All Hail Uncle Tom!

[Mark Osgatharp]

Uncle Tom was the fictional character in Harriet Beecher Stowe's famous novel of American slavery. He was the obedient Christian slave who, in spite of severe suffering and affliction, remained faithful and true to his masters.

While Uncle Tom was a fictional character, there have doubtless been many real "Uncle Toms" who took seriously the commandment of Christ not to rebel against lawful authority. While these men - and women like them - suffered greatly here on earth, they will have their reward in heaven; for they emulated the blessed Savior who suffered on our behalf. As it is written:

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

All hail Uncle Tom!

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Jailminister]

Mark said

While Uncle Tom was a fictional character, there have doubtless been many real "Uncle Toms" who took seriously the commandment of Christ not to rebel against lawful authority. While these men - and women like them - suffered greatly here on earth, they will have their reward in heaven; for they emulated the blessed Savior who suffered on our behalf.

Mark I enjoyed your story and somewhat agree with you, but Slavery was abolished because some people said that we were not going to obey the government(master). Are you saying that they were wrong to rebel against this injustice?

 

[Jimmy C]

Mark

You are the MAN! your grasp of history is impeccable, your knowlege unsurpassable. Your view of race relations puts me in a state of awe!

I think that I will print your post and send it in to your local newpaper for print, the local Ku Klux Klan will flock to your church knowing that they have one of their own in a pulpit.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
All hail Uncle Tom!

Mark Osgatharp [/QB]

Ah, but you also are aware from reading the book, I am sure, that Tom lies to Master Legree, he does not follow Master Lagree's commands in many instances, and is beaten to death because he would not submit himself to his master's authority. This would show that he did not follow the passages that you mentioned.

There are other elements in the book. St. Claire, a Christian, realizes that slavery is an evil thing, and tries to arrange for Tom's freedom, but he dies tragically in an accident, so Marie is now his owner.

In the conclusion of Uncle Tom's Cabin, we see the true Christian response to pre-Civil War slavery. George Shelby liberates his slaves from such a wretched life:

“My good friends,” said George, as soon as he could get a silence, “there’ll be no need for you to leave me. The place wants as many hands to work it as it did before. We need the same about the house that we did before. But, you are now free men and free women. I shall pay you wages for your work, such as we shall agree on. The advantage is, that in case of my getting in debt, or dying,—things that might happen,—you cannot now be taken up and sold. I expect to carry on the estate, and to teach you what, perhaps, it will take you some time to learn,—how to use the rights I give you as free menand women. I expect you to be good, and willing to learn; and I trust in God that I shall be faithful, and willing to teach. And now, my friends, look up, and thank God for the blessing of freedom.”

And here we see the true Christian response to pre-Civil War slavery. Let them ALL be set free!

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
And here we see the true Christian response to pre-Civil War slavery. Let them ALL be set free!

Scott,

Here we see God Almighty's response to Egyptian slavery:

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor they son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath."

And here we see Paul's commendation of a Christian slave owner:

"Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, and to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house: Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints; that the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother."

Paul goes on to encourage Philemon to receive Onesiums as a brother and forgive him of any wrongdoing. We may even find a hint here that Paul would desire Philemon to set Onesiums free. And yet Paul says,

"Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: but without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly."

The only slave "railroad" Paul knew anything about was the railroad right back to the master. And, whereas Paul's willingness to endure suffering and death for the cause of truth is a matter of record, we know that he did this, not out of any fear of reprisal, but out of godly principle.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Jimmy C:
Mark

You are the MAN! your grasp of history is impeccable, your knowlege unsurpassable. Your view of race relations puts me in a state of awe!

I think that I will print your post and send it in to your local newpaper for print, the local Ku Klux Klan will flock to your church knowing that they have one of their own in a pulpit.

Jimmy C,

I have not uttered a word about race. I am not a racist. I'm not even particularly fond of the practice of slavery. I simply acknowledge the fact that God commanded Christian slaves to be obedient to their masters, whether they were good or bad.

