For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves.Unfortunately, Obama states his case in an ambiguous way that could give the impression that he was wrongfully slurring the reputation of the very Baptist who was the foremost opponent of slavery in colonial Virginia. As a matter of fact, once the first amendment had been adopted (1789) and at the very moment when evangelist John Leland was enjoying his greatest popularity in Virginia, he pressed Baptists on the issue of slavery and then had difficulty finding a pulpit in which to preach in Virginia. He left Virginia and spent the rest of his life in Massachusetts.
It was the forbearers of Evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they didn't want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it. Given this fact, I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism.
Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.
For the record, here are some facts about John Leland:
John Leland opposed slavery because it destroyed the slaves family life, it undermined the character of both master and slave, and it deprived the slave of religious liberty. Concerning the morality of slavery, he argued:"The whole scene of slavery is pregnant with enormous evils. On the master's side, pride, haughtiness, domination, cruelty, deceit, and indolence and on the side of the slave, ignorance, servility, fraud, perfidy, and despair. If these, and many other evils, attend it, why not liberate them at once? Would to Heaven this were done! The sweets of rural and social life will never be well enjoyed, until it is the case." (The Writings of John Leland, ed. L. F. Greene, New York: Arno Press, 1969, pp. 96-97)He thought slavery was worse for the master than for the slave, saying, "The state of slaves is truly pitiable, and that of the master, in some things, more so." (p. 96)
Leland opposed federal laws that counted slaves as "three-fifths of a man, and two-fifths of a brute." (p. 96) He insisted that:
"Slavery, in its best appearance, is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, inconsistent with republican government, destructive of every humane and benevolent passion of the soul, and subversive to the liberty absolutely necessary to ennoble the human mind." (p. 174)
In 1790 the Baptist General Committee of Virginia passed a resolution against slavery that was proposed by Leland. The resolution read:"Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government, and therefore recommend it to our brethren to use every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and pray Almighty God that our honorable Legislature may have it in their power to proclaim the great Jubilee consistent with the principles of good policy."The Roanoke Baptist Association took immediate exception to Leland's resolution, saying it was not "unanimously clear" whether or not slavery opposed the gospel. As opposition to his resolution was being mobilized and as preaching invitations for the evangelist ended, Leland left Virginia in 1791 and returned to his home in New England. In 1792 the General Committee rescinded Leland's resolution and passed a resolution declaring the issue of slavery "belonged to the Legislative Body" -- thereby advising abolitionists to focus their energies in the political arena outside the church.
Posts
4 comments:
Alas, I found out recently that in his later years, when he had returned North, Leland wrote things that were more tolerant or accepting of slavery than in his firebrand days in Virginia. I do not know why this is so. All our heroes have feet of clay.
Great stuff on Leland!
I find John Leland a fascinating character, as well as an enormously influencial leader in the early days of this country. He played a big role in the separation of church and state in Virginia in opposition to Patrick Henry.
I find it encouraging that he had the courqage to speak out forcefully against slavery, when the Bible clearly is supportive of slavery.
In fact the Bible's endorsement of slavery is much less ambiguous than is its opposition to homosexuals and their conduct.
Would that more Baptists had his courage in attacking the evils of of our homophobic culture, which have invaded our churches and largely dominate them these days. That is every bit as destructive of the homophobes (and haters of gays and lesbians) as it is of the gays and lesbians in our churches and country.
Hey, Bruce,
I either did not know the story about the Roanoke rejoinder or I had forgotten it. Thanks for the comments.
Mike
Post a Comment