Robert Lewis Dabney wrote a book, Systematic Theology, which - while not my personal favorite - provides a great foundation in theology even to this day. The form of the book is helpful for self-study of the topic of Systematic Theology, as it is divided into easy-to-read lectures. There are, however, parts of the book that some will find offensive. For example, Dabney wrote (emphasis added):
When arguing against the Pelagian sophism, that man could not be responsible for his disposition, because it is " involuntary," I showed you the ambiguity wrapped up in that word. Of course, anything which, like disposition, precedes volition, cannot be voluntary in the sense of proceeding out of a volition; what goes before of course does not follow after the same thing. But the question is, "whether disposition is self-prompted." There is a true sense in which we intuitively know that a man ought not to be made responsible for what is "involuntary," viz.: for what happens against his will. But does any man's own disposition subsist against his will? If it did it would not be his own. There is here a fact of com-mon sense, which is very strangely overlooked; that a man may most freely prefer what is natural to him, and in that sense his prior to his volition choosing it. Let a simple instance serve. Here is a young gentleman to whom nature has given beautiful and silky black hair. He, himself, thinks it very pretty, and altogether prefers it. Does he not thereby give us as clear, and as free an expression of his taste in hair, as though he had selected a black wig? So, were he to purchase hair dye to change his comely locks to a "carroty red," we should regard him as evincing very bad taste. But I ask, if we saw another whom nature had endowed with "carroty red hair," glorying in it with pride and preference, we should doubtless esteem him guilty of precisely the same bad taste, and precisely as free therein as the other. But the colour of his hair was determined by nature, not by his original selection. Now, my question is : must we not judge the moral preference just as free in the parallel case, as the aesthetic?
(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, 2nd edition (St. Louis, 1878), Lecture XLIX, section 2, pp. 593-94)
As you can see, Dabney thought that black hair was more aesthetic than red hair, and that this was an aesthetic that would likely be shared by his readers. This negative view of redheads was not unique to his time. While aesthetics have changed over time, negative views of "gingers" and the like continue to persist.
I wish I could say that this is the only or even the most serious place where his comments will cause offense. Here are some other places where people have taken offense:
If infant membership were the great corrupter, and its absence the great safeguard, immersed Churches ought to be uniformly pure. How is this? It is an invidious task to make the inquiry; but it is their own test. Look, then, at Ironsides, Dunkers, Mormons, African Churches in America. We shall not be so uncharitable as to charge all this on immersion.
(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, 2nd edition (St. Louis, 1878), Lecture LXVI, section 10, p. 793)
Some have criticized Dabney for identifying "African Churches" among those American churches that did not practice infant baptism, because there was a denomination, the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AMEC), that did practice infant baptism. Apparently, some feel slighted that Dabney did not more particularly distinguish African Baptist churches from the AMEC. I suspect these critics may see this as an attempt to marginalize exclusively black churches (Dabney's own church evidently had both black and white members).
Far more upsetting to most readers is this (emphasis added):
Here is the great charter of Bible republicanism. Men have by nature, a general equality in this; not a specific one. Hence, the general equality of nature will by no means produce a literal and universal equality of civil condition; for the simple reason that the different classes of citizens have very different specific rights; and this grows out of their differences of sex, virtue, intelligence, civilization, &c., and the demands of the common welfare. Thus, if the low grade of intelligence, virtue and civilization of the African in America, disqualified him for being his own guardian, and if his own true welfare (taking the "general run" of cases) and that of the community, would be plainly marred by this freedom; then the law decided correctly, that the African here has no natural right to his self-control, as to his own labour and locomotion. Hence, his natural liberty is only that which remains after that privilege is retrenched. Still he has natural rights, (to marriage, to a livelihood from his own labour, to the Sabbath, and to the service of God, and immortality, &c., &c). Freedom to enjoy all these constitutes his natural liberty, and if the laws violate any of it causelessly, they are unjust.
(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, 2nd edition (St. Louis, 1878), Lecture LXXIII, section 2, p. 869)
Although this is worded hypothetically "if ... then ..." it seems plain that Dabney believed that Africans had lower intelligence than Europeans and would not be good at exercising self-control, such that they needed European guidance. This may not be the most invidious kind of racism - the kind that involves hatred of people - but it is a negative stereotype about an entire race. Even if Dabney seems to admit of exceptions to this rule, the fact that Dabney suggests that Africans were generally of lower intelligence is deeply disturbing. Moreover, the fact that this was "common knowledge" in Dabney's day does not excuse it.
Thankfully, Dabney does not let this error extend more generally. For Dabney:
In what then are men naturally equal? I answer, first: in their common title to the several quantums of liberty appropriate to each, differing as they do in different men; second, they are equal in their common humanity, and their common share in the obligations and benefits of the golden rule. All men are reciprocally bound to love their neighbors as themselves ; and to do unto others, as they would that others should do to them. See Job xxxi: 13-15. Here inspiration defines that equality as in full force between master and slave; and as entirely compatible with that relation.
(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, 2nd edition (St. Louis, 1878), Lecture LXXIII, section 2, p. 869)
So, Dabney affirms that the duty to love our neighbors applies between masters and slaves reciprocally, and affirms that both masters and slaves share in common humanity. Thus, contrary to some of Dabney's recent critics, his views on African intelligence and his support of a class structure are cordoned off. They do not extend to suggesting that Africans should be hated, nor do they extend to suggesting that Africans are not made in the image of God.
Finally, and it seems trivial to mention it, at p. 85, Dabney uses as an example the idea that king of Guinea "could not conceive it possible that water could be solidified by cold in the higher altitudes." The context of this comment is as sophistic response to the idea that a necessary truth is one the negation of which is inconceivable. It seems this is less about the idea that king of Guinea was not intelligent, but rather that living in a tropical area, he had no experience of ice. Likewise, at the same page, Dabney notes that the "natives of Guinea are generally black, of England generally white," but again this was just intended to reflect an example of a true (at that time) fact of the population makeup of those places.
Times have changed, and attitudes have changed. Charles Murray's and Richard Herrnstein's 1994 book, "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life," was similarly criticized for suggesting that there is a connection between race and intelligence. Thirty years later, there is all sorts of "common knowledge" about "white privilege" that is eerily reminiscent of these race-based mentalities.
(Link to p. 85 of the Systematic Theology)
P.S. Perhaps I should point out that there are other things Dabney wrote, such as his Defense of Virginia and the South, as well as other writings (including correspondence) that survives to this day. The former is an interesting read from a historical and political science perspective. There is some good material in it, but one will definitely find attitudes and opinions (especially about African Americans) that - while considered "common knowledge" at the time - are now viewed as both wrong and offensive. Frankly, I haven't read through his correspondence. It's probably more of historical interest than anything else. I haven't recommended it, and I have no plan to do so.