By the way, if a KKK member had been at my church last Sunday morning, he would have heard me assert and defend the assertion that there is no sin in a black man going with a white woman. So much for your bogus charges of racism.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:

And what you still do not grasp is that Paul is not speaking of the slavery that was seen in Uncle Tom's era. He was talking about the servanthood that Onesimus was part of - NOT the slavery of America.

 

[Jimmy C]

Mark

The following are your quotes. From your quotes I surmise that if we had not abolished slavery feminism and infidelity among Baptists would never have happened. Integration of schools a bad idea, and churches taking a stand against moral wrongs, in this case slavery, wrong. Not to mention the title of this thread which is obviously meant to inflame. Mark, I dont have to call you a racist, you say it all yourself loud and clear.


Mark O says
"You have really hit on something here, which is that the roots of feminism and infidelity among Baptists can be traced directly to the anti-slavery movement of the 1800s. The sort of Baptists who decided that slaves didn't have to obey there masters are the same sort who later decided that wives didn't have to submit to their husbands nor the church to Christ

On the basis of Paul's command for the faithful to withdraw fellowship from those who oppose Christ's teaching about slavery, I will assert that the southern Baptists of the pre-civil war days in America were not only justified but obligated to withdraw from the abolitionist Baptists of the north.

Let God be true and John Brown a liar!"

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Jimmy C:
The following are your quotes. From your quotes I surmise that if we had not abolished slavery feminism and infidelity among Baptists would never have happened.

Jimmy,

You totally missed my point. My point was not that the abolition of slavery per se led to feminism and infidelity. My point was that the abolitionists set aside the word of God and encouraged Christian slaves to rebel against their masters contrary to the Scriptures and declared slavery to be sinful, whereas the Scriptures do not.

This was the beginning of an era when Baptists decided to exalt human wisdom above the Scriptures, which has led to feminism, infidelity, and even approval of sexual immorality.

Having said that, I will also say there is certainly nothing in the Scriptures that requires a society to practice slavery. Therefore if a governemnt decided out of an act of benevolence and good will to free all it's slaves, there would be nothing wrong with that.

Integration of schools a bad idea

Wow! talk about jumping to conclusions!

and churches taking a stand against moral wrongs, in this case slavery.

I'm not opposed to churches taking a stand against moral wrongs. I only assert that the Bible never declares slavery to be a moral wrong, though it does condemn unjust treatment of slaves.

Not to mention the title of this thread which is obviously meant to inflame. Mark, I dont have to call you a racist, you say it all yourself loud and clear.

The title of this thread is meant to emphasize the fact that what man despises God applauds.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
And what you still do not grasp is that Paul is not speaking of the slavery that was seen in Uncle Tom's era. He was talking about the servanthood that Onesimus was part of - NOT the slavery of America.

Scott,

Did the Romans buy and sell slaves? Were people born into Roman slavery? If your answer to these questions is "yes" then your argument falls.

Whereas all of us acknowledge that slaves were sometimes mistreated both in Roman and American slavery, all your rhetoric about the mistreatment of slaves is moot. As it is written,

"not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Did the Romans buy and sell slaves? Were people born into Roman slavery? If your answer to these questions is "yes" then your argument falls.

One similarity does not make two dissimilar things the same, especially when we consider how different the buying and the selling were.

 

[Rosebud]

It seems Mark that you are saying as a Christian slave it was the slaves responsibility to do any and everything the master asked.

Was it right for the masters to rape the women, produce offspring that had to work and slave, torture, beat, and hang the slaves? This was done MORE often than "sometimes" as you said.

It seems to me that it was slavery itself that caused immorality and not those who helped slaves. Owners committing adultery and brutality towards the slaves. I think no man should be a slave unless it's for our Lord.

Although you preached that black men and white women wasn't a sin, I feel your summon should've been that it's not a sin for anyone of different shades to love one another rather than focusing on white and black.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Mark - Appreciate your good words. You are correct and your detractors are sadly pc'd (brainwashed into political correctness) by revisionist histories in our government education.

