by Steve | Mar 15, 2018 | In the News
By Elizabeth Glass Turner –
“What we are facing is a classic Evangelical Takeover. We are the Southern Baptist Church, 30 years later. Those behind the Evangelical takeover are well funded, well-organized, and have no interest in taking prisoners.”
Those who raise an eyebrow at reading this dire assertion over their morning coffee are not alone.
The writer of the blog “The Thoughtful Pastor” Dr. Christy Thomas continues in “NOW Is the Moment, UMC: Will You Stop the Evangelical Takeover?”
“Those adhering to this far more fundamentalist-type theology have infiltrated themselves into the life and the leadership of the UMC. Those funding and plotting this takeover are representatives of or leaders in strongly Evangelical movements and groups like Good News, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, and The Institute for Religion and Democracy.”
Good News celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, so how one argues that it is part of a covert initiative expanding a fresh plan for domination is difficult to defend. Evangelicals have long been part of the fabric of United Methodist congregational life, as have Progressives. There cannot be a takeover when widespread presence is easily established and documented over the course of multiple decades. In fact, there are fewer evangelicals in the United Methodist Church now than there were 30 years ago: many voted with their feet and joined other denominations.
Nor are evangelicals the only voice on issues of sexuality: a group is certainly well-funded and well-organized that travels to General Conference with pockets full of duct tape so that activists can be hog-tied and silenced as an embodied protest against the Book of Discipline and its statements on human sexuality.
Elizabeth Glass Turner
Stepping away from the conspiratorial tones that suggest infiltration and plotting at the level of Russian spies poisoning a former double agent in a quiet English town, let’s consider the simple assertion here. Evangelical theology and fundamentalist theology have long been conflated, often by pollsters and journalists who otherwise have earned my respect. Thomas conflates these when she summarizes several recent articles, concluding, “In the last week, the mainstream news has come out with article after article about the devastation that Evangelicalism has brought upon itself. Three things characterize the coming demise: its unholy marriage with politics, the racism and sexism that underlie their theological stances, and their astoundingly uncritical embrace of Donald Trump as the best possible person to represent them on national and worldwide stages.”
I have not shied away from leveling warranted critiques at what I broadly define as “evangelical,” having written about evangelicalism in North America several times over the past few years. No movement is perfect, and cracks have been showing in evangelicalism for some time. But even as I have called for intellectual honesty and accountability within evangelicalism, there remains that sticky problem: how to define it. And I certainly haven’t been alone.
There are a great many descriptions and definitions of the word “evangelical.” Three years ago in The Atlantic Jonathan Merritt wrote, “Divergent definitions have led to inconsistent, even contradictory survey results about evangelicals’ beliefs and characteristics. Reports based on these surveys can shape elections, public policies, and broader public opinion.” In fact, its use has been so disputed, some people have suggested jettisoning the word altogether because it can be used in so many ways as to be meaningless. Last fall, Scot McKnight suggested that it was time to Bury the Word “Evangelical”. In December, David French wrote It Might Be Time to Retire the Term Evangelical, commenting that, “as Keller notes, it used to clearly distinguish you from the fundamentalists. Now, sadly, it’s more likely to identify you as a fundamentalist.” A recent news story about evangelical leaders calling on the President for immigration reform illustrates how a word widely used or misused can create misunderstanding. People hear, “evangelicals elected the President,” yet there are clear, sharp distinctions among people broadly generalized as evangelicals.
If you hear a poll quoted about political activity of “evangelicals,” it’s worth asking: “but how did you define evangelical?” It’s used to characterize everything from hate groups like Westboro Baptist “Church” and its protests of military funerals with placards that say, “God hates f***,” to religious fundamentalists who may pin their faith to a literal six-day creation interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, to culturally “mainstream” evangelicals (think Bill Hybels and Willow Creek), to authors like recently newsmaking Jen Hatmaker.
