“In Spite of My Repugnance…” (Church and Slavery part 6)

Although there were Catholics advocating for native American peoples and the abolition of slavery, as European conquest of the New World grew, Catholics also continued to participate in the slave trade, including religious orders and diocesan bishops.

Jesuits of Georgetown University used slavery on campus

Jesuits were among the first English colonists to Maryland in 1634. By 1717, there are records that the order owned slaves, although it’s believed they owned slaves as early as 1660. At the start of the eighteenth century, about 24% of the population of the colony was enslaved. The English Catholics settlers were wealthy, and they sometimes “gifted” the Jesuits land and slaves. I don’t know how much the Jesuits questioned the morality of owning people, particularly of a group who vows poverty to own people. At the same time, Catholics faced their own oppression from the English during this time. The Church of England was the official church, and several laws limited Catholics in the early 1700s. You would think this would have made them more sensitive to the idea of freedom and equal rights.

There were those positing the immorality of slavery in the American colonies at the time. A group of German and Dutch Quakers in Pennsylvania published a statement promoting the universal rights of all people in 1688. Some colonies (Rhode Island and Georgia) even outlawed slavery early in their founding, only to succumb to allowing it within decades. I point this out because I think, at least for me, we think that slavery was an accepted way of life until the 1800s, but there were people advocating for abolition much earlier. And there were even more who maybe thought some forms of slavery acceptable (like “just” slavery of criminals or debtors) but opposed the racially-based, generational, slave trade of the Americas.

The Jesuit Plantation Project has some really good research regarding the Maryland Jesuits and slavery: https://jesuitplantationproject.org/s/jpp/page/welcome The Jesuits came to own hundreds of slaves across several states. In 1838, when many states and countries had outlawed slavery, the Jesuits did not free their slaves; they sold 272 people to owners in Louisiana to pay off debts.

Other orders who owned slaves in the U.S. include the Visitation Sisters (MD), the Carmelites of Baltimore (MD), the Sisters of Loretto (KY), the Dominicans of St. Catharine (KY), the Capuchin Brothers (LA), the Ursuline Sisters (LA) the Religious of the Sacred Heart (LA, MO), and the Sisters of Charity (MD, KY). St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, founder of the Sisters of Charity, came from a family who owned slaves. St. Rose Philippine Duchesne, wrote in 1822, “In spite of my repugnance for having Negro slaves, we may be obliged to purchase some.” She was a sister of Religious Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and founded their first communities in America (LA, MO, KS). In 1823 the society purchased a man for $550. (All these orders have since formally apologized for their pasts and taken various steps toward reconciliation.)

Individual clergy owned slaves too, including Bishop Louis DuBourg (Louisiana and Two Floridas), Bishop John Carroll (Baltimore), Bishop Joseph Rosati (St. Louis), and Bishop Patrick Lynch (Charleston). Wealth and social status seems to have been more influential in their personal decisions than the responsibility of caring for Christ's sheep and inheriting the mission of the apostles.

Several orders worked to offer aid/education/religious instruction to slaves or free blacks, yet still had slaves themselves. Many were the first to support black schools and orphanages in the decades following emancipation. I can’t get over the disconnect. They probably truly saw themselves as protectors, doing good charity, and caring for black populations. Yet they somehow made justifications for subjugating humans. Wealthy women brought slaves with them when they joined orders. They accepted slaves as donations or tuition payments. The slaves built churches and schools; the sale of slaves funded those buildings and missions. Like so much of America, the earliest Catholic institutions here used enslaved labor to establish and build up themselves. It’s hard to look at all the good the Church and its religious orders do and then think about those times. Ends don’t justify means. Saving souls doesn’t cancel out abusing others. Each soul is valuable and indistinguishable. Each enslaved person deserved basic human dignity and freedom. It wasn’t justifiable, yet again and again, justification was found.

And while not to the level of institutionalized slavery, it does make me reflect on what justifications we use today, both for immoral institutions and individual sins. There is always an excuse, because we rather hold onto our pleasures, our wealth, or our privilege than doing the hard work of giving up sin and atonement. We want to completely demonize those that justified slavery, but they were a mix of good and evil, like all of us. What they did was terrible, and it was systematic and mostly unrepentant. But they are not as different as sinners of every age. Would I have bought into the justifications for slavery 200 years ago? I don't know. Quite possibly. It's shameful but true. But more shameful would to be to pridefully pat myself on the back for condemning slavery in 2021 and not reflecting on what sins in my own place and time I seek to justify.

Protectors (Church and Slavery, part 5)

Bartolomé de las Casas arrived in Hispaniola in 1502. Like other wealthy men from Spain arriving in the New World, he claimed land, participated in raids against the native Taino, and owned native slaves. In 1510, he became the first man ordained a Catholic priest in the New World.

That same year, a group of Dominicans arrived on the island. They were appalled by the horrible treatment of the native people and disregard for their well-being and life. They denied slaveowners the sacrament of confession, including Father Las Casas. Father Las Casas argued with Dominicans, claiming their right to subjugate the Indians. The colonists complained to the King of Spain, and the Dominicans were recalled.

In 1513, he participated in the conquest of Cuba. But in 1514, as he was studying the book of Sirach, he concluded that the Spanish actions against the natives were unjust. It was a true and sincere conversion of heart. He would dedicate the rest of his life fighting for the rights of Indians. He freed his slaves and starting preaching against the inhumane treatment of the Indians. He met the same resistance the Dominicans had. So he went back to Spain to argue reform from there. He faced intense opposition from the New World, as the Spanish colonists depended on the slave labor for their wealth. In Spain, they also benefited from the New World resources, but they were willing to have debates about proper treatment of natives and reforms, because it was all theoretical on their end. The brutality was an ocean away; out of sight, out of mind.

At first, las Casas suggested freeing the Indians and replacing them with Africans, because his initial goal was the better treatment of Indians. But later he repented of that and advocated for the end of slavery. While the king respected him enough to give him an office to debate reforms and the pope eventually elevated him to bishop, his only true supporters were the Dominicans. In 1523, he became a Dominican friar.

In 1550, the Valladolid debate was held to hear all the arguments on the morality of the situation in the New World. It discussed the rights of indigenous people, treatment by European colonizers, justification for a slavery labor system, and the necessity of evangelization. There were multiple viewpoints of how natives were to be converted and integrated into Spanish society in the colonies. Las Casas obviously argued that the Indians had rights. Humanist Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that evidence of human sacrifice and cannibalism showed the Indians committed “crimes against nature” and should be suppressed by any means.

The debate resulted only in more talks of reform. Slaves would be tolerated as long as they were treated “well.” The import of Africans to the New World continued to grow. Efforts to reform slavery were admirable; abolishment seemed too impossible. If they couldn’t be free, then at least the slaves could be given some protection. But the reforms only made slavery seem acceptable. If you’re debating about the right way to do something, then you’ve already passed the point of debating whether it should be done at all. Still, given the fierce opposition they face, the Dominicans and others who spoke up for the rights of natives deserve credit. They saw the person, with a soul and human dignity. The second Archbishop of Mexico, Dominican Alonso de Montúfar, protested the importation of African slaves in 1560. He and others questioned the “justness” of enslaving Africans and sending them to the New World.

Amongst the colonizers were missionaries sincerely seeking the evangelization of Indians. Besides the cultural differences, the missionaries faced the challenge of convincing Indians that these Europeans were different from the Europeans killing and enslaving them. Dominicans and Franciscans were in the New World almost immediately. The Jesuits, only founded in 1540, reached the New World by 1570. Missions, run by the religious orders, rounded up Indian populations and put them into European-style settlements; under the law, they had the rights of children, with the orders serving as their guardians. Some missionaries abused this power. Others treated the Indians with more respect, and the communities gave the Indians some form of safe communities, free of threat of enslavement. Even with good intentions, European disease often ran through the missions. They faced raids both from natives resisting colonization and Spanish seeking slaves. In the 1640s, the Jesuits armed Indians to form militias to protect themselves. Even if infantilizing the natives, the Jesuits were siding with them over their fellow Europeans.

