You can appeal to the Bible and be dead wrong; you can even justify what is evil and sinful.
(This paper was a talk given orally at a CBE meeting in Melbourne, the slavery part based on what I say in my book, The Trinity and Subordinationism (on the subordination of the Son, women and slaves). The ‘reflections’ section at the end was added in the light of the discussion that followed. It is not a polished work ready for publication.)
Kevin Giles

Our “complementarian” opponents are absolutely convinced that what they teach on the man-woman relationship is what the Bible teaches. To reject their teaching, they tell us confidently, is to reject the Bible, and because the Bible is literally God’s words, this means it is to disobey God himself. One Sydney theologian told me publicly, after I had given a lecture outlining the CBE position, “You reject what Scripture plainly teaches. Those who disobey God, go to hell”.

We Australian evangelical Anglicans face some weighty opponents: the archbishop of Sydney and his predecessors, the current principal of Moore Theological College and his predecessors, most of the staff of Moore College, and in the United States, Don Carson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware and almost every lecturer in the five large Southern Baptist seminaries.

When faced with such weighty opposition, it is very helpful to note that we find exactly the same dogmatic, vehement opinion voiced by the best of Reformed theologians in regard to slavery in the 19th century and Apartheid in the 20th century. They too appealed to the Bible with huge confidence, claiming that it unambiguously supported slavery and Apartheid. However today virtually all evangelicals say they were mistaken in their understanding of the Bible, that the Bible condemns slavery and Apartheid, and that these things are not pleasing to God!

Let me now tell this story in a bit more detail.

 Slavery.

In the 19th century the best of Reformed theologians in America gave their able minds to perfecting a “biblical theology” in support of slavery. They defiantly set themselves against the profound step forward in human liberation that the case for abolition represented. Those who made the greatest contribution in this exercise were the best evangelical and Reformed theologians and biblical scholars of the day: Robert Dabney, James Thornwell and the learned Charles Hodge of Princeton - fathers of twentieth century evangelicalism and of the modern expression of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

The written defences of slavery from the pens of these evangelicals just mentioned and many others are legion and should be read in the original. The most accessible original sources are the collection of essays in the book, Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, first published in 1860,² and the Banner of Truth reprints of the writings of Robert Lewis Dabney,³ James Henry Thornwell⁴ and Charles Hodge.⁵  No one can appreciate how certain these evangelicals and others I will quote were that the Bible endorsed slavery, or the force of their argumentation, unless something from their writings are read. I can only give a pale reflection of their righteous zeal for “the biblical case for slavery”.

The biblical case in summary.

1. Slavery established. "The curse on Ham" (Gen. 9:20-27) was taken to be the divinely given basis for slavery.⁶  The Genesis text tells us that when Noah woke from a drunken stupor to discover one of his sons, Ham, had seen him naked, he cursed him saying, "a slave of slaves shall you be to your brothers" (Gen 9:25). Ham was taken as the father of the Negro race, Shem the father of the Semites and Japheth the father of the white race.  Thus Alexander McCaine, a southern evangelical theologian, quite typically concluded that Noah,

    …spoke under the impulse and dictation of heaven.  His words were the words of God himself, and by them was slavery ordained. This was an early arrangement by the Almighty, to be perpetuated for all time.⁷ 

   Much of the nearly 400 pages of the Rev. Josiah Priest’s book, Bible Defence of Slavery, first published in 1855, is given to proving that the black races are the descendants of Ham and that slavery is a God-given institution. He writes:

   The appointment of this race of men to servitude and slavery was a judicial act of God, or, in other words, divine judgement … and we are not mistaken in concluding that the Negro race, as a people, are judicially given over to a state of peculiar liability of being enslaved by other races.

