by Judy Avery

[July 2008] "Once to every man and nation", wrote James Russell Lowell in 1845, "comes the moment to decide." The decision that Lowell, son of a Congregational minister, had in mind was the elimination of slavery. And in this choice "for the good or evil side" he comes down for the good: abolition. Lots of other Christians did too, in a manner that we in this century, which recognizes American slavery as perhaps the greatest blot on our history, find just the obvious choice. The treating of some of God's children as lesser beings that may be bought and sold simply due to their race has no part in our idea of Christianity.

It wasn't an easy sell in those days, though, and one thing the pro-slavery folks had going for them was the Bible. In Leviticus, for example, it says, "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. " And Exodus declares, "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Throughout the Old Testament, slaves are treated as a normal part of life. Does it get better when we reach the New Testament? Not really. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ," and later in first Timothy "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful." Well, that certainly does suggest that it's ok for Christians to own slaves.

And how did the Episcopal Church fare in all of this? Well, of course, a big part of the Episcopal Church was in the south, and among them some of the wealthiest of slave owners. Even clergy and bishops owned slaves nor saw reason not to. And there were among the northern members defenders of slavery: the Rev. Samuel Seabury, New Yorker and grandson of America's first bishop, for example, wrote a book that puts forth the Christian stance in favor of America's version of slavery.

How about Michigan though, which eliminated slavery before it was a state and which was a destination of the Underground Railroad helping slaves escape to Canada? The Episcopalians here surely did better. It's a question that's been asked lately as the various dioceses have begun studying their histories as part of a movement toward taking responsibility. Didn't we host at least one of the stations of the underground railroad?

The question came my way at just the right time: the Journal of the Episcopal Diocese of Michigan had just been scanned for those years before the Civil War and is full-text searchable. OK, take the Journals for 1850-59 and search on "slave or slaves or slavery." Zero hits. "Abolition": zero. "Negro": zero. "Colored" —oh, now we're getting somewhere: five hits. The first of these is in a reference to money being given "to aid the colored congregation in Detroit in erecting their church". The other four follow the name of the pastor of that church when it appears in a list of clergy: Rev. William C. Monroe (colored) Rector of St. Matthew's." Evidently such an identification was felt necessary.

Slavery certainly wasn't a topic discussed in the Diocesan Conventions in Michigan in those years leading up to the Civil War, but the clearest evidence of non-involvement comes in the Bishop's Address in 1860, shortly before the firing on Fort Sumter, when he strongly expressed his preference for unity within the Episcopal Church over other matters that might arise: "Its members never have know any differences between North and South, but have always met together with but one common object in view, the promotion of the interests of the Church of Christ… Hence The general Convention's deliberations were marked by the utmost harmony, and were perhaps more marked by the blessing of God."

"And the choice goes by forever" Lowell put it, meaning that when you miss the chance to take that stand you miss it for good. But is that so? At this very time a similar "moment to decide" is upon us. Once again there are human beings who are being declared to not be equal in God's sight, in this case because of sexual orientation. And to support this claim they cite the Bible—though quite a lot fewer references in the Bible for this than for slavery. This time it's Lambeth not General Convention, but the call is the same: unity above all. We can look at it on the small scale, one bishop rejected for things we don't think anyone should be rejected for, or we can look at it more broadly, as he does, as a representation of a wide range of people we consider our brothers and sisters rejected. Is schism really all that bad and unity so much to be desired? Didn't we make that mistake before?

[Judy Avery is a member of St. Clare of Assisi, Ann Arbor, formerly served on The Record Editorial Board.]

Your COMMENTS (50 words or less)?

Your LETTER to the editor (50-350 words)

____________________________________

 COMMENTS:

____________________________________