Sunday, February 15, 2026

THE CORINTHIAN PROBLEM

In light of the Epistle reading appointed for Quinquagesima (I Corinthians chapter 13), I am posting an article of mine that was originally published in December, 2009 in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. Let us look at that famous "Love chapter" in context.

The Long Reach of an Infamous First-Century Church

by Robert Hart

The disarray, foolishness, and sin that St. Paul addressed when writing his first extant epistle to the Church in Corinth have worked to our benefit, for they gave rise to teaching in the Scriptures that has been needed throughout the subsequent history of the Church, and that we need today. As the selling of Joseph into Egypt was used by God to save Israel from famine, so can anything be used by God for good. This is one aspect of Providence. Thus, we see how the sins and foolishness of the Church in Corinth were used by God through Paul to give us salutary words of Holy Scripture.

It takes effort to understand this epistle. The difficulty we have in seeing what St. Paul was addressing comes from the familiarity we have, on the one hand, with some of the external issues affected by the Corinthian foolishness, and, on the other, with their supernatural and mystical gifts, the manifestation of which was equally affected by their faults. This is puzzling: How can what is good and holy be so sinfully practiced?

“Paul,” begins the apostle,

called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

This apparently upbeat and positive opening does not seem to fit everything that follows.

The essential problem in Corinth is, for many, difficult to discern, even by intense reading of the epistle, for one major reason. We have a bias that blinds us to the reality that the same people who “come behind in no gift” (which means equally that they possess every grace) of the Holy Spirit can be, at the same time, “carnal, babes in Christ.” The same people who have gifts to work miracles and to prophesy, can, at the same time, be guilty of creating and perpetuating sinful divisions within the Body of Christ. The same people who truly discern spirits, and are able to test and know which spirits are not of God, can at the same time be proud to have a notorious fornicator among them, allowing him to receive the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood along with all the rest.

The alarming fact we must glean from this epistle is that neither mystical and supernatural gifts nor orthodox doctrine were enough to keep the Corinthian Christians from being carnal, childish, divisive, and utterly selfish. And, indeed, selfishness is the most apparent symptom of their carnality, addressed over and over again in several places. But, by Providence, it was that very selfishness that gave the occasion for St. Paul to write his most famous passage, the chapter on charity (chapter 13).

Gifts & Ministers of Gifts

We must define the term charisma. The word can be translated as “gifts” or “graces.” It encompasses more than simply the “spectacular” gifts (as some term them), but includes all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, including the sacraments themselves. The word charismata (the plural form) includes the “institutional gifts” later explained in the pastoral epistles of Paul to Titus and Timothy, as truth unfolded and as doctrine was developed within the apostolic age.


Those pastoral epistles, written years later, would reveal a pattern consistent with apostolic succession, as Paul wrote of laying his hands on Timothy, and as he directed both Timothy and Titus concerning standards for the men they would, in turn, ordain. At the time of the writing of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, that order is not yet apparent, but the basic doctrine of gifts and callings is already evident as a foundation.

It is necessary also to consider that within that larger grouping of gifts are all of the things called gifts by St. Paul in his epistles, along with scenes described by St. Luke in the Book of Acts. The words of Christ himself teach us that no gift, no matter how impressive it may appear to be, is an indication that the minister of that gift is holy.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:21–23)

The words of the old Anglican Article XXVI apply:

Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

This was always understood within the Church, and rejection of this teaching was an element essential to the heresy of the Donatists. (More than twenty years ago, when I was serving as a church organist, a curate who was very popular in that congregation was arrested, and eventually convicted, of notorious crimes involving young boys. Several people there were concerned about the baptism of their children, wanting to know if it had been valid; others, if they had really received Communion from his hand over the years. To an informed mind, aware of the teaching of the Church, those questions would not have arisen.)

No Clue to Character

That fact is relevant to solving the apparent mystery: The apparently less spectacular gifts of the charismata, such as the regular administration of Holy Communion, do not indicate that the minister is truly a holy and godly man. But the same is true of the spectacular and overtly supernatural gifts. Gifts of the Holy Spirit, whether “spectacular” or “institutional,” whether astounding or seemingly normal, say nothing about the minister’s character.

Eventually, the false prophet might teach error, or perhaps he may never teach error. He may be able to say all of those things our Lord has predicted, and more. He may be among those who say, quite truly, “Have we not prophesied in thy name?” But in the end, this will not save him. The sheep’s clothing will have come off, exposing the wolf beneath.

Although the Corinthians were not accused of being wolves, that is, false prophets, they were corrected sternly for being carnal, selfish, and chaotic. Nonetheless, St. Paul told them that they came behind in no gift, and that each of them was called to sainthood. This is not self-contradictory at all. It demonstrates two things: (1) God’s work does not depend on man’s worthiness, and (2) it is right, as well as the practice of hope, to place before the eyes of carnal people their calling to become holy.

Those who actually have allowed various charismatic expressions into the context of liturgy have long treated chapter 14 as a kind of Robert’s Rules of Order regarding how and when to exercise these gifts, while others are sure that Paul was contemptuous of the very gifts he himself had identified as coming from the Holy Spirit (an impossibility). But the overall text of the epistle shows that his words about the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not centered on the gifts themselves, but rather on the same problem he was addressing from the very first chapter.

Partisan Divisions

I will glean from places in this epistle that seem to repeat a very noticeable refrain.

Although Paul places before the church in Corinth, at the start of his letter, his high estimation of their gifts, their knowledge and understanding, and their faith, stating his confidence that God will hold them by his grace and sanctify them according to the common vocation of all Christians (“called saints”), he quickly changes his tone. He admonishes them, chastises and rebukes them, for being divided. Somehow, they had developed into parties, and had claimed to be followers of various apostles.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Interestingly, those who said, “I am of Christ” are rebuked with the others. Their pretense to moral and spiritual superiority did not fool the apostle: They, too, were just as partisan, just as carnal, and perhaps a little worse, as they might have thanked God that they were not as other men are.

Learned & Carnal

Despite this outward display of chaos and division, these same people, the Christians in Corinth, came behind in no gift. The “foolish Corinthians” were enriched by God in all utterance and all knowledge. They were both orthodox and learned. Indeed, the problem in Corinth was not scriptural illiteracy, theological ignorance, or false doctrine. They were very knowledgeable.

Indeed, look at chapter 8:

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies.

Yes, they knew the right doctrine about idols. Their knowledge and their orthodoxy were not questioned by the apostle. However, their lack of charity was rebuked in the clearest of terms. Why, for such learned people, should it have been necessary to write these words in the same chapter?

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. . . . And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

How, in their knowledge so enriched, with their utterances so gifted, did they miss this obvious point? How could they have been so blind to the simple rule of putting the needs of their brothers and sisters ahead of their own desires? They were orthodox. They were learned. They were gifted. They were also carnal.

Selfish & Self-Indulgent

Look, too, at how they approached the Supper of the Lord, from the eleventh chapter:

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before others his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The evidence from this text is that the Agape feast was connected somehow to the Eucharist in this very early period, perhaps even coming before in imitation of the Last Supper. How correctly or not we may be able to sort out the facts of history, it is clear that even as they approached the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, they were selfish. Their actions indicated that even in this they were carnal.

It is this same theme, that of selfishness, that truly dominates the most “Charismatic” portions of chapters 12–14. The Corinthians’ treatment of the Lord’s Supper, each one looking after himself and no one else, came from the same selfishness we see here, as they treat various gifts of the Holy Spirit in a completely self-indulgent manner, with no regard for each other’s needs. In Chapter 12, Paul has mentioned various gifts known to operate among them, all of which he affirms.

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

In this Trinitarian passage he identifies the working of the Spirit, of the Lord and of God. He never even hints that any of these manifestations might have come from any lower source.

But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Rather, he goes on to explain to them that these gifts have been given so that each member of the Body of Christ may help others in the same Body. The text is not about tongues, or prophecy or miracles. It is about the Body of Christ, and the care each member should have for all the rest, and that the rest should have for even one member who suffers. He mentions the gifts as another way of saying to them the same thing he has been saying all along. He speaks to them about the unity that ought to overcome partisanship, and the care for others that, as in the eighth chapter, should be placed ahead of their own desires, even their own perceived needs.

Edification & Charity

This is why he writes about tongues and prophecy in the fourteenth chapter.

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Already, back in chapter 12, he has identified both tongues and prophecy as coming from “the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” Here, however, he appears to exalt one of these above the other. But it is not that the gift of prophecy is exalted above that of tongues; it is that serving the needs of others is placed above serving one’s own needs. He is teaching them not to be selfish anymore, and simply using this example as yet another way to say it.

The beautiful chapter 13, about charity, comes between these chapters as part of the same long text extending back deeper into this letter. That beautiful chapter was a rebuke, meant not to inspire but to correct. It was written not to move with poetic sublimity, but to admonish with prophetic indignation. It was a fire lit to melt their frozen, unloving, selfish hearts. Those hearts had taken good and holy things, the very gifts of God, and used them for selfish ends.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up; Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth.

These words were not addressed to holy men and women crowned with the virtues, but to carnal, selfish, partisan, squabbling babes. They teach what should have been clear and obvious, especially to those who come behind in no gift, those who are in everything enriched by the Lord, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.

The Corinthian problem was simple: They possessed all things richly, but had not charity. When I consider this, I must confess that Christ came to save Corinthians, of whom I am chief.

Saturday, January 31, 2026

Rumor Control

After retiring from the position of Rector, I have heard a few things about myself that simply are not true.

First of all, someone said that he heard that my license had been revoked. That is not true. I remain a priest in Good Standing in the Diocese of the South of the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) under Archbishop Haverland. For geographical reasons I expect to change my canonical residency, and even now am fully approved to serve as a priest, mostly to fill in as needed or invited. 

Someone else said I was "fired." No, I retired after having taken part in the formation and training of my successor for about seven years. And, for the record, one cannot have a successor unless one has succeeded; and by the grace of God, I was able to hand on a healthy church that should endure. Like many Continuing Anglican parishes, it was full mostly of senior citizens when I took the helm there in 2009. I did so many funerals and memorial services over the years that we filled the Memorial Garden. Nonetheless, despite many deaths and relocations, the congregation was a good size at the time of my retirement, and it continues to grow.  "I am a man under authority," even though I do not agree with the management model by which a Rector, upon retirement, is expected to go away. I see nothing about such a mindset in the Bible nor in the Catholic Tradition. Being away from those people causes me sorrow of heart.

I will address a few details. I once said that I had, at times, given Saint Benedict's Anglican Church "Mouth to mouth resuscitation." After that got spun through the rumor mill it came back to me from someone misquoting me as having said that I put the church on "life support." No, that is not what I said. Mouth to mouth resuscitation was a metaphor for something active; putting the church on life support would be a metaphor for something passive. I was very busy during my tenure. The same person said, "Fr. Hart did nothing to grow the church." If that were true, the parish would have closed down years ago. It was never the largest Continuing church, but its membership was always larger than most. We welcomed many new members in over the years, and I personally met with each of them as part of the process. In fact, because of so many deaths and relocations, upon my retirement only three members of the congregation had been there before I was in charge.  But for those three, every member came in while I was the Rector. In a sense, by the grace of God, I built that congregation. 

I freely forgive the people who have twisted my words and presented falsehoods as facts, some perhaps because they believe what someone told them; I have put up with a lot on the internet.
They know who they are. I prefer the idea of reconciliation (Matt. 18:21, 22, Gen. 33:3,4) to unilateral forgiveness (Mark 11:25), because it is always the revealed will of God for His Church. My hand is held out. They still have my love. 

When I first went to Saint Benedict's I went to a parish that had gone through bitter division and that had often treated vestry meetings as occasions for strife. After a brief period of time under my rectorship, no trace of those things remained, and even vestry meetings were usually fun, certainly always friendly. I left the parish in very good spiritual health; better than what I had found. If you live in that area, and are looking for a good church, I recommend it wholeheartedly.








Sunday, January 25, 2026

WHITE FOR SAINT PAUL?

Conversion of Saint Paul
Jan. 25th


At first it seems wrong. Saint Paul is the saint of today’s feast, and yet white is the color of the day. He was a martyr, so, why are we not given red for this day? If we are humble enough to be taught by its wisdom, we see that the Church teaches profound things even in the smallest details of liturgy, such as the choice of colors. This is not the Feast of Saint Paul (for whom we should wear red), but a feast centered on the appearance of Christ to Saul as he was approaching Damascus: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest” This day is a celebration of our Lord. Saint Paul said that he was a witness of Christ’s resurrection “as one born out of due time.” So, this Easter Feast of Christ’s post resurrection appearance is out of due time, in Epiphany, a sort of Easter out of season for one born out of due time. His eyewitness account came later than those of the others.

Indeed, it is the last of the Easter appearances. These words of Saint Paul, from his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15, explain why:

“1: Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2: By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4: And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7: After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8: And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9: For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

Indeed, that fourth fact that he preached was the appearance of the Risen Christ to eyewitnesses (1. Christ died for our sins, fulfilling the scriptures of the prophets, 2. He was buried 3. He rose the third day, fulfilling the scriptures of the prophets and 4. appeared to witnesses). White is the color of the day, because it is about the Risen Christ and His final Easter manifestation, the day that the final eyewitness to His resurrection saw Him.

