TL
R: Not slavery, because the "restrictions" are good guidelines for a healthy and happy life, and don't actually hold us back, but raise us toward something.
Super long version:
Interesting question and set of responses so far. What I gather of the discussion to this point is that people are discussing primarily whether Christianity is or feels "optional" to those who are raised or led to believe in it. But in your first post, you mention "restrictions" as the initial basis of the question, "Is Christianity slavery?" I would like to speak to that part of the question if I can. Some others have brought up children as a brief analogy, but not really gone into why it should be a good analogy or to what purpose. I plan to explore that a little more.
Primarily, the idea that when raising a child, you put restrictions on them, such as "don't touch the stove" and "don't run into the road," as well as more arguably subjective ones such as "don't talk back," "brush your teeth," "take your shoes off before you come inside," "we don't eat pork/processed sugar/caffeine/gluten in this house" or whatever you like.
So the question is, what are these rules
for? What is the purpose of restrictions of any kind, ever? Are all restrictions by definition a form of slavery? Perhaps so, if you're going with definition #2 from Merriam Webster: "submission to a dominating influence," or a similar definition. As others have brought up, if you want to say restriction=enslavement, then any system created to define or sustain civilization (e.g. government, communities, educational systems, etc.), which all have rules of admission, conduct, etc. are forms of slavery. That in and of itself is an interesting debate, and could go on for a while.
However, if I may, I'm going to qualify my remaining thoughts with the idea that rules=/=enslavement, at least not automatically. We'll call slavery
forced obedience/submission, generally for the purpose of benefitting the master first, and the slave second or not at all. That is a quick-and-dirty definition of what slavery means to me, at least.
So back to child-rearing: the pat answers for why we give kids rules are A: to keep them safe, and B: to train them into "productive members of society" or "well-balanced adults" or "self-motivated, self-actualizing individuals" or whatever you consider the goal when raising a child to adulthood. (Perhaps "slavery" in this case could include parents who want to raise "clones" of themselves or "trophy children," where the child is seen and treated more as an asset to the parent than as a person unto themselves. And any abusive relationships.) Most parenting philosophies agree that children
need rules in order to grow into emotionally stable, functioning adults. Just watch a few episodes of Nanny 911 to see how they apply this idea, and the children genuinely seem more happy and emotionally capable when rules have been implemented. So that's interesting . . . and again, open to a long debate in and of itself.
The point I'm driving at is
why do the rules and restrictions exist, in parenting and in religion, specifically Christianity? If you agree that raising children with rules has a real and lasting
benefit to the child, then we can explore whether there is a similar purpose to God's Law within Christianity.
So next we ask: Whom does the system benefit most, the individuals ascribing to it, or the God and/or clergy enforcing it? Lots and lots of debate openings here, varying wildly across sects and eras of Christianity. And totally valid points for both sides. There have absolutely been times in Christian history where the leadership has used theology to "enslave" their people through false doctrine, manipulative practices, etc. Not gonna deny that
at all. However there is also the argument that not everyone who proclaims themselves Christian, even at high levels of leadership, are actually followers of Christ. Again, lots of debate openings.
So, a final qualification for the purpose of this argument, which may require a temporary suspension of disbelief for you, is that Christianity is "True." As in, God does exist, and Jesus literally died for our sins, etc. If, as a Given, Christianity is true, then why does
it have rules? Why does God require certain behaviors? Is it for His benefit (in which case it's like the slavery of a bad parent), or is it for ours (implying that there is an end goal, similar to capable adulthood, which the rules help guide us toward)?
The beliefs to which I ascribe assert that, yes, God is real, and yes, there
is a point to the rules. (You'll want to know now that I'm LDS, aka Mormon, aka a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). That point is to, first, return to our Father in Heaven (in a very literal, familial sense, which is a further reason the child-rearing analogy is so very fitting--he is our actual spiritual Father, and loves us just as we would/should love our own offspring. He doesn't want us to be estranged forever. Families are a very central part of Heaven--both God's family with us as His children, and
our families here, with whom we will want to be, and can be, connected forever.)
And second, that there
is a more "adult" stage for our souls, which can only be achieved through coming to Earth to be "tested." Otherwise, why create people at all? If we're not being "raised" into something, then there really is no point to the rules other than to allow God to surround himself with "perfect little angels," which would seem to be more for His benefit than for ours, and therefore arguably within my simplistic definition of slavery. I hold to a tenet that says there is more to the afterlife than simply playing harps and being blissful in our holier-than-thou-ness while everyone else burns in an arbitrary Hell. There is more progress, and more to achieve. And also, side note: those who don't "fall in line" generally don't burn in Hell--they simply live in some version of harp-Heaven (so to speak, IMO), where they're content with what they've achieved and don't progress any further. Like children who become stable adults, with no major health or financial issues, but don't really bother to do anything more with themselves. Not a terrible place . . . just not anything *more.*
SO.... Christianity as a religion *has* indeed been used to enslave in the past, and in the present. But belief in Christ is not inherently enslavement, and "Christianity" itself as an idea and/or a religion (really several hundred religions/sects) is also not slavery, in my opinion, because
if you believe it, then you believe there is a *purpose* to the rules, and you follow them not because you fear reprisal, but because you believe you are being benefitted by them. The idea of brainwashing etc. as part of the argument, if you take as a Given that Christianity is *not* "True," then you have to get a lot more nuanced in your examination of different sects, eras, etc. to determine whether "Christianity" as a blanket statement can be described as beneficial to the individual versus the leadership. I would argue that it sometimes is "slavery" in that sense, but more often than not it is
not. Because generally rules like "don't do drugs," "don't murder," "don't have sex outside of marriage," etc. have been proven through multitudes of scientific studies to have very real and measurable benefits to the individual, including health, emotional, societal, financial, etc. So for the most part, they are actually decent life guidelines. (Feel free to debate this, too.)
Anyway. You asked for thoughts. Those are mine. Thanks for reading.
