

### Southern Baptists and Southern Slavery

### The Forgotten Crime Against Humanity

By Rev. Dr. A. L. Carpenter

Copyright 2013 by Alvin Carpenter

Smashwords Edition

IFG88@hotmail.com

ISBN: 9781311381699

Cover Photograph by Kalina Vova/Bigstock

# Table of Contents

Introduction

PART I. The Unclaimed History of the Southern Baptist Convention

Chapter 1. Fabricating History

Chapter 2. Deconstructing the Myth

PART II. The Southern Baptist Convention and Its Use of Biblical Inerrancy in the Support of Human Bondage

Chapter 3. Slavery a Divine Institution

Chapter 4. Old Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage?

Chapter 5. New Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage?

Conclusion

Resources

# Introduction

I would permit no man, no matter what his color might be, to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him.

—Booker T. Washington, _Up From Slavery_

There is no evil committed by Christians that has not found its basis firmly imbedded in its adopted scriptures. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was born in the era of America's darkest hour when the culture of the institution of slavery was leaving its indelible mark upon the people of the New World. Throughout America if there was a voice of reason, compassion and an erstwhile representation of equality for all people that voice was drowned out by those who had much to gain by the continuation of the practice of the enslavement of the African. The Christian Bible might have been used to argue a case _against_ slavery but that was not the case. Not only was the Bible used to argue _for_ slavery but also those who made such an argument seemed to have an airtight case. God does seem to sanction slavery, both in the Old and in the New Testament and it was the powerful Southern Baptist ministers who made it their work to point out that fact. While the Baptists in the South were not alone in using the Bible to justify human bondage in the 19th century, it remains that the SBC was the only denomination that was founded upon the defense of the principles of slavery.

The newly formed SBC sided with slave owners and the institution of human bondage; this is not an opinion but a historical fact. This fateful decision has marred the beginnings of the SBC to the degree it has damaged the relationship between African Americans and the SBC that continue to this day. How does one apologize for using the Bible to enslave the ancestors of the African Americans? We do not know because the SBC has never offered an apology.

One thing that has never changed is the method of interpretation used by the Southern Baptists in the 19th century to protect slavery as an institution is still in use today. The very same verses in the Old and New Testaments remain, with their complete meaning, and are in full force now as they were then according to the SBC. To the SBC these slave verses remain inerrant and authoritative and since nothing has changed, when the time is right (or wrong) similar religious authorities may advocate human bondage using the same scriptures and citing the same divine authority.

From such tainted soil from which came the SBC one wonders how it has affected their work over the intervening years. Did those decisions made in 1845 by those who would form the SBC set a precedent that is still in use today? Perhaps it is not an oversight that the people who make up the SBC of the 21st century are kept in the dark concerning their formative years. For those of us who have worked in and with SBC churches have noticed a concerted effort to _never_ broach the subject of the history of the SBC.

In brief, this book is an exploration not so much about a religious denomination becoming oppressive to culturally marginalized communities, but how it was accomplished and why it continues. The Bible is either an instrument to reconcile people to God, and to one another, or an instrument of evil used to divide races, communities and people.

I write from the perspective of one who has been a part of the SBC from my earliest youth and as one who was raised at a time when African Americans were still considered, by some, to be inferior. A friend of mine, when I was a child, went on vacation to the deep South and when he returned he told of when he walked down the sidewalk of a Southern town and adult black men had to step off the walkway to let him, a white child, pass. His story confused me as a child because I knew adults, of any color, held unquestioned authority over children. Adults were strong, wise, provided for and protected children. What kind of world had my childhood friend visited where the natural order was so disturbed? Perhaps my friend had fabricated the story where the world was up side down. Deep down I knew he had not.

I attended a Southern Baptist Church in the small town of Citrus Heights California in the early sixties. Our pastor was from the South, as many Southern Baptist pastors were at that time, and everything seemed in order without too much trouble of any kind. The fact there were no African Americans at our church did not surprise due to the reason there were no African Americans in the whole town.

For no apparent reason my oldest brother, Ken, abruptly quit the church. This alarmed us because he was always the most spiritual of the family. Out of curiosity I asked him why he decided to no longer attend. He said he detected racism in the pastor's sermons (of which I had never noticed) so he (Kenny) met with the pastor and ask him directly, "If a black family applied for membership in our church would you allow them to become members?" Our pastor told my brother, "No." He believed the church should be segregated and "negroes" do not belong in a white church. I was stupefied at what I had heard. Our pastor seemed to be affirming that same superiority/inferiority concept that troubled me so much when the adult man had to step off the sidewalk for an approaching white child.

As a child I believed Baptists were the followers of a religion founded by John the Baptist and I was very proud of that fact. In our teens we were taught that we were the only denomination that had no founder other than Jesus. Yet, on my desk I have the founding documents of the Southern Baptist Convention dated and signed by its founders; all were slave owners or supporters of the institution of slavery. As I read the names of those founders there is not a single one named Jesus of Nazareth, or His cousin John called "the Baptist."

In the course of this book, three words will arise often: inerrancy, infallibility and absolutism. To the Southern Baptist these three terms are used interchangeably and one is dependent on the other. If one of these terms is proven to be questionable, in terms of biblical interpretation, the other two cannot be supported. All three of these ideas are essential to the SBC hermeneutic (method of interpretation). The Bible is from God and therefore it contains no error, it is infallible and thus it is the absolute authority in all things. It is from this perspective I address the problem of a biblical hermeneutic that has led to grave error in the past and continues to lead into grave error in the present. There is nothing wrong with the Bible; the problem is with its interpreters.

Yes, the Southern Baptists have a beginning and that beginning was rooted firmly in the greatest evil this country had ever been involved, the institution of human bondage. This book will uncover that which has been hidden for over 150 years. It is the truth that sets us free; we should not fear truth even when it brings to light those things that hurt.

# PART I

### The Unclaimed History of the Southern Baptist Convention

# Chapter 1

### Fabricating History

_Nobody had ever instructed him that a slave-ship, with a procession of expectant sharks in its wake, is a missionary institution, by which closely packed heathen are brought over to enjoy the light of the Gospel_.

—Harriet Beecher Stowe, The Minister's Wooing

For some reason, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been able to successfully conceal its origins from its followers for over 150 years. It has been successful because much historical information regarding the founding of the SBC was difficult to access and was only available at seminary libraries. There seemed to be very little interest in how and when the SBC came to be a denomination. Denominational history is rarely discussed among Southern Baptist church members, or at the local and state denominational gatherings for a very good reason. One would think an institution would have an interest in how they came to exist. Many corporations are proud of their beginnings and keep meticulous records of how they came into being, unless, there is something in that history that is best left uncovered. A common phrase heard among Southern Baptists is that the SBC is the only denomination in existence that had no founder other than Jesus Himself. As a young child I was very proud of that fact and lorded it over my friends who went to other churches in our small town. Of course, historically this is a poor attempt to hide the true beginnings of the SBC.

Where did such a notion come from, that the SBC had no earthly founder? The answer to this question is found in the book, "The _Trail of Blood,"_ written in 1931 by Dr. James Milton Carroll (1852-1931). Dr. Carroll, the founding president of Oklahoma Baptist University, was a leader in both the Texas State Convention and the SBC. Dr. Carroll was a giant among Southern Baptists and was looked upon as an unquestionable authority on all matters of Baptist life.

The full title of this small book is, _The Trail of Blood: Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries or The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day,_ and was the compilation of a series of five sermons delivered by Dr. Carroll. Carroll wrote this book at a time when Southern Baptists were desperate to dissociate themselves from their defense of, and their participation in, the institution of slavery. Dr. Carroll himself came from a family that owned slaves, as was the case of many Southern Baptists, and it was vital to begin to create distance between this unimaginable evil and a denomination that sought to find a sense of legitimacy. The problem was that on the question of slavery the Southern Baptists chose the wrong side. To make matter worse, the Southern Baptists not only were involved in the slave trade itself, but were very vocal in providing sound biblical arguments in its defense. This has been forgotten, swept under the rug of history and instead of claiming this history a new one was invented, as expressed in this book, _The Trail of Blood._

The fact that Carroll came from a slave holding family never hindered lionizing him or others like him in the pages of SBC history. However, it did necessitate a revisionist history for the sake of the growing denomination. This book (Trail _of Blood)_ was very successful at the time and still has many ardent followers today. It is much easier to teach in SBC churches that their denomination was founded by Jesus, or John the Baptist, than to teach that their denomination not only was established by slave owners but slave owners who fought desperately to ensure the institution of slavery in the South would continue as a God ordained and thus a divinely approved institution.

In essence, Carroll's book traces Baptist origins over 2,000 years beginning with Jesus. It might be pointed out that in the title of this book is the claim that "Christ" was their founder. It can be said that Christ indeed founded the "the" Church but not in the sense Dr. Carroll claims for the SBC. The SBC has a historical record, a specific date on the calendar that without doubt substantiates the claim it was founded in Augusta Georgia on May 8, 1845. The SBC was not founded in Palestine 2000 years ago. Nevertheless, the opinion of Dr. Carroll was widely accepted and is still considered to be the authorized history of the SBC by many Southern Baptists.

Why is this important? Is it acceptable to create one's history if they find the truth distasteful? The crime being attempted is one of refusing to accept responsibility for the role the Baptists in the South played in participating and protecting the institution of slavery. Not only has the SBC refused to acknowledge their role, there has never been an attempt by the SBC to offer restitution of any kind for their actions perpetrated upon the, not too distant, relatives of African Americans.

Dr. Carroll's history of the Southern Baptists starts by showing that Baptists are first "nicknamed" Christians (Acts 11:26), then are later known as Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicans, Albigenses, Waldenses, Tertullianists, Paterines, Cathari, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, and Ana Baptists. The reason why the Baptists come in so many different incarnations is in order they might survive the constant persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church (Carroll 2010, chapter five _fig)._ Throughout the book, Baptists are portrayed as the heroic and persecuted true church of God. This revisionist history is just the reverse of the founding of the SBC. The Baptists in the South was neither heroic nor persecuted. They were the persecutors not the persecuted and history demonstrates they were more shameful than heroic. With such beginnings it is no wonder why the origins of the SBC is never discussed among Southern Baptists and when it is . . . it is in light of the _Trail of Blood._

As a young pastor this book was handed to me by a senior pastor with great reverence. It was a story that he deeply believed and accepted as the true history of the denomination he served. In retrospect, he was passing down to me the true beginnings of the people known as the Southern Baptists. As Southern Baptists it was important that it was accepted that we were on the side of good and were a beacon of hope shining in a land of darkness. What did it really matter what the truth was, that was a long time ago. I too accepted this book as history because it came from a older pastor I respected, it was written by a source considered authoritative, and it provided "proof" we are not a denomination born from the mind of a man . . . we were authentic Christians.

This was a very important book ( _Trail_ _of Blood)_ that was readily accepted as the true history of the churches of the SBC. It was published in 1930, a time when the South was still reeling from the effects of slavery. The people reading this book were the children and grandchildren of slaveholders. A scant 65 years has passed since the end of the Civil War and the collective memory of the role the Baptists of the South played in the support of human bondage was still to be reckoned with. The problem of modifying the truth is the relief it provides is always temporary. In 1930, if a religious authority claims something to be true and it is not possible to verify such a claim it becomes easy to accept, especially if such a claimed is desired to be true. Southern Baptists believed _The Trail of Blood_ in the past because they had no way to verify its validity; today Southern Baptists continue to believe this alternate history because the truth is too horrible. Modern Baptists have at their fingertips entire libraries to search out the truth in this matter but it is preferable to believe a lie than assume the responsibility for the truth.

In 1898 the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, (Kentucky) W.H. Witsitt dared to challenge the idea of Baptist secessionism or Baptist perpetuity (the theory that Baptists existed in an unbroken trail back to Jesus). For his efforts he was dismissed from the office he held. Only twice has a president of a SBC seminary been dismissed, the first being Witsitt and the second being Dr. Russell Dilday, who after serving 16 years as president of Southwestern Theological Seminary, Dallas Texas, was dismissed during the fundamentalist purge in 1996. Just over 50 years after the founding of the SBC there was already a total abandoning the idea that they might have been founded on the principle of the defense of slavery. These ideas (Baptist perpetuity) were the accepted and popular history of the SBC and it was a direct attack on authority and legitimacy to question these ideas. It is on these principles of Baptist perpetuity, which Carroll based his book, _The Trail of Blood._

Baptists today find it difficult to believe that there was an actual date of creation of the SBC and that there were actually names attached to that founding document and none of those names were Jesus or John the Baptist. The SBC was founded in the second week of May 1845, in Augusta Georgia. Its first president was Rev. William B. Johnson, D.D., of South Carolina, who was an ardent _anti_ abolitionist and the founding principles of the SBC were based on the acceptance of human bondage as permissible and acceptable and within full accordance of the divine will of God. The Baptist secessionist theory and the _Trail of Blood_ have no mention in the founding documents of the SBC, or the fact it was firmly allied with the slaveholders in the South.

In retrospect, whom would we prefer to have as a founder, John the Baptist or Rev. William B. Johnson? In the _Trail of Blood,_ Carroll tells a story that obliquely alludes to the fact that Baptists come from the lineage of John the Baptist. It was believed that, "These people are called many names from the time of Jesus to the current era and they are the constant target of persecution by the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Church of England and the Lutheran's. They have survived by living in the mountains, valleys, forests and caves," claim Carroll, (Carroll, chapter 3). Yet, with access to a few scraps of the Bible they, over the centuries, while under great persecutions manage to survive to become the Baptists who form the SBC. Given the truth of the history of the SBC it can easily be understood why this view was so widely accepted and that any other suggestion that it might be otherwise was going to be considered ecclesiastical heresy.

The textbook of Baptist history taught at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Mill Valley, California, the SBC seminary in the West, was entitled, _A Short History of the Baptists_ by Henry C. Vedder. This book, over 400 pages, in length devotes but five pages to the founding of the SBC and its role in the support of slavery in America. The question that Vedder does raise is what led to the dissolution of the relationship between the Baptist of the South and the Baptist of the North. He reports that there was a "growing sentiment among the churches, especially among Baptist churches, that a Christian man ought not to be a holder of slaves" (Vedder 1907, pg. 345). What divided the Baptists from the North from the Baptists of the South was the question of slavery. The Northern Baptists abhorred the idea of slavery while the Southern Baptists believed that is was not only an acceptable practice but one authorized in the Old Testament and permitted in the New Testament.

Many pastors _and_ churches owned slaves in the South. The pastors owned slaves as a way to augment their salaries and the churches owned then in order to rent them out to bring in income from their labors. The Baptists in the South were completely comfortable with slave ownership. The Northern Baptists were appalled at such a misuse of the Bible and such a lowering of a Christian standard. Again, the Southern Baptists chose the wrong side on this issue and one wonders how it was possible they ever thought supporting the incredibly evil institution of slavery would be acceptable to God.

There is nothing in Vedder's history, of Baptist churches owning slaves, Baptist pastors owning slaves, Baptist scholars owning slaves and all of them together arguing passionately for the continuation of the institution of slavery, based on biblical texts. SBC ministers attending, at least one SBC seminary, were leaving as ignorant as to the history of the SBC as they arrived, having studied Vedder. Having graduated from GGBTS, I must admit I knew nothing about the origins of the SBC and the role they played in protecting the institution of slavery. Nothing.

I believe the SBC would have been better served to ensure all ministers attending their seminaries to have been given all necessary and accurate information in order to be competent to pastor a SBC church. Anything less than that is disingenuous and embarrassing due to the fact that those outside the SBC know more about the history of the SBC than those who graduate from SBC Seminaries and pastor SBC churches. If, at any time I might have been confronted with the idea that our denomination began in 1845 under a cloud of evil, I would be quick correct him or her with the true history of Baptists as proscribed by Dr. J.M. Carroll of Texas, as it was the only history I knew.

How is it the history of the largest Protestant denomination in the world, claiming over 16,000,000 adherents, 45,000 churches and 5,000 missionaries (www.sbc.net) could go unreported or worse, reported in a revisionist fashion? One possible reason is that secularist historians are simply not interested in the histories of religious denominations and when they are revised, no one cares. The historiography of denominations are written either by those who a part of the denomination of which they write, or write about another denomination other than their own because it is of interest to their faith in general. There are of course, exceptions to that rule such as the late Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) who took great pleasure revealing the objective history of any religion or denomination. While the slavery question may go unnoticed by those who should be the most acquainted with it (Southern Baptists) it does not escape the watchful eye of Mr. Hitchens. He accurately quotes Fredrick Douglas, a former slave, when he says, "the most devout Christians made the most savage slaveholders" (Hitchens quoting Douglas, _God is Not Great,_ pg. 178).

When an objective history about a denomination is written it has no audience because the followers of the denomination dismisses it as the work of someone outside the faith and therefore cannot be reliable. When Hitchens writes of Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other leaders that have been lionized by their respective denominations they consider this to be the work of an avowed atheist and enemy of the church. It is no surprise historians pay little attention to the formation of religious denominations. When they do, they end up in that dustbin of books no one reads or if they are read they are dismissed as prejudicial. The only histories that are accepted by a denomination are those that are written by writers approved by that denomination, and published by that same denomination. Accurate, unbiased histories are rare among any denomination and the SBC is not an exception.

The question remains as to why we prefer an alternative history to a well documented unbiased and documented history? It seems to be a problem not isolated to Southern Baptists but also accepted among Presbyterians, Methodists and other denominations. Presbyterians prefer not to discuss the uncomplimentary positions of John Calvin and his participation of burning his theological _contra_ Michael Servetus. Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 having dared to question the baptism of infants.

For Lutherans, many would like to forget that the one who played so vital a role in the formation of their denomination, Martin Luther, was also an avowed anti-Semite. One wonders how much of the anti Semitism played into the hands of those of the Third Reich and their horrid persecution of the Jews. The rift between Jews and Christians exist to this day because of denominational heroes of the faith are also the same that have left a legacy of hatred for those accused of deicide. Martin Luther in 1530 wrote a treatise called, _The Jews and Their Lies,_ containing the following:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For, whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10 ff.) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following:

Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3:19). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants" (Jewish Virtual Library http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org).

To read the above materiel is difficult for many who have only heard of the courage and faith of Martin Luther. We are the sum total of our past and if that past contains regrettable incidents they still serve to contribute to how we turn out in the end. There can be no heroes until we know the whole story, then we decide if a person is truly worthy of admiration.

If it seems if every denomination favors a history that has been revised it is because every denomination has things in its past that have been racial, violent or just embarrassing. For example, Methodists prefer not to speak too much of the marriage of their founder, John Wesley. John's wife Molly had zero toleration for his prolonged absences or his time spent with other women while on work for the Lord causing many violent episodes between the two of them. John and Molly had an unpleasant and dysfunctional marriage resulting in physical abuse. It might be noted when reading of these accounts, from the perspective of Methodist authorities, the blame for this relationship is inevitably placed on the shoulders of Molly. For some, it is not conceivable that John Wesley, author of "Hark the heralds Sing," "Jesus, Lover of My Soul," and founder of the Methodist denomination might be at fault in a difficult marriage. In addition, his anti Semitic views also remain an embarrassment that seems to go unmentioned. Concerning those who depend upon the Law for justification (Jews) Wesley wrote:

What stupidity, what senselessness must it be for such an unclean, guilty helpless worm as this [the Jew], to dream of seeking acceptance by his own righteousness, of living by the righteousness which is of the law! (Robert Michael 2005, pages 62-13).

In all fairness, while Wesley might have been referring to anyone, not specifically Jews that depend upon the works of the Law for righteousness, it would have been better off left unsaid.

Southern Baptists view themselves as ones who are to work to reform their society. In the Baptist Faith and Message, the handbook of SBC doctrine states:

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will their loyalty to Christ and His truth. (Baptist Faith and Message, The Christian and the Social Order, 2000).

Where was this view in the 19th century? If this view were adopted in the 19th century there would have been calling into account every slave owner and a call for manumission would have been heard throughout the land. Thousands of slaves looked for someone who would point out the enormity of injustice being committed against them but they found only silence from the Baptists in the South. Why did they fail the African in 19th century America?

It is argued the Baptists in the South defended and practiced slavery because they were immersed in their culture to the degree they became blind to the suffering of the African slave. The argument is that when a practice is widely accepted and permission is given by the most authoritative religious voices, one becomes engulfed in the madness while never recognizing it as madness. Assuming this to be true, does it give excuse to pretending the past never happened at all? The fact is it did happen, it was widespread, the guilt of the SBC is real and yet this guilt has never been acknowledged nor has it ever sought reparation of any kind as an act of atonement. If the church was lulled into a great evil, unknowingly in the past, where do they stand today? What might we be involved in today that in the future historians will look back and say "how could they have done such things and not known it was evil." The Church should transcend its culture and it is the work of its pastor to insure the church is not engulfed by its culture and blinded to the evil it commits. This was the failure of the Southern Baptists ministers; instead of leading the Baptists of the South to oppose the culture that embraced slavery they led them to become followers of prevailing and popular opinions.

It is to be realized that it is very difficult to summon the courage to speak out against one's own culture but it has been done before and it is always admirable when it is accomplished. The SBC failed to reform culture in the slave era and instead chose to become a willing participant. A great opportunity for the Baptists in the South to stand and say to the powerful landowners, politicians, and other advocates of slavery was forever lost, having decided to join them. Why did they join them? The short answer was there was money to be made, as much financial support for the churches came from slave owners. It was the money that came from the plantation owners, slave owners that built many churches in the South. It is the opinion of the author that every church built by the labor of the slave ought to be torn down, as every nail and plank must be odious to God! Is this a radical opinion? To build a house of worship using stolen labor is indefensible.

The important part of selling a product is making the product attractable to the buyer. This is why we practice revisionist history. Truth is always a hard sell. Also, it is done because it can be sold to an unbelieving public virtually unchallenged if it is what the people wish to believe. It is an old saying but it still holds true that "people believe to be true what they wish to be true."

