Christian Denominations Split Over Slavery - Where are they Today?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มิ.ย. 2024
- Chapters:
00:00 Denominations that Didn’t Split During the Civil War
01:25 Presbyterians
04:53 Methodists
07:03 Episcopalians
08:48 Lutherans
12:16 Baptists
Reasons some of us think the Bible is being too often used as a tool rather than a recipe book.
-Focus on ‘Obey thy master’ scriptures. Ignore ‘Give food and refuge to fleeing slaves’ scriptures.
Reminds me of
- Focusing on ‘Spare the rod’ scriptures. Ignoring ‘Do not drive ur child to wrath’ scriptures.
🔧🪛
🚶🏾♂️
Not only is your scholarship remarkable, but your precision and Clarity of speech are a treasure
Yes he’s been doing this so well for so long with no bias. Just straight facts!!!
Read, at first glance Charity instead of Clarity. St. Paul's admonitions : If I have xyz but not Charity... flooded my mind! As always a depth of research missing from many a present day 'Doctoral' ' Thesis.'
LOLOL scholarship tell him to debate sam shamhoun..
ill wait he wont but ill wait.
I really like the graphics in this presentation, showing the succession of denominations and draining the colour of denominations no longer existing.
...except none of them show anything about which supported slavery and which didn't. Were all the "Southern Xyz" or "blah blah Confederate" ones pro-slavery? I don't know.
@@normandiebryant6989 The denominations shown in brown were pro-slavery or pro-Confederate (and therefore, pro-slavery). And as explained, the Southern Baptist Convention started out pro-slavery/pro-Confederate, but has since renounced its racist past and origins.
Pro Confederate didn't always mean Pro slavery. Just I'd slot more complicated than that. Alot more complicated than they want to teach in school, and more complicated than popular opinion would have you believe.@@TurtleMarcus
My church (in Tennessee) had 14 or so members fight in the Civil War. All of them fought for the Union, but had to leave the state to do so.
Wow, that's awesome history for your church!
Very interesting fact!
The story of the near 1 million southerns who went north to fight for the union isn't taught enough.
@@turkeybobjr is it?
@@rickwilliams967 Yes.
Started attending a Southern Baptist Church as a teenager. I was completely ignorant to the slavery issue being in the church at all. My naive mind just assumed the church would be against it...
Well there was a hundredth year anniversary at the church. A celebration was put on and a booklet with the church history was handed out. Long story short in the booklet it was bragging about the KKK showing up to one of their events in the 50s.
Then it made sense why my friend was the only black person in the building, then I felt horrible 😞.
P.s. this was around 13 years ago.
2011??
@@falconeshieldIm guessing the founding of the actual specific church, or the building itself's 100th anniversary.
Imagine googling up your local Baptist church only to discover that it was created explicitly to justify human trafficking
That's just everyday life in America, my guy. You can't escape the shadow of slavery; you just have to look harder in the North.
I do like these schismatic videos, as it's interesting to see what issues denominations will split over.
It's also a really interesting way to look at American history in general.
he is a protestant who is lying through his teeth no mention of the quakers this videos a joke.
The root issue is the cancer of protestantism.
The Catholic Church had definitively settled the issue of slavery no later than 1839 with the bull titled "In Supremo Apostolatus," which states in part:
"We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour."
As the letter itself mentions, however, there were other, more narrowly tailored, condemnations of enslavement centuries earlier.
Amen!
Is there any record of anyone being excommunicated for having slaves?
@ jdotoz
I do not recall anyone being excommunicated
for keeping slaves after 1839.
The RCC was in tune with the trend against
slavery that was held by many, if not most
Europeans in the 1800's The British outlawed
the trading of slaves in 1807 -- The first
European country to do so. Slavery itself was
outlawed in 1833. Russia outlawed Serfdom in
1861 the USA outlawed slavery in 1865.
I found this article:
*Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
Ultimately, it will never matter what Christian Apologetics think about slavery. By their own theology, God's word is absolute, and it is very clear that slavery is not a problem. Even Jesus didn't think to point out anything wrong with it when talking about master/slave relationships. It's amazing to me how many hoops people are willing to jump through to convince themselves that this is actually the word of a god.
@@here_we_go_again2571 It may surprise you to learn that obstinacy against Papal directives is not a new phenomenon in Catholicism.
