TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
Introduction: Slavery was the precipitating issue that led to the birth of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. This is a sad but undeniable fact. During our first twenty years, we turned a blind eye to the sin of slavery. Many prominent Southern Baptists were also unapologetic slaveholders. For one hundred years after legal emancipation, we did not treat the children of former slaves as our brothers and sisters in Christ. Southern Baptists resisted reconstruction in the 1870s and helped form the Ku Klux Kan in the 1880s. We were instrumental in passing "Jim Crow" laws entrenching a system of separate and unequal race groupings. Southern Baptists participated in decades of racist intimidation and lynchings. Since the 1960s, we have tried to escape our legacy of slavery, bigotry, and racism. In spite of our tremendous contribution to the cause of Christ and in spite of a publicized resolution of reconciliation in 1995, Southern Baptists continue to be tarred with the brush of racism. The narrative of Baptists in America cannot be separated from the narrative of slavery in America. This research paper will examine the history of Baptists in five historical periods. These periods were suggested by Robert A. Baker (McBeth, Heritage, p 383). The first period began in 1619 with the introduction of the first Africans slaves in the English colonies. The second period began in 1801, about the time that England and the rest of the world were outlawing the slave trade. This was a time when Baptists and all Americans debated the economics of slavery. The third period began in 1831 with a debate among Baptists concerning the morality of America's "peculiar institution". A fourth period began in 1841 when the slavery controversy moved from a moral debate to political action and finally to full scale war. The slavery controversy officially ended with the emancipation of slaves in 1865. A fifth period continues to this day, with Southern Baptists moving from antagonism toward African-Americans toward reconciliation with them. A final section deals with a Resolution on Racial Reconciliation issued by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1995. II. The Beginnings of Slavery in America (1619-1800) One decade after John Smith founded a colony in Virginia, a consignment of black servants arrived in Jamestown. In 1619 John Rolfe reported, "About the last of August came a Dutch man of-Warre that sold us 20 negars". Upon their arrival, the Africans were looked upon as indentured servants, who would work their allotted time and then be set free. Soon their local status became unclear. Although the Normans had abolished slavery in England more than six centuries earlier, some settlers contended that they had acquired these Africans outright for life. Within a few years, temporary servanthood for Africans hardened into perpetual slavery. One court case and two laws institutionalized slavery in Virginia. In 1637 Colonial courts sentenced a runaway slave named Punch to serve for his master duranta vita, that is, for the duration of his lifetime. The fiction of indentured servitude passed for Africans. In one piece of legislation in 1662, the Colonial government provided that a child born of a slave mother took the mothers status. In a second piece of legislation in 1667, Virginia determined that "the conferring of baptism does not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom". This allowed Southern planters to Christianize slaves without having to free them. Other states soon passed laws similar to Virginia and slavery became institutionalized in about one-half of the English colonies. Baptists were not a part of the establishment of slavery in America for the obvious reason that Baptists did not arrive in the South until 1672, and did not organize a church in Virginia until 1714. Most Virginians were Anglican and displayed greater fervor for the tobacco trade than for religion. Slavery became established across the South. In 1711 the First Baptist Church of Charleston, South Carolina, asked the Western Association in England about the punishment of slaves. The reply from England was: "We finde by Scripture, that 'tis lawfull to buy them, Gen. 17.13, 23, 27. And if lawfull to buy them 'tis lawfull to keep them in order, and under government; and for self-preservation, punish them to prevent farther mischief" (McBeth, Heritage, p 198). The First Great Awakening brought tremendous growth to American Baptists. This was especially true in the South. By 1790 Virginia had the largest Baptist population of any state in America, with 210 churches and 20,861 members. Virginia Baptists were split on the issue of slavery. Some called slavery "a breach of divine law". Others defended their way of life. Baptists and slavery arrived in the New World at about the same time. Roger Williams established the first America Baptist Church in 1639 in Rhode Island. At the same time in Virginia, servants brought from Africa were being reduced to slaves. By 1800 both Baptists and slavery were firmly established in the new American Republic. III. The Economic Controversy over Slavery (1801-1830) Before 1801, slavery was not a sectional issue among Baptists. In fact there was probably more anti-slave activity in the South than in the North. Two events