“The Awakening fundamentally shaped African American religious practices, eventually making Christianity a primary form of African American religious expression.”

Through the Storm, Through the Night, Chapter 2

The Great Awakening was a movement that affected not only one region or one race, but the larger United States as a whole. Evangelical religion was “countercultural,” Harvey claimed. It challenged the “dominant religious establishment” wherever its “brothers” and “sisters” went to spread the Word of God (Harvey, 29). Harvey discussed the impact of it on African American religious practice within the United States, especially within denominations like the Baptists or Methodists. Independent black denominations, like African Methodist Episcopal or African Methodist Episcopal Zion, appeared largely in the north.

Baptists were more common in the south, building congregations in Georgia and some in South Carolina. They fostered independent spirits and community within the church, and helped inspire countless individuals to find meaning in life, within the Word, the music, and in rituals. This was the beginning of the importance of Christianity within the African American community. Within the confines of a strict hierarchical, slave-and-not slave system, African Americans were still able to express themselves and incorporate their own heritage into religion. I think that’s what makes religion so personal and marketable, is making it not just about doctrine, but about the elements you can add that make it truly a religion for you.

I think this shows that the process of Christianization within the African American community was slow–it didn’t happen immediately when the slaves were taken off the ships and onto various plantations in an abundance of cities. This was almost two hundred years later. Also, that Christianity was not necessarily appealing at various parts in its American history to everyone, despite claims that the United States was settled for solely religious purposes. I remember from an earlier reading that as more generations of African Americans were born in the Americas (with more distance between their African heritage), Christianity was able to reach more. Christianity and its message doesn’t necessarily appeal to groups who don’t see themselves in that Christian “mold” of sin and suffering and disconnection. But when you’re separated from what you know and you’re placed into this horrific practice, anyone would reach for something to make life a little bit better, even if it’s not here on Earth. I would go so far as to argue that without slavery, Christianity wouldn’t have reached the numbers it did within the African American community. The overall message Christianity teaches is one of equality, brotherhood, grace, and salvation, and to a slave, it gives an answer to the hopes and dreams of freedom one day.

This week I read the primary sources from Sernett first. Accompanied by Raboteau’s historical explanation of slave conversion, I was attracted to the different interpretations of Christianity and the various accounts depicting how Christianity was manipulated into a tool to ultimately justify (American) racial slavery. The fearful, and careful, conversion of slaves to Christianity, as taught, and permitted, by their masters, did not support the Gospel teachings which encouraged the idea of slaves’ eventual emancipation, or the existence of racial equality.

Raboteau’s citing of historian Jordan Winthrop in “Catechesis and Conversion” grabbed my attention as an anchor quote I ended using to guide my reading and thoughts; “These clergy men had been forced by the circumstance of racial slavery in America into propagating the Gospel by presenting it as an attractive device for slave control” (103). [1]

This reading gave me new insight to the change over time of religious messages used by clergy/missionaries in their attempts to convert slaves. Their teachings initially promoted a strict adherence to upholding all “true” Christian values; the most important being that all people are equal in the eyes of God, no matter their race – so long as they’re a baptized Christian. These convictions proved powerless to America’s nineteenth century economic entrenchment of racial slavery, and brought with it, for me, a “bigger picture” realization, specifically in regards to the biblical interpretations presented in Sernett by the religious men of color. The primary sources for this week were helpful for me in understanding the numerous  possibilities that lead to individual interpretations of the Bible.

[1] In reference to “true” Christian values, the immediate ideals that come to my mind, revolve around the age old notions such as “All Equal in God’s Eyes,” “The Golden Rule,” “Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself,” all-in-all, just be a good, caring person to EVERYONE that you meet.

I found it interesting that the Jupiter Hammon Chapter he was telling the other slaves what do before he died. I liked how he was very direct on what was being said. The one quote that I thought was interesting, “As was depend upon our masters, for what we eat and drink and wear, and for all our comfortable things in this world, we cannot be happy without pleasing them” (African American Religious History, p 36). I just thought this was strange that some people really believed if they obey their masters they will be good with God. I had a really hard time trying to understand this because Hammon was saying this rules like they were the Ten Commandments. If you all obey your masters and these rules God will love you. It is crazy because slaves either believed their masters had a connection to God or they were deathly terrified of them. For the people who had bad masters if they were told to obey their masters for however they were treated that is difficult to hear. Honestly, I would be upset to hear what Hammon was saying in order for you to have a good life that is confusing. How can one’s actions determine if you go to heaven or hell? If your master is treating you terribly then I would understand why you would want to disobey them. It’s just interesting to see how people thought back then to now. Although today is not as bad in a sense we still have work to do. I always wonder what life would be like if there wasn’t slavery or racism, sexism, or hate.

While reading “Address to the Negros in the State of New York” I noticed some similarities between this speech and the “I have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King Jr. A commonality between both speeches is how Dr. King and Hammon express how saddened they are by the troubles their people have been through. Both speeches also advertise using nonviolent methods however the methods that Hammon and Dr. King mention differ in drastic ways. Hammon’s methods are peaceful but seem to not help slaves gain independence from their masters. Most of his methods involve actions like respecting obedience to masters and honestly and faithfulness towards the masters. In Dr. Kings speech, he encourages nonviolent protesting to fight racism, prejudice, and ask for equality in the workplace. These nonviolent methods that Dr. King mentions includes not retaliating to police brutality and violence from other citizens. Between these two speeches there are some similarities but, overall the contrasts seem to outweigh the similarities which could also be due to the difference in time period.

I Have a Dream speech

The most striking divide in the readings for this week was the controversy between those that focused purely on the obstacles to spreading a religious education to the slaves and those that considered it an important duty to do so, despite the problems facing the task. The three chapters that we read in Sernett’s African American Religious History: A Documentary Witness were written about or by leaders of different churches that sought to convert as many people as possible. Each seemed to find the task of spreading religion not one to fear or neglect, but one that was extremely important and worthwhile. They listed the obstacles, just as the reading from Raboteau’s “Cathechesis and Conversion” did, but the three chapters seemed to be focused more on the need for conversion than on excusing the lack of it. Jupiter Hammon in chapter four of Sernett’s work, in particular, seems to sense the need for religion. In his letter, he encourages his brethren to seek religion and describes to them the importance of following the Bible.

In contrast, Albert Raboteau’s “Cathechesis and Conversion” seems to focus entirely on the obstacles and reasonings given for the limited number of conversions, and imparts none of the sense of honor and duty that the accounts in Sernett’s work contain. It lists the various problems faced by the religious groups that attempted to spread religion to as many as possible, as well as the many excuses and complaints given by the owners of slaves. Raboteau speaks also of the adaptations the religious groups had to make to appease the slave owners even when they did make progress, due to the reluctance of the slave owners (Raboteau 103).

The contrasting perspectives are most apparent when one compares the hope and sense of importance that one can feel in Jupiter Hammon’s advice written in his letter with the extensive account of problems given by Raboteau. Raboteau lists problems such as distance between churches and lack of cooperation from slave owners (Raboteau 105), but Jupiter Hammon advises his audience to work towards finding religion despite problems presented by their situation (Sernett 40). This contrast helps readers to see how difficult progress was to make, despite the best attempts of those who wished to further it.

One thing that really astounds me from this week’s readings is the utter ridiculousness of the arguments used to “rationalize” the slave trade. Raboteau begins his article by talking about how Western Christian nations justified the slave trade by claiming that one of the main reasons for bringing Africans over to be slaves was to convert them to Christianity and thus improve their lives and save their souls from eternal damnation, as they would die pagans if left to their own devices. This argument has been used throughout history to justify the conquering and mistreatment of multitudinous civilizations, and it always feels to me-even as a Catholic myself-like a thinly veiled excuse for the Western world to get what they want rather than an actual ideological mission (even if it is truly an ideological mission that the perpetrator believes in, it still does not justify taking people away from their homeland and into slavery). In this case, it’s especially obvious-the main reason that the Westerners wanted to bring people over is so they could have slaves to do work for them, not so that they could convert them. The second argument that Raboteau presented was even more ludicrous. He cited Gommes Eannes de Azurara, who was a 15th century chronicler of Christianity. Azurara claimed that the main beneficiaries of slavery were the Africans themselves, who were being taken out of bestial homes and being placed in civilized society. He says that the Africans had “no knowledge of bread or wine, and they were without the covering of clothes, or the lodgment of houses; and worse than all, they had no understanding of good, but only knew how to live in a bestial sloth.” That anyone even slightly bought into this argument is utterly ridiculous. The Africans were being brought over to do intensive labor, and I very much doubt that slave owners invited the Africans inside after a day of work for some bread and wine. The people who were taking the Africans to be slaves had no intention of “civilizing” them, much less the right to pass judgment on their society.

Something I found interesting in the reading of Raboteau was the relationship between slave owners and their slaves in the religious aspect. Christianity was forced onto slaves and was used as an excuse by their owners to overwork them. I have always known that slavery was a very harsh and horrible thing, but when I read things like they thought slaved deserved to be overworked because they were accused of being pagans, it makes me upset. The fact that slave owners were so power hungry that they even controlled what the slaves faith was is appalling to me, but at the same time it is not.

I cannot, in truth, begin to dive into this week’s readings without comparing them to the wonderful article I read in the space between last week’s class and today. While reading how Hammon believes that “[God] has commanded us to obey, and we ought to do it cheerfully and freely” (Sernett 36), I could not help but draw parallels to the article written by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the October 2017 Issue of The Atlantic.

In his analysis of the election of Donald Trump, he relates several of his points to the myth of a disillusioned white working-class rallying together to vote for Trump. Why, Coates argues, is it not natural for black working-class voters to have turned to Trump as an alternative, people who have also suffered in an economic downturn? It is because of a racism that is only considered “incidental to his rise” (Coates). Coates divulges that “indeed, the panic of white slavery lives on in our politics today. Black workers suffer because it was and is our lot. But when white workers suffer, something in nature has gone awry.”

Parallels to the readings this week abound. In Raboteau’s reading, we see the flickers of recognizing African-Americans as human beings, however human beings who are enslaved, are shut down by white slaveowners who are terrified of the equivalency. They consider it an insult to regard these people as, well, people. And thus, the egalitarian nature of the Christianity they so feared passing to their slaves was perverted to ensure that Afro-Americans could never construe themselves as equals to Euro-Americans.

The reading by Raboteau (sp?) for this week was extremely interesting but, as per usual, the thing that really caught my eye was the part of the reading that mirrors current events. That is to say, the pages in part one that dealt with Christians who owned slaves in the 1700s.
The overarching mindset seemed to me before this reading and honestly still appears to be “we will use literally any argument that allows us to dehumanize people we want to use.” If the slaves are pagans, then they deserve to be overworked. If they are Christians, they will allow themselves to be overworked or they aren’t really Christians. If they’re animals, then God created them to be overworked. If they’re men, see above pagan thought process.
Coming from an evangelical (and notably white) Christian background, you’re supposed to save everyone you can. So it’s honestly rather impressive the ability of some to ignore people’s humanity in favor of profit. And this still happens. Thankfully the people who think of, say, black people as animals are now considered radicals and white supremacists, and not generally “that nice man next door.” However, I’m willing to bet that almost everyone has a relative or at least knows someone who thinks that “homeless people deserve to be homeless because they aren’t willing to find a job and make things better for themselves” or “people who are on welfare are on welfare because they want to be on welfare.” The fundamental ideas behind these beliefs are “they’re not like you and me, so they don’t deserve the life we have.” In a similar vein, you get the idea that because evolution isn’t Christian, it shouldn’t be taught in schools, and we can only celebrate Christian religious holidays– anything else and you need to ask off special and probably miss something that a Christian most certainly wouldn’t have to miss. “Those filthy non-Christians don’t deserve an education, or they only deserve one that aims to convert them.” The foundation of all of these beliefs is that the Bible is mutable (when I choose to let it be, don’t get it twisted and think that you can just say the Bible means what you want it to), but we didn’t choose it to be interpreted this way, this is the way it’s always been and God has finally revealed to us his truth, again. The entire foundational belief is warped in a way that’s almost impossible to decipher, even for someone who was raised a conservative Christian. When the Bible is mutable (not for you, but for God’s purpose that just happens to have always been this way *and* align perfectly with my generally bigoted belief system), you can mistreat slaves because they’re pagans or maybe not even human. You can ignore the homeless, the widows and orphans, because they chose their life of sin and God probably said nothing about helping sinners. You can deny people an education or shame them for their beliefs, because that’s probably Biblical.
I can’t think of a way to conclude this, so uh. End angry rant here.

In the Hammon chapter, I was confused by the calmness of being a slave that he possessed. He seemed so into wanting to make sure that he pleased his master, I kind of understand that because if he works hard he might not get treated so bad. But he believed that being a good slave would make the master also good. And that part just confused me. I did understand what he meant when he mentioned how old slaves would not know how to take care of themselves. Although, I believe that they would to a certain extent. They would be skilled in what they normally do everyday and that could be enough for them to have a job. What got me the most was that Hammon did not want to be free. That just stumped me. The thought of a slave not wanting to be freed is almost unheard. I have heard about slaves that were kind of okay with slavery, but not ones that did not want to be free.