Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Misusing the Bible: The Tragedy of Nat Turner’s Rebellion

Earlier this month I watched the 2016 movie The Birth of a Nation for the third time. It graphically depicts the rebellion of enslaved men in Virginia that began 190 years ago on August 21, 1831. 

Historical marker erected in 1991

The Making of a Black Preacher

Much of what is portrayed in The Birth of a Nation is fictional—or a composite of the historical people of the time rather than specifically about the one boy/man Nat Turner, who was, in fact, born in October 1800 in Virginia’s Southampton County.

It also is historically true that Nat was a precocious boy who learned to read at a young age—although not necessarily in the way it was portrayed in the movie. And he learned to read by using the Bible as his “reader.”

Further, it is factually true that Nat continued to read the Bible regularly and had a deep, even mystical, spiritual life. Both because of his knowledge of the Bible and his mystical experiences, he apparently became a preacher at an early age.

However, Nat was not used by his “owner,” Tom Turner, as portrayed in the movie, for in fact, Tom Turner died in 1822.

But even if Nat was not “used” to pacify the enslaved people to whom he preached in Southampton Co., it is historically accurate that “slaveowners” expected Black preachers to use Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Peter 2:18 often in their sermons.

Also, similar to what is portrayed in the movie, those preachers did so when “slave owners” were present, as they often were. Selective use of the Bible became a tool for the control of enslaved people in the American South.

That is just one of numerous examples of the historical—and current!—misuse of the Bible.

The Re-making of a Black Preacher

Nat Turner, however, seems to have begun to read the Old Testament more and more, especially passages about the “warrior” God depicted in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and some of the Minor Prophets.

Spurred by visions that he considered of divine origin, Nat began to preach more and more, when he could, about the use of force against evil—and he began to plot a violent rebellion against the Whites in Southampton. And, as indicated, the actual uprising began on the night of August 21, 1831.

The actions of Nat Turner and his fellow rebels were brutal. White children were killed along with their slave-owning parents. That was consistent with what the Old Testament includes as God’s instructions to the Israelites in their battles against the Canaanites and others.

The insurrection was quelled in just a couple of days, but it took the lives of some 60 Whites and about four times that number of Blacks. After successfully hiding out for more than two months, Nat was captured and then hanged on November 11.

Critiquing Black Preacher Turner

The main problem I have with Nat Turner’s use of the Bible—as well as with the pro-slavery people of the South—is his/their paucity of references to Jesus Christ and his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.

Still, it is not hard to have considerable sympathy for Nat Turner. As Judith Edwards writes near the end of Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion in American History (2000), her helpful book written for high school students,

Nat Turner, whose rebellion was so very bloody, seems not to have been a violent man by choice. The excesses of slavery caused the excesses of his rebellion (p. 99).

So, perhaps the (mis)use of the Bible by Nat Turner wasn’t any worse than, and maybe not as bad as, the (mis)use of the Bible by the Whites of the South in the 19th century—and now.

But when, oh when, will Christians ever learn how to believe/preach the word of truth correctly (see 2 Tim. 2:15)?

_____

** My blog post for Oct. 10, 2016, was titled “The Birth of the Nation” and is about the 2016 movie with that name and Nat Turner’s rebellion. While the content overlaps this present post, there is much that is different, and I commend it for your consideration (again). (Surprisingly, there have been over 850 “pageviews” of that post.)

17 comments:

  1. The short answer to your question is most likely, "Never." A shortly stated but much more complicated answer, in my view, is, "When reason, human empathy, human experience, and a spirit of universalism are given authoritative priority over the Bible. That needs more elaboration than I want to give it right now.

    You can argue, as I have and do, that there is a spirit of Christ that needs to rule over any interpretation of any specific texts of the Bible. But anybody on the outside of Christianity can read this blog and suggest you're simply pitting specific texts against other specific texts, all of which are in the Bible, and question on what grounds your texts are more authoritative than the slavers' or the Nat Turners' of the world. I still remember about 15 years ago challenging one of the most peaceful, gracious, generous, and loving men I've ever known (also an evangelical and Sunday School teacher) regarding God's commanding the Israelites to kill every living being in a specific city, as is recorded in Joshua. His response was reasonably rooted in the view that the whole Bible is inspired and inerrant. He said simply that he didn't know but that God must have seen that the city was so wicked as to be irredeemable, thus requiring the death of every man, woman, and child. It's not a very complicated step to go from believing one has the whole inerrant truth about such things literally to seeing others, even now, as irredeemable and deserving death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks much for your comments, Anton. Since you didn't elaborate, I won't say anything about your first paragraph except to say that I find it problematic.

