Gary DeMar’s Debacle on Slavery

15 Responses

  1. feminizedwesternmale
    feminizedwesternmale March 27, 2010 at 5:34 pm | | Reply

    Bravo. You obviously put in much time and effort. I congratulate you on your thorough and exhaustive reasoning. This was something that we used to spend our time doing.

    Did you send it to DeMar? If he knows, he won’t respond, and will have to live with himself and God. If he does the Devil’s work, he will tack further into the emotive sea of liberalism – he won’t be able to resist the temptation, the tease of faux catharsis.

    Mike

    1. admin
      admin April 3, 2010 at 10:19 am | | Reply

      Thanks, Mike. I won’t send it to DeMar. He has a successful ministry, and the proper response to my post would offend his underwriters and jeopardize AV’s donations.

  2. Angela Wittman
    Angela Wittman April 15, 2010 at 11:19 am | | Reply

    Actually in this case Gary DeMar is correct and has my utmost respect for taking a truly Biblical approach to the subject of slavery. May he stand firm on the solid rock called Christ Jesus and may those in error repent.

  3. Lewsta
    Lewsta April 15, 2010 at 2:18 pm | | Reply

    I found this linked from De Mar’s website, so he knows. No issue there.
    Your entire position rests on which way the blade will slice in splitting the hair between “kidnapping” and “slavery”. De Mar’s knife holds the latter to be a subset of the former, thus condemned. You hold them to be distinct on the basis that, once having got to the New World, the “title” to the captive slave is now clear, and thus he becomes merchandise free of taint in the marketplace.

    Please tell me, how many black africans, having been transported in the hold of a ship as cargo to Havana or Port au Prince felt they were where they desired to, or should, be? You compare them with the indentured servants coming from Europe, having bought their passage (in steerage or better accomodations, a far cry from the cramped holds of the slave ships) by pledging their services once here for a limited and defined period of time. Once having served that time, the individual was free to do and go as he pleased. Not so the african slaves. They were chattel. You “justify” their forced transportation by the fact (with which I do not contend) that some heard the Gospel and were thus set free indeed in Christ Jesus. Well, a large number of them retained, or returned to, their pagan devil worship. Their resultant spiritual condition is no justifier of their capture.

    What you fail to realise is that, once having been kidnapped, as each one so detained was passed along the chain of events to arrive at Smith’s Planation in Athens Georgia, a defective “title” passed along with that individual. So raiding troupes of moslem warriors invaded a village and kidnapped forty men. They were stolen, kidnapped. Those warriors “sold” them, having no valid “title”, to the drovers who moved them to a seaport, delivering them to some slave buyer.. again, defective title. The slave captain paid for them, again with no clear title, transported them to Havana or equivalent, delivering them to another buyer.. no title of standing. That buyer put them at auction, defective titles all, sold them to another who brought them to Savannah Georgia, again, defective title, to be resold at auction to Farmer Smith of Athens….. thus, from his initial capture in Africa by moslem raiders, Mbwele was stolen from his people (no valid title), resold through many phases of his journey, never a valid title involved, until he becomes the “possession” of Mars Smith of Athens… who may have a document in hand showing his purchase, but the reality is that Mbwele was stolen in Africa, and, being stolen goods, was never rightly the property of anyone, not even Smith.

    Do not take me for a fool of such low intelligence to declare that “some slaves got here legally”. No, not one ever did. Prove it. EVERY ONE of them was stolen, and passed stage to stage as property. If I were to come to your residence and take you by force of arms, compelling you do come along with me, I am guilty of the charge of kidnapping. If I were to “sell” you to another, who in turn passed you along to yet more, no later “transfer” would negate the fact that you were initially taken against your will, stolen. If you were found four years later and “freed”, the one in whose possession you were when found would be as guilty of kidnapping as would I, who took you in the first instance. At each step of the way, anyone who had you in forced custody would stand trial for their crime, never mind how much money might have changed hands at your “transfer”. The fact that some of the “steps” in the chain of forced possession might not be able to be identified does not exonerate those guilty of possession further down the “chain”, does it?

