Pre-dating the First Great Awakening, there was some discussion in certain circles in the colonies about whether or not slavery was actually compatible with Christianity. Africans, it was argued, were descendants of Ham, and were therefore under the curse of slavery (Gen. 9:25-27). Following a similar line of thinking, others argued that Abraham had servants bought with his own money. A pamphlet debate in Boston from 1700 to 1706 between Judge Samuel Sewall and Judge John Saffin about the compatibility of slavery with Christianity illustrated that some colonial Americans, at least in New England, were at that point struggling to reconcile their beliefs-- and their desire to build a model Christian society-- with an institution that seemed so patently un-Christian at the same time. Reverend Cotton Mather, at the same time that the aforementioned debate was published, also tried to make sense of slavery from a Christian perspective. According to Mather, masters needed to Christianize their slaves-- that was most important-- so therefore, they needed to make sure their slaves had the proper religious instruction needed to be baptized. Baptism, to Mather, did not necessarily mean that slaves needed to be emancipated: "But is not Freedom to be claim’d for a Baptised Slave by the English Constitution? The English Laws about Villains or Slaves will not say so.... These English Laws were made when the Lords [noblemen] & the Slaves, were both of them Christians; and they stand still unrepealed." (Rev. Cotton Mather, "The Negro Christianized: An Essay to Excite and Assist that Good Work, the Instruction of Negro-Servants in Christianity," 1706). So, what does all this mean? It was uncontroversial for 18th century Christians to look to the Bible as actually sanctioning slavery-- in fact, slavery was defended by prominent religious leaders like Mather-- and English law, as they understood it, did not require the emancipation of baptized slaves.

While it might seem like the First Great Awakening would naturally result in a proliferation of anti-slavery arguments or an abolitionist movement, many preachers, like George Whitefield, felt slavery (at least slavery sanctioned and conducted by the British) would eventually lead to the Christianization of Africa. This, to the mind of an 18th century itinerant preacher like Whitefield, meant salvation, while the absence of a conversion to Christianity was evidence of eventual damnation. Whitefield wouldn't turn away slaves from attending his outdoor sermons, he believed that slaves should be able to be taught how to read (so they could read the Bible, of course), and he believed that they should be allowed to attend church with their masters... but this shouldn't be confused with modern-day sensibilities about racial equality or abolition. For Whitefield, the conversion of African slaves to Christianity was important, not necessarily their freedom. He never questioned the institution itself, but rather argued that masters should treat their slaves more "humanely." (John Howard Smith, "The First Great Awakening: Redefining Religion in British America, 1725–1775").

Slaveholders were expectedly hostile toward such messages, since they felt that it could lead to unrest among their slaves. Revivalist preachers, too, didn't trust slaves to guide their own interpretation of Christianity; even Whitefield would go so far as to preach that slaves need to be obedient to their masters. If slaves remained obedient, abstained from sin, and were "good soldiers of Jesus Christ," they would achieve salvation. Ultimately, the conversion experience, in the mind of the evangelical preachers at the time, meant that slaves could be spiritually free, but there was no requirement that they needed to be emancipated from slavery.

Even though the movement did not result in the abolition of slavery, nevertheless, it would have a profound impact on the African American community, free and slave alike. The Awakening's promise of a "new birth" was appealing; accordingly, blacks were involved in the movement in significant numbers, from New England through the South. Many blacks who were taught how to read rejoiced in being able to read the Bible themselves and some viewed reading as a direct avenue to emancipation itself. Some developed a "hybridized" version of Christianity, which blended Christian theology and African beliefs, while others who had converted desired to abandon the latter totally. African Americans, too, hoped that newfound faith would translate into better treatment by their white masters; some, too, recognized that attending sermons would mean that they would have reduced hours of work. (Frank Lambert, "'I Saw the Book Talk': Slave Readings of the First Great Awakening," in the The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 77, No. 4).

Perhaps it is best to understand idea of "equality" before God in less 21st century terms. Equality did not mean equality in material condition, and it's important to consider this in the context of those biblical justifications of slavery from the early 18th century. To the 18th century Protestant Christian living in North America, all humans have the equal capacity to live a life of sin or live a life in service of God; those who do the former will achieve salvation, and those who do the latter will be damned. "But I must speak a word to you, young maidens, as well as young men. I see many of you adorned, as to your bodies, but are not your souls naked? Which of you can say, the Lord is my righteousness?" Whitefield himself argued in 1741. "O gray-headed sinner, I could weep over you! Your gray hairs, which ought to be your crown, and in which perhaps you glory, are now your shame.... Alas, you have one foot already in the grave, your glass is just run out, your sun is just going down, and it will set and leave you in an eternal darkness, unless the Lord be your righteousness!" Essentially, to Whitefield, old and young, men and women, are equally obligated to be obedient to God's word and to submit to his will. Jonathan Edwards, in "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," underscored this idea: "But here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!" Again, all are equal in the eyes of God-- no one gets special treatment when they are ultimately judged by God, basically, and no one gets a free pass.

Time and again, Americans have gone through hoops to rationalize slavery and to exclude it from movements and impulses that would otherwise lead to its abolition. Slavery has been at times viewed as a necessary evil, an institution sanctioned by God, and a positive good. I hope this response helped you understand the Awakening a bit more, and how it intersected with early 18th century attitudes about slavery.