      But the real issue here is the your second paragraph. You put your finger on a crucial matter and I am glad you did, for this gives me the opportunity to refer you and other readers to two blog posts I made in 2019. My 3/30/19 post was titled "Biblical, but not Christian," and then the 6/25/19 article was "Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism's View of the Bible." The beginning of the latter post was a firm rejection of the idea of biblical inerrancy. I think what I wrote in those two blog posts deals fairly adequately with the important problem that you raised. Here are the links:
      https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2019/03/biblical-but-not-christian.html
      https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2019/06/still-fed-up-with-fundamentalisms-view.html

      Delete
  2. Comments similar to Anton's were sent by Thinking Friend Kevin Heifner in Arkansas:

    "My short answer, deliberately meant to be provocative and possibly cantankerous… is never. Those words long written down, have been misused by persons of faith for selfish gain for two millennia. Not universally, but the tendency has been there. All one needs is a walk through history. That’s not to say that there is not value… It is to state that misappropriation is inherent. Perhaps what is needed is a fundamental reconsideration of Jesus and the text itself. 2000 years has proven we are not consistently up to that task.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Kevin, for your comments, which you no doubt sent before seeing similar comments by Anton. I encourage you to read the response I made above to him--and I hope you will take time at some point to also read the two blog articles linked to in that response.

      Delete
  3. Here are important words from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield, Mo.:

    “Thanks for reminding us that tragedy begets tragedy, and the misuse or self-serving reading of the Bible always ends in injustice and suffering. We think we are civilized people crusading for justice, but all too often we are using select verses in the Bible to justify our thinking. Grace is a hard concept to grasp and embody. God’s grace is our ultimate hope.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Michael, for your comments. I hope that most of us who are "crusading for justice" are doing so because of the understanding of Jesus that we have gained from the Bible rather than because of our use of Bible verses selected to justify our thinking.

      Delete
  4. And then there's this succinct comment by Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "You drew a good lesson from this story, Leroy. We need to put ourselves in an enslaved person’s shoes and then listen to the gospel."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Dr. Hinson. Yes, it is so easy for each of us to just hear things, including the gospel, from our own point of view and social location rather than considering what the Good News means for those in a completely different context.

      Delete
  5. Excellent article Leroy.
    Dr. Hinson's response reminds me of a Wendell Berry quote that Steve Shoemaker used recently in an article. "Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you."

    I met Berry only once but he left a lasting impression.

    I expect people will always use (misuse) the Bible in a way to suit their desires. It seems a human failing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Jerry. I, too, like that quote from Wendell Berry--and I am impressed that you have met him. Since you are a new reader of my blog, let me link you to the article I wrote about Berry in August 2019:
      https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2019/08/my-favorite-farmer.html

      Delete
  6. When I see reference to the title "Birth of a Nation" my thought goes to the 1915 silent film by the same name. Initially, I was puzzled by your associating that title to the story of Nat Turner. After a quick search I figured out that you were referring to the movie released in 2016. Frankly, I was unaware of the 2016 movie until I read your blog, or if I had ever heard of it I had since forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comments that you posted on my blogsite, Clif. Another Thinking Friend wrote and commented on the 1915 film, in spite of my opening sentence. He didn't search and discover that the movie I referred to was the one released 101 years after the first (in)famous movie by the same name. I have been surprised that none of my TFs have seen the 2016 movie--at least, no one mentioned having seen it. As I wrote in the blog article, I have now seen it three times and I think it is well worth watching. 

      Delete
  7. Early this morning, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent me the following email:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for your observations about Nat Turner's rebellion. I fully agree with your comments, which raise an important and difficult question. When is violence justified in fighting injustice? Or is it ever justified?

    "I favor nonviolent remedies to injustice, whenever possible, but I am not sure that nonviolence will always work. I struggle with this issue, as do many of us. I would be very much interested in your thoughts about this."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Eric, for writing and for posing significant questions.

      Here's what I think: using violence is never the best way to fight injustice, so I do not agree with the means Nat Turner took in fighting the great scourge of slavery. But at the same time, I do not agree with those who condemn Nat Turner's violent rebellion without condemning even more strongly the evil (slavery) they were fighting against.

      Even in the 2-3 days of the Nat Turner rebellion, up to four times as many Blacks were killed as Whites. So it wasn't just an "eye for an eye." It was four eyes for one eye.

      But look at the bigger picture. In the 1800s before the Civil War, the life expectancy of enslaved people was only 20-21 years, largely because of the number of children who died before the age of one. The life expectancy of Whites is said to have been 40-43 years, again partly because of the infant mortality rate, which was still about half of that of Blacks. The extremely low life expectancy of enslaved people was because of malnutrition, overwork, lack of medical care (such as it was, but available to Whites), etc. Thus, the slavery system did far more violence to the "slaves" than the rebellion of the latter did to the Whites. So while that doesn't "justify" the use of violence, it does help, I think, to see that violence moves in both directions and the greater violence needs to be condemned more than that which is lesser.

      Delete
  8. I think Christianity in America makes more sense if we think of American religion the way some other countries do, which is to say, people can practice several religions at once. In America, those other religions go by names like capitalism, socialism, and militarism. So the question becomes what happens when one of those other religions is actually functioning, but everyone assumes it is Christianity in action. Since these other religions are not even recognized by most people as religions, Christianity gets all the blame. On the other hand, imperial Christianity has a long history of deserving plenty of blame.

    A recent blog discussed a Dostoyevsky reader, "The Gospel in Dostoyevsky." What the Grand Inquisitor told Jesus in the opening reading was a master class in the misuse of Christianity. "Why have you come to hinder us? And why do you look silently and searchingly at me with your mild eyes? Be angry. I don't want your love, for I do not love you. . . . Just eight centuries ago, we took from him what you rejected with scorn, that last gift he offered you, showing you all the kingdoms of the earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of Caesar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth, though hitherto we have not been able to complete our work. But whose fault is that?" (The Brothers Karamazov)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here are lengthy, and thought-provoking comments posted by Ed Costin, who was born in my hometown (although many years after me), on Facebook yesterday in response to my asking if any of my FB friends had seen the 2016 movie "The Birth of a Nation."

    I first studied the 1915 film in a mass media class in college, and view Nate Parker’s 2016 version as a reclaiming of history for those most adversely affected by the original. In that context, I also view the Christian Bible from an academic perspective, most notably as the first form of mass media introduced to the world (with the Gutenberg Bible) in the mid-1450s. From that perspective alone, it is a fascinating juxtaposition (in my mind, anyway) to compare and contrast how the first example affected the United States, and how the second example affected the entire world.

    "My initial reaction overall though, is how the film portrays the use of the Bible as a means of education for young Nat. The 'white people’s books' — I would guess books about politics, government, law, medicine, mathematics, and the sciences — were considered too advanced for such a 'simple mind' as a black person. Therefore, the only book considered within the poor boy’s comprehension was the book specifically used to control the thoughts and actions of the very people to which it was taught. The exact opposite of the intent of the 'white peoples books,' which was, of course, to help him achieve new, independent thoughts, for the benefit and advancement of the rest of (white) society.

    "From there, Nat’s religious thoughts and views were simply a product of the human brain, as is the case with us all. The brain is a computer, and as such, operates under the same basic premise as any other computer: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Of course, I don’t mean literal garbage, or that the Bible is, in and of itself, 'garbage.' Rather the term 'garbage' refers to the memorization of rote lessons intended for the use of manipulation and control (though I’m sure most Christians would prefer the term 'inspire,' so I won’t argue that point), not for achieving free and independent thought. It is very much the same as conspiracy nuts and listeners/viewers of biased, right-wing TV and radio, they consume the same, one-sided messages that promote obedience and servility all day long, and their brain responds accordingly with the actions they are programmed by their manipulators to perform. Except in that case, FauxNews, Drumpf, and Q-AreNuts are the slave owners, and poor, uneducated, white Americans are the slaves. But I digress… *ahem*

    "As far as the content of Nat’s sermons in the film, that’s simply the result, once again, of the brain operating as a computer. An example I like to use in this context is a graduate research presentation I gave on the artist William Blake. Many like to use his dramatic and vivid works as an example of a deeply religious man, using his art to show the beauty and wrath of God’s word, or some other such romantic notion. In fact, he was just a stubborn, quirky, semi-literate tradesman who lived mostly in an isolated, private existence with only his wife as his constant companion. His education consisted primarily of two books: The Bible and Dante’s 'Inferno.' So if your only knowledge of the world beyond your own senses is comprised of stories and myths about angels, demons, and hellfire, what else should one expect your artwork to resemble?

    [to be continued]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [continuation of Ed Costin's comments]

      "The same holds true for Nat Turner’s interpretation of the Bible, and how slavery was addressed in the Old Testament. Of course, he sees himself in the stories he relates during the prayer for the white folks, while they, naturally, see only themselves. So even as they believe he is offering a blessing against their oppressors, his real meaning is to follow God’s Word from his own perspective — as any righteous believer should — and pray for redemption against the very people he is addressing at the dinner table. In the end, it all comes down to the human brain’s own, personalized, selfish, computer operating system (the 'id,' in Freud’s psychoanalytic theory) simply processing the information in accordance with the influences, motivations, and interpretations that comprise the whole of the individual’s education and experiences up to that point. Not so much 'divinely inspired' as 'genetically coded.'

      I do think it’s a poignant film, and presents a sorely needed — and missing — perspective in the grand scheme of the American 'cinemascape' (so to speak). Like all films, every individual will view the story and the message through the lens of their own 'influences, motivations, and interpretations,' such that each will come away with a unique and personalized take on that message. The key to a great film is one that encodes it’s intended message in such a way that there is no mistake of the intent, regardless of whatever pre-disposed biases the viewer might hold. And to a large extent, on the overall message of slavery and the treatment of black Americans in early America, 'The Birth of a Nation' shines as bright as the passion and fury and fire that burned deep within Nat Turner’s heart."

      Delete