Mischaracterization of a movement confuses honest attempts to analyze it clearly. And questions like, “do we want a mindless fundamentalist reading of Holy Scripture to be the centerpiece of the Methodist movement?” are certainly mischaracterizations. Fundamentalists don’t support women in ministry: there are many “evangelical” women clergymembers. Fundamentalists don’t consider theistic evolution: “evangelicals” aren’t anti-science but rather embrace a robust notion of faith and reason. Further, for Wesleyan Methodist “evangelicals” in particular, social justice is a natural part of sanctification: concerns about creation care, racial justice and racial reconciliation, #metoo, sex trafficking, immigration reform, and the benefits of globalization abound. “Evangelicals” took buses down to New Orleans for mission trips to help rebuild homes after Hurricane Katrina. “Evangelicals” crowdfund for strangers, stock food pantries, respond to wildfire victims, and volunteer with Meals on Wheels.
Those who have been most burned by toxic expressions of a particular theology or faith are usually the ones quickest to condemn the entirety wholesale. It is difficult not to be reactionary against the whole when specific experiences have been so painful. It is also, however, unfair. My own early experiences of negative aspects of conservative Protestant North American Christianity served as an unfortunate gauntlet for my faith later. (“Your dad is the pastor? Wait – your mom? Isn’t that unbiblical?” the tall adult stranger asked the eleven-year-old child.)
I’m also sympathetic to a great deal of underlying angst at the current political situation in North America. On a daily basis. While I have a great deal of respect for the late Rev. Billy Graham, some of Rev. Franklin Graham’s statements on what is acceptable behavior from a sitting President have left my mouth hanging open in astonishment. The overall tensions in the nation, from a blinding succession of headlines on White House shake-ups and investigations to mass shootings, have left everyone on edge. In times like these, many find that they love to hate “evangelicals,” the population that purportedly elected the current President. If only we could reduce it to such simplicity so easily.
Whatever one’s personal experience of a theology or faith, whatever level of breaking news fatigue one suffers from, the truth is that, far from building momentum for a sneak-attack takeover of an otherwise peaceful denomination, “evangelicalism” began fracturing in the 1970’s and 1980’s, as one of the articles above points out, when evangelicals began to align themselves for or against evangelical President Jimmy Carter. For several years – preceding the last presidential election – commentators have been wrestling with whether “evangelical” actually means anything anymore. There has been a great sifting, like someone tilting a shallow bowl back and forth, allowing silt to filter away to see what is left. Like the Wall Street housing bubble, the perception of congregational health over a couple of decades was a bubble – and the evangelical bubble has burst. Now, assets are being reviewed to see what is actually left that is of value.
Takeover might be remotely possible if evangelicalism was something definable, uniform, and narrow. As it is, no one can even agree on what it is – or was. It’s hard to predict dire consequences when the supposed threat has undergone vast changes in a relatively short time on the church history span of eras. This isn’t a defeatist surrender of what remains that is valuable: but we must acknowledge that North American Protestant Christianity has morphed, retracted, grown, and reconfigured significantly in the past 50 years – all branches of it. Which begs the question – what blind spots do Progressive Christians have that are contributing to their own bubble that will inevitably burst?
Elizabeth Glass Turner a writer and frequent contributor to Good News Magazine.
.
by Steve | Mar 13, 2018 | Front Page News, In the News, Uncategorized
By Rob Renfroe –
Recently a progressive United Methodist pastor said to me, “I don’t understand why you can’t accept the local option. It lets pastors who want to marry gay couples do so. But it doesn’t compel people like you to perform such ceremonies. It allows annual conferences to ordain married homosexuals where that’s acceptable. But where the context is different – in the South, for example – you’re free not to. I don’t understand why you can’t live with that.”
I think that pastor got to the heart of the matter even though he didn’t realize it. And the heart of the matter is he doesn’t understand classical evangelicals. It has to be frustrating for progressives to come up with an approach they believe to be very reasonable and that allows everyone to do what they desire, only for us to find it unacceptable. After all, what could be more American than letting everyone “have it their way”?
What do progressives not get about us? For starters, we believe the Scriptures really are the word of God. When a pastor holds up a Bible in church and says, “The word of God for the people of God,” we don’t cross our fingers behind our backs, roll our eyes, or snicker when we respond, “Thanks be to God.” We honestly believe the Scriptures are “God-breathed” and, therefore, authoritative for our lives. We don’t think that we know more about salvation, sexuality, or the nature of God than the Bible does. We don’t believe we get to ignore or need to correct the parts of Scripture that a progressive culture finds hard to accept. Consequently, we cannot affirm any solution that allows pastors in the UM Church to teach or act contrary to what God has revealed in his written word. I know that progressive pastors who have been trained in liberal seminaries simply cannot comprehend that we would hold such a high view of Scripture. But that’s what we believe.
Progressives also do not comprehend how offensive it is for us to hear that all they want to do is provide a solution that “contextualizes” the Gospel. If all they meant by “contextualizing the Gospel” was thinking of creative ways to present Christ so that the Gospel spoke to people in different cultural settings, we’d be all for it. Missionaries attend months, if not years, of training to understand the culture they will be ministering in. How you present the Gospel to an atheistic philosophy professor in New England is much different from how you would share Christ with an uneducated, lower caste Hindu in India.
But when progressives talk about contextualizing the Gospel, they don’t mean presenting the same message in different ways. They mean changing the message to fit the values that culture holds dear. In the Bible Belt it’s still OK to teach traditional values because people there still accept marriage as one man and one woman. But in California, progressives tell us, to reach people you must have a liberalized sexual ethic, including the normalization of homosexual behavior and gay marriage. Why? Because people on the West Coast will turn you off if you tell them differently.
What progressives do not understand is that we traditionalists do not have a utilitarian view of truth. We don’t think the truth is whatever works or whatever sells. We don’t see the church as a soft drink company that is trying to offer something for everyone. Proclaiming the Gospel is not like trying to find a flavor that people will buy and decide that if it becomes popular enough, we’ll start selling it. Paul wrote, “You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ’s authority, knowing that God is watching us” (2 Corinthians 2.17). Progressives, true progressives, believe that people are free to create their own truth and whatever works for a person is true for that person. It’s hard for liberals to understand, but it is hurtful for us to see the Gospel treated as something so cheap. It is offensive for us to hear pastors and bishops present the truth of God’s word as a lump of clay that we can fashion into our own image or into the likeness of a fallen and sinful culture. Our job as Paul tells us is not to make the Gospel palatable, but plain.
Progressives also don’t understand how we see the work of the Holy Spirit. A resolution that is coming before my annual conference this May calls upon the church to change our sexual ethic because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” Evidently, they believe, the Holy Spirit is now revealing that same-gender sexual relations and same-sex marriage are acceptable in God’s sight. Of course, the sponsors of the resolution do not give a single reason to believe this is what the Spirit is doing. They simply state it as a fact.
What they don’t understand is that we will never be persuaded that “the new thing” the Spirit is doing is repealing the written word of God. The Spirit illumines our understanding of God and his will. The Spirit enables us to see in new ways the wonder of what God has done and what he has revealed – and even how these truths apply to our particular settings. But the Spirit never contradicts what the Scriptures teach because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Has God changed his mind, received more light along the way, or become more progressive as the ages have passed? If not, then how can the same God now be revealing a sexual ethic that contradicts what he has previously stated to be his will?
I get that progressives just don’t get us. We believe the Bible, all of it, is the inspired word of God. They don’t. We believe the truth is what it is, not what we make it into. They don’t. We believe that what the Spirit reveals will always be true to the Scriptures. They don’t. We are coming from such different places that I understand it’s difficult for liberals to comprehend how we think.