The pope also sided with the Jesuits’ protection of the natives. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV ordered owners of native slaves in the Philippines to free their slaves and pay reparations. In 1639, Pope Urban VIII forbade the slavery of Indians in Brazil, Paraguay, and the West Indies. But these condemnations were not universal, or even heeded in those areas. Pope Urban VIII even owned slaves himself, purchasing men from the slave trade in Malta for the papal galleys.

As colonization increased, so did the trans-continental slave trade. Millions of natives in the Amercias and Africans lost their freedoms and lives to abuse and forced labor. The few European voices calling for abolition and dignity were drowned out by the greed and power driving the conquest of foreign lands. The Church, while offering debates about reform and giving some directives on the rights of natives, mostly flowed with the attitudes of the times. I think this is the main danger of a powerful Church; it will seek to retain power at any cost, even the cost of its most sacred mission. The early Church was small communities who had nothing to lose but their souls, so they stood up for all, cared for the poorest among them, and sacrificed their lives for the faith. The Church at the height of its power was an empire, with wealth and land and influence. To keep that, it had to play politics, accept dirty money, and kill enemies, both real and imagined. Those who truly sought to spread the Gospel and care for the poor and be Christ in such a world faced both external and internal opposition. There was still good to be found among Church leaders, but not all who claimed to be representatives of Christ were.

The Sublime God (Church and Slavery part 4)

The European discovery of the Americas could have been beautiful. The world was becoming smaller; different cultures meeting and sharing, new plants and animals and foods, rich trading and exploration. But instead of a meeting of cultures, it was colonization. Greed, war, disease, and slavery, resulting in genocide of American nations and a trans-continental slave trade.  

Portugal and Spain in particular controlled the seas in the late fifteenth century. Both imported slaves from African islands as they explored the western coast of Africa. During the Crusades it had become understood that enslaving non-Christians, aka “enemies of the faith,” was licit. Popes, bishops, and monasteries not only allowed slavery, but owned slaves themselves. In 1488, King Ferdinand II gave Pope Innocent VIII 100 Moorish slaves, who the pope distributed among some cardinals in Rome.

When exploring the New World, it was common for ships to capture one or two natives to serve as translators or to show off back home. As those explorations turned into settlements, natives were forced into service, clearing land, building forts, and eventually working the plantations that would send resources back to Europe. It seemed so necessary to the colonizers—they needed free labor to get wealthy off of the New World. Greed, not works of mercy, dictated the day. The conquistadors claimed to be good Christians—claiming land for Christendom, celebrating feasts, bringing priests to convert the natives. Yet they were ultimately driven by power and money. A holdover from the Reconquista, the encomienda system allotted Spanish landowners a number of Indian laborers who would owe tributes (usually precious metals or food) in exchange for protection.

The paganism of the natives also made it acceptable to force them into this system of slavery, a “just” punishment for being an enemy against the faith. But with the new land, the concept of slavery changed too. People were defined not so much on their faith but on their physical identities, where they were from and the color of their skin. Natives, and later Africans, weren’t given the choice to convert or be enslaved. They were forced to convert AND forced to be enslaved. And there was no earning one’s freedom anymore. They were an entire race enslaved by another in perpetuity.

Natives, exposed to new European diseases and overworked, died out quickly. The first African slaves arrived in the Americas in 1501. From the beginning, slavery in the New World was the subject of debate. These people weren’t the same as the Muslim crusaders who had invaded Europe for centuries; the argument that they were “enemies of the faith” didn’t really fit anymore. On the other hand, some even doubted these people had souls; they weren’t mentioned in the Bible. The Africans might have had the curse of Ham, but these people were complete unknowns. They were closer to animals, some argued. Priests accompanied every ship to the New World; some blended in with the conquistadors, hungry for adventure and leaving the morality to the Old World. Others recognized the natives as souls who need to hear and believe the Gospel.

In 1537, Pope Paul III issued the papal bull Sublimis Deus, forbidding the enslavement of the native peoples of the Americas (called the Indians of the West and South). He states that the Americans are fully rational beings who have rights to freedom, private property, and evangelization.

He opens, “The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face.”

He says clearly, “Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.” Attached to the papal bull was a legal brief saying those who did participate in enslaving Indians would be excommunicated latae sententiae, only forgivable by the pope.

