Last week, (Oct. 21-22), Southern Baptist Theological Seminary held the 8th Annual Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies Conference on Whitefield and the Great Awakening. This year celebrates the 300th anniversary of Whitefield's birth. Like many Evangelicals, Whitefield (1714-1770) has been a hero of mine as a leader of the First Great Awakening in the 1700s. In my seminary days at Golden Gate, I studied him for an independent study class on evangelism and compared/contrasted the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment and have been familiar with his life, ministry, and influence ever since.
October 1, on The Southern Blog, Jerome Mahaffey said that Whitefield was a model for today's preachers. He spoke specifically about his work to bring Christians together so that they could work across traditional lines of division.
Whitefield brought a message of unification to the world at a time in history where dissenting and secession was the norm. Even while the “democratization of Christianity” was being birthed, Whitefield reminded people of their genuine commonalities. These efforts are still needed as we live in a world where hatred and racism appear to gain ground.
I agree that Whitefield's life was influential, but parts of his legacy led to greater division than he could have ever imagined. I also agree that he affected a great deal of people with the gospel and was influential in creating the environment needed for the colonies to come together and stand for independence against King George. His call for an individual response to the gospel could be seen as laying the groundwork for the idea of individual freedom and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness (mixed with the influence of Enlightenment philosophy, of course). However, while he called for the “good” treatment of African slaves and while he worked to evangelize them and called upon others to do the same, he also advocated for the legalization of slavery in Georgia in the 1740s-50s when slavery was not allowed there. Whitefield did not just passively accept a horrid practice that was thrust upon him against his will. He actually advocated for it because it would have helped him with the orphanage that he built in Georgia and with economic development of the plantations around the orphanage. No one was more influential than Whitefield at the time. What if he had crusaded against slavery instead of advocating for it? Would the United States have begun differently 30-40 years later? Would we have seen race-based slavery as a sin against God instead of as God's ordained plan? One wonders.
Much of this kind of history has been ignored by white Evangelicals in the past when it comes to the heroes of the faith. We study Southern Evangelical preachers and theologians of the 1800s and 1900s, we look at the formation of the SBC and say erroneously and simplistically that it was about missions (that is like saying that the Civil War was about state's rights), and we harken back to the glory days of growth/baptisms of the SBC in the 1950s and 60s without considering the issues of the day and asking real “what if?” type questions.
For example, what if Baptists in the South had maintained their previous abolitionist perspective of the late 1700s and early 1800s and had not subverted themselves to the larger racist, slave-owning culture of the South by the 1840's? Would they have risen to prominence or would they have died out? Would their influence have served as a prophetic barrier to the break up of the nation over slavery and the carnage of the Civil War? John C. Calhoun, the senator from South Carolina, declared in the 1850 Senate debate on the Missouri Compromise that the breakup of the denominations by 1845 (Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian) over slavery predicted the eventual possible breakup of the nation. The Church could not solve the problem so the nation dissolved in a bloody death spiral with over 600,000 fatalities.
If Baptists in the South had been chastened by the defeat in the Civil War instead of baptizing it through “Lost Cause” theology that they interpreted as God's way of purifying them and making them more righteous, would we have had the resulting Jim Crow racism that gripped the South after Reconstruction? Could repentance and reconciliation have happened? Could black and white Christians have come together to build a new society?
If Southern Baptists in the 1950s and 60s, at the height of their cultural influence in the South, had led the way in dismantling segregation laws and in bringing racial healing to our nation, would the Cultural and Sexual Revolutions of the late 1960s and 1970s have happened? Could we have won the Culture Wars before they started by engaging in sacrificial love on racial issues during the Civil Rights Movement while the largest generation in American history (the Baby Boomers) were coming of age? Could we have torn down the entire racist edifice? It could be said that Roe vs. Wade in 1973 was a result of the Sexual Revolution. We were unable to change minds on that issue, perhaps because we were too busy seeking to protect our “way of life” on the race issue. We must also wonder if our massive growth of the 1950s and 60s would have happened if we would have been counter-cultural and prophetic on the Race issue. Would white Southerners have still flocked to our churches en masse (64% of all church members in Alabama were Southern Baptists by 1971 in a state that claimed to be majority Christian) if we would have collectively been telling them that their racial views were wrong and sinful and that they needed to change? We could not do that because we embraced those same views and because it is difficult to get people to take positions when their “way of life” depends upon them not taking those positions (to paraphrase Upton Sinclair).
And, this brings us back to Whitefield. His motivation for calling for the legalization of slavery in Georgia was that it would help him with his orphanage and bring economic development to the surrounding area. He thought that slavery could be done humanely and christianly care for the slaves under consideration. Obviously, he was wrong on every point. But, when we look at his motivation, we see that he took two good things (caring for orphans and economic development) and proposed a very bad thing (enslavement of other people) to enable them to happen. The ends justified the means in the pursuit of a better way of life. Slaveowners would take up this rationale and declare that they could not imagine life in the South without slaves. It just wasn't possible. And, look at the blessings! God would not be blessing us so much if we were wrong! So, therefore it must be ordained by God and it is the Christian duty of the slave to obey his Master. We now look at that thinking as absolute error and heresy. It is the forerunner of the “prosperity gospel.” But, they could not see this at the time because it benefitted them not to see it.
Southern Baptists, fortunately, have recognized these errors, but we have recently begun talking about them in new ways. Thomas Kidd, history professor at Baylor, has a new book out where he explores Whitefield's legacy in both the good and the bad. I have not read it yet, but I have interacted with Dr. Kidd over these issues and am happy that he is looking at the whole picture. The book is George Whitefield: America's Spiritual Founding Father (Yale University Press, 2014). Kidd told me that the advocacy of slavery was discussed at the aforementioned Whitefield conference at Southern Seminary last week by multiple speakers. That would not necessarily have happened in the more recent past, not because we would have agreed with Whitefield on the issue, but because we were blinded to the affect that his advocacy ultimately had.
In addition, Dr. Kidd has authored a 3 week study published by the Gospel Coalition as curriculum in recognition of Whitefield's birth. The topics are 1) Whitefield's Passion for the Gospel, 2) Whitefield's Theology and Break with John and Charles Wesley, and 3) How Could Whitefield Have Owned Slaves? Having looked over the study briefly, it addresses interesting and relevant topics of Whitefield's life and influence and seems to be very balanced.
I recently wrote a book about this overall topic myself: When Heaven and Earth Collide: Racism, Southern Evangelicals, and the Better Way of Jesus (NewSouth Books, 2014), where I explore the aforementioned “What If?” questions and seek to discover where racism in the church came from and how it has morphed into other expressions that still affect us today in our mission and discipleship (such as consumerism/individualism and its offspring) as we often attempt to use God to enhance our own “way of life.” I contrast this with the “Better Way of Jesus,” which is the Way of the Cross and of Sacrificial Love and give many historical examples of how Jesus's way is better.
Southern Baptists have been shaped by our past history and theological positions far more than we often admit. We need our theologians and pastors to better understand and articulate where we have come from so we can reposition ourselves for gospel life and witness in a post-Christian age. I am glad that Southern and the Gospel Coalition are sponsoring events and curriculum that looks more closely at the whole picture so we can unravel what is good from our past and discard what is evil.
Part of engaging in a 21st Century apologetic is being able to answer the skeptic/critic who says, “If Baptists were wrong on slavery/racism in the past and used the Bible to justify their oppression, then why should we listen to you today when you make truth claims on other issues?” That question comes up constantly and we need to know how to answer it. We need to know WHY our Baptist forefathers capitulated to advocating for slavery and racism (basic answer: to beneift themselves instead of dying to self and trusting God), renounce our continued part in the subversion of Christianity in other ways, and we need to heed the warnings of the past so that we do not make the same mistakes on other/related issues in the present-future. This takes thought and humility and an on-going repentance and constant faith in God. It is the fact that we DO take the Bible seriously that makes this repositioning/repentance possible, however, and that also enables us to say to a culture that no longer sees us as an influence that we, too, recognize the price of a 150 year embrace of relational heresy and a lack of trust in God as our Source of life and provision.
I pray that as we consider the legacy of Whitefield's life over the past 300 years that we will thank God for his proclamation of the Gospel while also recognizing that his blindness to the evil growing in America also had a lasting legacy that was deadly. The Church in America owns these scars of division now, both white and black. May we go forward with humility and faith in the God who restores, reconciles, and makes all things new when we turn to Him.
EDIT: I originally attributed Thomas Kidd's 3 week study on Whitefield to The Gospel Project. It was published by The Gospel Coalition. My error.
