Christo Roberts on Christianity’s Contribution to Slavery

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/09

Christo Roberts, a writer and secular humanist, discusses Christianity’s role in Slavery. Roberts argues that Christian institutions actively supported Slavery for centuries, only abandoning it due to secular pressures. He critiques religious narratives that falsely credit Christianity with abolition, emphasizing that secular Enlightenment thinkers played a more significant role. The conversation explores theological justifications for Slavery, the Catholic Church’s involvement, and the abolitionist movement. Roberts also discusses modern perceptions of Slavery, the South African context, and the Church’s reluctance to acknowledge its historical complicity fully.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Christo Roberts, a writer and secular humanist, to critically examine religious claims, particularly those related to history and morality. He has contributed to Free Inquiry and written the article Christianity’s Supposed Role in Ending Slavery, which challenges the notion that Christianity was a driving force in abolition.

He argues that Christian institutions supported Slavery for centuries and only abandoned it due to secular pressures. Roberts’ work focuses on the historical entanglement of religion and human rights issues, advocating for evidence-based perspectives. While details on his background are limited, his writing contributes to broader discussions on religion and ethics.

Thank you for calling today from Cape Town, South Africa. What was the inspiration for writing Christianity’s Supposed Role in Ending Slavery? What misconceptions were you aiming to correct?

Christo Roberts: Well, several books have been published on this topic. The one I quote in my article is by a religious studies professor named Stephen Prothero, who argues that nonbelievers ought to acknowledge Christianity’s role in abolishing Slavery. Based on what I had previously read, I knew it was incorrect, so I decided to investigate the matter further and write a well-researched article. That’s why I did it.

Incidentally, I don’t have access to any large university libraries. I have a personal library, and I have sufficient information available. So, everything I’ve written comes from my books.

Jacobsen: How were Christian institutions and biblical texts used to justify Slavery historically?

Roberts: That’s a difficult question—it depends on the context. In my article, I quoted several Christian theologians and clergy members who, even before Slavery was abolished, attempted to justify their opposition to it using the Bible. However, they often provided strained interpretations of various passages, misreading them sometimes. That’s how they tried to reconcile their faith with abolitionist ideas.

Interestingly, some of these individuals even went beyond the Bible and appealed to general moral principles, arguing that Slavery was inherently wrong. It is also worth noting that, had it not been for the Transatlantic slave trade—particularly between Africa and the Americas—it is unlikely that there would have been as much opposition to Slavery. In the ancient world, Slavery existed, but some enslaved people were treated relatively well and were even valued for their skills or knowledge in some cases.

But the way that Black people were treated—the way they were shackled, forcibly placed onto ships, and the fact that large numbers of them died—caused some people to question the entire institution of Slavery. They had to develop arguments to oppose it, and that’s why, in some instances, they used the Bible to express their opposition to Slavery.

Jacobsen: What was the extent of the Roman Catholic Church’s active participation in Slavery—specifically, in the buying and selling of enslaved people?

Roberts: Well, the Church bought enslaved people on a large scale and used them in religious institutions, including monasteries, to perform manual labour. When the first enslaved Africans were captured, it was the Pope—though I’ve forgotten his name—who granted Spain and Portugal, particularly Portugal, the right to subjugate these people and sell them into perpetual Slavery. According to him, they were heathens and, therefore, fair game.

That’s how it started, and afterward, the Church actively bought enslaved people. Those who were brought from Africa to other parts of the world, including Europe, were purchased by Church institutions and forced into servitude, performing tasks that no one else would do.

Jacobsen: You used the term heathens. Did the word have the same meaning then as today, or did it carry a specific connotation in the context of Slavery and religious justification?

Roberts: According to them, a heathen was someone who didn’t believe in Christianity. It didn’t matter if the person followed another religion—he could even be a Muslim, and he would still be considered a heathen.

As such, Christian nations believed they were entitled to capture and enslave them. They justified this practice under the notion that these people were outside the Christian faith and thus could be subjugated.