So, that was the end of that, right?

What could have been a dark 40 years of slavery in the New World turned into a dark 400. The Church did the right thing and defended not just the humanity of the natives in the Americas, but their rights and freedom. We knew what the right thing was. And, despite Protestantism starting up, the Church still held power. So why did the slavery only escalate?

Under intense pressure from the Spanish, Pope Paul III rescinded the executing brief of the bull within a year, making the bull essentially impossible to enforce. And the colonizers were happy to ignore it.

And that’s truly the most frustrating part of looking at the history of Christians and slavery. It wasn’t just “a different time” where they didn’t realize slavery was bad. They knew it was bad. The Church said it was wrong. But the greed for material wealth and pride of racial supremacy made them look the other way and make up justifications. They wanted to dominate other people so they sought out excuses to make it sound biblically acceptable. They knew the truth and chose another path. So who’s the real enemy of the faith?

Baa Baa

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture… thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, against the shepherds who shepherd my people: You have scattered my sheep and driven them away. You have not cared for them, but I will take care to punish your evil deeds. I myself will gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands to which I have banished them and bring them back to their folds; there they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will raise up shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear or be terrified; none shall be missing—oracle of the Lord.” -Jeremiah 23:1-4

“When he disembarked and saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.” -Mark 6:34

Sunday’s readings speak to those who feel ignored or injured by leaders in the Church. Earlier last week, Pope Francis issued a motu proprio Traditionis custodes placing restrictions on Traditional Latin Mass communities. This is a response to TLM communities that have become enclaves of division, some denying Vatican II, the pope, and liturgical reforms. Pope Francis said that Pope Benedict XVI decision to allow for the celebration of the TLM “intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”

The decision has caused members of those communities to feel abandoned by the Church; bishops that want to shut down TLM communities certainly will. Some will reluctantly obey and go to ordinary form Masses, but others will simply walk from Church (kind of proving the pope’s point about them denying Vatican II reforms).

Regardless of who’s right or wrong in this particular situation, there are a lot of people hurting and feeling like they have no shepherd right now. And every day there people feeling that way, sometimes for imagined injuries or being rightfully corrected, sometimes for very real injuries, abandonment, abuse, or clericalism. Leaders have a responsibility for the souls of their flock, but often sheep are lost.

Some deacons, priests, and bishops work hard to care for those under them, but way too often, they treat the vocation as any other job. They lord over their position or bully those below them or simply don’t seek out those hurting or lost.

I wouldn’t want that responsibility. God says that shepherds who fail to care for the sheep will be punished. The more responsibility one has, the harder it is to enter the kingdom of heaven. Those that hurt or abandon people under their authority will have to answer to God; I feel like there are far fewer bishops and popes in heaven than we think.

But God knows all his sheep, and He sees the pain we experience. Christ came to comfort the afflicted and offer salvation to all. He is the Good Shepherd, the one to seeks out the lost sheep and protects the flock. We may suffer from poor leadership and have our faith damaged, but God promises that we “need no longer fear or be terrified.”

Spoils of War (Church and Slavery, part 3)

By the Middle Ages, the Church had gained more influence and power. The Church owned land throughout Europe, monasteries were the centers of learning, and bishops were nobles. So it’s not surprising that the Church reflected worldly views of the times, even though it’s disappointing. Some still believed in the commitments to care for the widows and orphans and ransom the captives. Others looked for loopholes and sought to maintain power at all costs.

A distinction between “just” and “unjust” slavery was established. A man could choose to sell himself (or his children) into slavery to pay for his debts. Non-Christians could be captured in war. But a Christian could not force another Christian into slavery or sell him to non-Christians.

But furthermore, the Church itself owned slaves. The Papal states, like every other kingdom, had slaves under its control, as did monasteries and individual bishops. Slaves could be excommunicated for trying to escape.

The main moral argument made seems to be that a Christian couldn’t be enslaved. But a slave could convert to Christianity, and that didn’t change his status. And non-Christians, especially if from a warring nation, could be enslaved. There were morals around who and how, but the morality around slavery itself seems mostly unquestioned. 

This is where my frustration grows. It’s one thing to only speak out moderately or only ransom Christians, but to actually own other people and to delineate who was worthy of being free or not based on their faith shows that the Church leaders at this time had strayed far from the early Church where no was “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free person, not male and female.” Paul called us to be slaves to Christ, yet the Church wound up being masters to others.

Of course, Christians did fear being enslaved as well. The slave trade at the time flowed mostly south. Increasingly, conflicts between Muslims and Christians led to captives of both sides. Forced enslavement was mostly seen in the context of war between different religions. Christians would own Muslim or pagan slaves. Muslims would own Christian or Slavic slaves. (Slav is were the word slave originates, which gives an idea of how many were enslaved.) Jews would act as intermediaries, able to facilitate slave trade between Christian and Muslim lands.

Formal orders arose to ransom Christian slaves from Muslims. The Order of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Captives (called the Trinitarians) was founded near Paris in 1198. The Royal, Celestial and Military Order of Our Lady of Mercy and the Redemption of the Captives (called the Mercedarians) was founded in Barcelona in 1218. The Meredarians took a particular fourth vow: to die if necessary for another in danger of losing his faith (such as a slave they were trying to free). To this day, the Mercedarians continue that vow. A version from 1986 is worded: [We vow] “to give up our lives, as Christ gave his life for us, should it be necessary, in order to save those Christians who find themselves in extreme danger of losing their faith by new forms of captivity.”

While the laws permitted Christians to own non-Christian slaves, there were some rules acknowledging the slaves as people. During the time Christians held Jerusalem, laws forbade sexual relations between crusaders and their female Muslim slaves. If a man raped his slave, he would be castrated, and if he raped someone else's slave, he would be castrated and exiled. Slaves who converted to Christianity would be emancipated (though many believed Muslims would lie about converting in order to escape, and thus were not freed). Muslims pretty much held similar ideas about slavery as the Christians—an accepted institution but do not sell Muslims to non-Muslims and treat your slaves “well.” And while it’s certainly good to treat someone well and have laws against treating them otherwise, “well” is still very much in the context of owning another person as property.

Kings would ask for permission from the pope to attack, raid, and enslave non-Christian countries. Often, the lack of the faith among those people would be the “just” cause to attack the country and take slaves. Non-Christians were enemies of the faith, and it was justifiable to attack an enemy of God.

In 1452, Pope Nicholas V granted King Afonso V of Portugal the right “to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be …. and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude” in the papal bull Dum Diversas. This was a year before the Fall on Constantinople. The Moors would soon be pushed out of Spain. The age of the Crusades was ending and giving way to the Age of Exploration. And soon this idea of enslaving the “pagan” would mean more than just the Muslim war captives.  

Murderers of the Brethren (Church and Slavery part 2)

The early Church followed the writings of Paul, believing every Christian, male and female, freed and slave, to be equal in Christ. This meant that even if someone were a slave or indentured servant, he was still allowed to be baptized into the Church. Slaves were allowed to marry and be ordained. Some even became pope (though this did involved escaping slavery).

Pope Callixtus I was a slave in Rome in the early third century. He was in charge of funds his master had collected to be used for the care of widows and orphans. He lost the funds and escaped, but was captured. His master let him go to seek out if he could recover any of the funds, but Callixtus got in a fight and sentenced to labor in mines in Sardinia. After being released from the labor camp with other Christians, he was ordained a deacon and appointed to care for the Christian cemetery on the Appian Way. This plot was the first piece of land owned by the Church. He probably also served as a counsel to Pope Zephyrinus, putting him in the right place to be elected pope in 217.

Slavery in various forms was pervasive in almost every society in Europe/Middle East/ North Africa before and after Christianity began to take hold. People sold themselves or their children into slavery to pay off debts. Criminals and captives of war were forced into it. Slavery of classes or certain tribes existed, though that lessened as the concept of serfdom (people bound to specific land, not specific other people or entity) rose. But that is not to say that everyone just accepted that slavery was an immutable part of society.

Some leaders, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, proposed the practice of freeing slaves after seven years, or some other form of jubilee year. Slavery was a consequence of war or crime or debt—not a permanent state of one’s life.