Onesimus was not a free-willy bond slave. He was a slave. Is a slave. And sent back to be a slave. AND a brother, now that he was saved. But still a slave.

People who mock you on this only show their real ignorance of history.

 

[Dr. Bob]

BTW, for the first 5000 years of recorded history, slavery had NOTHING TO DO with "race". Even the word "slave" is from the Latin "Slav" since 95% of the slaves of the Roman Empire were blue-eyed blondes.


"Racism" is an evolutionary concept, meant to DIVIDE and DEMEAN non-whites. Darwin was a racist of the highest order (pun indended).

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Rosebud:
Although you preached that black men and white women wasn't a sin, I feel your summon should've been that it's not a sin for anyone of different shades to love one another rather than focusing on white and black.

Rosebud,

In fact I did. The point I made was that, while most "whites" (at least in the society in which I live) have no problem with a white/oriental or white/hispanic relationship, they come unwound at the thought of a white/black relationship. This proves that their objection to interacial relationships are grounded in prejudice against blacks.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Rosebud]

Mark thanks for clearing that up and explaining to me.

I feel blessed that here in TN (although not far from you) has seen great changes. My husband and I don't get the problems associated with being in a different shade relationship. I'm black and he is white.

Most of our neighbors are Christians and welcome our family with open arms. Hope to see more love spreading throughout the world.

Education and biblical teachings is the way.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
BTW, for the first 5000 years of recorded history, slavery had NOTHING TO DO with "race". Even the word "slave" is from the Latin "Slav" since 95% of the slaves of the Roman Empire were blue-eyed blondes.


"Racism" is an evolutionary concept, meant to DIVIDE and DEMEAN non-whites. Darwin was a racist of the highest order (pun indended).

Dr. Bob,

Amen! I'm not blond hair or blued eyed; I'm dark haired (except for the few white hairs among the scant hair I have left) and brown eyed. But I don't want to be a slave, and don't want any other man to be. If, however, I were a slave it would not change the word of God.

You are also right about Darwin and racism. The idea of evolution has done more to promote racism than the Ku Klux Klan. Whether they would ever admit it or not, many whites look at non-whites as a "lower" level of human beings than themselves.

It was not slavery, but Darwinism that spawned and facilitated the warped forms of Anglo racism that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It makes me shudder even to think about it!

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Rosebud:
I feel blessed that here in TN (although not far from you) has seen great changes. My husband and I don't get the problems associated with being in a different shade relationship. I'm black and he is white.

Most of our neighbors are Christians and welcome our family with open arms. Hope to see more love spreading throughout the world.

Education and biblical teachings is the way.

Rosebud,

Amen to that!

I hope you and your husband have life long happiness and blessedness in the Lord. If you are ever over here in the Wynne area on a Sunday, we'd be glad to have you visit Lakeview Missionary Baptist church.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[TheOliveBranch]

I agree with you Mark and Dr. Bob. Many of the problems with slaves came from them and their owners not knowing the truths written in Scripture.

I was wondering if some of the problems also came from slave owners not releasing their slaves after the slave term ended as in Ex 21.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
BTW, for the first 5000 years of recorded history, slavery had NOTHING TO DO with "race". Even the word "slave" is from the Latin "Slav" since 95% of the slaves of the Roman Empire were blue-eyed blondes.


"Racism" is an evolutionary concept, meant to DIVIDE and DEMEAN non-whites. Darwin was a racist of the highest order (pun indended).

Now, Bob, you should know better. Racism is NOT an evolutionary concept, all the biologists who talk about race these days say the evidence is that so called racial characteristics are the most superficial of the characteristics by which humans vary from one another, and deny that there is any biological justification for race!

You may find some evidence that Darwin was a child of his time and was tainted with racism to some degree. I don't think you'll find evidence he was a racist of the "highest order".

No doubt you can find some racists who use evolution theory to justify their racism, just as you can find some racists who use religous statements to justify their racism. Surely you've heard the totally unfounded notion that the curse on Cain was that he was turned black?

And the KKK, in addition to being racist, is also against evolution, and for their version of fundamentalistic christianity.