But what progressives and centrists need to get is this: we will not be able to stay in a church that denies the full inspiration, truth, and authority of the Scriptures. And that’s really what’s behind “the local option.”
That’s why traditional evangelicals continue to press for a faithful church with a sexual ethic that is true to Scripture. Either the UM Church remains committed to God’s word or the UM Church will split. Progressives don’t have to “get” that, but they do need to believe it.
Rob Renfroe is the president and publisher of Good News. He is the co-author with Walter Fenton of the new book titled Are We Really Better Together – An Evangelical Perspective on the Division within the UMC. This book describes just how deep the division is within the United Methodist Church, provides a critique of the various plans the bishops are considering, and gives answers to the most common reasons people give for liberalizing our sexual ethics.
by Steve | Mar 12, 2018 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2018
Rob Renfroe
By Rob Renfroe –
Soon we will know which plan or plans the United Methodist Council of Bishops will recommend to the extraordinary General Conference in St. Louis. In just a matter of months we will learn how the Council proposes to resolve our denomination’s emotional and destructive division over sexual ethics. For over four decades we have waited for the Bishops to speak clearly and act decisively so we can move forward in mission and message as one church. It’s not an overstatement to say that the future of the UM Church and the credibility of the Council will be determined by the solution they put forward.
“Time is running short and we need to focus,” begins a press release from Bishop Bruce Ough, president of the Council of Bishops, on January 22, 2018. “Simple is better than complex. Reasonable detail is better than ambiguity. Fewer disciplinary changes is better than more. Honor the parameters and values of the Mission, Vision and Scope document – unity, contextualization and enhanced mission.”
Because I love our church and because so much is riding on the bishops’ proposal, I was deeply troubled by Bishop Ough’s statement. I would love to learn that my concerns are unfounded – that I’m reading too much into Bishop Ough’s words regarding the various proposals the Council is considering. Let me explain my concern.
The bishops have reported that three plans have been put before them. One would strengthen the church’s present position against homosexual practice and would allow progressive churches to leave the denomination. Another, often referred to as “the local option,” would let individual pastors determine whether they will marry gay couples, and each annual conference would be free to determine if it will ordain practicing homosexuals. A third option would create three branches within the UM Church, each with a different sexual ethic, ranging from thoroughly progressive to fully conservative (the latter of which is actually nothing more than maintaining the church’s present position).
The details of the third option have not been made public, probably because they have not been fully determined. And they have probably not been determined because they are numerous and challenging. How will churches and pastors decide which of the three branches they will join? What if there are more fully committed progressive pastors than there are progressive churches willing to receive them? What if there are more progressive bishops than there are progressive annual conferences – must conservative conferences accept a bishop whose sexual ethic is different than its own? Will all churches be expected to pay apportionments to national boards that promote policies contrary to their beliefs? Can a conservative conference live with a partnered lesbian bishop on the Council that oversees the entire church? Or must there be three different councils? This third “multi-branch” option cannot be the plan Bishop Ough had in mind when he called for a plan that was simple rather than complex, with little ambiguity, and few disciplinary changes.
Where does that leave us? Option one – a more tightly-enforced Book of Discipline and liberal churches exiting the denomination – will never be recommended by a Council that leans left and largely believes we need to liberalize the church’s position (there are notable exceptions within the Council). The only plan remaining and the one Bishop Ough seems to be suggesting is the “local option.” Annual conferences vote. Pastors make their own decisions. The church stays together. And it’s done. Simple and with little ambiguity.
Except for one small detail. It will create schism, not unity. At its first national conference in Chicago, October 2016, with over 1400 pastors in attendance, The Wesleyan Covenant Association approved a statement that said, “A plan that requires traditionalists to compromise their principles and understanding of Scripture, including any form of the “local option” around ordination and marriage, will not be acceptable to the members of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, stands little chance of passing General Conference, would not definitively resolve our conflict, and would, in fact, lead to the fracturing of the church.” Good News sent a similar statement to the Commission on a Way Forward. So did the Confessing Movement. So did UM Action.