The rest was the path to what red symbolizes, Saint Paul’s death as a witness.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

FAITH AND SCHOLARSHIP

I wrote this in 2020, and believe I should again bring it to the attention of my readers. So, follow this link to an essay useful to everyone, but especially men seeking holy orders.  



Wednesday, January 14, 2026

EASTER OUT OF SEASON JANUARY 25



As we approach the 25th of January, I want to repost this about the Conversion of Saint Paul. Click (or tap) the icon above to be taken to the post.

Saturday, January 03, 2026

HISTORICAL WITNESS





Everyone knows that the Bible promotes slavery - everyone except me. I stand with the nineteenth century Abolitionists of both America and Great Britain, and they argued very persuasively that their Christian religion required them to oppose slavery. They drew their arguments from, yes, from the Bible. I will say more about that below. First, I want to make two things very clear. My Christian beliefs move me to emphasize that the Abolitionists saw what they recognized as the Holy Spirit’s message from the Canon of Scripture when considered as a whole, and they considered, in that light, the spirit of the scriptures rather than merely the letter. The other is that I am not nearly as concerned with unbelievers, who are often all too eager to use the Fundamentalist method of isolating verses as they engage in “proof text” debate, as I am with those who will want to argue against the Abolitionist interpretation of scripture because they are believers. A believer in the authority of scripture who takes the view that slavery is condoned in the Bible is far more of a problem, in my thinking, than an atheist who agrees with that believer. The atheist will have no motive to turn back the clock, that is, to return our civilization to the darkness of legally sanctioned slavery, whereas the believer (and we see examples even now) may argue to do that very thing, convinced as he is that the Word of God teaches it. Now, I do not see such a one actually progressing in the legal and moral regress of our culture. This brings me to yet another important point: Historical witness. I am very glad that the Abolitionists provide us with a historical balance because believers owe not only to their own generation a good and proper witness as the Salt of the Earth and the Light of the World: They owe it also to future generations, to those for whom our present time will be the history they study. And, frankly, the best that the Church has ever managed to accomplish, when it comes to historical witness, is a balancing act. So, let us now look at the history.

The Abolitionists’ words and deeds live on as a witness to what their faith actually required, a part of history that is needed today as we look back and see all too clearly where many of their fellow Christians, both in Great Britain and in America, fell short in their moral understanding. Although many of the issues in which morality, justice, and politics overlap, are different today, they nonetheless revolve around that same basic point, which is that justice requires us to begin with “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” So, please read on as I explain why, as one who has read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested the scriptures over several decades, I still do not “know” what “everybody knows,” and why I am glad not to “know” it. Let us also ask why the Abolitionist argument, which was a religious Christian argument (do not miss that reality in the history), prevailed in Britain, but not in America; why in America it required war to accomplish what had been accomplished in Britain by legislation twenty-seven years earlier.

For a very well researched study on the substance of the arguments presented by both pro-slavery clergy and scholars and abolitionist clergy and scholars, I know of none better than The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (1 ). It centers mostly on the United States, but the essence of the arguments from the Abolitionist side reveals mostly that American Abolitionists, presenting the same basic arguments, could not prevail through legislation, whereas “the Saints” or the “Clapham Sect,” (including Thomas Fowell Buxton, William Dealtry, Edward James Eliot, Samuel Gardiner, Charles Grant, Zachary Macaulay, Hannah More, Granville Sharp, Charles Simeon, William Smith, James Stephen, Lord Teignmouth, John Thorton, Henry Thorton MP, his daughter Marianne Thorton, Henry Venn, John Venn, John Newton the author of Amazing Grace!, and, of course, William Wilberforce MP), never needed to take up arms or fire a shot. The 2006 movie Amazing Grace! tells the story very well. Ioan Gruffud, somewhat tall of stature and dark-haired, does not look like the very short and redheaded William Wilberforce; but he almost certainly portrayed the personality and character of William Wilberforce, as history records, quite accurately. The victory of the British Abolition movement was not easy and was a matter of more than mere debate. It took quite a lot of political strategy, a great deal of public social action, and was a struggle of several years.

But we can also say with some very real confidence, what was accomplished in Britain was accomplished by the strength of reason as applied to public conscience, and this was largely because the Abolitionists had the stronger argument among people who mostly belonged to the Church of England and who believed in the authority of the Bible as the very Word of God, meant to be understood as one canon full of various writings from different times.

