How Christianity Was Used to Justify Slavery in America
The same religious tradition was used to defend slavery and challenge it. The historical record reveals how institutions, economic interests, and religious authority became intertwined.
I’ve been thinking about something that many of us learned growing up. We were taught that taking the Lord’s name in vain meant saying something like “Oh my God” or “God damn.” Even saying those phrases could get you in trouble. When I look at American history, though, I find myself thinking about something much more consequential than the words people were told not to say.
For generations, people invoked God’s name to defend slavery. Christian ministers used Bible passages to argue that slavery was morally acceptable, religious institutions helped support the system, and enslavers could attend church while treating other human beings as property. It raises a question that I think deserves more attention: What happens when people use religious authority to justify systems that benefit them?
What the commandment actually says
The commandment appears in Exodus 20:7 and is commonly translated as a warning against taking the Lord’s name in vain. People have understood it in different ways throughout history, and its meaning has never been limited to avoiding certain words or expressions.
Jewish and Christian traditions have connected the commandment to making false promises in God’s name, speaking disrespectfully about God, and misusing religious authority. Some Christian scholars also understand it as a warning against claiming that God approves of actions that misrepresent religious teachings. These interpretations aren’t identical, and scholars disagree about exactly what the original Hebrew meant.
The commandment wasn’t written in response to American slavery or European colonialism. It came from a very different historical setting. Still, the question of what it means to speak or act in God’s name becomes especially important when we examine how Christianity was used to defend slavery in America.
How the Bible became part of the defense of slavery
By the nineteenth century, American slavery was a system built around race, supported by law and violence, and deeply connected to the nation’s economy. Enslaved Black people were legally treated as property, their labor generated wealth for enslavers, and their children inherited enslaved status through their mothers. Families could be separated through sale, and enslaved people had severely restricted legal rights.
Christian ministers who defended slavery used selected Bible passages to support their arguments. One frequently cited passage was Ephesians 6:5, which instructed enslaved people to obey their earthly masters. Defenders of slavery argued that because the Bible acknowledged forms of servitude, slavery itself couldn’t be morally wrong. This allowed them to present an institution that generated enormous wealth as something that was also acceptable to God.
The problem with that argument is that slavery took different forms throughout history. The existence of slavery in biblical societies didn’t establish that the particular system operating in the United States was justified. American slavery was based on racial classification, inherited status, and laws that treated human beings as property. Those differences mattered, yet defenders of slavery often used biblical references to servitude as proof that their own system was acceptable.
These arguments had consequences beyond religious debate. Ministers and churches helped shape how communities understood right and wrong and presenting slavery as consistent with God’s will gave the institution another form of support. Slavery already had the backing of laws, political power, and economic interests. Religious approval helped make that system appear morally acceptable to people who might otherwise have questioned it.
When slavery divided the churches
The relationship between Christianity and slavery extended beyond sermons and biblical interpretation. In the 1840s, disagreements over slavery caused major divisions within American churches. Southern Baptists formed their own convention in 1845 after disputes over whether slaveholders could serve as missionaries, while Methodists split over a bishop who owned enslaved people.
These disagreements weren’t just about what the Bible said. Churches were also divided over who could hold leadership positions, who could participate in church institutions, and whether owning enslaved people should prevent someone from serving as a religious leader. Some religious leaders opposed slavery, while others defended it or resisted efforts to limit the participation of slaveholders. The resulting divisions show how deeply slavery influenced the leadership, organization, and decisions of American churches.
How Slaveholders Controlled What Enslaved People Read in the Bible
In 1807, a shortened version of the Bible, later known as the Slave Bible, was published in London for use among enslaved Africans in the British West Indies. Large sections were left out, including much of the story of Exodus, where the Israelites were freed from slavery. The selected passages emphasized religious instruction while excluding material that could encourage enslaved people to question their circumstances or challenge slavery.
This wasn’t the Bible used by every enslaver, and it was created for British colonies rather than the United States. However, it provides a clear example of how people in positions of authority could control which religious teachings enslaved communities received. That control mattered because limiting access to information could influence how enslaved people understood their circumstances, their freedom, and their rights.
This is also where my own struggle with Christianity comes in. I have a hard time reconciling what Christianity teaches with what people have justified in its name. Slavery is one example, and I see similar contradictions in the present. I can’t understand how someone can watch children being killed in Gaza, defend or dismiss that suffering, and claim to follow the same teachings of Jesus that I understand to be rooted in love, compassion, and care for others. I recognize that Christians have different beliefs and interpretations, yet there are some things I cannot reconcile with my understanding of what it means to follow Christ.
Learning about the Slave Bible also raises questions for me about the Bible itself. If people were willing to remove passages to support slavery, what else might have been changed, excluded, or interpreted to serve someone’s interests? The Slave Bible doesn’t prove that the original biblical texts were changed. It shows that people deliberately selected which passages enslaved communities could read. That distinction matters, although it doesn’t resolve my larger questions about who has controlled religious knowledge, how the Bible has been translated and interpreted, and how much of what people are taught reflects the text rather than the interests of those teaching it.
I haven’t stopped believing in a higher power. My struggle is with organized religion, particularly when religious institutions and individuals use their beliefs to justify harm while claiming moral authority. At this point in my life, I’m more comfortable focusing on being a good person, treating others with compassion, questioning what I’m taught, and maintaining my own relationship with a higher power. I don’t believe I need an institution to define that relationship for me, and I don’t believe asking difficult questions about religion means abandoning faith. For me, those questions are part of trying to understand what I believe and why.
Frederick Douglass challenged slaveholding Christianity
Frederick Douglass offered one of the clearest critiques of the relationship between Christianity and American slavery. In the appendix to his 1845 autobiography, he explained that his criticism of religion was directed specifically at slaveholding Christianity. He distinguished the Christianity he believed in from the religious practices of people who professed Christian faith while enslaving others.
Douglass’s criticism came from personal experience. He had witnessed the cruelty of enslavers who claimed to be religious, and he described how public expressions of faith could exist alongside violence and exploitation. He also criticized churches that maintained relationships with slaveholders, recognizing that the problem extended beyond the behavior of individual enslavers.
His argument was about the role religious institutions played in allowing slavery to continue. Churches could provide social acceptance to enslavers, ministers could defend slavery from criticism, and religious communities could maintain relationships with people whose wealth depended on human bondage. Douglass understood that these institutions had the influence to challenge slavery, yet some chose to accommodate or defend it instead.
Black Christians developed their own interpretations
Enslaved Black Americans weren’t passive recipients of religious instruction. Many developed religious traditions that emphasized liberation, dignity, justice, and community. The biblical story of Exodus held particular significance because it described a people escaping bondage, while religious gatherings could provide opportunities for mutual support, spiritual expression, and resistance. The ability of enslaved people to worship independently varied across places and periods, but they continued to develop their own religious understanding.
Black abolitionists also challenged the biblical arguments used by enslavers. They emphasized the humanity of enslaved people and rejected the claim that God had authorized their enslavement. Their work demonstrates that Christianity wasn’t a single unified force in the history of American slavery. People who shared the same religious tradition could reach very different conclusions about slavery, often shaped by their experiences, social positions, and interests.
Religion and institutional power
The history of slaveholding Christianity shows how religious authority can be used to support political and economic systems. Enslavers already held power through property laws, government institutions, and violence. Religious approval gave them another way to defend that power because it allowed some supporters of slavery to argue that the system wasn’t just legal or profitable, but that God approved of it.
That claim carried weight in communities where churches and ministers influenced public opinion. If slavery was presented as God’s will, questioning the institution could also be portrayed as questioning religious authority. This could discourage criticism and encourage obedience, making it harder to challenge a system that already had substantial legal and economic protection.
This doesn’t mean every minister who defended slavery knowingly manipulated scripture for financial gain. Some likely believed their interpretations were correct. However, sincerely believing something doesn’t make it historically accurate or mean its consequences are just. We can examine the arguments people made, the institutions that supported them, who benefited from those arrangements, and how abolitionists challenged those claims.
Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists demonstrated that the religious defenders of slavery didn’t speak for everyone who shared their faith. Their opposition also reminds us that religious institutions had choices about whether to defend existing power or challenge the treatment of enslaved people.
Looking beyond religious language
I started with the commandment about taking God’s name in vain because I’ve been thinking about how much attention we give to certain religious expressions compared with the actions people justify in God’s name. Many of us were taught to avoid particular words without necessarily being encouraged to question what it means when someone claims religious authority to defend something harmful.
The history of American slavery makes that question difficult to ignore. Religious leaders used biblical interpretations to defend a system in which human beings were bought, sold, separated from their families, and forced to work for the benefit of others. Those arguments weren’t removed from everyday life. They helped shape how people understood an institution that controlled the freedom, labor, and futures of millions.
For me, this history raises questions about honesty, religious authority, and the responsibility people have when they claim to speak for God. It also reinforces why I believe we should be willing to examine religious teachings, the institutions that interpret them, and the consequences of those interpretations. Understanding this history requires more than knowing which Bible passages people quoted. We also have to ask how those passages were used, whose interests they served, and what happened to the people who lived under the systems they were used to defend.
Continue exploring the systems behind history
Smart Brown Girl examines how institutions, policies, and historical decisions shape our lives.
Download the free Pattern Recognition Starter Guide to practice identifying the relationship between authority, incentives, and consequences.
Follow Smart Brown Girl on YouTube, Instagram, Substack, and Patreon for more research on Black history, American institutions, and political power.
Sources
Exodus 20:7 on Sefaria for the biblical passage and Jewish interpretive context.
Frederick Douglass’s 1845 autobiography, University of Virginia for the appendix criticizing slaveholding Christianity.
Museum of the Bible, Slave Bible exhibition for the 1807 abridged Bible used in the British West Indies.
Museum of the Bible, Slave Bible history for the omitted Exodus material and its relationship to religious instruction.
-Smart Brown Girl
Comments