactly why those texts are unnecessary.

Pointing out that that those holy texts are only useful when you can force them to support a priori beliefs is shrill and intolerant. :P

with the misleadingly simple You shall love your neighbor as yourself; Hillel was very nearly correct to say The rest is commentary

It was around before religion, and it will be around after it.

The whole 'matter' of how to treat others is a nice dodge, but the simple fact that chose include descriptions of how we are to regard slaves answers ZombieHorde's question--that you would agree that the Bible endorses slavery.

The meaning is quite clear.

(By the way, you start from the position that the Bible must be interpreted within the context in which it was written and then base your argument on a literal reading of Leviticus and even assert that literal reading is the only possible interpretation. I find this absolutely fascinating!)

whether it was ethical to purchase slaves from slaveholders, the argument pro being that actual human beings thereby received freedom, the argument con being that such purchases legitimized trafficking in human beings. I think it would be inappropriate to regard the pro side of that Abolitionist debate as being in favor of slavery: slavery was simply a fact in the world then, and one might take several points of view regarding proper moral conduct under the circumstances

Similarly, slavery was simply a fact of the world in which the Torah was finalized, and one might take several points of view regarding proper moral conduct under the circumstances. On my legalistic reading, the text clearly says one might buy outsiders as slaves, provided one then loved them as one loves oneself and regarded them the same as born brothers and fellow-citizens: it seems a rather high and perhaps an impossibly high standard, but that seems to me what the text says; and there is a long tradition of reading the texts in this manner: dimbear, upthread, wanted me to address Philemon, but of course in Philemon we read exactly the same sentiment no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. It is not clear to me that a moral demand to treat slaves as your countrymen and siblings is the same as favoring slavery

If the Bible is a relevant text still worth consideration, the question of what it says about slavery is an important question and because of the realities of slavery and human trafficking the answer can have real-world consequences. Your insistence on viewing slavery as some abstract intellectual exercise stinks of privileged ethnocentrism and demeans the suffering that inspired the liberation theology you find commendable.

By all means, continue to dodge the question of whether the Bible endorses slavery.

There is plenty of sexual slavery. There are plenty of child laborers without rights and there are plenty of child soldiers. The cousins of slavery exist wherever workers work for less than a fair wage, or under threat of military reprisal, or with otherwise inadequate rights (such as the constant threat of deportation if they organize)

You are completely correct to take the view that the situation ought not be merely abstract and intellectual

Why not work out the answers straight off?

You are quoting presumably the King James version of the bible or some translation of King James to more modern English.

In British English right up until the last decades, "master and servant" referred to employer and employee. Look it up in an English law book, or for that matter an American law book until recently. Employment law is called "master and servant" law.

Ever read a whaling or British navy yarn? Note that the captain is often called the master -- as in Master and Commander?

"Exodus 21:2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."

If the servant goes out free after six years, obviously he is not a slave. He is a servant who has entered service for a period of time.

It seems to me that given the words used, the translators of the King James bible looked at the Hebrew or Greek or Latin they were translating and the closest English word they knew to reflect the Latin, Greek or Hebrew word they read was "servant," but to them in the 1600s, servant did not mean "slave," and "master" did not mean "slave master."

The kinds of work relations in the ancient world were not, generally, like what we, from the perspective of American history, would call slavery.

... Sally Hemings was the personal servant to Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Mary ... http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/hemi-sal.htm
... Sally Hemings — a mulatto (a person of mixed black and white ancestry) slave who served her master as a domestic servant ... http://www.gale.cengage.com/free_resources/whm/bio/heming_s.htm
... As a child and young teenager, Hemings performed the duties of a household servant ... http://www.biography.com/articles/Sally-Hemings-9542356

And the distinction you would make between "slave" and "servant" is, for much of Anglo-American history, a distinction about mechanisms of social control, but not a distinction about degrees of oppression:

... the sixteen essays in Masters, Servants, and Magistrates in Britain and the Empire, 1562-1955 clearly demonstrate, for almost half a millennium the Master and Servant Act--in its numerous and various incarnations--was at the heart of the origins, rise, and eventual decline of the British Empire. First enacted in the wake of the Black Death in the mid-14th century as a reaction to the resulting labour shortage and upward trend in wages, the Master and Servant Act went on to become one of the cornerstones of the greatest movement, colonization, and regulation of labour that the world has ever seen ... First, employment relations were a private agreement or contract for work and wages; second, the legislation provided for summary enforcement of those agreements by local magistrates and JPs; and third, a worker's breach of his or her agreement became a criminal rather than civil offence, with punishments including (depending on time and place) whipping, imprisonment, forced labour, fines, and the forfeit of wages earned ... the broad transition from slave to free labour, against the workings of the Master and Servant Act, was not an unmixed gain. "Free status," notes Turner, "introduced slaves to a differently calibrated but not less rigorous system" ...
Douglas Hay and Paul Craven, eds., Masters, Servants, and Magistrates in Britain and the Empire.
By Bright, David
Publication: Labour/Le Travail
Date: Thursday, September 22 2005
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/religious-grantmaking-civic-professional/857167-1.html

This should be especially clear in the nautical context: the "master" of the ship was, by law, something of an absolute dictator, with life and death power over crew-members, who, in the case of successful mutiny, could be hanged by the civil authorities if they returned to English territory

http://scripturetext.com/colossians/3-22.htm

Clearly the word in the textus receptus is doulos, which undoubtedly means slave. The only question is whether or not that might be being used figuratively in this place.

It's true that slavery in the ancient world, at least in the Roman Empire, was a lighter burden than it was in the American South, but they were still slaves as long as they could be bought and sold.

That goes for the NT era, worse things would apply to the OT. In the OT slaves had more nearly the status of draft animals. To prove this to yourself, note the penalties that applied if you happened to kill one. That status was also very dependent upon whether that slave was or was not a Hebrew.


And by the way, modern Bibles don't owe much to the KJV. Modern translations come straight from the best Hebrew and Koine sources. The KJV is strictly for the most hidebound of reactionaries. OK, let's say it, for rubes.