He, ive been trying to contact you. Would you like to make connection? If so, respond and I’ll attempt to reestablish contact through Dr. T. Thanks! Botswani

Robert Morris sneaking off to DC whilst he is recovering from his illness and can’t preach? Hmmm….

When I talk about the abolition movement in the West and the place of faith and church in it, I am (necessarily, I think) definitely rolling into that William Wilberforce and abolition in Great Britain. The warped Western theology in support of slavery and racial heirarchy, and the efforts expended to defend it, are without a doubt the worst black eye on the Christian church and something to be ashamed of.

Yes, but the problem, as you will likely agree, is that one leads to the other.

I understand, but when I hear things like “Probably not a very defensible posture in light of the church/faith-centric nature of the Civil Rights movement,” I have to point out that the Church provided a basis for the treatment of Africans as less than human, and a defense of the institution in the American Colonies/United States. It was a common refrain that interfering with the institution was akin to interfering with the providence of God in that slavery was, in effect, the path to salvation for Africans.

Frederick Douglas had this to say:

“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference – so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”

We are not forced to ban slavery because we are at the end of a gun or in the clutches of a mob. We WANT to ban it because it is unjust and abhorrent, and we hate it.

Yes, some in the (mostly non-mainstream) churches did come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and did not reflect the idea that all people were equal and valued in the eyes of God. However, 620,000 soldiers died in the Civil War – that’s a pretty big gun. The idea that this change was not a violent one is absurd.

I’m not ignoring the part Christians played in the initial abolition of slavery or the modern civil rights movement in this country. But neither can we ignore the systemic participation the Church has played in the institution at all stages in history, including the time between the US Civil War and the 1960s. And back to my original comment, this makes it only fitting that the Church helped to work for the civil rights of African Americans.

I understand, but when I hear things like “Probably not a very defensible posture in light of the church/faith-centric nature of the Civil Rights movement,” I have to point out that the Church provided a basis for the treatment of Africans as less than human, and a defense of the institution in the American Colonies/United States. It was a common refrain that interfering with the institution was akin to interfering with the providence of God in that slavery was, in effect, the path to salvation for Africans.

Frederick Douglas had this to say:

“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference – so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”

We are not forced to ban slavery because we are at the end of a gun or in the clutches of a mob. We WANT to ban it because it is unjust and abhorrent, and we hate it.

Yes, some in the (mostly non-mainstream) churches did come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and did not reflect the idea that all people were equal and valued in the eyes of God. However, 620,000 soldiers died in the Civil War – that’s a pretty big gun. The idea that this change was not a violent one is absurd.

I’m not ignoring the part Christians played in the initial abolition of slavery or the modern civil rights movement in this country. But neither can we ignore the systemic participation the Church has played in the institution at all stages in history, including the time between the US Civil War and the 1960s. And back to my original comment, this makes it only fitting that the Church helped to work for the civil rights of African Americans.

When I hear things like, “…perhaps fitting since the Church had so much to do with the original problem,” I have to object, since slavery is an ancient, ubiquitous practice. Western Christianized nations (and in particular the white ruling classes of those nations) were the first in the history of the world to say, “We are not forced to ban slavery because we are at the end of a gun or in the clutches of a mob. We WANT to ban it because it is unjust and abhorrent, and we hate it.”

I assume you’d be just as opposed to congregants being told to vote for Democrats. If so, I’m with you on both counts.

That’s pretty interesting, and I probably should do some reading on that. However, the statement I objected to was, “Churches do not belong in politics.” I still don’t think that’s a defensible position to take, given the involvement of Christians in the advancement of rights. What white evangelicals did in a certain area of the country is not the entirety of the issue. Not even close.

If you google can churches support political candidates this comes up. Maybe someone should report Gateway Church to the IRS and bring their tax exempt status into question. Maybe it would save Mr. Graves from making a fool of himself in court.
“Issue Advocacy vs . Political Campaign Intervention
Like other Section 501(c)(3) organizations, some churches and religious organi- zations take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candi- dates in an election for public office. However, 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific can- didate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing
a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candi- date’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.
Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include:
n whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office, n whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more
candidates’ positions or actions,
n whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election,
n whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election,
n whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office,
n whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election, and
n whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office.
A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions.”