I Timothy 6:1-5
"…all who are under the yoke of slavery…who have believing masters…must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers adn beloved.Teach and urge these duties.If anyone teaches otherwise…he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy…, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind…(RSV)
Teaches me to type the thing myself rather than copy/paste form a web site.The “adn” above should of course be “and”.
I think Stuffy was referring to Black Christian churches historically being an “acceptable” haven in the community, where people could gather under the eyes of their oppressors, yet still have some form of spiritual expression. (TomnDebb commented on this as well) Important, also, is the fact that the Christian church was one of the few places that allowed black men to assume a respected leadership role as a minister of the church. Many African traditions of theology and ritual were kept alive within the church. Anglo-Protestant denominations allowed for less expression than the Catholic churches of Latin America; witness the very Africanized Christianity of Brazilian candomble, Haitian Voodoo, and Cuban Santeria. New Orleans, also predominately Catholic, would be the one US community that accepted more integration of African traditions. My guess is that Hispanic Catholicism allows for a more passionate spirituality than the colder European interpretation.
Within, and secretly without, the confines of the Protestant church of the US, slaves still managed to hold on to what little expression allowed:
Institutional religion did not exhaust the religion of the slaves. An “invisible institution” of secret and often forbidden religious meetings thrived in the slave quarters. Here slaves countered the slaveholding gospel of the master class with their own version of Christianity in which slavery and slaveholding stood condemned by God. Slaves took the biblical story of Exodus and applied it to their own history, asserting that they, like the children of Israel, would be liberated from bondage. In the experience of conversion, individuals affirmed their personal dignity and self-worth. In the ministry, black men exercised authority and achieved status nowhere else available to them. Melding African and Western European traditions, the slaves created a religion of great vitality, dignity and self-worth
The Encyclopedia of Southern Culture; entry by Albert J. Raboteau
(1989, The University of North Carolina Press)
Under duress, you have to make do with what is allowed. As to the continued draw of black Christian churches, we ain’t out the woods yet in racial battles, and churches still offer a safe haven for individuals, community organizing, and exchange and travel, here and abroad. I’m not a Christian, am Buddhist, but think that the beauty of the Christian doctrine has been well-served in the African diaspora’s interpretation.
I think that’s what Voodoo is, a mix of African Tribal religion and Christianity, notably the Catholic Variety. Has something to do with the fact when you have various saints and various gods, it isn’t hard to see how those could be compatible.
If I’m wrong, please correct me.
by Milum:
Hmmm. It seems to me that if you are asserting that African religions permitted slavery, you can very well say the same thing about Christianity. There is no clause in the Bible stating that Thou Shall Not Enslave Your Brother, and the absence of this explicity was taken advantage of by the pro-slavery establishment. To blame this on the religion is not fair, though. It is best to blame it on the people. No different with African religions.
It is obvious, but not for the reason that you suggest it is. Christianity has meant different things to different people throughout history; it hasn’t always represented the foundation of equality that you’re making it out to be. Clearly, white Christians back in the day thought of themselves as being superior to their black chambermaids and field hands, so they didn’t see a disconnect with their religious beliefs and their social ones. It’s probably also fair to say that black Christians believed themselves to be inferior to whites, and so their religious beliefs probably didn’t have much to do with assuring them of their status as human beings. Christianity meant different things to whites and blacks in those days; it’s difficult to imagine Massa John getting the same take-home message from a sermon as Nigger Jim, if you follow me.
Most everyone seems to be ignoring godzillatemple’s original question, which did not so much concern the African slaves as their modern-day descendants.
So why are black Americans today overwhelmingly Christian? I’m tempted to chalk it up to a strong tradition of church-going and a lack of any visible alternatives (Nation of Islam while vocal, for instance, might be too militant for most blacks, mainstream Islam hasn’t been treated very postively in the recent media, and animist religions, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. might be seen as too unusual or bizarre). People tend to stick with what they know.
What in the world makes you think that Christianity is an invention of the white man? Jesus himself was certainly no white European, and neither were his disciples.
True, one of these days I’ll stop generalizing so much. On that subject I can recall hearing that nonsense as late as the early 80’s. Anyhoo, see elelle’s post for a more complete picture.
[ul]For information on Christianity in Africa[/ul]
you with the face: “…slavery … To blame this on the religion is not fair, though. It is best to blame it on the people. No different with African religions.”
Hey you with the face!
Wrongo.
Thats exactly what I was rightfully doing " blaming the defective qualities of primitive african religions". Religions evolve. Christianity is still evolving. It is ridiculous to consider all religions as equal. Some are much much better than others.
Now as to blaming the people?
Except for the defective ones, most people pretty much adhere to the tenor of the doctrine of their religion which controls a particular mode of group behavior. And as such, religion should certainly be blamed for any dysfunctional effects that it brings about.
by Milum:
What I’m maintaining is that if you use that logic to African religions, you should also apply it to Christianity. Surely you can see the inconsistency of blaming the advent of slavery on the “primitive” religions of the slave traders while turning a blind eye to the one(s) that was practiced by slaveholders. Seeing how we are in GD anyhow, perhaps you should supply us with some cites that indicate the tenets of African religions that are responsible for slavery. And at the same time, maybe you should explain to us why African religions are more blame-worthy than Christianity, when the followers of both belief systems participated in the practice of slavery.
And as for some religions being better than others, I never opined otherwised. But that’s irrelevant.
Of course, you have not actually provided any evidence that it was the religious beliefs of the Africans that “permitted” the Europeans to conquer. It is unlikely that you are even aware of what beliefs were held by what peoples, in what ways they could be legitimately considered “primitive,” and how those religious beliefs affected the people; you are simply invoking a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy based on ignorance and a willful desire to denigrate people in situations that you do not understand.
“… And at the same time, maybe you should explain to us why African religions are more blame-worthy than Christianity, when the followers of both belief systems participated in the practice of slavery”. Said you with the face.
With the embarrassment of extrapolating from the obvious I will explain…
Slavery is not the question.
Selling your fellowmen or fellowenemies into slavery is.
If you subscribe to a religion that supports a culture that can’t prevent maurading slavers from taking your people at whim from their lands then you are the unfortunate victim of an inferior religion.
And ** Tom** (who should know better) Religion or something like religion is both the seed and the root of all cultures, otherwise men would just run in packs and do nothing but eat and mate.
Syncretic religion, you mean?
So, once again you demonstrate an opinion unsupproted by facts (and wind up blaming the victims, simultaneously).
First, according to your claim, Mongol Shamanism is superior to Christianity and Islam and Confucianism, although you just might find some historical opposition to that claim.
Even if one holds that religion is the “seed and root” of all cultures, (which has not been demonstrated–it could just as easily be that religion is simply a manifestation of control mechanisms within culture), your claim fails to engage reality. If we posit that religions develop along with cultures, then the fact that a culture does not have the physical resources (e.g., food production) to develop beyond hunter-gatherer or pastoral nomadic economies will determine how much their religion develops.
Now, the majority of the people in Africa who were enslved from animist cultures were found in places where there was no capacity for extended agriculture (based on the presence of sustainable crops), therefore, no development of agrarian society, therefore no impetus to create walled cities, bureaucratic infrastructure, and no corresponding development of a centralized religion. Blaming the religious belief is rather like blaming the Montgolfier brothers for not making their balloon propane-powered. Without the pre-existing technology, there was nothing on which to build.
For a minority of the people in Africa who were enslaved, they were practicing Islam and (to a much lesser extent) Christianity–the very religions of the people who disrupted their culture.
So, whether it was cart-before-the-horse logic or ignoring that it was (religiously) a meeting of equals, neither explanation legitimately blames the African religions for the disruption by Europeans and Arabs.
Do you think that perhaps some contemporary black Christians are so devoted to their religion because they were inspired and/or influenced by the good work of Dr. Martin Luther King, a Baptist minister? I mean, I know King is relatively “recent” in the history of African Americans, but still—he has had a profound impact on society and he was a Baptist minister. Why shouldn’t African Americans embrace the same religion that Martin Luther King embraced?
by Milum:
Okaaaay. Why is slavery suddenly not relevant anymore? It certainly is part of the question posed in the OP. Does the role of religion only matter when we are talking about the religion of the victims and not the oppressors?
I’m really amazed at how you can post this without seeing the sheer absurdity (maybe that’s why you should be embarrassed?). So if bad things happen to a group of people we are supposed to conclude it is because they have a faulty religion? My cat’s piss smells better than that idea. Look in the bible itself and you’ll see that bad things happened to the “chosen people” all the time. Not excluding Jesus Christ (crucifixion anyone?)!
According to your logic, Jesus was practicing an inferior religion because he did not lift himself off the cross and slay his enemies with God-sent thunderbolts. And ironically, that’s exactly what his executors believed, too.
Black people read or heard passages in the Bible about the Moses leading people to the promised land and freedom, Elijah escaping the world in an angel-driven chariot, and Jesus making blind people see. Not familiar with the works of Bach (nobody was–he wasn’t printed worldwide until Mendolsohn discovered and played his works), they start singing highly subversive songs about Moses freeing them to Canada, Jesus making the White people see that Blacks are equal to them, and for the chariot to swing low so that they can escape from the hell they are in. White people not knowing better, and perhaps conceding that the songs the black slaves made up were better than their work, allowed the meetings and the dances to continue.
Blacks joining Christianity, and making their own unique interpretation of the gospels and the other stories, was a subversive response to slave conditions.
Note that the passage did not say that slavery is okay. What is says is that those who are under the yoke of slavery should conduct themselves with integrity, so as to provide a testimony to their character. This is what the Old Testament Joseph did when he was illegally sold as a slave into Potiphar’s household.
Why don’t you consider a more trivial consequence of slavery: the fact that their parents met? I mean, if it weren’t of slavery(and the world wars etc), most people who live today wouldn’t even exist. Surely this is no reason to loath one’s existence.
I don’t know, but if this feeling is justified, it is just as justified for anybody else, regardless of color. After all, 2100 years ago, nobody was Christian, so the ancestors of all Christians at some point abandoned their heritage.