Slavery and submission: Historical revisionism and authoritarianism

To continue the slavery discussion for a bit – it might not be immediately clear, but I think there are a couple connections to complementarian theology here.  One is the common tendency of complementarians and other conservative evangelicals to insist on their own versions of reality and history.  They insist both that racism doesn’t exist anymore and that it was never that bad to begin with.  They also insist that their retrograde beliefs about gender liberate women and LGBT people, and that feminism has been terrible for women.  All of these beliefs are supported by distorted or fabricated versions of statistics and the historical record.

The other common thread between between complementarianism and conservative evangelical views of slavery (and other forms of injustice and discrimination) is the appeal to authoritarianism.  Such evangelicals insist that:
– marginalized people should submit to whatever the majority or the patriarchy dish out
– the authority of the majority and patriarchy is for the good of oppressed people and the good of society
– oppressed people should endure discrimination and ill-treatment quietly and be happy with what they have until their oppressors decide that they can have the same rights as everyone else.

As I’ve been looking into how complementarians deal with the issue of slavery, I’ve come across a number of examples of both historical revisionism and appeals to authoritarianism.

Apparently Glenn Beck decided to “educate” his viewers on slavery today with useful “facts” such as Christians ended slavery, “Religious White people woke up the rest of the country” to the evils of slavery, and a bunch of other lies and half truths. (I’ll post the transcript when Fox has it up.)

Beck has a history of making spurious and offensive arguments and citing racist, made-up shit as the “real history” of slavery:

Frantz Kebreau of the National Association for Conservative People of All Colors (NAACPC) reimagined an American history in which slavery was not initially raced-based and the “Christian” founders were anti-slavery. Republicans, in this narrative, have led the fights for abolition, emancipation, voting rights, civil rights, and even integration, while Democrats have fostered racism for political gain.

I’m not terribly surprised by any of this.  I heard similar things all the time growing up in mostly white, conservative churches.  These are the things white traditionalist Christians often tell themselves, and teach their children, so they don’t have to think too hard about the role people like them have played in the history of slavery and anti-black racism.

As a kid, I heard lots about evangelicals like William Wilberforce, a staunch opponent of the slave trade and abolitionist activist in the UK, but nothing about more representative evangelicals like R. L. Dabney, a lifelong defender of Southern slavery and the inferiority of black people.  Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were held up as great heroes of faith who just happened to be on the wrong side of history on slavery.  The evils of slavery and the role of white Christians in maintaining and championing it were minimized: black people owned slaves too, most slave owners were very kind and paternal to their slaves, most slaves loved their owners like family, and the few slave owners who were truly cruel to their slaves weren’t really Christians, anyway.*

This is stuff I picked up on mostly from the pulpit, bible study, and listening to adults talk history and politics, and less from a Christian fundamentalist education (though I did have a little bit of that, outside SGM).  So I asked Josh Stieber, who also grew up in Sovereign Grace Ministries, what he was taught at the SGM school he attended.  His response:

When learning about abolitionists, it was implied, if not outright stated, that they were rash, demanding, and irresponsible. The markets would figure themselves out in a way that could eliminate slavery while a wise government could solve the “problem” in their own time. We learned that slaves were so used to living out their indentured role that it would have been cruel for owners to simply turn them loose, they wouldn’t have known how to handle their freedom; the compassionate approach was to kindly continue to rule.
Reminds me of Joshua Harris’s implication that slavery was an institution ordained out of God’s kindness and care to provide necessary leadership.  Someone had to lead, and clearly black slaves weren’t capable of governing or taking care of themselves.  And just like these folks argue that slave owners protected black slaves from themselves, they also argue, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that patriarchal marriage and family structures protect women and children.
And despite the fact that there’s not a single shred of historical evidence to support the idea that any form of institutionalized discrimination ever dies without a serious fight, I know many conservative evangelicals who believe, and teach their children, that the invisible hand of the market takes care of discrimination with time.  Guess black slaves should just have “endured” suffering like Jesus until the markets and “wise government” saw fit to recognize their humanity.  But we shouldn’t be surprised.  These are the same folks who supported the Apartheid regime and opposed Nelson Mandela’s release because he was a dirty commie.

* Not incidentally, this rhetoric goes hand in hand with the lie that the “‘Founding Fathers’ “founded the nation on Christian principles” (except Jefferson, the cat’s out of the bag on that one) – and also goes with idea that the racist beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the fact that many of them were slave owners were irrelevant (they too were just misguided, helpless victims of their times, you see).

Advertisements

3 Comments on “Slavery and submission: Historical revisionism and authoritarianism”

  1. steve240 says:

    You might find the following blogs of interest about C.J. Mahaney and the group he leads, Sovereign Grace Ministries:

    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com
    http://www.sgmrefuge.com

    They tell another side. Hope this helps.

    • Grace says:

      Hi Steve, thanks for the comment and welcome to the blog! I’m familiar with the SGM Survivors and Refuge sites – in fact I have have Survivors linked under my resources for recovery, but forgot to put Refuge there. Thanks for the reminder! I think both sites are very important resources for people who have questions or concerns about SGM, but I find them to be better resources for people who are still evangelical Christians and politically/socially conservative or moderate. That’s part of why I started my blog, so there would be something like Survivors and Refuge for people who aren’t necessarily Christians or religious at all, and for people who are more on the liberal side of things (especially on feminist and gay rights issues).

  2. Steve240 says:

    Grace

    I am glad you are familiar with those sites. Have you heard the latest incident in SGM. One their local regional leaders named Gene Emerson (use to be called apostles) for around 10 years withheld the truth about an incident and now has finally come to light. So far, SGM hasn’t force Gene Emerson to step down.

    You can read about it here:

    http://sgmrefuge.com/2010/08/16/the-kingsway-way/

    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=1721


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s