   2. Slavery practised. The fact that all the patriarchs had slaves was taken to be of great significance. Abraham, "the friend of God" and "the father of the faithful," brought slaves from Haran (Gen. 12:50); armed 318 slaves born in his own house (Gen. 14:14); included them in his property list (Gen.12:16, 24:35-36), and willed them to his son Isaac (Gen. 26:13-14).  What is more, Scripture says "God blessed Abraham" by multiplying his slaves (Gen. 24:35).  In Abraham's household Sarah was set over the slave, Hagar.  The angel tells her, "return to your mistress and submit to her"(Gen. 16:9).⁹ Joshua took slaves (Josh. 9:23), as did David (2 Sam. 8:2, 6) and Solomon (1 Kings 9:20-21). Likewise, Job, whom the Bible calls "blameless and upright," was "a great slaveholder."¹⁰ If these godly men held servants in bondage, it was impossible therefore to consider slave holding a sin. To argue otherwise was the sin. Bledsoe says the "sin of appalling magnitude" is not slave holding but the claim by the abolitionists that slave holding is a sin. To suggest such a thing is "an aggravated crime against God."¹¹

2. Slavery sanctioned and regulated by the moral law. The fact that slavery is twice mentioned in the Ten Commandments (the 4th and 10th) was seen to be very important in revealing the mind of God. The ceremonial law, they agreed, was temporary but not the moral law. This perfectly reflected the mind of God. Here as elsewhere it was pointed out that God himself regulated slavery by legislating on how masters were to behave towards their slaves. The question was thus put to the abolitionists, would God regulate by legislation what he thought was intrinsically wrong?  In replying to their own question, they said that the existence of this legislation indicated that God approved of slavery.  The importance of these references to slavery in the Decalogue is seen in the address, "to all the churches of Jesus Christ" published by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States of America in December 1861. It began, "God sanctions slavery in the first table of the Decalogue, and Moses treats it as an institution to be regulated, not abolished; legitimated and not condemned."¹² The sanctioning of slavery in the law was a fundamental element in the biblical case for slavery. The argument was that the specific apostolic commands to slaves to accept their lot in life were not simply practical advice to slaves living in the first century, but that they are timeless, transcultural directives predicated on the moral law. Charles Hodge summed up the conclusions of these Reformed evangelicals when he wrote, "the fact that the Mosaic institutions recognised the lawfulness of slavery is a point too plain to need proof, and is almost universally admitted."¹³
3. Slavery accepted by Jesus. The Gospels do not record a single word by Jesus that could be read to explicitly endorse slavery; a point the abolitionists were quick to note. But his silence, rather than being a criticism of slavery, the southern evangelicals argued, showed that he approved of slavery.  Stringfellow sums up the case thus:

   I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus has not abolished slavery by prohibitory command: and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction, under the Gospel dispensation: and the principle relied on for this purposes is a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law, under which slavery was instituted by Jehovah himself.¹⁴

4. Slavery is endorsed by the apostles.  If the Gospels do not say anything explicitly on slavery, it is different in the epistles. In no less than seven passages the apostles demand that slaves accept their lot in life, often adding that masters should treat their slaves kindly (1 Cor. 7:20-21, Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-25, 1 Tim. 6:1-4, Tit. 2:9-10, Phlm. 10-18, 1 Peter 2:18-19).  For many evangelicals who felt their conscience was bound by the letter of Scripture, it was clear that the apostles endorsed slavery. In most instances the instructions to slaves were given in parallel to instructions to wives to be subordinate and children to be obedient.  They reasoned that to reject the comments about slavery called into question the authority of husbands and parents.  It was obvious that the apostles held these matters to be of equal force.¹⁵ In commentating on the related exhortations in Ephesians, Hodge wrote,

What the Scriptures teach, is not peculiar to the obedience of the slave to his master, but applies to all the other cases in which obedience is regulated... it applies to children in relation to their parents and wives to their husbands.  Those invested with lawful authority are the representatives of God.  The powers (i.e. those invested with authority) are ordained by God.¹⁶ 

The instructions to slaves, Hodge noted, were grounded on weighty theology. Slaves were to be subservient and content with their lot because this is how they were to serve Christ (Eph. 6:5, Col 3:22), honour God (1Tim. 6:1, Tit 2:9) and learn the Christian virtue of suffering (1 Peter 2:18). The example of Onesimus, which the abolitionists were wont to quote, was shown to point in the opposite direction. That Paul sent this Christian slave back to his Christian master proved that the institution of slavery was sacred to the apostle.

Thousands of expository sermons were preached on these apostolic texts. White preachers sought to impress on their slaves that if they wanted to be saved they needed to obey what God commanded. Not to be submissive and accept their lot in life could lead them to hell. To disagree with what scripture so plainly taught, these preachers said, was not to disobey the preacher but God himself. No wonder the vast majority of slaves internalised and owned their slave status and often slaves themselves gave such sermons.

To sum up on slavery.

The force of this cumulative argument for slavery, based primarily on biblical exegesis, is impressive. Those who propounded this “biblical theology” thought it was irrefutable. In 1835, the Presbyterian Synod of West Virginia fiercely assailed the case for abolition, calling it "a dogma" contrary "to the clearest authority of the word of God."

The history of interpretation furnishes no examples of more wilful and violent perversions of the sacred text than are found in the writings of the Abolitionists. They seem to consider themselves above the Scriptures: and when they put themselves above the Law of God, it is not wonderful that they should disregard the laws of men. Significant manifestations of the result of this disposition is to consider their own light a surer guide than the Word of God.²³

Such quotes could be multiplied many times over. These southern evangelicals, steeped in Reformed theology, committed to the authority of scriptures, were totally convinced that the Bible endorsed both the practice and the institution of slavery.  Nothing upset them more than the repeated attacks by other Christians who claimed slavery was a crime against humanity and God.  What we must admit is that their “biblical” case for slavery was impressive. They had far more in scripture to build their “biblical” case for slavery than do “complementarians” today in putting their case for the permanent subordination of women.

For any minister in the Southern states to question this theology would put their life in jeopardy. No dissension was allowed. Virtually all clergy in the Southern states agreed that the Bible endorsed and legitimated slavery. Indeed, so persuasive was their “biblical” case for slavery that most evangelical theologians in the Northern states thought it was irrefutable. They argued against slavery as practiced in the Southern states on the basis of its cruelty and inhumanity.

However today, virtually all evangelicals, including ones of “complementarian” conviction,   believe that the Bible in no way approves of or endorses slavery; it is an evil. Christians should oppose slavery. The fact that Christians for eighteen centuries accepted slavery, like they did other cultural realities, they find hard to believe and that the best of theologians in America in the nineteenth century argued that God instituted slavery and approved of it incomprehensible.

Indeed, no “complementarian” today is willing to honestly admit that with Bible in hand leading evangelical and Reformed theologians in the later part of the 19th century argued that slavery was instituted by God and approved by him. They cannot because this would allow the thought that they could be wrong in arguing that God has permanently subordinated women to men; they are in fact not speaking for God when they put this point of view.

Let me substantiate what I have just said in this last paragraph. The editors, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, and all the contributors to the definitive “complementarian” collection of essays,

The editors of, and contributors to the later authoritative “complementarian” collection of essays, Women in the Church, similarly ignore or dismiss the historical facts about slavery. It is true that Yarbrough in answer to my case that the best of Reformed theologians in the nineteenth century endorsed slavery replies, well if some did then they "deserve criticism" and their arguments, "not a little ... rejection."²⁷ However, he then muddies the water by adding,

If southern Reformed ‘historic’ hermeneutics should be blamed for endorsing the social order of its day with all its attendant ills, then Giles’ theology, which defends and enshrines the modern liberal social order of emancipation, must share the guilt of the wars, the injustices and inequities … in the modern world.

The charge is so absurd I can think of nothing to say in reply.

Apartheid.

We see exactly the same line of argument that was used in relation to slavery in South Africa in the 20th century. Learned and seemingly godly Reformed theologians developed an impressive biblical case for apartheid - apartness. They were totally convinced that the Bible endorses the separation of the races. They insisted that their policies were pleasing to God because they were grounded in scripture.

The Reformed Church of South Africa was the largest denomination in the country by far, they had a number of large and well supported theological seminaries with very high standards and their best scholars had doctorates mainly from Dutch Universities. What is more, they were very evangelistic and worked tirelessly to see Black South Africans converted and worshipping in their own churches

In the 20th century, in the face of external attacks on white rule, the best of their Reformed theologians gave their able minds to developing biblical support for separate development (Apartheid). They argued that the Bible taught that humankind by the will of God was separated into different races that should each have their own lands. They insisted that Apartheid was pleasing to God because it was endorsed by scripture.

I first heard the “biblical” case for Apartheid at Moore College, Sydney, in the mid 1960’s from the lips of Broughton Knox, the principal, and Donald Robinson, the vice-principal. Twice while I was in college Stephen Bradley, the Bishop of the breakaway Church of England in South Africa, spoke to us students in support of Apartheid, at the invitation of Dr Knox.
I now outline the “biblical” case for Apartheid.

1. The world is predicated on a number of unchanging creation orders (i.e. God-given institutions, structures, relationship), namely, the family, male leadership, the state, work and race.
2. The Bible teaches that God has created different races. The story of Babel tells us that the separation of people into different races with different languages is God’s will. In Acts 2:5-11, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, 14:6 and other passages the Bible clearly states that God recognises people are divided and identified by race. For the Apartheid theologians, difference between races trumped over any similarities.
3. Possibly their most important text for the Apartheid theologians was Acts 17:26. “From our one ancestor God made all nations (Greek ethnoi) to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the time of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.” This text was taken to say that God had divided all the people of the world into different nations or races and allocated a region for each. This they saw as unambiguous endorsement of the policy of separating the different races of South Africa and allotting an area to each. This text was for them like 1 Tim 2:11-14 is for complementarians. This one text settled the matter. Those who accepted what it said were obeying God; those who did not were opposing God.
4. Rom. 13:1-7, the government has the right to create laws and citizens must obey them.
5. No possible rational or moral objection can be made to the idea of different races each having their own geographical area and to being given the freedom to develop separately at their own pace. (Note the euphemistic language also common in complementarian “speak”. You would never guess from these words that Apartheid theology gave precedence to whites.)

This theology was backed by virtually every Reformed theologian in South Africa. The unambiguous and overwhelming support of Apartheid by the Reformed Churches justified and legitimated Apartheid.
One of their most respected theologians, F. Potgeiter, summed up what was believed:

It is quite clear that no one can ever be a proponent of integration on the basis of the scriptures. It would be in a direct contradiction of the revealed will of God to plead for a commonality between whites, coloured, and Blacks.

Similarly an official statement of the Reformed church says, “The principle of apartheid between races and peoples, also separate missions and churches, is well supported by scripture.”

For any Reformed minister in South Africa to oppose this appeal to the Bible in support of slavery was hugely costly. They were branded as opponents of the church to which they belonged and opponents of what the Bible so plainly endorsed. 

In 1960 ten leading Reformed Afrikaner theologians published a series of essays condemning apartheid and the claim that the Bible endorsed racial separation. They were put on trial for heresy, found guilty and denounced by the Prime minister, Dr H. Verwoerd, himself a theologian.

In 1963 Beyers Naudé, another Afrikaner theologian, spoke out and wrote in opposition to the claim that the Bible supported apartheid. Naudé and his family were completely ostracized by their fellow Afrikaners.  He was forced to resign as minister and put out of his home without a salary.

In South Africa today it would be hard to find a Reformed theologian who supports apartheid. It is agreed they were wrong.

In 1982, The World alliance of Reformed Churches passed a motion declaring that Apartheid is a "heresy”.

It seems the South African Reformed theologians who were so sure the Bible endorsed, if not prescribed Apartheid, were teaching heresy. They had been using the Bible to justify what the Bible condemns!
On the appeal to the Bible to legitimate and support Apartheid se J. A. Loubster, The Apartheid Bible: A Critical Review of Racial Theology in South Africa (Cape Town: Maskew-Miller Longman, 1987)

Reflections.

What we have learned from these two stories of oppression is that evangelical and Reformed theologians can, with Bible in hand, find arguments from scripture to justify and legitimate their rule over others.  Furthermore, no matter what awful consequences follow from their theology, they remain adamant that God has set them over others.
However, if these two stories do not raise huge questions in your mind they should. The following questions plague my mind.

1. Does this mean that almost anything can be proved by appeal to the Bible? I do not think so, but I do think ascertaining what is central and foundational in divine revelation on any complex theological and social issues is far more complex than dogmatic evangelicals recognise. When others with Bible in hand disagree with us, we should not claim that our view alone is sanctioned by God. This is to claim to speak for God.
2. Can the Bible lead us astray? What we have just seen and our experience with “complementarianism” would suggest this is the case. The Bible is an historical and diverse book. At times we do find seemingly contradictory statements and by necessity the Bible reflects the world in which it was written. Thus the Biblical writers assume that the sun revolves around the earth, probably that the earth is flat, that it is more humane to take slaves than kill those you defeated in battle and that women are subordinated to men, etc. These things are not revelation. They reflect the world view of the historical authors. They are definitely not prescriptive for all time.