Secular historians are not interested in the history of the SBC and even if they were little attention would be given to historians outside the Baptist tradition. In addition, what harm can there be done in saying little about the past and letting the people follow in ignorance? So, no one raises questions and no one provides answers to the questions that are not being raised. Then came the information age and the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web.

Since 1991, when the World Wide Web became a reality and information that was once inaccessible became widely available, the ability for any institution to conceal their origins became impossible. The advent of the Internet is most likely the greatest paradigm shift in the history of the human species. Thomas Kuhn writing in the _Structure of Scientific Revolution_ (Kuhn 1962) argues there exist revolutions in scientific thought that upset entire intellectual concepts. This is certainly the case as it applies to the age of information. Now, the histories of virtually all institutions are available to those who wish to seek out such information. What was once the private domain of researchers is now available to anyone with access to the Internet. In the past, church history was controlled by the gatekeepers of available knowledge, (pastors, priests, rabbis, etcetera), but now that information is available to everyone who has a desire to know. No longer is it possible to hide the truth. Now, those in authority are faced with the choice of acknowledging the truth of their past or continuing to falsify the past and risk being marginalized as irrelevant, or worse, out right revisionists.

What is historical revision but an intentional effort to distort true history and manipulate into a narrative that better serves the present? In spite of any reason for revisionist history it cannot be in the same category as truth and if it is not true then the only other category is that it is false. All revisionist history is a lie and it does not matter how noble the cause, it is a lie and its purpose is to deceive.

Consider, what could best possibly serve the SBC: the truth of their beginnings, or a fictional story that sanitizes the past? One story is an accurate retelling of a terrible past, the other a complete fabrication of an honorable past: It is not possible for both to be true. One of these stories is true the other a lie. The problem is there cannot be a lie with out a liar and the very fact suggesting that an SBC leader in the past or present, having been or is lying is too much to even consider.

In the argument of what is the most valuable, what is the most utilitarian approach to religion that yields the greatest reward? Is it a matter of comfort? Or, is it a matter of truth? Some hold to the idea that religion should provide comfort even if it is a false comfort. If this is the case then some think it is a valid reason for revising history and it even explains why secular historians are not interested in the history of denominations. If, for example, the Southern Baptists wish to believe they are direct descendants of John the Baptists or Jesus then what harm is done? If the Presbyterians wish to believe that John Calvin is the example extraordinaire of a follower of Jesus in spite of his participation in the burning alive of Michael Servetus, or that Marin Luther's anti-Semitism was but a regrettable reflection of the attitudes of his age . . . what harm can be done?

Until Southern Baptists can embrace its past it can never consider itself to be an institution based on truth. If a denomination is not based on truth then it is based on falsehoods. Revisionist history means we know the facts but we do not like the facts, as they do no represent the image we desire for the present. Therefore, we change the past to conform our preferred view of the present. Revisionist history in not "just" a lie . . . but it is also the perpetuation of a lie. The Internet, the availability of the truth of the actual history of the SBC is now open to discovery to anyone who has access to the Internet. The day of accountability has arrived.

Who are we? Where did we come from? Are our heroes in fact anti heroes? Can we be better than our founders? Do we dissociate our selves from our institutions because of our ill founding? All these are questions that may have resided in the minds of a few and now reside in the mind of many due to the advent of the information explosion of and the incredible paradigm shift to a new way of knowing. The incredible popularity of Christopher Hitchens (author, essayist, journalist, Richard Dawkins (ethnologist, evolutionary biologist), Sam Harris (neuroscientist) and Daniel Dennett (philosopher) is causing many to explore the roots of their faith. In essence, there is nowhere to hide from truth. Once, the preachers, pastors, rabbis, imams and all the other religious potentates and authorities controlled any and all information, now the cat is out of the bag with the advent of the Internet. What is there to fear? Why has the history of the SBC been kept under wraps for so long? Christine Wicker author of _The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crises inside the Church,_ in an article to the Huffington Post says:

What Baptist leaders have known for years is finally public: The Southern Baptist Convention is a denomination in decline. Half of the SBC's 43,000 churches will have shut their doors by 2030 if current trends continue. And unless God provides a miracle, the trends will continue. The denomination's growth rate has been declining since the 1950s. The conservative/fundamentalist takeover 30 years ago was supposed to turn the trend around; it didn't make a bit of difference. Leaders said it did. Reporters and politicians believed it did. But the numbers kept going down until, finally, they have become obvious to everyone. (Wicker 2008)

Ms. Wicker is a Southern Baptist and is well aware of the ongoing struggles within the SBC. There are clear indicators of decreasing membership within the SBC and its influence in public life is waning. A new beginning might be possible if it includes an abandoning of the founding myths and acknowledge the role the SBC played in the enslavement of over 4,000,000 people based on the color of their skin. Rather than even entertain such an idea, at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention held in Fort Worth Texas a committee was appointed to seek to change the name of the SBC. In the end, the SBC decided to keep the name "Southern Baptist Convention" as its legal name but also use the name "Great Commission Baptist" in order to find distance from its affiliation with the Southern States. It is a poorly veiled attempt to created distance from its racist roots.

It is to be seen if a name change will be sufficient to carry on the founding myths, to sustain a history it wishes to keep not only from public eye but also from the very members of their churches. A Southern Baptist Church may change its name to the Great Commission Baptist Church in an attempt to disguise its affiliation with a denomination that is slowly losing its influence and moral authority within America, but how will people feel who join a church believing it is not a SBC church only to find out later it is. A name change cannot eradicate the SBC's past crimes against humanity, against the African American.

Southern Baptist history, as odious as it might be, must be confronted and embraced with all its ugliness. Once that occurs then a discussion can take place over how we can find peace with those whom we have hurt, not just in the past but those who suffer today as a result of the terror of slavery. To embrace our history is to speak of repentance, and restitution, something that has never been suggested through any resolution of the SBC. Why would they? As long as Southern Baptists remain unaware of their tragic beginnings there remains no need to admit to a single crime against humanity.

# Chapter 2

### Deconstructing the Myth

_I pity from the bottom of my heart any nation or body of_ _people that is so unfortunate as to get entangled in the net of slavery._

—Booker T. Washington, _Up From Slavery_

Slavery was the question at hand. Human bondage with its entire deplorable apparitions was the singular reason for the division between the Baptists of the North and the Baptists of the South. This reason is made plain and clear in the documents, sermons and tracts written during the periods of 1825-1865 by the Southern Baptists. It is not until after the Civil War, when the fortunes of the Southern Baptists fell with the fortunes of the Confederates, that they began to revise their history by insinuating that the division that founded the SBC in 1845 was not based on the issue of the advocacy of human bondage. Over the passage of time the reason given for the division was claimed to be doctrinal and not the issue of slavery. The story circulated among Southern Baptists was that the Northern Baptists were more liberal than their Southern counterparts, which led to the division in 1845 and thus the creating of the SBC. Of course, it was not along lines of theology that led to the division, it was the Southern Baptist determination to support human bondage to its bitter end.

It is difficult to believe that any expression of the Christian religion, be it Methodism, Presbyterian or Baptist might be founded upon the defense of human slavery. In fact, all three were involved in the ownership of those who were created in the image of God from the date of 1619 when "Twenty Negars" (Shelton Smith 1972, pg. 3) were put ashore at Jamestown. This was the beginning of one of the darkest periods of Christianity in America. Not only because churches, pastors, Christians and others laid claim to the right of owning, selling, trading and inheriting other humans but claiming the right to do so was authorized by God as revealed in His holy writ. The Bible not only supported slavery but also, as their champion Dr. Richard Fuller, the third president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the largest slaveholder in South Carolina, puts it, "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New Testament cannot be sin" (Smith 1972, pg. 133).

In this short book we must pause to consider what Dr. Fuller not only said, but trumpeted throughout the New World that "God sanctions slavery!" "Sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New Testament" were the words quoted throughout the South by all the slave owners. As we shall see, Dr. Fuller and others like him defended these words with verse after verse from the Bible. This was the fuel that drove the acceptance of slavery and eventually led to the Civil War where over 900,000 died. Death and slavery, terrible stains upon Southern Baptists yet it they act as if they had anything to do with slavery or the Civil War. Were it not for the Southern Baptists leaders giving the support for slavery based on biblical texts it is unlikely there would have been the Civil War. Slavery and death, a legacy that must be claimed.

Rather than the SBC repudiating this tragic use of the Bible, admitting a role their institution played in incalculable suffering and death . . . there is only silence. To be African American in America today and to know what had been committed against their grandparents, their families, with no accountability by the institution that protected the very ones who "owned" them is unacceptable.

There was no greater voice for the endorsement of the institution of slavery than from Richard Fuller. In the 1840's this renowned Southern Baptist, pastor of the Beaufort Baptist Church of North Carolina, publicly debated slavery with his counter part in the North, Rev. Francis Wayland of Providence, R.I. This debate was a public discourse printed in serial fashion and eventually was made available in book form in 1847 entitled, _Domestic Slavery considered as a Scriptural Institution: In a Correspondence Between The Rev, Richard Fuller of Beauport, S. C. And The Rev. Francis Wayland of Providence._

This small book, alongside the Bible, was all any slave owner needed to justify the ownership of slaves. Fuller is considered to be one of the leading figures of the SBC yet he owned many slaves, to the great dismay of those who prefer to refer to him as a man whom "there is much we can learn from the life and preaching of a man like that" (<http://www.founders.org/library/sermons/bio_fuller.html>).

Fuller, in spite of his avid defense of the institution of slavery including the buying, holding and selling slaves, nevertheless went on to become the third president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It would not have been possible, at this time, to elect anyone other than a slaveholder, or as a minimum a supporter of slavery. Fuller was the perfect candidate for the presidency of the SBC as he was affluent, a slaveholder, eloquent, popular, and highly educated at Harvard. What did this hero of the Southern Baptists believe regarding slavery? The following is taken from his public correspondence with Francis Wayland, in his defense of slavery and reflect Fuller's main points:

Slavery is clearly sanctioned by Scriptures both Old and New testaments and any argument against slavery cannot be supported by Scripture. Slavery is not a moral evil nor is it a sin otherwise God would not have permitted His people to own slaves. In the New Testament the practice of slavery is at least tolerated. The Bible condemns the _abuse_ of slavery but permits the system itself. Neither Jesus nor His followers command masters to emancipate their slaves. In fact the scriptures tell slaves how to serve their masters. The New Testament never calls for the manumission of slaves. The abuses of the system do not invalidate the system. If the slave is well clothed, receives religious instruction, and receives a fair reward for labor in modes of compensation best suited to his condition might not the Bible permit this relation to continue? The crime is not slaveholding but cruelty. Property in a slave is only a right to his service without his consent or contract. Slavery is like a father looking over his children. (Fuller vs. Wayland 1847).

These were some of the arguments made by one of the most respectable Southern Baptist clergymen of the day. These are the arguments that were widely embraced by Southern Baptists of his day. The text of this published debate were exactly the words slaveholders of the South longed to hear. Not only the words of a respected minister but also an affirmation for slavery from the Bible. It is no wonder that no slaveholder traveled far without his copy of the arguments of the Rev. Richard Fuller.

In the court of public opinion, the defense given by Francis Wayland was weak and ineffectual. He simply could not launch any counter attack from the Bible demonstrating that it condemned slavery in any way or fashion. If anything, his counter argument worked in favor of the pro slaver movement in that it revealed there was no defense against slavery coming from the Bible. If the highly respected Francis Wayland (President of Brown University) was incapable of mounting a competent and complete repudiation of slavery using the Bible then there must be none to mount. At best, Wayland says that perhaps God did not reveal all of the moral law on this matter so the Hebrews did not know it was wrong and thus they had slaves.

Richard Fuller's place in Southern Baptist history is important not only because he was the president of the SBC during its formative years, being elected for two terms in 1859 and 1861, but also because he baptized Annie Armstrong, the founder of the Women's Missionary Union and James Petigru Boyce one of the founders of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky. Two revered individuals among the Southern Baptists. To ever question the character of the early founders of the SBC is tantamount to heresy within SBC communities. An example might be found in an interview with the author of a biography on James Petigru Boyce, _James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman,_ by a professor of history at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky. The question put to the author, Thomas J. Nettles was "How would you respond to someone who said he would never read your book for the simple fact that James P. Boyce was from the South and owned slaves?" To which Dr. Nettles replied:

I would try to resist the production of a long list of insults to the intelligence of one so bigoted, narrow-minded, unthinking and hypocritical as even to think such a thing. Employment of such a principle would shut one off from the study of the Old Testament, virtually all of the ancient cultures, Greek dominance of the intertestamental period, the Roman Empire, the history of England until the first half of the nineteenth century, the history of colonial America, the lives of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, the entire ante-bellum South and so forth.

If one believes that the union of church and state has brought untold suffering and evil to both church and state as well as society in general (which I do), and feels that avoiding the documents produced in that context is a moral necessity for a Christian and that awareness of their viewpoints on theology, politics, philosophy, and society are reprehensible and unworthy study of the German Reformation, the English Reformation and all western medieval culture. If one studies history and gains interest in persons and nations simply on the basis of personal moral approval of the subject or the era in which he lived, he probably can find justification for the study of nothing and spend his life congratulating himself that he is ignorant of everything. But if one wants to see the operations of the mind of a highly gifted, intellectually and morally driven person, whose flaws are obvious and will not hurt us and whose strengths are massive and will inspire and help us, then go for Boyce. If one wants to see the way in which theological and biblical commitments transcend the ability of any individual to facilitate the moral, intellectual, and spiritual loftiness engendered in the study of divine revelation, study Boyce. If one want to see how that same commitment, nevertheless, raises a common sinner such as we all are to uncommon heights of self-sacrifice inspired by a vision of the divine glory, study Boyce. If one wants to see how Christian character constantly nourished by increased knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ can interrupt the natural tendency to bitterness and resentment and seething hostility fostered by the crushing destruction and snarling ridicule of deeply-held conviction and unfettered commitment to a cause and transform the soul to the sweetness of a reconciled and reconciling posture of mind, study Boyce. (Nettles interview 2010 <http://news.sbts.edu/2009/06/10> /tom-nettles-on-new-boyce-biography-qa-part-i/).

In other words, never dare criticize SBC heroes, even if they were slave owners! There seems to be the idea that if you do enough "good" it somehow cancels out the fact that you once owned slaves and participated in the theft of freedom of another human being. It is not possible for a good man or woman to participate in evil unintentionally. No one accidentally bought and sold slaves. Anyone, at any time could free their slaves if they chose to do so and some did. Others wanted to keep their slaves and continue to preach in their pulpits and it is those whom we cannot call "good." Not only does the good that they do fail to cancel out the evil they committed, but also it can be rightly said . . . the evil they participated in forever blotted out any good they accomplished.

This long answer, as it is reprinted here, is to demonstrate a common tactic employed by the many who wish to excuse the practice of evil by those we wish to make into heroic figures. If we take all the evil committed and weigh that evil against all the good committed there should be a cancelling out of one over the other. James Boyce's mentor and pastor was Fuller, the slaveholder and vocal advocate of slaveholding. He, Boyce, is on record of owning slaves and at one he said he was an "ultra pro-slavery man" (Broadus 1893, pg. 185). The question at hand, when examining the lives of those who founded the SBC and its institutions, is; what is flawed? Is it the men themselves who were the ardent supporters of human bondage? Were they were so immersed in their culture they could not see clearly that perhaps holding humans as slaves might be improper? Is it the very book they used to justify their actions, the Bible itself flawed? Or, was it a simple matter of hermeneutics where we had the right men and women, with the right motives, the right book yet a damning hermeneutic. However, the fact remains that all of the founders of the SBC were unashamedly spokesmen for the scriptural warrant for the buying, selling, possessing and inheriting fellow humans.

It would be inconceivable to the point of denial that these same men (Fuller, Boyce and others) who could speak passionately about a world of lost souls from the pulpit, could speak just as passionately in defense of human slavery. While the SBC heralds the good that Fuller accomplished on the behalf of the SBC they can never use that good to justify the evil committed under his polemic on God's endorsement of slavery. Fuller was raised in a privileged slaveholding family, was afforded a sound education and had a wife and three daughters. It is odd to consider one that came to have so much in life becomes the spokesperson for the denial of basic human rights to the people brought from Africa. An entry in Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia describes Fuller's character in these terms:

No pastor in the denomination was more highly esteemed by the representative men of other churches than he, and none was more frequently urged to lend the influence of his name and counsel to those larger and more comprehensive benevolent organizations which embraced within their scope great communities and groups of churches.

Were it not for men such as Fuller and Boyce, one could surmise there may have ever had been the Civil War with its entire corpus of human suffering. If the doctors of religion had led their congregations into accepting that human bondage was _unsupported_ by scripture and abhorrent to God and that they (slaveholders) had to give up their slaves or give up God, there may have not been a need for the military defense of slavery from the South. It was a simple matter for the industrialized North, who had little use for slaves, to condemn slavery in the South, which depended on slave labor for their economy, and society to demand they give up slavery as being indecent and an embarrassment to the Nation. The South may have capitulated having no moral argument at all and only the argument of expediency. It is possible the institution of slavery could have ended without a war, crushed by simple common decency. But, according to the powerful voices of the religious leaders of the South, slavery was "God's will."

Christian apologists such as Fuller brought the full weight of God on the side of the South. No longer was the South without a valid argument. Charles Wilson in _Baptized in Blood; The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920,_ asserts the Southern religions laid the basis for secession by their literal interpretation of the Bible lending unqualified and widespread belief in the South that "God was on our side" (Wilson 2009, pg. 4). Slavery, like everywhere else in the world ends by civil action, public opinion, a sense of human decency and religious dissent. The Southern Baptist insured there would be no religious dissent.

Looking back, having the benefit of not being immersed in the cultural need to own another human, we clearly can ask the question; where does the flaw lay? Did the men and women in early America suffer from a universal flaw, a widespread deficiency of character? Of mind? Or, is it the Bible that is seriously flawed and needs to be abandoned as a collection of dangerous teachings left over from desert dwelling nomads of the Sinai? Where does the guilt lie? Perhaps it is a matter of hermeneutics (the principles by which we interpret the Bible). The Baptists of the South used a hermeneutic of biblical literalism, inerrancy and the idea that it was absolute truth in all matters. This hermeneutic allowed the Baptist in the South to give the Southern culture the authority to embrace the institution of slavery, not just out of reasons of economy but also reasons of religion. The African was not just a slave, but also one born to slavery by divine decree according to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

When considering these facts, this method of biblical interpretation is still in use today, not only in SBC church life but also in many evangelical churches. The arguments for the support for slavery still remains, waiting for the day to arrive when strong authoritative voices point to the slave verses in the Bible and say, "Thus sayeth the Lord God." In America it does not seem possible that slavery would ever present itself again, but if it does the same arguments will be made from the same passages of the Bible convincing people what they desire to be convinced of. In addition, slavery is still being practiced in the world and where it is, and where the Bible is considered authoritative, without doubt it is being used (misused) to protect the institution of slavery.

In the battle between culture and personal conscience, culture carried the day. Because slavery was widely accepted, protected by the laws of the State and an argument was being successfully advanced by authoritative religious figures that it was good for the country and good for the slaves then it became a simple matter to accept and endorse slavery. Even though simple decency and a matter of moral human conscience disagreed with slavery, to be caught doing so made one appear anti-American and most certainly anti-God. Slave ownership was not only a right but even considered by some to be a duty. Those slave owners who had a troubled conscience saw themselves in a parental role over their slave. This paternalism was common among slaveholders and seemed to give a dignified role to those who owned slaves.

As it pertains to the Baptists in the South, it was an easier matter in that they were staunchly Calvinistic in doctrine. Calvinism points that slavery is, in fact, the permissive will of God working all things together for His ultimate good. In 1872 the founding documents of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary states "God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and govern all creatures and all events," (Baker 2000, pg. 138). If slavery were not the permissive will of God then why did slavery exist at all? This was the question they presented to those who opposed slavery. Because slavery _does_ exist then it must be the will of God, otherwise He would bring it to an end. This made perfect sense to the Baptists in the South. The proslavery advocates had a willing audience for their strong arguments while the abolitionists had a skeptical audience, at best, with arguments supported by sophistry. The racist attitudes of many of the Northern Baptists left a halfhearted desire to engage the great orators from the south.

It can be safely said that both Baptists in the North and in the South were guilty of slaveholding and slaveholding attitudes. While the abolitionist movement was by far the strongest in the North there were nevertheless many churches and church members in the North who were slaveholders. The North was not as dependent upon slaves to the same degree as were those in the South so the idea of manumission took root more readily. However, with this movement of abolitionism came with it the desire for colonization or the repatriation of the slave back to Africa. The Baptists in the North greatly feared the results of manumission as much as the South. It is a misconception to think Northern Baptists were of higher moral character than their counterparts in the South. While the Northern Baptists were quick to embrace emancipation they nevertheless feared what they referred to as:

This unhappy people are rapidly spreading a fearful taint, an alarming virus through all the relations of general society. This taint, this virus is not only affecting the morals but even the blood of the American people. Therefore, the American Colonization Society may prevent incalculable mischief and ruin to this country (Smith 1972, pg. 97).

The idea of the polluting the blood of the white American people was the result of a belief that the white race was superior to the black race in every degree and if these people were given their freedom to intermingle the results might be an amalgamation of Saxon purity. There was no greater fear among whites during this period than the fear of amalgamation. This is what drove the popularity of the colonization movement. Their conscience felt that there was a remote possibility that it might be unchristian to own another human, however it was not even to be considered these Africans would dare to intermingle among their white counterparts with any idea of equality.

The irony of the pure blood idea was that the whites had not been subject to the African intrusion into their bloodlines, but it was the whites intruding upon the bloodlines of the Africans! The body of the female slave did not belong to her or her husband, if she had been allowed a husband, but belonged completely to her master and his sons. Many of these African women bore the children of the white slave owners, yet there was a universal social understanding that these children were never to be considered to have been fathered by the slaveholders, or his sons. These children were often light skinned and were always recognized as children born into slavery. Access to female slaves was the unquestioned privilege of the white master. Not only did he, the slaveholder, get to exploit these women but also in doing so he increased his holdings in the slave market. In the genteel South it was considered poor form to inquire where the light skinned African children came from and why they seem to resemble the slave owner and their male heirs. It was a burden the wives of the slave owners had to quietly bear. The very fact that this was occurring while maintaining an argument of racial purity and "bloodline" was intellectually unsupportable.