I’m not troubled that the Council might recommend a plan that conservatives disagree with. I expect they will. What does disturb me is that it appears the Council will propose a plan that all of the denomination’s conservative leaders have said will fracture the church and lead to a mass exodus. Why would it do that?
One reason could be that the bishops don’t believe us. All I can say is, “Pass the plan and you’ll find out. You may not understand it but we will not remain in a church where pastors and bishops are free to promote and bless what we believe is contrary to Christian teaching and dishonoring to God.” We are told that we should find this plan acceptable because we will not be forced to perform marriages and blessings that we do not support. I can appreciate that progressives don’t truly understand us. But whether they can comprehend our reasoning or not, they need to hear it: It violates our consciences to be in a denomination that promotes what we believe counters God’s will and purposes. We can live in a church where there is disagreement about our church’s teaching about marriage and sexuality – we’ve done so for decades – if pastors and bishops who promised to uphold the church’s teachings actually do what they promised. What we cannot do is remain in a church with an official sexual ethic that denies the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture. Liberals don’t have to understand our thinking. But they would do well to take our warning seriously. The local option will create schism – and it is likely to be litigious, costly, and ugly.
Another reason may be that the bishops simply may not respect us. In addition to innumerable small and medium-sized heartland congregations, we lead some of the largest and most vibrant congregations in the denomination. From the town and country congregations to the megachurches, we pay millions and millions of dollars in apportionments, including their salaries. For decades, we have represented the majority opinion within the church concerning sexual ethics as demonstrated at every General Conference where the issue has come to the floor. At the same time, our deeply help beliefs seem to be dismissed because one supposes that the bishops think they know better – or simply want to promote a different worldview.
“Contempt is the number one factor that tears couples apart,” writes Dr. John Gottman, one of the world’s leading experts on relationships and researchers on marriage. “People who give their partner the cold shoulder—deliberately ignoring the partner or responding minimally—damage the relationship by making their partner feel worthless and invisible, as if they’re not there, not valued.”
Contempt doesn’t destroy marriages only. It destroys all relationships. And that’s how traditionalists will perceive the bishops’ putting forth the local option. We have told them it doesn’t work for us. We have told them it will force us to leave the church. We have voted it down at General Conference.
If this is the bishops’ plan for the future of the church, what can we believe but that they hold us in contempt? “Deliberately ignoring the partner.” “Responding minimally.” Yep, that’s a pretty good description of what the bishops will be doing to the majority of the church if they promote the local option. And the message to traditionalists will be that we are, in Gottman’s words, “invisible” and “not valued.”
Treat us with contempt and one of three things will happen. One, we will defeat the plan and the bishops will have failed in the one thing we have asked them to do in decades – resolve our division and lead us forward – leaving the church in chaos and further disunity. Two, we will put forth a plan that resolves the conflict by allowing traditionalists to be faithful to our understanding of Scripture, and that plan will pass. Three, the local option will pass and we will become invisible. You won’t see us or many of our churches in what’s left of the denomination. As for our value, you’ll find out how much we added to the church when we’re gone.
But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps, Bishop Ough and the Council won’t make the mistake of ignoring what we have told them in good faith. Maybe they will value us enough to take us seriously and propose a plan that we can endorse. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d love to be wrong. I pray that I am wrong.
by Steve | Mar 12, 2018 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2018
By Courtney Lott –
Hannah Cho grew up in North Korea, a country where Christians suffer the widest extent of persecution in the world. Along with her husband, Cho was mercilessly tortured for her faith in internment camps. “My mother only taught me one prayer,” she says. “But I still pray it every day for my family and for my country: ‘Hanonim, Hanonim! Lord, Lord, please help!”