You know what would be neat? A video about denominations that teach (or historically taught) pacifism.
Yes, I should do this.
anabaptist
Pacifism is not simple because people get involved in conflict by no fault of their own.
@@kevinclass2010 Well you're supposed to be an abuse victim then. So you can still be pacifist!
If the Bible just said “thou shall not own slaves” it would’ve made this all much easier
Forcing people from freedom into slavery is condemned in the Bible. "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." Exodus 21:16 However, it wasn't illegal for a person to pay off debt by working for someone without pay. Today we basically do the same thing, we just use credit cards and mortgages so it doesn't look like we're slaves. But we still mostly are.
It does one better with the royal rule or golden rule
Ehhh I really doubt this. People can just ignore those verses lol.
@@chibu3212 that’s the problem hahah
@@achildsheart4658but it also basically gives a thumbs up to slavery in the old and new testament.
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death."
~ Exodus 21:16 ESV 🕊
Levitucus 25 39-41
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Deuteronomy 20: 10-18
10 “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction,[a] the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.
Taken together you can see how the God of the old testament, while he condemned kidnapping, did not regard war captives from just wars as cases of kidnapping, or the practice of slavery in general as condemnable. At least according the authors of the old testament. I can find more sources to support this argument if you like. These are only the first ones to come to mind.
I'm grieved, as a Christ follower AND a Black/African American women this comment section is disappointing but NOT surprising. Lots of bible verses about slavery without historical context!!
American CHATTEL SLAVERY WAS/IS SIN!!!
The American Church will continue to be segregated especially on Sunday bc of Colonizer-framed ideologies and doctrines shown in some of these comments.
Well, you're half right. Chattel slavery has always been sin. Every human bears the image of God.
But people divide themselves according to culture, tradition and comfort. The number of churches that would actively or even subconsciously deny membership to another race is so small it would be almost impossible to find. The division is voluntary from all sides.
People want their favorite music, food and sermon anecdotes. Good luck trying to change that.
Yes, the ignorance of people is grievous.
American chattel slavery is biblical slavery. The bible says own them forever, and you may beat them. Even says if the male slave depart the woman and her children must remain the property of the slave owner. So obedience to god is sin?
"Enforced labor "the Americas (instigated by Europeans) happened over a thousand years after the Bible was completed. Do some research about all the nasties of the Maya, Incas, Aztecs, ~ Persons taken as prizes of war in the Middle East, Africa, Native Americans to each other, cannibalistic tribes all over `....
We humanoids can be really crappy to each other. However, major comma, I am weary to pieces of the twisted philosophy that sl-very is indigent to the North American Southern region and all that colonization stuff. The entire planet started getting colonized shortly after Adam and Eve got it on.
What "context" was it when Egypt enslaved millions of Hebrews? Or a few thousand years later, when H-tler did the same damn thing? What are "reeducation camps" in NK? Personally, from what I've heard, I'd rather take my chances in a field... But, that's just me and IMO... I bid you Peace
@@Madcow7777That’s a gross oversimplification of American Chattel slavery. The Bible says all man is made equal in the image of God but chattel slave traders “conveniently” left out verses that imply equality. Scientific racism of the culture as played a factor. Why would confederates need to hide certain verses if the Bible is 100% in total agreement with American chattel slavery?
Your logic is like saying Christianity supports cannibalism because Jesus says ‘this is my body’
This is indispensable American history. Thank you for your work.
--
Thank you for covering this topic. ❤
Commendable historical research and presentation! Your work is needed and valued.
Great job Josh!
Fascinating subject. Thanks
Very important topic thank you for talking about it.
Honestly your research skill can only be described as amazing and help to provide some extra information around what happened during the civil war
Very informative. Thank you! I'm originally from California, and I was part of the American Baptist Church USA, which are usually liberal, but in Southern California and Arizona, we were conservative. In 2006, after I was already an adult, our church joined several others in leaving the ABCUSA and forming Transformation Ministries. Now, my husband and I live in Arkansas, and are part of the Southern Baptist Convention. I am also very familiar with the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. My husband and I are stateside missionaries in Arkansas, and we work with different churches to do evangelism. One of our board members is a CNE pastor, and was able to get all the CME churches in Arkansas and Tennessee to receive our evangelism training, and several are working with us.
