Rev. Wright also stated, “Maybe now we can begin to take steps to move the black religious tradition from the status of invisible to the status of invaluable for all the people in this country.”
To that, I stand and shout a hearty “Amen!”
The True Invisible Institution
Of course . . . that requires that we provide historically accurate analysis of the “Invisible Institution.” Historians coined the term “Invisible Institution” to describe the secretive worship services that African American Christians held under slavery. Without these, enslaved black Christians were forced to endure message after message by white preachers telling them repeatedly, “Slave obey your Master. Slave don’t steal from your Master. Slave don’t cheat your master.”
In order to enjoy true worship and biblically relevant preaching, slaves had to slip away into the woods or quietly worship in their cabins—away from the ever-watching eye of the Master or overseers.
Here’s the point relative to Rev. Wright’s insistence that the Invisible Institution must become invaluable. What message was preached? Was it a message of hatred, vitriolic anger, and resentment? Or, was it a biblically-based message of hope through mutual reliance upon Christ and the Body of Christ? Perhaps some eye-witness accounts might help to answer these essential questions.
Eye-witness Accounts
One ex-enslaved African American Christian known to us as “the Preacher from a God-fearing Plantation,” offers us our first glimpse of the Invisible Institution. “Meetings back there meant more than they do now. Then everybody’s heart was in tune, and when they called on God they made heaven ring. It was more than just Sunday meeting and then no more godliness for a week. They would steal off to the fields and in the thickets and there, with heads together around a kettle to deaden the sound, they called on God out of heavy hearts.”
[1]What occurred during these covert worship services? Pastor Peter Randolph, himself an ex-slave, provides the details we seek. “Not being allowed to hold meetings on the plantation, the slaves assemble in the swamps, out of reach of the patrols. They have an understanding among themselves as to the time and place of getting together. This is often done by the first one arriving breaking boughs from the trees, and bending them in the direction of the selected spot.”[2]
Once there, then what? “Arrangements are then made for conducting the exercises. They first ask each other how they feel, the state of their minds, etc. The male members then select a certain space, in separate groups, for their division of the meeting. Preaching in order by the brethren; then praying and singing all around, until they generally feel quite happy. The speaker usually commences by calling himself unworthy, and talks very slowly, until feeling the spirit, he grows excited.”[3]
But that’s not all. Randolph elaborates on the inner condition and the interpersonal consolation they experience. “The slave forgets all his suffering, except to remind others of the trials during the past week, exclaiming, ‘Thank God, I shall not live here always!’ Then they pass from one to another, shaking hands, bidding each other farewell, promising, should they meet no more on earth, to strive to meet in heaven, where all is joy, happiness and liberty. As they separate, they sing a parting hymn of praise.”
[4]The Visible Institution
Of course, in the North, and later after Emancipation in the South, there arose the great African American churches. Historically, what type of preaching of the Word do we uncover? Bishop Daniel Alexander Payne, the great pastor, educator, and historian of the African Methodist Episcopal Church speaks about the Word preached in the Church. “So that whensoever the Gospel is preached in this house, it may descend with all its purity, power, and demonstration upon the hearts of the unrepentant, turning them from darkness to light, and from power of sin and Satan unto God; that its sanctifying influences may be felt in the souls of all believers, lifting their desires, their hopes, and their affections, from earth to heaven, and leading back the wandering sheep of the house of Israel, into the fold of eternal life.”
[5]According to Bishop Payne, the Word preached in the church was then to be lived out and depended upon in every day life during the week as daily nourishment and spiritual direction. “An individual man or woman must never follow their own conviction in regard to moral, religious, civil, or political questions until they are first tested by the unerring Word of God. If a conviction infringes upon the written Word of God, or in any manner conflicts with that Word, the conviction is not to be followed. It is our duty to abandon it. The only safe guide for man or woman, young or old, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, pastor or people is the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”
[6]Celebrating the Historic Value of the Black Church
Absolutely—the Invisible Institution of the historic Black Church is invaluable—when we understand with historical accuracy the nature of the Invisible Institution. These brief glimpses can only whet one’s appetite. For a full course meal, you may want to consider my work, Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction.
Throughout this book we learn that African American Christians—pastors and lay people—unlike the caricature displayed in Rev. Wright’s recent comments, lived Word-based lives that focused upon applying biblical truth to their horrific suffering. Never minimizing their suffering; instead they maximized God’s grace and the healing power of salvation from sin and the hope-giving power of a caring Savior and a connected congregation. Indeed, these are invaluable lessons of the Invisible Institution!
[1]Johnson, God Struck Me Dead, p. 73.
[2] Randolph, From Slave Cabin to Pulpit, pp. 112-113.
[3] Ibid., p. 113.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Washington, James, ed. Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans, p. 36.
[6] Payne, Daniel Alexander. Recollections of Seventy Years, pp. 233-234.
What this reflection seems to miss is the fact that the “Invisible Institution” also provided enslaved African people with the resources they needed to resist and rebel against the evil system of slavery. The black church is not only a place where we have gone to “forget about our suffering”. It is a place where we have devised strategies to alleviate our suffering.
According to William Wells Brown, Rev. Nat Turner’s rebellion began with a vision from God and a prayer meeting in the swamps. After that meeting, and others, in the Invisible Institution, he led a rebellion that shook that evil system to its core.
Rev. Wright represents a prophetic tradition that goes back to the Hebrew Bible. A prophetic tradition that does not just comfort the afflicted, but also afflicts the comfortable. Prophetic speech is typically not appreciated or applauded by those who are privileged within the social order.
While many have taken issue with Rev. Wright’s method of speaking. I have yet to see anyone rebut, with substance and sources, the content of what he said. Please, Rev. Kellerman, respond to the content of what he said.
Along with the previous entry, an excellent analysis.
Matthew,
Thanks for your response. I enjoy the conversation. I’ll share a few introductory thoughts and then reply to each of your main points.
Here’s the big picture of my purpose in the blog.
1. Rev. Wright said, in summary: “If you disagree with me, you are disagreeing with (all—by implication) historical and current black preaching and you do so because you either are ignorant of what black preaching is all about, or you are prejudiced against it.” That’s my paraphrase of what most people are saying they got out of his words on Monday.
2. I am saying: Nope. Not true. Historically and currently, most black preaching is not saying what he said.
As Barack Obama said, “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.”
And I will let Barack Obama summarize what people heard from his words: “But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the US government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister [Louis] Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States’ wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”
3. My purpose in my blog was to stop the bleeding! “Beyond the Suffering” has been used by God to build bridges of understanding and to help whites to treasure the previously buried treasure of black biblical sustaining, healing, reconciling, and guiding.
4. My blog was not addressing nor attacking all of Rev. Wright’s ministry or preaching. It was addressing the misconceptions that I believe he was portraying—that his words Monday were typical of black preaching.
Now I’ll reply to your post:
You said:
What this reflection seems to miss is the fact that the “Invisible Institution” also provided enslaved African people with the resources they needed to resist and rebel against the evil system of slavery. The black church is not only a place where we have gone to “forget about our suffering”. It is a place where we have devised strategies to alleviate our suffering.
I personally don’t think it misses this at all. First, it is two pages out of a 250 page book out of 1000s of pages of research–so one can’t say everything all at one time. Second, I think you have to read the rest of the quote that you quote–they did not simply forget. They also reminded each other. In the book, I address the brilliance of “forgetting/reminding.” And the quote does exactly what you say it does not do: it addresses and devises strategies to alleviate suffering. In fact, it does much more than alleviate suffering—it creatively finds healing in suffering. Additionally, in other places in the book, I certainly highlight the prophetic confrontational role. But that historic, prophetic, confrontational role is a far cry, in my opinion, from what I and Barack Obama are disagreeing with in Rev. Wright’s most recent comments.
You said:
According to William Wells Brown, Rev. Nat Turner’s rebellion began with a vision from God and a prayer meeting in the swamps. After that meeting, and others, in the Invisible Institution, he led a rebellion that shook that evil system to its core.
First, historically, I would question whether the result of that rebellion was a shaking of that evil system to its core. Second, the vast majority, I would say 98%, of the primary source material on the Invisible Institution reflects the sample that I provided. I’m not arguing that other things did not occur. I am trying to paint an accurate historical picture of what happened repeatedly in the Insivible Institution. It was a time of worship and fellowship, not a time to plot rebellion—right or wrong. What actually occured in these meetings was the preaching and application of the Word.
You said:
Rev. Wright represents a prophetic tradition that goes back to the Hebrew Bible. A prophetic tradition that does not just comfort the afflicted, but also afflicts the comfortable. Prophetic speech is typically not appreciated or applauded by those who are privileged within the social order.
I agree and disagree. First, I am not responding to “all” of Rev. Wright’s preaching. I am responding to his very specific statements in his recent speeches (the one’s I referenced in the “big picture” above. I am responding to them in similar ways that Barack Obama is respodning. Second, some of his words in some of his sermons that I have read—yes, I would agree that they are akin to the OT prophetic tradtion. Many others are not—and his words Monday were not. I applaud truely biblical prophetic speech. As for prophetic speech not being appreciated/applauded: I don’t see it being helpful to stereotype someone as unable to appreciate or applaud prophetic speech. I am trying to help us to define historically accurate biblical prophetic speech. In “Beyond the Suffering,” we provide entire chapters, including our highlighted final chapter–on just such prophetic speech.
You said:
While many have taken issue with Rev. Wright’s method of speaking. I have yet to see anyone rebut, with substance and sources, the content of what he said. Please, Rev. Kellerman, respond to the content of what he said.
I believe I just rebutted it with substance and historical sources. And I have never taken issue with “how he said,” but with the content of what he said. If you want to share specific passages in context, then let’s examine them together. My point is not to create futher divide. My point, as is Barack Obama’s, that we believe that these recent speeches are in themselves creating divisions rather than inviting conversation. I’m am attempting to applaud the historic black preaching/prophetic tradtion. I am attempting to invite whites, in particular, to give ear to that tradition. I think Rev. Wright claiming to represent that tradition with his words Monday will decrease the likelihood that whites will listen.