These two observations on the nature of scripture mean that we need to agree on how the Bible should be read.  In this brief paper I cannot go into this. There are now numerous excellent studies on hermeneutics, the science and art of reading the Bible rightly. One hermeneutical rule I would suggest as a starter is, does any claim for biblical support for any social ordering liberate or oppress? I believe the Gospel saves and sets us free. Any claims otherwise should be very carefully scrutinised. They are probably self-serving.

1. Does power always corrupt? Power definitely corrupts; does it always? I suspect not but one wonders. We should note that the “biblical theology” in support of slavery, Apartheid and the permanent subordination of women was constructed by those who held power and wanted to exclude others from exercising power – from equality with them. In each case it is a self-serving theology that has awful social and moral consequences.
2. Does this mean given time we will need to accept that the Bible does not condemn homosexual sex? The enemies of equality always bring in some other issue to confuse their opponents. In the slavery debate the constant refrain was that if we agree that the Bible does not endorse and legitimate slavery, the next thing we will be asked to concede is that the Bible does not endorse and legitimate the permanent subordination of women. They were right. The two issues are in the New Testament almost always discussed together and so they must be related in some way.

Today the refrain of “complementarians” is that if we should by some miracle agree that the Bible does not endorse and legitimate the permanent subordination of women, the next thing we will be asked to concede is that the Bible does not condemn homosexual intercourse.

This kind of argument, we should recognise, is a defensive counter attack. It says, “Do not pursue this issue because it might leave you vulnerable when the next issue arises.” It is an argument for the status quo. In reply we should say, let’s consider each issue independently.

In reply to the question about homosexuality there are no an easy, cut and dried answers.

Because “complementarians” first of all put this question to trip up egalitarians, we should ask them in turn to answer us first:

1. Do you think those who opposed slavery and Apartheid were wrong to do so?
2. Do you think those Christians who bitterly opposed slavery and Apartheid were giving way to culture or were they pursuing justice?
3. Do you think that slavery, Apartheid, the liberation of women and homosexual sex are all issues of the same nature/kind?  (Homosexuality of course is different. In the first three cases one group of people is subordinated to another due to no sin of their own. Homosexuality, in contrast, is primarily an ethical question, like euthanasia and abortion. In the Bible the subordination of women and homosexuality are never related or discussed in the same context. What the Bible does not parallel we should not parallel.)

When it comes to homosexuality, I personally think that what we learn from the slavery, Apartheid and woman debate should teach us something on how we should approach the homosexual question. I think the history of these debates,

1. Is a warning not to be over confident about what the Bible endorses or condemns before we have thought long and deep about it and listened carefully to those we think differently to us, in this case especially homosexual Christians.
2. Remind us that those in power, in this case, the heterosexuals by and large, should not oppress and persecute the minority, in this case, homosexuals. In a modern, pluralistic and secular state Muslims, Christians, Atheists, homosexuals, etc. should not be discriminated against.
3. Teach us not to ignore the fact that a change in culture and thus how people see the world can lead us to see things we had not seen or recognised in scripture before. (Many scientific matters fit into this category. New knowledge often forces Christians to change their thinking on what the Bible is teaching). In the case of homosexuality, the new knowledge is that today we know that about 2% of the population identify themselves as homosexuals/Gay. For many males in this 2% this identity seems to be profound and irreversible. It is not something they deliberately and consciously choose, or can change at will. In the case of women, transition backwards and forwards is very common and thus sexual orientation may be in some cases less profound in women than men. This may be debated but what cannot be debated is that those who identify themselves as Gay need to find a way to live as a Gay person in a heterosexual world. This is never easy. They need our help, not constant condemnation.

Furthermore, I personally think that,

1. we have been far too judgemental of homosexuals in the past, and, yet
2. Gay unions cannot be equated with heterosexual unions. Heterosexual unions/marriages are the union of a man and a woman, the two sexes complement each other, all the bits fit together by the creator’s design, and only in a heterosexual union can the command to procreate be achieved. And,
3. As far as sex is concerned I think we need to keep to the historic Christian position, presumed by the Bible, not just based on one or two texts, that sex has its rightful place in a heterosexual marriage where children can be created and in singleness we are to be celibate – the same standard should apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals.