Civil War 2

Another of Mark Noll's suggestions as to the nature of the theological impact on the authority of Scripture is fascinating. It seems to go like this:

1. The pro-slavery argument was very simple and straightforward: just read the passages of Scripture that plainly talk about slavery - they never condemn it.
2. The abolitionist preachers turn to their Bible to proof text and find this is basically true, and start talking about the overall emphasis of the Bible being respect for all people, demonstrated through loving action. This sounds a bit like not having a good response to point 1, and when seen in the context of a rising liberalism which states the Bible is great but it has bits which more developed peoples need to reject - well, to people who take the Bible seriously it starts to sound like anti-slavery = anti-bible. Support abolition and you will abolish the Bible as well!
3. The more nuanced anti-slavery biblical arguments (which require historical knowledge and a more careful reading of scripture) eg. the disparity between ancient Israelite slavery and the US mass-industry + kidnapping and dehumanising; the fact that Israel were only allowed to buy people from outside the chosen nation - so who are the heathen now? And even if we can identify them, why don't we set them free when converted to Christianity and therefore un-heathened? These required much more thought and theological reflection than the previous two positions.

Noll contends that common-sense and suspicion of those in authority were American characteristics: and as these arguments did not lie plain on the surface, and required intellectuals to articulate, they are suspect.

So, Christians missed the strong argument because it was subtle...and then took extreme positions as a result. And a theological disagreement could then only be resolved by war. War instead of nuance...