Conservative Christians and Martin Luther King
You may have noticed, as I have, that certain reformed and evangelical Christians have an anachronistic love for the antebellum South. Though liberal Christians and even the unbelieving culture in America have largely put aside racial bigotry (at least in theory, in form, and in profession), we in the conservative wing of the Christian church have not done so well. Our failure is reflected in the refusal by some to acknowledge that black slavery, in both its theory and practice was immoral, and that the Civil War was the judgment of God against our nation for our national sin. Black slavery was immoral and God judged us for it. We are still suffering the after-effects of that judgment to this day. More unsettling is that our witness for Christ has likewise suffered and continues to suffer for our sin in this matter. But we have not yet learned repentance. I cite as an example -- and only as an example -- an issue of Credenda Agenda (Vol. 9, No. 1, c. 1997) entitled "True Defiance: A Memorial for Black Confederates." The lead article, written by Douglas Wilson, is ostensibly about the revision of history by today's academics. The relativists in academia would never, of course, call attention to the fact that southern blacks were Southerners, many of them loyal to the ideal of the Southern aristocratic society. Wilson seeks to correct this omission by calling attention to the service that blacks rendered -- bravely and loyally -- to the South during the Civil War (which Wilson predictably labels the "Southern War of Independence"). There is, unfortunately, a subtext. Toward the end of the article, Wilson interjects the modern mantras of the Southern apologist: "The war was over the meaning of constitutional government, the nature of federalism, the life of republics, and the definition of civic liberty." Yeah right. He also tips his hat to the sin of racism, while exhonerating the South from all blame in the matter: "We must recognize the racism that has afflicted many in the South since the war is the fruit of the Reconstruction, not of slavery and the war." Wilson continues, quite humorously in my opinion,
Those southern whites who today despise blacks, far from showing on-going resistance, are continuing to submit to that humanist nightmare which was first imposed at Reconstruction.Thus does Wilson throw his little fagot on the fire of rebellion against the Federal government. If only Lincoln had not been elected, perhaps we never would have had FDR, the 60's, and Roe v. Wade. Wilson ends his article with this summary, which more or less shows the real motive for the article:
But we are convinced that we will not understand the current civil conflicts which surround us until we go back and learn the truth about the War Between the States. Until we get that particular history lesson straight, we will continue to get every other subsequent history lesson wrong. The battles we fight today are simply a later stage in the same war.
* * *
We cannot hope to fight the good fight now while repudiating those who fought the same fight earlier.
Wilson's penultimate paragraph relates the well-meaning advice coming from his milquetoast critics:
But still the apparently reasonable advice is offered to us. "give it up. Let it go. Stop fighting old battles. Quit tilting at windmills. Just accept the past. Let's just do what we can now. Don't inflame old wounds. Just let it go."Wilson would, of course, carry on the struggle. The criticism Wilson doesn't mention -- perhaps he has never heard it -- is that we should tackle the history from the opposite angle. We -- as a nation, as slaveholders, as the Christian Church -- were wrong. Not because the modern-day relativists have declared us wrong, but because we committed grievous sin against God and against the image of God. Wilson and those like him are not nobly tilting at windmills, they are basely defending those who resisted God's law and demeaned those whom God loved. Rather than defend the immoralities of the past, we ought to put on sackcloth, sit in ashes, and murmur our contrite apologies. Repentance, not defiance, is the order of the day. It is way past time we learned that.
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Let's try that again without the distracting typos (I hope).
You're certainly right about the need for repentance. That's true for every human being, not just for Southerners, not just for whites, not just for people of the United States.
Although I'm sure they're out there, I don't think I've ever met a Christian who thought slavery was good. Obviously, it was immoral. But the War Between the States was not simply a matter of the slave-holding South versus the liberty-loving North. How could that be the case when the Union was the home of four slave states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri)? I can't speak for Mr. Wilson's overall message (I hadn't heard of the man before today), but based on the quote you give here, he is in fact correct about the larger issues involved in the war. As much as we like to paint the past in simple colors of black and white, life was as muddled gray in those days as it is in ours. One side, perhaps, was a darker shade of gray than the other, but neither was white as snow.
All my life I have met arrogant Northerners who thought themselves superior to Southerners simply because some of our great-great-great-great granddaddies owned slaves, and because their great-great-great-great grandpappies beat ours in the war. Repentance is in order for human arrogance wherever it appears--whether among those who think themselves superior because of their skin color, or because of their region of the country.
Peace.
Thanks for your comment Milton. The problem is that I see certain elements in the Christian church rewriting history to suit them. This is not a screed against the Old South, but against today's history-rewriting evangelicals. Just want to do honor to the facts and learn the lessons we ought to be learning.
Hey maco. A little bit of both, maybe? (You haven't been dressing up the Old South, have you?) :-)
So, I didn't see a definition of racism in this post. I don't disagree with the central tenet of your article. In fact, unlike Confederate apologists, I actually do believe that the South was wrong legally, in addition to losing the war. But in the discussion we had the other night, you suggested that we don't need to ask ourselves *whether* we are racist, but we need to ask ourselves *how* racist we are if we fail to accept that slavery is the central conflict of the Civil War. This is why I would like to see "racism" defined. It's a word that seems to have as many definitions as there are people. I'm curious what you mean by "racist" in this context. Note that even Wiki's article (Wiki is consistently leftist on almost any political/historical entry) acknowledges that the Civil War has not always been understood primarily in terms of slavery.
Post a Comment
<< Home