Call me a picky painful pedant but AC Grayling is wrong. In a great episode of Unbelievable, Tom Holland, of the books Dominion & Rubicon fame, goes head to head with AC Grayling. They debate Christianity ‘s contribution to the world.
Grayling’s essential argument is that the various good things of Western civilisation that we consider quite wonderful didn’t proceed from Christianity. They were already there in classical culture (Greek and Roman culture) and preceded Christianity. They aren’t Christian ideas at all.
And this is where I’d like to be a pedant. AC Grayling says that ancient classical documents talked about the right and proper treatment of a household slave. He cites Economist (or OECONOMICUS) written by Xenophon, which shows ‘how the wife in the household in order to have a good relationship with slaves must treat them well.’
And so, he asserts kindness and liberality were part of classical Graeco-Roman culture.
I’ve read a little bit on ancient slavery, trying to understand its context and reality. And I’d never heard Economist by Xenophon cited, so I decided to skim read it and read all the references to the treatment of slaves.
It is written in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and Critobulus.
The first set of references to slaves or slavery isn’t about slaves but about people being slaves to their passions and weaknesses and thereby suffering, ‘slaves are they to luxury and lechery.’ The quote is below at 1. I’m assuming AC Grayling read this correctly and isn’t using this as his evidence.
The second reference notes that some people mistreat their slaves, treating them harshly. And others don’t. Those who don’t treat their slaves harshly benefit from this by the slaves being more effective workers.
The quote is below. But let’s be clear - this is not concerned with the welfare or dignity of the slaves at all. Not in the least. The conversation is about how to get the most production out of your slave. Treat them well so they are a good little production unit for you.
Socrates. What, then, if I exhibit to you a third contrast, which bears on the condition of domestic slaves? On the one side, you shall see them fettered hard and fast, as I may say, and yet forever breaking their chains and running away. On the other side the slaves are loosed, and free to move, but for all that, they choose to work, it seems; they are constant to their masters. I think you will admit that I here point out another function of economy worth noting.
And this viewpoint, of slaves as means of production, at best, turns up again in the last part of the book.
But when it comes to human beings: in man you have a creature still more open to persuasion through appeals to reason; only make it plain to him "it is his interest to obey." Or if they happen to be slaves, the more ignoble training of wild animals tamed to the lure will serve to teach obedience. Only gratify their bellies in the matter of appetite, and you will succeed in winning much from them.’
This is the view of the slave in the classical world. The slave, as the contrast makes clear, is less than a man or woman. He or she is akin to a wild animal, ruled and tamed by their appetites. If you want your slave to be productive, you’ll need to fulfil their appetites.
AC Grayling is wrong. Economist by Xenophon doesn’t support his position at all. And he certainly can’t reach for Aristotle, where slaves are animated tools. Though, I guess that is a little better, for at least people care for their valuable tools. Whereas wild animals are destroyed if they can’t be tamed. Perhaps at best he could have reach for Seneca writing on this topic.
It is creditable to a man to keep within reasonable bounds in his treatment of his slaves. Even in the case of a human chattel one ought to consider, not how much one can torture him with impunity, but how far such treatment is permitted by natural goodness and justice, which prompts us to act kindly towards even prisoners of war and slaves bought for a price (how much more towards free-born, respectable gentlemen?), and not to treat them with scornful brutality as human chattels, but as persons somewhat below ourselves in station, who have been placed under our protection rather than assigned to us as servants.
– (Seneca, Clem. 1.18.2)
That’s as good as it seems to get. Now, compare that with classical and Biblical Christianity. Here is a snapshot
1. The Apostle Paul warns, that masters are to treat their slaves justly – for they will answer to Jesus for how they treat the slaves. ‘Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.’ Colossians 4:1
This echoes the language of the Old Testament, God cares for the poor and vulnerable and mistreating them is an affront to God. For every person is made in the image of God. ‘Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honours God.’ Proverbs 14:3
2. Slaves in the New Testament are written about in the sections written to Greaco-Roman households of husbands, wives and children. This assumes the slaves shared humanity and their shared place. This is radical when you compare it to the ancient view.
Slaves were essential to the Roman economy. Yet, in Roman legal documents their names don’t appear in lists of employees. Instead they are listed as instruments or tools as part of the business.
3. Perhaps even more significant though is a slaves’ standing before Jesus. The Christian slave, working for his or her Graeco-Roman master, is elevated far above the role of a production unit, a household drudge. As they serve their Graeco-Roman household, Christian or not, good or evil, they are serving Jesus. ‘It is the Lord Christ you are serving.’ (Colossians 3:24)
In Christianity’s view, the slave has the highest honour of serving Jesus.
4. But that isn’t all, in the very same letter, just a few paragraphs earlier, their complete and total humanity is shown.
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Colossians 3:11)
Here, in Christ, slaves are not wild animals. They are people made in the image of God and being renewed by gospel knowledge to be made more and more like Jesus Christ.
Let’s give the almost final words to Tom Holland who speaks so passionately about the Crucifixion and its implications in his debate with AC Grayling.
The notion of triumph from humiliation – glory. From death - life. And that more than that the idea that someone who suffers the death of a slave emerges to become, it turns out to be, in a sense the creator of all heaven and earth and of all humanity.
What that means, in the long run, is that it gives a dignity to people who previously would not have been afforded dignity by anyone.
It embeds at the heart of the West the idea that in the victim can triumph over the person who is victimizing him and that the lowest of the low might in a sense be the highest.’
(8:37 to 9:37. Punctuation mine.)
In Holland’s estimation, Christianity created a radical change in the West.
The stakes here couldn’t be higher. AC Grayling argues that Christianity and the message of Jesus Christ contributed nothing to humanity. Jesus dying for us, as a slave to free all those in slavery to sin was a zero sum game. But at this point AC Grayling's view isn’t supported by his evidence. Do you think he’ll reconsider his view? Will you?
Related
1
Socrates. Ah! I see, Critobulus, you wish to direct the discussion to the topic of slaves?
Critobulus. No indeed, I have no such intention—quite the reverse. I want to talk about persons of high degree, of right noble family (18) some of them, to do them justice. These are the people I have in my mind's eye, gifted with, it may be, martial or, it may be, civil accomplishments, which, however, they refuse to exercise, for the very reason, as I take it, that they have no masters over them.
Socrates. Yes, for they too are slaves, and harsh enough are their taskmasters; slaves are they to luxury and lechery, intemperance and the wine-cup along with many a fond and ruinous ambition.