So, one can point to passages that were written in the earliest eras, passages from Exodus and Leviticus, that were first spoken and written within a culture that accepted slavery, and also polygamy, and be forced to admit that even the Holy Books seem to grant an acceptance of what we look upon today as immoral. And it can be called ironic, because by the time of the Prophet Malachi, whose book is at the very end of the Hebrew scriptures (as arranged by Christians), slavery is no longer tolerated, and polygamy had been considered illegal and immoral for years (creating the problem clearly denounced by the prophet, of men who divorce “the wife of thy youth” in order to marry another - which Jesus would later condemn as a form of adultery). So, one can argue that the Bible is not completely consistent in its moral teaching, that even books “given by inspiration of God” trace an evolution and progression of moral enlightenment.

Well, actually, that was not the Abolitionist argument. They took the various laws scattered throughout the Torah (a.k.a. the Pentateuch) and presented them as allowing what was called in their own time Indentured Servitude, very much like slavery, but limited to seven years, or in the laws of the Bible, seven years or until the Year of Jubilee, whichever came first. If the indentured servant chose not to be set free, he had the option of remaining with his master for life (Exodus 21: 2-6). Even this was overruled, they argued, by the all-encompassing law that rules out any town or city in Israel actually regarding any person as the property of another. In other words, any such servant may quit a disagreeable situation, even if it requires one to escape or flee. “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him (Deuteronomy 23:15,16).” This they quoted also to condemn the American Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a law that intruded upon the rights of every Free State. Because the slaves in America and Britain were obtained by kidnapping, rounding up individuals without their consent, they argued that “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:16)” is enough to condemn the manner in which every slave had been obtained, even if going back generations. And, among their arguments they pointed out that even if one accepts the pro-slavery interpretation of the books of the Torah, there was no basis for enslaving anyone on the basis of race, that indeed, any black person enslaved, who believes in Christ, becomes a brother or sister, an equal child of God.

The Abolitionists made many such arguments, and their pro-slavery opponents worked tirelessly, it seems, in efforts to refute them and to defend the institution. It is easier to dismiss the New Testament passages that are twisted into a defense of enslaving people. None of those verses condone slavery. They were not written to masters, but to slaves themselves, Christians enslaved under a cruel Pagan system headed by Ceasar, dedicated to the Roman gods, an empire that had already defeated the slaves who rebelled in the time of Spartacus. The mission of the ancient Apostolic Church was not a violent social reform, which would have ended the Christian religion in its infancy, but rather to make disciples among all of the nations. So, “Slaves, obey your masters,” or as in the KJV, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ (Ephesians 6:5)” is, by no logical reasoning, an endorsement of slavery. In a very real sense, it was a commandment not to commit suicide.

The Abolitionists did more than engage in theological arguments drawn from scripture, but we can be very glad that they made the religious argument, and that they made it well. Indeed, it is not possible to prove that their arguments reflected an accurate understanding of how ancient Hebrew people, during the eras that give us the most ancient books from different generations of Israel, regarded everything that can be called slavery or indentured servitude. What we can say is that they made the true theological argument from the perspective of the Church in its earliest generations, a theological system that gives full and final authority to Jesus Christ, in this case as the Rabbi of every disciple called a Christian. The Abolitionists knew that every moral position that has to do with human relations is subject ultimately to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18).” And between such disciples, Christ’s New Commandment is the standard: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another John 13:34).” In other words, even higher than human love at its best, we are commanded to love one another with the very love of God Himself “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us (Romans 5:5).” So, the person enslaved must be treated as equal and free, actually rendered
equal and free.

What must we say or do in our own time when we consider the duty of being a witness to future generations? When history students look back upon us, what will they see? Sadly, among many evil things, they will see self-proclaimed Evangelicals who have chosen party loyalty above Jesus Christ, and the temporary power of their party over the Kingdom of God. They will see or read about Christians, including prominent clergy, who engaged in slander in order to justify the crimes of I.C.E. agents who have been caught on video committing violent felonies against innocent people, separating families and traumatizing children. They will see eager apologists arguing in favor of sending mostly innocent young men to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. From another side they will see people claiming to be Christians who advocated against the lives of the most vulnerable, those who ought to have been safe as a child in its mother's womb. I say, these are only a few examples of the horrors they will learn about, that they will see from years and decades away. We need to learn from the example of many saints, including the Abolitionists of America and Britain, and from them learn how to provide balance, no doubt the only thing we can actually accomplish, for the sake of our own historical witness. It takes accepting risks and difficulties, but we must provide that balance in order to be salt that will not have lost its savor. We cannot prevent those future students from smelling the rot of evil perpetrated by our contemporaries; and that is all the more reason why providing the balance of true witnesses is all the more necessary.

(1) Noll, Mark A. The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006