Editorial

Frederick Douglass, arguably the most incisive critic of American chattel slavery, excoriated Christians who supported and benefitted from the institution. In his autobiography, he characterized their hypocrisy with timeless eloquence:

I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. ¹

Douglass understood that chattel slavery in the United States relied upon malicious, dubious interpretations of the Bible, and he sought to counter those claims.

Slavery in all periods of human history, especially in relation to the biblical texts, remains one of the more tragic, complex, and essential topics to explore. The biblical authors refer to slavery as a common practice in the ancient world and frequently utilize slave metaphors. Responses to this content have ranged widely across human history, including justifications based on certain passages that have led to untold suffering and death. In the midst of the current national reckoning on race in the United States, this journal offers a series of essays on the difficult topic of the Bible and slavery.

Raquel Lettsome examines the Magnificat in Luke’s Gospel and the portrait of Mary as a “slave of the Lord.” Applying Orlando Patterson’s features of slavery in creative fashion, Lettsome develops a brilliant comparison of Mary and African American slaves, especially female slaves. She examines the sinful norms and interpretive moves that have characterized American slavery, with particular attention to slave songs. Lettsome’s use of Mary and the Magnificat are provocative and convincing, as she argues that Mary’s “slave” language is actually liberative and hopeful for those who have struggled under systemic oppression.

Matthew Elia takes up the complex slave language found in the famous Christ hymn of Philippians 2 through the lens of Augustine. Focusing on “slave Christologies” in the Philippians hymn and the reception history surrounding this famous passage, Elia demonstrates the prevalence of slave language in the Bible and Christian tradition, and he shows how complex the interpretive response has been to the declaration that Jesus took “the form of a slave.” After an interesting exploration of Augustine’s thought, Elia brings his argument to the present day and looks at slavery as “obedience” in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement.

The cover of this issue reflects the current reckoning over buildings and monuments named for Confederate generals and sympathizers. Stephen R. Haynes offers a fascinating example of this phenomenon at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, where he is a professor. Haynes discusses the life and career of Benjamin Morgan Palmer, a leader in the Southern Presbyterian Church who adhered to the so-called “curse of Ham” in Genesis 9 as justification for slavery and the Civil War. Haynes and others sought to rename Palmer Hall at Rhodes and faced significant pushback; his essay charts the complex and decades-long effort at the college. This episode clearly shows how unfounded, racist, but nevertheless popular interpretations of Scripture can justify White supremacy and lead to the glorification of questionable figures.

Finally, William Sweetser looks at the fraught history of Union Presbyterian Seminary in relation to the Bible and slavery. A church historian who has written the definitive history of the seminary, Sweetser provides a helpful overview of how chattel slavery was justified in the American South, especially among those affiliated with the seminary, like Robert Lewis Dabney. Yet he also shows the manner in which institutions can evolve and change, repudiating a shameful past and forging new approaches to the complex biblical witness on slavery.

As a final editor’s note, many authors are now capitalizing Black to indicate not just racial identity or “color,” but as a cultural marker. The journal has decided to capitalize “White” as well, because “Whiteness” is also a cultural marker and can be an ideological statement. White privilege and White supremacy are ways of thinking and living. If we are trying to become anti-racist, we must first acknowledge the prevalence of racism, and capitalizing “White” is arguably a step in this direction. If we capitalize Black but not white, we imply that “whiteness” is a normal state of existence against which everything else must be compared, usually negatively. Whiteness can be a very problematic construct, and the journal seeks to wrestle with this reality as we examine questions related to the Bible, theology, the church, and the larger society.

Samuel L. Adams