Hannah Cho is not alone. All around the globe, men and women and children face brutal torture because of their faith. In India, for example, a crowd gathered with sticks in hand to attack Pastor Rohan, his wife Neha, and their family in the middle of the night. Accusing the couple of evangelizing a young boy in their village, the people beat them to the point of bleeding and caused the death of two of their children.
Boko Haram militants broke into Yakubu’s home in Nigeria, looting everything and attempting to cut off his head. Though he survived, he continues to suffer because of his scars even five years after the attack.
In first Corinthians, the apostle Paul makes a profound statement. “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” This statement is a beautiful, if not challenging, mystery. Whereas we were once individuals, we are now irrevocably connected.
Whether we are quick to admit this or not, our individualistic and Western sensibilities are a bit uncomfortable with this concept. As a nation we often struggle with fear of commitment, laud independence, and strive to be able to take care of ourselves.
Yet, this attitude is far afield of the heart and breath of scripture where we are called the body of Christ. Paul goes so far as to say that not even a single limb can claim autonomy from the rest. Standing in this all encompassing kind of unity is never more important than when members of Christ’s body are suffering.
Open Doors, a group who supports the persecuted church, published the 2018 World Watch list, a report of the 50 most dangerous countries. Topping the list is North Korea, followed by Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Eritrea, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran.
While the majority of countries with the most severe levels of oppression have a high concentration of radical Islamists, this is not the only contributing factor. In countries with state mandated religions, some of which have blasphemy laws, Christ followers experience family and state pressure to recant their faith. Ongoing war, corrupt governments, and drug cartels only add to the violence that constantly surrounds believers around the world.
Open Door provides Bibles, emergency aid, discipleship training, vocational skills, trauma counseling, advocacy, and a host of other services to the suffering church. Working in more than 60 countries around the world, their extensive reporting provides an indispensable prayer and action plan for Christians to remember their persecuted brothers and sisters.
For more information, visit www.opendoorsusa.org.
Courtney Lott is editorial assistant at Good News.
by Steve | Mar 12, 2018 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, March-April 2018
Frederick Douglass, ca. 1879. George K. Warren. (National Archives Gift Collection)
Liberty’s Hero: Frederick Douglass
By Steve Beard –
Frederick Douglass grew up under the perverse shackles of slavery on a plantation in Maryland 200 years ago. He never knew the identity of his father, barely saw his mother, and witnessed unspeakable violence and bloodshed before he turned 10 years old. He was proselytized under a warped version of Christianity that had a Bible in one hand and a bullwhip in the other. It was piety unrecognizable to the Prince of Peace.
As one who escaped the bonds of slavery, Douglass (1818-1895) would become the most eloquent abolitionist orator and the most steadfast defender of liberty, equality, and justice. “Douglass spoke as a man born into bondage in America more than forty years after the Declaration of Independence had proclaimed that all men were equal and endowed by God with liberty,” historian D. H. Dilbeck reports in Frederick Douglass: American Prophet, a new spiritual autobiography.
At eight years old, Douglass was sent to live with a Methodist family in Baltimore. The wife, Sophia, was kind and devout and treated Frederick with the love that children deserve. Bible reading, hymn singing, and prayers were commonplace. One night, he heard Sophia reading the Old Testament story of Job aloud. The desolation of Job’s life was spelled out: death, poverty, and relentless calamity.
“Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.”
“How could this be?” young Frederick asked himself. Why are the righteous stricken with destruction while the evil count their fortune? Where is God? Was this all part of a divine plan? When he should have been identifying with a Sunday school story such as young David slaying the belligerent bully Goliath, instead he connected with the stark horror story of a man whose entire family is decimated.
When asked about their captivity, some fellow slaves repeated the slaveholder’s propaganda that God made white people to be masters and black people to be slaves. Others told him that it was God’s predestined plan for the planet. Douglass rejected these false precepts. “It was not color, but crime, not God, but man, that afforded the true explanation of the existence of slavery,” Douglass concluded. Judging from the biblical messages of the prophets and the King of Kings, it was greed and spiteful hearts of humans that stole liberty and equality from those who were born free.