Jacobsen: How did secular Enlightenment thinkers push for and contribute to the abolitionist movement?

Roberts: The leading secular figures advocating against Slavery were primarily from France, especially around the time of the French Revolution. Many opposed the Church, and some, like Voltaire and Denis Diderot, were not believers. They argued on secular grounds that Slavery was immoral.

Their arguments were later taken up by Scottish thinkers in Edinburgh, particularly David Hume and Adam Smith—and there was another one, but I’ve forgotten his name. They argued that Slavery was fundamentally incompatible with the principles of laissez-faire economics.

These thinkers played a significant role in influencing public opinion, and their ideas helped persuade the revolutionary French government, after the fall of the Bastille, to abolish Slavery in its colonies. However, there were not many enslaved people in France.

But when Napoleon took over as emperor in 1804, he was a Christian, and he reintroduced Slavery. It was only after the English took up the cause of abolitionism that France decided once again to abolish Slavery. That happened in the 1840s or even the 1850s—much later than in England.

Jacobsen: How did these secular Enlightenment thinkers differ from religious figures in their contributions to abolitionism?

Roberts: Well, as I said, they didn’t refer to the Bible at all. If you look at those who were Christian abolitionists, they dug up biblical texts. They interpreted them in unusual ways to convince others that Slavery was wrong—that it was not by Christian ideals or even the Old Testament.

So, for religious abolitionists, everything revolved around biblical interpretation. The battle was fought on that ground.

Interestingly, the leading abolitionist in England, William Wilberforce, who played a central role in the abolition of Slavery, never referred to the Bible at all. The people who led the movement against Slavery in Britain were part of a specific group—I’ve forgotten their name—but they never used religious arguments to justify abolition.

Instead, they argued that Slavery was immoral, and it was on that basis that the British Parliament abolished it.

Jacobsen: What is the narrative that Christianity was a leading force in abolition, and why does it remain popular despite historical evidence to the contrary?

Roberts: If I had to guess, I’d say one of the most commonly cited biblical justifications for Slavery comes from Genesis. After the flood, Noah and his family—according to the Bible—were the only people left on Earth.

One of Noah’s sons, Ham, did something that Noah found unacceptable. He saw his father lying drunk and naked in his tent. In response, Noah cursed him and declared that Ham and all his descendants would be enslaved people in perpetuity.

That’s probably one of the main reasons people have said, “Look, it’s in the Bible—one-third of the world must be enslaved.”

And no other passage in the Bible clearly refutes or overrides that curse. That’s my interpretation of why this narrative persisted for so long.

Jacobsen: Are there figures who wrote historical texts, who are seen as supporting abolition outside of the contexts you’ve already described?

Roberts: Yes, there were some individuals. In my article, I mentioned one of them as a law professor at the University of Mexico—though his name escapes me now.

He wrote a book in which he accused the clergy of collaborating with slave traders and participating in a disreputable enterprise. His arguments were based on secular principles. In response, the Church retaliated by placing his book on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the Index of Forbidden Books), meaning no one could read it.

No copies of the book exist today, but he was one of the only figures I can recall who was both secular and opposed to Slavery. He wasn’t necessarily a freethinker in the modern sense.

Jacobsen: Side question—what does the term freethinker mean in the context of South Africa?

Roberts: Very few people in South Africa use that word. I know what it means in Britain—more broadly in Great Britain—but it simply means someone nonconformist in South Africa. It doesn’t necessarily mean someone who rejects Christianity or is not religious. The term is much broader here and can even relate to politics.

For example, in the 1970s, I was part of the Progressive Federal Party, which advocated for extending the vote to Black South Africans. At the time, I was accused of being an atheist—which, well, I won’t deny—but also of being a freethinker because I held those political views.

Jacobsen: Is there much prejudice against freethinkers in South Africa today?

Roberts: No, I don’t think so. One thing I must say about the new dispensation ushered in after 1994 is that it is very liberal.

Of course, there are problems with the Constitution—I don’t agree with everything in it—but even so, people are generally free to hold unorthodox views without being silenced or persecuted.

That wasn’t always the case. In the old South Africa—before 1994—opposition to mainstream religious and political ideas could get you into serious trouble. But today, I don’t think we can complain about that.

Jacobsen: Are there significant differences between Christian denominations in their historical and present attitudes toward Slavery—whether by denomination, region, or ideology?

Roberts: About Slavery? That’s an interesting question. I don’t have clear evidence of that. The group I referred to earlier—the one associated with Wilberforce—certainly took a strong stand against Slavery. But beyond that, I’d need to look into the denominational positions.

The Quakers and similar groups tended to be more liberal and likely opposed Slavery in principle. However, some of the more orthodox and right-wing Protestant denominations saw nothing wrong with the institution of Slavery whatsoever.

Strangely, it played out this way because, in many cases, those groups were more religious than the Quakers and similar sects. But that was their stance.

Jacobsen: What about Christianity in the broader mix of other religions? Countries have diverse religious compositions—some are majority Islamic, Hindu, or Christian.

How does Christianity adapt its views on Slavery when compared to other religious traditions in a country? Is there a difference in how Christianity approaches the issue when it is the dominant religion versus when it is a minority religion? I’m unsure if that’s a factor, but I figured you’d be better positioned to answer.

Roberts: Well, it’s interesting—I don’t think Christianity historically paid much attention to what other religions thought about Slavery. Not as far as I can tell.

We know for a fact that Slavery was permitted under Islam. I also wrote in my article—though I couldn’t find the original text—that one writer claimed the Qur’an states that if you free a slave, you are guaranteed a place in heaven.

That suggests Islam may have had a more liberal attitude toward Slavery than Christianity did.

In the American South during the antebellum period, state legislatures made it as difficult as possible for enslaved people to be freed. This process, called manumission, was legally restricted in many cases. That directly contradicts what is written in the Qur’an.

So, in a certain sense, this makes Christianity look even worse than usual because people often claim that Islam is the more intolerant religion. But when you examine the issue of Slavery, Christianity appears to have been even more rigid.

As for other religions, I can’t say for sure. But we know that in India, the caste system has created social hierarchies that resemble Slavery.

While lower castes are not legally classified as property (chattel), they have been treated extremely poorly, and the system has functioned in a way that is similar to institutionalized Slavery.

Jacobsen: What lessons do you derive from Christianity’s long historical support for Slavery, followed by more recent attempts by some Christians to use the Bible to support abolition?

Roberts: Well, what’s interesting to me is that the history of Slavery and Christianity has been a cycle—an up-and-down dynamic.You may recall that, initially, there were very few enslaved people in Europe.

I’m talking about the period after the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century until the Portuguese began exploring the coast of Africa. During that period, there were very few enslaved people in Europe, so there was no real opposition to Slavery—it simply wasn’t an issue that affected most people. They didn’t see enslaved people in their daily lives, so they had no strong opinions on the matter.

However, after the Portuguese and other European powers began capturing and enslaving Black people from Africa, we started to see more individuals—not necessarily churches—becoming deeply concerned about the institution of Slavery. Many intellectuals and reformers found it completely objectionable.

It’s difficult to say whether church leaders were ever fully aware of the concerns raised by secular thinkers and intellectuals. They likely felt secure in their position, believing they had biblical justification for Slavery and, therefore, had no reason to listen to dissenting voices.

Jacobsen: When secular reformers first introduced laws to challenge Slavery, how did the churches respond? At that time, churches held enormous power and controlled much of society. They had nearly every advantage in terms of influence and authority.

Roberts: Well, you must remember that churches couldn’t act alone.

This was the same situation with the Roman Catholic Church. If they found someone guilty of heresy or apostasy, they couldn’t execute them themselves; they had to collaborate with secular authorities.

The same was true for Slavery. If the Church wanted Slavery to be upheld and enforced, they had to rely on governments to pass and maintain laws supporting it. Many government officials were Christians, and they were often eager to appease the Church.