Really good stuff, Alan. You should write a book on the topic.
This line, “…subverted themselves to the larger racist, slave-owning culture.”
That is the key. You could fill in the blank and that describes one of the church’s biggest problems. “Subverted themselves to the larger __________ culture.”
Excellent stuff.
Good article, Alan. Lot’s of food for thought.
Man – you work hard on these, don’t you?
Thanks Alan for the article. It reminds us of the good, bad, and ugly in the lives of people, leaders, and our nation.
I’ve just got time to mention one thing and it concerns a group of Baptists in the South referred to as the Sandy Creek Baptists.
By 1835 the Sandy Creek Baptists of the South were against the practice of slavery, advising churches “to exclude members who will not abandon the practice, after the first and second admonition.” (Purefoy, pp163-64). They practiced church discipline in this area. Most were poor farmers and sharecroppers with bi-vocational pastor/farmers.
Just mentioning this because “all” Baptists usually get lumped into the mix of being staunch defenders of slavery and slave owners. Historian Larry E. Tise does a good job of naming the staunch defenders of slavery in his book entitled Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America (1701-1840), and the list is not pretty.
Sadly, all of our heroes of the faith have feet of clay. Whitefield, being a big agent in the 18th century, had big feet of clay, and his take on slavery in Georgia made the son of the proprietor of Georgia Colony furiously mad at the Evangelist for supporting the introduction of the great evil of slavery. And yet, Whitefield was one of the first ministers to include the African Americans in his evangelist effort, winning them to Christ and recognizing them as truly converted.
Whitefield’s efforts which were directly germane to the First Great Awakenings also suffered from the shadow of being too judgmental (in the beginning of his ministry), having spoken rather harshly of Harvard and its ministry. Jonathan Edwards took him to task for this egregious error, and, evidently, the rebuke worked. Why? Because later, when Harvard lost its library to a fire, Whitefield was among the leaders to turn his money raising efforts (so phenomenal that Ben Franklin took note of them in his Autobiography) to relieve Harvard’s difficulty, a fact duly noted, if memory serves, by Harvard even though they had returned Whitefield’s first attacks with interest.
The Apostle Paul wrote that love is not provoked, does not become enraged, and yet he became enraged with Barnabas over John Mark. It is a sorrowful fact that all of our brothers and sisters in Christ, along with ourselves, are subject to failures, shortcomings, and down right stupidities.
Dr. JW
well said and valid point. Even if it were not I would not ale issue with you on this subject since you have forgotten more that I will ever know about this sort of thing. Now if there were only some way to turn that into a paycheck 🙂
Dear Rev. Payton: (that name appears on my ordination paper for some reason of other). You can take issue with me anytime as no one is sacrosanct, lest of all yours truly. Opposition is never easy, but it must be endured, if we are ever to arrive at the truth. When a view endures the vicissitudes of criticisms, it becomes all the more valuable. Reckon it will confuse them about the name on the ordination papers?
Dr. JW
I agree push back is always good, however, I try to realize when I am in over my head. I learned a long time ago not to try to match wits with you.
Re. confusion about the name. I was thinking today that that other Payton, 70 years ago about this time, was preparing to go through the Bulge with Patton’s Third Army to relieve the 101st Airborne. Used that in a sermon illustration this morning. the march started on Dec 16, 1944.
D.L.: I want you to know that I consider it an honor to have your father’s name on my ordination papers. He was such a quiet, kindly person, one would never suspect that he was a warrior in the first wave ashore at Omaha beach and that he had that determination and drive that carried him through the Battle of the Bulge with two friends dead and frozen feet. He is missed by many who knew him,a nd our world can ill-afford to do without him.
And as to crossing swords, I would warn my fellow bloggers on the SBC Voices to be very careful about you. Otherwise, they might be going home with stubs, wondering what took away their proverbial arms and legs, metaphorically speaking. And what was that grade you made under Curtis Vaughan? Envy! Envy!
Dr. JW
We miss many of the Great Generation. I wish their ideals, morality and work ethic still gripped us today.
Re. Dr. Vaughn, I was in a class of 10 (small for SWBTS at that time) my last year in seminary who read the book of Ephesians in Greek with Dr. V. That is one of the classes I am teaching (senior level) during the spring semester. Guess who’s notes I will be using. I have his old Sunday School Board Study Course book on Ephesians, it is a classic. I would use it as a text if it were still on print or at least parallel reading.
Dear Brother: I shall never forget your Dad, one of the quietest, finest men I ever knew. He was a great example of the fine deacon body of Calvary Baptist Church in St. Louis, like Brother Harvey Stricker just to mention one. During the period from 1948-1959 that church put more boys and girls into the ministry and mission field than any other church in the Southern Baptist Convention during that period, according to what I heard over 55 years ago. I have a book in my collection given to me by Brother Judson Clement, another of the fine men of that church.
I always wished I could have studied under Dr. Curtis Vaughan, I have several of his works. The January BIble Study on Ephesians, I taught to the members of my first church, if memory serves correctly. I also have his study the Epistles of John, and I might have his work on James. You were eminently blessed of God to have had him for a professor. You ought to write a blog for SBC Voices in order that the readers might have some idea of how one of the great believers in Sovereign Grace performed as a professor, teacher, and friend to his students.
Dr. JW
Dr. Vaughn was among the finest Professors I had. And that is coming from the mouth of a Trad. He had a fantastic grasp of the New Testament especially the nuances of the Greek Text.
The hardest part of my dissertation-related research was coming to grips with the sins of our forefathers on this question. Southern Baptist historians with a conscience face three options, I think:
1. Whitewash over the problem and pretend that everything was OK.
2. Expose the problem and ONLY the problem, cutting these people out of the herd and pretending that they aren’t a part of your spiritual family tree.
3. Realistically identify the problem, consider where they went wrong, try to learn from it, and try to celebrate what they did right.
Let’s face it: Far from applying solely to our spiritual forefathers, most white Americans my age will have to choose one of these strategies with regard to their own grandparents, or maybe even parents in some cases.
Dr. Bart
Good analyzation. Number three seems the only viable option. In all candor my greater concern is not my forefathers. There is much in our history both ecclesiastical and secular that no one wants to have tattooed on their forehead. My greater concern is the present. While progress has been made there is still a long way to go and we are moving very slowly.
Bart: You have a good take on the matter. Take Black History, for example. They often reminded Americans about the need to put into practice the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but some of them owned slaves. And I do not refer to cases where a man or woman owned their spouse, a way of getting them out of slavery. No, there was even a case in South Carolina, which Black Folks told me about, where a Black man was married to a White woman and owned 200 slaves (a fact that never made it into the text book). Facts which did indicate that there were owners of slaves, Black owners, that is, in Mississippi, one of whom owned as many as 60-90 slaves. In addition to the slave owners, there were several Blacks who were worth from a 250,000-500,000. These were in New Orleans and Charleston. The number of free Blacks in the South probably amounted to a half-million, and there were Blacks who owned farms and other properties. Also Blacks, some 60-70,000 drew pensions from the old Confederate States for their service to the Confederacy (generally building forts, etc.). And I should add that Free Blacks have existed in the old South since the beginning, beginning as indentured servants in the 1600s shortly after their first arrival in Virginia. More could be said, but I do want to point out that that does not relieve White Americans of the past from having enslaved 3,000,000 people and many, if not all, were certainly mistreated. One person mistreated, is one too many. I could tell of things that happened that I know, but it would make everyone sick.
What can be done to atone for our ancestors sins? I ask this in relation to the repeated public floggings that have taken place in the last 50 years. Perhaps if we continue to publicly humiliate ourselves our collective white guilt will be removed.
It’s interesting, Wilbur: Alan and I just the other day spent an hour on Twitter trying to defend the idea that anybody ought to listen to what Southern Baptists say about homosexuality in light of the SBC reputation on race. I’m interested in this subject not because of “white guilt” but because it affects our work today.
Dr.Bart
Great question. Let me purpose something. We spend to much time talking about what SB say/do/believe. Working collectively can have an impact obviously. The stronger impact is not what the collective SB say/do/ believe, but what individual local pastor/churches say/do/believe. You have great influence in your community. Others do also. Each pastor and church influencing their community will bring more influence and change than collective SB action, meetings, resolutions etc.
And permit me to clarify how it affects our work:
WE need to know what Alan is teaching, because it shows that what happened with Southern Baptists and racism in the 1860s is NOT equivalent to our refusing to endorse same-sex marriage; rather, it is the equivalent to our caving in to the demands of the sexual revolution. Southern Baptists who had been anti-slavery caved in to a slaveo-wning culture in exchange for money and cultural influence. Southern Baptists are tempted today to cave in to the sexual revolution in exchange for money and influence. Telling the story of our ill-fated relationship with slavery might help us to stand firm today.
OTHERS need to know what Alan is teaching because wrong-headed theories of these events lead a lot of people to dismiss Southern Baptists today.
All of that is exactly right, Bart. I am not trying to throw out all of the good. However, I am also not convinced any longer that our forefathers didn’t know what they were doing. There were many witnesses. Those who say that there were Southern Baptists calling for change (and they are right) makes the whole situation even worse. The fact that Muslim Tunisia outlawed slavery in 1848 and that abolition was happening all over the world shows just how isolated the American South was becoming. Why did the church go along with it? I have not even mentioned the way that our Northern brothers/sisters in Christ were begging us to repent.
As for contemporary issues, you are spot on. We have lost our voice. We begin to regain it when we admit the obvious about our history and work through how it affected us. This is not promoting “white guilt.” But, it is recognizing the historic situation. Baptists have done this officially, but we have not worked it out well theologically. That is why I start with the 1995 apology. What are the implications of that?
And, yes, we face the same dangers today. We capitulated in the past to the larger cultural, economic, and spiritual impulses. We can learn from our forefathers mistakes and hopefully continue to rectify the past while also telling a better story for the future.
I guess that I should have just said, “I agree. Ditto.” But, your response deserved more than that, I thought. 🙂
Wilbur,
The “white guilt” issue comes up with posts like this. My readings and family research over the few years has given me a different take.
I see no need to indict all “white people” with Southern roots with the guilt and ghost of slavery.
Here is a quote from the research of Armisted L. Robinson:
“Most Americans, no doubt, imagine the prewar South as a region so thickly dotted with immense plantations on which most of the black and white populations worked and lived. But, on the contrary, while slaves made up 40% of the total population of the South, only 25 percent of free families, most of them white, owned any slaves at all, and fully one-half of this minority (12.5%) held fewer than five slaves. Only an owner of twenty or more slaves, and of substantial land, could qualify as a planter, and fewer than 10 percent of slave-holding families qualified. The plantation elite of the antebellum South made up less than 3 percent of the free population in the region and less than 2 percent of the total free and slave populations combined.
[Bitter Fruits of Bondage: The demise of slavery and the collapse of the Confederacy, 1861-1865. Armisted L. Robinson. Univ of Virgina Press, 2005.]
While defending slavery and pushing succession, the Antebellum elite made sure they were not drafted in the Civil War with the new law stating that owners of 20 or more slaves would stay home to grow crops for food. Most continued growing tobacco and cotton and their fortunes grew. Other wealthy land owners, could buy their way out of fighting in the War by paying a poor white man several hundred dollars to take his place.
The Antebellum elite, also had a way of re-writing the history of the South—post-War. The guilt was placed on “everyone” as they pointed to everyone else but themselves.
Blessings!
I found that my ancestors owned slaves AND fought in the Civil War. 4 brothers fought for the 17th Mississippi Cavalry Regiment at Vicksburg and such places. But, that line goes all the way back to 1623 in America and they were Virginia and North Carolina planters with large estates and slaves up until the move to Mississippi in 1850.
While you are right that the majority did not own slaves, the racism that supported slavery was adopted by rich and poor whites alike. After Bacon’s Rebellion in Jamestown in 1676, there was a concerted effort to make race and issue and to separate poor whites and blacks. Poor whites went along because they were able to now be superior to someone. And, “Race” became a thing that divided. So, even those who did not own slaves still benefitted from and went along with the situation, for the most part.
It should be noted that the ruling class used racism to keep Blacks and Whites lower on the economic scale from getting together. Even after the war, this was the means, by way of segregation, of keeping the poor Whites from even thinking of working with poor Blacks. The same could be said of the Middle Class. Once the brainwashing began to break down, things began to change. Much of our thinking, even about our wars, is the result of brainwashing techniques used by our government, and even more by the folks behind the scenes who also make use of music to stir the spirit of militancy.
What a great topic for reflection and discussion.
We should not run away from these topics. We should not obsess over them, but being conversant and charting a positive course for the future always needs to be part of the conversation.
We could easily identify the sins of the past of our own forefathers and those of others. I wonder how far back we should go?
Slavery is not a big topic in the New Testament – Jesus, Paul, Peter et al. did not address the topic of ending slavery. Do they share in any complicity? Surely the members of NT churches had slaves. Why not counsel them to release their slaves? Because of societal pressure?
You get the point of where this leads.
We say that is because they were laying the groundwork for the equality of all men. O.K. But 1800 years later?
I bring this up not to be difficult, but to point out that questions relating to that issue, the failure of Christianity to address this issue head on in the first century, seem to be the ones we need to be ready to answer.
If is fairly easy to say that the church or any of its human expressions have fallen people, with fallen human systems, in fallen cultures.
How loudly should we condemn our forefathers when their forefathers, and their forefathers before them did the same thing, and when the NT lays out no forceful “Thou shalt not” on this question?
It is a tall order to have answers to all of these questions, or to even feel the need to. But we do.
This may be traced back to God and the problem of evil, ultimately.
I feel that I can answer the questions to my satisfaction, and I can only do the best I can do.
The contamination of faith by the culture is always, and has always been, with us. It is very hard for people to transcend their cultures.
Isn’t it great that God saves us despite of our cultural contamination!
Who knows what our great-great grandchildren will be saying about us.
That is exactly the point. We have our own issues. I am not trying to point the finger, but learn.
As for the early Christians and slavery, NT teachings dismantled the practice philosophically. And, I think that Paul directly confronted the support structure beneath it in Gal 3:26-29. He confronts all of Aristotle’s categories in his Natural Slavery philosophy that was spread all over the world by his pupil, Alexander the Great. Paul reiterates this direct confrontation with the slave system in Col. 3:11. Southerners were digging up Aristotle to defend their slavery ambitions and were subverting Paul to him. Walker Percy, with a hat tip to Russell Moore, put me on this trail. Once you start down it, you see that the Greek influence on the South and Southern theology was pretty large. All of that was the foundation of Enlightenment thought that Southerners were lapping up and then baptizing with twisted scriptural interpretations. The NT is actually far more clear on the repudiation of slavery WITHIN the church than we have admitted. Add to this the problem that slavery had been outlawed among Christians in Europe for around 500 years and when the African converted to Christ (as so many did), you had to GO BACK on 500 years of history and church law to keep them enslaved. At the very least, they should have been freed upon conversion.
I think it was more clear than we want to admit. But, it benefitted Southern white evangelicals to see it differently.
Interesting comments indeed, Louis.
I cover all of that about the Greek influence and Gal/Col in chp 4 of my book, by the way.
Please allow me to add some historical context to Mr. Cross’s post:
“that is like saying that the Civil War was about state’s rights”
While slavery was a triggering cause of the war, the states certainly believed it was their decision, not the Federal Government’s, to decide for themselves whether or not to keep slavery. You cannot imply that the war was not about states rights.
“His motivation for calling for the legalization of slavery in Georgia was that it would help him with his orphanage and bring economic development to the surrounding area. He thought that slavery could be done humanely and christianly care for the slaves under consideration.”
Mr. Cross, you know more about Whitefield’s motivations than I, but this quote seems to indicate that he was confident that slavery had biblical support:
“As for the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no doubt, since I hear of some that were bought with Abraham’s money, and some that were born in his house.—And I cannot help thinking, that some of those servants mentioned by the Apostles in their epistles, were or had been slaves. It is plain, that the Gibeonites were doomed to perpetual slavery, and though liberty is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so irksome.”
George Whitefield, from a letter to “Mr. B”, 22 March 1751
Was Whitefield corrupted by the society of the time or does the Bible allow slavery?
“The Church could not solve the problem so the nation dissolved in a bloody death spiral with over 600,000 fatalities.”
“All we ask is to be left alone” – President Jefferson Davis, Inaugural Address, 1861
Maybe the “Godly” northern Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians could have prevented 600,000 deaths by urging Mr. Lincoln not to invade the Confederacy and to negotiate a peaceful separation. My point is that ALL American Christians had a hand in the great tragedy of the War Between the States.