I could never get a count of how many congregations departed from the ABC with Transformation, do you know where I could? Some congregations went back, the ABC(USA) was crowing about that. Arizona's unhappiness with the ABC goes back to the World War I era. In the 1920's there was an effort to get the Arizona B.C. to withdraw. It didn't happen, but some congregations left to start the Southern Baptist Convention of Arizona. In the late 1940's the Arizona B.C. (and Minnesota B.C.) withdrew bodily to join the Conservative Baptist Association, no doubt some congregations also stayed loyal to the denomination back then.
I was glad to hear that the Southern Baptist Convention stopped its practice of suppressing charges of sexual assault and child abuse several years ago, and now refers allegations to the police rather than telling congregants to stay quiet and moving the ministers to other churches.
There's no such thing as a liberal Christian 😂😂😂
I’d be interested to see a video on denominations that held their ground on one side or the other and either didn’t split, or moved.
I’m a Reformed Presbyterian (RPCNA) for instance and Bloomington RPC, one of the oldest congregations in the denomination, and located in my home state of Indiana was founded largely by RPs from South Carolina who left or were by some accounts compelled to leave when the denomination took its hardline stance against slavery. We have and historically had strong fraternal ties to our cousins in the ARP which were interrupted during this period but thankfully have long since been restored, and typically today RPCNA congregations are more common in the North and Midwest though some have since been established in the South.
Thanks, as usual, well researched, organized, and presented.
GREAT VIDEO!
man I was looking for information about this issue, I love this channel, where do you even begin to look for this information?
Nice video!
This reminds me of the cornerstone on the little church in rural eastern Kansas that I attended as a youth. It said "Methodist Episcopal Church North."
Nice to see ABCUSA get mentioned in a discussion about Baptists. Normally only our larger southern convention is mentioned
Could you make some videos on various Continuing Anglican groups, especially in the US like the Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Church in America, Anglican Province in America, etc.? Also a video on the Reformed Episcopal Church would be cool. Also a video on the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches would be cool.
Excellent video as always! You did forget to mention the Free Methodist Church, which split from the Methodist Episcopal Chruch in 1860 with slavery being one of the key issues.
Dear hearts and Gentle People
Great video. I recommend making a video about the Assemblies of God in Brazil, it's a case in point, interesting stories.
i’d love to see a “timeline” or “family tree” like this for sects of judaism
@UsefulCharts on youtube did a video on that I believe in a video called Jewish Denominations Explained
I find it fascinating how many denominations split over slavery back then, and many are splitting over sexual ethics today
Indeed. It is interesting to watch.
Its always been about the separation of sheep and goats.
I don't see how they're analogous issues though, it's notable that this is the dividing line for this generation
Then it was racial oppression, now it is sexual oppression. They're both splitting on issues of oppression
@@mayorjoshua
As in, homosexuals attempting to normalize their degenerate lifestyle and gain access to minors at schools and purchasing them through surrogacy?
I wish you’d consider making a video all about Easter, and other important observations that are directly related and chronologically linked to Easter, like Lent, Ash Wednesday, Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday) and how Carnival / Mardi Gras evolved. I believe some of the important dates on orthodox calendars are insignificant in evangelical christianity. I’d love to hear you report on what traditions are observed by which groups, and also how the date of Easter is calculated.
While it is accurate that the Stone-Campbell (or Restoration) Movement of which I am a minister, did not technically split over the civil war, it was an incredibly divisive issue and a primary cause of the 1906 split. It just took time to percolate. Please see "Torn Asunder: The Civil War and the 1906 Division of the Disciples" by Ben Brewster. Thanks for all your work I enjoy and learn from your well made videos.
Agreed, fellow Campbellite, lol!
It's important to distinguish what the denomination teaches about slavery, what the denomination pastors and apologists think about slavery, and what the average denomination member thinks about slavery. The three are often not in synch. For example, some Protestants I know think slavery can be a good thing, that we should bring it back, and some of them even think they were slaves during parts of their life where they had some freedoms taken away. Basically, a victim complex combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of what slavery is.
It’s important to just follow the Bible. Slavery did not glorify God . We want things to be gray so we can wallow in sin.
Fascinating, I'm an NJB, Rabbi no less from the UK so all this is new to me.
The thing is, is the latest portion true about Southern Baptists being true since 2016….with the controversy last year at there meeting
That General Synod's argument against the Confederacy is stated in a way that would apply to the Revolutionary War as well. They needed to do a lot more focusing on why this rebellion was for an unrighteous cause, rather than only quote that often misused verse from Romans 13.
A sci-fi author who was one of my favorites once had a character say "Religions have schisms as easily as a cat has kittens."
Would you please make a video on denominations that don't celebrate Christmas? I think there are more than just Jehovah's Witnesses, but it would be interesting to learn who doesn't and their various reasons why they don't. 😊
Some churches of Christ do and others don't.
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side. My greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
~ Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th president of the United States of America. 🇺🇸
Different congregations of the Churches of Christ and their related groups sometimes did split among northern and southern lines. Read Dr. David Edwin Harrell's book on The Churches of Christ in America.
Different congregations splitting along northern and southern sentiments, shows how circumstances affect, (not always for the better) congregations actions/attitudes....how some feel about the tobacco industry in North Carolina, vs ______ or casinos vs ______ when incomes are at stake.
It could be argued that the Christian Church / Churches of Christ split in the early twentieth century was just a delayed example of these north south schisms.
I would be interested in hearing a similar evaluation of denominations over their views of abortion.
This was fascinating! I knew about the Methodists and the Baptists but not about these other ones. Was really surprised to hear there are so many flavors of Anglicanism in North America; the only one I had heard of before besides the Episcopal Church was the Anglican Church in North America. Now I'm wondering where we got the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) since those apparently weren't slavery related splits.
The Methodist Protestant Church was formed mainly in protest against "episcopal arrogance" in the ME Church, but also because of the failure of the MEC to condemn slavery, and the need to return to "primitive Methodism." They were considerably more conservative theologically than the MEC, and the Eastern and Mississippi "annual conferences" stayed out of the 1939 Uniting Conference. Michigan A.C. put up a fight and after several ballots reunion was approved by 1 vote. In the Triennial B.C. there were actually 2 mission agencies that refused to send out missionaries with their slaves 'cause the American Baptist Home M.S. followed the example of the American Baptist F.M.S. a few months later.
We stopped calling ourself the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA in stages. We stopped calling ourselves Protestant as the Oxford Movement rediscovered our Catholic roots. We dropped USA because we are a missionary church with a large presence in Haiti and Honduras and congregations in 19 other countries. So we are now simply The Episcopal Church in "impaired communion" with the Anglican Church, whose response has been strange -- using the crisis over homosexuality as a way to adopt top-down leadership that even Pope Benedict XVI would find excessive -- why should Anglicans create a Pope when Rome has a perfectly serviceable Pope and an Anglican Rite?
Churches are going through similar things now with LGBT rights. My church is ABCUSA, which allows for the autonomy of the local church. In other words, the local church is not nound by the denomination. Our congregation is open to LGBT. People did leave just because we discussed it. The denomination position is in between opposed and accepting. We briefly discussed joining another denomination that is accepting, but have opted to stay in hopes of bringing change from within.
It always amazes me how often protestant churches split and merge. I can't even comprehend listening to the teachings of a church I am older than
You can comprehend it though, because you know full well the _teachings_ of a Christian church are not younger than you, even if the building and denominational administration are.
The churches may be young by generously they’re following teachings and traditions that stretch back to the reformation itself.
What about the Free Methodist Church? It was not listed on your discussion but was a breakaway from the Methodist Episcopal Church one year prior to the civil war
Although the founders of the FMC were anti-slavery, their expulsion from the MEC was not limited to their anti-slavery views. In fact, had they not been kicked out, they may not have chosen to split from the MEC at all. (who knows?) The FMC was categorically different then the rest of the splits covered in this video.
@@ReadyToHarvestWhat were the other differences? The only one I know about is the slavery issue.
So the denoms that split over slavery could potentially get back together these days, right? Right?
Many did, but others remained split due to other theological and political reasons that formed over time.
Many of these denominations that split got back together and split again over theological (modern era) rather than political (civil war era) reasons; while some like the SBC and ABCUSA never got back together because by the time they got over the slavery question (political), they diverged theologically (infallibility, lgbt, doctrinal orthodoxy etc.) and believed in different things unlike the other Civil War-era split denominations that got back together before they diverged theologically and split again in the modern era.
-----
The Northern Baptist and Southern Baptist denominations didn’t merge well after the civil war like other denominations like the Northern and Southern Methodists, Anglicans, and Presbyterians because the Northern and Southern Baptists eventually diverged theologically before merging then splitting again on theological rather than political lines like what happened to the other denomination I mentioned. Today the Southern Baptist are theologically conservative except for Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) which was formerly the theologically liberal wing of the Southern Baptist Convention while the Northern Baptists (American Baptists) are theologically liberal with the exception of the Venture Church Network (Conservative Baptist Association of America) which was formerly the theologically conservative wing of the American Baptist Churches which it eventually split from because of opposition to theological liberalism. Southern Baptists have disavowed a lot of the racists in their past history though, just like all the other major U.S. denominations, so that’s not the problem as some people falsely claim it to be. The National Baptist Convention (NBC) is the historically Black church equivalents to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), both are theologically conservative, and are in communion with each other. The Progressive National Baptist Convention (PBNC) is the historically Black church equivalent of the American Baptist Church/Northern Baptist Convention (ABC), both are theologically liberal, and are in communion with each other.
You forgot the fun part about the 'New School' sending out 'bibles'. It was really hard to read the pages though, being 'preached' at the speed of sound.
?????
Are you referring to "Beecher's Bibles", by any chance?
"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he reap."
~ St. Paul, Galatians 6:7 ESV
Has anyone thought of the film Life of Brian - splitters!!!!!
I think it's important to remember that biblical slavery was not the same as the type of slavery we had in the 18th and 19th century in the U.S.
One was lifelong chattel slavery of an outgroup, justfied by a double standard, where the descendants of the slaves remained slaves.
Levitcus 25 42-46
42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
The other was lifelong chattel slavery of an outgroup, justfied by a double standard, where the descendants of the slaves remained slaves but with modern racial concepts or whiteness and blackness imbedded in it.
@@user-yy3gm2ub2i Exodus 21 verse 2 allows Jews to be free after 7 years. Foreign slaves had the right to become a jew within 12 months of their service as a slave. It's more of indentured servitude with an option to be a permanent slave.
@@tringalidangelo690 it does. And this is reiterated in the passage immediately before what I cited it's clear. But then that is immediately juxtaposed with (paraphrasing what I already cited) "but these people from the nations around you CAN be enslaved for life and bequeathed as property.
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
@@tringalidangelo690 this added context actually makes it more damning. If they were talking about the same people in both parts it would be a clear contradiction. The only consistent interpretation to draw from this is that Israelites or Hebrews are subject to more protections and liberation on the jubilee and slaves bought from foreigners or captured in 'just' war are not
Even under the most generous interpretation it would be a choice between ceorced conversion and cultural genocide or slavery.
Would the Atlantic slave trade have been okay if they just freed the slaves the became Christian and americanized? In the case of the Israelis it would have arguably been worse than that because you have passages like deuteronomy 20: 10-18 supporting the extension of the practice far beyond just those foreigners sold to them.
When I saw the thumbnail I thought it was a tree of cigarette packs
Yep, that's the way Protestantism works: There's always some group of pastors who find some point of disagreement with their denomination, so they walk out and start their own denomination. IOW, protesting.
Not actually where the 'protest' in 'Protestant' comes from - it has never been a reference to protest against other church bodies (not even the Catholic Church from which the schism originally occurred).
Man cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods (and churches) by the dozen. Apologies to Michel de Montaigne.
Everyone knows the god the ancient Jewish people created was just fine with slavery. Which is normal considering slavery was normal back then.
Did the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) take a stand on slavery or experience any splits over it?
My understanding is they did not take an official stand, but there were leaders sympathetic to both sides of the question.
Missouri was a slave state
Being a synod of recent immigrants primarily in the north, the early LCMS was lucky enough to avoid schism over the issue, as virtually none of its members at the time lived in areas heavily impacted. We had no slaveowner members really, or any southern congregations at the time. There were varying views on the topic, but the majority of them would have agreed with the other synod's statement about government power and rebellion shared in this video.
@@DaleWes Missouri was a slave state.
Missouri was a slave state.
Unfortunately the current United Methodist Church seems to be splitting along largely the same regional lines as the North-South split over slavery.
Race is not sexuality those are two different things. Being a black person or white person is not inherently us in however, they’re clear guidelines on sexuality in scripture.
I appreciate the historical review done here.
However, although there were regionally affected differences among Presbyterians with regard to slavery, the issue producing from the the CSA, subsequently US, was not principally over slavery itself but attempt to impose condition affecting pastoral care, civil rather than doctrinal. A New York minister called to require a loyalty oath to the Union of all ministers in the seceding states explicitly to pledge. The affected (southern) presbyteries assessed such would insurmountably compromise their effectiveness in serving their congregations (incidentally, some even in the South having slave and even former slave members).
So much for the civic constitution sanction against establishment of religion, in the denomination imposing criteria of federal government on church polity, tacit any requirement or permit of Scripture or confessions.
It took 120 years to mend the breach. Even toward the end there were some in the Southern church who approached the reunion albeit with joy and yet no small both sympathy and reservation, having been in and through the fires and front lines of the civil rights movement and struggles of racial reconciliation in both church and country, were not entirely sure their Northern kin were much adequately up to the tasks other than clueless about the issues and costs.
It seems to me slavery is disallowed by the knowledge that the reality of Christ abolished the notion of one man being the master of another man.
The apostle Paul claims that in Christ all distinctions are abolished and we are One in Christ. He specifically mentions national allegiances, gender identity and slavery.
If that is how God understands it, I reason, that's how I should understand it too.
Would be nice if YHWH wrote “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way- free them, since owning another human is a moral outrage”
Many different kinds of slavery. It still exists with Muslims taking slaves in North Africia.
Joshua. You know he’s talking about American slavery that was based on race, discrimination and prejudice.
These are all American denominations that broke apart during the American civil war which slavery was the main driving cause of.
Love God
Has he spoken about the Native Baptist movement in Jamaica before?
You mentioned some things which occurred in the 1830's.
I wonder if some were influenced by the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833-1834?
This surely must have been known in the United States. Hence the Underground Railroad to Canada.
As in Deuteronomy 23:15-16 (NKJV):
“You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him."
In fact, one wonders why this would not have applied to a slave who jumped the fence into the next plantation, or crossed over the line to the next State.
:--}>
Great point.
Hmmm not sure if you could include mormons as a christian denomination
What was the position of the Seventh Day Baptist church in America?
I believe it was largely or entirely abolitionist. The founder of my home town, a Seventh Day Baptist, participated in the underground railroad.
@@samthelima Thanks for the update.
Jesus was addressing Jewish hypocrites when he restated the law. Also, Jesus was a social worker. I think he understands that blind obedience has traumatized women and children especially.
7:47 you put 1821 in the graphic instead of 1861
Yeah I know. You're (I think) the first person to mention it, so hopefully it's not a big deal.
@@ReadyToHarvest yea it’s not a big deal I just thought you should know if you didn’t notice it. Great video.
I landed in visiting a Baptist church and they offered the Bread & Wine, but because I wasn’t their member they asked that I let the food pass by when they were distributed. Hum? Does this practice have a history rooted first during slavery?
Not directly no. Restricting communion to only Communicant Members is a common church practice across lot of traditions through history. Of course, many white slavers and racists would restrict their churches to whites, so you would end up denying black people communion anyway. But that's not necessarily the origin.
What did Catholics think/do?
The Catholic Church continued its centuries-old trend of condemnation of enslavement apart from matters of justice (that is, penal labor awarded to criminals or enemies, or labor required as a means of payment). Individual Catholics, on the other hand, tended to do what they found expedient, as they unfortunately often do.
It boils down to one thing regardless of which denomination of Christianity it is. They all follow, worship, praise and pray to a god that is pro slavery as is Jesus.
Incredibly based
@mariaconcepcionrodriguezhe2850 , That's just the tip of the iceberg in a manner of speaking. Christians will condemn the atroscities in other religions holy books and by other gods. Like slavery, genocide, stoning to death, infantacide, ethnic cleansing, forced marriage, etc,etc. But will turn around and justify and excuse the exact same things committed in the holy book and by their god.
@@mariaconcepcionrodriguezhe2850alright, so you’re cool with being a slave?
🙏🙏🙏
The United Lutheran response feels very strange. Focusing on submission to authority when people have assets separate authority is very shaky ground. They might as well have called for the United States to return to being under British rule, the only difference being the amount of time elapsed. This really feels like a moment where you should focus on God's authority and pray his will be done, because the authority of man while ordained by God periodically breaks or is corrupted. Instead they went all out towards their favorite government. (Not supporting the Confederacy, just recognizing what the statement from the council looked like )
There is wide disparity of thought within Lutheranism. Historically, you've got the Magdeburg Confession, a theological justification of defense of self and other.... yet you also have the "submit to government" crowd, all under one roof. Truthfully, you can see a lot from both camps still today.
Maybe they were trying to contribute to forming a more perfect Union. That’s as American as apple pie. We do have several amendments to the constitution.
I think God has spoken on this matter. But thank you for sharing your thoughts. I love hearing where people actually stand on how they see humanity.
I dont know where you got your info on lutherans but I think you are a bit off.
The institution of slavery is never once prohibited in Scripture and God even gifted slaves himself.
The issue of the civil war was slavery. But the social movement of the 2nd great awakening by Anglo Saxon American protestants was one of the causes that led to the deadly conflict.
It’s baffling to me that any church with bibles that include the book of exodus would have to “debate” over if inhumane slavery based on race or discrimination is unbiblical and therefore inhumane or not. Not to mention following the law of the land and being a law abiding citizen is EXTREMELY biblical as it contributes to our witness to unbelievers.
Bellum dulce inexpertis - Erasmus
Dehumanization of a racial/ethnic group is the kind of mental gymnastics that allows people to think they are justified in making others slaves. The Israelites owned people more like indentured servants, since there was a law that they had to release them after seven years.
And if it's not based on race, is it any more righteous...?
Pretty easy to do if you focus on certain passages (like Philemon, Israelites taking captives during war, or the laws about keeping slaves). The Bible has so many different perspectives in it that people can use scriptures to argue a lot of different things. This is why churches SHOULD be teaching congregations ethical reasoning. You have to apply ethical reasoning to avoid using scriptures for bad ends
@@JS-L90 i feel sorry for the person who supports slavery based on race is "pretty easy to do"
I understand that time doesn't allow to talk about everything, but the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod is the second largest Lutheran body in the US, and has historically had a stronger presence in the south than the ELCA, yet it was not mentioned at all. Most of my relatives on my mom's side have been in the ELCA and its predecessor bodies, but a few went to the NALC after that split off over LGBTQ+ issues.
The pro-slavery factions were quite as justified by their reading of christian scripture as those who were abolitionist. The actual impetus was the non-christian Enlightenment.
Those who seek to ground their values in religious texts or traditions are bound to find themselves supporting discrimination or hatred. The Missouri legislator who just this week said that pregnancies resulting from rape and incest were nonetheless intended by god is a fair example.
Dump your superstitions. Embrace human rights for all.
Does anyone else think it's a red flag that being against slavery is hard to prove in the bible?
How is it not?
@@shawnhimes3004 It's not if we plug our ears and say "lalallalalalala!'" then it's all okay.
Hard to believe people actually thought it was fine by God to be a slave owner.
Slavery has been the norm throughout
human history. Ancient societies relied
on slavery
Slavery is not condemned by any religion.
Islam actually claims that slavery is a good
thing *if* a Muslim is the slave-holder and
something to be done by devout Muslims
because Mohammad, himself, was a slaver.
The Muslim slave trade existed centuries
before the Transatlantic slave trade came
into being.; Muslim ownership of slaves is
still common in Africa and the Middle East
(although condemned by the UN and
officially declared ended by Muslim countries
(under pressure from Western powers)
Is there any scripture against it? Mind you, chattel slaver my is a different beast
But a wage slave just getting by is totally different. Have you ever tried to escape the cage?
@@here_we_go_again2571 All religions have principles which lead directly to the condemnation of slavery.
@@KingoftheJuice18
Perhaps "principles" but not outright
condemnation of slavery. Big difference.
John Brown had the best take
You missed free methodist church
The Episcopal Church did not formally split over slavery.
Lutherans: "Hey, what if we merged."
MEANWHILE: Methodists.
Soke of these names are like Java language class names lol 😅
Christian denominationalization is so embarrassing and disappointing. We need to be united as followers of Christ, period.
Splitting over moral issues is necessary. Light and darkness don't mix. Some people who defended slavery didn't like what the Bible had to say as a whole so they published the Slave Bible. 🙃and some of those denominations who endorsed this trash simultaneously claimed Sola Scriptura😵💫
If the Bible were clearly written, there would be no conflict in the first place. Both sides of the slavery debate used the Bible to support their views.
@@stephenwodz7593 We see what we want whether we think it's clear or not.
True.
[ there are still a few “white supremacy “ Bibles in print. I’ve seen a couple.
You are viewing the situation like a child. The Bible also speaks of obeying the civil authority, as well. Due to manumission laws, Christians couldn't "free" slaves even if they wanted to. For example, Thomas Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because, without meeting the requirements of the Virginia manumission laws, slaveholders couldn't free their slaves. Read the story of James Armistead and you will understand better. Hopefully, you will not view the Scripture as a grown up.
That's why Paul sent Onesimus, a slave, back to his master, Philemon with a strong encouragement that Paul needed Onesimus. In this way, Paul is obeying the civil authority and love for a fellow human being.
@@thomasc9036
The Bible also gives precedent for rejecting civil authority.
About halfway through First Samuel, Saul swears he will kill Jonathan for eating a little honey during the battle.
The people defied Saul, and told their king not a hair of Jonathan's head would be harmed that day.
So those who want to justify slavery will quote Colossians 3:22 where St. Paul admonishes the bondsman to obey their masters but if you read on to verses 23-24, "he's talking about in everything you do, do unto the Lord." Same ideal in Ephesians 6:5-9, and he goes on with the ideal that masters should treat bondsman with right because we have the same masters, God. So St. Paul, in my opinion, is saying that no matter where the Lord finds you, serve Him. These scriptures hardly justified slavery, or some would say, "There has always been slavery" true, but it didn't make it acceptable to God. He's already told you in Exodus 21:16 what He commanded. If they didn't know why, cut Exodus out of the "Slave Bible" in the first place?
I believe that the account of slavery in the was put there by man, not God. The Bible tells us that God is a jealous God and wants you to serve no other god. Slavery makes you obey a slave master as if he is God. That's why I think slavery was put in the Bible by man to manipulate people.
Wonder whether the Lutherans would have said the same thing about Americans rebelling against the English. "You're never allowed to revolt or secede" is strange.
Many did remain loyal to the British.
And then there's Friends/Quakers who had a similar experience to the Anabaptists.
Quaker here, we told slave owning quakers that they had to do one of two things, either they could keep their slaves but they had to leave the Quaker church, or they could stay but they had to give up their slaves
Psalms 118:8
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Malachi 1:14
But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
King James Version (KJV)
I’m surprised you give the LDS credit for any involvement in the Civil War at all. So far as I know, their involvement was limited to a detachment of Utah territorial militia being assigned to guard the transcontinental telegraph line from Indian attacks; and by 1863 Lincoln decided he didn’t even want the Mormons doing that.
Leviticus 25
Names of God Bible
44 “You may have male and female slaves, but buy them from the nations around you. 45 You may also buy them from the foreigners living among you and from their families born in your country. They will be your property. 46 You may acquire them for yourselves and for your descendants as permanent property. You may work them as slaves. However, do not treat the Israelites harshly. They are your relatives.
Are they the only 2 verses concerning slavery??
I wonder how the gentiles were treating slaves at the same time. 🤔🤔😚
The royal rule or the golden rule. Justifying sin is how people wake up and find themselves in hell. Be careful playing fast and loose with the text.
Did any of the American churches which approved of slavery oppose the rape of enslaved women and girls, which had been forbidden in the French colonies by Louis XV's Code Noir? How did they reconcile that with "Thou shalt not commit adultery?" I will not ask about child sexual abuse, since in practice all religions allow that to take place in secret.
Please do not be ignorant and obtuse. Most unattractive character traits.
Idk, but when it comes historical figures in American politics and elite circles, there tended to be a lot of theological liberals with politically conservative views. So they could have supported to sexual assault, rape, touch, and abuse of enslaved people.
If they did it was ineffectual. Sexual assault was extremely widespread in American slavery, it’s why African Americans have pretty substantial white ancestry to this damn.
TMI