So, enforcing Slavery was a collaborative effort between religious and secular institutions.

It’s important to note that legal challenges began before Slavery was abolished. A key turning point was the Somerset case in England around 1770. The ruling in that case declared that no person could be forcibly taken to England and held as an enslaved person.

After that decision, abolitionist movements gained momentum, and laws gradually began restricting and eventually abolishing Slavery. Once that process started, other countries followed suit.

Jacobsen: As secular abolitionists gained ground, how did church-sanctioned policies shift? Did churches relinquish control voluntarily or by force?

Roberts: They don’t have much of a choice.

I’m not aware of any cases where the Church excommunicated people for opposing Slavery or freeing enslaved people in defiance of church doctrine. They seemed to accept abolition reluctantly when it became inevitable.

Eventually, many within the Church began to reinterpret their stance and acknowledge that Slavery was wrong. However, the Roman Catholic Church tried its best to maintain its slaves for as long as possible, even after Slavery was abolished in various countries.

They held onto their slaves for as long as they could.

Jacobsen: Based on primary sources and archival records, how extensive was the Roman Catholic Church’s Involvement in Slavery—specifically in terms of trade and ownership?

Roberts: It was very extensive. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the records themselves. But yes, you’re right. There must have been proper records because if you sell someone, there must be a deed of sale. There must be a record of ownership documenting what happened when a slaver handed over a person to a new owner.

However, I don’t know what happened to those records. I suspect they were probably destroyed by the Church when they saw that the tide was turning and there was nothing they could do about it. That’s likely what happened in the end.

Jacobsen: Which Christian denomination had the most laudable history in abolitionist efforts? For instance, did any small sect, like the Quakers, actively work internally to begin abolitionist efforts without secular pressure? Did any group truly lead the way in social, civic, or legal reforms?

Roberts: The only group I can think of is the Quakers.

It may sound surprising, but there aren’t any other Christian sects that took the lead. You have to remember that Christianity includes both liberal and extremely conservative sects. The more conservative ones likely saw no issue with Slavery and took no steps to oppose it.

So, as far as I know, the Quakers were the only group that actively wrote against Slavery, formed abolitionist committees, and directly influenced legislation—particularly in the British Parliament. And they were ultimately successful. They persisted until Slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833.

Jacobsen: Was the Church broadly committed to the slave trade due to racial, theological, hermeneutical, or economic motivations? What was the primary driving force?

Roberts: It was probably economic.

I’m speculating here, but I don’t think race played the dominant role. The fundamental issue was that enslaved people provided free labour—not just cheap labour, but completely unpaid labour after the initial purchase. Once an enslaved person was bought, the owner could use them for any purpose.

That’s likely why the Church supported Slavery.

And, of course, there was biblical justification—which mattered a great deal. If they hadn’t believed they had religious sanction, they might not have been so invested in maintaining Slavery.

But beyond economics and biblical justification, I can’t think of another strong reason for their support. They would never have admitted it outright, but that was the core of it.

Jacobsen: On the opposite end of the spectrum—what Christian sect was the most abhorrent in its endorsement, participation, and treatment of enslaved people?

Roberts: That’s a tough one.

Generally, the more conservative branches of Christianity were most complicit. That might include certain Baptist groups, though I’m not sure whether the Baptist Church as we know it today existed in quite the same form back then.

Particularly in the United States, many conservative churches were adamantly opposed to freeing enslaved people.

In contrast, churches in England and other parts of Europe weren’t as aggressively invested in defending Slavery. But in the American South, conservative Christian churches fought hard to maintain the institution until the very end.

And the funny thing is, once the tide started turning and they had to give way, they quickly changed their stance.

It’s interesting. Mark Twain wrote an essay, which I have but didn’t quote in my article, in which he said—this was around 1880—that churches had previously opposed freeing enslaved people, but in the future, they would claim to have been the ones responsible for abolishing Slavery.

Jacobsen: Did you examine internal church documents—debates, reforms, or papal encyclicals—that reveal any internal conflict over Slavery?

