Slavery

On the one hand, the Norwegian immigrants were opposed to slavery as they saw it practiced in their adopted country. Yet, they also knew St. Paul's general counsel that slaves should submit to their masters (see references in 1868 statement below) as well as the book of Philemon, in which Paul urged the slave Onesimus to return to his master Philemon, and counseled Philemon to treat Onesimus as a Christian brother.

A debate ensued in the synod, and the statements adopted by the synod on the matter, if judged in the light of subsequent history, may appear to some to approve of slavery as it was practiced in America. If, however, they are viewed in the light of other statements by the pastors and theologians of the synod, their true view of the matter is more clear. Because they accepted Scripture as the infallible word of God, they were not able to interpret Scripture in a way at odds with what St. Paul writes to Philemon, and thus they could not say that slavery was in itself a sin. Yet they knew that slavery as it was found in the American south was evil and showed the worst of human nature. Therefore, they made a judgment which is not so easy for us to understand today. They distinguished between sin and evil: sin is an action forbidden by God's law; evil consists in the consequences of man's sinful heart. War is evil, but they could not denounce the war against the south as sinful or forbid young Norwegian immigrant patriots from fighting a war that involved the abolition of slavery.

In 1868, the President of the synod, H. A. Preus wrote in a report to theologians in Norway:

1) According to our declaration, slavery is not a divine institution, nor is it something glorious and good, but rather in many situations something much more sorrowful and evil, even though it can be turned to good for those who fear God.

2) It does not occur according to God's original will as creator, but as a punishment for sin; it does not originate in Paradise, but is a consequence of the fall into sin.

3) It is not merely an evil for the slave, but also perilous to the master, whose responsibility is greater, whose obligations are most difficult, and for whom temptations to the abuse of power are great. ...

16) No Christian can therefore be a "proslavery man" in the fullest sense of the term, nor have we ever been that. History also demonstrates of Christianity that where its spirit penetrates it has by degrees ameliorated and then fully abolished slavery (From H. A. Preus, Vivacious Daughter, tr. Todd Nichol, 1990, The Norwegian American Historical Society, 168 f.).

Even as much as they despised slavery, and sent their sons to war against it, these immigrants from Norway despised the rationalism and pietism which had afflicted the church in Norway. Rationalism rejected the divine authority of Holy Scripture and pietism made sanctification rather than the justification of the sinner the center of theology, and was quick to brand as sin anything it did not approve.

Another of the Norwegian Synod fathers, U. V. Koren, who was a party to the theses that follow, wrote in retrospect about the Civil War: "We thank God because our country is freed from the curse of slavery and from the sins crying to heaven which resulted from it, and we regard it as a worthy object of Christians to strive with all their might to exterminate it wherever it is still found in the world." (Faith of Our Fathers, 105; See Grace for Grace, 148 ff.)

The 1861 Statement

Although according to the Word of God it is not in itself sin to have slaves, yet slavery is an evil and a punishment from God, and we condemn all the abuses and sins which are connected with it, just as we, when our call requires it and Christian charity and wisdom demand it, will work for its abolition.

The 1868 Statement

1. The system of forced servitude which is mentioned in the New Testament (Col. 3, 22 ff.; 4, 1; Tit. 2, 9; Eph. 6, 5-9; I Tim. 6, 2) is not in itself sinful.
2. In this system of forced servitude, the master has the right to demand of the servant that he applies all his talents and energies in accordance with his master's will in all things where he would not by such obedience be denying to God the obedience due to Him. Cf. Tit. 2, 9; Eph. 6, 5 ff.; Col. 3, 22; Acts 5, 29.
3. This system of servitude is called "forced" because of the right which according to thesis 2 belongs to the master and the duty which rests upon the servant; and this particularly because the servant has no right to demand that his servitude be abolished and that he be given his freedom.
4. Even if it were the case that the servant of his own free will entered into servitude, or remained in it though he could be free, the servitude would still be, and is called, a forced servitude.
5. Accordingly, this servitude is, and is called, forced, even though the servant obeys gladly and willingly and not only because he must. (Eph. 6, 6 ff.)
6. In this system of forced servitude, the servant has no right to demand any other wages than that which belongs to his daily bread.
7. In this system of forced servitude, the master is in duty bound to show his servant love and all justice and fairness in accordance with the Word of God. Matth. 7, 12; Col. 4, 1.
8. Since this system of forced servitude is a civil institution, the right and duty referred to above mean civil right and duty. But the Christian master will not always make use of his strict rights, for the very reason that he wants to follow the law of love and the admonition to fairness; he will rather feel in conscience bound often to give up his right.
9. The system of forced servitude described above is customarily, by linguistic usage in and outside of Holy Writ, denoted by the words master and bond-servant (or slave).
10. The bondage referred to in the New Testament is a real servitude, or real slavery.

The 1869 Statement

The Synod would like to do what it can to prevent misunderstandings by declaring frankly that it recognizes that there in American slavery certainly were laws or customs which either directly permitted, or at least did not punish, sin; so that the most shameful and shocking wickednesses went unpunished, whereby the poor slaves were cruelly treated, and at the same time the masters and the ruling classes as a whole were liable to be corrupted in moral respects. And it is, of course, clear that wherever masters took advantage of such laws or customs to mistreat their slaves, there this was sin against both God and men, even though it was allowed by the civil order.