Frederick Douglass: American: Speeches

Showing posts with label Speeches. Show all posts

Thursday, April 30, 2009

American Christianity and the American Slave, part 3

(See part 1 and part 2.)

Frederick Douglass was quite correct to condemn this twisting of Christ and the Bible to justify slavery in America.

The wider Christian church in America tore itself over slavery, particularly the Methodist church, which split in two over slavery in the 1840s. And Christians formed the backbone of the abolitionist movement. The Second Great Awakening was occurring about this time, which helped fuel the northern Christian response to slavery.

Yet Douglass could not countenance the hypocrisy of a nation and a church that allowed—and even celebrated—slavery. Douglass wrote in the appendix to his Narrative, perhaps thinking in the back of his mind that there was no brotherly affection among believers or forgiveness as displayed in the book of Philemon, that:

“I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation.
“He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families, –sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers, – leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate.”

Douglass is absolutely right. Like a televangelist who rages against adultery while privately having an affair, or the TV preacher who lives a life of luxury while calling his flock to a life of piety, the slave owners and their enablers talked out of both sides of their mouths. “Marriage is sacred!—but we’re going to sell your wife to a plantation in Alabama.” “Work is holy writ!—but you’ll never see a penny from your labors.”

Douglass continues:

“We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the POOR HEATHEN! ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD AND THE GOOD OF SOULS! The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other--devils dressed in angels' robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.”

WOW. As I said in part 1, the man could write.

Many atheists today attempt to claim Douglass as one of their own. But they’re completely mistaken. Douglass believed in Christ, believed in God, believed in what the Bible really said. He rejected how the church existed in America, Scotland, England, etc.—everywhere pious men preached love on Sunday and gathered funds the rest of the week to further slavery, whether through building a church with profits gained from slavery, or robbing a man (a slave) of his just compensation. He couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy, and it made him turn from organized religion—not from God.

Conclusion
Frederick Douglass rightly criticized—repeatedly—Americanized Christianity for its complicity in modern slavery. In the North Star (and later incarnations of his newspaper), in letters and before audiences in America and Great Britain, he pilloried the incongruities and outright hypocrisies of the mainstream churches, and urged people to not give their earthly treasure to support churches that propped up slavery.

The condemnation of Americanized Christianity leaves one feeling dirty and ashamed. Douglass’ words reminds me of the afore-mentioned John MacArthur, one of the strongest of the modern preachers who continually warns about the dangers of Americanized Christianity with its easy believe-ism, prosperity gospel, unbiblical “word of faith” nonsense and the incredible false teaching that has infested American churches.

I’ve never sat in a pew as a slave while the slave master who told me to seek Christ on Sunday applied the whip to me Monday through Saturday. Yet, I can at least appreciate the anger Douglass acquired at the phoniness and hypocrisy of the church in America, and his longing for pure Christianity. It’s easy for me to sit here in 2009 and argue that Douglass and other slaves who believed in God should have listened to Paul more than Moses. I doubt I would have had the fortitude to bow to Caesar while he continually sought to make me less than human.

I am a Bible-believing Christian, and I despair at the twisting of the Word of God by today’s false teachers, phony “prophets” and “faith healers” who prey on desperate people, fatten their own wallets and lead people down the wide road to destruction. But I thank God my challenges were not what the American slave faced.

American Christianity and the American Slave, part 2

Frederick Douglass addresses the paradox of Christian freedom and American slavery more directly in his second autobiography, My Bondage and My Freedom. While describing the freedom of the mind that he obtained upon absorbing The Columbian Orator, Douglass, 10 years after he escaped, let loose again on Christianity as practiced in America:

“The mighty power and heart-searching directness of truth, penetrating even the heart of a slaveholder, compelling him to yield up his earthly interests to the claims of eternal justice, were finely illustrated in the dialogue, just referred to; and from the speeches of [British statesman] Sheridan, I got a bold and powerful denunciation of oppression, and a most brilliant vindication of the rights of man. Here was, indeed, a noble acquisition. If I ever wavered under the consideration, that the Almighty, in some way, ordained slavery, and willed my enslavement for his own glory, I wavered no longer. I had now penetrated the secret of all slavery and oppression, and had ascertained their true foundation to be in the pride, the power and the avarice of man. The dialogue and the speeches were all redolent of the principles of liberty, and poured floods of light on the nature and character of slavery.

“With a book of this kind in my hand, my own human nature, and the facts of my experience, to help me, I was equal to a contest with the religious advocates of slavery, whether among the whites or among the colored people, for blindness, in this matter, is not confined to the former. I have met many religious colored people, at the south, who are under the delusion that God requires them to submit to slavery, and to wear their chains with meekness and humility. I could entertain no such nonsense as this; and I almost lost my patience when I found any colored man weak enough to believe such stuff.”

There’s a component missing from Douglass’ understanding, unfortunately, but the fault is not his. When Paul wrote “slaves, submit to your masters” (which applies to all working relationships, not just slavery itself) he was saying so from prison. Paul was beaten, whipped, stoned, shipwrecked, spat on and so on, all in the name of Christ—and not just by Romans. Romans were stepping up their persecutions—and Paul knew all about persecution, both as receiver AND giver (back when he was Saul), and the great persecution under Nero was but a few years away. He did not lightly say, “slaves, obey your masters,” knowing full well that many a master was cruel.

Of course, the admonishment was accompanied by a similar admonishment to masters to treat their slaves well, as alluded to in part 1 and explained below.

Like I wrote in the previous part, most masters in America ignored that component by treating slaves as less than human. Therefore, it was very easy for the slave to reject Christianity—or, at the very least, chose Moses over Paul. How can you tell someone to submit willfully and silently to someone who treats you worse than a piece of garbage? Paul did tell first century Christians (and all subsequent Christians) to do just that—even when the situation was intolerable. But could not a man run from such a situation? Could he not act in his own defense? The Lord warned against retaliation—but not self defense. Indeed, He even told his disciples after the Resurrection that they were to buy a sword, presumably for self-defense. In other words, a man comes at you with a knife or whatever intending to do you serious harm or death, you can defend yourself—but you cannot therefore take up your own knife and seek him out later to enact revenge.

But cannot a man run from a cruel master?

The answer is an emphatic yes. When Paul wrote to Philemon, he was not writing to a cruel master. Rather, he was writing to a fellow believer about a runaway slave whom Paul had also led to Christ, and asked that Philemon accept him back as a fellow believer, not as a slave. In America, most slave owners, overseers and traders were cruel toward their “charges.”

Therefore, under Biblical authority, as identified in Acts 4, an American slave could rightfully rebel against master by running away because the master’s exercised authority violated God’s higher law. The cruelty and indifference to the slave justifies it, because God mandated that those in positions of authority be just. When authority defies God’s will and ways, the Christian may safely rebel against authority.

Ephesians 6:5-9
Let’s look more specifically at what the Bible teaches about slave/master (as well as employer/employee) relations—information denied/ignored by slave owners and denied to the slaves:

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”

Because the last two verses were denied/ignored in American slavery, men like Douglass came to despise Americanized Christianity.

How could, in fact, a slave hear the Gospel on a Sunday from a slave master, or just about any white person for that matter, yet the rest of the week be treated no better than a piece of sack cloth? Would that not turn him from God? At the very least, it would turn him from the church.

Now, it’s true, Jesus was not out to start revolution—against Rome. Against sin, certainly, but not against the earthly powers, because Christ was about His Father’s business. That’s why, when the people repeatedly sought to make Him king to overthrow the hated Romans, He declined, because such was not His purpose.

“Treat your slaves the same way.” Rare was the American slaveholder who did that. Of course, it was easy to dismiss or ignore Paul's admonisment—really a detailed exploration of Christ's words to (paraphrased) treat others as you would like to be treated—when the slave owner did not even consider slaves to be on the same level of humanity as the white man!

