This video from InspiringPhilosophy features a discussion between the host and TheAlphaOmega about a video by Dan McClellan concerning biblical slavery and Christianity’s role in its abolition.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
- Critique of Dan McClellan’s Arguments (2:08-4:12): The hosts respond to Dan McClellan‘s video, arguing that he misquotes scholars and misrepresents their work regarding the history of slavery and Christianity.
- Christianity and Abolition (6:00-7:00): The hosts assert that the Abolitionist Movement largely originated from Christian tradition, emphasizing Christianity’s crucial role in ending slavery. They clarify that they never claimed Christianity was the sole factor, but rather a main and crucial ingredient.
- “Whataboutism” Counter-Argument (7:13-7:38): They address the common skeptical argument (labeled “whataboutism”) that questions Christianity’s role by pointing to historical instances of Christians engaging in slavery. They contend this tactic misses the core argument about Christianity’s influence on abolitionist thought.
- Gregory of Nyssa and Abolition (11:31-12:02): The hosts discuss Gregory of Nyssa‘s views on slavery, explaining that while he condemned it as immoral and unjust, he didn’t explicitly call for its abolition. They highlight this as an important distinction that McClellan misinterprets.
- Rebuttals to McClellan’s Claims (20:18-21:00): They challenge McClellan‘s assertion that Gregory of Nyssa was primarily influenced by Greek thought that was predominantly pro-slavery. They argue that Greek philosophical schools like Platonism and Aristotelianism were generally pro-slavery, and Stoicism’s focus was on self-mastery rather than the abolition of physical slavery.
- Mutual Submission in Ephesians 6 (49:15-50:27): The discussion touches on the interpretation of Ephesians 6, suggesting that Paul’s writings imply mutual submission between masters and slaves, aligning with scholarly consensus.
- Methodological Critiques (57:11-58:20): The hosts criticize Dan McClellan‘s methodological approach, particularly his reliance on consensus as data without providing direct evidence or engaging with counter-arguments. They emphasize the probabilistic nature of historical evidence and the need for inferences to the best explanation.
- Tom Holland’s “Depth Charge” Metaphor (1:13:12-1:16:15): They refer to historian Tom Holland‘s concept of Christianity as a “depth charge,” meaning its theological ideas slowly permeated and transformed culture, leading to significant changes like the opposition to slavery over time. They argue McClellan misunderstands Holland‘s point.
- Historical Evidence Against McClellan’s Claims (1:21:43-1:24:15): The hosts provide historical examples, such as Christian bishops engaging in ransoming slaves and early laws prohibiting the sale of people, to counter the idea that anti-slavery sentiments only emerged during the Enlightenment. They cite Alice Rio and Catherine Gerner as scholars supporting this gradual shift.
- Critique of “Secular Institutions” Argument (1:28:14-1:28:47): They refute the argument that abolitionist theology was a post-hoc justification of secular institutions, noting that many secular thinkers like David Hume and Voltaire actually tried to justify slavery.
- Japan and Slavery Abolition (1:43:36-1:45:50): They examine Japan’s historical stance on slavery, explaining that a 1590 edict was a prohibition of selling Japanese people into slavery to foreign traders due to national sovereignty concerns, not a wholesale abolition of slavery driven by ethical considerations. They highlight a common misconception that other cultures banned slavery outright, similar to claims made about China and India.
- Concluding Remarks (1:53:01-1:54:50): The hosts conclude by reiterating that Dan McClellan‘s arguments lack sufficient data and rely on dogmatic assertions rather than evidence-based reasoning, specifically regarding his interpretation of Ephesians 6 and the historical role of Christianity in abolition.