At the time, there were very few voices from any of the major denominations speaking against this aberration called the institution of slavery. There came to be over 4,000,000 African slaves in America and if you had the means to do so you purchased as many slaves as you desired. It was approved by the clergy, sanctioned by law and accepted within every community both North and South.

There were some that accepted the theory that the African was not even of the human race but a third species. There existed the animal kingdom, then the human kingdom, and right in the middle was the African. The idea of polygenesis was embraced because in this theory they found a rational to consider the African as one who is _not_ made in the image of God. It made it possible, for many, to justify the treating of the African as an animal and not to extend to him or her full benefit of being a member of the same species of the white population. Again, this is the position supported by those who founded the SBC.

In the years leading up to the Civil War one would be hard pressed to hear a singular heroic voice against slavery in the South. There were far too few people willing to call for the complete emancipation of the slave and to openly challenge the powerful Southern Baptist apologists. Those church leaders in support of manumission and allowing the former slaves equal rights and freedoms were either silent or whose public arguments were so weak and ineffective as to be crushed by the pro slavery Southern preachers.

The most remarkable voice that spoke against slavery was not a Southern Baptist but was a man named James O'Kelly, a Methodist preacher. In 1785 O' Kelly freed his one slave (Dianna) and denounced slavery wherever he went and to whoever would listen. He is quoted as saying:

If there be such a being in existence as may be called God, who was the author of this tragedy (slavery), it must be one of those gods that ascended from the bottomless pit. Such a god I defy in the name and strength of Jesus and proclaim eternal war against him. (Smith 1972, pg. 42).

O'Kelly spoke these words when it was universally accepted that the institution of slavery was an accepted doctrine based on the Bible. Slaveholders found a safe haven under the authority of the Bible whereas men who rejected such a proposition were marginalized and often forced from their churches. O'Kelly eventually left the Methodist denomination and started his own church which grew into what is known today as the United Church of Christ, boasting of over one million members.

It took civil authority to finally bring an end to the institution of slavery in America in spite of all the efforts of the Southern preachers. In the South, the Baptists fought alongside the Confederate soldiers to do everything in their strength to ensure that the system of human bondage remained in place. The Bible in one hand a musket in the other, Southern preachers offered up their service to the cause. There were so many Southern Baptist preachers who fought in the Civil War that many churches were left vacant or in the hands of their lay people to carry on the work at home.

One of these celebrated Southern Baptist preachers was Rev. Isaac Taylor Tichenor, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Birmingham Alabama, who would later become the first president of the Home Mission Board of the SBC. Rev. Tichenor was one of those many Southern Baptist pastors that picked up a gun and fought with the Confederate Army. Tichenor was universally celebrated for his sharpshooting ability in the war. At the Battle of Shiloh in 1862 he killed a Union Colonel, a Captain, and four privates with his Colt repeating rifle (Brinsfield 2005, pg. 98). The Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives entry of Tichenor only mentions he was a chaplain in the Alabama division and goes on to say that:

For a year during the Civil War he served as Chaplain of the 17th Alabama Regiment-not confining himself strictly to his prescribed duties, for he acquired reputation as a sharpshooter and at the Battle of Shiloh went to the front of his regiment and rallied the wavering lines. (Tichenor, SBC Historical Library 2012).

It is not difficult to see why the Southern Baptists are not excited to reveal that one of their celebrated heroes of the Home Mission Board was also renowned for his ability to kill Union soldiers in the defense of the Southern tradition to own, sell, and inherit slaves. While it is difficult to discover that many thought to be examples of courageous faith turned out to be the very ones perpetuating the evil of human bondage. How is it possible to kill in the defense of protecting the right of the practice of slavery?

A Bible in one hand, a musket in the other, not only willing to kill but also to die, for the protection of the plantation owners and to preserve the right to "own" the African . . . this was the work of the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists so deeply believed that slavery was a divine right and they were willing to kill, and die, to preserve and protect this indecency.

Another outspoken leader of the Southern Baptists was Rev. Dr. Richard Furman. Richard Furman, of whom Furman University is named after, was one of the Southern Baptist's most prolific writers on the defense of slavery and also one of South Carolina's largest slaveholders. He was the first president of the Triennial Convention and president of the South Carolina State Baptist Convention. Furman was articulate, very prolific and was proud to represent the Southern Baptists' justification of slavery. He used the authority of his office as the president of South Carolina Baptist Convention to write a letter to the Governor of South Carolina giving a biblical defense of the institution of slavery. It is difficult to ascertain if this letter was at the request of the Governor (John L. Wilson) to clear up any moral doubts he may have had about slavery or, as Furman suggests, it was simply his _privilege_ to give a defense of slavery to clear up any suspicion that the holding humans as chattel may in any way be unwise or sinful.

The Rev. Dr. Furman's arguments are summarized from the pamphlet that was printed from his letter to Governor Wilson entitled: _Rev. Dr. Richard Furman's Exposition of the Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population of the United States in a Communication to the Governor of South Carolina_ :

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scripture, both by precept and example. The holding of slaves is justifiable by doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is therefore consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct. Slavery, when tempered with humanity and justice, is a state of tolerable happiness: equal, if not superior to that which many poor enjoy in countries reputed free. A master has a scriptural right to govern his slaves so as to keep them in subjection; to demand and receive from them reasonable service; and to correct them for the neglect of duty, for their vices and transgressions. It is the positive duty of servants (slaves) to reverence their masters, to be obedient, industrious, faithful to him, and careful of his interests; and without being so, they can neither be the faithful servants of God, nor be held as regular members of the Christian Church. A bondservant (slave) may be treated with justice and humanity as a servant and a master may, in an important sense, be the guardian and even father of his slaves. They become a part of his family. ?

When we read this defense of slavery we must be reminded this is not the argument of an agnostic philosopher. This is the argument of a highly respected Baptist theologian of the South. Furman was the first president of the Triennial Convention and the residing president of South Carolina Baptist Convention. This was a man whose voice would be heard above all other voices of his day. He spoke the words all slaveholders longed to hear. Slavery was not only supported in the Bible but it is also good for the slave himself or herself. They were convinced that slavery was justified because it rescued the African from his primitive country. His pagan religions and his violent world are now behind him and he can enter the world of the white man, to learn his language and his religion. Or, as Booker T. Washington so eloquently put it, "No white American ever thinks any other race is wholly civilized until he wears the white man's clothes, eats the white man's food, speaks the white man's language, and profess the white man's religion," (Washington 1962, pg. 98).

These are only some of the names of those who played a role reflecting the overwhelming views of the Southern Baptists. From these arguments, and a deeply held sentiment of the rightness of slaveholding, came the identification of southern religion and the cause of the Confederacy. So closely aligned was this relationship between the cause of the Confederacy and the Baptists of the South one wonders why the SBC had not become the Confederate Baptist Convention instead of the Southern Baptist Convention. Had such a name been suggested during the era of the Civil War it is highly doubtful it would have met any resistance. Without question the Southern Baptists were the religious heart of the Confederacy.

The argument that the Baptists in the South broke from its Northern counterpart based on anything other than the issues of slavery is unsupportable. Charles Wilson says that slavery was the "crystallizing factor in their (SBC) emergence (Wilson 2009, pg. 10). Leon McBeth, a SBC historian and former professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary states, "Slavery was the main issue that led to the 1845 schism; that is a blunt historical fact" (as quoted in Copeland 2002, pg. 7). The false idea that the split was based on theological issues is put to rest by the opening statements of William B. Johnson's (first president of the SBC, and a slaveholder) address on the origin of the SBC in Augusta Georgian in 1845:

To the Brethren in the United States; to the congregation connected with the respective Churches; and to all candid men. A painful division has taken place in the missionary operations of the American Baptists. We would explain the origin, the principles and the objects of that division, or the particular circumstances in which the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention became necessary. Let not the extent of this disunion be exaggerated. At the present time it involves only the foreign and Domestic Missions of the denomination. Northern and Southern Baptists are still brethren. _They differ in no article of faith_ (italics mine). (William B. Johnson speech, Baptist Studies 2007).

Johnson goes on to point out that in the constitution of the General Baptists it does not discriminate between slaveholding and non-slaveholding, in fact there had previously been missionaries appointed from one of the largest slaveholding churches. There is little doubt that the division between North and South Baptists was clearly a result of the issue of human bondage (William B. Johnson Speech, Baptist Studies 2007).

It was at the Triennial Convention in 1844 where the division occurred. The Triennial Convention was a meeting of Baptists that occurred every three years. This was an organization of Baptists existing for the purpose of sending foreign and home missionaries. The formal name of the Triennial Convention was the _General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign and Home Missions._ The question at hand was; is it sinful to appoint slaveholders as missionaries? The Baptist of the South forced the issue in 1845 by placing in nomination for appointment a slaveholder. In December of 1845, the Board of the Convention voted that "If anyone who shall offer himself for missionary, having slaves, should insist on retaining them as property, they could not appoint him" (Johnson, 1845). To counter this the Georgia Baptist Convention presented James Reeve, a slaveholder, as a candidate to be appointed as a missionary. Mr. Reeves was rejected by a vote of seven to five (Smith 1972, 126). From this milieu was born the Southern Baptist Convention who would appoint slave owners to all positions within the new organization.

In 1995, after over 130 years where not a single official acknowledgement was made concerning the role the SBC played in the advocating for the protection of institution of slavery and the Biblical right to own slaves, the SBC announces they would apologize for their past error. Maybe.

The Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta Georgia adopted the following resolution:

Whereas, since its founding in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention has been an effective instrument of God in missions, evangelism, and social ministry; and

Whereas, the Scriptures teach that Eve is the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), and that God shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him (Acts 10:34-35), and that God has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth (Acts 17:26); and

Whereas, our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

Whereas, many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery; and

Whereas, in later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans; and

Whereas, racism has led to discrimination, oppression, injustice, and violence, both in the Civil War and throughout the history of our nation; and

Whereas, racism has divided the body of Christ and Southern Baptists in particular, and separated us from our African-American brothers and sisters; and

Whereas, many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and

Whereas, racism profoundly distorts our understanding of Christian morality, leading some Southern Baptists to believe that racial prejudice and discrimination are compatible with the Gospel; and

Whereas, Jesus performed the ministry of reconciliation to restore sinners to a right relationship with the Heavenly Father, and to establish right relations among all human beings, especially within the family of faith.

Therefore, be it resolved, that we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and

Be it further resolved, that we affirm the Bibles teaching that every human life is sacred, and is of equal and immeasurable worth, made in Gods image, regardless of race or ethnicity (Genesis 1:27), and that, with respect to salvation through Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28); and

Be it further resolved, that we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past; and

Be it further resolved, that we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27); and

Be it further resolved, that we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake; and

Be it further resolved, that we hereby commit ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry; and

Be it further resolved, that we commit ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:6), to the end that our light would so shine before others, that they may see (our) good works and glorify (our) Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16); and

Be it finally resolved, that we pledge our commitment to the Great Commission task of making disciples of all people (Matthew 28:19), confessing that in the church God is calling together one people from every tribe and nation (Revelation 5:9), and proclaiming that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only certain and sufficient ground upon which redeemed persons will stand together in restored family union as joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). (Southern Baptist General Convention, resolutions 1995).

This resolution is generally accepted as an apology for the role Southern Baptists played in their involvement in slavery. Is this an apology? It says, "We lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery," yes and who does not lament and repudiate historic acts of evil. To lament means to cry or to weep, repudiate means to deny. This is not even an attempt at an apology for the Southern Baptists sustained effort to defend slavery with their last bullet and last breath and to advocate others to do the same. Yet, among Southern Baptists this is considered an official cleansing of the past and is as good as will be offered. Take it or leave it.

While considering this apology, that is not an apology, let us refresh our memory of what slavery was to the slave. Fredrick Douglas, an escaped slave, was invited to speak at a Fourth of July Celebration on July 5, 1852 at the Corinthian Hall of Rochester, New York. The following are excerpts from his speech:

Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse;" I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just...

Behold the practical operation of this internal slave trade, the American slave trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women, reared like swine, for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowieknife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! Weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! That gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow this drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. (Full text available at <http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=2945>).

From the perspective of the slave this SBC apology would have meant nothing for it apologizes for nothing. It does not wipe a single tear from a single cheek. It does not offer a wisp of any form of reparation, or restitution. The words of this resolution does nothing for the millions of slaves that lived and died under the yoke of slavery placed there and kept there by the theology of the Baptists in the South. What this resolution attempts is to ease the conscience of an abiding evil that has never been atoned for and it remains, pointing an accusing finger at the guilty. One wonders where are the Fredrick Douglas' of our age?

It can be seen here that the same Bible that was being used to advance all the arguments for human bondage is now being used to excuse and cleanse those whose ancestors participated in human bondage and its defense. It might be noticed that of all the Bible verses used in this apology, only one as anything to do with slavery. The verses selected are: Genesis 3:20; Acts 10:34-35; Acts 17:26; Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm 19:13; James 1:22; James 1:22; Matthew 5:16; Matthew 28:19; Revelation 5:9; Romans 8:17, of which only Galatians 3:28 specifically address the idea of a slave being equal to all members of the Christian community. However, with the citing of Galatians 3:28 they clearly state this verse to be interpreted "with respect to salvation" and not to mean to be taken as a verse that implies equality of slave to the free. This hermeneutic must be observed otherwise one could conclude that the female might be equal to the male, an idea that is not accepted among Southern Baptists. Note also the idea stated "that our own healing is at stake" implies a selfish motive for the whole attempt of contrition. Sadly, there is no call for reparation, day of mourning, or any other material act of sorrowful contrition. In fact, look again . . . there is no apology for participating in and providing a biblical defense for the institution of slavery.

If these are Bible verses, that show the evil of slavery, then why did the SBC luminaries in the 19th century fail to find them? The SBC spokesmen on the behalf of slavery were, as a rule, highly educated and yet they failed to find anything in the Bible that argued against slavery. How should we view this problem? Were the leaders of the SBC ignorant or evil? The amazing fact is that the same Bible used by the SBC leadership in the 19th century to argue for slavery is now being used by SBC leadership to argue against slavery. Is this a problem with the Bible or with the interpreters? How is it possible for the same religious organization to use the same Bible to enslave an individual is now being used to free an individual, depending on the mood of the moment. In the 19th century slavery is "sanctioned by the Old Testament and permitted in the New" but in the 20th century it is a "deplorable sin." I point this out to demonstrate how, over a period of time, the SBC uses the Bible to sanitize it past affiliation with its participation in a crime against humanity, the institution of slavery.

An example of this attempt to use the Bible to forever erase the SBC association with slavery we turn to a sermon delivered by Dr. W.A. Criswell, the "prince of preachers" among Southern Baptists and former president of the SBC. The title of his sermon was, "Noah: Drugs, Drunkenness, and Nakedness" delivered at the First Baptist Church Dallas Texas, 1980. The following is an excerpt of the sermon:

Tonight we are speaking of one of the most disastrous of all of the confrontations that our culture and civilization has ever known. It is entitled Noah: Drugs, Drunkenness, and Nakedness. Now we are going to read the passage together because the sermon is an exegesis, it is an exposition of this passage of Scripture. In the ninth chapter of Genesis, the first book in your Bible, in the ninth chapter of Genesis, we shall read from verses 20 to 26, Genesis 9:20-26. Now, let us read it all out loud together: And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Now when you read that, it looks sort of innocent-like—just a little incidental pericope in the life of this man, this patriarch, and from the Bible. But when you study that, and especially in the Hebrew language, there is an altogether different picture than anything you would ever have imagined by reading it in this King James Version of the Bible, Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. We do not know who first cultivated corn or wheat or cotton. The man who benefited the race so exorbitantly and aboundingly is unknown. Nor do we know who first domesticated the cattle and the sheep and the animals that mean so much to human life. We do not know who that man is or was. But we know the man who first cultivated the vine, who crushed the fruit of the grape and let it ferment and drank of it. That man was Noah. And it says that, as he drank of that fermented fruit of the vine and was drunken, the Bible here in the King James Version says, And he was uncovered within his tent." No! The Hebrew says he uncovered himself. He did that volitionally and willfully himself. He did it. Being inebriated and drunken with wine, he uncovered himself. He exposed himself like an exhibitionist, Noah did. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brethren without.' No! not at all! Ham, the father of Canaan, saw with delight and satisfaction, and he told with great gladness and detail. So when Noah came to himself and knew what his younger son had done unto him" now, that's an amazing thing. The Hebrew is, "his son, the little one." Always that phrase, "his son, the little one," always referred to the youngest member of the family; always. There's no exception to that. Like Benjamin is called "the son, the little one," he was the youngest member of the family. David is called "the son, the little one," he's the youngest member of the family. Now, the youngest son of Noah is not Ham; the youngest son is Japheth. "The younger son, the little one," refers to another member of the family: Canaan. For the next verse says, "And he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Well, how did Canaan get in that, and what crime did he commit that he should be cursed, because we have the impression that this thing concerns Ham?

Well, when you put it all together, it is very apparent what happened. The word "son" in Hebrew is used for grandson. It can mean either one: a son, a grandson. And Canaan is the grandson of Noah, and Canaan is the youngest son of Ham, "the son, the little one." That is, Canaan was the youngest member in the family, the grandson of Noah, the youngest son of Ham, and the youngest son in the family. Now, what did this Canaan do that brought him this terrible curse? Well, it is very apparent what he did. Noah, under the influence of liquor, of alcohol, is there in the tent exposing himself, and Canaan comes and sees it and delights in it and indulges in it. And the darkening silence of the Scriptures but emphasizes the horror of the situation, for this young son, this youngest member of the family, Canaan, goes into the tent, and evidently under the influence of liquor, at the invitation and the encouragement of his grandfather, he falls into homosexual acts, naked and uncovered, and doing it himself. Why, this young boy begins to play with the male genitalia! And Ham, he delighted in it like an X-rated movie! Ham thought, "This was the best pornographic panorama I ever saw." And the Book says that Ham saw it with interest and excitement and delight, and he told about it with satisfaction and exultation. (Noah: Drugs, Drunkenness, and Nakedness 1980, www.wacriswell.com).

This Southern Baptist pastor, who was the pastor of the largest and most influential pastor in his time, uses the same passage to damn homosexuals that a century earlier was used to damn the African American. In just over 100 years the passage that was used to lend God's support to the institution of slavery is now being used as lending God's name to the persecution of homosexuals. In one generation Ham, the son of Noah went from being a black man forever cursed to serve white masters, along with all his descendants, to being a homosexual that delights himself with pornography. It is these same biblical literalist that say the Bible is inerrant and unchanging and yet they change its meaning with every generation. In the _Baptist Faith and Message_ Southern Baptists state that "That Scripture is true and trustworthy," (Baptist Faith and Message, Article I) but the problem is that those SBC leaders who interpret the Bible have shown themselves _not_ to be true and trustworthy.

In light of the abuse of the Bible both to then justify slavery and then damn slavery let us return to the official apology offered by the SBC as stated above. What does this apology offer? It does not apologize at all for slavery but instead it apologizes for racism. It concludes racism is a deplorable evil and for that fact they apologize for the practice of that evil in the past. The only time the word apology is used is to "apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic _racism in our lifetime;_ and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously." Racism, as terrible as it is cannot be equated with slavery. There is no apology for the role the SBC played in their participation in the protection of the practice of human bondage. In fact this apology reverses the role the SBC played in slavery and refers to it as the "role slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention."

Other than no apology for the SBC's role in slavery the other glaring omission is there is no offer of restitution. Not even a day of sorrow, contrition and prayer is offered, just an apology for racism that might have been done "consciously or unconsciously." In historical studies of slavery in America one would be hard pressed to find a historian that does not call for reparations after endless months of studying the horrors committed by those who suffered as slave. This seems to have absolutely no effect on Southern Baptists. There has never been a call for reparations of any kind and there has been no expression of guilt or remorse. Until SBC history is taught in our churches, I do not seeing any change in the future. One would hope there would arise an African American movement within the SBC calling for truth and accountability.

By way of contrast, in 1987, a group of churches dissatisfied with the fundamentalist direction the SBC was heading, broke off and formed the Southern Alliance of Churches, later to be renamed the Alliance of Baptist Churches. In 1990 they adopted the following resolution, reprinted in its entirety:

A Call to Repentance

Adopted March 10, 1990, by the Southern Baptist Alliance

A Statement on Racism and Repentance.

The Scriptures record in Numbers 14:18-19, that Moses pled with God for the people of Israel saying, "The Lord is long-suffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but God by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers [and mothers] on the children to the third and fourth generations. Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of your mercy, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.

Following World War II, the people of Germany publicly repented of the sins of Adolph Hitler and of their own sins against Jewish people and against all the people of the world. In the past several years the German Baptists have publicly repented of their compliance with the Nazi regime. In the summer of 1988 the Soviet Communist Party in like manner publicly repented of the sins of Joseph Stalin and of their own sins against the Soviet people and against the people of the world. These acts of confession have reminded Southern Baptists that there is a significant sin in our own heritage for which we have never publicly repented.

One of the precipitating factors in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention was the protection of the institution of slavery and of slave owners in the South. The sins of slavery and of condoning slavery committed by Southern Baptists are a spiritual blight upon the relationships between African-Americans and whites in the south that has lasted unto this generation. The time is long overdue for Southern Baptists to repent of these sins.

We move, therefore, that the members of the Southern Baptist Alliance meeting on this March 10, 1990, in St. Louis, Missouri, as members of the Southern Baptist family, publicly repent and apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and perpetuating the sin of slavery prior to and during the Civil War. We reject the racism, segregation, and prejudice in our past and the continuing pattern of racism, segregation, and prejudice that has persisted throughout our history as a Christian denomination, even unto this present day. Likewise, we call upon our fellow Southern Baptists meeting in convention in New Orleans, Louisiana on June 11-13, to help cleanse our denomination of the blight of racism by adopting a similar statement of confession and repentance.

