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

“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.

A part of Raboteau’s reading was quite thought-provoking. He wrote that the “history of religious instruction of slaves involved three parties: planters, missionaries, and slaves” (Raboteau, 120). The missionaries seem explanatory enough, though later in the same paragraph he remarked that “pagan slaves” were brought to “Christian disciples,” an unusual change from the traditional “disciple sent out with the gospel to the pagans.” While Christians had been instructed to spread the Word to all by Jesus in Mark 16:15, these New World, American Christians put their fear of “different” people over their fear of God. Some would consider that a failure. Cotton Mather, famed Puritan theologian, claimed that people who didn’t see Africans and African-Americans as neighbors and brothers were ignorant. Africans and African-Americans had humanity, and he daringly said they had an “equal right with other men” (Raboteau, 101). Mather authored The Negro Christianized.

I suppose the part that strikes me is the idea that the planter–essentially a slave’s master and boss–had such a role in the religious life of a slave. Today a boss having a say in what religion you practice, or how you practice, is almost unheard of. It goes against the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. I understand that in this era of American history, Africans and African-Americans were not seen as citizens, and in some parts, not even considered human beings. But a majority of the colonists had left Europe to escape religious persecution and the overbearing hands of kings and queens who were considered to be forcing their religious beliefs onto their subjects. But white slave-owning planters had turned around and were doing the same thing, in a country espousing religious toleration and pluralism (on paper, at least).

So how can, ethically, someone who feared persecution of their own religious beliefs, attack the beliefs of another? Someone who didn’t want to be forced to follow the religion of their socio-politic-economic leader (the king) force a religion onto another? Or even yet, as a Christian tasked with spreading the Word of Jesus, deny someone the Word based on their appearance, race, or gender? All of these questions have answers just as complicated, and eventually the Great Awakening created a new era of conversion and a new interpretation and translation of Christianity (Raboteau, 127). Africans and African-Americans, slave or free, began to have more influence in their religious lives. They were learning about Jesus, the Bible, and organizing themselves into congregations. But some congregations were still controlled by those in power, as the emphasis was placed on conversion, not on explaining doctrines. It just seems as though people became too caught up in the politics of religion, and forgot about the theology they claimed to believe.

Religion created race, and race thereafter shaped religion.

(from Through the Storm, Through the Night, by Paul Harvey)

Reflecting on the quote from Harvey’s first chapter, I can see both the truth in it, but also the reasons why it should not be true at all. In Christianity alone, there is an abundance of verses that preach equality and love for all, regardless of gender, social status, or race. One of the key elements of the Christianity I know is Jesus preached a love that didn’t see social barriers. His message of love did not care who the person was. He saw them as a child of God, a human being with value, and responded as such. Here are just a few verses preaching that: “For He himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,” (Eph 2:14); “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another,” (John 13:34); “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” (Gal 3:28); and lastly, the one that seems to fit well in our topic of discussion, “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself,” (Lev 19:33-34).

Other major religions of the world all preach a similar message of love and equality. In a perfect world, I suppose, people would recognize the actual words and truth in all parts of scripture, not just the pieces that support a particular message, especially one of hate.

As we discussed in class, race is a social construct. At some point in history, some individual or group deemed the color of one’s skin, their ethnicity, etc., as cause for either superiority or inferiority, in relation to other groups of people. Since religion and religious traditions have always existed in cultures, at the “creation” of race, religion had a response. Even in our culture today, we associate different races with different religions, even if we mean to or not.

So as Harvey says, religion created race, and race shaped religion. In Raboteau’s essay, he discussed Indigenous African religions and their transformation upon reaching the Americas. Their indigenous religious elements separated them further from the Europeans, other than the already distinct differences of color, language, and family structure. Without intending it so, religion helped to create social status because there was the social “norm” of Christianity. If you weren’t Christian, you were clearly “missing” something in your life, and in the beginning years of the Americas, most Africans were not Christian. Later, race became intertwined because, as shown in the primary sources in Sernett, even as Christians, Africans and African-Americans were missing the whole picture, simply because as persons of color, white Christians thought they just wouldn’t “get it.” So first religion created the barrier, but then it was used later to support a barrier of race in society.

The reason for why Harvey’s statement should not be true is simple enough. Religion, specifically Christianity, teaches equality and unity in the face of God. God does not see color, class, gender–all He sees is a child of God, deserving of His love and grace. It makes me think of the song my Sunday School teachers sang with us, Jesus Loves the Little Children. The chorus goes, “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world; red, brown, yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.” The song is definitely insensitive in its terminology, but the message I remember is clear: regardless of skin color, Jesus loves you. There is no such thing as race in religion. But with both sides of the argument strongly supported, there has to be truth in both.

Pope Francis, of the Roman Catholic Church, stands with leaders from religious communities all over the world.