This week’s readings, more than anything, impressed upon me the fact that, when speaking of African-American religions and religious leaders, one can never be too specific. People are not uniform or easily described in broad strokes, and the differences in all four of the primary sources in this week’s reading easily fit that description. While I felt that the words of Richard Allen and Christopher Rush were less spirited, and, for me specifically, harder to follow, it was easy for me to relate to the words of Nathaniel Paul and Peter Williams, who, in my opinion, were more passionate and engaging. However, I try to acknowledge every bias that I might have in life, and having not been raised in a Christian community, I feel that my lack of familiarity with particular positions and traditions in certain Christian denominations might have caused me to get a bit lost in Allen and Rush’s writings. In fact, it was difficult for me to discern why the two denominations felt they had to be separate in the first place. Williams’s circumstance was a great deal more understandable to me, just based on historical context, as was Paul’s message.

However, out of curiosity, I decided to compare the mission statements of both the AME and AMEZ churches. Direct from their websites.

AME:

“The Mission of the AME Church is to minister to the social, spiritual, and physical development of all people…The ultimate purposes are…make available God’s biblical principles, spread Christ’s liberating gospel, and provide continuing programs which will enhance the entire social development of all people.”

AMEZ:

“The mission of The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church is to increase our love for God and to help meet the needs of humankind by “Loving God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with our entire mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.” Implicit in this statement is the belief that the church should have a positive relationship to humankind horizontally…we actualize this mission by praising God, by being obedient to the demands of the Gospel, by telling the story of God’s gracious acts in creating and redeeming the world, by inviting persons to commit their lives to Jesus Christ, and by serving as ministers of God’s liberating and reconciling grace.”

In my opinion, these mission statements aren’t different at all. This matches the sense I got from the readings, and from Christianity as a whole. The reasons for splits aren’t in the missions or core ideals of the denominations. It’s in the comfort of individual methods of administration. Again, as an outsider looking in, I could have a skewed view of this, but the necessity of differentiating one another seems wholly extraneous, since they both serve to meet the same goals.

By far the most emotional account in this week’s readings was that of Nathaniel Paul. Nathaniel Paul’s account detailed the joy and relief associated with the day the emancipation act went into effect. The sheer, inexpressible emotion behind his words are incredibly thought-provoking because I had never before realized how many ways there are to describe slavery, and yet how completely indescribable it truly is. Throughout the account, Nathaniel Paul gives many descriptions of slavery and its various evils, including one particularly thought-provoking line: “Slavery, with its concomitants and consequences, in the best attire in which it can possibly be presented, is but a hateful monster, the very demon of avarice and oppression, from its first introduction to the present time…” (Sernett 187). Paul goes on to eloquently and thoroughly describe slavery and its process. The entire account is entirely captivating, with declarations such as, “Point me to any section of the earth where slavery, to any considerable extent exists, and I will point you to a people whose morals are corrupted…” (Sernett 188). This account forces readers to think thoroughly about slavery, and realize the truth behind Paul’s words.

Nathaniel Paul goes on to say that slavery cannot be described, saying “Its more than detestable picture has been attempted to be portrayed by the learned, and the wise, but all have fallen short, and acknowledged their inadequacy to the task, and have been compelled to submit, by merely giving an imperfect shadow of its reality.” (Sernett 188). However, shortly after this statement Paul goes on to perhaps the most heartfelt lines of the entire chapter, “Tell me, ye mighty waters, why did ye sustain the ponderous load of misery? Or speak, ye winds, and say why it was that ye executed your office to waft them onward to the still more dismal state; and ye proud waves, why did you refuse to lend your aid and to have overwhelmed them with your billows?” (Sernett 190). These lines spoke to me the most because of the pain contained within them. These are words of heartfelt despair, of true and utter feeling, and they open one’s eyes more than anything else in the chapter to the true horror of slavery.

The one thing that stuck out to me about Richard Allen was the fact that the white people were so nice to him. We can see a clear difference between the treatment of him in this chapter, and the treatment of the black people in the previous chapters. This makes me question why they are so nice him. Is it because this is set in the North, or because he is a preacher that they believe is blessed by God? Maybe he just doesn’t include the bad interactions because he’s biased, seeing as how he thinks his master is so great. I can see the latter being a big part of this writing, because at one point he praises his master for giving him his freedom, while completely ignoring the fact that his master makes him pay for his freedom.

Despite this first reading, I thought the rest of the readings were pretty dry and formulaic.

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.