Furthermore, from this day forth we pledge to work to remove all forms of racism, segregation, and prejudice from our Southern Baptist family. We acknowledge with regret that at the present time our Alliance has few members or participating churches from among African-Americans. We pledge ourselves to seek out such participation in ways that are sensitive to African-American church concerns. We urge all Southern Baptists to do the same. (Southern Baptist Alliance, 1990).

When these two resolutions are compared, it reveals the SBC still refuses to acknowledge its guilt in its involvement in, and the protection of, slavery. The Baptist Alliance compares their actions with some of the most heinous crimes in modern history while the SBC is more concerned with its past association with racism. The SBC quotes from the Bible thirteen times in their apology resolution but never once does it speak of how they used this same Bible in the defense of slavery and in fact was the most powerful tool in the defense of slavery. In turn, the Alliance of Baptists quote the Bible but once and that is to say that God may visit the sins of the past upon the children of this age (Numbers 14:18-19).

We arrive at an earlier question: What went wrong? Simple human decency tells us it is wrong to enslave another human being. We do not need religion of any sort to point out that human bondage is evil. Is it possible that we have elevated a false hermeneutic that trumps human decency? Is there an inherent flaw in the nature of humankind? Or, are we at the utter mercy of our culture? Jennifer Clancy in _Slavery as a Moral Problem_ writes, "Inevitably, it seems, someone insists that Christian slaveholders surely know deep down that owning another person was wrong. I do not think this is the case. Our moral instincts are profoundly shaped by our culture" (Clancy 2011, pg. 101). Is enculturation so powerful it can eclipse human reason and such basic truths such as human need, freedom, justice and liberty? The greatest minds of the 19th century, and all their followers, were utterly convinced that not only was slavery an important part of America but it was a Biblical institution founded by God. Obviously, anything founded by God must be just and cannot be a sin. The question cannot be avoided to ask is: what is it we believe today, along with our biblical arguments, that will be judged to be equally sinister by our future descendants.

If it is not humankind that is flawed, we are forced to ask; is it the Bible? While humankind can be influenced, shaped and twisted by culture how is it possible for the Bible to be influenced, shaped and twisted by culture? If the Bible can be so perverted to be made to speak in the defense of slavery could it not also speak in defense of other instances that are in the Bible, such as; totalitarianism, genocide, child sacrifice, gender preference, slavery, war, prostitution, infanticide, animal sacrifice, capitol punishment, discrimination against the handicapped, stoning, punishing children for the crimes of their parents, cannibalism, anti Semitism, witch burning, executing homosexuals, child abuse, child murder, polygamy, murder, adultery, and other atrocities _all_ of which are in the pages of the Bible? It can, and has been used in the past to these terrible ends.

Is the Bible a perfect treasure of divine instruction as stated by the _Baptist Faith and Message:_

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. (The Baptist Faith and Message, edition 2000).

Then the question is: If the Bible guided people of faith into such gross error in the past where is it guiding them today? Where will it guide them in the future? There has to be sound hermeneutical principles to guard against the persecution of anyone using the authority of God as the guarantee of such persecution.

Knowing what we know of the history of the SBC and their inability to embrace their regrettable past one would wonder why an African American would wish to associate with any church that identifies with the SBC. It would also be understandable for an African American to not only reject the SBC but also to reject the God of the SBC and the Bible of the SBC that made slavery possible. A black Union soldier watching his former Confederate master being led away said "Hello, Massa; bottom rail on top dis time" (Litwack 1979, pg. 102). Things have changed and the African American no longer needs the Baptists or any other authority to tell them what the Bible says. "Bottom rail on top," and they can see for themselves if it was the Bible that robbed their ancestors of their freedom, or the illegitimate use of the Bible.

While writing this book I ask a black pastor why he was a Southern Baptist and he replied, "Because of the financial support they give our church." When he said that I thought of the advice Ralph Ellison's grandfather gave him on his deathbed:

Live with you head in the lion's mouth. I want you to overcome 'em with yeses, undermine 'em with grins, agree 'em to death and destruction, let 'em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open. (As quoted in Litwack 1998, preface).

Bottom rail on top now, perhaps the African American does not need the SBC as much as the SBC would like to think. I remember years ago, when the SBC began its decline, I was involved to SBC politics and was sitting in a meeting where we were discussing the need to incorporate African Americans into the SBC. We all knew the only reason we were having that meeting was because of the SBC decline and we were all aware that future growth of the denomination depended on what we called "minority churches." We openly discussed the fact that the white SBC churches were in decline and the only churches that were increasing in number were the "minority" churches. Now, African Americans mattered to the SBC.

The chief reason why so many people were led to believe God ordained human bondage was a flawed hermeneutic. Any method of Biblical interpretation that results in the persecution of people or groups of people is in error. The idea that is the Bible is absolute in all matters, is without error and is the final word in all matters concerning the regulation of human behavior and society is prone to error. It is one thing to know what the Bible says but it is quite another to know what it means. Hermeneutics is one of the least known areas of study for those who have not had the opportunity to attend a seminary. In addition, the study of hermeneutics is not something that should be given a light pass over or something that is taken in seminary and then forgotten five years later. The study of hermeneutics is without question is the most important of all theological disciplines. Without a sound understanding of how to interpret the Bible in a consistent, reliable, and accurate fashion it will be used to ill ends, as has been well documented throughout the history of the church. Not the fault of the Bible, it is solely the fault of those who are either ignorant or evil.

"Ignorant or evil," is there anyone who would dispute this statement? What other option remains to account for such gross evil as slavery being permitted using the authority of the Bible? Can ignorance be a valid excuse? Never! In the first place the chief proponents of providing biblical warrant for slavery were men educated in the finest universities in the world. In the second place, one does not need a education at Harvard to know that slavery, in any form, is unjust. Slavery is robbery of another's freedom and freedom is the greatest gift God has given His children. This leaves us with the conclusion those who willingly chose to provide a biblical argument for the practice of slavery were not ignorant, they were evil.

Historically, those who pastor SBC churches have had a limited ministerial education. One of the reasons for the early spread of the SBC has been its dependence on the farmer/preacher, or the itinerant preacher. Currently, there are no education requirements to become a pastor of a SBC church, nor any education requirements for ordination. Every church is free to call and ordain, as their pastor, any person (nearly _always_ male) they desire. This call is usually based on their ability to preach. A denominational study conducted in 1949 showed that less than one third SBC minister had both college and seminary training. Another third had not gone past high school (SBC Life 1999). This has been an ongoing problem among SBC pastors and has fueled the continued misinterpretation of the Bible. In many SBC churches education is viewed as the path to liberalism and is rejected in favor of "preaching from the heart."

The SBC does have a history and it is one that is shameful and regrettable. The heroes of the SBC are anti heroes. It is no wonder it was concealed for so long and continues to this very day. Were it not for the new information highway, where historical documents that were once locked away in the archives of far away seminaries, became available for scrutiny by all interested parties, the true story of the SBC might never have been known. One thing the SBC has yet to discuss, and that is the Bible that they believe to be authoritative in all matters, infallible and inerrant, is the same instrument they used to commit one of the greatest evils in America.

The unclaimed history of the SBC having been made known may lead to further denials, revisions or acceptance with humility. Only time will tell. In the next chapter we will explore how the Bible was used in an inerrant and absolute fashion to lead astray even the very brightest of the 19th century.

# PART II

### The Southern Baptist Convention And Its Use Of Biblical Inerrancy In The Support Of Human Bondage

# Chapter 3

### Slavery as a Divine Institution

_Let a white man touch me, and he dies; I don't boast this, I_ _don't say it around, or before the children, — but I mean it. I've seen them whip my father and my old mother in the cotton-rows till the blood ran._

—As told to W.E.B. Du Bois

The scars that have been brought about by those who suffered under slavery are deep and lasting, even among their descendants. It is not just a simple exercise of examining past events, viewing the role religious authorities and religious documents played in enslaving individuals and finding ways to explain such an atrocities, but also it is acknowledging that tremendous damage has been done that can perhaps never be repaired. This damage is compounded by the fact it was done under the guise of "the will of God." Let it not be forgotten, there was over 4,000,000 slaves in America, and millions more died horrible deaths on the passage from the African village to the shores of America. During the Middle Passage (across the Atlantic) it is estimated 2,000,000 Africans died and were thrown overboard to the sharks. It must not be forgotten that this is what we speak of when we speak of slavery in America and its protection by those powerful Southern Baptists leaders and the founding of the SBC on the preservation of this egregious crime.

"Let a white man touch me, and he dies," are words spoken by one who watched his parents treated as human chattel (property). The hatred that lives in some African Americans today can never be considered without merit and unjustified. If there is ever a crime having been once committed that has no statute of limitations it is the crime of human slavery committed under the auspice of the authority of God.

Without the view of biblical absolutism to undergird and provide theological support for the institution of slavery in the 19th century the institution of slavery would have collapsed under the weight of moral conscience and human decency. As evidence for that position one could point to the fact that it took civil government, not the church, to finally bring an end to slavery in America. However, because of the tenacious desire for the institution of slavery, it took a war to pry the slaves from the slaveholders and to finally silence the religious leaders who argued loud and long in defense of human bondage.

Slavery in and of itself is condemned by most modern societies and has been relegated to the category of institutionalized evil and a crime against humanity. What made it much worse was the use of the Bible to lend the authority of God for the protection and preservation of slavery as it was practiced in America. When the Bible, or any form of literature that is considered to be of God and thus authoritative, is used for the purpose of causing injury to one party for the benefit of another party, brings discredit upon both the literature itself and the one(s) benefiting from such an arrangement. The Christian Bible was the primary document to prove to all interested parties that, in fact, God not only endorsed slavery but also promoted its continued use, as demonstrated in both Old and New Testaments. How can this be explained to the African American families today who still suffer from the pain of their ancestor's humiliations? The stories in Leon F. W Litwack's _Trouble in Mind; Black Southerners in the Age on Jim Crow,_ told of the children and grandchildren of slaves who always carried a "common memory," that memory is they never forget the humiliation their loved ones suffered at the hands of their white owners, nor will they ever forgive such transgressions. These memories often live in oral tradition passed from generation to generation and become a part of the African American experience.

"Never forget, never forgive." Can you blame any African American for such a statement? The irony is that they are directed to...the Bible, of all books, where it teaches to forgive others. Yet, it was this same book that was used to damn their ancestors to a life of living hell. There is nothing wrong with the Bible, there is nothing wrong with the African American saying, "Never forget, never forgive." The fault lie square on the shoulders of those who pretend as it never happened and are unwilling to apologize and attempt an reconciliation through some form of restitution.

Dr. Matthew Johnson, a prominent African American scholar, once commented to a class he was teaching at the San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo, California, "The reason why African American mothers are stern disciplinarians when it comes to their children, is because those mothers learned from their mothers that if you do not discipline your children they will fall into the hands of the overseer who _will_ discipline that child sometimes to the point of death." Memory is like a virus that reproduces itself from host to host and leaves its print on every generation in differing degrees. Memory that is passed from generation to generation until like the Hatfields' and the McCoys,' you forget why you hate, but you know you must. When an act of evil is perpetrated upon another it is terrible, but when that same act of evil is committed under the authority of God it is amplified a hundred fold.

Biblical absolutism came easy to the Baptists in the South primarily because it was something they wanted to believe in, for the support of slavery, and because it worked well with their Calvinistic theological inclination. The idea behind absolutism is that everything in the Bible is absolutely true and is authoritative in all matters. The Bible is the sole authority that supersedes all other authorities having come from God Himself through inspired authors. The followers of God must practice the teachings of the Bible at all times and at all costs. It does not matter what a passage means, what is important is what the passage says. If the Bible teaches a practice, such as slavery, even though it may seem unjust it is only because man's idea of justness is flawed, for God would never teach one to sin. An example can be found in a syllogism suggested by Richard Fuller, former president of the SBC:

"Whatever God sanctioned among the Hebrews, He sanctions for all men and at all times. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews, therefore, God sanctions slavery for all men at all times" (Richard Fuller, Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution, pg. 52).

This syllogism was widely accepted in the era of American slavery because it affirmed a truth that those involved in slavery deeply wished to believe. If God ordained slavery, as taught in both Old and New Testaments, and explained by such a distinguished Southern Baptist scholar such as Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller, who is the man or woman to post an argument to the contrary. The abolitionist often had to make his or her argument _against_ the institution of slavery apart from the Bible; so potent were the arguments from the Bible in its favor. This is difficult to believe for the people of modernity but Biblical literalism always lay the trap of "the Bible means what it says and nothing more." This type of biblical interpretation has led to many gross errors in the history of the church for the single glaring reason that all literalism is selective and sometimes those doing the "selecting" are evil. The SBC practice and support of slavery was based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, a type of interpretation still in use today.

The answer to this problem of biblical literalism would be the idea of relativism. While the Bible never refers to itself as inerrant, without error, or as an absolute authority in all matters, the alternative idea of relativism has never been welcomed among Baptists, especially Baptists in the South during the slave era. Biblical relativism was seen then, as many of the SBC continue to do today, as a repudiation of the authority of the Word of God and considered to responsible for many evils that exist. Biblical relativism is the position that there are other views and opinions that are equally valid, sometimes solely valid. For an example, if there were 10,000 verses in the Bible that advocated slavery and none that argued against it, and there were 10,000 voices of respected and authoritative voices advocating human bondage based on the Word of God, and opposed to that position was one voice of no influence that had not a single support other than simple human decency, that single voice would still win the argument. Why is that so? Because some things are so visibly evil that no voice, scripture, or any authority or consensus can excuse or sanctify that evil. There are those moral truths that do not have to be spelled out in the Bible in order for them to be recognized. For example, a man need not look to the Bible to see how to treat his wife; he should know that instinctively prior to forming the relationship. If the Bible is thus used to promote slavery, then it runs counter to what everyone knows about human decency and human rights. This is why we do not "cut off our hand if it causes us to sin" (Matthew 5:30).

The Baptist in the South, like Baptists in the North in the 19th century subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The first article in the statement was the entitled "Of _Holy Scriptures"_ and is as follows:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. (Philadelphia Confession 1742).

This confession of faith adhered to by Baptists throughout the North and South unequivocally states that the Bible is the _only_ infallible and indisputable rule and all other contenders are insufficient. The Bible cannot be wrong, incorrect or in error because it is infallible. If, therefore, God allows slavery in the Old Testament and does not repudiate it in the New Testament then is must not be considered sin because it is supported in His infallible word. However, it might be pointed out they still refused to cut off their hands if their hands caused them to sin! They loved the verses in the Old and New Testaments that gave them license to own slaves, these verses were to be taken literally, but the ones about cutting off hands, gouging out eyes, or drinking poison to validate their faith were, of course, to be taken metaphorically.

In 1925, the SBC instituted their confession of faith entitled the _Baptist Faith and Message._ In regards to the Bible it states the following:

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried. (Baptist Faith and Message, 1925).

This was revised in 1963, 1999 and again in 2000. The current view on the Bible is as follows:

The whole Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is the perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000).

The idea of the Bible being authoritative, infallible and without error still persists today and this method of understanding that led to such atrocities such as slavery will continue until some form of relativism is accepted. Yet, it can be safely said that any prospective pastor who is being interviewed by a pulpit committee who fails to state his belief in the "inerrant" Bible will be passed over for another more suitable prospect.

To dissuade any idea that the justification of slavery, by an absolutist view of the Bible, is far in the past and the church is too wise to allow such a thing to occur need not look farther than South Africa. The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in South Africa used the same biblical arguments that were used in the Antebellum South to support and justify its support for apartheid (separateness). While this book does not address the DRC it might do well to bring to light a common story told during the time of apartheid to illustrate the manner in which the DRC viewed the African:

The DRC minister enters his church one morning and finds a black man on his knees at the altar.

_Minister:_ Hey boy, what the hell are you doing in my church?

_African man:_ Just, cleaning, baas.

_Minister:_ Oh, ok kaffir—but I am warning you that I ever catch you praying in here I will beat seven kinds of sh*t out of you! (<http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/08/17/south-african-church> -lied-about-the-biblical-justification-for-white-supremacy/).

This story is troublesome because it reflects the attitudes of many of those in the South to the African. It is painful to read and it is painful to consider any minister would ever speak to anyone in such a demeaning manner. The church sanctioned such an attitude at one time and everyone would have a good laugh. The church must be for everyone or no one.

Calvinism also had a major influence in the acceptance of slavery as a norm within the divine plan. Baptists in the North and South were either outright Calvinist or heavily influenced by Calvinist doctrine. Calvinism, a system of belief as instituted by the French theologian John Calvin, (1509-1564), held that there is nothing outside the "will of God." In his view God ordains everything and nothing happens outside His perfect will. Therefore, if slavery exists then it exists within His perfect will. Examples of Calvin's ideas of divine providence can be found in his _Institutes of the Christian Religion,_ first published in 1536. This two thousand-page theology contains the following statements:

God regulates all things and nothing takes place without His deliberation. In times of adversity believers comfort them-selves with the solace that they suffer nothing except by God's ordinance and command. Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him. Not one drop of rain falls without God's sure command. God assigns each person their condition in life. God always has the best reason for his plan: either to instruct his own people in patience, or to correct their wicked affections and tame their lust, or to subjugate them to self denial, or to arouse them from sluggishness; again, to bring low the proud, to shatter the cunning of the impious and to overthrow their devices. Whatever happens in the universe is governed by God's incomprehensible plans. (Institutes of the Christian Religion 1536, pg. 200-212).

These elements contained in the widely accepted doctrine of Calvinism grants a permissive attitude that even if slavery may appear evil, it cannot be so because it is God's plan working everything to a good purpose and divine end. At times, it is not possible to understand His plan for it is inscrutable, hidden. Because it is inscrutable, then great faith is demonstrated in following His plan even if we cannot understand its purpose. Slavery seems unjust, evil and inconsistent with God's nature but it exists and is therefore ordained of God in a mysterious way that is hidden. God would not let anything in His universe left to chance; every wind that blows and drop of rain that falls does by His decree. This type of reasoning makes it easier, and salves the conscience knowing that the slaveholder is doing his or her part for the greater kingdom! The freeman is free by the decree of God and the slave is a slave because God so elected him or her to be so. The same goes for the rich or the poor, all have been elected to their station in life and as long as one does not _forget their place_ all will be well. In Calvinism even the cruel slaveholder or overseer could find justification in their cruelty for:

God knows how to use evil instruments...and I grant more: thieves and murderers and other evil doers are the instruments of divine providence, and the Lord Himself uses these to carry out the judgments that he has determined with him self. (Calvin, Institutes, pg. 217).

Yet, oddly enough, even though Calvinism undergirded the rational for those who sought to endorse slavery, Calvin himself rejected slavery, a fact that is never mentioned in pro slavery arguments. In his commentary of the books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, Part IV, page 283 he writes:

Our servitude has been abolished, that is, that miserable condition when one had no right of his own but when the master had power of life over death; that custom has ceased and the abolition cannot be blamed. Some superstition might have been at the beginning; and I certainly think that the commencement of the change arose from superstition. It is, however, it is by no means to be wished that there should be slaves among us, as there were formally among all nations, an as there are now among barbarians. (Calvin's Bible Commentary 1847, pg. 283).

Currently there is a theological shift in the SBC back to Calvinism. In 2007 and in 2008 the SBC held two conferences to address the growing number of SBC churches that are adopting Calvinism. The pastor of First Baptist Church in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, Jeff Noblit pointed to what he believes are seven reasons Southern Baptists should rejoice in the rise of Calvinism in the SBC; he sees the rise of Calvinism as an instrument the Lord could use to bring revival and reformation to our churches because "our churches need to bring Him the glory He deserves," (Noblit, SBC Life 2010) He suggested that the rise of Calvinism would help in:

Overcoming "inerrancy idolatry" and reclaiming the sufficiency of Scripture producing "better" church splits (churches born out of a struggle for biblical integrity), exposing and removing covert liberalism, restoring true evangelism, energizing and mobilizing Christian youth, returning churches to biblical models of ministry, and increasing the focus on glorifying God. (Noblit, SBC Life 2010).

The conference in 2008 was called the "John 3:16 Conference" and was sponsored by: Jerry Vines Ministries, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Rice Seminary and Midwestern Baptist theological Seminary. It was held at the First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia with approximately 1,000 in attendance. In the first session Ed Stetzer presented a paper entitled "Calvinism, Evangelism, and the SBC Leadership." In this paper Stetzer confirmed the number of Calvinists in the SBC is growing and now approximately 10 percent of SBC leaders now consider themselves to be five point Calvinists, in addition 30 percent of recent seminary graduates identify themselves as such (Calvin, Southern Baptist Perspective 2010). In 2012, in a meeting with the president of the SBC, Bryant Wright, he stated that currently 70 percent of Southern Baptist seminary students now identify themselves as five point Calvinists. Southern Baptists are blinded to the fact that Calvinism, selective literalism, inerrancy and absolutism led to their support of and participation of one of America's greatest crime against humanity.

In addition to biblical absolutism and Calvinism a third component that led to the great error of the Baptists in the South was the belief in the doctrine of inerrancy. If there were a single unifying doctrine among SBC churches it is the doctrine of inerrancy. This is the doctrine that states there are no errors in the Bible. The Bible is free from all error. In SBC life, if you cannot make that statement you are to be considered not only a heretic but the very one the Church is to be on guard against. Never mind that nowhere does the Bible itself claim inerrancy, it nevertheless remains the most important teaching of the SBC and its churches. Every possible error in the Bible must have a rational explanation. For example, in the synoptic gospels how many demon possessed men from Gadarenes came out and addressed Jesus? In the gospel according to Matthew it was two (Matt. 8:28-34) but in Mark (Mk. 5:1-20) and Luke's account it was one (Luke. 8:26-39). Is this an error? If so it must be somehow reconciled.

Another example is found in I Kings 7:23:

Then he made the cast sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. Under its brim were panels all round it, each of ten cubits, surrounding the sea; there were two rows of panels, cast when it was cast.

The problem present here is the value of π [pi] is incorrect. Every high school student knows the value of π to be 3.14...but the equation as presented in I Kings is three. This somehow must be reconciled in order for the Bible to continue to be considered inerrant.

There are many, many more such errors, in fact too many to list. In the _Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,_ by Norm Geisler makes notice of over 200,000 scriptural variants (errors). This number is very conservative according to modern scholarship. The point being made is that if there is one error, no matter how small and insignificant that error may be, the claim for biblical inerrancy cannot be supported. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in his book _Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,_ writes:

Not only do we not have the originals (autographs), we do not have the first copies of the originals. We do not even have the copies of the copies of the originals, or the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many _centuries_ later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. These copies differ from one another in so many places that we do not even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easier to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts that there are words in our New Testament. (Ehrman 2005, pg. 10).

Because these facts are undeniable, many within the SBC amend their statement on inerrancy with the words "I believe the Bible to be without error in their original autographs." This is an incredible statement to make given the fact no one has ever seen any autograph of any book of the Bible to make such a distinction as to its veracity. This oft repeated phrase is the standard answer given by those in an interview for the office of pastor of a SBC church. The question "Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God," and the expected answer is, "I believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant in its original autographs." This answer is expected and often satisfies the requirement of the pulpit committee. It is safe to pledge allegiance to something that in all probability does not exist.

The official position of the SBC remains that the:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000).

When contradictions, and errors are pointed out it is a simple matter of taking refuge in the concept that only the original autographs are inerrant. However, the idea that the original autographs of the entire Bible is totally free from any error grammatically, theologically, or in any error of science cannot be sustained because they do not exist to be tested. Therefore, to affirm the practice of such evil as slavery or the persecution of _any_ group based upon the authority of a document that has **never** been seen is absurd. Furthermore, to make a claim of inerrancy for documents that no one has seen in over 2,000 years, and when those who _have_ seen those documents they never made such a claim; this fact completely undermines the authority of those who make the claim of inerrancy. The writers of the Bible never claimed inerrancy for their work! It is common for evangelicals to dismiss the claims of Mormons and the golden plates of Joseph Smith because they cannot be produced to validate claims of authority, yet Southern Baptists make similar claims by asserting a quality to a series of documents that do not exist in any form other than copies of copies. In other words, no one can claim the original autographs of the Bible are inerrant when no one has them to validate such claims. Yet, with great authority, these biblical documents were used to enslave 4,000,000 Africans based on the fact they were inerrant and infallible.

These three positions, biblical absolutism, Calvinism and inerrancy made fertile soil for the acceptance of the institutionalized evil of slavery. These same three arguments can be made afresh and have been so done in the SBC as it relates to the relegation of women to a state of inferiority and the current persecution of homosexuals. In the mid 19th century, Baptists in the South were affirmed in their error by the culture they were immersed in. Their society loved them. They had everything they needed to blind them to a grave, unforgivable error. An Unforgivable error because it extends far beyond what any apology may suffice. C.G. Jung (1875-1962) a Swiss psychiatrist and the founder of analytical psychology, in his book _The Undiscovered Self_ writes:

All mass movements, as one might expect, slip with great ease down an inclined plane represented by large numbers. Where the many are there is security; what the many believe must of course be true; what the many want must be worth striving for, and necessary, and therefore good. (Jung 1956, pg. 59).

The abolitionist voice in the South was powerless against the vast weight of Scripture, figures of authority, and human desire. Even the American hero, Abraham Lincoln was swept up in the overpowering cultural acceptance of slavery. Speaking to a crowd before he begins the fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas he says:

While I was at the hotel today an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (Abraham Lincoln, 1858).

Lincoln embodied the spirit of the North on the views of slavery. The African was to be considered an inferior race, a race distinct from that of the superior white race; those in the North also held many of the same racist views of the South. Slavery as a divine institution, as claimed by the Southern Baptist was only made possible by a method of biblical interpretation still in use today; it is practiced in their churches and taught in their seminaries. The abuses in the past are not discussed among Southern Baptists so it is not possible to ascertain how they can reconcile a method of biblical interpretation that led to their denominations support of the crime that is considered to the darkest stain on America.

# Chapter 4

### Old Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage

_It is the positive duty of slaves to reverence their masters, to_ _be obedient, industrious, faithful to him, and be careful of his interests; and without being so, they can neither be the faithful servants of God, nor be held as regular members of the Christian church._

—Rev. Richard Furman, President South Carolina Baptist Sate Convention

Richard Furman was a champion among Baptists in the South for his articulation of a biblical defense of slavery. Furman is remembered among the SBC as a, "Clergyman, patriot, educator, and pioneer denominational statesman. More than any other man, he created the basic organizational concepts that are unique in Southern Baptist denominational life" (Richard Furman, Reformed Reader, 1998). Yet little is mentioned among Southern Baptists that while he was known as a zealous, evangelical Calvinist he was also known as a vocal proponent of chattel slavery. It might be mentioned while he was making a name for himself among the Baptists and securing his place in history as an early leader among the soon to be Southern Baptist Convention, he was also very publicly calling for the institution of slavery to be recognized as a divine right, approved by God. Furman had no difficulty advancing these views because he believed he had a biblical mandate in addition to his willing audience. It might be noticed these same beliefs were widely held and were not exclusive to Furman. In fact, it would be far more difficult to find any influential Southern Baptist leaders who _did not_ advocate slavery in the 19th century. In addition, underlying the theme of the biblical arguments also lie a distinct and clear understanding that the white "race" was superior to the African "race." This fact is often overlooked but it was so widely held that some adopted a view of polygenesis (Smith 1972, pg. 157).

Polygenesis suggested a third race of people, not the children of Adam and not the cattle of the field but somewhere in between. In other words, one level above the cattle of the field and one level below the children of Adam there existed the children of Ham, the "hewers of wood and the drawers of water" (Joshua 9:23). So of course these people had to have a paternal presence to guide them through life while never letting them forget their "place." This is why the idea of racial amalgamation (combining of the two different races) was a feared social taboo. If Africans were not a third race it was certainly to be an inferior one. It was not so much the idea of miscegenation (sexual relations between races) but the fact that the blood of another race might possibly pollute the blood of the children of Adam. There is no concealing the fact that it was not just the issue of slavery but also a deeply held belief that the white race was superior to the black race (terms used for the sake of this book as considered to be accurate in the 19th century and do not reflect the opinion of the author). Once the Confederates were defeated, and along with that defeat the fall of Southern Baptists, that which remained was racism. If, racism was not a part of the institution of slavery there would not have been such virulent racism after the institution of slavery came to its conclusion. The idea of the inferiority of the African was the heart and soul of human bondage and the Southern Baptist provided a theology to support such a view.

A most salient point to understand when viewing the arguments from the Bible is that none of these arguments would ever have been presented were it not for the fact that the institution of slavery was a system made legal and supported by the Government of the United States and even provided for in its Constitution (Article I, Section 2; Section 9, Clause 1; Article IV, Section 2; Article V). It was not until Congress voted to pass the thirteenth amendment on January 31, 1865 that slavery was no longer protected by the Constitution of the United States. Not a single argument from the Bible would have ever occurred were not desired by civil government. The cowardly Southern preachers argued for slavery because they could get away with it under protection of the law. Theology by expediency requires no courage.

In the 21st century there are no theologians, preachers, or professors calling for the return of human bondage even though the same arguments still exist in the same Bible. Why is this? Is it because it is immoral or because it is illegal? In the 19th century the religious proponents who made their arguments from the Bible were apparently used by the authorities of the state to give validation to acts of human cruelty. Where does the support of slavery come from in the Bible? One of the primary arguments for the enslavement of the African comes from Genesis 9:20-27.

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, 'Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.' He also said, 'Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. (Gen. 9:20-27).

There is no more important passage in the Bible and none demanding greater attention, in regards to slavery than this passage. This passage was used to justify the enslavement of over 12 million Africans between the 16th and the 19th century (Segal 1995, 4). The perfect storm of biblical absolutism, inerrancy and Calvinism still exist among Southern Baptist churches today and the only thing lacking is license from civil authorities before the same old argument from Genesis 9:20-27 could be made once again. This story was known as the "malediction (curse) of Noah."

The argument made from the Genesis account is as follows: That righteous Noah (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:7) became drunk and passed out naked. Ham, Noah's youngest son saw the nakedness of his father and went and told his two brothers. Because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father, Noah cursed him and all his descendants to be the lowest of slaves forever. Since Southern Baptists believe all humankind came from these three sons it was believed that Japhet was the father of the Caucasian race, Shem the father of the Mongolic race, and Ham the father of the Negroid race. Ham's name in Hebrew was believed to mean "burnt," and thus "black." It is the understanding that the crime of Ham was so heinous and the curse of Noah was so potent that it caused the skin of Ham to turn black. Upon this interpretation, without any other explanation, all Africans are known to be the children of Ham and are thus slaves in perpetuity according to the design and plan of God (Calvinism).

Theodore Weld's oft-repeated phrase "This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ (a handbook you would carry on your person) of slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it," is well supported by even a cursory survey of literature on this matter. Stephen Haynes writes, "During the heyday of slavery in America a racial understanding of Genesis 9-11 was so much a part of cultural common sense that defensive arguments were no longer required" (Haynes, 2002 pg. 265). In other words the institution of slavery was based solely on a matter of ancestry. If Southern Baptists declared the children of Africa were the children of Ham, cursed by Noah to be slaves in perpetuity then that settled the matter. It says it in the Bible, so to dare to question the preacher is to question God Himself.

Although the argument for the justification of slavery found its roots in the malediction of Noah, there remains the matter of what does this passage mean? There was some debate about the details but there was no disagreement as to the "curse." When the question arises of whether the punishment fits the crime the crime had to be elevated to give reason to justify the punishment. First, there is the castration story. One explanation claims that, "Ham entered the tent and mischievously looped a stout cord about his father's genitals, drew it tight, and unmanned him" (Haynes 2002, pg. 400). This story seemed to gain popularity, perhaps, because men have considered this a reprehensible crime of the highest order demanding the worst curse possible (slavery) on its perpetrator. Other stories suggest Ham sexually assaulted Noah or his wife. Again, it is important to come up with an explanation that is so horrid it gives reason for such a lasting and severe curse. The reason for these outlandish stories is it is simple to see that this passage in Genesis cannot reasonably, or in any other way, be used as a defense for human slavery. The old adage "people believe to be true what they wish to be true" is well demonstrated in this case. This story was used by Southern Baptists to not only make an argument for the practice of slavery as a divine right, but to enslave Africans because of their dark skin.

As a minimum, it can be said of those who accept this story of Noah and his sons to be an accurate historical event, it must be agreed that it is unclear what occurred or why. Certainly, there cannot be found any justification for the institution of slavery of the African based on this story. What can be said for certain is that Noah drank too much wine, was discovered by one of his children and upon having his lapse of morals exposed, in a drunken rage cursed one of his children. End of story. On the surface, the obvious guilty party is not Ham, but Noah. There is no mention of Ham doing anything but seeing something Noah wished to conceal. When Ham mentioned what he saw to his brothers, his brothers came to where Noah laid they too saw him in his drunken, naked state. Why were they not likewise cursed? The point is there is absolutely no one who knows with any degree of certainty what this passage means. However, this did not stop the Southern Baptists from building a defense for slavery of the African on the biblical narrative of Noah and Ham.

Did Noah have the authority of God to curse Ham, or was it the result of an impulsive drunken rant? There is no mention of God in the entire passage. Was Noah speaking outside the authority of God? The proslavery advocates state that Noah spoke through the Spirit of God and with His authority he cursed Ham for all generations. However, there is no evidence Noah spoke with the voice of God and to do so implicates the Christian God with all the sorrow of human bondage. To believe Noah cursed Ham with the authority of God allowed the slaveholder to look into the eyes of his African slave and say "you are a slave because you were born of the linage of Ham and the sooner you accept God's ordained truth in this matter the easier it will be for you." It is not reasonable to assume everything Noah hated or opposed, God also hated and opposed. If Noah despised Ham, for whatever reason, it was under his own jurisdiction as an individual, not as the mouthpiece of God. These arguments meant little to those who wanted to own slaves for they had the great Southern preachers of the South lending their respectability and the authority of the Bible in their defense.

The more obvious answer to linking the story of Noah and his sons to the practice of slavery is the question the historicity of Noah as a literal person. Who is Noah and did he exist or is this a Jewish Midrash? To accept this story as literal it has to be believed that Noah built an Ark where all the animals entered in two by two and therein survived a great flood, of which there is no geological record of it ever occurring. However, after surviving the flood the animals were released in the area of Mount Ararat where they wandered and scattered throughout the earth. The surviving families then were the sole parents of the earth's current population. The problem with taking this story literally is it cannot be substantiated by the fossil or genetic record. It is difficult to believe the seven billion people today derived from three child-producing couples 5,000 years ago and to believe such must be done as a matter of faith, belief without evidence. Not only must this be believed without evidence, it must also be believed contrary to a great deal of evidence indicating a worldwide deluge never occurred. The point being made is the whole of the institution of slavery was built on a Bronze Age Jewish story that is more literary than literal. All the terrible human suffering of slavery based upon a belief that God took the dinosaurs, elephants, giraffes, rhinoceros, two each of the 350,000 different species of beetles, two each of each species of insect, and two of all the animals in the world, and seven pair of all the "unclean" animals and put them on a ark prior to a global flood. If, one chooses to believe this story there is no harm done unless with this story comes the malediction of Noah and the argument for the justification of slavery or any other oppression and cruelty. If faith demands a literal interpretation and that interpretation demands cruelty, oppression, and suffering to humanity then such faith must be abandoned. Belief in God should improve the human condition, not make it worse.

The arguments of the abolitionists in the North were very weak in regards to this passage in part because the Northern Baptist, like their Southern counterparts, longed for justification for believing the African somehow were responsible for his or her condition. Let it not be forgotten that while the Baptists in the North did have a greater voice in calling for emancipation, it was always with the idea of colonization (returned to Africa). They wanted to the African to be free, but free somewhere else.

The treatment of Genesis chapters nine through eleven, is a clear example of what can be read into a passage instead of what can be understood from a passage. While there should never have been a single voice in support of this institutionalized evil called slavery, Baptist or otherwise, there were nevertheless many. These voices were the most influential clergymen of their time. It seems that on such an evil as slavery, God would have spoken clearly had He wished to sanction it, not hide it in strange and obscure text of which it is impossible to determine meaning with any degree of certitude. For example, a passage that might say, "I (God) state that I hate Ham for reasons that are My own, I curse him and I shall cause his skin to be a color different than others so he can be readily identified, and he shall be a slave to the white race forever." Of course, neither such a statement, nor anything like it can be found anywhere in the Bible. Yet, how could one justify supporting such an apparent evil such as slavery without a clear mandate from God? To go further, if the African nation were the dominate power they, in turn, could have claimed Genesis nine through eleven to say Ham did not represent the African people but the Caucasian people and thus make the same claim for enslaving whites. It was utter madness for the Southern Baptist to make a claim for the enslavement of the African based on the curse of Noah. Mad and foolish for the day may yet arise when the descendants of these same Africans will rise up and overthrow those who have not only failed to acknowledge the crimes of their predecessors, but have failed to offer apology or restitution.

To treat the Bible thus and to continue to call it inspired is to lend credence to the argument that the people of faith are a deluded people who believe a book they call good is, in fact, a book of oppression and is unparalleled in the history of literature as to the amount of human suffering that has been the result of its use. A book, in and of itself, has no moral qualities of its own but takes on the morals of those who are the interpreters. Perhaps the French philosopher Voltaire's observation: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities," is not too far from the truth when considered that a book viewed to be divine instruction from God contains the most brutal atrocities imaginable and seems to lend license to commit such acts. This type of use (abuse) of the Bible has invoked incredulity and condemnation from those such as the British public intellectual, Richard Dawkins, who wrote in his book _The God Delusion:_

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Dawkins 2006, pg. 51).

This view is gaining growing acceptance evidenced by the popularity of the books by Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennent and others because the blind reasoning of those who believe the Bible to be inerrant and thus give oblique approval to all the atrocities that have been committed, and are being committed, under the auspices of divine authority.

An example often told with a certain degree of pride of the power of God over the enemies of the faith is found in the book of Exodus. What is often missed in this story is the slave. For some reason slaves in the Bible are acceptable so no one pays much attention. Many versions of the Bible do not even mention the word "slave" instead they use the word "servant," or "bond servant." No one notices. Like in the SBC today, no one notices because no one cares to notice. This is the story where Moses comes face to face with Pharaoh and this confrontation results in bloodshed:

Moses said, 'Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will go out through Egypt. Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the female slave who is behind the hand mill, and all the firstborn of the livestock. Then there will be a loud cry throughout the whole land of Egypt, such as has never been nor will ever be again. But not a dog shall growl at any of the Israelites not at people, not at animals so that you may know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. Then all these officials of yours shall come down to me, and bow low to me, saying, "Leave us, you and all the people who follow you." After that I will leave.' And in hot anger he left Pharaoh. (Exodus 11:4-8). This is a wonderful story the biblical literalists love to tell because it is one of God punishing all those who dare challenge Him and it is a story of how God will protect His chosen ones from harm. However, hidden in this same story is a story of a slave. A woman who is a slave is the lowest of all slaves; even her body is not her own but belongs to her master and his sons.

This woman, who has no voice in the matters in the reign of Pharaoh or the persecution of the Israelites, will have her first born killed, murdered. Not the second, or third born, but the first born of all the female slaves would die by the command of God. To choose a literal interpretation of this verse, as is done with all the verses that speak of slavery, is to justify the deaths of the children who are the least protected and most vulnerable class of people. To refer back to Voltaire's observation: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities," reveals the first, and often fatal step of an inerrant approach to any book of the Bible. Has there ever been a Southern Baptist who has ever suggested God ordered the murder of the children of those who had no power over Pharaoh? What guilt has any child in the doings of Egypt? Yet, this is the only interpretation possible using literalism and inerrancy as your preferred hermeneutic.

The SBC makes no distinction between inspiration and inerrancy. In regards to the Noahide story of the curse of Ham and the slaying of the first born children of the female slaves these must be accepted as a matter of faith because God is the author of the Bible and therefore there can be no errors, especially in area of morality. If it appears God has authorized an immoral act then it is our understanding of the act that is flawed, not the biblical record of the act. If the first born children of the female slaves were killed, it therefore must mean they were somehow complicit in the crime against God as Pharaoh himself. It is easy for the advocates of slavery to point out from this passage that God approved the slavery of Egypt as He did not punish Egypt for practicing slavery and that the loss of a slave child is no loss to anyone other than its mother. Consider, God killed the babies of slaves; God would never do evil therefore under certain circumstances it is permissible to kill the children of slaves. This sounds absurd but all literalism becomes absurd even to the point of using the Bible to justify slavery.

Other biblical narratives are more difficult for biblical literalists to explain. The story of the slaying of the Canaanites is one where those who hold the view that the Bible is absolutely true, and is free from any error and is the perfect rule of conduct, gives great consternation. Extensive writing has been published with all sorts of literary contortions seeking to find some way to harmonize the God of love with the genocide (ethnic cleansing) of the Canaanites. In Deuteronomy 20:16-18 we read the following:

When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

In this passage the people of the land who are about to be invaded by the people of God are given a choice, slavery or death. If they choose to fight, all the men will be killed, and the women and children they can take as plunder and submit them to a lifetime of slavery. Those who occupy the towns that God has given the Israelites, as an inheritance, must all be killed including women and children, a complete and total genocide. The reason given was if they were allowed to live, they might be a poor example to the people of God and lead them to follow false gods.

In this single passage we have divine authority to kill and enslave the innocent. The women, children, animals, anything that breathes must be killed. The authority comes directly from God and thus must be morally correct and cannot be questioned or challenged. Were this the only incident of mass murder and forced slavery it would be enough to agree with the appraisal of Richard Dawkins that the "God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser..." In addition, the acts of killing children and forced slavery are found throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (I Sam. 15:2-3).

Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, 'Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam's advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the LORD in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Num. 31:16-18).

So when Sihon came out against us, he and all his people for battle at Jahaz, the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we struck him down, along with his offspring and all his people. At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women, and children. We left not a single survivor. (Deut. 2:34).

Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys. (Josh 6:21).

The above verses illustrate that the destruction of innocents was no isolated occasion and even the Psalmist David writes "The righteous will rejoice when they see vengeance done; they will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked," (Ps. 58:10). The theme of one people conquering and enslaving another is common in the Old Testament and that is why it is such a useful tool for making ones argument in the defense of slavery, but only if one holds to a literal/absolutist view of the Bible in the first place.

It is frightening to consider what conclusions can be derived from such stories but also the sense of allegiance literalists commit to these stories. In the mid 19th century narratives such as the story of the destruction of the Canaanites greatly encouraged the slaveholders because they held to the theory that the Africans were the direct descendants of the Canaanites and thus _deserved_ to always remain inferior and were destined to be slaves (Gen. 9:22). The slave owners pointed to this passage and said, "look what God had done to these people and we know God cannot sin and therefore we are right in our treatment of the children of the Canaanites, the African." The African American poet Maya Angelou (b. 1928) sadly makes the observation that "God Himself hated us and ordained us to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, forever and ever, world without end." Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina, also one of the states largest slaveholders in 1866, said: "I believe that God created negroes for no other purpose than to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water—that is to be the slaves of the white race" (Smith 1972, pg. 148).

The Southern Baptists claimed there are no innocents in the family tree of Ham, all share in the same guilt of their original parent, Ham. Just as God killed the first born of the female slaves in Egypt, and God had His people kill all the children of the Canaanites it is acceptable and never to be considered immoral. It is divine work and was to fulfill His purpose of which is often undisclosed to those who trust in Him. This way of thinking makes an unanswerable argument against the defense of slavery by its proponents, using the Bible as a witness. They used the Bible to trump human reason and human compassion. They won the argument and the slave had no one to turn. The very ministers of God cursed them.