Wanting to learn more about Job, Frederick asked Sophia to teach him to read. He soon mastered the alphabet and began to spell. Sophia was overjoyed – until she announced the progress to her husband. Horrified, he demanded that the lessons end immediately. “Learning would spoil the best n***er in the world,” he said, because slaves who knew how to read – especially the Bible – became “disconsolate and unhappy.” One can only imagine the fear that would run through a slaveholder’s blood as those kept in chains read about Moses telling Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” Sophia promptly ended the lessons.
Douglass recalled her transformation as proof that “slavery can change a saint into a sinner, and an angel into a demon.” At the same time that young Fredrick’s heart was searching for a relationship with God, he witnessed firsthand the way that the prevailing slaveholding culture blinded the churchgoers to biblical justice and the gospel of love.
Hidden away at night, Frederick taught himself to read using old copies of Webster’s spelling book and Methodist hymnals. The saga of Job launched Douglass into mastering the language – the written words that held power to unchain the heart – that could literally help free men, women, and children. “Devout masters did all they could to keep the sacred truth of the Gospel from their slaves,” Dilbert wrote. “Yet the confounding experience of Job, who heard God in the whirlwind, proved far too compelling to a young boy who had wrestled with the problem of evil. Nothing could keep Frederick from the Bible and from learning to read.”
Remarkably, Douglass scoured the streets looking for passages of Scripture to piece together. “I have gathered scattered pages from this holy book, from the filthy street gutters of Baltimore, and washed and dried them, that in the moments of my leisure, I might get a word or two of wisdom from them,” he wrote.
Douglass would eventually write three best-selling autobiographies. “I was not more than thirteen years old, when I felt the need of God, as a father and protector,” he wrote in My Bondage and My Freedom. “My religious nature was awakened by the preaching of a white Methodist minister named Hanson. He thought that all men, great and small, bond and free, were sinners in the sight of God … and that they must repent of their sins, and be reconciled to God, through Christ.”
Douglass was also befriended by Charles Johnson, a black lay preacher, who told him to pray. “I was, for weeks, a poor, brokenhearted mourner, traveling through the darkness and misery of doubts and fears. I finally found that change of heart which comes by ‘casting all one’s care’ upon God, and by having faith in Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer, Friend, and Savior of those who diligently seek Him.”
Douglass testifies that seeking after God transformed his life. “After this, I saw the world in a new light. I seemed to live in a new world, surrounded by new objects, and to be animated by new hopes and desires,” he claimed. “I loved all mankind – slaveholders not excepted; though I abhorred slavery more than ever. My great concern was, now, to have the world converted.”
Douglass spent the rest of his life battling for the rights of those left out and forgotten: women, Native Americans, and immigrants. He preached and published with the intensity of an Old Testament prophet and the grace of a nail-scarred savior. He had a lifelong “lover’s quarrel” with the Christian church in America that defended or looked the other way while men, women, and children were sold on auction blocks. The complicit preachers armed with a false gospel “have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system,” Douglass said.
The message and struggle of Old Testament prophets helped Douglass make sense of the prevailing worldview that devalued and degraded an entire race of people. He “aspired to speak to America as Isaiah and Christ once spoke,” observed Dilbeck, “with words of rebuke and warning, exhortation and encouragement, grace and liberty, hope and truth.” The voice of Christ and the prophets “provided a radical, contrarian vision of righteousness: to care for the marginalized, oppressed, widowed, and orphaned; to heal the brokenhearted; to set free the captives.”
Douglass’s faith was his anchor of hope throughout his life. Preaching in a Methodist church in Washington D.C. near the end of his life, Douglass confessed that when he faced despair about the future of his race and nation, he reminded himself, “God reigns in eternity, and that whatever delays, whatever disappointments and discouragements may come, truth, justice, liberty, and humanity will ultimately prevail.”
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
