by Jemar Tisby
In 1729 Edwards took over the church in Northampton, Massachusetts, after his renowned grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, died. Revival broke out in 1733. “There was scarcely a single person in the town, either old or young, that was left unconcerned about the great things of the eternal world,” reflected Edwards.21 The revivals became the subject of ongoing controversy as more conservative preachers and theologians reviled the emotionalism of the events, and others defended the conversions and style of worship as authentic expressions of religion.
Although Edwards remains a significant figure in American religious history, his significance must also include the fact that he compromised Christian principles by enslaving human beings. By 1731, Edwards had purchased his first enslaved African, Venus, at an auction in Rhode Island. Throughout his lifetime he owned several other people, including Joseph, Lee, and a young boy named Titus. Edwards’s slaveholding speaks for itself, but an unpublished manuscript provides the only written record of Edwards directly addressing his views on slavery.
Historian Kenneth Minkema unearthed Edwards’s notes for a letter that appears to defend a slave-owning pastor from his critical parishioners.22 The notes merely sketch an argument. Edwards did oppose the African slave trade for evangelistic reasons, noting that it would make Africans more resistant to the gospel. But he never objected to slavery in general. The theologian seemed to accept slavery, so long as masters treated their enslaved persons with dignity, on the basis of slavery’s apparently tacit acceptance in the Bible. Edwards did not believe, as some Christians did, that enslaved Africans did not have souls or could not accept Christ. He advocated for evangelism among the enslaved and dreamed of a global flowering of faith.
Why did Jonathan Edwards support slavery? In part, the answer may have to do with his social status. Edwards represented an educated and elite class in New England society. Wealthy and influential people populated his congregation. Slave owning signified status. More deeply, though, the particular brand of evangelicalism developing in America during the Great Awakening made an antislavery stance unlikely for many. Mark Noll explains, “As a revival movement . . . evangelicalism transformed people within their inherited social setting, but worked only partial and selective transformation on the social settings themselves.”23 Evangelicalism focused on individual conversion and piety. Within this evangelical framework, one could adopt an evangelical expression of Christianity yet remain uncompelled to confront institutional injustice.
Ironically, Edwards’s second son, Jonathan Edwards Jr., more fully grasped the revolutionary applications of his Christianity. A pastor himself, the younger Edwards had grown up around Mahican and Mohawk tribes and spoke their languages better than English as a boy.24 Beginning in the 1770s, Edwards became an outspoken abolitionist. For instance, he wrote an article entitled “Some Observations upon the Slavery of Negroes” and in 1791 preached a sermon called “The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade.” Edwards Jr.’s impact, however, would not come near to his father’s, nor could the son’s outspokenness about slavery drown out his father’s conspicuous silence and support of the institution.
Edwards and Whitefield represent a supposedly moderate and widespread view of slavery. Both accepted the spiritual equality of black and white people. Both preached the message of salvation to all. Yet their concern for African slaves did not extend to advocating for physical emancipation. Like these two preachers, many other Christians did not see anything in the Bible that forbade slavery. In fact, the Scriptures seemed to accept slavery as an established reality. Instead, white Christians believed that the Bible merely regulated slavery in order to mitigate its most brutal abuses.
THE BAPTIST GENERAL COMMITTEE OF VIRGINIA
In 1793 the Baptist General Committee of Virginia had to decide whether it would accept slave owners as congregation members in good standing. Formed in 1782 to combat the privileged standing that the Anglican-Episcopal church had with the Virginia Assembly, the Baptist General Committee eventually issued a statement in 1785 opposing enslavement.25 It posted an even stronger statement in 1790 when the outspoken white Baptist antislavery minister John Leland declared the institution of slavery to be not only against the law of God but also “inconsistent with a republican government.”26
Backlash against the 1790 resolution was swift and fierce. In the Baptist tradition, each congregation must decide policies and stances independently, and no other congregation or body holds authoritative sway over another. As each congregation debated the Committee’s resolution, sharp divisions emerged. Enslavers demanded rights to their “property” and promoted the idea that the Bible defended, or at least did not prohibit, slavery. In response, the Baptist General Committee “again debated hereditary slavery and voted ‘by a majority (after considering it a while) that the subject be dismissed from this committee, as believing it belongs to the legislative body.’ ”27 Thus Baptists in Virginia declared slavery to be a civil issue outside of the scope of the church. Slave ownership became an accepted practice in most Baptist congregations, and whenever someone raised objections, leaders could demur and insist that the topic was an issue for the state, not the church. Black Christians, however, refused to leave the issues of slavery and racism outside the church doors.
THE FIRST HISTORICALLY BLACK CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION
Harsh though it may sound, the facts of history nevertheless bear out this truth: there would be no black church without racism in the white church.
The first congregations of black Christians in America often met in secrecy for fear of persecution. Enslaved people who converted to Christianity had to meet in “hush arbors”—secret places on farmlands, in the woods, or swamps where slaves gathered for worship. They usually met under cover of night after an exhausting day of manual labor. In a typical service, someone gave a word of exhortation and encouragement, which was accompanied by prayer and singing. The precariousness of their existence led Christian slaves to cry out to God with a passion and exuberance that has become characteristic of many black church traditions. The covert nature of the black church led some to call it the “invisible institution.”
Black Christians did not always meet in secret. Sometimes they worshiped in the same congregations as white Christians, albeit under segregated seating. This was a pragmatic decision on the part of white believers. Controlling and monitoring slaves was easier if they were in the same building.
The divide between white and black Christians in America was not generally one of doctrine. Christians across the color line largely agreed on theological teachings such as the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the importance of personal conversion. More often than not, the issue that divided Christians along racial lines related to the unequal treatment of African-descended people in white church contexts.
While black Christians left white churches and denominations en masse after the Civil War, the formation of African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) stands as an early example of black Christians exercising agency to escape racism in the church and form their own more affirming fellowships.
One of the founders of the AME denomination, Richard Allen was born a slave in Philadelphia in 1760. He came of age during the American Revolution and was undoubtedly influenced by the message of liberty and independence circulated in pamphlets and speeches. Having been given permission by his white owner to attend church meetings, Allen converted to Methodism in 1777. He purchased his freedom in 1786 and began preaching in various Methodist churches.28
Allen received an invitation to become a regular preacher at St. George’s, an interracial Methodist church in Philadelphia. Despite the racially mixed composition of the congregation, white Christians treated black worshipers as second class. Under Allen’s preaching the number of black attendees increased dramatically. Racial tension increased as well. Allen tried to gain support to purchase a new church building to accommodate the growing number of black worshipers, but white leaders of St. George’s insisted on segregated se
ating and relegated their darker-skinned brethren to certain sections of the sanctuary.
One Sunday in 1792, Richard Allen and fellow black minister Absalom Jones entered St. George’s to worship. Unknowingly, they took seats reserved for white parishioners and thus violated the segregated seating arrangements. They knelt to pray but one of the church’s white trustees soon interrupted them. Allen recounts the episode in his autobiography:
We had not been long upon our knees before I heard considerable scuffling and low talking. I raised my head up and saw one of the trustees, H—M—, having hold of the Rev. Absalom Jones, pulling him up off of his knees, and saying, “You must get up—you must not kneel here.” Mr. Jones replied, “wait until prayer is over.” Mr. H—M—said “no, you must get up now, or I will call for aid and I force you away.” Mr. Jones said, “wait until prayer is over, and I will get up and trouble you no more.”29
The white trustees insisted that Jones leave immediately. Another trustee came over to help pull up the black worshipers. The prayer ended, and Allen recalled, “We all went out of the church in a body, and they were no more plagued with us in the church.”30 Allen and his compatriots did not completely cut off contact with St. George’s. They met with an elder from the church who discouraged them from raising money to build their own sanctuary and threatened them with church discipline.
But using his own money and plot of land he had previously purchased, Allen helped start the Bethel African Church in Philadelphia in 1794. Since so many black Methodists faced similar racial obstacles with their white coreligionists, Allen helped found the African Methodist Episcopal denomination in 1816 and became its first bishop.31
Black Christians have repeated their exodus from white churches throughout American history on both large and small scales. For instance, in 1833 Charles Colcock Jones, an early proponent of evangelizing the enslaved, preached to a slave congregation from the book of Philemon. When he said that the apostle Paul admonished slaves not to run away from their masters, “one half of my audience rose up and walked off with themselves.” The remainder “looked anything but satisfied, either with the preacher or his doctrine.”32 Even when black people could not form their own congregations, they often refused to countenance any type of Christianity that sanctioned their enslavement.
A LIMITED REVOLUTION
Racial segregation in Christian churches occurred in the eighteenth century in large part because white believers did not oppose the enslavement of African persons. Instead, Christians sought to reform slavery and evangelize the enslaved. In the process, they learned to rationalize the continued existence of slavery. Many white Christians comforted themselves with the myth that slavery allowed them to more adequately care for the material and spiritual needs of enslaved Africans.
But the attempts of white Christians to reform slavery indicate that, at least in part, they realized its horrendous nature. Their guilt motivated them to try to soften its practice. They reasoned that even though slavery was bad for Africans, life for the enslaved would be far worse if not for the protective strictures of perpetual bondage. White clergymen like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards typify the contradiction of American Christianity. The two preachers attempted to treat the people they enslaved humanely, yet they still acquiesced to slavery, even practicing it themselves.
The American church compromised with racism in the eighteenth century by permitting slavery to continue. The Christian church grew in the 1730s and 1740s, but the racial hierarchy remained firmly entrenched in the church and society. In one of American history’s clearest contradictions, not even Revolutionary ideals of independence and equality or the religious transformations brought on by the Great Awakening could deconstruct the foundations of the social pyramid. Instead, slavery and the meaning of race became more institutionalized as the country progressed through the opening decades of the nineteenth century.
CHAPTER
4
INSTITUTIONALIZING RACE IN THE ANTEBELLUM ERA
In 1809, St. Philip’s became the first black Episcopal parish in New York City. The congregation grew steadily and became noted for attracting many of the city’s leading black citizens.1 However, the vitality of the church and the prestige of its members did not gain them equal standing with their white Episcopalian brethren. The church faced repeated rejection in its attempt to join the regional association of Episcopal churches, known as a diocese.
At the annual diocesan convention in 1846, the leaders of St. Philip’s once again applied for admission, a status that would give them a voice in denominational matters and place them on equal footing with white churches. When the matter of the church’s status came before the Committee on the Incorporation of Churches, someone objected. After considering the matter, the committee made its determination. They stated that “neither St. Philip’s, nor any other colored congregation [will] be admitted into union with this Convention, so as to entitle them to representation therein.” The committee explained its reasoning: “They are socially degraded, and are not regarded as proper associates for the class of person who attend our Convention.” The committee members assured the convention that their objections had nothing to do with race. “We object not to the color of the skin, but we question their possession of those qualities which would render their intercourse with the members of a Church Convention useful.”2
Neither a thriving congregation nor conducting worship according to established denominational practices nor properly applying for membership proved sufficient grounds to include a black congregation as equal members of the household of God. The story of St. Philip’s was repeated throughout the antebellum period in varying ways and in different regions but with the same result—second-class citizenship for black Christians in the American church.
Despite the racism black Christians experienced, they did not abandon the faith. In fact, the decades before the Civil War served as an incubator for a newborn black American Christianity. Black Christians began developing distinctive practices that would come to characterize the historic black church tradition. Black Christianity in the United States grew alongside the explosive expansion of slavery and the hardening of racial boundaries in the United States. The faith of black Christians helped them endure and even inspired some believers to resist oppression.
At the outset of the nineteenth century, the United States could have become a worldwide beacon of diversity and equality. Fresh from the Revolutionary War, it could have adopted the noble ideals written in the Declaration of Independence. It could have crafted a truly inclusive Constitution. Instead, white supremacy became more defined as the nation and the church solidified their identities. This chapter outlines how early leaders embedded race into the foundation of both the fledgling American nation and the church.
SLAVERY’S CONSTITUTION
After the smoke of the Revolutionary War had dissipated in the winds of independence, the political leaders of the colonies set about forming a new nation. Their first order of business was to draft a document outlining how the government would function. Ratified in 1781, the Articles of Confederation were a weak initial attempt at a constitution. Fears of a strong central power and the desire for states to remain sovereign meant the federal government could not levy taxes or regulate commerce. Leaders quickly realized they would have to write a stronger piece of legislation, one capable of preserving the tenuous unity of the newly independent colonies. The result was the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which produced the US Constitution.
Although the Constitution outlines the duties and privileges of citizens and the scope and function of the government, who the Constitution applied to remained ambiguous. Without question, the Constitution had the rights of wealthy, white men in mind while other groups like indigenous peoples, women, and enslaved blacks held a lesser status. These other groups could not always count on the legal protections declared by the Constitution.
The US Constitution does not use the words slave or slavery, yet
some scholars argue that it can be viewed as a proslavery document. “Of its eighty-four clauses, six are directly concerned with slaves and their owners. Five others had implications of slavery that were considered and debated by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the citizens of the states during ratification,” writes David Waldstreicher.3 For example, Article IV, Section 2 states, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall . . . be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” This is known as the “Fugitive Slave Clause.” Although the word slave is absent, this section clearly means that any enslaved person crossing state lines from a slave state to a free state had to be returned to his or her owner. From the beginning, the Constitution ensured that nowhere in America would be safe for an escaped slave.
Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution details how a state’s population would be determined for tax and representational purposes in Congress. That number “shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” This clause is more popularly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Keep in mind that the union of the diverse states was not a foregone conclusion. The South had a vested interest in protecting slavery (though the North benefitted as well), and some southern states refused to ratify the Constitution unless they had specific assurances protecting their right to possess human chattel. In matters of taxation, northern states wanted each state to be taxed according to its total population, including slaves, but the South did not want to be taxed for slaves. The reverse was true when it came to the matter of representation in Congress. Northern states did not want slaves to be counted, because that would give the South a numerical advantage over northern states. To avoid an impasse, the delegates compromised. Instead of acknowledging the full humanity and citizenship of black slaves, political leaders determined that each slave would count as three-fifths of a white citizen.
