Introduction
In a letter
written to the editor of the Christian
Reflector on November 7, 1844, Richard Fuller of Beaufort, South Carolina
articulated his belief that the institution of slavery was not a moral
evil. Fuller, a learned Baptist
minister, yielded to the Christian scriptures, arguing that though the Bible
condemns the abuses of slavery, the system itself is permitted. Citing both Old and New Testament examples,
Fuller presented evidence for his position from an authority that held high
esteem with the Baptist publication to which he was writing. However, Baptists in the North would reject
Fuller’s arguments, and the subsequent response of Brown University president
and Baptist minister Francis Wayland would provide an alternative argument,
which also yielded to the authority of the Bible.
Wayland’s
response would come in the form of a series of letters, presenting a diverse
and multi-faceted attack on the institution of slavery. Fuller would respond with his own series of
letters, and the Christian Reflector
would publish this correspondence from November of 1844 until February of
1845. This public debate would reveal
the congenial and friendly approaches of two Christian brothers in the midst of
a volatile, and at times, hostile debate.
According to Wayland, the writings of Fuller would, “in many cases
modify the views, and in still more the feelings, of Christians at the North”[1]. His hope was that his writing would do the
same in the South.
Not
only do these letters give an example of Biblical debate in the public square,
but they also illustrate the potential for heated dialogue void of personal
attack and defamation of character. Both
Fuller and Wayland employed Christian scripture in defense of their position,
and did so in a manner that encouraged further dialogue. These alternative positions were lain out for
the public through the publication of the Christian
Reflector, and their rhetoric reveals two friends united as Baptists and
Christians. Though debate on issues of
the utmost importance are not easily held with such congeniality, the efforts
of Fuller and Wayland give an example for future generations. As Thomas McKibbens notes, “No one today
would dispute the issue: Fuller was
wrong and Wayland was right. What is
significant in [these letters] is the truly extraordinary degree to which these
two friends on opposing sides of an explosive issue could relate to each other”[2].
By
analyzing the debates of Fuller and Wayland, it will become evident that both
men held a strong, authoritative view of Christian scripture. Their letters also reveal a deep respect and
admiration for one another, which must be regarded as a generous offering to
modern Christian debate. Only a few
months after the publication of these letters, the Baptist Church would split
over the issue of slavery, and the country would follow some twenty years after
that. Perhaps these letters might serve,
not only as an example, but also as a warning to modern Christians who venture
into the waters of public debate.
The
Letters
A
full examination of the sixteen letters published in the Christian Reflector reveals an articulate, multi-faceted, and
multi-layered debate over the course of three months. However, in an essay such as this, it seems
sufficient to summarize this debate by focusing on the key issue of slavery’s
intrinsic sinfulness. This was the focal
point of Fuller’s initial letter to the Reflector, and a point that Wayland
combats throughout his correspondence with Fuller, and vice-verse. The issue considers slavery from the point of
Scripture, necessitates an employment of both Old and New Testament texts.
According
to Fuller, the institution of slavery cannot be, in and of itself, a moral sin,
due to the failure of Scripture to condemn the practice. Citing Leviticus 25:44-46a, Fuller
illustrates that the institution of slavery is sanctioned by Scripture, “And ye
shall take them as a inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them
for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever”[3]. Likewise, according to Fuller, the New
Testament, at the very least tolerates the institution. If therefore the Bible does sanction slavery,
then the institution cannot, in and of itself, be considered a moral sin. Certainly the Church must combat the abuses
of slavery, but the institution itself cannot be rendered sinful.
In
response, Wayland acknowledges the existence of slavery in the Bible, but
contends that God withheld “moral light” from humanity, in preference of a
“gradual revelation” over time.[4] Referencing polygamy, frequent capital
punishments, and the tenure of real estate, also found in the book of
Leviticus, Wayland argues that the “untractable disposition”[5]
of the Hebrews in the wilderness permitted such practices, which have since
been abolished. There was no debate
concerning these issues, and therefore Fuller’s premise could not hold. Turning to the pages of the New Testament,
Wayland argues that the existence of slavery in the first century was the
product of social evil under the Roman Empire, not an institution ordained by
God.[6] In the Kingdom of God deliverance is preached
to the captives, liberty is extended to the bruised, and the sympathy extended
towards “the least of these” is extended to Christ Himself.[7]
Therefore, though slavery may have
existed in the wilderness and been tolerated in the days of the New Testament,
it is nonetheless a moral evil that must be opposed by Christian men and women.
To
this response, Fuller argues that God did not simply withhold moral light from
the Hebrews regarding slavery, “but by both precept and example sanctioned it”[8]. In syllogistic form, Fuller contends that
whatever God expressly sanctions cannot be sin, God expressly sanctioned
slavery for the Hebrews, and therefore slavery cannot be, in and of itself, a
sin.[9]
Turning to the New Testament, Fuller
yields to the inclusion of masters in the early Church, the divine order of
servants and masters, and the failure of Jesus to oppose slavery in His own
context. If Jesus did not oppose slavery
in the Roman Empire, why would He oppose it in the American South?