The Descendants of Ham
Along those same lines, American slaveholders twisted scripture in other ways, too. At the beginning of his Narrative, Douglass describes the plight of mixed-race slaves, of which he was one. These were slaves whose father was white—often the master himself. Douglass wrote in chapter 1:

“…it is nevertheless plain that a very different-looking class of people are springing up at the south, and are now held in slavery, from those originally brought to this country from Africa; and if their increase do no other good, it will do away with the force of the argument, that God cursed Ham, and therefore American slavery is right. If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural…”

A small grain of twisted truth is at play here. After the Flood, Noah’s descendents spread out across the world (Genesis 9). His sons, Ham, Shem and Japeth, were the ancestors of the world’s people. When God scattered Ham, Japeth and Shem’s immediate descendents at the Tower of Babel, they spread out across the world. Shem’s descendents formed the Semitic peoples (Jews and Arabs) who populate what would become the Middle East, and also formed the “oriental” peoples. Japethites formed the basis of Europeans. And Ham’s descendents became the Phoenicans and other Mediterranean sea-faring peoples…and Africans. Ham’s tradition was “servile,” meaning service.

Now, take this to 17th, 18th and 19th century times, and you get a twisting of scripture that the descendents of Ham were to be slaves. The above excerpt from Douglass reads as though he wrote it with wry mirth instead of anger, as if he realized fully how ignorant the slave holders were.

* * *

In part 3, I’ll look more at Douglass’ cry against the hypocrisies of Americanized Christianity of the 19th century, and explore some conclusions.

***to be concluded***

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

American Christianity and the American Slave Part 1

One of Frederick Douglass’ most brilliant insights came at the end of his first autobiography, the Narrative. Douglass, naturally drawing upon his experiences, denounced forcefully Americanized Christianity, which he said bore no resemblance to “proper” Christianity.

Of course, the great given is that not all slave owners were Christian or even claimed to be Christian. But the majority were, and those are who Douglass raged against, as well as their enablers in the Christian church, north and south. You should read the entire appendix and let him explain himself, but here is the main thrust:

“…for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels.”

(Wow, could he ever write!) What does this mean? Essentially, Douglass is correctly rejecting false piety of the slave masters and their enablers who claim Christ but deny Christ to others. Douglass rejected the Christianity of those who used God’s Word as justification for human slavery. In short, he was saying that what was called Christianity in America wasn’t real Christianity.

There is much truth in what Douglass says. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, believers and atheists debated quite often on whether the Bible promoted or approved slavery. Latter-day evangelicals such as Hank Hanegraaff (whom I respect immensely) say that the Bible condemns slavery in no uncertain terms, yet accepts the reality of slavery by telling people how to cope with it. (Slavery in ancient times was also based on more than race: debt, prisoners of war, etc.) While true, I am not totally convinced that the condemnation is really overt—at least to the uneducated Christian.

Paul and Philemon
The Bible discusses slavery in many places, of course, but two are critical here in this discussion of Douglass, American Christianity and the slave. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul groups slave traders with liars and perjurers and “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” That one passage alone condemns slavery as well as the practice of Americanized Christianity, because although the international slave trade was forbidden in America by national law in 1807, slaves were still bought and traded in America. I wonder if Bible-believing slave owners thought of that! Or they either ignored the passage or believed that they were OK by splitting hairs and thinking that slave traders didn’t include them.

Paul also wrote a letter to Philemon concerning the latter’s slave, Onesimus. He had urged Onesimus, who ran away but then became a believer, to return to his master Philemon, also a believer, but there’s much more going on in this brief message. Mainly, the letter is about forgiveness. On the surface, it seems like a justification of slavery, but it’s not. It also seems like a condemnation of slavery, but it’s not. Rather, Paul was urging Philemon to not only accept Onesimus’ faith, but also forgive him, accept him back and possibly consider his manumission (emancipation). John MacArthur, one of the foremost authorities and preachers on scripture of this or any age, explains what’s happening in Paul’s letter (please forgive the tangent, but there’s a reason for it):

“But it must be noted, because this last one is the most popular approach, seemingly, that no place in Scripture is there any effort ever made to abolish slavery. And at no time did any prophets or preachers or teachers or apostles of the New Testament ever attack slavery. But any call to righteous living, any call to holy love, will eliminate the abuses that are any social system. In fact, quite the contrary, there are throughout the New Testament many, many texts where slavery becomes a model of Christian principle, slavery becomes a picture, as it were, as we are related to God as His slaves and His servants. And repeatedly whether Ephesians 6 or Colossians 4 or 1 Timothy 6:1 and 2, or 1 Peter 2:18, slaves are told to be obedient, submissive, loyal and faithful to their masters no matter how they act, and masters are told to treat their slaves with love and equity and kindness and fairness no matter what they might do.”

Of course, slave masters got the first part down pat, but missed the part where THEY were to treat their slaves just as they treat themselves. (A side note: many people willfully or ignorantly misinterpret the Ephesians passage that wives are to obey their husbands. They always seem to miss the part where husbands are to treat their wives like Christ treats the church, e.g., He loved and care for us so much that He died for us. Somehow, those things always get ignored. But I digress. I'll explore Ephesians more in part 2 of this essay.) To continue:

“So while nothing attacks the institution of slavery, everything in Christian principle attacks the abuses of any social system, including slavery. (Emphasis added.) Slavery was so much a part of the Roman Empire, the whole society was built on it. And by the time of Christ slavery wasn't necessarily what we think it is today, it had been modified. There had been some laws passed and in very many cases slaves were treated very well. In fact, if you read of the ancient literature around the time of Christ, you will find that most writers will say a man was better off a slave than he was a runaway slave, (and) very often better off a slave than he was even a freeman, because as a slave he was assured of care and food and a place to sleep. And if he had a good and kind master, life was very prosperous for him. Slaves by the time of Christ could be fully educated in every discipline, many of them in fact went into medical professions. Slaves could take the benefit of owning their own property and developing their own economics and their own economy. Slaves could leave their estates to their own children. So by the time of Christ slavery had moved away from many of the earlier abuses though those abuses still in some cases did occur. And we'll see that even in the book of James where some Christians who must have been as slaves or servants were treated in a very unkind and physically abusive way. But slavery was changing and the Christian gospel coming into that world and the Christian preachers were not about to change the focus on to a social issue from a spiritual one, you can only imagine that if Jesus and the Apostles had begun to attack slavery what would have happened in the Roman Empire. Sixty million slaves revolting would have been an unbelievable situation. Society would have been thrown in to such chaos and disarray and even you can imagine that when such a rebellion would have begun, slaves would have been crushed and massacred savagely.
“So, there was some reason in the changing mood of the Roman Empire to see some hope for abolishing slavery, and that hope would come through changed hearts. The seeds of the end of slavery were sown in the Roman Empire by the Christian gospel and eventually slavery died. Just as everywhere in the world slavery has died when the Christian gospel came. It certainly was true in America eventually. Christianity, you see, introduces a new relationship between a man and a man, a relationship in which external differences don't matter and we are one in Christ, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, there's neither Greek nor Jew, said Paul, circumcision or uncirumcision, barbarian or Scythian, slave or free man. This does not attack the institution of slavery. In fact, it does the very opposite of that. It tells a slave to go back to his master and be the kind of slave he ought to be to a faithful and loving master. (Emphasis added, because as alluded to, most American slaveholders were just the opposite, even though they styled themselves that way.)
“Its theme then is forgiveness, that is its message, that is its intent. The story behind the letter makes that absolutely clear.” (Source: Part 1 of John MacArthur’s 1991 four-part sermon series on Philemon)

So, while God doesn’t approve of slavery, He uses slavery to further His own means: Saving us.
Yet, many if not most American Christian slave holders used what the Bible said as a flat-out justification for slavery. Instead of the forgiveness in Philemon, they saw “slaves, obey your masters” in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, completely taking what Paul was saying out of context. They saw that slaves were to obey, but ignored the fact that they were to treat them as they treated themselves.

* * *
In part 2, I’ll look specifically at what Paul said to the Ephesians, and how that relates to American slavery.

***continued***