The View From 1776

Why did slavery divide the Church so widely?
By John M. DeMassa, Ph.D.

It remains a sad but none-the-less historical fact that the church divided over slavery. The question is why? The short answer is that the church was torn between two masters.

Gaustaud (Edwin Gaustad, Leigh Schmidt, The Religious History of America, Harper Collins, 2002) teaches that many believers were strongly and vociferously against slavery. To name a few popular examples, Garrison published “The Liberator” (1831), The New England Anti-Slavery Society was created, Channing rails against slavery ("An institution so founded in wrong” (1835), Lovejoy “What is morally wrong cannot be politically right” (early 1800’s), Douglass “a system of gigantic evil,” Payne “it enslaves man (1839),” Weld “The Bible Against Slavery (1837)” , and Stowe writes “Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852).

However, many professing Christians were for the practice (Methodist preacher Cartwright rails against other preachers who attack slavery; Howe (Dutch Reformed Minister) argues Bible demonstrates slavery is no sin (1855), Catholic Bishop England (d.1842) “Natural law (does not) prohibit dominion of one man over another...” Baptist spokesman Furman explains “(holding of slaves) is firmly established in the Bible (d.1825)”. Further some religious minded navigated the issue by declaring the church should steer clear of the state issue of slavery (South Carolina Lutherans 1836).

Gaustad explains that the Bible was tossed about like a “rag doll,” quoted to support slavery and quoted to attack it.

Schism was inevitable and the Methodists gave way first (1844). Southern Methodist preacher, Bishop Capers charges Northern abolitionists with “erroneous” conclusions regarding interpretation of the scriptures. Boston Methodists (1843) decry Southern claims, and the following year schism came (1844). The Methodist bond did not hold as Gaustaud observes (Gaustaud, p.193).

A Baptist Schism followed (1845), and again between Southern and Northern members. A black Baptist preacher, Nathaniel Paul (d.1839), viewed slavery as “a barrier...to ward off the influence of divine grace”, and celebrated New York’s Emancipation day (July 4, 1827). Another black Christian, David Walker (d.1830) saw “doom” for the country if slavery continued and black preacher Nat Turner (d.1831) held that judgment was at hand and even led a rebellion.

In 1857 the Presbyterians also split. Again the south typically supported the practice as declarations consistently show, “slavery is nowhere condemned in the Bible” (1835), while Northerners condemned the practice. As a result of the three major denominational splits, missions were severely hindered and the evangelical hope of revival dashed.

Many believers, while having their affections for the Lord, were none-the-less profiting by cheap slave labor bringing economic prosperity. Of course, for the unbeliever, profit alone (likely) largely motivated, with minimal conscience about the untidy truth of trampled liberty or moral implications in the Bible. The church was divided because of their two affairs- economic prosperity, on the one hand and faith, on the other. The visible church had two masters, if you like.

Now here is an interesting question. Given the current secular materialist religion of the United States today, and assuming slavery was still practiced, I wonder if Civil War would erupt over the matter. How would the church respond today, if slavery was still practiced?

Perhaps some would quickly respond: “Civil War.” Churchmen would take to the streets of Washington and pound down the doors of Congress to change the matter: “God does not allow so grievous a sin!” Others would cry “Human Rights, Human Rights! Such an injustice cannot stand! Things would never get to Civil War or even and extreme protest! Never, never!”

Perhaps.

However, if you will allow it in our court for discussion, consider the abortion question. Abortion is an industry worth some billions of dollars (like slavery) to clinicians, doctors, lawyers, nurses etc. It is government funded and allowed (like slavery) and privately funded (like slavery) and wholeheartedly supported by countless millions (like slavery) and many “professing” Christians who deeply believe it is a women’s right-as the cliché goes (like slavery)(1).

Many of the same objections to slavery could be employed to denounce abortion, not the least of which is the trampling of the Image of God and the Right to Life both of which enjoy direct and indirect support in the Bible.

Still, many, who throw their hands in the air on Sundays with tearful eyes, turn their eyes away from pro-choice editorials, columns or the roadside billboards or bumper stickers advocating a pro-choice position. Many simply drive by the so called “Women’s Reproductive and Health Clinics” a circumlocution for infant death house. Many would think it a bother or not their problem to engage the matter.

The point is simply this: if the “faithful” allow abortion to stand with all of its obvious and heinous implications, they might well allow slavery to stand today.

It is illustrative to observe that the noble words “In God We Trust” are stamped on cheap metal, where many forsake the former and serve the later. Are we also torn between two Masters? Are we so different from the antebellum Americans and Christians?

To paraphrase Frederick Douglass, the pulpit and the (operating table) stand in the same neighborhood. Does this bother us? What does the church say about this neo-slavery, and more importantly what will the church do? Which master do you serve?

(1) e.g.http://elroy.net/ehr/aboutelroy.html, http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=532, etc)