    You need to readjust the angle of the knife as it slices this futile hair. Once kidnapped, the victim remains his own sovereign person no matter what misrepresentations might accompany him, nor what might be “paid” by those later imprisoning him. You hold Dabney up to be an authority.. which he is, and a wonderful one, insofar as he bases his statements upon scripture. Sorry, on this matter he misses the mark, and De Mar hits it squarely. Your fogbank hovering over the “title” of the captured african slaves only serves to obscure the vision of one not wanting to see. If I steal a trainload of Chrysler cars, falsify documents to allow me to sell them “with title”, I have still stolen them… and the paperwork that accompanies them as they find their way into your driveway does nothing to undo the fact they are all stolen, and that you are the owner of stolen property. You are ignorant, but are such due to your own negligence. Stolen goods are stolen goods, no matter the path they take to their present situation. And there was no other way than via kidnapping by which any african slaves arrived in the New World for subsequent “sale”. They were none of them indentured servants for a set period of time, as were the Italian, Irish, Polish immigrants to the New World who CHOSE to come here… even at the cost, for some, of selling themselves for five or ten years of service.

  4. Shotgun
    Shotgun April 16, 2010 at 7:56 am | | Reply

    Mr. Lewsta,

    Your passionate defense of politically correct rhetoric is duly noted, and I’m sure the office of PC police has put an additional smiley face next to your name; relieving you of yet another ounce of white guilt.

    With that out of the way, perhaps level-headed reasoning can enter the discussion?

    It is dangerous to abstract an issue from its cultural and historical context and arrive at conclusions about it in its divorced state.

    The slavery issue is a case in point.

    The Southern slave trade is a complex social issue that needs to be looked at objectively in its proper context before any discussion of “man-stealing” can legitimately be raised.

    Jefferson Davis devotes the entire first chapter of his “Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Vol I” to a discussion of the slave trade, and goes through pains to highlight the South’s role in (and attitude concerning) the trade itself. Overall, sentiments were against it. The Constitution allowed the slave trade to continue until 1808, after which it was promptly discontinued.

    The large majority of African slavery in the South consisted of those born into their situation. (A relationship that you failed to address in your tirade concerning legal causation.)

    The picture of Southern slavery as a mass of kidnapped blacks is, then: dishonest.

    There is an additional problem in what you’ve said. One presumes that you are not against kidnapping in all of its forms, else you’d be arguing against the state’s kidnapping of certain criminals. Hauling someone off to be locked in a concrete box is surely just as horrible, if not more so, than making someone work in a field all day? At any rate, if you acquiesce to State kidnapping then you must admit that, at least under certain, arbitrarily defined situations, kidnapping is acceptable.

    Who are you to say that the (hypothetically speaking:) Chokwe’s capture, imprisonment, and sale of the Cewa’s was illegitimate? Before slinging the word “ignorant” around, and using cavalier rhetoric, you need to clearly and carefully consider how to go about designating and qualifying this situation. Because so far, you haven’t.

    As far as plantation owner Smith is concerned, the Chokwe’s legitimately captures the Cewa men in battle, and made a profit on them by selling them to the Dutch! (Hypothetically!)

    There is one final line of thought I’d like to submit for consideration, and that is an objection to the logic of your argument concerning the legal chain of responsibility.

    Gary North points out (in his book Victim’s Rights) that the bundle of responsibility for a crime (a theft) is not passed on to the buyer of the stolen goods, but remains the responsibility of the thief. If, in our case for instance, a man-thief confesses to selling stolen goods, then HE is legally responsible to pay restitution to the man who purchased the slave. So, even if the slaves were ALL obtained immorally, according to Biblical law, the buyers (as long as they were unaware) remain innocent parties.

    To conclude, I’ve offered three objections:

    (1): You abstract “slavery” from its cultural and historical context.

    (2): You haven’t clearly discussed why the acquisition of Southern slaves was immoral. (You just assume it was.)

    (3): You imply that the Southern slaveholders themselves were the responsible immoral agents in the situation. (Again, an unfounded assertion.)

    Please think more carefully about the issue in the future.

  5. JD
    JD April 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm | | Reply

    In the NT, the gospel implicitly makes obsolete the OT law allowing permanent ownership of involuntary slaves, for two reasons: 1] because in Christ there is no emphasis on physical race or nationality; and 2] because of the responsibility Christians now have of preaching the gospel to all people. A slave owner is required to preach the gospel to his slaves. When they are converted, and baptized, they now must be considered brothers, fellow members of the new “race” of NT Saints. The OT law does not allow the permanent ownership of a covenant brother as a slave…unless that slave voluntarily chooses permanent servitude. Consequently, the vast majority of negro slaves in the American south should have been eventually freed, at least those who were the property of Christian slave holders.

    1. Fr. John+
      Fr. John+ October 13, 2011 at 11:23 am | | Reply

      Why, thank you Mr. JD. I wonder how the anti-miscegenation clauses of the Deuteronomic law can be said to be ‘done away with,’ when Christ noted that in His day, men and women were still ‘marrying, and giving in marriage’ and noted that this ‘quaint custom’ would continue until ‘the end of the age’?

      Considering the fact that here we are, 20 centuries later, even after trying to ‘define marriage’ to include “Adam and Steve” yet there are still those who, following the Bible, consider gay marriage to be an abomination, who have also note that the rationales for G.M. are the EXACT same ones that (legally, if not covenantally) struck down ‘mixed-race marriage’ in Loving v. Virginia, in 1967!

      So, unless you agree to gay marriage (and if you do, you have no business on this forum!) then your duplicity in saying that the law is NOT ‘holy and Good’ and that that same law, clearly prohibits racial miscegenation between the sons of Adam (from Aw-dam- meaning ‘fair, ruddy, able to [visibly] blush’) and the goyim (non-Caucasoids), is as vast as the Grand Canyon. And just as empty of viability.

  6. Shotgun
    Shotgun April 19, 2010 at 11:03 am | | Reply

    Hey Mr. JD,

    I’m not convinced of your implications.

    In terms of (1), I think a lot more work needs to be done to demonstrate that “In Christ there is no emphasis on race.” This is a statement fraught with ambiguities. If you mean that the covenant of salvation is open to membership from all ethnicities, then I agree…but I don’t agree that this eliminates one’s social standing, race, or gender anymore than a cocaine addict would suddenly become free of addiction after being inaugurated into the covenant.

    As for (2); it sounds like you’re trying to systematize evangelism and dogmatically apply it to a social institution. This seems unfair; for example: I walk by homeless people every day…and I’m a Christian…therefore, someone who was especially sensitive to the issue of Homelessness could charge me with the duty of providing for them and evangelizing them…and claim that by not doing so…I’m in sin! But I can’t change the entire social system that gives rise to homelessness, and I can’t evangelize every one of them on a daily basis! The ethics of this deserve to be fleshed out and dealt with more clearly.

  7. JD
    JD June 12, 2010 at 12:31 am | | Reply

    Thank you for response and your statement that one’s race, gender, social status, etc. are not eliminated in the NC. It may be better to say that the era in which God’s redemptive plan was focused in and through one nation / race [not in an absolute sense, however] is over. This, I believe, has implications for the question of permanent ownership of slaves and for the Mosaic laws that were given to regulate the institution. The Law forbade a citizen of Israel to keep another citizen of Israel [i.e., a covenant brother] in permanent servitude. I admit the difficulty in knowing how to apply this prohibition in our day. Does it mean that one U.S. citizen should not be allowed to permanently own another U.S. citizen? Does it mean that one Christian should not be allowed to own another Christian permanently? Does it apply in both contexts?? You made a great point when you said “a lot more work needs to be done” ..in learning how to apply God’s law in the modern world — and I believe this includes working out and applying the “implications” of the gospel.
    In regard to my 2nd point: Notice again that my statement was: “the vast majority of negro slaves in the American south should have been eventually freed, at least those who were the property of Christian slave holders”. This could not have happened in one lifetime. It would have been a process that took place through multiple generations. However, as long as white southern Christian slaveholders refused to accept the “implications” of the gospel and neglected to emphasize the importance of evangelism among their own negro slaves, the “entire social system” that “gave rise” to permanent negro servitude would have remained in place. If white southern slave-holding Christians would have recognized this gospel implication, it would have certainly, eventually changed the entire social system that contained permanent negro servitude. The vast majority of negro slaves would have become covenant brothers [as multitudes actually did] and many, therefore, would have been allowed to work their way freedom in the same way the ancient Israelite would have. The final result may have been the liberation and exaltation of an entire race of people on the American continent without the “help” of a bloody and unnecessary un-Civil war.

  8. Fr. John
    Fr. John April 20, 2011 at 10:38 am | | Reply

    I only wish I had had your critique of DeMars’ betrayal of everything RJRushdoony taught and held to, when I was writing my analysis of the same Leviticus 25 section.

    But, it is astounding to see how similar our conclusions are at the end of the day. Sadly, you also have to put up with the BS of unregenerate Evan-jelly-goos, who ‘will not have this man [Christ] and His LAW WORD to rule over us’ and would prefer their ‘seeker sensitive,’ ‘rock band’ ‘touchyfeely’ pastors, than the Church of Christendom.

    Many Years, sir.

    http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/lev-2544-46-–-the-word-of-god/
    http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/lev-2544-46-part-two/

  9. joseph
    joseph October 9, 2011 at 7:26 pm | | Reply

    Dabney is a constant reminder to one and all that the unsanctified human intellect is the greatest instrument of evil in this world. *+*

  10. Kernel P
    Kernel P March 5, 2013 at 11:22 am | | Reply

    Well done, Shotgun. DeMar and many others have imbibed of the Kool Aid. In the 19th century the Kool Aid drinkers were most prevalent in the north. There were some notable exceptions in the South, namely Parson Brownlow of TN. In the north there were Kool Aid abstainers such as Charles Hodge, Bishop Hopkins of Vermont and Nehemiah Adams of Mass.

    Hodge testified: “If, therefore, the Scriptures under the Old Dispensation permitted men to hold slaves, and if the New Testament nowhere condemns slave-holding, but prescribes the relative duties of masters and slaves, then to pronounce slave-holding to be in itself sinful is contrary to the Scriptures. It is as much contrary to our allegiance to the Bible to make our own notions of right or wrong the rule of duty as to make our own reason the rule of faith.”

    Hopkins: “Here, therefore, lies the true aspect of the controversy,
    and it is evident that it can only be settled by the Bible. For every Christian is bound to assent to the rule of the inspired Apostle, that ” sin is the transgression of the law,” namely, the law laid down in the Scriptures by the authority of God the supreme ‘Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.’ . . .Yet he [Christ] lived in the midst of slavery, maintained over the old heathen races, in accordance with the Mosaic law, and uttered not one word against it ! What proof can be stronger than this, that he did not regard it as a sin or a moral evil ?”

    Adams: “Zeal against American slavery has thus been one of the chief modern foes to the Bible. Let him who would not become an infidel and atheist beware and not follow his sensibilities, as affected by cases of distress, in preference to the word of God, which is the unhappy fate of some who have made a shipwreck of their faith in their zeal against slavery.”

    I have at least four generations of Southern Presbyterian slave owners in my tree. I have resolved to defend them. When the Kool Aid drinkers charge them with man stealing, I demand proof by testimony of two or three witnesses that my granddaddys knew their slaves were kidnapped. Of course they cannot. They are then confronted for bearing false witness.

    Keep up the good work.

    Deo Vindice

    Kernel P

  11. Shotgun
    Shotgun March 6, 2013 at 12:38 am | | Reply

    Hey Kernel,

    I was in Knoxville recently and had the immense pleasure of pissing all over Brownlow’s grave.

    Thanks for the kind words.

Leave a Reply