Bound to Get Riled Up: Southern Presbyterians and Slavery

Zion Presbyterian Church, Charleston South Carolina

The now destroyed Zion Presbyterian Church in Charleston, South Carolina. This was the first Presbyterian Church ever ruled by black elders.

I want to begin this post by saying that much of what I’m going to have to say is going to be misunderstood at best. At worst, I’m going to be tarred with the broad brush accusation of being a closet racist.

That disclaimer aside, I have found few theologians as consistently useful, confessionally rigorous, and Biblically faithful as the old Southern Presbyterians. Of course, in our own day, the few Southern Presbyterian theologians that are widely remembered are recalled primarily for their support of slavery. It is this issue that has so overshadowed their memory that when they are mentioned, it is as cautionary tales.

There are two aspects to the Southern Presbyterian theologians support for the South’s “peculiar institution.” One is cultural, the other, theological. I should note that I do not intend to defend the cultural piece in this post. Some of the theological reasons that led the Southern church to separate from their Northern brethren are ably expressed by Morton H. Smith and Preston Graham.

In the period leading up to the War Between the States, the Southern Presbyterians resisted every attempt to have owning slaves denounced as sinful, noting that the Bible itself never (not even once) calls owning slaves sin (see James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. 4, Ecclesiastical [1870; reprint, Carlisle, Pa: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974]).

Again and again, we have allowed our violent hatred for slavery to obscure the fact that there is a system of slavery revealed in Scripture that God does not condemn. The Southern Presbyterians, like James Henley Thornwell and Charles C. Jones, knew this fact quite well and used it to defend the institution of Southern slavery. Ironically, that’s where they went wrong.

Where the Southern Presbyterians failed theologically was in this: they never once stopped to examine the Biblical standards for slavery and compare that system to the system as it was practiced in the South. For instance, the slavery that the Bible regulates was not primarily race based. In fact, in practically every area, you cannot make the two practices align.

Furthermore, given that the Old and New Testaments both explicitly condemn the act of “man stealing (Exodus 21; Deuteronomy 24: 1 Timothy), it boggles the mind as to how our Southern Presbyterian forebearers could have condoned the slavery practiced in the South. That is where the cultural piece comes in, which I have no intention of dealing with.

While many of the Southern Presbyterians got it horribly wrong on slavery (i.e., Robert Lewis Dabney) others were light-years ahead of their time. An excellent example of one such pastor and theologian is John L. Girardeau. In fact, Girardeau was (to my knowledge) the first white minister to ordain black ruling elders:

“Upon the recommendation of the Session, the following African-American men were nominated to serve in the office of Ruling Elder–Paul Trescot, William Price, Jacky Morrison, Samuel Robinson, William Spencer, and John Warren. On ‘Sabbath August 15, 1869’ the congregation of Zion Presbyterian Church (Colored) met for worship and the ordination and installatino of their Ruling Elders. Girardeau chose for his text on this occasion Acts 14:23. The record tells us, ‘Session did then with prayer and the imposition of their hands ordain the persons…and install them in the same.’ Thus, Zion became the first Southern church governed by African-American elders. Girardeau had done what Dabney and a host of other Southern churchmen would not consider doing. He had admitted that black men could be qualified to rule in the church. He had exhibited his approbation by participating in the holy service, even the laying on of hands. What Dabney had doubted possible, Girardeau confirmed as real.” – C.N. Willborn, “John L. Girardeau (1825-1898) Pastor to Slave and Theologian of Causes: A Historical Account of the Life and Contributions of An often Neglected Southern Presbyterian Minister and Theologian” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003).

The lesson we should learn from this is that it is foolish to reject all of the Southern Presbyterians out of hand, because they supported an indefensible institution. There is much that these men can still teach us.

I just hope we have the humility to listen.


6 thoughts on “Bound to Get Riled Up: Southern Presbyterians and Slavery

  1. An excellent post! The antebellum South is what I’ve specialized in with history, and nothing fascinates me more than how otherwise brilliant and insightful and godly Southerners could have been so blinded by slavery and racism. When people are so committed to an institution, politically, economically, and ideologically, and from birth, they’ll so often bend over backwards to defend it even when contrary evidence is staring the in the face. Many Southerners defended it with the idea of paternalism — that their slaves were incapable of caring for themselves, and needed protection and guidance from their masters. They convinced themselves that they were being godly caretakers and doing God’s will for them.

    • Sadly, not all of the paternalistic thinking of the slave owners was wrong-headed. Many of them were being godly caretakers and were being obedient to God’s will in relation to the slaves that they owned. For instance, Jefferson Davis’ brother ran a plantation with many admirable aspects, not least of which was they way he was preparing his slaves for eventual manumission. On the whole, many of the African slaves being held in the South were singularly unprepared to be productive members of society precisely because their owners weren’t “paternalistic” in the best sense, i.e., preparing those individuals for the freedom that was manifestly a coming reality.

      The saddest part of that era of American history to me is that fact that it took a war to end a manifestly unbiblical system. A piece of Southern antebellum history that is completely under-researched is why it is that the United States is the only nation in world history where a war had to be fought to end slavery.

      I think David Goldfield has done some good groundwork in America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation, but there is still much work to be done.

      • The problem with many people’s paternalism was the idea that slaves needed paternal protection because they couldn’t care for themselves. It was the same thinking that bought into pseudo-scientific studies of the inferiority of the African race, and biblical arguments that Africans were “sons of Ham” and were destined for servitude (Gen 9:25). Certainly anyone with people in their employ is morally obligated to extend their care to them — I see a lot of paternalism in today’s arguments for employer health care — but antebellum paternalism, more than simply offering charity to others, became a justification for slavery. “They need us to take care of them” (and they can offer their servitude in exchange).

        There have been, and continue to be, a lot of studies of comparative slavery, and people considering just that question, why America had to fight such a bloody war to end slavery. It was on the margin of what I studied, but slavery and race are major areas of study at the University of Mississippi where I was. I personally think the idea is ingrained in racism and all the deeply-ingrained justifications the Southern people made for continuing it.

    • I’ve read Latham’s History some time ago now, but recall the quotes you’ve mentioned above. That reality is certainly a shining moment in the history of the ARP Synod, and unfortunately a forgotten moment, as well.

      • Yes, though the Covenanters (the modern-day RPCNA) were already in many ways the proto-abolitionists and that bled into the ARP. RP Ministers were even writing against the slavery in the Northern states in the 18th-Century.

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve." (Romans 16:17-18) Please read "The Comments Policy."

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s