“If Baptists in the South had been chastened by the defeat in the Civil War instead of baptizing it through “Lost Cause” theology that they interpreted as God’s way of purifying them and making them more righteous”
Men being sinful, my guess is having your land destroyed, economy wrecked, a good chunk your citizens killed, militarily occupy your home for years and being dragged back into a country they wanted nothing to do with at gunpoint can make you teach “Lost Cause Theology”. My point again is that ALL American Christians share a lot of the blame.
Ken P.,
You represent the historic Southern Partisan position well. I am very familiar with it and it has been articulated for years in much the same way as you list it here. When I was younger, I used to believe it myself. Further study has caused me to reject the merit of that position. I do not deny that much of what you say is what people in the South thought. I am just saying that I don’t think it was right.
As for Whitefield supporting the Biblical merit of slavery, my perspective is that what he supported was the culturally conditioned acceptance that was prevalent of the times. Obviously, there were different views that emerged, such as Newton’s and those of Wilberforce. But, we should not think that all Christians accepted slavery as Biblical from the time of Jesus until 1865. That just isn’t true. Plus. Southern, race-based slavery was a whole different thing than the Greco-Roman version in Paul’s day or than the Hebrew version regulated by the Pentateuch.
African slavery was founded on kidnapping, something expressly forbidden by the bible. To suggest that the bible is somehow ambiguous on the slavery practiced in the US is preposterous. We can find “support” in the bible for practically any sin we wish to hang on to.
Bill Mac.
I did not mean to imply that slavery was ambiguous or allowed by the Bible, but that many people, including George Whitefield, thought that way. All American Christians bear the responsibility for slavery, both north and south.
Ken: I’m not sure how all American Christians bear responsibility for slavery. Certainly Christians holding an anti-slavery view (regardless of their geographical location) aren’t responsible for slavery.
I don’t know much about Whitefield. I’m sure he was a good guy in some respects, but suggesting that slavery isn’t so bad to those born into it is monstrous. It could only come from the lips of someone who was not a slave. It is instructive to note that further down in that same quote, Whitefield claims that no hot country (like Georgia, apparently) can be cultivated without negroes, and he bemoans all the labor and money lost because plantation owners in Ga. didn’t have a ready supply of them. Yes, he advocated treating them kindly, but no more than a farmer treats his cattle or horses kindly.
“Yes, he advocated treating them kindly, but no more than a farmer treats his cattle or horses kindly.”
Might that be a bit presumptuous?
Tarheel: No, I don’t think so. Consider Whitefield’s words:
He clearly doesn’t value the life or liberty of “negroes” as much as that of whites, and sees them primarily as a means of prosperity, along the same lines as people who want horses for riding or cultivation.
We have a number of dogs that we love dearly. We treat them well, provide for them, nurse them when they are sick, and show them affection. But they are not free to do as they please. They cannot come and go at will. We own them, and we are free to sell them, or have them put down as we see fit. What difference between that and Whitefield’s attitude, other than that he acknowledges their sentience? They were his property. Did he set them free, even upon his death? No, he “willed” them to someone else.
I’m just asking this is a question not making a statement. I am no way support slavery – but I also would think that The issues surrounding all of that were much more complex then we sometimes make them out to be with the benefit of hindsight.
Is it possible that he felt that by taking them in he was in a way protecting them….I admit it’s hard looking back for me to imagine someone thinking that way – but in that context is it not possible?
Perhaps he”willed” them to someone else whom he felt would also treat them well rather than allowing them to go on to the “open market” …. Which is what would’ve happened, no?
Perhaps there were really few good choices back then?
Did not slave owners have the authority to free their slaves?
I think if you read the whole letter, you will see that his primary motivation is money and prosperity. Yes, he was a kinder slave owner than most, but honestly the issues are not that complicated. He owned slaves that he readily admits were immorally obtained, but says hey, it’s too hot for white folks to work the fields so our hands are tied. He actually bemoans the hardships that white people endured before they could get their hands on negroes of their own, and what a great place Georgia would have been if only they had legalized slavery earlier.
There were good choices back then. Don’t own slaves. Don’t lobby to legalize slavery. Oppose slavery. Work to end slavery. Lots of people made the right choices.
Slavery was a practice of many nations; it is still going on in some of the Moslem countries, according to what I have read. When America began, we were under the British empire, a king was in control although some rights had been won and recognized by populace. Our society was a class structure, King, nobles, middle class, and the masses, mostly peasants. The nobles were addressed as Lord by tenants as well as others who were in a lower class. This class structure, absent the King after the Revolution, continued in the South long after the Civil War. Some remnants of it persisted in Arkansas, when I was a child. I can remember how the landowners children were treated better by the teachers than were the sharecroppers and the day laborers kids. My grandfather was a sharecropper, and I could tell the difference in treatment, although religion did overcome it to some degree. After his conversion my grandfather earned the respect of his neighbors and the community. My sister and I were imbued with the spirit of striving to succeed, a subconscious thing garnered from hardworking grandparents and relatives.
African Americans were not allowed then in the area in which I lived, and I had little or no knowledge of them. My grandparents did speak well of Black people. Then I moved to St. Louis my Sophomore year and began attending school of African Americans. I could see no difference except the color of their skin, and it did not matter to me. Later, I would learn their history in undergraduate, master’s studies, and doctoral studies and even write a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation in the field at Columbia University. I would even write a paper on the subject, “Intellectuals of The Western Sudan.” Finally, I did my project for the doctor of ministry on the subject, “Christian Love & Race Relations.” The director of my project said to me, “You ought to have known better than to have chosen a controversial topic like this (Christian Love & Race Relations?). If that church fires you, I will be right there behind them, supporting them.” In any case, what I learned about their history was enough to give me nightmares. Anytime people are given too much authority over others, they will usually and often abuse it. However, I would point out that 60-70,000 Blacks drew pensions from the former Confederate States due to their service in the war (usually building fortifications). A few did fight, and at the end of the war Jefferson Davis had a whole group wanting to enlist. The price was freedom, not exactly what he wanted. There is more, but I could teach courses in the subject of Black History.
Alan
I believe you prior position on this issue is the superior position
Alan,
Your article is very well written and the points you make are well taken, however from a practical standpoint what do we do with it?
In my mind I cannot logically connect our ancestors acceptance of slavery with the current homosexual debate.The reason few are taking our position seriously is because we lack credibility,,,,not because of attitudes of a hundred years ago. The two cannot be reasonably connected.
wilbur
Many people are saying that because we were wrong in the past on slavery, we are likely wrong now.
I am pointing out WHY we were wrong in the past – because we tried to benefit ourselves and we twisted Scripture to support the position that would cause us to be accepted or that would benefit us. Whitefield fell for that temptation when he advocated for slavery to benefit his orphanage.
We should beware of the same temptation today on other issues.
I think to reasonable people “we” lack credibility on issues related to homosexuality, not because of what our ancestors did hundreds of years ago with slaves, but because “we” are inconsistent with regard to sexual immorality in our churches, in our preaching, and with those practices which we condemn.
well said
Alan, that truly is the issue. Credibility gets wrecked quickly. All human hearts will twist the scriptures to suit the need; Whitfield, as well as all of us are never out of that arena in this world at this time. In my short stint on earth, I am strained to remember a time when race baiting has been at a higher level in America. Its a tender box of racially colored language from the pulpit to the streets. Religious facades make preaching almost cover a multitude of sins….such as the ways of Whitfield, when you think about it, is not just a passing brief surrender to bigotry, but a life of planning to achieve specific results.
Alan
I am struggling a little to find relevance and applicability as it relates to today’s issue. What are the stats on “many people”. How many of those who reject our counsel on the current issues even know who Whitfield is. Perhaps I am not tracking with you.
We can certainly learn from our mistakes. Historically we interpreted scripture to protect our interest and that must be avoided. However, using our history as a way to discredit out contemporary positions..I am not sure.
I was thinking the same thing about what to do practically with your article, Alan.
Your articles is very well written and very thought-provoking, but it doesn’t really tell us more than what we pretty much already knew. Yes, it provides more details, that I was not familiar with particularly Whitfield’s accommodation/advancement of slavery To accomplish the good and godly end of building an orphanage, but we all know that many of our our ancestors were to one extent or another racists and some held slaves. We, most of us anyway, understand that the end, does not justify using wrong means.
The question about practicality is simply this: what can I do today to change that reality? To what end does incessantly acknowledging these depraved and unbiblical actions of some of our ancestors seek to bring us?
Tarheel,
Why study history at all? What is the point of talking about Whitefield’s life on any level, then? I have been pretty clear about the practicality of what I am getting at.
It is interesting to me that when this topic come up we quickly hear people say, “Why revisit the past?” and “Why talk about this incessantly?” Well, I don’t know that we DO talk about it that much. Not nearly as much as say, Calvinism.
But, the practicality of it goes in many different directions. History is political and it is social. It is also theological. How we tell the story of the past tells a lot about who we are today and what we want to focus on. I am not for seeing our entire past as one big horror – that is poor history to. But, slavery and our advocacy of it and it’s resulting racism and our advocacy of that up until relatively recent times is important to understanding who we are and where we are going.
82 of 83 of the trustees of the Executive Committee are white. 20% of SBC churches (10,000) are majority-minority churches. There is a major disconnect there. If you don’t think that that present reality has anything to do with what happened in the past, I really don’t know what to say.
Another practical purpose in this has already been explained by Bart Barber and reiterated by myself. THIS issue is coming up in current debates over the validity of our message. If we were so wrong in the past over something so horrible and obviously wrong and we refused to repent even after the Civil War but we reinterpreted Scripture to suit our agenda, then how can we be trusted now on our truth claims? It comes up constantly. We need to be able to answer that by explaining WHY we were wrong and then sounding the same alarm today – let’s not make the same mistake.
When issues of race come up, you often say that we should let it go and not make it an issue. But, it IS an issue whether you want it to be or not. Us talking about it MORE and explaining what when wrong in our past actually makes it LESS of an issue because it demonstrates to people TODAY that we are serious about being different and living at peace with all. That is a practical outcome.
I cover all of this in the book, by the way – chapters 8-10. You should read it. 🙂
Alan: “20% of SBC churches (10,000) are majority-minority churches. There is a major disconnect there.”
To those of us whose age enables them to remember church sit-ins, doctrinal statements that included segregation, and a lily white denomination, 20% is an astounding figure.
William, we have seen huge progress in church plants and in inviting ethnic minority churches to join us. But, we are seeing barriers to those leaders moving into SBC leadership. Those barriers are primarily relational and are based on past separations. I do not think that they are a result of active racism. So, history is in play more than philosophy or theology.
Yes, we are making progress and I am very glad. I know where we once were. I am just wanting to see the progress that we have/are making be actualized. We’ll get there.
William
As a young pastor I never thought i would see the 20% day.
Alan,
Thank you for writing this. BTW I ordered your book months ago, read it and greatly appreciated it.
A question. You said, “82 of 83 of the trustees of the Executive Committee are white. 20% of SBC churches (10,000) are majority-minority churches. There is a major disconnect there. If you don’t think that that present reality has anything to do with what happened in the past, I really don’t know what to say.”
If I am understanding what you say here, 1 of 83 EC trustees (slightly over 1%) is an a non white (African American?). But 20% of SB churches are majority black? or maybe majority non-white? If I assume you mean 20% are African American, that seems really good (“astounding” William said). As of 2010, census figures look like this:
Race / Ethnicity Number Percentage of
U.S. population
Americans 308,745,538 100.0 %
White 223,553,265 72.4 %
African American 38,929,319 12.6 %
That would seem to make the 20% number actually pretty good. given all our pasts.
However, as I look over the census figures, the way they group races makes it difficult for me to be sure I’m reading these figures correctly.
Alan, I got distracted and didn’t ask, what are some ways forward to having more than 1 of 83 EC trustees be minority?
Les
Totally different subject….what happened to our Cardinals??
“Christians were on the wrong side of history then, and they’re on the wrong side of history with regard to homosexuality.” (And like phrases)
I too have encountered that mantra, in my discussions with lost people. Particularly when they are trying to justify on the sexuality. Honestly, I have found that just about any excuse will work for people who do not want to accept the word of the Lord. It’s a common refrain. The thing is I’m just not sure we can answer it to satisfaction of those espousing it. One, I think it’s rooted in a rejection of God, and we have no actual ability to overcome that other than just sharing the truth and let the Holy Spirit do his work. Too, my Acknowledging the sins of our forefathers, it which I have often done, typically only leads to and I got your moment and not repentance on the part of the person seeking the acknowledgment. Third, there is nothing for me to conform to, as my life, my ministry, and my friendships speak louder than any prognostications that I would make about the former sins that I did not commit.
Also it’s simply a false equivalency.
Look, we disagree on this issue – I think that’s rather obvious – clarification I don’t think we disagree on the issue, I think we disagree on the emphasis that we should place on it.
I identify as a Christian, a believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ, one who seeks to follow Christ with my life, one who holds to the word of God as the ultimate authority in my life. Please notice what none of those landmarks of my identity have anything to do with– The color of my skin – or the actions of my forefathers.
I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, Christians in America should be less concerned with identifying themselves “white”, “African-American” – you fill in the blank – and much more with seeing our complete identity in Christ, where as Paul taught us there are no distinction.
So, are you saying that the study of history/church history has no value to us in the present day for example, warning, and present application? Should we ignore history? Or, should we just ignore history when it has to do with racial issues?
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke, George Santayana, et al.
You are right. We disagree here.
You said: “One, I think it’s rooted in a rejection of God, and we have no actual ability to overcome that other than just sharing the truth and let the Holy Spirit do his work.”
That is what I am doing. I am sharing the truth about what actually happened and how racism/slavery/segregation developed. White to Black racism did not exist in Europe prior to the 1600s. White/Black division was not actually a thing until the 1600s in Virginia. Did you know that? Did you know that the first slaveholder in America was a black farmer who was awarded his indentured servant for lifelong slavery in the 1650’s because the servant tried to escape before his time was up? That matters. It tells us that white-black Racism, as we understand it, has not always been with us but it developed at a certain place and time under certain circumstances. False teachers, both within the church and outside of the church have tried to tell us that we were born divided and that our skin color is based on the Division of God amongst the peoples. They made our skin color our identity and in doing so, sought to steal our real identity in Christ. Do you think that isn’t going on today? So, when I tell this story in “black” churches and “white” churches, the light bulb goes on in people’s minds over and over again and they realize that the whole lie of “white” or “black” identity was something concocted by a certain people at a certain time to benefit their economic and social condition and then they used God/Bible to baptize it. In other words, it isn’t real. Then, we move to what is real, which is our identity in Christ. If you cannot see the current implications for discipleship there, I wish that you would look closer.
You said: “Too, my Acknowledging the sins of our forefathers, it which I have often done, typically only leads to and I got your moment and not repentance on the part of the person seeking the acknowledgment.”
I stood before a group of military officers and staff at the Air Command & Staff College at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery and taught on this subject for almost 3 hours last month. I presented a secular version, but I put up a slide that had the basic teachings of Jesus on how we should treat one another – things that were obvious and that every Christian would affirm. Then, I told them what we did and did not pull any punches. Later, I asked the very secular crowd filled with people from all different races and backgrounds if things would have been better in the South for all people if the people who claimed to follow Jesus had acted the way toward others that he told them to. The entire crowd nodded their heads and agreed that Jesus’s way is better. They all agreed that if people had just followed the teachings of Jesus, that the South would have been a much better place for all to live and that society would have been much healthier. Later, I had people coming up to me talking about spiritual things and asking me further questions. I do not know your experience here, but my experience when I talk about this with unbelievers has been incredible.
You said: “Third, there is nothing for me to conform to, as my life, my ministry, and my friendships speak louder than any prognostications that I would make about the former sins that I did not commit.”
I am glad that you are getting this right, but one thing that you seem to be missing is how the issue is still affecting so many people. I do not feel any personal guilt about what happened in the past, even though my ancestors owned slaves. I am trying to engage in a conversation with people about what when wrong in the past and how it differed from Jesus for several reasons:
1. Because people associate the Person of Jesus with the behavior of His church, whether we like it or not. If we can separate that historically, it might open the door for a fresh hearing of the gospel. I have seen that happen.
2. Because so much of our current church practice, divisions, residential arrangements, cultural concerns, relationships, and education, and career choices are tied up in things that happened years ago. Understanding the past helps us to understand the present and to learn how to hear the concerns of others. It also moves us from blaming people when they do not conform to our own idea of what should happen. Everyone has different life experiences. We should seek to listen and understand that.
3. If you want to move past white/black church, that distinction won’t happen overnight. There is nothing biblical about that division. And, the cultural aspects of it were forged in the fires of slavery and racism. So, we need to understand how they happened and how they continue to happen.
4. Racism didn’t just evaporate in 1968. The underlying cause of it: promoting my own “way of life” just morphed into other concerns – things we talk about all of the time. I explore those concerns in chapter 7. The root cause of Racism – which is exalting self and your group over others, even to their detriment – is still with us and manifests all of the time. Living from your personal preferences and individual desires is what led us to racism and slavery – and we are still doing all of that, even if it doesn’t manifest racially. So, this is really about discipleship and mission and I just use the disaster of Racism as an object lesson.
If you are going to get hung up on a discussion on the past and slavery and racism as a minister in the South in 2014 and say that we don’t need to talk about it because you are good, then I would urge you to consider those who are not good and who are still divided and who still live by false identities of skin color and the past. All of this is healed at the Cross where we are saved and where who God made us to be really come alive – including our cultures and ethnicities.
“So, are you saying that the study of history/church history has no value to us in the present day for example, warning, and present application? Should we ignore history? Or, should we just ignore history when it has to do with racial issues?
“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke, George Santayana, et al.
You are right. We disagree here.”
Um, we would disagree if that is what I said. Strangely though you asked me a question – and then proceeded with your presumption of my answer as if I had said it.
Of course history has “value to us in the present day for example, warning, and present application”. It is just that making it an inordinate focus of our teaching and ministry exacerbates the very false sense of identity that you mention in my next quotes.
“False teachers, both within the church and outside of the church have tried to tell us that we were born divided and that our skin color is based on the Division of God amongst the peoples. They made our skin color our identity and in doing so, sought to steal our real identity in Christ. Do you think that isn’t going on today?”
“…consider those who are not good and who are still divided and who still live by false identities of skin color and the past. All of this is healed at the Cross where we are saved and where who God made us to be really come alive – including our cultures and ethnicities.”
Um, that IS exactly what I am saying. I want to lead people away from focusing on, as you say, “false racial identity” and instead focus on our identity in Christ. I would love to see a time where it truly does not matter. Where “content of character”, as Dr. King proclaimed, is the deciding factor. I just happen to think that constantly talking and “confessing” to sins I do not endorse and did not commit is not particularly helpful in that endeavor. I further think that talk of ‘positive discrimination/quotas’ are even more destructive to the cause.
I have preached and taught that racism is sin. I have preached and taught that discrimination based on skin color is sin. I have addressed specific instances of it when it has happened in our community. However, I rarely mention slavery except perhaps in a passing comment – the focus of my teaching on issues such as this is on the teachings of Christ and how all people are created in the image of God and have intrinsic worth in that basis.
I think we agree on more than you might think – we simply have different approaches.
Tarheel,
I agree that we should not talk about this incessantly. Believe it or not, I wrote this book but have never preached on it directly on a Sunday at my church, though I have preached on multiple themes found in it. . I spent 5 weeks on Wednesday nights talking about it and two sessions on Sunday nights, but that is about it. I preach about a lot of other things.
I write about other things, too. Take a look at my blog. I guess that I am not sure what you are talking about when you are saying that we should not talk about this all of the time. I am not sure who is doing that.
But, when I think about it, I do know that people in our culture are talking about it constantly and the objections to Christianity because of the failures of the past come up all of the time. So, if we can help people work through that, I think it is a good thing.
Of course I believe you – there is no reason to say ‘believe it or not’…you seem like an honest dude.
It does seem that you post on this topic when you post on voices – but that could just be perception -which, admittedly is not always reality.
Maybe I should start reading your blog. 😉
I write about this and immigration, mostly, when I write here. I also wrote about the Executive Committee trustee meeting last month because I went there to speak to my motion on ethic participation in SBC leadership. So, yes, this issue has become a theme of mine over the past year of so on this blog, primarily because of the book. But, I write about other things too and my preaching/ministry hits on a lot of different topics.
I write on this here because I did the research over several years and when I see something related to it, I am motivated to write. Spend 5 years writing a book on a topic and you’ll understand. 🙂 But, I don’t write here nearly as much as I used to, so that tells you how much I am actually writing about this. But, yeah, it has become a theme because of the book.
Tarheel: Why should we never forget and continue talking about this, because it has not been that long ago that these things occurred and the SBC did not acknowledge their occurrence until the last 20 years ago and then only mildly.
The statistics Alan gave are not that great for 2014.
I am glad Alan wrote a book about it, is talking to groups about it and continuing the conversation here.
I also don’t know what to say to your comments except wow. Just wow.
Tarheel: To add one more, I think racism is still alive and well today among our churches, towns, men, women. It is always interesting to me that children naturally are about themselves, throw temper tantrums, do things wrong without being taught, yet skin color and racism is something they must be taught and does not come naturally. Skin color means nothing to a child.
Debbie
Regarding “…the SBC did not acknowledge…”, you and I, as demonstrated by our prior conversations have different views on the SBC issue. While I understand your meaning I still must insist the the SBC is, at it vital point, individual churches, not one conglomerate. The SBC is/does what the individual churches are/do. One cannot congratulate or castigate this entity with one broad stroke brush.
Many churches have made great strides in the area of race on a church by church basis. Each church affecting (or is it “effecting) their own community. Case in point. The church I pastored in Mid town St. Louis has done well in a racially changing community. In the late sixties and early seventies the community began to become racially integrated. At the same time the church began an aggressive outreach program door to door. A decision was made by the church: Whomever (or is it “whoever’) answers the door gets the same speech, material, etc. regardless of skin color. When I left the church in the mid eighties the community was 25% Black and the church was 25% Black. True the church has not called a black pastor to date, the church does have black lay leadership. Churches, not a vague entity called the SBC, must minister and change their individual communities.
So when you say the SBC does this or that I will ask which church? Each church is the SBC.
Debbie,
“Tarheel: To add one more, I think racism is still alive and well today among our churches, towns, men, women. It is always interesting to me that children naturally are about themselves, throw temper tantrums, do things wrong without being taught, yet skin color and racism is something they must be taught and does not come naturally. Skin color means nothing to a child.”
Hate is a natural result of the fall. It does not have to be taught… while the manifestation of unchecked or encouraged hatred takes is largely learned by children and yes, adults – the sin nature itself is common to all and the true believer will seek to exhibit the fruits of the Spirit which are antithetical hatred.
I happen to think that racism is taught with both negative and positive intent.
Negative intention racism = I hate ________ (insert ethnicity, people group), they are not equal.
Positive intention racism = I hate that _________ (insert ethnicity, people group) has been treated badly in the past by (my ethnicity, people group) so in order to make it right, we must show favoritism to the ill treated (ethnicity, people group) because without (my ethnicity, people group) actively showing the favoritism that people group will never achieve.
I hope that is not too confusing. Let me try it another way…
Basically the point is that – it is demeaning to hate a person because of his skin color, and it is also demeaning to show favoritism to someone because of his skin color…sure it may be a matter of “palatable degrees” but it is demeaning. We seem to be able to palate and justify the later because of the former…but to me both are demeaning and therefore wrong.
Alan,
“I write on this here because I did the research over several years and when I see something related to it, I am motivated to write. Spend 5 years writing a book on a topic and you’ll understand. :)”
I am way too ADHD for all that! I do admire you for your work on your book and clearly your research has impacted your, to use your word, “themes”…and that is cool. In fact, it is more than cool.
Like I said, I think we agree on more than we disagree – certainly we both love the same Lord, and strive to love all men as He has commanded.
I think a large part of any disagreement that we have is over the “how” not the “what’.
Wilbur, I agree
Alan
I do agree that history is important if for no other reason than I was a History major in college. I also agree that we can learn from history. I agree that understanding History can help us avoid making mistakes in contemporary times. However (you knew that word was coming 🙂 ), I think we have had enough study, conferences, meetings, articles, blogs etc. It is time for ACTION. I dare say that the vast majority of Christians and non Christians alike know that racism is evil regardless of how it came about and its historical nuances.
It is time for more positive action not the time for another book. Not trying to be mean but the greatest failure of our churches is we like to talk things to death and take very little action.
Anyone ever read the old “Slave Narratives”?
Yes, indeed. I found a narrative by a very old woman in my home town who recounted some of her slave experiences when she was a girl owned by “Massah Billy” my GG-grandfather. Seldom will any of us who have long roots in the American south be able to uncover any personal details of such things. It was quite interesting.
The narrative was a couple of decades before I was born, remembering a time almost a century before I was born. While I understood that some of my ancestors owned slaves, and many, many were CSA veterans, being able to read a personal account of those times caused me to have a more thoughtful, less detached mental and emotional state about such.
Nonetheless, I have never felt encumbered by vicarious guilt over my ancestors being slave owners, although I have often wondered what I would have done were I alive at the time. That question cannot be answered.
We always sanitize history and heroes. I have no objection to being reminded of their flaws and failings.
“We always sanitize history and heroes. I have no objection to being reminded of their flaws and failings.”
Absolutely agree. Heck, sometimes we don’t even wait for them to die before we do so.
Great article, Alan. I commend you both for your research and your analysis.
John
“We need to know WHY our Baptist forefathers capitulated to advocating for slavery and racism (basic answer: to beneift themselves instead of dying to self and trusting God), renounce our continued part in the subversion of Christianity in other ways, and we need to heed the warnings of the past so that we do not make the same mistakes on other/related issues in the present-future.”
This is such a good point. Thanks for this article, Alan. I hadn’t ever stopped to analyze why and how pro-slavery Christians came to their conclusion. And interesting thoughts on Whitfield taking a good desire and promoting it by evil means. Learned something from this–thanks. I’ll have to check your book out.
Alan, thanks for the article. Very helpful thoughts.
I wanted to share a recent experience that might also be of some use to someone. I was recently in a discussion with a liberal friend of mine over the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. He doesn’t believe in inerrancy any more, but he used to when we were younger, so he kind of knows where I stand. So he threw out the argument that you can’t use the Bible to condemn homosexuality because in history Christians have used the Bible to condone evils such as slavery. As I replied to him a light-bulb came on.
I explained to him that while he was correct that professing Christians had distorted the Bible to condone their sin, that it appeared to me that the analogy of slave-owners twisting Scripture better fits the liberals of our day condoning homosexuality. They distort the clear teaching of the Bible in order to avoid social, economic, and political struggles. Rather than standing for truth they take the easy way out and make the Bible fit with the secular culture.
I don’t want to pat myself on the back too much, but I think it drove the point home fairly well. He actually then came around and acknowledged that he could not be certain that his view was correct or that mine was wrong – even though he still thought he was right. I really appreciated his honesty and I think the above analogy was helpful in our discussion.
I just thought that was worth sharing since I’ve heard this argument from our liberal friends a number of times, but I’ve never seen it turned around before. Maybe this will help others in applying the history of our forefathers to our current challenges.
Bob, you said:
“I explained to him that while he was correct that professing Christians had distorted the Bible to condone their sin, that it appeared to me that the analogy of slave-owners twisting Scripture better fits the liberals of our day condoning homosexuality. They distort the clear teaching of the Bible in order to avoid social, economic, and political struggles. Rather than standing for truth they take the easy way out and make the Bible fit with the secular culture.”
Yes, Bob. That is what I have found. The course of logic and thinking of the slaveowners is reappearing today in this current debate.
On another issue, I have advocated for Immigration Reform repeatedly in this forum and in others. But, one group that I do not trust in this debate is the United States Chamber of Commerce. One of their arguments for Immigration Reform is that Immigrants do the work that Americans do not want to do, so we need them here. When I was doing my research, I ran across that same argument being used by the Slaveowners – Black Africans are needed because they do the work that White Europeans/Americans will not do or do not want to do because it is beneath them. Well, then maybe our ancestors should have starved to death on the coast of Virginia until they decided that they wanted to work or figured out a way to work that did not involve kidnapping and enslaving millions of people and abusing and selling men, women, and children? Because the whole idea that slavery was needed because the white man could not live in North America without it was repeated again and again over 200 years. One minister in Virginia said that it was “immoral” for the white man to live there without the benefit of slaves. Applying Aristotle’s Natural Slavery argument from Politics: Book I, the Southerner then declared that his mastery over the Black African was the natural order of affairs, it was how God made him, and that to do otherwise would be to work against the way that the world and humanity had been created. Then, they created the heretical Curse of Ham that was a novel, new interpretation and said, “See? We were born this way and God did it.” Then they created an entire culture and identity around the lie and mocked and punished anyone who questioned it and removed all religious freedom and freedom of thought/action from anyone who opposed it.
The current debates over florists and bakers NOT wanting to affirm gay marriage have happened before. In the Baptist South. What if a cafe owner in Greenville, Alabama in 1925 after reading Scripture came to the Biblical conclusion that he was in sin if he did not seat black and white people together and serve them together at the same lunch counter? His place might have been burned down. He would have been run out of business. He might have faced physical harm.
What if a white Baptist pastor believed that marriage was between one man and one woman and that race did not matter and he married a black man to a white woman in Alabama in the 1930s based on his religious convictions? What would have happened to him?
These questions are really important. There was no religious liberty on these issues less than 100 years ago. 50 years ago. Yet, we say we care about religious liberty. It looks like we only care about religious liberty on issues that benefit us and what the majority of us believe at the time.
So, if we don’t address this and explain how/why it happened and how it was wrong and how WE were wrong and then do what Bob just did where we trace the reasoning of the antagonists from the past and the present, we end up with a massive hole in our theology, apologetics, and practice.
That is why I wrote the book. It is all in there.
I’m definitely going to have to check out the book Alan, though reading it any time soon may be a challenge as I’ve just recently begun my MDiv.
FYI, I grew up on a farm outside of Selma, where my parents still live. I live and work in Mississippi now but next time we’re back over that way we may try to come visit you in Montgomery as I’ve really profited from your articles here.
God bless,
-Bob B.
Sounds good, Bob. Would love to talk more. Like any first-time author, I definitely want people to read the book. That is great. But, if people just buy the book and don’t read it, I am not totally unhappy with that either. 😉
Actually, the best thing about writing the book has been the discussions about it. That is why I wrote – to provoke conversation with others and to find answers.
I very much enjoy Alan Cross talking about Maxwell AFB and places near my hometown. As a 62 yo I lived most of what he is talking about. I was in the River Region last week on family matters and my history shimmers in the Alabama sunlight. I accepted Christ in an SBC church and spent some time in an IFB type church that thought the SBC was liberal apostates in 1964.
Dear SBC Voices,
I like much of what I have read here at SBC Voices, you do a great service to the SBC by discussing the issues facing our denomination.
As a recent alumnus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I think I have PPP-TS (Post-Paige Patterson Trauma Syndrome). I have a lot to say about my time at SWBTS and my thoughts about the state of the SBC today. My book on my experiences at SWBTS and the SBC is coming out soon. Anyone interested on hearing the first-hand experience of a student at a Southern Baptist seminary and cooperative program sponsered school can read about them at:
http://theologyx.blogspot.com/2014/11/thoughts-at-two-month-point-and-dealing.html
Sincerely in Christ,
Lee Edward Enochs
Princeton, NJ
SWBTS Grad, Class of 2014.
Lee,
It’s for the best for SWBTS and the SBC that you chose to move on. I will not waste my time or money buying your book. Goodbye.
Volfan,
Dude, what an absolute jerky thing to say.
You’re not a jerk, come on.
Actually Tarheel, the “jerk” thing to do is to invade a comment stream and post something that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. That is selfish, egotistical, and the very definition of “spam”. And I say that as someone who likely would fall in the “PP did wrong, trustees are not doing their jobs” camp.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that that, SV – he should’ve picked another thread to put that in – but do two wrongs make a right?
I Guess having spent over 20 years working with teenagers and young people I get a little defensive when I feel that A young person is being scolded.
That actually happens a lot on the site – all the comments of “when you get older you’ll understand”, or “When you get older your opinion will be valid ” annoy me.
It also annoys me that when “older” ministers criticize and critique “younger ministers” blogs and comments without really offering any guidance or constructive criticism I rather just criticism.
It just smacks to me of “little boy sit down and shut up and let the adults talk.”
Actually, Tarheel,
This was the “jerky” thing to say:
“As a recent alumnus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I think I have PPP-TS (Post-Paige Patterson Trauma Syndrome).”
Again, I don’t disagree. I don’t agree with the way and attitude he phrased everything he said, but again two wrongs don’t make a right.
Tarheel,
Did you go to the blog that Lee hotlinked, and read what he wrote. I did. I’m just responding to what he said. The SBC and SWBTS is better off without people with the attitude of this man. He wanted to leave, and he wanted to throw some parting shots at us. He also was using this comment thread to try to sell some of his books, which I’m sure is full of more of his “philosophy.”
David
I had not at the time that I’ve made a comment to you – and I still stand by what I said to CB that I don’t agree with the tone in which he said what he said but I also think that your tone was out of line as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Vol, I don’t think it is “jerky” at all. Against my better judgment, I read the post in the link.
It was like watching late night T.V. years ago — all reruns. Same tune, same lyrics, different singer.
He actually hit a nerve when he implied he suffers from PTSD. He uses words like “militaristic,” but I’d bet he doesn’t know what it means to serve–and certainly doesn’t know what PTSD is all about.
But, that is probably just a personal reaction.
The only thing I’d be interested in knowing about his “book” is who publishes it. My guess is, “self-published.”
Militaristic, fundamental, blah, blah, blah. None of those terms even remotely apply to SWBTS.
The fact he praises the “scholars” at his new school as if being liberal or progressive equates with being a “scholar.” Some of the best theologians in the world have, and continue to teach in our seminaries.
One big difference is: they don’t follow the pack.
So, Vol, I’m in your corner on this one.
Thanks, Jack.
David
Lee
No thank you. As a 2014 grad you are not seasoned enough to make valid evaluation and commentary.
DL,
That’s kind of an uncharacteristic comment from you. The man has nothing valid to say because he’s presumably young?
Tarheel
Thank you for the correction. My dismissal was uncalled for and in poor taste. Sometimes my mouth moves before my head engages.
Lee please accept my apologies for my ill chosen words. I am truly sorry.
I’m glad I never mess up like that DL. 😉
Too bad you are bitter dude,… as the Apostle Paul encouraged,…count it all joy! Just remember, fundamentals are requirements for good stewardship, and don’t be a fundamentalist without a way to back up the fundamentals. In other words, some guys that are labeled fundamentalists are not all that fundamental.
Chris
Interesting comment. You may be on to something there.
yep… sometimes mislabeled fundamentalists are really those men that take a liberal view of the scriptures and try to teach those methods as fundamental,…. an onset of bitterness typically comes from not knowing the difference between fundamentalist views that are less than scriptural, with those of exegetical precision. Leadership is judged well on that basis.
“In other words, some guys that are labeled fundamentalists are not all that fundamental.”
Yep.
I have noticed that myself
Having read Lee’s blog, it seems obvious to me that he is zig sagging from one extreme to another. He has yet to grasp the reality that the biblical precepts/truths/doctrines are two-sided and apparently contradictory on purposes, that they are designed to produce a tension in the human mind so one can respond to any particular situation that arises. The tension enables one to be balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. Out of that tension one responds appropriately to any given situation, the particular response that that situation requires under God. Otherwise, one is forever shooting off at a tangent. When I came to SEBTS, for example, it had the reputation of being the most liberal seminary in the SBC. I was soon noted to be a Conservative, but one who did his own thing (this was because I saw Conservatives who did even the wrong things to advance their cause). One Conservative attacked a professor, and I told him he had done wrong, having attacked the Professor’s personality instead of his view. It was right, I said, to attack his views, but it was a violation of scholarly as well as ethical standards to attack his personality (God judges the inner man – we are not able to do so). There are those of us who disagree with Dr. Patterson on somethings, for example, and are not afraid to say so (and I call attention to the fact that I wrote a response to his eight theses on election, pointing out how it could serve to unite the Calvinists and the Traditionalists). I will not enter in the matters with which I do not agree as this is neither the time or the place. Dr. Patterson did his part in the great conflict with the Moderates, and all of us have those times in our lives and conduct during that period when we were found wanting. Lee, if you have an inner sense of commitment to Christ and His written word, then you will be inner directed and likely to come back to the commitments which matter. But, if you lack that inner sense, you will find that like an item on a spinning wheel being flung off, you will go further and further away from meaning and purposes. Very likely, if that is true, you will windup where I began, as an Atheist. We all pray that it shall be otherwise. If your new found friends discover that you really do not hold with or approve of their conduct, you will find yourself forsaken quicker than a flock of chickens, when a clod of dirt is heaved in their midst. The really committed to Christ may not approve of your views, etc., but they will continue to pray for you. I pray that God will grant you open eyes that you might discern the value of your newly acquired friends and that they might discover your real commitments to Christ, if you have such (which is something I cannot and do not judge, since I do not know you).
Lee,
I’m sorry you were hurt so badly during your experience at Southwestern.
I too have had times in my life where I struggled with anger and bitterness as a result of life’s frustrations.
I understand, and rather than chastise you – I will pray for you. I mean that sincerely.
I do hope that you are able to move past and forgive those who have hurt you so badly.
I’m also sorry that you and your comments have been so summarily dismissed by some on this blog.
Lee,
Might I suggest you take your comments over to a discussion where they might fit in more closely?
https://sbcvoices.com/whom-should-seminaries-educate/
“I understand, and rather than chastise you – I will pray for you. I mean that sincerely.”
Why not just do both? I am sure that is what Paul did for Peter as did Jesus do for Peter. There is no doubt that the Father chastises those He loves.
I appreciate those who have and still do chastise me. I also know they pray for me.
The guy needed chastising for his rude comments. He got it from Vol.
Tarheel, is there an implication in your statement that you will pray for Lee wherein you believe Vol will not?
I am quite sure Vol will pray for the guy just as surely as will you.
Chastising a brother when he is wrong is still a biblical concept.
Oh it is?
Interesting.
🙂
I agree, but Mike the first time I’ve been more effective with a little softer touch then a complete dismissive disrespectful comment.
*Might the first time…
Not Mike…lol
Tarheel
a lot of valid points are being made here as it relates to chastising/praying for/mentoring etc. One point stands out to me. I have a number of issues with what Lee has written, attitude etc. However, because of my negative first time interaction, I have pretty much destroyed any chance of having a meaningful productive conversation with him. Hence nothing is affirmed, resolved, or advanced in the discussion.
Oh, I’m not so sure. We all make mistakes. Apologies go a long way. If he ever post here again and chooses not to interact with you it will certainly be his loss. I know I’ve learned a lot from you.
Tarheel,
You think I talked to Lee too strongly. In my head, I was just stating it as a matter of fact statement. You know, “Lee, if you don’t like the SBC and SWBTS, then leaving is the thing you need to do. And, you really didn’t need to come in here, and throw grenades at Dr. Patterson, SWBTS, the SBC, and Bible believing Christians. And, it looked like he was trying to push his book, which is soon coming out!!!! To promote his new found liberal ideas.
I thought he needed to be asked to just leave, if that’s the way he felt. It’s what he wants, anyway…except that he’s trying to drag a few people to go along with him.
God bless you, Tarheel. Love you in the Lord, Brother.
David
Tarheel
You are very gracious my friend.
CB,
You are right, Brother. NOthing…and, I mean nothing… would thrill my heart more than to hear that this fella had come back to the truth. I would rejoice with the angels of Heaven, if Lee were to tell us that he was gonna love the Lord, and believe the Book, and be a witness for the Lord. My heart would overflow.
CB, God bless you, Brother. You are a friend that I have grown to appreciate and love in a deep way.
DAvid
Vol, on a completely different subject…how about those Vols?!
Les,
How bout those Vols!! I nearly jumped thru my ceiling when we scored to tie the score, and go into OT. And then, to win the game!!! Well, let’s just say that the paramedics had to be called.
Woooooooo hooooooooooo! Go Big Orange!
David
Partially related, see this article from BP: http://www.bpnews.net/43637/liele-1st-baptist-missionary-from-america
Interesting to note is that Whitfield comes up here as being responsible for Liele’s slaveowning.
Yeah that is an interesting article.
Also found it interesting that Leile himself also owned slaves.
If we are going to say that owning slaves, always means that the slave owner was a racist – as we understand that term today – what does that mean blacks themselves to owned other blacks as slaves?
Just to return to the issue of Whitefield, I would like to point out that the Awakenings which occurred under his preaching (and they were acknowledged to be such by his contemporaries, and if he was so bad, theologically, why did he choose John Wesley to preach his funeral, and why did Wesley preach it? A good sermon by the way, but that is remembering from nearly 40 years ago.). His preaching provided a conversion experience common to people in many parts of the colonies, a factor in the uniting of the colonies for the American Revolution. Also I should mention, though I detest Whitefield’s abysmal failure in Georgia over the issue of slavery, yet he is noted for treating slaves as human beings. One convert under his preaching, noted by Dr. Kidd in his work on the Great Awakening, became a preacher and a missionary, and he was a free Black who had moved to South Carolina to work!! I should also mention that I have a family record in my library on the Stevensons, the story of two brothers and their mother who were converted under Whitefield and then moved to North Carolina. Their descendants who gave me the copy of the family records came from the brother who became a Presbyterian. The branch of the family would employ my wife as an insurance agent. A descendant from the other brother was a friend of mine and a Baptist preacher. He died about 2-3 years ago. The family line that employed my wife also produced the Adlai Stevenson, Ambassador to the United Nations. It is exceedingly difficult to judge man and his ministry. In fact, the only one capable of doing it is the Lord Himself who called that servant to the task.