Featured Southern Baptists and Slavery

I can tell you one thing: This statement is not entirely factual: "The Southern Baptist Convention was the only religious organization to have been founded on the defense of slavery."

Most of the major denominations split into northern and southern factions over slavery, including the Methodists and Presbyterians, splits that weren't healed until a century or so later.

 

Does it matter?
First, the premise doesn't seem plausible; in fact it seems dubious.
Second, giving him the benefit of the doubt, what does it matter now?
Its relationship to the average baptist or SBC is just like the modern German to Hitler's regime of Nazism. It is history. One cannot correct the past. What was done was done. One needs to move on. The fathers and their future generations do not continue to pay for the sins of their past children (centuries removed).
All Baptists, including the SBC repudiate slavery today. Thus the case is closed.
When George Bush was president and used the word "crusade" in a speech the Muslims jumped on the word and accused this "Christian nation" of continuing "The Crusades" against the Muslims. Is this the mentality we are to expect? No. The past is past. No Baptist that I know believes in slavery today.

 

What does matter is someone putting out statements like this claiming historical accuracy. This is not historical accuracy; this is an agenda.

So, come on, Alvin, and challenge me on it. I dare you. You are in my area now: church history.

 

I would agree if it is a matter that needs refutation, and if he is slandering the SBC.

 

Alvin, are you this person?

Rev. Dr. Alvin L. Carpenter
Presented at the 2012 100 Year Starship Symposium.

Title: The Non-Promise of Earth Bound Religions into Space.

2012 PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM:
Transition to Transformation: The Journey Begins
The role of organized religion onboard a starship

Excerpt: Southern Baptists and Slavery - The Forgotten Crime Against Humanity
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Southern-Ba...=UTF8&qid=1361236240&sr=1-2#reader_1482384663

 

The statement that he made in his first post, which I referenced, is patently false, and that is provable.

I'm no particular fan of the present-day SBC, but that's neither here nor there.

What I said about the other denominations and slavery is fact, and you don't need to be a scholar to prove that, either.

He obviously has an agenda. I just wonder what it is, and why.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to hide the historical beginnings of the SBC. In fact, with the election of Dr Luter as the president of the convention I believe this topic came up several times. Anyone who goes and reads the primary Baptist history or Church history texts that are used in the Southern Baptist seminaries will encounter this issue. Anyone who attends the history classes that are part of the core curriculum at any of the six SBC seminaries will encounter this issue. It isn't a hidden issue.

It is abundantly clear that this has been an issue and one that Southern Baptists have attempted to resolve, repent, and move on from.

While the Convention did begin with slavery as principal part of the reasons for separation, it isn't the only issue.

So, while I am glad to have time to engage in a constructive conversation about the issue, it is intriguing that a book's author would show up in this forum to advertise his book.

 

As I said, your statement: "The Southern Baptist Convention was the only religious organization to have been founded on the defense of slavery" is false. Care to address your false statement? If your entire book is based on a false premise, what does that make your book?

The same division that happened with Baptists in the North and South also happened with northern and southern Methodists and Presbyterians.

 

Symbolism over substance. Sheesh. We must all stand before the judgement seat of Christ, but I am quite sure that no one alive today will be judged for what a bunch of people already dead have done. Get a grip.

 

I think the main objections are:

1. It is a history that a large number of people ARE aware of. So those who feel they DO know the general history are not going to read the book.

2. It doesn't seem helpful to make one group of people feel guilt about sins that a different group of people, at a different time committed. If that is the purpose of the book, then I believe it is misplaced. If, however, the purpose of the book is to teach us by their mistakes, to not repeat them, and to seek to not let biases of our own blind us to the truth, than that is a worthy goal.

3. I don't really know what you mean by a "day of sorrow and repentance." The SBC messengers have voted to publish an apology, and more importantly, have "repented" in that most SBC churches now oppose slavery and racism. So in the sense that repentance means to turn around, they certainly have.

 

It's condemned on its premise, whether it be right or wrong.

And the past is past. Leave it there.

Ludicrous!!
And should every living Japanese person ask millions of dollars in compensation because a bomb was dropped on their city in WWII.
Would every British person be eligible for compensation from the Germans because of German air-raids against them?
Or would the Germans still be demanding compensation for the loss of men incurred at the hands Western allies?
Shall we try to right all the injustices of the world that those in our multicultural society is composed of?
Your suggestion is absurd if not just plain silly.

And why should they even if the book was right. I don't believe it is.
History is history. Have the Italians ever repented for their part in crucifying Christ?

I don't have to read it. Your suggestions are ridiculous.

 

You are not right, and I have already shown why. Again, you said, "The Southern Baptist Convention was the only religious organization to have been founded on the defense of slavery".

Sorry for the bolded emphasis, but that's what makes your premise wrong. Anyone who studies the history of the denominations leading up to the Civil War will see the facts. As I have stated and apparently need to state again, the Methodists and Presbyterians divided into northern and southern "denominations" over slavery. The Episcopalians divided also, but there was no formal break, and after the war they were soon reunited.

Seeing that you have a doctorate, you must know this, so why didn't you state instead that "The Southern Baptist Convention was one of several religious organizations to have been founded on the defense of slavery". You have thus based your book on a false and misleading premise. My question is, why? What is your purpose or agenda? Why have you singled out the Southern Baptists? Why not the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, (the name of the southern Methodist defection), and the southern Presbyterians?

I can see why you might want to explore the reasons for the founding of the SBC, but why single them out with a false premise? Can you answer me that?

 

Tough history for SBC when the topic of slavery comes up. Though it isn't exclusive to the SBC, we as a country have plenty to be embarrassed about. Not having read the book is the idea that the SBC is hiding something even now about slavery?

 

Does it matter?

I, for one, am growing more tired with each passing day over those who continue to rehash the sins of our forefathers, centuries ago.

If the Word is correct, when a sin is repented of and absolved, it is removed as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:11-12).

I could care less, and I'm quite sure the Scripture bears this out and supports it, that the SBC once [in a galaxy, far, far away] supported slavery. Those days have passed us by, and what good does it do for the current and future work of the SBC, and any other church; to be rehashing this old sin?

I believe that the Scripture tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:17 - (NKJV), "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

And while this next Scripture has to do more with the believer once they get to heaven, it is still relevant to the above verse, Revelation 21:3-5 - (RSV), "and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people,[a] and God himself will be with them; 4 he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away. And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

It may not seem that simple to some of you, but it sure appears simple enough to me to proclaim that when we come to Him, and repent, and throw ourselves upon His grace, the old things are long gone, and we have a new slate.

I would wager to say that most SBC members know nothing about the past sins of their long-lost brothers for the days of slavery, and what they have going for them now, is what really matters to God.

Could the letter to the church of Sardis in Revelations 3 not be applicable to, let's say, the SBC? “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars."

“I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Do you not believe that those in the SBC have heard the words of judgment and repented and returned to the way they were before the sin of slavery ruled some among them?

I do, and the truth is, it is a matter between God and the SBC, not those who want to rehash the past, for whatever reasons.

I say, it's high time to move on. Let history be something we learn from, and hopefully through the Grace and power of our Lord and Savior; we will not allow history to repeat itself.

Pulling out the "slavery card" or the "race card" or the "Redman card" does no one any good. It is merely a form of self service to the person playing those cards, and it is not living according to what the Gospel told s us, we need to live by.

I say: "Enough is enough!"

 

In other words, Let me make my buck first.

 

I believe that history bears it out that the SBC was founded primarily over the issue of slavery. In 1995 the following resolution apologizing for the support of slavery is available for all to read on the SBC web site.

Below is the resolution ....: