White evangelicals throughout the South were overwhelmingly opposed to the civil rights movement

While I whole-heartedly agree that evangelicalism at the time dropped the ball on the civil rights movement, my suspicion detectors popped up. Is the unspoken conclusion of this study…”therefore, modern evangelicals need to evaluate their positions on LGBTQ issues?”

I have a small volume which has some essays written by Southern Baptist (that is, Baptists in the South, not the SBC - which hadn’t been birthed quite yet) evangelicals in the mid-19th century, in which they argue that slavery is Biblical. I haven’t gotten around to reading their arguments yet. Mind-boggling how people can twist Scripture to suit their own ends.

[TylerR]

I have a small volume which has some essays written by Southern Baptist (that is, Baptists in the South, not the SBC - which hadn’t been birthed quite yet) evangelicals in the mid-19th century, in which they argue that slavery is Biblical. I haven’t gotten around to reading their arguments yet. Mind-boggling how people can twist Scripture to suit their own ends.

If an Israelite were to become impoverished a mechanism existed where he could be sustained in return for servitude until the year of freedom (Jubilee).

What the U.S. and other countries practiced for a time was not mere slavery, it was racial disenfranchisement. Blacks were seen as 3/5 human. This was in no way similar to biblical domestic servitude.

The fact is, the southern states wanted to count all of their slaves as citizens for the purposes of proportionment in the congress and electoral college. This was ridiculous to the northern states since slaves had no voting rights! So, as part of the Great Compromise, the northern states got the southern states to accept counting 3/5 of them for proportioning of congress and the electoral college.

It was not a failure of the constitutional convention for them to do this, like historical revisionists want to portray. It wasn’t even racist. It was a victory for the free states in fact. Doing this allowed the northern states to include the 1808 ban on slave importation into the Constitution, for example.

Without the 3/5 compromise there would not have been a USA that we know of.

As a member of a family that were ministers in the South before, during and after this period, I can confirm that this was the case across a broad swath of Southern fundamentalists. I can remember hearing sermons from my relatives on how blacks were an inferior race, using arguments from Genesis relating to Noah’s descendents, or that slavery was biblical, or a host of many other arguments. While they always preached from the Bible, it was clear that it was first and foremost a social issue with them, in which they used Scripture to defend the position.

[Mark_Smith]

The fact is, the southern states wanted to count all of their slaves as citizens for the purposes of proportionment in the congress and electoral college. This was ridiculous to the northern states since slaves had no voting rights! So, as part of the Great Compromise, the northern states got the southern states to accept counting 3/5 of them for proportioning of congress and the electoral college.

It was not a failure of the constitutional convention for them to do this, like historical revisionists want to portray. It wasn’t even racist. It was a victory for the free states in fact. Doing this allowed the northern states to include the 1808 ban on slave importation into the Constitution, for example.

Without the 3/5 compromise there would not have been a USA that we know of.

Clearly black folks were not equal in many of American’s eyes.

The bible teaches that from one man God made all nations and we are all related. Fundamentalists have long been egregious racists so, its time to stop, repent, and do deeds that prove the repentance.

was the population growth in the free states and territories. The Southern elite could see, that in the next twenty or so years, the advantage the 3/5’s rule in the House gave them would be wiped out.

Simple question:

Without the 3/5 compromise there would not have been a Constitution that we know of, and hence a USA that we know of.

True or False

The Northern states were trying to prevent the larger and more politically powerful Southern states from getting even more power that they didn’t deserve by benefiting too much politically from their slaves.