Roberts: I don’t know if such a document exists—I can’t say for sure. But I suspect that if any clergymen opposed Slavery, they probably kept their views to themselves. I do quote one clergyman in my article. He was a Roman Catholic priest sent to the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean Sea.

From his pulpit, he openly condemned the Roman Catholic Church for forcing the Indigenous people—the Amerindians, as they are now called—into Slavery. He declared it scandalous and said God would never forgive the Church for such actions.

The Church was furious at him for making these remarks publicly, and he was sanctioned for speaking out.

The other clergy members I mentioned in my article took a different approach—they wrote articles arguing for the abolition of Slavery. However, I don’t think it was widely known at the time that some clergymen were against Slavery—these discussions were largely kept within the Church.

Jacobsen: Looking at the present moment, are there Christian denominations that are taking an honest, evidence-based approach to examining Christianity’s role in Slavery? Are interfaith or interdenominational discussions happening in South Africa or elsewhere to encourage a more realistic historical perspective?

Roberts: Are you talking about right now or the 19th century?

Jacobsen: That’s a good question. Let’s start with the 19th century, and if similar discussions are happening today, that would also be relevant.

Roberts: I don’t know.

If I had to guess, many of these discussions have been kept from the public, and many writers and scholars cannot access the full historical details.

So, I wouldn’t want to speculate too much on that.

Jacobsen: Beyond economic motivations, were there any competing economic factors that might have accidentally prevented the Church from engaging in Slavery? Or was the fact that the Bible endorses Slavery in many parts of the Old Testament enough to make it inevitable?

Roberts: The Bible certainly played a role, but you’re also right to point out that religion was another factor.

The people being enslaved were considered heathens—they belonged to different religious traditions than their Christian captors. That likely gave Christian slave traders a sense of justification—a carte blanche, if you will.

They probably reasoned that since these people were not Christians, they could capture them, sell them, and enslave them.

That said, enslaving fellow Christians was seen as taboo. You weren’t allowed to go from one Christian nation in Europe to another, capture people, and bring them back as enslaved people.

There were even cases where enslaved people in Europe converted to Christianity after being brought over, and many of them were then freed. This practice wasn’t widespread, but it did happen.

Jacobsen: There must have been a historical moment when the modern conception of Slavery—the sale and ownership of people for indentured servitude—was at its peak and another time when it was barely present. Then, there must have been a tipping point—a fulcrum in history when the system of Slavery began to collapse. When was that?

Roberts: Well, we know that the Romans were ambiguous about Slavery.

The reason is that Slavery fundamentally contradicted a core principle of Roman law—that all people should be treated equally before the law.

However, in the case of Slavery, some people were treated as legal objects, while others were considered legal subjects. That’s why the Roman jurist Florentinus, writing under Emperor Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire, described Slavery as an institution against nature.

He believed that Slavery was incompatible with legal principles.

However, there were two major justifications for why Slavery was still permitted:

1. Biblical sanction – Since Slavery was endorsed in the Bible, many justified it on religious grounds.
2. Jus Gentium (Law of Nations) – Slavery was recognized as part of international law. As far as the Romans knew, every civilization practiced Slavery in some form.

Because of this, Roman authorities flip-flopped on the issue. At times, enslaved people were treated very harshly, particularly in certain periods of Roman history.

Jacobsen: What was the name of that 15th- or 16th-century doctrine issued by the Catholic Church?

It was their version of Manifest Destiny, similar to what the Americans had—a Doctrine of Discovery or something like that?

Roberts: Yes, you’re referring to the Doctrine of Discovery.

It was based on a series of papal bulls, most notably Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Inter Caetera (1493).

These decrees essentially authorized European Christian nations to conquer non-Christian lands, subjugate indigenous peoples, and claim their territories.

The Doctrine of Discovery played a major role in colonial expansion, particularly in the Americas and Africa, and it was frequently used to justify Slavery and the forced conversion of indigenous populations.

It’s almost a given that the papal bulls were the key documents that sanctioned the capture of enslaved people in Africa and their transportation to the New World. Without those decrees, I don’t think the transatlantic slave trade would have developed the way it did.

Jacobsen: So, would you place most of the blame on the Catholic Church hierarchy?

Roberts: Yes, I would. And that’s just speaking in terms of the last five or six hundred years. The practice of Slavery stretches across many different eras, societies, and religious interpretations. However, in terms of formally sanctioning the transatlantic slave trade, the papacy played a pivotal role.

Remember, the popes played a key role in dividing the New World between the Spanish and the Portuguese. They wanted to keep both sides happy, so they issued the papal bulls. The Portuguese were already a dominant seafaring nation, more so than the Spanish, and they were deeply invested in the capture and transportation of enslaved people. The papacy likely understood this and wanted to maintain their influence over both empires, so they sanctioned the practice in a way that justified both colonization and Slavery.

Jacobsen: Up until the early 1900s, how did the colonial context in places that are now post-colonial—such as South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and Canada—evolve from those papal decrees to the point where colonial legal structures were no longer viable and were eventually discarded?

Roberts: Well, I can tell you about South Africa. After Slavery was abolished in the British colonies through the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act, there were immediate effects in the Cape Colony—which is where I am at the moment. The colonists were instructed to release all their slaves. However, the reaction wasn’t solely based on opposition to emancipation itself. The major complaint among slaveholders was that they had received inadequate compensation from the British government for their loss of labour.

This grievance was one of the factors that led to the Great Trek—the migration of Afrikaner (Boer) settlers from the Cape Colony to the regions that eventually became the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State. The Trek began around 1836–1838, and the settlers moved nearly a thousand miles north, carrying all their possessions with them. They sought to establish self-governing settlements, partly in reaction to British policies, including abolition.

Jacobsen: Within South Africa, how did different racial and ethnic groups—such as Afrikaners, Black South Africans, and the Indian population—engage with the practice of Slavery within Christian churches? Did they have their versions of the institution? Did they participate, or was it more of a European practice?

Roberts: It’s interesting because one reason I believe the Great Trek narrative must be correct is that if those settlers had been fully committed to Slavery, one would expect that after moving north, they would have enslaved Black people and continued the practice. But that didn’t happen.

Instead, the Boers often negotiated with Black communities where possible, purchasing land or maintaining diplomatic relations with the local African kingdoms they encountered as they expanded northward. There were, of course, conflicts between Boers and various African groups. Still, outright enslavement of local populations in the manner of the transatlantic slave trade was not widespread.

So, after 1833, there was no more officially sanctioned slavery in the British Empire, and even where the Boers later founded their republics, they never reinstated Slavery. That chapter of history had ended for them.

Jacobsen: Where was the last place in Africa to have Christian-based Slavery?

Roberts: It was in Ethiopia, which was historically known as Abyssinia. They officially abolished Slavery in 1940, more than a hundred years after Slavery had been outlawed in places like the United Kingdom. Despite its deep historical ties to Christianity, Ethiopia was the last African country to end the practice formally.

Jacobsen: How is this history of religious-based Slavery perceived by different groups within Africa today—including white Africans, Black Africans, Indian Africans, and others?

Roberts: That isn’t easy to determine. I don’t know how much of this history is widely known among Africans today. They would probably be outraged if they were fully aware of the extent of what happened. However, I get the impression—though I hesitate to say this—that some people now demand compensation for what was done to their ancestors hundreds of years ago.

The issue with this argument is that we don’t even know if the people demanding compensation are directly descended from enslaved individuals. And in many cases, it seems to be motivated more by financial gain than a desire for historical justice. There has been increasing pressure on former colonial powers—such as Britain, France, and Spain—to pay reparations for the transatlantic slave trade.

But it doesn’t make much sense if you think about it logically. Normally, you want to seek legal compensation. In that case, it must be for something that happened directly to you or someone very close to you—someone still within living memory. In this case, the people affected lived centuries ago. Those demanding compensation today never knew them personally, and it has now turned into a broad demand for financial restitution from former colonial powers.

Unfortunately, this issue is being misused in some cases. I don’t agree with the idea of paying compensation centuries later when we don’t even know who the victims were, how many there were, or how to distribute compensation fairly.

Jacobsen: Even though Slavery was officially abolished in 1940 in Ethiopia—making it the last African nation to do so—are there still cultural remnants of slave-era attitudes among Black, White, or Indian Africans today? Even if Slavery itself is gone, do some social hierarchies or prejudices remain that were originally tied to that system?

Roberts: That’s an interesting question. I don’t know whether Black Africans themselves continue to capture or enslave people from other tribes. However, ethnic rivalries and social hierarchies still exist in many places. For example, there have been long-standing tensions between the Tutsi and the Hutu groups in Rwanda and Burundi. In many societies, the dominant group often sees itself as superior to those they consider inferior. However, whether that amounts to Slavery is another question. I don’t think you can equate it with chattel Slavery in the historical sense.

What we do know for a fact is that until very recently, some Arab nations were still making raids into Africa, capturing people, and possibly selling them into servitude. Whether they are being legally sold as modern enslaved people is unclear, but many are still held in captivity and treated as objects—which is functionally very similar to Slavery.

Things are happening behind the scenes that we don’t fully understand. Human trafficking and forced labour still exist in many parts of the world, but the mechanisms have changed.

Jacobsen: On an intellectual level, what was the Enlightenment challenge to theological justifications for Slavery? I’m not asking about history, specific figures, or political reactions—I’m asking about the philosophical and ethical framework of the Enlightenment critique.

I’m talking about philosophy—or, more specifically, the epistemology of how we understand human nature—as a foundation for making a principled, ethical, and objective stand against the ownership of other human beings.

Roberts: The most important thing is recognizing that science has shown us that we are all part of a single human family. That doesn’t mean we are identical—of course, we have different abilities, strengths, and weaknesses—but the things that unite us as human beings are far more significant than the differences that separate us.

Acknowledging that we are autonomous beings who can make our own decisions is crucial. The act of enslaving someone—of stripping away their freedom and their right to self-determination—is not only a moral crime but also a denial of their humanity. To enslave someone is, in effect, to refuse to recognize them as a member of the species Homo sapiens with full moral and legal personhood. I believe that is the most fundamental principle upon which we should oppose Slavery.

Jacobsen: Gaps in history, interpolations, and national myths shape how people interpret the past. When you analyze the history of Slavery in the Christian Church, what cautionary notes should people consider regarding methodological challenges in interpreting historical evidence about the Church’s involvement in Slavery? We know what happened, and we have historical documents. But what are some key points where a careful reading of history is necessary?

Roberts: The first and most important thing is to use common sense and critical thinking when evaluating historical narratives. We should assess right and wrong based on what we know—both from historical records and our legal and moral frameworks regarding human rights.

It is also essential to consider insights from psychology about human behaviour and social interactions. We must avoid justifying past actions simply because they were accepted then. If something was wrong by today’s ethical standards, it was still wrong back then—even if people did not recognize it.

The Church’s role in Slavery should be examined honestly, without attempts to sanitize or excuse what happened. A proper historical analysis acknowledges moral failures and progress rather than glossing over the uncomfortable parts.

Jacobsen: How does the Church—particularly the Roman Catholic Church—stand on Slavery today?

I can take a contemporary example from Canadian society. At one point, the Pope had an opportunity to apologize for the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the residential school system, which affected over 150,000 children over a century. The trauma caused by these institutions was widespread and affected many communities and individuals.

Some Indigenous groups have since repurposed former residential schools for positive community purposes, but that’s a separate issue. My point is about the Church having a second chance to apologize—and, as far as I recall, actually issuing a formal apology. At the very least, they acknowledged wrongdoing, which is the easiest thing to do.

As the saying goes, words are cheap. What is the Church’s stance on Slavery today?