Another passage from the Old Testament used in the support of slavery was Leviticus 25:44-46 and is considered to be one of the most convincing passages in the Old Testament and every slave owner knew it by heart. This passage on slavery was a part of the Law given by God and therefore was considered to be sacrosanct and indisputable. To the abolitionists who admit this passage does sanction slavery, make the claim the NT sets it aside as part of the fulfilling of the Law through the crucifixion of Jesus. However, little is gained with that argument due to the fact neither Jesus, nor the apostles, ever repudiate the institution of slavery. Also, they like to say that the curse of Ham and the institution of slavery predates the Law and thus is still in effect, as the Southern Baptist argument was presented. This same argument is used today by Southern Baptists for their doctrine of the Tithe, that 10 percent of ones income belongs to God is in effect because the tithe "predates the Law." Further demonstrating that literalism is always selective. The passage in question is as follows:

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness." (Lev. 25:44-46).

This passage teaches that God permits slavery and it is permissible to make slaves of men and women who are unfortunate to have been born the descendants of Ham. These slaves will be property and as such they, and their children, may be passed down from generation to generation. No provision is called for their release, and no provision is called for compassionate care. This passage is the peg all slavers hung their hat. To argue against slavery was considered to dispute the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures. This is why the arguments of the Southern Baptists were so readily received, because while it may seem morally wrong on the surface it must be a misunderstanding on the part of the conscience of the slave master because it is plain and clear, slavery is acceptable to God so it must be acceptable to the children of God. To claim otherwise is to argue against God and to be considered a heretic. Those who objected were advised to "lean not unto thine own understanding," (Proverbs 3:5) and to trust God. Slavery may seem immoral but it cannot be because God authenticates its practice.

The African must learn to accept his or her place as children of Ham and the master must assume the role of the paternal overseer of the slave. "At the very least, maintained Rev. James Smylie (1856), scripture proved that God "gave a written permit to the Hebrew, then the best people in the world, to buy, hold and bequeath men and women to perpetual servitude " (Smith 1972, 132). When the African learns his or her place the peace of God will come upon the planation. Just as God has given written permission to the Hebrew and thus to the white master, if slavery becomes an evil institution it is because of the African failing to recognize his or her role. Not God's fault, not the fault of the master, that is the divine "way;" It is the fault of the African. Every rape, murder, stolen labor and all the other atrocities are the fault of the African because it is the African failure to submit to his or her divinely appointed role. This . . . is what Southern Baptists endorsed, protected, and participated in.

Even the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) assumes slavery: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Ex. 20:17). Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) in his tract, _The Bible View of Slavery,_ writes in his defense of slavery citing the Ten Commandments:

The Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments—how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job—the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)—that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy? (Raphall, JewishHistory.com, 1862).

To further underscore the argument for slavery from Old Testament sources the proslavery preachers pointed out that priests owned slaves as recorded in the Old Testament. Based on this biblical evidence it is out right heresy to imply that slavery might in anyway be an immoral practice. This is undeniable as it is found in Leviticus 22:10-11 and Numbers 31:25. The reasoning went "if it was acceptable for the priests of God to own slaves then human bondage cannot be sin." This was the argument that was made for those pastors who chose to participate in the slavery trade. If the priests of the Old Testament were allowed to own slaves then the pastors of the New Testament churches likewise could own slaves. Who could argue with such logic? If the Ten Commandments endorsed slavery then why should churches abstain from slave ownership? Churches that bought and sold the African found it a terrific way to increase the wealth of the church.

It can be safely said, and quite often was said in colonial America, if you wished to own a human as property and your conscience troubled you over the idea, go to the Bible. In the Bible you will find the consolation you seek. Not only is slavery ordained by God, some say even commanded by God, but the very priests of God themselves owned slaves. The Bible is the "go to " book for the justification of slavery and not a single page, phrase, or word on slavery has been abrogated, rescinded or retracted. Slavery is still practiced in parts of the modern world and where it is there is no doubt there will be copies of the Bible from which clergy are expounding the righteousness of human bondage based on these passages from the Old Testament. The type of biblical interpretation that is still cherished by Southern Baptists (inerrancy, literalism, absolutism) has given rise, not only to slavery but to also other aberrations that are just as egregious. An example is the Phineas Priesthood.

The Phineas Priesthood is a Christian white supremacist movement based on the same hermeneutical principles used by the Southern Baptists to justify slavery. The Phineas Priesthood shares the current view of the Southern Baptist that the Bible in inerrant and is "...a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." (The _Baptist Faith and Message,_ 2000). They even share the same fear of miscegenation (the mixing of different races through marriage or procreation) and amalgamation (combining two races into one) that was once embraced by the Southern Baptists. The Phineas Priesthood is based on a story found in Numbers 25:1-19, a story about divinely sanctioned violence in the name of ethnic purity (Beal 2011, pg. 156):

While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the LORD's anger was kindled against Israel. The LORD said to Moses, 'Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the LORD, in order that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.' And Moses said to the judges of Israel, 'Each of you shall kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.' Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the Israelites, while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand, he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. So the plague was stopped among the people of Israel. Nevertheless, those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand. The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 'Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites. Therefore say, "I hereby grant him my covenant of peace. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites. (Num. 25:1-19).

Thus the argument of the white supremacist Phineas Priesthood is based upon the same authority as the postulated by the proslavery Southern Baptist in the 19th century. Richard Kelly Hoskins who wrote _Vigilantes of Christendom,_ embraces this biblical story of Phineas as a literal example to be followed and has convinced thousands of followers that the priesthood continues into the modern era. Timothy Beal writing about the Phineas Priesthood in his book, _The Rise and Fall of the_ Bible, observes:

Inspired by this story (Numbers 25), white supremacist Richard Kelly Hoskins who wrote _Vigilantes of Christendom: The story of the Phineas Priesthood,_ which presents a post biblical lineage of "Phineas Priests" who have been willing to carry out similar acts of violent racial and moral purification, and which call forth a new generation of white Christian zealots to similar action. In the years since its publication (1990) Hoskins book has gained wide circulation among white supremacists die-hards and potential recruits in and out of prison. Today, many notorious groups lay claim to this dubious biblical heritage, declaring themselves Phineas Priests. Indeed, within these groups the idea of the Phineas Priesthood has become a powerful means of ordaining acts of racist terror as part of a larger, divinely sanctioned racial holy war. (Beal 2011, pg. 157).

Who is to argue their point? The Baptist of the South certainly could not because they used the same Bible, the same sense of literal interpretation the same unchallengeable authority of God in order to wage a holy war against the African. It seems what evil seeks is permission and permission is easily available upon every page of the Bible _if_ one wishes to find it. There can be little doubt there is no evil committed that cannot find its justification from the Bible when a flawed hermeneutic is in use. The idea that the good of the Bible justifies the evil derived from the Bible, as some form of compensation is a false idea, for evil by its very nature has no moral justification. Christianity must be for everyone or it is for no one. The Bible, as the inspired Word of God by sheer definition should alleviate pain and suffering wherever it is found, not be the cause and root of pain and suffering.

The African Americans today still carry the pain of their ancestors, evidenced by their music, art, written and oral histories. Maybe someone should ask the African American if the good in the Bible somehow erases all the evil committed upon his or her ancestors who suffered under the terror of slavery. It is a myth that the same Bible that gave rise to slavery brought slavery tumbling down. Slavery was acquitted by a war and nothing else. The Southern Baptist slavers fought shoulder to shoulder with the Confederates until the last shot was fired and both the Southern Baptist doctrine of slavery and the Confederacy came to an end. When slavery had been abolished by law throughout the United States, the Baptist of the South began to see the error of their way and yet to this day have never apologized for the role they played in ensuring the African remained in servitude to their white masters. It took a war between the States and the loss of over 900,000 lives until the Southern Baptist finally ended their maniacal rhetoric for the support of slavery.

One other example from modernity is the recent use of biblical absolutism for the purpose of racial segregation in South Africa under apartheid that was championed by the Dutch Reformed Church, previously mentioned in this paper. This is important to remember because when all the elements come together, social acceptance (zeitgeist), legality and desire, the Bible once again is used to extreme advantage over and against other people. The following ideas advanced by the Dutch Reformed Church are as follows:

God 'deliberately divided people into different races'—the whites being superior to blacks. The Bible says 'There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians—you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). This means people are only spiritually equal, not physically equal.

That South Africa's Apartheid laws were God's will and races should be kept apart. Whites should have better opportunities as they heed God's 'favour'.

Mixed marriages and relationships are discouraged so races remained 'pure'.

God is the 'Great Divider'. Genesis 1 supports this, in that, God divides everything into separate categories—white is divided from black and meant to be separate. (The Dutch Reformed Church, A Study in Prejudice and Discrimination, 2007).

The fact that the Dutch Reformed church was the authoritative voice of God for apartheid has been a great embarrassment for their organization. Because of their role in apartheid they were expelled from the World Council of Churches in the early 80s' and yet they did not acknowledge apartheid was a "sin" until 1992 and it was not until 1997 the Rev. Freek Swanepoel, the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, of the Dutch Reformed Church, said: "We confess that great wrongs have been done." (The Independent News, UK, 1997). Yet again, it was the best minds, using the same book (the Bible) using the same authoritative absolutist hermeneutic to sanctify apartheid that was used to justify slavery in America. Not good company to be in.

Once again, we return to the question: Is the Bible the most evil of all literary instruments in that it has been repeatedly used throughout history to sanction the worst crimes against humanity? Or, perhaps the Baptists of the South, and others, were wrong to use the Bible to lend authority to the institution of slavery. The fundamental question is whether the Bible itself is a dangerous book or is it the methods used to interpret the Bible? The greatest of the Southern Baptist preachers and educators deeply believed in the institution of slavery as being God ordained to the point they themselves bought and sold humans and taught others to believe and do likewise. This fact raises the question of "What are the brightest and best in SBC leadership calling for others to believe today?" It is now the work of the SBC, using the same method of biblical interpretation to attack homosexuals with the same intensity they used to defend slavery. Southern Baptist are so sure they have got it right this time they have passed over 40 resolutions condemning homosexuals and homosexuality in one form or the other. The SBC has amended their Constitution to read that no church that approves of homosexuals, or says anything in their support, will be allowed voting privileges at the SBC. Many SBC associations will dis-fellowship (throw out of the association, or State Convention) any Southern Baptist church that does not support the SBC in their damning of homosexuals and homosexuality. The same dangerous method of biblical interpretation is at work once again only this time they are sure they have it right! They were wrong on the slavery issue . . . but using the same method of biblical interpretation they are sure they have the homosexual question right. How is it possible to use the same method and yet expect different results?

A second contemporary example is the Southern Baptist relegating women to a second-class status. In the _Baptist Faith and Message,_ section LXVIII it says the following:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15-25; 3:1-20; Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 1:26-28; Psalms 51:5; 78:1-8; 127; 128; 139:13-16; Proverbs 1:8; 5:15-20; 6:20-22; 12:4; 13:24; 14:1; 17:6; 18:22; 22:6,15; 23:13-14; 24:3; 29:15,17; 31:10-31; Ecclesiastes 4:9-12; 9:9; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 5:31-32; 18:2-5; 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-12; Ro-mans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 7:1-16; Ephesians 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 5:8,14; 2 Timothy 1:3-5; Titus 2:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 3:1-7.

I left all the Bible references in place to demonstrate that this type of biblical literalism has to have a Bible verse for everything. Notice, a woman must submit herself (graciously) to the leadership of her husband, and she has the "God given responsibility" to respect her husband and to serve as his helper. The highest a woman can achieve in this life is to serve as an adjunct to a man in the eyes of the Southern Baptists. Why is this? Because the Bible, according to a literal interpretation, says it must be and that settles the matter. It also settled the matter on slavery in the 19th century.

It is also a doctrine of the SBC a woman, regardless of ability, cannot ever under any circumstance be a pastor. In The Constitution and Bylaws of the Texas Convention of Southern Baptists its specifically states in Article IV, Section 1; Affiliation Qualifications:

Any affiliate church must agree with the foundational beliefs of the SBTC set forth in its Constitution and Bylaws. Affiliated churches must actively cooperate with the work of the SBTC through regular participation and financial support through the Cooperative Program. Any church which has taken action affirming, approving, or endorsing the practice of female senior pastoral service shall not be considered for affiliation or continued affiliation with this convention. Also, the SBTC will not consider for affiliation or continued affiliation any church that has taken action affirming, approving, or endorsing the practice of homosexuality. Such actions include but are not limited to the licensure or ordination of homosexuals, marriage or blessing of homosexual relationships, and endorsing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. (<http://sbtexas.com/about-sbtc/constitution-bylaws/>)

In Texas, no church that has a woman pastor will be considered for membership in the Southern Baptist State Convention nor any existing church will be allowed to continue their membership if they hire a woman as pastor. To the SBC, the Bible disallows for women pastors anywhere in the entire world. Of this matter they are as sure today as they were sure they Bible allowed slavery in the 19th century. Texas Baptists are so sure that a woman speaking about Jesus from a pulpit, visiting the sick, baptizing, doing routine administration of a 501 (c)(3) non profit corporation is abhorrent to God that they put a provision in the Constitution and Bylaws to insure such heresy will never violate their pursuit of biblical purity. I have posed the question many times to Southern Baptists: "Which do you think better for your church? A pastor who is a competent woman or an incompetent man? Other than evasive answers, I have never received a response to this question in over 40 years of working with Southern Baptists. It is embarrassing to say, "According to the Bible and the doctrine of the SBC we always must choose the incompetent man." So, they say nothing and while saying nothing they continue to persecute the woman for the sheer fact she was born a woman. Is it any different than enslaving the African for the sheer fact he or she was born black.

The Southern Baptist of today never realize that the path to the grave error of slavery was paved with the pages of the Bible, willingly laid down by those they have been taught to admire. The demonizing of homosexuals, the condemning women to second-class status is using the exact method of interpretation used by those Southern Baptists preachers who eloquently argued for slavery. Does the message in the Bible set people free? Or, does it just impose upon them to a new set of chains? It cannot do both.

Is there a better approach to understanding the Bible? Bart Ehrman in his book Jesus Interrupted believes the current and prevailing method of viewing the Bible might be improved by considering the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. By doing so it will build in safeguards to protect against using the Bible in extremism. It is not that difficult to understand that the Bible is a collection of many sources over a period of thousands of years and what absolute clarity there might have been has been lost in antiquity and this fact alone should preclude any idea of literalism and resulting absolutism and fundamentalism. The reason it cannot be accepted literally are myriad, some of them previously discussed in this book. To consider the Bible inerrant and absolute requires "authorities" to determine meaning. These authorities will determine what the Bible says on any subject at any time in history and applies to all cultures.

These authorities are prejudicial to the accepted doctrines of their particular denomination that has ordained and employs them. It is these same authorities that led the Southern Baptist churches into accepting and promoting slavery and it is these same authorities that continue to lead the contemporary church into error. Every gross error the church has ever been involved in has been the result of the accepted authoritative figures interpreting the Bible to permit, condemn, or forbid an action. What appears to be evil, slavery and apartheid, were permitted because a priest, preacher, rabbi or other spokesperson for God had so declared it to be acceptable, if not required. The support and advocacy of institutionalized evil is just a perverse as personal evil.

Ehrman's critical/historical approach to interpretation helps bring distance and objectivity to the Bible that is greatly needed to dissolve an unhealthy relationship with the inerrant/literal/absolute hermeneutic that has been the root of much suffering committed in the name of God. Everyone that is interested in understanding the Bible can use this method and can free themselves from the "official interpretation" of their denominational religious authorities. The historical-critical method asks questions such as:

What did the biblical writings mean in their original historical context? Who were the actual authors of the Bible? When did these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day? How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there might be irreconcilable differences among them? Is it possible that what the books originally meant in their original context is not what they are taken to mean today? Does our interpretation of Scripture involve taking its words out of context and thereby distorting its message? And what if we don't even have the original words? What if, during the centuries in which the Bible—both the Old Testament, in Hebrew, and the New Testament, in Greek—was copied by hand, the words were changed by well-meaning but careless scribes, or by fully alert scribes who wanted to alter the texts in order to make them say what they wanted them to say? (Ehrman 2010, pg. 4-5).

Are not these fair questions to ask? Is this not a simple exercise in common sense? Contrast this approach with the approach currently used by the SBC and one can see why the same argument that was used to justify slavery is used today against women and the homosexuals. To the inerrant evangelical, this approach (critical/historical) is thought of as an attack on the veracity of the Bible and is categorically rejected on the grounds that if there were but one error in the Bible then no longer could the faithful be assured of what is true and what is false. The question they ask is: how do I know any part of the Bible is true if I know some parts of it are false? In reality, it is not an attack on the Bible that offends them but it is an attack on doctrines that are closely held by the SBC. However, they cannot openly admit this is an attack on their doctrine for all doctrine should be open to scrutiny, to be tested to insure they are valid, so the attack _is_ taken as an attack on the "Holy Word of God." All truth is subject to verification . . . unless it is a SBC truth.

As long as the Bible is to be considered authoritative and inerrant then there must trusted authorities properly selected, trained at Southern Baptist seminaries, which can interpret the Bible. What does this mean to the person who has not attended seminary? It means SBC authorities will do all biblical interpretation for they alone are competent to interpret the true meaning of an inerrant scripture. As a SBC minister, many times have I heard a Southern Baptists say, in regards to a passage in the Bible; "I do not know what it means but I know that it is true." Regrettably, such a position makes it possible for an "authority" to explain what it means. In the past, and in the present, these interpretations have not served to make lives better but have helped to created classes of persecuted and persecutors. Southern Baptists believed in enslaving the African because their Bible, according to their seminary trained authorities, endorsed and commended the act, even as offensive and contrary it was to the human senses.

As previously mentioned, the very fact that the idea the Bible is free from error, or contradiction is simply a embarrassing statement to make in this age of information where anyone that has a desire to do so can search the internet for "contradictions in the Bible" or "errors in the Bible" and come up with many instances of error throughout the Bible. While one would think the SBC and others that cling to inerrancy would amend their position but in fact the SBC becomes more committed to inerrancy. At the most recent SBC, convention held at Forth Worth Texas, a resolution was passed condemning the _New International Version of the Bible_ for its use of gender-neutral language. The following is the complete resolution as presented and passed:

Resolution: "On The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version"

Whereas, many Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople have trusted and used the 1984 New International Version (NIV) translation to the great benefit of the Kingdom; and

Whereas, Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House are publishing an updated version of the New International Version (NIV) which incorporates gender neutral methods of translation; and

Whereas, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist "gender-neutral" translation of Scripture; and

Whereas, this translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

Whereas, although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and

Whereas, seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and

Whereas, the Southern Baptist Convention has passed a similar resolution concerning the TNIV in 2002, and

Therefore, be it resolved, that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God's inspired Scripture; and

Be it further resolved, that we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and

Be it further resolved that we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and

Be it finally resolved, that we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community. (SBC Resolutions www.sbc.net, 2011).

Out of the thousands of different versions of the Bible printed every year the SBC voted to ban _this_ one because of its inclusive language, referring to it as an "inaccurate translation." They use their commitment to inerrancy to claim that any gender neutral language will change the message of the inerrant but what is really being said is that it "alters the meaning of hundreds of verses" that they have used to affirm and underwrite their male dominated theology and ecclesiology. So adamant is the SBC continue desire to claim biblical authority for female subornation that they officially reject of any version of the Bible that does not agree with them and it will not be sold in their bookstores or recommended use in any SBC church. Again, they are sure they have this one right, this time.

In addition, the SBC with has joined hands with the Evangelical Theological Society (Paul House, society president was a former professor at Southwestern Theological Seminary; Thomas R. Schreiner-society vice president is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Greg R. Allison-Society secretary is Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Bruce Ware, Member at Large is Professor of Christian Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and they adopted the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ on Nov. 16, 2006, to further affirm the integrity of scriptural inerrancy (Baptist Press News, 2006). A report by the Presidential Theological Study Committee (The Theological Study Committee was appointed by SBC President H. Edwin Young in 1992) was presented and adopted by the SBC in 1994 affirming the SBC's commitment to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy makes the following statements on biblical inerrancy:

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I: We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II: We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III: We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV: We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V: We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI: We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII: We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII: We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX: We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X: We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI: We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII: We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII: We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV: We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV: We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI: We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII: We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII: We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX: We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church (Chicago Statement of Faith, 1978).

In light of modern research and the many manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments revealing thousands of errors, contradictions, additions and subtractions from the texts it is incredulous to make the claims presented in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, but these are the claims adopted by the SBC. If these claims are to be believed by the SBC, it becomes impossible to make any defense against human bondage from the Old Testament. The idea in article five (V) holding that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures is progressive and now we all know better regarding things such as slavery is difficult to accept on the grounds that it cannot be believed that God allowed slavery to exist from Ham to the close of the Civil War because of the nature of progressive revelation. How can something be regarded as "sin" in one generation and no longer "sin" in the next? Also, this statement on inerrancy denies that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. If, in fact, revelation ended at the completion of the last book written then that establishes the fact God has said all He is going to say on all matters of faith. All revelation has ceased; implying all current understanding of what constitutes sin is cast in stone and is not up for review. This has terrible implications for the treatment of homosexuals and women, as these two are the current targets of the SBC.

To the Baptists in the South it was the Bible that established the right of the institution of slavery and there can never be any new revelation that would ever change that fact. It can be said today that these same scriptures state clearly that women cannot be a pastor, must always be subordinate to men in the home, society and in the church, and that homosexuality is a sin and those who practice it must live in guilt and shame and this cannot be over ruled by any future revelation, progressive or otherwise. This is why it is important to the current flock of SBC authorities that they have not only a closed canon but also a closed revelation. Progressive revelation has ended lest it be revealed in the future that their current contribution to evil be, in fact wrong. Like those Baptists in the South who were absolutely convinced human bondage was authorized by God there remains those today who are likewise convinced it is acceptable to persecute categories of individuals based on gender, race, and sexual orientation while maintaining all revelation ended when the last book of the New Testament was written. This generation of SBC leadership wishes to ensure they will not suffer, as their forefathers did, for using the Bible to evil ends. They must insist the Bible is now a closed book and no future revelations or interpretation can occur.

One would hope there would be progression in the SBC in the way they view the Bible as a whole, but every year they seem to become further entrenched in the idea the Bible is absolutely without error and is the perfect treasure to guide one's life. Inevitably, the errors made in the past by the holders of inerrancy will reoccur in the future using the same Bible to the same terrible end. To prevent such occurrence one is faced with the choice of giving up inerrancy or giving up the Bible altogether.

It is a well-known maxim that all literalism is selective. The glaring flaw of literalism is that it is never consistent. So the question is; who gets to do the selecting of what is to be interpreted literal, what is allegorical, what is cultural, what is transcultural? Who will be the authority that gets to say, "the Bible says this," or "the Bible says that"? This is why inerrancy and absolutism will always thrive. The ones who demand biblical literalism, inerrancy and absolutism are the ones that have the most to gain from such beliefs. Religious authoritative individuals must have inerrancy to be able to invoke the authority of God to their purpose. The Baptist proponents of slavery never said it was _them_ saying slavery was an acceptable practice, they always pointed out it was God saying it was an acceptable practice. This is why in the last article in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected _without grave consequences_ (italics mine) both to the individual and to the Church." This is a direct threat issued by the composers of this statement on inerrancy. This has been a familiar theme throughout the history of the Church, "believe or else," and the _or else_ has often brought terrible consequences. Who is doing the warning? God, or the interpreters?

To hold the inerrant view of the Bible has put the SBC at odds with the very society to which they are responsible to minister. That the SBC stands in opposition to groups that fall out of favor with the church, but are accepted by society as a whole, creates a view of the SBC is an anachronism. For example, the SBC is comfortable with female generals, surgeons, astronauts, police officers, educators, and scientists but they cannot tolerate them anywhere near the pulpit because they believe Bible teaches, "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture," (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000). Such practices freeze the SBC in a time in place in history where women were regarded as chattel (sound familiar?) and were very limited by what they could do in society. It was not the best time to be a woman in the first century and SBC wishes to return women to that same status they had at that time. It becomes easy for the Southern Baptist to point to women in the New Testament and believe the same conditions they lived in the first century should also apply to women in the 21st century because the Bible is inerrant, unchangeable and absolute in all matters. If a woman struggles with this doctrine they are told to take it up with God because He has already revealed in His divine Word that a woman is to be subordinate to a man.

Just how far does the SBC take their hermeneutic of literalism. If you point out that all literalism is selective they deny it is selective at all and it is just a matter of "rightly dividing the Word." With that in mind one wonders how they categorize the story of the daughter of Jephthah.

Jephthah's pledge is a story found in the Book of Judges (Chapter 11) about a man who makes a pledge to God. Jephthah tells God that "if you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever first comes out of the door of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD's, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering." Jephthah defeats the Ammonites and upon returning home the first person to come out of his house is his only child, a daughter:

Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, 'Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause if great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.' She said to him, 'My father, if you have opened your mouth to the Lord, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has given you vengeance against your enemies, the Ammonites.' And she said to her father, 'Let this thing be done for me: Grant me two months, so that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, my companions and I.' 'Go,' he said and sent her away for two months. So she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. At the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to the vow he had made. She had never slept with a man. So there arose an Israelite custom that for four days every year the daughters of Israel would go out to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. (Judg.11:34-40).

He murdered his daughter. His daughter was as innocent as all the African Americans taken from their land and forced to labor as slaves. All the children born of slavery forced into servitude for no other crime than being black in a nation where whites were powerful. Japhthah killed his daughter because he believed God demanded that he keep his promise no matter that an innocent child would be murdered. This is the mind of the absolutist who holds that the pages of the Bible is inerrant in every way that even institutionalized evil becomes not just possible but permissible. When Japhthah murdered his child there was no "staying of his hand" as was done when Abraham tried to murder his child, giving proof that this murder was acceptable to God. God sanctioned her murder as sure as God sanctioned the institution of slavery. In the book of Hebrews Jephthah is remembered as a man of faith (Heb. 11:32). This is the type of reasoning that is acceptable to those who hold the Bible to be inerrant and absolute, and it is this same reasoning that not only permitted slavery but permits open persecution of people on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

The favored SBC method of biblical interpretation, literalism, is selective and because it is selective flawed interpreters using the Bible as their authority has led many into error and has caused untold misery and this practice continues to this day.

# Chapter 5

### New Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage

Be well assured that slavery is a work of the flesh, assisted by the devil; a mystery of iniquity that works like witchcraft to darken your understanding and harden your hearts against conviction.

—James O'Kelly, 1785

The New Testament is a book(s) of enlightenment where the old laws and ways are overturned and ushered in their place is an age of grace; love, uniting humankind with God and with one another. The terrible wars, genocide, patricide, child abuse, executing Sabbath breakers, burning witches, and all the like are in the past. Therefore, in the NT there will surely be an able defense against the terrible practice of slavery. However, as Dr. Wayland puts it in his public debate with Baptist proslavery advocate Richard Fuller, "All that can justly be said, seems to me, to be this, the New Testament contains no precept prohibitory of slavery. This must, I think, be granted; but this is all" (Wayland 1847, pg. 89). There is no rescue from slavery in the NT and in fact there is only more fuel to add to the fire.

The defense given from the NT was just as plentiful as that from the OT. As long as one holds an inerrant hermeneutic there can be no defense against the institution of slavery that can be established through use of the NT. All arguments from the Bible supporting slavery can be substantiated using inerrancy and absolutism in both Old _and_ New Testament. Inerrancy allows interpretation by expediency whereas the historical-critical method places the Bible back where it belongs, in the category of an incredible work of human literature, divinely inspired, that was the product of its time and culture. This is the only category it can find validity because if the Bible is trumped by simple human decency how can it be divinely inspired? Simple human decency leads to a belief that slavery and the persecution of any people for any reason in the name of God is a crime under any definition. Does human decency trump the divine word of God in terms of morality and ethics? If so, a better approach should be found other than inerrancy and absolutism to interpret the Bible.

The golden rule of Matthew 7:12 "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets," offers a possible rebuttal to the proslavery advocates but this was simply brushed off with the statement that they (slave owners) _do_ practice this rule and they _do_ treat their slaves in such manner they themselves would like to be treated if they themselves were slaves (Smith 1972, 134). In their manner of thinking they have met the standard of the Golden Rule. The religious leaders were quick to point out that it cannot even be ruled out that this is exactly what Jesus had in mind with the golden rule in regards to master and slave. At the least this passage demands humane treatment for the slave. It might be an impossible interpretation to be considered by today's standards but to the 19th century slaveholder it made perfect sense. Literalism is always the method of biblical interpretation governed by expediency. There was no other way to consider that the Golden Rule could be interpreted any other way than in the support of slavery and does not conflict with earlier clear teaching of God on the matter of slavery.

Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery. He used the slave motif often in His parables and He never once chastised a single slaveholder. Although most advocates of slavery preferred not to bring the teachings of Jesus into the debate, preferring rather the epistles of Paul for their defense of the institution. They, nevertheless, were quick to point out that Jesus never abrogated the ending of the institution of slavery. By inference, those who supported slavery from the Bible stated that on such an important issue of human bondage Jesus surely would have ended the institution if it were in fact immoral. This gives sure footing to those who freely claimed, "Show me in the Bible where slaveholding is a sin and I will quit the practice." It is interesting to note that while the silence of Jesus on slavery was interpreted as "permission" His silence on homosexuality is interpreted otherwise. I say this to point out, once again, the incredible inconsistency in the practice of biblical interpretation using literalism as a guide. As a minimum, any method of biblical interpretation must be consistent. Even in the preparation of this book, and all books, there is one rule that must always be observed and that is be consistent. If, for example you choose to capitalize "Church" then capitalize it throughout your paper or book. This standard makes sense in writing papers and books but is not practiced among Southern Baptists when interpreting the greatest of all books, the Bible. That practice has caused and is causing terrible suffering and must be abandoned.

At least six letters of Paul clearly speak in the support of slavery. The favorites of the pro slavery crowd were Colossians 3:22 and 4:1.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. (Col. 3:22)

Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Col. 4:1).

Can there be any clearer instruction regarding the divine authority to own slaves? The only requirement is for the master to treat their slave(s) just and fair. One might think to treat a slave "just" would be to manumit (set free) him or her. However, that was not how the Southern Baptists considered these verses to be understood. These verses went hand in hand with all the verses of the Old Testament and the Noahide malediction to strengthen the theological rational for the continuation of the practice of slavery. Some translations, (King James Version), substitute the word "servant" instead of "slave" to deflect opinion from the fact of the pro slavery stance in the New Testament; however, it cannot conceal the simple fact that the word "servant" is the Greek word for slave [δοῦλος], and was in common use in the first century to describe those who are slaves. To make matters worse, the word "master" in both of these verses is [κύριος], meaning, "lord." Therefore, we have a command from the Apostle Paul, under full inspiration of God, telling slaves to obey their earthly lords in everything. The slave must accept the role of slavery and must learn to be content. To the biblical literalist, this passage is binding and authorizes the institution of slavery forever. It must be forever because nowhere is it found in The New Testament a call to end the practice of slavery. Remember, to the Southern Baptist, there is no further revelation from God at the close of the New Testament. The threat of slavery that was so vigorously pursued, defended and practiced by Southern Baptists remains in place today because they have never changed their claim that the Bible is without error, cannot be amended, and there is no new revelation forthcoming.

In March 2012, the Pennsylvania Non Believers Organization erected a billboard Harrisburg portraying a African American with a metal collar around his neck with the caption, "Slaves Obey Your Masters, Colossians 3:22." This billboard attracted a tremendous amount of attention drawing criticism from Mayor Linda Thompson who said ""I'll continue to pray for the atheists, that they may find Jesus Christ one day." State Representative Thaddeus Kirkland, D-Chester, who is also a Baptist pastor said that the "billboard takes the Bible out of context and depicts racism and hatred." The problem is that it is not out of context. Paul is very clearly speaking in regards to the Christian household, including wives, husbands, children, fathers and lastly, slaves. This billboard is in complete context. Within days the billboard was defaced, the African American community was greatly enraged, and the Pennsylvania Non Believers Organization issued an apology. The fact remains that the billboard, as offensive as it was to the African American community, nevertheless was a correct theological and historical appraisal of Colossians 3:22. The outrage, rather than be directed at the Pennsylvania Non Believers Organization, should be directed to those who while believing the Bible to be inerrant, authoritative and the perfect treasure of wisdom to guide ones' life, refuse to acknowledge Paul might be wrong in supporting slavery. At a minimum, Paul's teaching on slavery should be widely known within Southern Baptist churches and discussed. The idea that every verse that does not fit with contemporary culture is "out of context" is insufficient due to the fact that this same verse was "in context" in 1845.

The acceptance that Rome, being a slave holding empire, somehow justified the acceptance and participation of slavery by the early church is unsatisfactory. The argument goes that Paul accepted slavery because it was accepted within his historical and social context. Paul was writing in his era therefore these passages on slavery are to be taken with that in mind and are not to be applied today. That may be granted, but then the question is raised why are the passages from the same Bible on women and homosexuals _are_ taken from Paul's context and yet made authoritative, as written, in the 21st century? Again, the SBC hermeneutic of the Bible being inerrant, authoritative and absolute fail the test of consistency and reveals itself as being selective according to the desires of the current crop of religious authorities.

Another point sometimes made to defend Paul's statements on slavery is that slavery in Rome was not racial so it is not as evil. In Paul's era slaves were those captured in war, children of slaves, taken in slavery against their will and forced into lifetime servitude. To be a slave was a position of shame, without honor. Families were broken up, and an owner could, at will, torture a slave and have him or her put to death for _any_ reason. The lack of a racial component is a poor justification of any form of human bondage. However, in practice it would be impossible to find slavery anywhere where there is not a racial component. Slavery carries with it the idea of superiority and inferiority. This superiority and inferiority is based on a perceived inequality of birth, color, nationality, gender, class, or other category real or imagined and that alone constitutes racism.

Some suggest Paul believed the imminent return of Jesus and this was the reason for his failure to address the slavery question, (Glancy 2011, pg. 45) and the proslavery advocates in 19th century America took this same position. Slavery is permissible because Jesus is coming soon and all will be set free at that time. Many slave owners were amenable to teaching the Bible to their slaves in order to show them the Lord is coming soon and all will be free, someday. Not today, probably not tomorrow either, but someday all the slaves will be set free when Jesus comes again. In a doctoral class at the San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo, California the discussion was on racism, with a number of African America students in attendance. One of the Caucasian students suggested that African Americans need to "wait" and things will get better. Icy stares followed his statement. One of the female African American students slowly said, "Never tell us to wait. The white people have been telling us to wait for hundreds of years and we will never wait another day." The silence hung in the air and not another word was spoken on that matter. At last count, of the millions of slaves in America who were told that Jesus was coming soon and they just had to be good slaves and wait . . . all died and Jesus had not arrived. They were told a lie for Jesus never rescued them and the ministers of Jesus saw to it they would die in slavery. That was the plan among the Southern Baptists until the Civil War between the States decided otherwise.

This verse, Colossians 3:22 seems such a clear teaching for the defense of slavery how can it mean anything other than what it clearly states? To put it into the parlay of the Southern Baptists, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." For one, this epistle is believed by many scholars (except SBC scholars) to not have been written by Paul and is one of six disputed epistles (Colossians, Ephesians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus and II Thessalonians). One of the many reasons why these epistles are not accepted as Pauline is because of theological inconsistencies. It seems highly improbable the same Paul who wrote "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:28-29) is the same person that endorsed first century slavery with all of its suffering and humiliation. If, it is to be maintained that Paul did author these epistles then his moral authority stands to be questioned.

Was Paul himself a slave-owner? The question could well be raised, given Paul's teaching regarding slaves and slavery, the readily supply of slaves, the authority to own slaves from the Old Testament, and the widespread cultural acceptance of slave ownership. All things considered it would be expected that Paul would have been a slave owner. This question is never brought up in any available sources that could be found in researching for this book, yet it cannot go unnoticed. In a similar slave culture in America, anyone of financial means, and the slightest degree of necessity, owned slaves. There simply was no good reason not to own slaves as it was profitable, socially accepted (even expected) and approved by God, according to His spokesmen in the South. Churches in 19th century America owned slaves, as did pastors, evangelists, theology professors, politicians and leading citizens in every field, from Thomas Jefferson to the President of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America.

Is this a taboo subject, to inquire if the Apostle Paul was a slave owner? There would not be any reason for him not to own a slave because it was not considered a sin by anyone and he himself wrote in favor and in full support of the institution. It is not discussed because it might cast all of Christianity into foul light. Even those Southern Baptists who wrote extensively in support of slavery never bring up this subject. Perhaps I was not thorough enough in my research. Yet it seems that not a single voice of the religious proponents of slavery wished to bring the name of the Apostle Paul into the reality of the practice of owning another human. However, it is still possible to use the Bible to justify slavery on the one hand, and on the other hand it is acceptable to never raise the question that Paul might have been a slave owner.

If the Bible is to be used to support slavery then it has to have a clear understanding what slavery was/is in its fullest. Slavery is about one individual owning another individual as if they were another form of livestock. The whole idea of polygenesis was if the African was not a human then one would not be entitled to treat him or her as a human. This is the indignity of slavery that the Bible is made to support through the agency of Southern preachers. There cannot be a single word said in the defense of slavery, there is not a single strand of good that can come from the practice of slavery and this is why it is a crime against humanity to argue for its defense, especially to make such an argument based on the Bible. Given the enormity of this terrible crime it is no wonder present day Southern Baptist remain silent.

Slavery is never about one person laboring for another without payment other than that of room and board. Slavery is not penury (extreme poverty). Slavery has always been the forceful subjugation of the will of one person to that of another through the use of brute force. Let us not forget the indignation included in slavery is the fact a woman's body belonged to her master. Jennifer A. Glancy in her book _Slavery as a Moral Problem in the Early Church and Today_ states:

"Throughout antiquity, slaves were the sexual property of their owners. For untold numbers of women, girls, boys, and young men, vulnerability to sexual desires of their owners was central to the experience of slavery."(Glancy 2011, pg. 82).

A woman's body belongs to the master, and the man's labor belongs to the master. This is what it means to say that the Bible permits slavery. This is why there is little mention of the likelihood Paul was a slaveholder. The onus of slavery cannot taint the Apostle Paul and not have it reflect upon Christianity as a whole. It does not seem possible that the one that wrote the most about the legitimacy of slavery in the NT did not himself participate in the slave institution!

How is it that the burden of slavery is happily placed on the African, justified by the Bible, practiced by all the ministers and scholars, but that very stain of slavery is prevented from coloring the one who wrote the most about it in the New Testament? If, Paul did, in fact, write the six disputed epistles then he is as responsible for human chattel slavery in America as anyone, unless . . . we are willing to abandon biblical literalism and begin to understand the difference between what is cultural and what transcends culture. The slaves on the plantation were told they were slaves and their role in life was to obey their master, according to the Apostle Paul. The only other option is to abandon the idea of inerrancy and absolutism and adopt a hermeneutic that says, "what the Bible says, may not mean what we think it says."

The official SBC position on the Bible is that:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000).

There is not a single line in a single book or epistle that is in question as to it being the divine work of God and is "totally and trustworthy." The SBC accepts that these slave passage attributed to Paul are the work of Paul written under divine inspiration. Therefore, with such an understanding, without question Paul advocated the institution of slavery, as proclaimed by the Southern preachers, and there could be no convincing reason given that Paul did not own slaves like everyone else in his era who had the means to do so.

While Paul did not invent Christianity he was the one that popularized it in the first century. The epistles he wrote to the churches were considered to be somewhat authoritative. If, we take the Colossian epistle to be an epistle written by Paul then we have a clear admonition that slavery is consistent with the will of God. Since, Southern Baptists hold that revelation is no longer progressive, having ended when the last book of the Bible was written, then slavery cannot be amended or banished. Those who use their Bible as a tool of oppression always turn to the Pauline epistles for their support and while they will not openly confess to the fact but they place the writings of Paul on the same level as the teachings of Jesus. This would abhor Paul. Paul is not the Son of God and his work was to interpret the words of the Son of God to his culture and his generation. It is the literalists and fundamentalists that have elevated the writings of Paul to be equal, and at times surpass, the words of the Son of God. Everything written by Paul must be subject to the teaching of Jesus, not vice-versa. This is a difficult concept for biblical literalists to grasp.

In the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus we find further argument that was used often for the protection of the institution of slavery by the Southern Baptists. First Timothy 6:1-5 states:

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words (I Timothy 6:1-5).

In this passage, as Jennifer Glancy points out, "Baptism does not diminish a slave's obligation to exhibit deference. Indeed, baptism is said to intensify a slave's obligations if his or her master is a Christian" (Glancy 2011, pg. 59). While it is understood that it is difficult to critique one's culture, Jesus seemed to quite adequately take on that challenge. Paul seemed to lack the courage to address his culture if he, in fact, authored these slave epistles. It cannot stand that Paul is the champion of the Gentiles, the first and foremost among the Apostles, the authority on the clarity of the gospel of Jesus, and yet be inured to the suffering of millions under the yoke of slavery. Not only indifferent to the greatest evil of his day but to pen letters (supposedly) under divine inspiration that would carry the seed of slavery throughout the world for thousands of years. The SBC, holders of inerrancy and absolutism, refuse to acknowledge a single line in all 13 epistles and theologies attributed to Paul possibly could have been written at a later date by other unknown authors. While it can be seen that church members owned slaves in the NT ("Those who have believing masters...") yet in I Timothy 3:1-13 manumission is not listed as a requirement to fill the office of bishop or deacon. In fact, slaves are not mentioned in the entire litany of expectations for church offices. The possessing of slaves is assumed.

In Titus 2:9-10, Paul writes:

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to answer back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

Paul unequivocally tells the slaves they are under divine injunction to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect. This was the slave owners dream passage and was always referred to by the proponents of slavery as "proof" the institution was not sinful. It must be remembered the body of a slave was at the complete disposal of the master. It was expected of the slave to submit to any sexual advances of the master and it would not be possible to consider any resistance. This verse was perfect to the slaveholders in the South. It contained everything they needed to completely dominate their slaves physically, mentally, sexually, all under the authority of God given by inspiration to the Apostle Paul. The slave could not answer back (know your place!), could not "pilfer" and had to show perfect faithfulness. If, these requirements were met they get to be an "ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." It seems to be great program for the slaveholder but not so great for the slave. This verse, trumpeted by Southern Baptist authorities, was to insure the perpetuation of the enslavement of the African; to dare dispute them was to call into question the clear and authoritative teaching of the Apostle Paul.

A quick mind will raise the question: "Why did Paul list out specific acts and prohibitions for the slave?" It seems like the writer of this epistle is addressing a specific problem certain slaveholders were experiencing. The slaves perhaps were getting "uppity" and they needed Paul to put them in place. This verse has been used to put slaves "in their place" ever since. It is a wonder that African Americans today do not completely repudiate the Bible, Christianity, and the God of the Southern Baptists, based on their claiming such literature is the divine inerrant word of God. What possible defense can be given for this verse? Either Paul did not write these words, which is the consensus of biblical scholars, or he did write these words and it is our failure to make all spiritual teaching subordinate to the teaching of Jesus. Would Jesus have uttered these words? Did Jesus come to make all free, or to make some free? The whole idea of slavery is evil to its very core and there is nothing good that results from institutionalized evil of any kind. To couple biblical authority with the inhumanity of slavery is an unconscionable act that should have been condemned by every pulpit in the South. Such was not the case. The Bible was used by Southern Baptists to sanitize slavery, not condemn it and today that same Bible is being used for equally nefarious activity.

