Consider if you will the history of the Christian church in
the early stages of the development of the New World, specifically the
settlement of Virginia. It was the 1700’s. England colonized this portion of
America, importing its religion of which the Church of England was preeminent. The legal structure for the official Church of
England was set up in 1660, with parishes being set up and one doctrinal
standard established as set by the bishops of England. If you were not properly
ordained and commissioned by the Church of England you could very well lose
your livelihood. Here’s how the Virginian officials put it: “If any other
person pretending himself a minister shall, contrary to this Act, presume to
teach or preach publicly or privately, the Governor & Council are hereby
desired and impowered (sic) to suspend & silence the person so offending.”[1]
Talk about keeping it together!
The
Anglicans controlled the scene for years until the Evangelicals showed up. The
Evangelicals wanted a piece of the action (Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians,
Methodists). Here’s the thing; the Evangelicals offered a more personal intense
type of religion which was more appealing to the people than the Anglican
offering. This move by the Evangelicals was setting the stage for the needs of
the Blacks as providence would have it. Besides, the state of the Christian
church left much to be desired. It seems that lack of training and credentialed
ministers in the New World, not to mention the vast expanse of these territories
put a strain on ecclesiastical leadership. This leadership vacuum became appealing
to clergy in England who “wished to escape bad debts, unhappy marriages or unsavory
reputations.”[2] I
find it interesting that that the Virginian officials had to respond with the
following decree:
“Ministers shall not give
themselves to excess drinking, or riot, spending their time idly by day or by
night playing dice, cards or an other unlawful game; but they shall… occupy
themselves with some honest study or exercise, always doing the things which
shall appertain to honesty, and endeavor to profit the Church of God.”[3]
The government had to tell the preachers how to behave!
So we
get to the meat of the matter. Around 1619, blacks were imported into Virginia
for labor. Soon “blackness and slavery became synonymous.”[4]
The plantations owners were highly resistant of the effort to evangelize blacks
(their slaves) because: (1) time off from work reduced productivity, (2)
religious education and baptism may change their status from slave to a free
person, (3) illiteracy was preferred (keep them down…they might become
enlightened) and (4) “blacks had no soul.” This one was especially hard to swallow. My, we have come a long way.
Thank God,
there is a liberty associated with the gospel of Christ. It affords freedom in
ways one cannot imagine. Remember I said the Evangelical flavor of religion
would set the stage for the needs of the blacks? Well, in 1750 Samuel Davies, a
Presbyterian preacher from Pennsylvania championed the cause of ministry to the
blacks (who had grown to about 100,000) in Virginia. By then the flavor of the
Evangelical religion was a shouting, dancing, emotional type of worship. Unlike
the Anglicans, there was allowance for African traditions with a more “spiritual
egalitarianism that soon opened up paths to black leadership, preaching and
organizing.[5]
A little later, under the leadership of Shubal Stearns
(1706-1771), the Evangelical church began to promote “ the notion of a free
church without a confining or authoritarian hierarchy, of a ministry that
depended upon no credential or ceremony other than the call of God, and of a
baptism by immersion not of infants but of adult believers.”[6]
A lot to unpack there, but thank God for the gospel that not only broke down
economic barriers, but it provided liberation for people of all colors to share
in the call to worship in Spirit and in truth. Preaching without credentials was a big thing back then. The Anglicans had the system on lock-down as some would say. Of course I could not leave you hanging like this… What is a good
reading about church without a fight?
The
Anglicans would have none of this. The Blacks responded to this type of
ministry in huge numbers. Edwin Gaustad reports that one Anglican leader called
this move a “shocking delusion…threatens the entire subversion of true religion
in these parts, unless the principal persons concerned in that delusion are
apprehended or otherwise restrained.”[7]
Church people I tell you!!
This struggle was not only for Blacks. The Anglican church "thundered against a sect (Evangelicals) so disorderly that it allowed women to pray in public, permitted "every ignorant man to preach who chose," and encouraged "noise and confusions in their meetings."[8] Do you get the feeling the Anglicans had an issue with a "Spirit-filled" church, or were they just plain old stiff and prejudiced?
This struggle was not only for Blacks. The Anglican church "thundered against a sect (Evangelicals) so disorderly that it allowed women to pray in public, permitted "every ignorant man to preach who chose," and encouraged "noise and confusions in their meetings."[8] Do you get the feeling the Anglicans had an issue with a "Spirit-filled" church, or were they just plain old stiff and prejudiced?
[1] Edwin
S. Gaustad and Leigh E. Schmidt, The
Religious History of America, (United States: Harper One, 2004), 39-40.
Written by Kevin A. Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment