Was Christianity used to make Black people accept slavery and why should their descendants trust it?
By Will Bourne · Question 102
The direct answer
Yes, Christian teaching was used to defend slavery and demand submission. That record gives descendants of enslaved people a serious reason to question the institutions and interpretations involved. Trust in Christianity must be argued for; it cannot be demanded as loyalty to the people who used it against them.
Fuller explanation
One primary example is Richard Furman’s exposition, dated December 1822 and published in 1823. He defended slaveholding from Scripture and presented obedient service as a religious obligation. He also linked supervised religious instruction with loyalty to enslavers and the state. This was an articulated religious defense of control, not simply a private prejudice unrelated to teaching.
That document does not establish that every Christian taught the same thing. Frederick Douglass’s 1845 appendix condemns slaveholding religion while affirming the Christianity he associated with Christ. His judgment shows that Black people were interpreting and challenging the faith, not merely receiving whatever enslavers offered.
It would be another injustice to imply that Black Christian faith is nothing but a surviving instrument of manipulation. People can appropriate, examine, and transform an inherited tradition. Their agency deserves recognition. It would also be wrong to use their faith as proof that the original coercion did no lasting harm.
A descendant who remains skeptical does not owe the church the same conclusion Douglass reached. The relevant questions include whether the teachings used for control were faithful readings, what reasons support trust in Jesus, and whether present communities have changed the practices that protected domination.
A trustworthy invitation permits examination without compulsory return. It discloses doctrine, authority, and conditions of belonging. It does not describe doubt as betrayal of ancestors or use those ancestors’ endurance to silence criticism. Their lives should not become another tool for controlling the person now asking.
The objection we still need to face
If the same religion could authorize my ancestors’ enslavement why risk trusting it again?
The risk is real enough that reassurance alone is inadequate. A Christian response needs reasons to distinguish the teaching of Jesus from the interpretation used to defend bondage, and evidence that a present community handles authority differently. Neither historical resistance nor a welcoming service automatically supplies both.
Scripture and its use
Ephesians 6:5–9; 1 Timothy 6:1–2; Matthew 7:12; Mark 10:42–45. Read the slavery instructions rather than implying they are explicit abolition decrees. Historical sources: Richard Furman’s exposition, https://macmillan.yale.edu/glc/exposition-views-baptists-relative-coloured-population ; Douglass, Narrative, Appendix, source listed in Source Question 101.
Read these passages in their surrounding chapters alongside the explanation.