St. Patrick was a Briton captured and enslaved by Irish pirates when he was young in the early fifth century. After six years, he escaped and returned home. After being ordained, he famously returned to pagan Ireland and became the apostle to the island. He condemned Christians who practiced slavery, particularly against other Christians. In his “Letter to Coroticus,” he says to a group of Christian soldiers who raided and enslaved Christians then sold them to the Picts, “Hence the Church mourns and laments her sons and daughters whom the sword has not yet slain, but who were removed and carried off to faraway lands ….There people who were freeborn have been sold, Christians made slaves.”

He calls condemnation on Coroticus and his men, ending the letter, “May God inspire them sometime to recover their senses for God, repenting, however late, their heinous deeds - murderers of the brethren of the Lord! - and to set free the baptized women whom they took captive, in order that they may deserve to live to God, and be made whole, here and in eternity!”

Others also condemned the enslavement of the baptized. Many Christians sold off their belongings to ransom Christians who had been enslaved by non-Christians. St. Eligius was a goldsmith and counsellor for the king of the Franks in the seventh century. He used his wealth and royal favor to raise funds to ransom (purchase then set free) various peoples (Romans, Saxons, Gauls, Bretons, Moors) who were being sold at the slave market in Marseilles, sometimes dozens at a time.

While there weren’t grand scale condemnations of slavery, there did seem to be a consistent effort of the Church to condemn the slavery of Christians and to ransom the captive. In fact, “visit the imprisoned and ransom the captive” is considered a corporal work of mercy.

Enduring Legacy (Church and Slavery part 1)

One of the beautiful things about the Catholic Church is that you can trace her exist back to the apostles. There is a lineage of sharing and sacrificing for the Gospel. We know where we come from. We are connected to the long line of Christians, throughout times and places, that shared in being members of the Church.

But that long line is also tainted by those who failed to live up to the Gospel. We are connected to people who did horrible things and used the name of Christ to justify them. And not just individual Catholics, but leaders in the Church, and the institution itself. How can the Church hold the summit of truth and be fed by the Body of Christ and still fail to care for every soul? Why are there so many instances of the voices calling for justice and dignity being drowned out by the lust for wealth, power, and comfort? What do I do about being connected to this lineage of abuse and failure? It makes me angry and sad.

Recently, I’ve been reading about the early European voyages to the New World. There are explorers seeking fame and fortune, willing to kill and enslave natives. There are missionaries moved to share the Gospel in these “unknown” lands and defend the natives’ humanity. There are families seeking a refuge from European turmoil. There is disease unintentionally devastating native populations. And sometimes people where in multiple camps—coming to seek shelter, willing to share the Gospel, yet still participating in barbarous acts of pillaging, raping, enslaving, and killing.

And it has got me thinking about the Church’s response at the time. Why wasn’t their outrage or directives against brutality and enslavement? Did bishops and popes not see evil? Was the institutional Church too tied up to the political climate to stand firm for the rights of all? What good is a kingdom of God if it is indistinguishable from any other kingdom?

So, the next few posts are going to be about the Church’s reaction to, and participation in, slavery. There are a few heroes, a lot of villains, and a lot of nameless people whose lives, dignities, and souls were discarded along the way.

To begin with, slavery has existed for almost as long as human history, and in almost every culture in some manner. Often criminals, debtors, or captures of war would be enslaved (or indentured until debts were paid). Sometimes whole classes of people were slaves for life. It was often just a fact of life that slavery existed in some form or another. The Bible has a lot to say about how slaves are to be treated well, but it doesn’t condemn slavery as an institution. The Israelites celebrate their freedom from Egypt and Babylon, yet they too enslave debtors and those captures in war.

The New Testament again instructs masters to treat slaves well, but it also instructs slaves to obey their masters, not to fight for liberation. It all sounds frustratingly anti-abolitionist. Yet the New Testament does include the radical idea that slaves and freed people are equal in soul. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Paul repeats several times this idea of equality among Christians. All are made in the image of God, all are worthy of baptism, and all are able to be saved. It is not a full denunciation of the existence of slavery, yet it does set the precedent of seeing a slave as an equal in Christ, and, in time, seeing a slave as an equal in every way, worthy of freedom and life.