Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are there no Baptists who are offended by the pro-slavery origins of their church?
Do they remain in their church as a kind of soft-racist statement?
This is a fair question. Please be honest and respectful.
I am no longer a Southern Baptist---but I left over other issues. In 1995 the SBC drafted a formal statement of apology. That apology and the acceptance of the apology by a black pastor was published again in 2009
I'm on an IPad right now and unable to file the link, but the following is from an NPR transcript:
JENNIFER LUDDEN, host:
There's some additional background to this story of two Southern Baptist churches, one black and one white, merging. Slavery had split the Baptist church between North and South in 1845, but a century and a half later, in 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a formal apology for its earlier support of slavery and segregation.
Here's Richard Land, a former head of the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission, summarizing that historic shift.
Mr. RICHARD LAND (Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission): Well, it says that slavery played a role in the formation of the convention and that too often we had not acted to promote racial equality, and we apologize for that. We lament that. We grieve over that and we repent of it and we ask for the forgiveness of our African-American brothers and sisters.
LUDDEN: The plea also asked forgiveness for Southern Baptists having failed to support the civil rights movement. At the time of the apology, before a meeting of 25,000 Southern Baptist delegates, Reverend Gary Frost of Ohio delivered this response.
Reverend GARY FROST: On behalf of my black brothers and sisters, we accept your apology and we extend to you our forgiveness in the name of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Ephesians Chapter 4, Verses 31 and 32, say let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice, and be kind, one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you.
Because of Jesus Christ our lord and savior and his great love toward us, we extend that same love, forgiveness, grace and mercy towards you. We pray that the genuineness of your repentance will be reflected in your attitudes and in your actions. We forgive you, for Christ's sake, amen.
LUDDEN: That was Reverend Gary Frost of Ohio, accepting the Southern Baptist Convention's 1995 apology for racism.
The idea that bothers me the most is that Southern Baptists would be fine with placing economics over human beings. I can't find anything in the Bible to justify it. For that reason a Southern Baptist could never truly call himself a follower of Jesus Christ. Even today, that is where I would expect to find a lot of racist or backwards thinking people who would probably find other denominations too progressive.
I can say with full confidence that there is nothing biblical or Christ like about the SBC. That is how I feel. That racism far outweighs anything good in the SBC. I don't find anything in the Bible to justify their backwards attitudes. To me the Bible is extremely forward thinking and progressive, when read and understood correctly. But there are so many Christians who are the exact opposite.
There are good people in the SBC, but that is still the church where you would expect the most racist people to be attracted to.
They are predominantly white, and they believe in a Hell for all nonbelievers to go to. Even their doctrine has an odd element of racism. I just feel like that racist attitude must be there for some of the older members who would like to go back in time to when racism was more acceptable. Because they are pretty open in their backwards attitudes regarding women and homosexuals, even to this day.
Last edited by OzzyRules; 06-14-2017 at 06:08 AM..
I would have thought most slave holders thought themselves some kind of Christians - not just Baptist - but that is just me speculating. The history of America is so very dark.
What I resent is the brainwashing done to children my age and forward about us being the greatest nation on earth. It all starts in elementary school with the pledge of allegiance to the flag. How weird is it if you really think about it. Making 5-6 year old children recite this every morning:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all
Are there no Baptists who are offended by the pro-slavery origins of their church?
Do they remain in their church as a kind of soft-racist statement?
This is a fair question. Please be honest and respectful.
Slavery was part of normal culture back then. It wasn't some racist endeavor as it is portrayed today.
Philemon was a slave who ran away and stole property I think. Paul encouraged him to return to his master, and gave him a letter to gave to his master urging mercy and not to treat him harshly for his misdeeds.
We follow Christ because of Christ, not because of the deeds of anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The idea that bothers me the most is that Southern Baptists would be fine with placing economics over human beings. I can't find anything in the Bible to justify it. For that reason a Southern Baptist could never truly call himself a follower of Jesus Christ. Even today, that is where I would expect to find a lot of racist or backwards thinking people who would probably find other denominations too progressive.
I can say with full confidence that there is nothing biblical or Christ like about the SBC. That is how I feel. That racism far outweighs anything good in the SBC. I don't find anything in the Bible to justify their backwards attitudes. To me the Bible is extremely forward thinking and progressive, when read and understood correctly. But there are so many Christians who are the exact opposite.
There are good people in the SBC, but that is still the church where you would expect the most racist people to be attracted to.
They are predominantly white, and they believe in a Hell for all nonbelievers to go to. Even their doctrine has an odd element of racism. I just feel like that racist attitude must be there for some of the older members who would like to go back in time to when racism was more acceptable. Because they are pretty open in their backwards attitudes regarding women and homosexuals, even to this day.
Numerous mis-statements and incorrect presumptions here.
What do you mean the Bible is forward thinking and progressive?
Slavery was part of normal culture back then. It wasn't some racist endeavor as it is portrayed today.
Philemon was a slave who ran away and stole property I think. Paul encouraged him to return to his master, and gave him a letter to gave to his master urging mercy and not to treat him harshly for his misdeeds.
We follow Christ because of Christ, not because of the deeds of anyone else.
Numerous mis-statements and incorrect presumptions here.
What do you mean the Bible is forward thinking and progressive?
Yes, we would do well to remember god endorsed and supported slavery, even Paul required slaves stay with their owners and be happy.
So since Paul supposedly spoke for god and Christ, the great slave rebellion here in America must have been against god...
Are you suggesting the bible is backwards and regressive?
Slavery was part of normal culture back then. It wasn't some racist endeavor as it is portrayed today.
Yes, it was.
There were American Christians pointing out that slavery was a sin as far back as the late 1600s--when it was just getting started. The first American Abolitionist was Roger Williams--the same man who founded the first Baptist congregation in America.
The American Baptist Convention right off the bat was strongly anti-slavery. In fact, they didn't even permit their members to have hired servants. The reason the southern Baptist split from the American Baptist Convention was specifically so that they could retain their slaves--it was all about slavery.
When the Constitution was being ratified, everyone--even the southern slaveholding delegates--acknowledged that slavery was a sin. By 1800, slavery was known to be a sin among all Western Christians. The Pope had banned it for Catholics. Protestant nations were moving against it.
It wasn't until then--into the early 1800s--that southern slaveholders invented bible-sounding rationales for slavery.
Not even in early years of Christianity had any theologians done that. For instance, there were Popes in prior centuries who had acquiesced to slavery as a permitted operation of kings under Romans 13--like war--but they never tried to rationalize it as biblically righteous in the sight of God. That did not happen until the early 1800s in the American south.
So, no, slavery was never considered righteous by most Christians. Not ever.
Quote:
Philemon was a slave who ran away and stole property I think. Paul encouraged him to return to his master, and gave him a letter to gave to his master urging mercy and not to treat him harshly for his misdeeds.
Paul had already deemed every form of slavery a sin except debt slavery (which still goes on today in the form of "unsecured loans"). Of Onesimus--a debt slave--Paul said to Philemon, "Whatever he owes you, put it on my account...but don't forget you owe me your life."
Then Paul said: "Receive him not as a slave but as a dear brother."
What part of "not as a slave" is hard to understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
Yes, we would do well to remember god endorsed and supported slavery, even Paul required slaves stay with their owners and be happy.
So since Paul supposedly spoke for god and Christ, the great slave rebellion here in America must have been against god...
It was not Paul's mission to fix the Roman empire. Paul expected Jesus to return at any moment--certainly within his own lifetime--so he wrote people to be the best Christians they could be in their current circumstances, having an expectation that the wait would be short.
Yet, Paul did say that taking slaves violently was a sin, and he told Christians not to become slaves voluntarily (which would be incurring debts).
But to those Christians who owned slave masters, Paul said this:
Quote:
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.
This verse changes everything about the institution of slavery for Christians.
This says to "masters" that they are all equally slaves to Christ, which means those who used to be their personal property are now their responsibilities, for whose welfare Christ will hold the "masters" accountable as stewards (which puts them into the Luke 12 category).
Are there no Baptists who are offended by the pro-slavery origins of their church?
Do they remain in their church as a kind of soft-racist statement?
This is a fair question. Please be honest and respectful.
I'm not SBC, but I will say that I do not know a Baptist, SBC or not, that believes slavery was a good thing, or is proud of slavery. You might as well ask the same question to the Democrat party. They were pro slavery. That doesn't mean that the current DNC is, but their history is in being pro-slavery. It doesn't mean anyone alive today favors it.
Yes, we would do well to remember god endorsed and supported slavery, even Paul required slaves stay with their owners and be happy.
So since Paul supposedly spoke for god and Christ, the great slave rebellion here in America must have been against god...
Are you suggesting the bible is backwards and regressive?
No. God did not endorse or support it. It was a fact of life. Nowhere does God make any such statement that "slavery is good". To suggest that is patently dishonest.
No. God did not endorse or support it. It was a fact of life. Nowhere does God make any such statement that "slavery is good". To suggest that is patently dishonest.
He just gave rules on how to beat them until they're nearly dead. But tsk-tsked if they beat them to death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