Roberts: I think the Church acknowledges that what happened was wrong. The real question is whether their apologies are sincere or just lip service.

Most Church leaders today understand that Slavery was a moral atrocity. However, my problem is that many of them are still reluctant to acknowledge that Christianity itself—and the Bible—played a direct role in justifying and sustaining Slavery.

Suppose the Church truly wants to be honest. In that case, it cannot simply condemn Slavery while refusing to confront the role that biblical teachings and Christian institutions played in supporting it for centuries. To say, “Slavery was wrong,” while denying the Church’s past complicity, makes the apology sound hollow.

I think the Church will have to go all the way and come clean by saying, “Yes, the Bible was wrong. It should never have sanctioned Slavery. We should never have followed what is in the Bible because it completely contradicts everything we now stand for.” But as far as I know, they have never done that.

Jacobsen: How do they address any of this history? Are they even broadly aware of it?

Take South Africa as an example. The average churchgoer, whether an Afrikaner, Black South African or someone from another community who attends a local church, is aware of this history. Is it a topic of debate, or does it not really come up?

Roberts: I don’t know whether they are fully aware of it. I haven’t found any book that shows the Church has come clean on this issue. I haven’t seen any clergy openly explaining to their congregants that there are passages in the Bible where Slavery is condoned if not outright encouraged or justified.

Until the Church acknowledges that history within its ranks, we cannot say they have truly come to terms with Christianity’s involvement in Slavery.

Jacobsen: Elon Musk has been making statements recently about Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in South Africa. Is this inflaming old ethnic tensions?

He made public statements about Malema, buying into certain narratives about Africa and South Africa’s leadership. Do people in South Africa care about what a North American billionaire with South African roots thinks?

Roberts: Yes, now that you mention it, I know Musk attacked Malema at some stage—I don’t recall exactly what he called him. But I do know that Malema dislikes him intensely.

That being said, I doubt this has anything to do with Slavery or South Africa’s historical past. Malema, like South Africa’s recently elected president, thrives on being in the spotlight. He loves media attention, enjoys hearing his own voice, and frequently makes provocative statements—much like Donald Trump does.

His strategy is to stir controversy, and when he is criticized; he overreacts and goes overboard. That’s what he enjoys—it keeps him relevant. So even if Musk’s statements were meant as an insult, Malema probably sees them as an opportunity rather than an offence.

Jacobsen: Are there explicit laws in South Africa against Slavery, or is it simply that social and public pressure ensures that it is not tolerated?

For example, in some countries, you don’t need a law saying you can’t deny the Holocaust—because doing so would push you to the margins of society. Is Slavery treated similarly in South Africa, or are there specific legal prohibitions against it?

In some countries, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust or spread false narratives about it. Does South Africa have legal nuances around similar historical issues, or is everything handled through social norms?

Roberts: Well, the South African Constitution explicitly forbids Slavery. It clearly states that no form of Slavery or forced servitude is permitted. There are also specific laws against human trafficking, particularly sex trafficking, which is often referred to as sexual Slavery.

These laws were only recently enacted after 1994 when the ANC government came into power, and the so-called New South Africa was established. Before that, there were no specific laws banning Slavery, but it was never something that the old apartheid government would have condoned either.

Slavery was not a political issue or a rallying point for opposition groups at the time. However, under the new legal framework, South Africa now prohibits all forms of Slavery, including modern Slavery, where people may not be bought and sold in a traditional sense but are still exploited and controlled.

Jacobsen: I think we’ve covered just about everything.

Roberts: Yes, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground.

Jacobsen: It was lovely talking with you today. I appreciate your time and thank you for this extensive conversation on Christianity and Slavery. It’s a big topic.

Roberts: Yes, these are my personal views—everyone may not share them. But they are sincerely held, and I hope I’ve been able to provide some insight into my perspective on what it’s all about.

Jacobsen: I really appreciate it. 

Roberts: Thanks a lot, Scott, and it was nice talking to you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.