Black-American experiences

[kneedeep]

Thank you for the references, Opie. Also I don't believe that being simply christian is bad, in and of itself. Its the fact that a group people decided to make LAW out of it within the church and excluded other professing believers who didn't follow this so called law to their liking.

[tifarmer]

The Southern Baptists have very recently owned up to their slave-holding origins. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion ... 202&wpmm=1

I commend them. I know that's painful both institutionally and personally for many people of (arguably) good will. That got me to pondering the "Big Split" stories in the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement. The versions I've heard include the following: (1) The Church of Christ parted company from the Disciples of Christ "about the time of the Civil War" or "shortly after the Civil War." (2) The split was primarily over "the instrument of music in worship" and missionary societies. (3) The split was not official until 1904, and some congregations for years thereafter were uncertain which side to take, so didn't pick a side until they changed preachers.

There's obviously some tension among those three stories. And there are likely other versions of The Split. They can't all be true.

The DoC's official printed histories usually brag that it's the only major denomination that did not split over "the slavery issue." Assuming that's true (I'm not historian enough to confirm or deny it), the fact is probably best explained by their/our position that slavery was "a matter of individual conscience" rather than church doctrine. Pretty handy position, huh? Leaves everybody with a clear conscience. Autonomous and all that.

Remarkable to me is the subtext here--namely, that the DoC is coming to the CoC's defense on the issue of slavery. The clear implication is that whatever splits occurred were not about slavery. Thus, the DoC is upholding the innocence of the CoC on "the slavery issue." (Very charitable of them, those Erring Brethren. And I don't understand what their motive might be. Or am I over-reading this?)

Now, for us sometime CoCers (and current CoCers), the DoC's history, until the Big Split, is also CoC history. So . . . does the DoC's claim of innocence/ignorance/neutrality on "the slavery issue" apply equally to the CoC? Note that timing is everything here. If the actual DoC/CoC split occurred before abolition, there's bound to be an interesting history there whose telling could have the effect of encouraging us all to be a bit more honest. And perhaps better able to grapple with collective guilt.

I'd like to hear from a student of the Restoration Movement on the subject. Does anyone have evidence that the rural, Southern CoC split from the urban, Northern DoC was in fact, at least in part, over "the slavery issue"? It cannot be that this subject has gone unexamined. Someone, somewhere, surely knows the story.

[Ivy]

I'd like to hear from a student of the Restoration Movement on the subject. Does anyone have evidence that the rural, Southern CoC split from the urban, Northern DoC was in fact, at least in part, over "the slavery issue"? It cannot be that this subject has gone unexamined. Someone, somewhere, surely knows the story.

I would like to hear from a Restoration scholar on this as well. I am certain that someone, somewhere knows. The ones who know may have passed away, but I am guessing they left the answers in their writings.

[Ivy]

In my research on the net, I got quite a few hits. This is interesting, tifarmer, and maybe gives somewhat of a clue; thought I'd post:

h**ps://christianchronicle.org/oscar-best-picture-contender-12-years-a-slave-has-ties-to-stone-campbell-movement/

[Cootie Brown]

Societies, cultures, and people evolve. Slavery was common all over the world for thousands of years. It was accepted as the norm because it was common. It is a rule of survival that the strong dominate the weak. That is true for both the animal and human worlds.

Humans have a more advanced brains so we evolve both mentally and emotionally beyond animals. As humans evolved they eventually determined superior strength doesn’t make things that are wrong right. Humans began making laws to establish right from wrong thousands of years ago.

Humans have been fine tuning those laws since then. Eventually humans determined it was morally wrong for one human to own another human, so they enacted laws to stop that practice. Gender roles, sexual preferences, etc have followed.

My point is this, I think it is absurd to vilify past generations for doing things that were legal and moral at that time. Mankind has evolved but we cannot retroactively apply our laws and morals today to past generations. George Washington was a true patriot, a good and moral man, and history has shown the right man at the right time to be America’s first President. Because he was the right man at the right time America has a President instead of a King.

The fact Washington owned slaves doesn’t change any of that or make him a bad person. That fact of truth can be applied to all historical figures that are being vilified today by radical extremists for doing things that were perfectly legal and moral at the time.

[zeek]

In my research on the net, I got quite a few hits. This is interesting, tifarmer, and maybe gives somewhat of a clue; thought I'd post:

h**ps://christianchronicle.org/oscar-best-picture-contender-12-years-a-slave-has-ties-to-stone-campbell-movement/

I find it interesting and probably typical that the slave owner's modern descendants defend him as "a good man" hmmm a good man who couldn't see that it is wrong to own other human beings and treat them like cattle? OK.

[Cootie Brown]

In my research on the net, I got quite a few hits. This is interesting, tifarmer, and maybe gives somewhat of a clue; thought I'd post:

h**ps://christianchronicle.org/oscar-best-picture-contender-12-years-a-slave-has-ties-to-stone-campbell-movement/

I find it interesting and probably typical that the slave owner's modern descendants defend him as "a good man" hmmm a good man who couldn't see that it is wrong to own other human beings and treat them like cattle? OK.

And how is that so different than the way migrant workers are treated today? It has taken thousands of years for “good men” to accept owning another human being is morally wrong. Again, retroactively applying today’s moral standards back to past generations serves no practical purpose that I can see, except maybe to see that societies have morally evolved and moved on. We cannot change the past but we can change the present and future.

[Ivy]

I think it's important that we be aware of the history of how these things happened, Cootie. And the poster was asking in particular about the history of the Restoration Movement.

[B.H.]

There were people against slavery back in ancient times. They had to be careful when they voiced opposition lest fall afoul the law and get in trouble for stirring up slave revolts. Several of the GReek philosophers were against slavery and at least one Roman one named M usonius Rufus was as well. There were even men who favored equal rights or almost equal rights for women. You'll also find opposition to child abuse an excessive physical punishment of kids too. Nothing new under the sun. Sometimes those who stand for good have more sway over the world in places and sometimes the bad have more sway. But the good ideas were always been here and folks holding to them.

[Cootie Brown]

Change begins when a few, very brave, people publicly oppose the status quo. And change almost always takes a very long time to be accepted. And every change some want isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Our Supreme Court has fast tracked some necessary changes. When change becomes law it happens much quicker. One of the benefits of a democracy.