….is from a book that was given to my great uncle by its author, William Workman’s “The case for the south.” If you read it and have anything resembling a heart for black people, you will be disgusted—it is yet an important picture of attitudes then. I concur, therefore, with dgsweda in his opinions, and I would further suggest that they were so strong in the South because…the southern Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists had separated from their northern brothers specifically over the issues of race and slavery. (one of the guys who led me to Christ did a senior history thesis on this very subject, FWIW)

Not that things were that great in the north; racial discrimination in real estate and such wasn’t banned nationwide because Yankees were as a whole shining examples of charity, to put it mildly. In the town where my grandparents grew up in western Illinois, I’m told there were signs telling blacks to leave before nightfall—it was a rather rough & tumble coal mining town where they did not want competition for the mining jobs. In the same way, there were also anti-segregation marches in the same state. You did not have to be fundagelical to take part, as I know some people who did and were decidedly not evangelical/fundamental. In my own home town—a refuge as it were from Gary IN—I’ve personally been embarrassed at the treatment black friends have gotten a few times.

Another thing that makes it more difficult for “fundagelicals” is that our theology is essentially a reaction against liberal theology, and hence we tend, culturally speaking, to assume that what is new is what is bad. We see it in music, we see it in clothing, and we see it in our politics. It’s a tendency that is, IMO, one of our biggest blind spots.

[Rob Fall]

was the population growth in the free states and territories. The Southern elite could see, that in the next twenty or so years, the advantage the 3/5’s rule in the House gave them would be wiped out.

I think we might be digging to deep into this. The fact was that the common person in the South didn’t like blacks and didn’t regard them at the same level as white people. It had way less to do with who had what power in Congress. Granted there were some that probably were concerned about this. But that was not what was the main concern around the individuals sitting in the pews and the preachers in the pulpits. I have heard many of the sermons and have lived in the family of many individuals who have propagated this.

[Mark_Smith]

While I whole-heartedly agree that evangelicalism at the time dropped the ball on the civil rights movement, my suspicion detectors popped up. Is the unspoken conclusion of this study…”therefore, modern evangelicals need to evaluate their positions on LGBTQ issues?”

Although I don’t think this is the unspoken assumption in the article—certainly the SBC and PCA, to which at least a couple of the professors belong through their churches, would reject pro-LGBTQ…. rights arguments—I would agree that we need to be careful how we handle this. Rightly handled, it’s about how we can recognize our theological blind spots, and then overcome them. Wrongly handled, it’s to assume (per Mark) that all of what we do is a theological blind spot, and that we ought to capitulate.

Now besides what I mentioned before—that a tendency towards reactionary thinking might have contributed—I believe that Carolyn Dupont nails it when she notes that our emphasis on personal sin can often blind us to societal sins and their importance. Among our Presbyterian brothers, the issue is often debated under the headline “Two Kingdoms” theology. So exactly where our private displeasure with the sins of government ought to become a concern of the church is a real deal here. It’ll be tough, since the invective against churches engaging in politics is fierce these days.

And one side note; I don’t know if it’s simply because I’m seeing it, or if it’s real, but I’ve seen quite a bit of invective lately against mixed-race marriage/relationships. Not a good thing—there is still work to do on what Dr. King noted so long ago.

[dgszweda]

Rob Fall wrote:

was the population growth in the free states and territories. The Southern elite could see, that in the next twenty or so years, the advantage the 3/5’s rule in the House gave them would be wiped out.

I think we might be digging to deep into this. The fact was that the common person in the South didn’t like blacks and didn’t regard them at the same level as white people. It had way less to do with who had what power in Congress. Granted there were some that probably were concerned about this. But that was not what was the main concern around the individuals sitting in the pews and the preachers in the pulpits. I have heard many of the sermons and have lived in the family of many individuals who have propagated this.

Hi Mark,

I’ll use dgs. quote since my feelings are similar. I was referring to general attitudes of various peoples.

Personal story: When Christ turned me to Himself in 1972 and I came under the spell of Fundamentalism, I was shocked at the hatred and ignorance of supposedly *Christians* toward African Americans. Sure, a distinct minority of Fundies were not racists, but for the most part it was *understood*.

My eyes were really opened when I started studying Black history and the Christian reaction to their slaves’ plight. The Christians were the worst offenders justifying stances and attitudes by perverse reasoning. They undoubtably didn’t really think about it with the mind of Christ, but they had their principles alright, it is just that they were perverse principles.