changed the situation at the beginning of the 19th century and shaped slavery into an economic issue. First, on March 25, 1807, Great Britain abolished the slave trade. This struggle to end trade in human flesh was accomplished nearly single-handedly by William Wilberforce. With England out of the slave trade, no more Africans were being brought to America as chattel. The United States soon passed a law abolishing the import of African slaves. Trade in slaves that once brought immense wealth to northern traders was gone. Slavery was no longer profitable in the North. In addition, at the same moment that Africans ceased to arrive at southern plantations, immigrants began to pour into northern factories bringing with them an anti-slavery sentiment. v In the South the opposite was happening. Slaves were becoming more profitable to their masters. Before Eli Witney invented the Cotton Gin in 1792, farming for cotton was less profitable than farming for corn or tobacco. Slavery might have petered out on its own. After the cotton gin, and the exploding demand for textiles in England, cotton became king in the South. Slaves planted, cultured, picked, and packed the cotton. As northern cities were industrializing the plantation system in the south expanded. Slaves became a coveted property in the Southern States. It is said the when slaves were finally emancipated, the wealth of a devastated south was literally cut in half. By 1830, the trend was apparent. If for no other reasons than economic, the North would drift toward an abolition stance while the South would drift toward a rigorous defense of slavery. During the same timeframe, Baptists in the North and Baptists in the South were viewing the institution of slavery through different lenses. IV. The Moral Controversy over Slavery (1831-1840) During the decade of the 1830s the economic debate gave way to a moral debate. With new economic realities, Baptist opinion took on a definite North/South polarity. Positions became hardened. A slave uprising by Denmark Vessey in South Carolina and another by Nat Turner in Virginia tended to silence antislavery voices in the South. Baptists in the North either voiced anti-slavery sentiments or remained neutral for the sake of unity. Baptists in the South either defended slavery or remained neutral for the sake of unity. Neutral voices on both sides were becoming more faint. Several prominent Baptist preachers were also large slaveholders. One of them, named Richard Furman, wrote a detailed defense of slavery in 1833. His defense became a template for the southern defense of slavery. His main points were: (1) After recent slave rebellions we cannot possibly emancipate slaves. They would kill us or we would kill them. (2) The right to hold slaves is clearly established in scripture by precept and by example. The Old Testament even instructed us how to purchase slaves. (3) The ancient empires were full of slaves. Yet in the New Testament, the apostles never talked against slavery. In things purely spiritual, master and slave enjoy the same privileges, but their relationship as master and slave is not dissolved. (4) Slaves are better off now as Christians and cared-for in America than they were as pagan and destitute in Africa. (5) Slavery can be a state of tolerable happiness when compared to the plight of many poor in countries that are reputed to be free. (McBeth, Sourcebook, p 252-5). In 1834 Britain abolished slavery in its colonies. In 1835 three English Baptist abolitionists made a tour of America, both North and South. Their visit further polarized American Baptists. The North became increasingly anti-slavery. In 1835, the New York Convention called upon Southern Baptists to "confess before heaven and earth the sinfulness of holding slaves; admit it to be not only a misfortune, but a crime" (McBeth, Heritage, p 385). In 1840 two Baptist organizations were begun: The American Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention in New York, and the American Baptist Free Mission Society in Boston. Both organizations urged Southern Baptists to give up their slaves and to confess their sin. V. The Political Controversy over Slavery (1841- 1865) By 1841 the dye was cast. The controversy moved from moral debate to political action. By 1845 National Baptists were divided into separate camps North and South. This national religious schism was bloodless, but it proved to be the harbinger of a bloody disaster to come. In 1860 Northern Baptists in blue uniforms would be battling Southern Baptists in gray uniforms. The lives of many Americans, including many Baptists, would be lost. Baptist leaders did all they could to remain neutral at triennial meetings in 1841 and 1843. At these national conventions, leaders chose to focus on Baptist mission work and to argue that other issues - like slavery - were outside their jurisdiction. They adopted this stance: "Our cooperation in this body does not imply any sympathy either with slavery or anti-slavery, as to which societies and individuals are left free and uncommitted as if there were no such cooperation." National leaders referred to the raising of the slavery issue by either side as a "diversion" or as an "irrelevant subject". Three events occurred after 1843 that brought this "diversion" to center stage and effected a schism by 1845. Since National leaders would not permit pro-slavery or anti-slavery extremists to directly inject the "irrelevant subject" of slavery, an extremist would have to couple slavery with the primary focus of the National Society which was missions. This happened in 1844 at a meeting of the Home Mission Society. A member named Brother Adlam introduced a resolution that owning slaves "would prove no barrier" to appointment by the Society. After heated debate this resolution was voted down in the name of neutrality. But in view of the passion generated by this debate, a follow-up resolution was approved calling for "the consideration of the subject of an amicable dissolution of this Society". This marked the beginning of the end. A second event, occurring later in 1844, was dubbed the "Georgia Test Case". In this instance, Georgia Baptists chose James E. Reeve, a slave owner, for appointment as a home missionary and raised money for his support. As a strategy to remain neutral, the national board declined to act upon the Reeve appointment, recognizing that Georgia had sent them a "test case". A third event occurring in early 1845 was called the "Alabama Resolutions". In this instance the Alabama convention wrote a letter to the Board of the Triennial Convention asking if slave holders could be appointed as foreign missionaries. The letter also suggested that local churches should play a role in appointed missionaries. The national board was split down the middle on how to respond to the Alabama board. A neutral stance no longer seemed tenable. The national board replied with familiar calls for neutrality and unity, but ended with the sentence, "one thing is certain; we can never be a party to any arrangement that would imply approbation of slavery." This last sentence provoked Southern Baptists and proved to be the last straw. Baptists in the South would gather together to propose a Southern organization. This new organization would continue foreign missions as a primary Baptist concern but would also deal with other interests of the Baptist denomination in the South, and subtle reference to slavery. On May 8, 1845, delegates from various Southern conventions withdrew from the Triennial meeting in the North and instead met in Augusta, Georgia. William B. Johnson of South Carolina was the principal architect of this schismatic convention. He acknowledged that "a painful division has taken place", but added that the rupture did not extend to foundation principles. Johnson blamed the division on Northern Baptists who violated the constitution of the mission societies which make no mention of slavery. Johnson also stated that the new Southern Baptist convention was returning to the original basis of Baptist missionary work. He also claimed that the division was not about slavery at all but about the extension of the Messiah's kingdom. The political debate about slavery did not end with the establishment of the Southern Baptist Convention. It would continue for another twenty years. Northern Baptists had no army - and more significantly - no interest in using force to keep their religious movement united. Unlike the United Baptists of America, the United States of America would not divide amicably. Northerners would not allow their "erring brothers go in peace". The slavery controversy would end on the battlefield. There would be a national blood atonement for the national sin of slavery. VI. The Enduring Racist Legacy of Slavery (1866 - present) The focus of this research paper has been upon "Baptists and the Slavery Controversy". However, the controversy does not end with the abolishment of chattel slavery in 1865. The thirteenth amendment to U.S. Constitution reads, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Our government changed the law with the stroke of a pen. It proved more difficult to change the hearts and attitudes of a people. For 100 years the former confederate states passed every law possible to thwart the legitimate aspirations of former slaves. They did this in the guise of state's rights. The Southern attitude is well reflected in a Georgia editorial in 1883, "But we do not believe that "all men are created equal", as the Declaration of Independence declares them to be; nor that they will ever become equal in this world, and perhaps not in the world to come. We believe that some of these various races are inferior to others in physical organization, in intellectual ability, and in capacity for development, political, social, moral or religious, and that they will remain until the end of time We think that our own race [those known as the Southern People] is incomparably superior to any other. We think that any legislation, preaching, teaching or action, which tends to promote great intermingling, unnecessarily, is unwise and wrong. This is our "Confession of Faith". We think that we are orthodox. If we are not so, we should be glad for some one to point our the heresy. (McBeth, Sourcebook, p 286). The above statement unmasks the true nature of American slavery and indicates why the "Slavery Controversy" continues to this day. Slavery in America was only secondarily about involuntary servitude. It was primarily about racial superiority. Our brand of slavery was of an especially virulent type because it was race based. Because we are Americans and this was our version of slavery, this concept of a "racist slavery" as a double sin is often lost on us. In 1833 Richard Furman rightly pointed out that all ancient cultures practiced slavery. What he overlooked, knowingly or not, was that all of these slave systems were race neutral. An ancient Hebrew could enslave a fellow Hebrew for bad debt. In the Greek world, a black man of wealth could become the master and a poor white man the slave. Ancient slavery was a great abomination, but it was an "equal opportunity" abomination. When the Normans outlawed slavery in England, it was in their own interest. They knew that someday the tables could be turned and the Norman masters could become the slaves of Saxons. This was not the case in American racist slavery. I wonder. If Richard Furman were kidnapped and shipped to an African slave state, would he still have defended the right of some people to enslave others? Richard Furman and other anti-bellum Baptist preachers were not so much defending the institution of slavery as they were defending institutional racism. I think that this distinction is lost when looking back into Baptist History. Perhaps this distinction is lost to most Americans. This is why 136 years after the demise of slavery, racism continues to haunt the American landscape. It was this particular racist element of American slavery that poisons America to this very day. VII. The Resolution on Racial Reconciliation (1995) After the Second World War, racial attitudes began to change slowly. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, and the Supreme Court found in favor of Brown verses the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas. Long-standing laws that prohibited discrimination were finally being enforced. Drinking fountains and public accommodations were becoming open to all races. These activities reached a crescendo in the 1960s with the ministry and martyrdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1968, shortly after the death of Dr. King, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a statement on the "Racial Crisis in America" (McBeth, Sourcebook, p 523). Many positive statements were made like, "We will respect every individual as a person possessing inherent dignity and worth growing out of his creation in the image of God" and "We appeal to our fellow Southern Baptists to join us in self-examination under the Spirit of God and to accept the present crisis as a challenge form God to strive for reconciliation by love." In spite of these positive statements, the SBC statement does appear self-serving in places: "We urge all leaders and supporters of minority groups to encourage their followers to exercise Christian concern and respect for the person and property of others " Is this an echo from the ante-bellum South showing a fear of slave insurrection? The SBC also appears to be in denial when is says "From the beginning of the Southern Baptist Convention, and indeed in organized Baptist life, we have affirmed God's love for all men of all continents and colors, of all religions and races." Technically, I suppose this is true. They affirmed God's love for their chattel even as abused them. On the one-hundred fiftieth anniversary of the Southern Baptist Convention, the SBC finally and unequivocally reputed its racist past. Of course this formal repudiation of its racist past come much too late. For many critics it is "too little too late". I believe that Baptists undertook this sincere and symbolic resolution upon a symbolic date. In 1995 the SBC (speaking on my behalf as well) admitted that "many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery." We apologized "to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty." We asked "forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters" and committed "ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry." We promised to pursue "racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ". This resolution does not mark the end of racism in Baptist life, but I do believe that it does mark a goal toward which we recovering racists can aim. Because I feel that this Resolution is particularly important, I have attached a copy of it to this research paper. VIII. Conclusion In commenting upon the SBC resolution, Jack E. White says "Forgive me for being underwhelmed by this astonishingly belated act of contrition from the nation's largest Protestant denomination." He goes on to question the motives of the SBC. Are they really trying to lure more white converts? Are they trying to build a Fundamentalist coalition with Black Fundamentalists? Are they making an empty gesture for somebody else's sins? I believe that this reaction by an African-American is a part of the bitter harvest Southern Baptists continue harvest. One statement, no matter how heartfelt, can over overcome decades of mistrust. As Mr. White goes on to say, Southern Baptists must lay out a real plan in which they say what they are going to do specifically to demonstrate good faith and rectify relations with blacks. There is so much good in the Southern Baptists. We can overcome our past. We can reconcile with a group we once enslaved and demeaned. We have spoken the right words. But as our Lord points out "if you know things, blessed are you if you do them". BIBLIOGRAPHY: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1995/950703/950703.dividingline.html
|