From personal experience I know that many African-Americans embrace Christianity wholeheartedly. At the same time, however, many of these same African-Americans complain about how their ancestors were brought to these shores against their wills as slaves.
Now, I’m assuming that Christianity is essentially a “white” religion that had no counterpart in the African cultures from which many of the slaves were brought. Which makes me wonder why so many African-Americans not only accept Christianity, but often do so with a fervor unrivaled by other demographic groups here in the U.S.
I personally find the whole concept of slavery to be utterly abhorrent. And yet, when I see descendants of slaves wholeheartedly embrace the religion of their former captors, I have to wonder whether they think that something good came out of slavery after all. In other words, had their ancestors never been brought here as slaves, they would never have Found Jesus[sup]TM[/sup] or Been Saved[sup]TM[/sup].
Do any African-Americans feel that accepting Christianity is somehow “selling out” or abondoning their heritage? And how do Christian African-Americans rationalize their acceptance of Christianity while at the same time condemning the very act that allowed them to accept Christianity (keeping in mind that, to a Christian, the act of finding salvation through Jesus is the single most important thing that can happen to a person and not just a “little side benefit to an otherwise horrible act.”)
Yes, I realize I am making some broad generalizations here for the sake of argument, and I apologize if I have offended anybody as a result. But I still think it’s a legitimate question.
Yes, but I don’t think it was particularly widespread or that many of the people who were enslaved were Christians. I could be wrong, however, and would welcome cites to the contrary.
Meaning what, exactly? Just because some Christians decided to fight against slavery doesn’t make Christianity any less an invention of the white man (or, to be more charitable, any less exclusive to white culture).
Well, that’s more or less my point. If Christianity was imposed on slaves against their wills, why do many of their descendants embrace it so wholeheartedly today? And my use of the term “embrace” is meant to imply more than a simple “acceptance” of Christianity, by the way.
You assume utterly wrong. Christianity first entered sub-Saharan Africa before the end of the Western Roman Empire. Indeed, Christianity has a longer history in Africa than does Islam. And at least as much slave trade in Africans was done by Muslims as by Christians, probably more. Thus, Africans who embrace Islam are even greater traitors to their history and heritage, if your reasoning is valid.
Basically people worship in ways that are reinforced by the culture around them. There are some blacks in the U.S. (I don’t know about the Caribbean or South America) who reject Christianity because of its association with slavery. Of course, many of them then embrace Islam in a fit of historical ignorance, given that Muslims were every bit as much into the slave trade as Christians were (and that some reports indicate the trade to Arabian mines was worse than the trans-Atlantic trade).
However, there are no clear methods of continuing support for the various animist and other religious traditions of Africa, so Christianity becomes the default. (In the original period, there would have been some belief that, if the god of the whites can give them this much power, perhaps I should switch allegiance to that god, but that would have been a minor consideration.) For those who do turn to Islam as a rejection of Christianity (separate from those simply inspired by the Qu’ran) they do have the historical tradition that some of the African kingdoms disrupted by the slave trade had originally been Muslim.
The Christian church has historically been the one place where blacks could gather without fear of reprisal, both during Slavery and after. It was feared that Blacks in large gatherings would collude to perform uprisings. So the church was central to the Black community both as a means of succor and later as a means of political power.
Tomndebb: That does make a certain amount of sense, thanks.
I guess, though, that it’s just the inherent inconsistency that bugs me. As I mentioned earlier, to a good Christian there is no more important thing in life than to accept Christ. If that is true, then it would seem to follow that slavery was in fact a GOOD thing, since it brought the slaves to a place where they could come to accept Christ and be saved.
Now, once again, I utterly reject slaverly and personally can’t think of a single good thing that has come about as a result of it. But it seems inconsistent for an African-American to simultaneously condemn slavery and praise Jesus for saving him or her. I mean, do you ever hear somebody say, “Thank you, Jesus, for bringing my ancestors over here in chains so that I might eventually come to discover your love for me”?
I do not ever recall any blacks thanking God for having brought them into slavery (in the manner of Auugustine of Hippo and his Felix Culpa regarding Original Sin).
One other thing to remember, however, is that the Christian Scriptures speak frequently of being removed from bondage. The story of the Israelites in the Exodus and many of the pasages where Jesus or Paul spoke of freedom could be used as coded expressions of their own desires for freedom. Yes, we can see a disconnect between their use of religious passages and the culture from which they learned that religion, but they were able to modify that message in quite subversive ways.
And, really, what were their options? Thrown together from widely different tribal or cultural regions in Africa, they may not have shared many beliefs with their fellow slaves. Christianity was permitted (perhaps ordered) by th slave holders and gave them a place to gather socially and a method to convey their common (i.e., slave) culture.
Actually, I think that is what I’m saying, at least with regard to the blacks who are descendants of slaves that were brought to America against their wills.
Hey – I’m an atheist as well, so I’m certainly not trying to justify slavery on the basis of how wonderful it is that those slaves and their descendants were brought to Christ. As I said, I think the whole concept is abhorrent. But if I were a Christian, I think I would be tempted to say that if slaves and their descendents found Jesus as a result of being slaves, then slavery isn’t really so bad in the grand scheme of things. It’s thoughts like that they make me reject Christianity, and it’s why I wonder how a slave descendant who correctly says slavery was the biggest evil ever perpetrated by one people on another can also be enthusiastic Christians.
Well, I’m not talking about the slaves themselves who were more likely than not compelled to follow the religious practices of their masters. I’m talking about their descendants who simultaneously decry slavery as the greatest evil known to man and praise God for bringing them to Jesus.
IMHO, Christianity and other authority-based religions* first thrive when they bring social order and stablility to people experiencing uncertainty and disruption of their old ways.
People ‘find Christ’ (or experience the equivalent conversion act in other religions), and afterwards put order in their own lives.
As a contrast, look at the places Christianity has become less practiced, such as stable societies like Northern Europe and Canada. In the past, Christianity was strongly practiced; a shared social order developed. As the social order stabilised and perpetuated itself, it gradually became disconnected from its source religion (became ‘secular’), and the source religion became more and more a formality. Its imposition of order was no longer necessary.
I suspect that authority-based religion such as Christianity in the States is popular precisely among those people who are living in uncertain conditions, whether they’re in poverty or dangerous surroundings, whether their family structures have been disrupted, or whether they’re experiencing too much change too quickly.
[sub]*Not ‘authoritarian’. I use ‘authority-based’ to mean ‘citing an external source for doctrine rather than relying on personal, internal knowledge’.[/sub]