SBC history...

[seebs]

I'm wondering if anyone here knows a great deal about the early theology and history of the SBC.

I was once in a discussion in which someone told me that, since they thought it was okay to hold slaves, the founders of the SBC must not have read the Bible. I'm not a Baptist myself, but I found this incredibly offensive.

What I'm curious about is how some of the Baptist members have to contribute on how it came to pass that a bunch of decent, God-fearing men came to hold the belief that it was reasonable for them to hold slaves, and unreasonable for others to tell them not to.

I find the whole period unsettling; I fall back on it as a reminder that I can be very, very, sure of my position on an issue, and still be wrong.

 

[eldermike]

I would also suggest that you ask the God fearing factory owners in Boston why the thought they could buy cotton for almost nothing. This issue is deeper than you present it here. Cultural changes come at a high cost to some. Cultural changes are the changes wars are made from.

You seem to think that the Baptists of the south were for slavery. That might be ture to some extent but not all were for slavery. But understand that those caught in a culture and those outside it can have different ideas as to how to manage the issue. I think you are confusing the reality of the situation with some version of it's written history.

 

[seebs]

Oh, certainly. There are many, many, people who contributed to the situation... But I'm mostly looking at the theology, not the economics. Many of these people were not just arguing for the right of others to keep slaves, but for their own slaves... While I suppose being clergy is labor-intensive, I'm not sure it's the kind of labor-intensive where owning slaves would help much.

However, my understanding is that the specific fracture point between the Northern and Southern Baptists was the question of whether clergy could own slaves; so, at least, the people who signed that original document were almost all at least partially defending slavery on moral grounds.

 

[eldermike]

I can't disagree with the idea that slavery was defended as a moral issue by some within the southern Baptist church. But I can point to how the SBC organized after the split as evidence that local churches were untrusting of the SBC leadership. Local SBC churches are not bound by any move of the SBC, then and now.

So, specifically speaking about the SBC leadership of the day, I agree. But to be totally fair, that was a handful of people. In contrast to today's information age it;s difficult to understand that a few people had control of the information flow. In today's information age it's not easy to imagine such events.

 

[seebs]

Yeah.

What bothers me most, I think, about this is not that these people were wrong, but the number of people I've seen basically retroactively say "well, they weren't real Christians at all". I find that very disturbing. Reading other writings by some of the same clergy who authored the pro-slavery positions, I have generally found them to be insightful men of great faith. I would rather accept that some Christians may be blind to a grave error because of their cultural context or upbringing, than believe that such men were not Christians at all, personally.

I often wonder what we believe today that, in a hundred years, people will be disclaiming so vociferously. The Golden Rule seems to suggest that I would do better to try to understand what these people were trying to defend, than to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[eldermike]

Have you studied "root sins"? Some say there are 7, others claim that there is only one. There are some good books on the subject. You will find that man has and will continue to do what his nature leads him to. Greed is the offspring of covetousness. Greed is the reason for slavery and any defense of it.

You are right in wanting to know the reason. The reason is Adam, the answer is Jesus.

 

[seebs]

I mostly want to understand the arguments people used. I assume that, human nature being what it is, I am probably using many of the same arguments to defend things that I currently think are perfectly reasonable.

 

[theseed]

I mostly want to understand the arguments people used. I assume that, human nature being what it is, I am probably using many of the same arguments to defend things that I currently think are perfectly reasonable.

They didn't really use any arguments, they just said they wanted slaves. It's not hard to get slavery out of the bible. The bible condones slavery, even in the NT. Look at the book of Philemon--it's really not a stretch.

Here is a quote from wikipedia

The Southern Baptist Convention was formed May 8-12, 1845 in Augusta, Georgia. Its first president was William Bullein Johnson (1782-1862), who was president of the Triennial Convention in 1841. The immediate, though not only, cause was the controversy over slavery between Northeners and Southerners within the Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society. Though the bodies were theoretically neutral, many Baptists in the South did not believe the assurances of neutrality. They knew several leaders were engaged in abolitionist activity. To test this, Georgia Baptists recommended James E. Reeve, a slaveholder, to the Home Mission Society as a missionary in the South. The Society did not appoint Reeve, presumably not on the basis of his being a slaveholder, but because the Georgia Baptists wished his appointment specifically because he was a slaveholder. Baptists from the South subsequently broke from this organization and formed the new convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

I'm sure there were Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and others that though slavery was right, and some that thought it was wrong. I know that Quakers always thought it was wrong, but we can't all be as good as the Quakers now can we? They helped slaves, including, Harriet Tubman, escape to the North.

 

[theseed]

I mostly want to understand the arguments people used. I assume that, human nature being what it is, I am probably using many of the same arguments to defend things that I currently think are perfectly reasonable.

You also have to realize that American slavery is not about theology or the bible, but money. The rich did not want to give up slavery, because it was a huge economic benefit. They had free labor to work all their large plantations.

It's easy for someone who does not own slaves to criticize those who do.

 

[seebs]

Actually, Quakers weren't always against slavery. John Woolman was against slavery, and he walked around preaching about it constantly until they were convinced. I will say that I think Quaker process made this possible; a single man with a clear leading of the Spirit can easily spread an idea broadly and quickly among people who take the time to listen to him.

One thing I was much impressed by was the official apology issued by the SBC for their previous stance on the issue. Apologies are quite rare, and it's nice to see people with the courage to make them. The theological history of slavery and Christianity fascinates me, with a great number of curious half-way positions having been formed over the years.

 

[seebs]

It's easy for someone who does not own slaves to criticize those who do.

Indeed. While it's easy for me to say, living the lifestyle I do, that it's "obvious" that slavery is problematic, I wonder whether I would consider it true, let alone obvious, had I been raised in a culture which accepted this as normal, and was dependant on it economically.

 

[PegasusOnFire]

here is a site for you. I hope it helps. http://www.sbc.net/

 

[Blackhawk]

Well the early Southern Baptists did support slavery. Eldermike said some but I hink most did. Now many were not rich enough to own slaves themselves and probably did not have the time to think about such things but I believe that if they were asked that they would of said that they supported it. I think the split in the Baptists was a lot like the civil war itself. The issue of slavery was not exactly the issue. The issue was whether the ones in control of the who could be missionaries would send soneone to the field who owned slaves. So it was about slavery but not really. It was really about more. It was about Southern society vs. Northern society. Solavery had much to do with it but I am sure many who did not condone slavery still sided with the South because they were upset that others were telling them what to do or who could they send and not.

But I do not think that we can say that they were not Christians because they believed in something that was wrong but was culturally acceptable. Waht do we today believe in that is culturally acceptable but wrong? I do not know but I am sure that there will be somethings that we do find unacceptable in 100 years.

So I I think I agree with Seebs here. That although it was not a right thing to believe in and that we should not sugar coat or justify that we also should not act like we are so much better than they are. Maybe we should take the plank out of our own eyes before we condemn others.

 

[bleechers]

If it hasn't been mentioned, let me recommend two books:

1. The Pilgrim Church by E. H. Broadbent

2. The Trail of Blood - The Story of the Baptists (from the 1st Century through recent history)

Hope these help.