PATRIARCHY, POSSESSION, AND SLAVERY

Nick Gier, Emeritus Professor, University of Idaho (nickgier@adelphia.net)

We know better than others that every attribute of their character fits them for dependence and servitude. By nature the most affectionate and loyal of all races beneath the sun, they are also the most helpless; and no calamity can befall them greater than the loss of that protection they enjoy under this patriarchal system.

                       --Calvinist Benjamin M. Palmer, "Thanksgiving Sermon," November 29, 1860

The plain solution of the matter is, slavery may not be the beau ideal of the social organization; that there is a true evil in the necessity for it, but that this evil is not slavery, but the ignorance and vice in the laboring classes, of which slavery is the useful and righteous remedy.

                        --Calvinist R. L. Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, p. 207.

            Recently on Vision2020 one of Doug Wilson's defenders complained that his critics are picking one small booklet on slavery out of his voluminous writings on other topics.  In this essay I will show that Wilson's support for slavery is intimately connected with other writings that affirm male superiority, hierarchy, and inequality. The top males in history have found it natural to assert their authority not only over males deemed inferior to themselves (note that Dabney includes non-Africans), but also their wives and daughters.

        Slavery and sexism are as old as human history, but institutionalized racism, i.e., discrimination on the basis of skin color is a very recent phenomenon. For the most part the ancient world was color blind: people were not barred from worship, work, or marriage because of the color of their skin.[1] Therefore, Doug Jones, Wilson's theological colleague, is quite correct in arguing that the Bible is not racist in any way,[2] starting with Moses' black wife and the Ethiopian Christian asking about the servant songs of Isaiah.

            In the ancient world the most common way of becoming enslaved was to be captured in battle or to be kidnapped by slavers.  In his Politics Aristotle rejected this view because it made slavery contingent and conventional, rather than a natural state of some people.  Aristotle argued that only Greeks possessed souls rational enough to govern themselves wisely, and that non-Greeks should therefore submit themselves to the rule of superior men.  Unfortunately, Greek women suffered the same fate as the barbarians in being rationally deficient and suitable only for the bearing of children.

            Aristotle reconfirmed an ancient tradition that saw the woman's role in reproduction as purely passive.  The womb was simply a vessel for the nourishment of the male seed.  Some ancient authorities thought that fetuses were miniatures (homunculi) of their fathers, and females were explained as the result of defective development in the womb. (Darn, it's always the woman's fault!) In ancient India, arguments about the true parent centered solely on the "father of the seed" versus the"father of the mother."[3]  The ancients could be excused for not knowing of the female ovum, but this complete demotion of the mother is unforgivable.

            For over two thousand years Aristotle's authority (or reasoning similar to his) was used to defend slavery and the subjugation of women. In Christian England before the Norman Conquest, a father could sell his own children as slaves if they were under seven years of age, and he could lawfully kill any of his children "who had not yet tasted food."[4]  In the following centuries, abortions were only allowed until the fetus "quickened" in the womb, but in the 17^th Century judges such as Sir Edward Coke maintained that the fetus was not a person until it was born alive, a view also held by the ancient Jews.[5]

            English philosopher John Locke, who himself was involved in the slave trade, promoted this idea of private property: if a person mixes his labor with the fruits of the earth then the product is his property.  (Oddly enough, Locke's slaves could have claimed a lot of property by this theory!) Locke also applied this principle to God and his creations: human beings are "a work of God, they remain always not only God's servant but forever God's property."[6] R. J. Rushdoony, a popular theologian at New St. Andrews College, agrees with Locke and declares that God the Creator is the "absolute property owner," and he adds that "Scripture tells us that we are God's property by virtue of creation, and doubly His possession by recreation, so that we are not our own."[7]  

 With God as the primary owner, an earthly hierarchy was established.  Kings ruled and owned their subjects with divine sanction.  Feudal lords derived their authority from the king, including the right, dramatically portrayed in the movie Braveheart, to have any woman in his domain. Lower down the hierarchy, the father exerted the same authority over his wife, children, and slaves, if he owned any.  Some evangelicals appear to be taking Paul quite literally when he said that man "is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor. 11:7), especially if the political meaning of "image of God" is favored.[8]

Locke's position is terribly ironic given the fact that he is seen as one of the founding thinkers of classical liberalism, the view that we are free and autonomous agents who govern ourselves by means of representative government. Here I am reminded of a poster which announced a talk, sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ, entitled "Whose am I?" This was obviously an evangelical Christian response to the humanistic questions of "Who am I?" and "Where should I take my life?" as opposed "what does God have planned for me, his obedient servant?"

        Traditional Christian ownership is explicit with regard to slaves but implicit with regard to women.  Wilson's opposition to feminism is more radical than most people would think. Extended to society as a whole, his doctrine of the "federal" husband would deny women the right to vote, not only in their churches, but also anywhere else.[9]  Following the ancient view, the patriarch rules his household and owns everything in it.  (A rebellious wife, God forbid, might cancel out her husband's vote!) We still say, but don't take seriously, that the father "gives away" his daughter at her wedding.  Wilson's return to the rules of courtship, where a daughter cannot date without the permission of her father, is a strong reaffirmation of the absolute power of the patriarch.[10]

Sometimes this power goes to the patriarchs' heads and they become spiritual Titans.  I define spiritual Titanism as an extreme form of humanism in which humans take on divine attributes and prerogatives.[11]  Here is a sample of the claims that Wilson and Steve Wilkins make in their slavery booklet: "By the time of the [Civil] War, the leadership of the South was conservative, orthodox, and Christian. By contrast, the leadership of the North was radical and Unitarian."[12] In contrast to the righteous Confederates, the abolitionists in the North were "wicked" and were "driven by a zealous hatred for the Word of God."[13]

For Calvinists Wilson and Wilkins who believe in the absolute sovereignty of God, they should be the last ones to take divine judgment into their own hands.  Only God chooses who the true Christians are where the wicked live. After hearing a person's "witness," many conservative Christian ministers decide whether or not he or she is truly a Christian.  These pastors are following in the footsteps of Jerry Falwell who once declared that God does not answer the prayers of Jews.  Again this is surely for God alone to decide, not mere sinful mortals.

When we promote a "liberal" arts education and celebrate the spread of "liberal" democracies throughout the world, we are using the word "liberal" (Latin: liberalis) in its original meaning: "pertaining to the free person."  In feudal Europe there was a distinction between the "the free born ones" (liberi) and those "born to serve" (servi).  Classical liberalism is defined as the political revolution, inspired by Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Jefferson, that was committed to eliminating the distinction between lords and serfs forever.  In addition to equal, inalienable rights and representative government, classical liberalism also initiated free market capitalism.

Most of the political debate in liberal democracies happens within the house of classical liberalism.  Liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and Libertarians all embrace the values of classical liberalism.  Slightly revising the motto of the French Revolution, one might say that the Libertarian emphasizes liberty, the liberal Democrat focuses on equality, and many conservative Republicans value community, but each holds the other two values dear as well. 

When I used to introduce classical liberalism in my ethics classes, I always called for a show of hands of those who believed in human inequality and the divine right of kings.  In my twenty years of teaching ethics I never saw a hand raised for classical conservatism. Furthermore, very few hands went up when I asked them if women should not have equal political and economic rights, the dictionary definition of feminism. Most of us, then, are liberals in the classical sense.

But there are some classical conservatives among us, and there are still some who believe in hierarchy, inequality, and the right of top males to rule their homes and the world.  R. L. Dabney, one of Wilson's favorite Calvinist theologian, declares that God created humans with different natures so that "the inferior is shielded in his right to his smaller franchise," so that the superior may enjoy "his larger powers."[14] Harold Brown of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School states it most bluntly: "Only God has rights. We have duties."[15]

Endnotes