In Richard Allen’s “Life Experience and Gospel Labors” he discussed how he converted to Methodism at the age of 17. Allen was similar to Hammon in that he also spoke of how well his master treated him. He stated that his master gloated about how his slaves were religious and that made them better.Allen had a strange relationship with his master. he described leaving his master’s home felt like “leaving a father’s” and stating that he was “kind” (141). After Allen settled into his free life, he had no idea how to do hard labor. Which means to me that he worked in the house, rather than the field. The employer probably figured that all slaves know how to work hard outside. Allen has went through different struggles than most black slaves. It seems like the only disagreement that took place was when the Methodists was when the congregation was filled with more white people than black people.

While I was reading chapter 14 of Sernett’s African American Religious History, there was one quote from the prestigious Richard Allen that stuck with me. When describing his early experiences as a slave, he talks about how he had a master that was more of a father figure to him. Allen’s master often supported his inclination towards religion and was described as a tender man. Interestingly enough, the mentality of a slave remains the same whether the master is humane or not, looking from Allen’s perspective. He describes slavery as a “bitter pill, notwithstanding we had a good master.” which grasped my attention(Sernett  141). In terms of Allen’s view, a good master didn’t change the fact that he was property that he could be bought and sold by another man. I enjoyed reading his take on this because it gave me an idea of how Richard Allen viewed himself in terms of worth. He saw himself as more than one third of a person, which could be a result of his spiritual aspirations.

I was struck while reading Richard Allen’s on his strict devotion to Methodism. On page 149, he says, “I could not be anything else but a Methodist, as I was born and awakened under them.” There is no doubt that Richard Allen is a devout Christian, but clearly he sees “his” faith, Methodism, as somehow different, possibly even better in some way, to other denominations. I guess I’m left wondering, why? If he’s so passionate about a God that sees equality, and saves regardless of any differences or sins, why is Methodism, in general, better than Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, or the Baptists? He is quoted as writing, “I was confident that there was no religious sect or denomination [that] would suit the capacity of the colored people as well as the Methodist” (Sernett, 149). On the same page he calls Methodism “plain and simple gospel” but isn’t that attribute applicable to most Protestant denominations, who preach simply the Word of God?

Allen’s one master was also a unique individual. He encouraged Allen and other slaves to attend church, saying “if I am not good myself, I like to see you striving yourselves to be good” (Sernett 141). This is one of the first instances we see a role reversal – slave is good, master is not good. Usually in this time in history, it would be seen as the other way around. But then, this master was a rarity in that he was not a Christian himself. He was in the minority opinion that “religion made slaves better and not worse” (Sernett, 141), contrary to some individuals we talked about last week. If Allen had had a different master, would his faith had continued on the same path, would he become the accomplished figure we know of today? Our foundations as human beings set us up for successes or failures, and by luck or, as he might say, the grace of God, he was allowed a life of religion and a conversion experience that set the course of his life, and all those he preached to, led to God, and established within his community of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Richard Allen, founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1760-1831

Free blacks in the Antebellum period were quite outspoken about the injustice of slavery. Their ability to express themselves, however, was determined by whether they lived in the North or the South. Free Southern blacks continued to live under the shadow of slavery, unable to travel or assemble as freely as those in the North. It was also more difficult for them to organize and sustain churches. During the Antebellum period black churches, not just in the North, but throughout the nation, offered African Americans refuge from oppression and focused on the spiritual, secular, and political concerns of the black community. Following emancipation, the church continued to exist at the center of black community life. Free blacks merged their resources to build greater numbers of independent black churches which are symbols of African-American demands for independence.

From this week’s reading, Higginson’s writing on slave, or negro, spirituals really sparked my attention. His commentary on what he thought the slaves we singing about actually made me laugh. Most of the songs have suicidal references or some indication that they wanted to die. I just don’t understand how Higginson thought, from the song Room in There, “my mudder” was related to Romandar. I searched for Romandar’s meaning and only found that it was associated with creativity. The only logical explanation for his lack of knowledge is that mudder was a creative dialect of the word mother because I’m pretty positive that’s what the slaves were saying. The one song that I wish had a more suitable explanation is Hail Mary. This song is very meaningful because of the line “to help me bear de cross.” I want to know more about what they meant. Was the cross reference to slavery in general or just their sorrows? Why were they calling up to Mary? I also wish Higginson expressed each song origins. That would’ve helped me process the reasoning behind some of the sayings. Higginson’s idea of formalizing the songs together was incredible; I just wish the execution was more relative and true to the meaning and experiences of slaves.

In chapter 8 of Sernett’s book, we see a piece written by Sister Kelly. One part of that reading really stood out to me was the part that said “honey, right now, you young folks is blind, deaf and dumb to the knowledge of God’s name; that can’t last, you gonna change do you hear me? We can’t do no good unless we got God in our heart, and our heads, too.” My whole life, I’ve grown up as a practicing Methodist. My grandpa is a Methodist pastor as well as my uncle and many other family members who were very involved in the church. At big family get-togethers, there normally comes a time where my family debates religion and why “Young People” are not as involved anymore. Both my cousins and I aren’t as involved in the church as we used too so it often is more of an attack on myself and my cousins. Sister Kelly’s words really stood out to me because it reminded me of those debates.

In our readings this week, the story that caught my eye the most was the story of Nat Turner. Turner performed a religious vengeance by murdering many white people. Some people uphold him to what he did and others, not so much, calling him a “gloomy fanatic” as stated in the passage. Nat did mention growing up with a religious grandmother who he was close to, so I am sure he took the word of the Lord seriously. Maybe taking it a little too far. But his account had me thinking about how far some people will go religiously. I am sure he did not kill in the name of the Lord but using his interpretation of the reading.

There are many stories of crazed religious leaders and people in general but I feel Christians take it a step further. A popular example is the KKK, who uses context from the Bible to justify their racist, xenophobic, and homophobic ideologies and took it to the next level back in the day by trying to start a racial cleansing.

Sometimes, people get a little too into their religious side and it can harm many and that is the complete opposite of the Bible, at least from the New Testament standpoint. But it is up for debate.

The collection of readings in section two of Sernett covered a variety of ways that slaves in the south used religion. I found it extremely interesting how slave owners would punish slaves if they would pray to the Lord while they were being whipped. This shows that owners did take the power of prayer incredibly seriously, and were afraid of slaves using it as a weapon. This was not even an incident of organized religion. This would be an act of a slave simply acting as an individual. The fear and concern that owners had about this situation might mean they had even an iota of a belief that God would assist them and their acts of slavery went against his will.

“You got to know something ’bout the lord to git along anywhere. You don’t know nothing ’bout him? Well you better know him; better learn ’bout him, that’s what’ll help you.” (70) When I first started reading this chapter I found it very interesting that at 12/13 years old it was clear to Sister Kelly that in order to make it through life and all the adversity sacked up against her merely based on the color of her skin she needed to trust and believe in God. Due to this it wasn’t hard for me to believe that the connection she felt with God was as strong as it was especially at that age because I felt a very similar connection myself.  Being raised in the church has taught me that anything is possible when it comes to God and all that He is capable of. I was taught to never put limitations on Him and how much of an impact He can have. Although, throughout this chapter I felt like Sister Kelly did not recognize the “voices” she was hearing or “spirits” that were surrounding her as godly ones. However, her experience is completely understandable due to the fact that the human brain does not have the ability to comprehend religious experiences without questioning them.

The reading I wanted to focus on most for this blog post was chapter 9 from Sernett, Conjuration and Witchcraft. Something that really jumped out at me was how witchcraft and Christianity seemed to sit at such opposite ends of the spectrum. Based on our previous readings and discussions Christianity was often used to justify slavery, even among the enslaved. Witchcraft and conjuration on the other hand was a rebellion against their enslavement, not only as an attempt to protect themselves but also to give themselves power over their captors.

In the narrative, however Henry Dibb to me seemed to argue that Christianity offered more to slaves as a means of rebellion. The beginning of the passage talks about how the slave masters did not educate their slaves on the bible, even shutting down ways in which slaves could learn about the bible and cherry picking the parts that supported their claims. Witchcraft on the other hand is argued to be harmful to the slaves as it gives them a false sense of security, wastes their money and doesn’t work as advertised.