Much
more could be said about the arguments themselves, and both Fuller and Wayland
would raise other points from scripture, with each of these arguments unfolding
in similar fashion. Wayland would
respond to Fuller’s initial letter, and Fuller would respond to Wayland. Both mean drew from Old and New Testament
texts, and presented an example of reasonable, academic debate in their own
time and place. Like many Baptists of
their day, both Fuller and Wayland represented the sentiments of their region,
albeit from relatively tempered and modern standpoints. The distinguishing dynamic of these debates
was therefore not to be found in their content, but rather in their tone.
Wayland
would introduce his initial letter with the salutation, “My Dear Brother”[10],
in reference to the Reverend Richard Fuller.
Throughout his writings, Wayland would find points of resonance with his
opponent, and refrained from offering personal attacks or defaming the
character of his opponent. The president
of the illustrious Brown University was quick to compliment Fuller’s
intelligence and reason, and humbly acknowledged the areas in which his own
understanding was inferior to Fuller’s.
Likewise, Fuller would appeal to his brother, finding points of
agreement and complimenting the efforts of his opponent.
While neither
minister was hesitant to voice opposition or question the conclusions of the
other, these two colleagues seem to have genuinely entertained the arguments o
both sides. Through their letters to one
another, both Fuller and Wayland illustrated a clear understanding of opposing
viewpoints, and emphatically objected to the hostile and abusive rhetoric and
action of many in their perspective regions.
At odds on an issue of the utmost importance, Fuller and Wayland held a
respect for one another that makes their letters profoundly congenial, even in
the midst of hostile regional conflict.
As previously
mentioned, the letters of Fuller and Wayland would find their way into the
pages of the Christian Reflector, a
publication produced in Worcester, Massachusetts, and circulated throughout the
state, as well as Vermont, New York, New Hampshire. Perhaps neither man was aware at the time of
composition that his letters would find such public display, but in the end
both arguments would capture the attention of countless New Englanders. In 1847, the letters would be compiled into a
single volume, with an introduction offered by Francis Wayland at the request
of Richard Fuller. Despite the split of
Northern and Southern Baptists in May of 1845, these ministers maintained a
close friendship, and continued to value the perspective of the other, even
with their church divided. Wayland would
lament the division, maintaining that the voice of his southern brethren needed
to be heard, though never compromising his own position on the matter. These men stood resolute, not only in terms
of their position on slavery, but also in their friendship towards one another and
their open approach to conversation and dialogue.
Conclusions
By
way of conclusion, the letters of Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland teach us a
great deal on issues of biblical debate, particularly in the public arena. Writing from opposing regional perspectives,
it seems obvious that each man was influenced by dynamics other than
scripture. The rise of the abolitionist
movement in the North would have impacted Wayland, and the vitality of the
South’s peculiar institution would inform Fuller’s understanding. At the time of their writings, these men
would have had some influence on one another, despite the difficulty of
overcoming regional divides. On this
point, it must be recognized that division, at the very least, severs such
influence.
These
letters also reveal the propensity of scripture to find opposition, at times in
the form of alternative or even identical scripture. It therefore seems problematic to hold
scripture as a single authority in the arena of debate, as the letters of
Fuller and Wayland articulate different interpretations and implications of the
same texts. Reason, tradition, and
overall themes of scripture may be employed, but it is certain, no single text
will go unopposed. Under the pressures
of such opposition, it is reasonable to conclude that any scripture may be
manipulated to favor alternative positions.
Finally,
the words of the prophet Isaiah seems to be the most appropriate antidote for
the difficulties posed by biblical debate.
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD”[11],
is a profoundly important instruction for brothers and sisters of any
faith. When humanity fails to reason
together, debate and dialogue yields to argumentation solely concerned with
winning the day. Such an approach fails
to give consideration to the other, and runs the risk of hostile and violent
rhetoric against one’s opponent, rather than a conversation with.
Though
the institution of slavery in the United States would be abolished, the issue
would precipitate a civil war, and 750,000 Americans would pay for it with
their lives. On a national and political
level, reason gave way to war and the country would suffer the bloodiest war in
its history. Perhaps this death toll
could have been avoided if politicians and citizens were able to engage in
conversation, rather than set out to destroy their opposition. What’s certain is that if religious persons,
united under religious convictions, cannot engage in debate and conversation
from their own scriptures, as brothers and sisters, there is little hope for
peace and unity in our world.
Fuller
and Wayland give an example of Christian brothers holding a conversation in the
midst of a climate of hostility. Their
letters would be published for the world to see, and the measure of their influence
was significant. Regrettably, their
influence was not enough to hold the Baptists or the nation together. However, perhaps future generations can
appreciate their endeavors, measure the costs of the alternative, and find a
way to engage one another in a fashion conducive to mutual investment and
cooperation towards the betterment of the human race.
