Thornwell & Slavery

[scottmaciver]

I just finished reading the Life & Letters of James Henley Thornwell. I was quite taken aback in relation to his support for slavery, particularly given he was such an able theologian & held in such high regard in reformed circles.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Given the culture in which he operated, it is not particularly surprising. There is an article somewhere on JSTOR - I think it was by Marilyn Westerkamp - that argues his position was, in theory at least, not that far removed from a gradual antislavery one. The PCI also interacted with the Old School General Assembly on this issue when he was the moderator.

 

[Edward]

He didn't view things through today's cultural mindset.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

and if you really want to watch the paint curl read Dabney.

 

[scottmaciver]

Given the culture in which he operated, it is not particularly surprising. There is an article somewhere on JSTOR - I think it was by Marilyn Westerkamp - that argues his position was, in theory at least, not that far removed from a gradual antislavery one. The PCI also interacted with the Old School General Assembly on this issue when he was the moderator.

On the basis of his life & letters, I find that difficult, given the definition of slavery which he quotes from a Dr Paley as, "I define slavery to be an obligation to labour for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant."

He also said, "that it is independent of the formalities of contract. Add the circumstance that it is for life, and you have a complete conception of the thing." (Life & Letters, P. 599).

 

[scottmaciver]

and if you really want to watch the paint curl read Dabney.

In what sense Chris?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

In what sense Chris?

He was very embittered by the war and it shows in his treatment of the topic of slavery and his views of purity of the races etc. Girardeau while still a man of the times was much more accepting of blacks in church roles for instance and argued for that and not for a separate church, while Dabney believe them incapable of leadership and the necessity of separation. It's a pity as it may consign an otherwise great theologian to obscurity as more time passes.

 

[Von]

Each culture carries its own particular blindness to sin. It is only once we have escaped that we look back with horror.
Multiple wives of the patriarchs.
Execution of heretics in the middle ages.
@Pergamum (and I think Schaeffer would agree) said affluence is ours.

 

[scottmaciver]

Each culture carries its own particular blindness to sin. It is only once we have escaped that we look back with horror.
Multiple wives of the patriarchs.
Execution of heretics in the middle ages.
@Pergamum (and I think Schaeffer would agree) said affluence is ours.

Yes, that's very true Von. I suppose it's one thing the culture being blind to sin, but another the church, and the reformed church at that.

Today's culture is on the whole blind to the murder of the unborn child. Nonetheless, that raises the question, as to what our own blindness might be in the church today?

 

[hammondjones]

admit, then, that slavery is inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel, as that spirit is to find its full development in a state of glory - yet the conclusion by no means follows, that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel, as that spirit operates among rebels and sinner, in a degraded world, and under a dispensation of grace.

As a product of his time, Thornwell embodies the (mostly presbyterian) Paternalist movement, which sought to reform slavery to something more "respectable", and saw the plantation a something like an extended family, caring for their slaves physical and spiritual needs (they were in favor of teaching slaves to read, for example, so they could read the Bible).

And, yes, just compare Thornwell's The Rights and Duties of Master's to A Defense of Virginia, and I think you can see they are different - although maybe ultimately only in degree.

There is an article somewhere ... that argues his position was, in theory at least, not that far removed from a gradual antislavery one.

In 1861, Thornwell told his special friend and eventual biographer, the renowned Presbyterian minister Benjamin M. Palmer, that during the previous year "whilst in Europe he had made up his mind to move, immediately upon his return [to South Carolina], for the gradual emancipation of the negro, as the only measure that would give peace to the country ...."

He died in 1862. It seems that by the end of his life, he was at least a practical emancipationist, if not a principled one.

 

[scottmaciver]

As a product of his time, Thornwell embodies the (mostly presbyterian) Paternalist movement, which sought to reform slavery to something more "respectable", and saw the plantation a something like an extended family, caring for their slaves physical and spiritual needs (they were in favor of teaching slaves to read, for example, so they could read the Bible).

And, yes, just compare Thornwell's The Rights and Duties of Master's to A Defense of Virginia, and I think you can see they are different - although maybe ultimately only in degree.

He died in 1862. It seems that by the end of his life, he was at least a practical emancipationist, if not a principled one.

Thanks for that Brandon. I may be wrong, but that seems to relate more to the political situation and the impending civil war, rather than any principled stance or changing view on slavery.

 

[hammondjones]

Yes, I agree. He seemed mostly afraid of the chaos of revolution.

In terms of principled emancipation, I haven't really seen anything to support that. He speaks of slavery as a given - part of the evil of the fallen world. He acknowledges that slavery will not exist in glory, but basically says "don't judge the present by the future." I believe he expected it to persist until the end of the age, although he also seemed to view the national troubles as a judgment on
"unchristian" slave holding practices - meaning there was a right way to have slaves, and a wrong way.

Emancipationists appealed to the Golden Rule and said "You should treat men like you would want to be treated."

Paternalists would appeal to the Golden Rule (with slavery an unquestioned status quo) and say "masters need to treat their slaves like they would want to be treated if they were slaves."


No doubt future generations will look back on this time of rampant abortions in a similar way, as you mentioned above.

 

[ZackF]

No doubt future generations will look back on this time of rampant abortions in a similar way, as you mentioned above.

The question here is how they will look upon orthodox theologians. I can’t think of any confessional, bible believing theologian who advocates abortion.

 

[hammondjones]

The question here is how they will look upon orthodox theologians. I can’t think of any confessional, bible believing theologian who advocates abortion.

Yes, point taken

 

[RBachman]

If I may, I would generalize the abortion comments above, and summarize the sin of our age is global Atheism.

Abortion, sexual sin (LGBTQSPQR...), global tyranny of all stripes (the current anti-gun craze being an example of the desire for tyranny), these are all symptoms of atheism on a global consensual basis where many/most nations are in synch on atheism and only the flavor and intensity of sin varying from nation to nation.

It appears the Lord has removed the restraints ('gave them up to their uncleanness'). I expect the Lord to deal with it after he stops letting mankind wallow in their free will for awhile. Ro 1:18-31. The testimony of the Church will be tested as well. I hope we have the courage of the Puritans we all revere, because we may find its our turn. And I am an amil!