Is the fact that not all slaves were treated poorly an adequate defense? Some slaves did live in adequate quarters; their work was not too difficult and some slaves may have even liked their master. However, slavery is not just about "a" slave, it is also about the _institution_ of slavery. The institution of slavery accounts for the slaves that were not treated well, fed well, clothed well, and housed well. The institution of slavery is what allowed the torture and death of slaves for any reason or no reason, the sexual exploitation of men and women, separation of families, denigration, having to acknowledge another person as your "master." It is the institution of slavery that Paul never challenges in these Deutero-Pauline epistles. However, in Galatians 3:28, an epistle scholars agree Paul _did_ author, write says: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." This passage _does_ challenge the institution of slavery. It establishes an authority that can be carried through the centuries to challenge the institution of slavery wherever it might be found. It can be used to demonstrate the progressive revelation of God ending the era of slavery in the Old Testament and entering into a period of freedom for all people in the New Testament.

Another positive slave passage attributed to Paul is in I Corinthian 7:18-22. Paul writes:

Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.

Here, Paul acknowledges the fact that some believers are in a state of bondage but encourages them that if the opportunity ever arises for them to be free to take advantage. There are no statements of obeying their masters, forgoing stealing, being servile in all circumstances and the dreadful idea of the perpetuity of endless slavery. This verse suggests freedom is a possibility and it can be argued that this is a "sown seed" that could eventually lead to the downfall of the institution of slavery. Of course, this verse was employed by those who worked to ensure the African remained enslaved by pointing out that what Paul is "really" saying is to born a slave is to die a slave. In the Baptist view to be "born a slave" meant that you were born an African. As an African you were a child of Ham, subject to the curse of Noah and thus born to slavery forever unless set free by your master. Even the positive statements of Paul were interpreted in such a way they could be used as a defense of slavery.

One of the more severe statements supporting slavery attributed to Paul is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 6:5-8:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.

This passage raises the level of the role of the slave to one of fear and trembling. In context, while the master, parents and children are not told to act out of "fear and trembling," the slaves were. It is not enough for the slave to obey the master but now it must be done in a state of being that is raised to the level of terror. This state of terror is constant, while the master is watching and when the master is absent. This idea of the constant state of being under complete authority _and_ terror is no less equivalent to totalitarianism. While it may be considered extreme to claim that Paul is advocating something akin to totalitarianism yet how can such a conclusion be avoided? What is chattel slavery but complete and total totalitarianism? The idea of servitude, being advocated by Paul, is complete and total; demanding fear and trembling and yet it must be done with enthusiasm . . . or else.

The threat is unspecified for those slaves who do not serve with fear and trembling but it remains that wherever there is a promise to reward for good acts there remains a threat to punish for wrong action. Paul ties the promise of reward for obedience to the life to come, with the slaves' servile obedience in the present life. Again, the perfect passage for those who use the Bible to justify slavery, "Serve with fear and trembling and act like you enjoy it . . . you will be repaid someday in the life to come," was the simple, clear message of Ephesians 6:5-8. The white slave owners in the American South, protected by the voices of the Southern preachers, used this verse to cruelly threaten the African, to teach them that the African must serve their white master as to the Lord and they must be happy about it! The white man has one Lord and the African has two Lords; one white and one named Jesus. As long as the slave remembers this all went well. Again, to the slave owner, it was a simple matter of the slave knowing his or her "place." This is the system that was advanced and protected by the Southern Baptists and this is the system never acknowledged nor ever has an apology been offered, or restitution been suggested.

Do the modern practitioners of inerrancy provide a counter argument to this verse? Or, does the truth (for them) still hold? Is it the will of God for slaves, wherever they may be found in modernity, to obey their masters in fear and trembling? It is clear the writer of this passage wants to be sure slaves do not mistake freedom in Christ for freedom from slavery. Freedom in Christ is for God to grant, freedom from slavery is for the master, the slave owner to grant. If you ask a Southern Baptist today what this slave passage means the answer is that Paul is referring to a work ethic. The idea is that Paul is not really talking about a slave master relationship; he is talking about how the worker is to respect his or her employer. Workers are to respect and work hard for their employers. Even such an odd attempt to circumvent the clear intention of this verse, how is it one could ever extrapolate the idea that an employee should render service to the employer with fear and trembling? Apart from allegorizing, and there certainly is no authority to allegorize a narrative that was never given as an allegory, there is no other way to interpret this verse other than its most obvious meaning. There are allegories in the Bible but this is not one of them.

The author of Ephesians was clearly establishing which side of the debate on slavery the author was on. It would be understandable that slaves, especially slaves that have become believers, would hope for freedom. How would it be possible for their Christian brothers and sisters to be so cruel as to continue to hold them in bondage against their will? This idea of manumission based upon the charity of their masters would be too much to even consider. The community needed an authority specifically establishing the institution of slavery among the fellow believers to continue. The authority they claimed was the Apostle Paul. It would be difficult for a slave in America to survey all the depravations slavery brings and then believe in a God that ensures he or she will never be free. In fact, God is watching and waiting for when the slave dies and then the slave will be judged whether they served their master with fear and trembling. It is no wonder that to this day African Americans prefer their own churches and their own denominations. It still must hurt to read these verses in the Bible that was used to enslave their ancestors.

Paul's short epistle to Philemon is quite different and it _is_ considered to be a monograph of Paul. Paul very tenderly considers the plight of the runaway slave, Onesimus, and writes Philemon asking him to receive his slave back without reprisal. It would not be easy for Paul to suggest a runaway slave to return to his or her master because a runaway slave was often afforded the most serious punishments ranging from torture to execution by the _mancepts._ A mancept was a public official who was expert in the torture and execution of slaves and possessed all the tools necessary for the work (Glancy 2011, 21). It is true this verse was used by slave advocates in America to argue for the return of runaway slaves but it is clear this is not a mandate for the practice of slavery and it can be argued Paul never insinuated his act was to be a model for all others for all time. Poor Paul, little did he know that everything he wrote would be considered binding law for millions of people even if caused untold misery for the African, and many others.

Paul had great affection for Onesimus, and had Philemon indicated he would hand Onesimus to the mancepts upon arrival, it is not likely Paul would have sent him back. Paul uses all his power and authority to advocate for Onesimus. Paul calls Onesimus "my child" [τέκνου], and tells Philemon how much he has meant to him in his old age and his imprisonment and that if he (Onesimus) owes Philemon anything, charge it to his account. This slave became very close to Paul and Paul is doing everything possible to gain him safety. Whatever happened to Onesimus has been lost to history. It can be hoped Paul's advocacy for compassion on the part of Philemon was realized. This is hardly a proof text for the hunting down runaway slaves in America, as it so often was used. In 1850 Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act making it the civil duty of all citizens to participate in the return of runaway slaves to their owners. If a citizen failed in his or duty to report a "runaway" they were fined a thousand dollars and six months in jail. If, the suspected slave escaped they were fined two thousand dollars. All Africans could be claimed as runaway on the testimony of two slave hunters. There was no safe haven for the African in America with the passage of this law.

Former slave Fredrick Douglas was ask to speak at the Corinthian Hall in Rochester New York in celebration of the Fourth of July celebration in 1852. He asked the question, "Do you mean to mock me by asking me to speak today?" At this time slavery was at its peak, slaves were being bought at sold at the highest price, the Slave Fugitive law was in full force turning all Americans into slave hunters. Frederick Douglas says of this slave hunting law:

The Fugitive Slave Law makes mercy to them (slaves) a crime; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American Judge gets ten dollars for every victim he consigns to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own (the slaves) testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound, by the law to hear but _one_ side; and _that_ side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable _bribes,_ and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man's liberty, _to hear only his accusers!_

In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenseless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there be another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute book. If any man in this assembly thinks differently from me in this matter, and feels able to disprove my statements, I will gladly confront him at any suitable time and place he may select.

I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it. (Text available at: <http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=2945>).

This cruel law found it theological support from Paul's Epistle to Philemon. It was the voices of the preachers that gave divine authority to this law, just as they gave divine authority to the entire institution of slavery. The slave hunters, and advocates of the Fugitive Slave Act, referred to the epistle to Philemon as the "Pauline mandate." Would Paul have spoke in defense of the hunting down escaped slaves? In 1850, Rev. J.P. Thompson put this question in his small book, _The Fugitive Slave Law; tried in the Old and New Testament:_

But suppose a man comes to him and says; "Sir, I am a runaway slave, will you not help me to a place of safety." "A run-away slave! And do you come to me, a minister of the gospel, to countenance you in running away from the master whom God has placed over you? It is my duty to send you back as Paul sent back Onesimus." "Ah sir," he replies, "but I am a Christian, and for the love of the Savior who bought us with his blood, I pray you have pity upon me." "A Christian indeed! The duty of servants is to obey their masters, and that it is your duty to return to yours?" "But, Sir, my master is cruel, and I carry with me the marks of the lash and of the brand; I cannot have the Bible; I am torn away from my wife and children; how can I go back to be whipped and tortured and made wretched? I had rather die first." "Well, if you will not be persuaded, I must try other means;" so seizing him by the collar, this minister of Christ calls to the bystanders, the posse comitatus, "What, ho! Here is a runaway slave, help me to secure him for his master." And with that they bind the struggling fugitive with ropes, and drag him to a commissioner to await the appearance of a claimant; and having thus discharged his duty to "Conscience and the Constitution," he draws upon the treasury of the United States for five dollars and expenses as by law provided. Now is he not a saint? Does he not walk in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul? Is he not a glorious representative of the spirit of Christianity? Is he not a worthy follower and minister of the Lord Jesus Christ? The slave indeed expected different treatment from a minister of Christ, but he did not know how much light has been shed upon the gospel duty of catching negroes, by the discussions of politicians and other learned and godly men. (Available at: <http://archive.org/details/fugitiveslavela00thom>).

Does this sound like a practice Paul would condone or participate in? When we combine any portion of the Bible to immoral acts and activities we distort all of Christianity. It matters not how you arrive at an understanding of Paul to Philemon, in regards to Onesimus the slave, as long as it is not one that supports institutionalized sanctioned evil.

I Peter 2:18-23 is another verse used by those who needed authority from the Bible, and thus God, to justify their participation in slavery:

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.

This passage is attributed to the apostle Peter and is the only non-Pauline work that deals with the relationship of slave to master in the New Testament. This passage instructs the slave to submit to the authority of his or her master regardless of their cruelty. If the master beats the slave for an infraction he or she is not guilty of committing, then the slave must bear up under the beating. If, however the master beats the slave for something he or she did commit then the slave gets what they deserved. This passage gave license for slave owners to mistreat their slaves and argue from the Bible that it is abuse they must accept. It is the role of the slave to submit to the will of the master and it does not matter if the master is cruel or kind, the slave role is clearly defined.

It is difficult to imagine a Southern Baptist minister explaining to a slave why he or she must submit to the lash because, according to the clear teaching of the inerrant Word of God, it is His will. To imagine a Southern preacher sitting at the table of the plantation owner with an open Bible explaining the justness of mistreating a slave using this verse as "proof" is difficult to grasp. How is it possible for any clergyman from any denomination use the Bible to justify such an obvious evil, an evil that was eventually overthrown by general repulsion of the rest of America? It might be pointed out that out of the thousands of sermons of W.A. Criswell, the most honored preacher among Southern Baptists, never did he preach a sermon on I Peter 2:18-23.

How is it Peter, an uneducated individual (Acts 4:13) could ever write such a statement? Peter, unlike Paul had a great deal of contact with Jesus and a statement telling slaves they need to endure beatings seems out of character with the teachings of Jesus. There is much debate of whether Peter, being illiterate could have written two epistles entailing the finest usage of the Greek language found in the New Testament. Peter might have used an amanuensis (secretary) but that is also unlikely according to Bart Ehrman in a speech given at the Commonwealth Club of California April 2011. Yet, if these _are_ the words of someone who sat at the feet of Jesus, as a disciple, what do we make of them? Is this a New Testament passage that gives tacit permission for the recognition and the continuation of slavery as a practice sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New Testament? Slave owners in America certainty thought this to be the case and those opposed to slavery would not use this verse in their argument against slavery. You cannot be a biblical literalist _and_ make a case against slavery using the Bible.

This Petrine material can be cited as recognizing and authorizing the institution of slavery. It assumes the institution of slavery, has specific instructions regulating the behavior of slaves, and it ends with God's approval when these instructions are carried out. There is no discussion of manumission, just a continued life of servitude. How then can it be said that the life of a slave is improved by becoming a believer in the Christian religion? There is no change, the slave is a slave and the master must be obeyed. Before Jesus, being a slave was bad enough as it was, now God is involved in the practice of slavery, if these epistles are authoritative, and now they have two masters, one as demanding as the next.

Is there a defense for this passage? The literalist and inerrant position places the church in a position of either allegorizing this passage, or affirming the fact that a slave must learn how to defer to the authority of their masters, even if the masters are cruel. Every word in this verse is inconsistent with the message of freedom contained in the teachings of Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught everyone who was there that day to call God "Father" implying that all humans share the same relationship with God. God is the Father of all and that makes all people to be brothers and sisters equally! This is consistent with Paul's word to the Galatians that there is "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). There is no allowance for any form of racism. Racism is built on the false premise that one "race" is superior and another race is inferior and racism is always the central core of slavery.

As long as the inerrant view holds among Southern Baptists, and the disputed epistles of Paul and Peter are given the same weight, as the undisputed writings of Paul and the teaching of Jesus, there will be no defense for the abolition of slavery. There can be no defense mounted from the Bible against slavery as along as biblical literalism is used as the hermeneutic of choice.

Regrettably, it is the case that I Timothy 6:1-5, Titus 2:9-10, Colossians 3:22 and 4:1, Ephesians 6:5-8 and I Peter 2:18-23 all effectively erase the statements found in Galatians 3:28, and I Corinthians 7:18-22, extolling freedom for the slave. The writer of the disputed epistles of Paul, who ever he (she? them?) were... they had no intention of advocating the manumission of the slave for any reason.

These are the arguments made in the defense of slavery as presented by the Baptists in the South that in 1845 organized into the Southern Baptist Convention. Their method of interpreting the Bible has gone unchanged since those days and they are proud of that fact. They still hold to total inerrancy, infallibility and absolutism insuring error to come in the future as it did in the past. The institution of slavery no longer exists in America but the one book that gave divine support to that evil still exists and the arguments still remain. Those arguments are as potent now as they were then. The SBC while declaring the evils of slavery still use the same methods of interpretation that sustained such evil. Therefore the question remains: is it the Bible itself that is flawed? Or, is it the interpreters and their method of interpretation of the book that is in error.

Southern Baptists were not the only denomination involved in the protection of, the participation in, and the providers of biblical support for the institution of human bondage with all its associate horror but they were the ones that fought until the last bullet was fired in the Civil War. For their commitment to protect the enslavement of the African . . . they have never confessed, nor have they ever offered any form of restitution. Not even an annual day of mourning and prayer on the behalf of their complicity in the enslavement of millions of Africans has even been suggested. Much dialogue has been offered on how God might judge America for its decline into the immoral abyss but never has it occurred to the SBC that if judgment were to come it might first be visited upon the people who call themselves Southern Baptists.

Fredrick Douglas had no problem speaking about the issues I have raised in this book. I again quote from his speech given in 1852, Rochester New York:

The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave; it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines (preachers), who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped slave to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.... Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie.... Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America!

To the slave . . . the institution of slavery was "great sin and shame of America," to the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention it was the divine and perfect will of God as evidenced in His Holy Scriptures both Old and New Testaments.

# Conclusion

There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong . . . for him.

—Fredrick Douglas

There seems to be no indignity that one human is not willing to inflict upon another. Those who cause others to suffer through use of the Bible are a different breed altogether. History is filled with those who have magnified their small stature through the use of the name of God and upon the authority of the most revered book in existence. It is easy to see how the Bible could be used to support slavery but it is not easy to see why it was done. I will not be the last one to write an indictment against the Southern Baptists but there have been far too few preceding me in this work. The Southern Baptists need to begin with a resolution or motion from the floor at their Convention for a study on how best to make peace and restitution with our African American brothers and sisters. It is up to them if they think this effort is genuine and sufficient.

How does one say "sorry" for beating your grandfather and raping your grandmother? How does one say they are sorry for providing the very fuel that sustained the institution of slavery? How does one say that are sorry for providing spiritual authority to own another person for no other reason that it was convenient to do so. Lastly, how does one say they are sorry for damning a person to the worst hell on earth because of the color of their skin? If the Southern Baptists make a complete unambiguous admission to their guilt and offer some form of reparation it remains up to the African American to accept such an offer. It would be understandable for them to reject any such offer for any reason they choose and tell the Southern Baptists, "bottom rail on top."

While writing this book, at times I was told "these things are in the past, it is time to move on." That is not for us to say. The SBC would prefer we "move on," white America would prefer we "move on" but they are the ones that have the most to gain by forgetting the past. There is only one voice that has the authority to say it is time to move on and that is the voice of the African American. Yet, even the only legitimate voice in this matter cannot speak...until they know the story, the real story, of their history and how people like the Southern Baptists used the Bible to enslave their ancestors.

# Resources

Achtemeier, Paul J. _Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture._ Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1999.

Ammerman, Nancy T. _Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention._ Chapel Hill, NC: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Bacote, Vincent, Miguélez Laura, and Dennis Okholm. _Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics._ Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004.

Baker, Robert A. _A Baptist Source Book: With Particular reference to Southern Baptists_ Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.

Baker, Robert Andrew, and John M. Landers. _A Summary of Christian History._ Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Barker, William S. _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique._ Grand Rapids MI: Academy Books, 1990.

Beal, Timothy. _The Rise and Fall of the Bible._ NY, NY: Mariner Books, 2012

Bellah, Robert N. _The Broken Covenant,_ NY, NY: Seabury Press, 1975.

Brinsfield, John. _The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains: the Confederacy._ Macon Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2005.

Broadus, John A. _Memoir of James Petigru Boyce,_ NY, NY: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1893.

Calvin, John. _The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. XX._ The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Editor John T. McNeill, Westminster Press.

Caner, Emir. _The Sacred Trust: Sketches of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidents._ Nashville TN: Broadman and Holman Publishing, 2003.

Carroll, J.M. _The Trail of Blood or Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries From The Days of Christ to the Present Time._ Lexington, Kentucky: Ashland Ave Baptist Church Publishing, 1849.

Copeland, Luther E. _The Southern Baptist Convention and the Judgment of History: The Taint of an Original Sin._ Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002.

Davis, David. _Inhuman Bondage: the Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World._ Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Douglass, Frederick. _Oration Delivered in Corinthian Hall,_ Rochester, July 5th 1852: <http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=2945>

Du Bois, W.E.B. _The Souls of Black Folk._ NY, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2005.

Ehrman, Bart D. _Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are._ NY, NY: Harper Collins, 2005.

———, Bart D. _Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who_ _Changed the Bible and Why._ NY, NY: Harper Collins, 2005. Ellison, Ralph. _Invisible Man._ NY, NY: Random House, 1952.

Finn, Nathan A. _Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution._ Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 2008.

Flynt, Wayne. _Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie._ Tuscaloosa Al: University of Alabama Press, 1998. A.E. Miller, No. 4 Broad Street, 1838. Available at: <http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm>.

Furman, Richard. _Exposition of The Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population In the United States in a_ _Communication to the Governor of South Carolina._ Charleston SC.

Genovese, Eugene Dominick. _Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made._ NY, NY: Vintage Books, 1974.

Glancy, Jennifer A. _Slavery in Early Christianity._ Oxford England: Oxford University Press, 2002.

———, Jennifer A. _Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today._ Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011.

Hedges, Chris. _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America._ NY, NY: Free Press, 2007.

Heyrman, Christine Leigh. _Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt._ Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press; First edition, 1998.

Hitchens, Christopher. _God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything._ NY, NY: Twelve Hatchet Publishing, 2007.

Irons, Charles F. _The Origins of Proslavery Christianity: White and Black Evangelicals in Colonial and Antebellum Virginia._ Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2008.

Johnson, William B. _Address on the Origin of the Southern Baptist Convention,_ Augusta Georgia, 1845. Available at: baptiststudiesonline.com/wpcontent/uploads/2007/02/johnsons-address.pdf

Kelley, Charles S. Richard D. Land, and R. Albert Mohler. _The Baptist Faith & Message._ Nashville, TN.: Life Way Press, 2007.

Litwack, Leon F. _Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow._ NY, NY: Vintage Books, 1998.

———, Leon F. _Been in the Storm so Long: The Aftermath of Slavery._ NY, NY: Vintage Books, 1979.

Marsden, George M. _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism._ Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.

McKinion, Steven A. _Life and Practice in the Early Church: A Documentary Reader._ NY, NY: New York University Press, 2001.

Michael, Robert. _A Concise History Of American Anti-Semitism,_ Lanham Maryland: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

Newman, Mark. _Getting Right With God: Southern Baptists and Desegregation. 1945-1995._ Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2001.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. _Christ and Culture._ NY, NY: Harper and Row, 1956.

Raboteau, Albert J. _Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South._ NY, NY: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Rediker, Marcus. _The Slave Ship: A Human History._ NY.NY: Penguin Group, 2008.

Roman, Robert. _A Concise History of American Anti Semitism._ Lanham Maryland: Littlefield Publishing, 2005.

Segal, Ronald. _The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black Experience Outside Africa._ NY, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995.

Shurden, Walter, and Lori Varnadoe. _"The Origins of the Southern Baptist Convention: a Historiographical Study. Baptist History."_ Available at:  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_37/ai_94160891/?tag=content;col1 (accessed January 25, 2011).

Smith, Shelton H. _In His Image, But...Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910._ Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972.

Spain, Rufus. _At Ease in Zion: Social History of Southern Baptists, 1865-1900._ Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2003.

Thurman, Howard. _Jesus and The Disinherited._ Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996.

Vedder, Henry C. _A Short History of the Baptists._ Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1969.

Volf, Miroslav. _Public Faith: How followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good._ Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011.

Walker, Williston. _A History of the Christian Church._ NY, NY: Scribner, 1959.

Washington, Booker T. _Up From Slavery._ NY, NY: Airmont Books, 1967.

Wicker, Christine. _The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crises inside the Church._ Huffington Post, 2008.

Wilson, Charles Reagan. _Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920._ Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2009.

Wright, N. T. _What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?_ Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

