Pacific Journal - Fresno Pacific University

Pacific Journal 

VOL. 2 2007 Published by Fresno Pacific University 

The Church Confronts Slavery, Race and Gender

Editor 

Rod Janzen 

Associate Editors 

W. Marshall Johnston 

Ruth Toews Heinrichs 

Roberta Mason 

David Alan Thompson 

Honora Howell Chapman 

Book Review Editor 

Richard Rawls 

Copy Editor 

Wayne Steffen 

Editorial Board 

Doreen Ewert 

Indiana University 

Abraham Friesen 

UC Santa Barbara 

Donald Goertzen 

UC Berkeley, International Studies Program, 

Philippines 

Elfrieda Hiebert 

UC Berkeley 

Jane Middleton 

CSU Fresno 

Lisa Sideris 

Indiana University 

Peng Wen 

Fresno Pacific University

Manual Style 

The Pacific Journal follows The Chicago 

Manual of Style, 15th Edition 

(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 

2003). Authors should use endnotes, 

and they should be numbered consecutively 

throughout the manuscript, using 

superscript, and produced in double-spaced 

format on separate pages 

following the text. Except for quotations 

as necessary, manuscripts should 

be written in English, although exceptional 

articles in other languages may 

be considered. Manuscripts should be 

submitted in two double-spaced copies. 

All manuscripts should also be 

submitted on computer disc. Authors 

alone are responsible for the content of 

their articles and will be asked, prior 

to publication, to certify that these 

present original work not published 

elsewhere. 

The Pacific Journal accepts and encourages 

submissions from scholars 

at Fresno Pacific University and other 

colleges and universities, as they relate 

to each issue’s theme. Each submitted 

manuscript will be double peer- 

reviewed, with at least one of the assessments 

done by someone not on the 

FPU faculty. 

Subscriptions are $10 per year. Bulk 

mailings are also available as quantities 

allow. 


Purpose 

Pacific Journal occupies a special 

niche in the world of academic journals. 

Although there are a number of 

peer-reviewed journals associated with 

prestigious Christian colleges and universities, 

few provide an opportunity 

for Christian faculty to publish scholarly 

works in their academic fields, 

enlarging the knowledge base without 

a mandatory integration of faith and 

scholarship. 

Manuscript submission 

The Pacific Journal is published annually 

by Fresno Pacific University. 

To submit articles, request a subscription 

or bulk mailing, and any other 

official correspondence, contact Rod 

Janzen, Fresno Pacific University, 

1717 S. Chestnut Ave., Fresno, CA 

93702; email rajanzen@fresno.edu; 

telephone 559-453-2210. The university 

website is fresno.edu. 

Books for review should be sent to 

Richard Rawls; mail Hiebert Library, 

Fresno Pacific University, 1717 S. 

Chestnut Ave., Fresno, CA 93702; 

email rrawls@fresno.edu; telephone 

559-453-2219.

Table of Contents 

Articles 

SCOTT KEY 

The Tragedy of Slavery: The Church’s Response .................................................... 1 

W. MARSHALL JOHNSTON 

Response to Scott Key’s “The Tragedy of Slavery” ............................................. 23 

ZENEBE ABEBE 

The Two Faces of Racism— 

Undeserved Discrimination and Undeserved Privilege ............................................ 29 

HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN 

Response to Zenebe Abebe’s “The Two Faces of Racism” .................................. 51 

HOPE NISLY 

The Church and Women: Power, Participation, 

and Language in Christian Institutions ..................................................................... 57 

VALERIE REMPEL 

Response to Hope Nisly’s 

“The Church and Women: Power, Language, and Institutions” ........................... 71 

LARRY WARKENTIN 

What’s in a Name? .................................................................................................... 73 

COVER 

Chris Janzen, New Woman, 2006. Oil on canvas. 72 x 65 in. 

(182.88 x 165.1 cm). Courtesy of Sarah Scherschligt. The 

painting questions the assumption that 21st century women 

have reached social equality with men. The woman pictured 

stands tall, moving forward with a bodily expression that suggests 

strength and boldness, but her fashionable dress, accessories 

and face conform to male ideals of beauty rather than 

personal comfort. Janzen’s art explores the conscious and subliminal 

implications of the American mass media visual landscape. He serves as faculty in 

studio art at Fresno Pacific University.

Reviews 


PAUL TOEWS 

LITERATURE REVIEW: RECENT TITLES IN RUSSIAN HISTORY ................ 93 

DAVID REMNICK 

Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire 

ANNE APPLEBAUM 

Gulag: A History 

ORLANDO FIGES 

Natasha’s Dance: A Cultural History of Russia 

ERNEST CARRERE 

On the Human Condition. 

Dominique Janicaud, translated by Eileen Brennan. ................................................ 97 

JANITA RAWLS 

Focus Like a Laser Beam. 

Lisa Haneberg ........................................................................................................... 101 

PAMELA D. JOHNSTON 

Fame, Money and Power: 

The Rise of Peisistratos and “Democratic” Tyranny at Athens. 

B. M. Lavelle ............................................................................................................ 103 

RICHARD RAWLS 

The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. 

Bryan Ward-Perkins ................................................................................................. 107

From The Editor 

FROM THE EDITOR 

This second issue of Pacific Journal focuses 

attention on the church’s response to women, 

slavery and racism. Articles by Hope Nisly, 

Scott Key and Zenebe Abebe are responded 

to by Valerie Rempel, Marshall Johnston and 

Honora Chapman. We have also included 

Larry Warkentin’s analysis of the origins of the 

“Warkentin” surname, one of the names most 

commonly held by Mennonites of Dutch Low 

German background. This issue is completed 

by reviews of seven books. The general theme 

of our next issue (2008) is the environment. 

Rod Janzen

CONTRIBUTORS 

ZENEBE ABEBE 

Dean of Student Life, Psychology 

Fresno Pacific University 

ERNEST CARRERE 

Librarian, Philosophy and Theology 

Fresno Pacific University/ 

Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary 

HONORA HOWELL 

CHAPMAN 

Modern and Classical 

Languages and Literatures 

California State University, Fresno 

PAMELA JOHNSTON 

History and Classics 


W. MARSHALL JOHNSTON 

History and Classics 


SCOTT KEY 

Education 



HOPE NISLY 

Librarian, History 

Fresno Pacific University/ 


JANITA RAWLS 

Dean, School of Business 


RICHARD RAWLS 

Director, Hiebert Library, 

History 


VALERIE REMPEL 

History and Theology 


PAUL TOEWS 

Director, Center for 

Mennonite Brethren Studies, 

History 


LARRY WARKENTIN 

Music 


Pacific Journal

The Tragedy of Slavery: 

The Church’s Response 

SCott KEy 

The Tragedy of Slavery 

Slavery. The very word conjures up images of pain and suffering, of oppression 

and subjugation. Yet, prior to the eighteenth century, slavery was 

simply an accepted part of life for many cultures and civilizations throughout 

the world. The enslavement of human beings occurred for many reasons, 

from the punitive treatment of enemy populations conquered in war to discriminatory 

actions taken toward religious and political dissenters. Sometimes 

inherited class or ethnic distinctions automatically imposed slave status. 

Slavery took many forms, from the household slave system of ancient 

Greece to serfdom in the Russian Empire. Some forms allowed for measures 

of individual freedom. Often slavery provided the foundation for particular 

economic and political systems. 

While the forms of slavery are as diverse as there are cultures in the world, 

the legitimacy of the institution was seldom questioned historically. Yet today, 

most people who identify themselves as followers of Jesus believe that 

slavery is morally wrong and attribute the abolition of slavery to the work of 

the church. 

The church’s response parallels, in some ways, the history of Christianity. 

As the church’s story moved through the centuries, it became more complex 

as different groups emerged in different parts of the world. This article examines 

Western Christendom and explores the church’s connection and response 

to slavery in the “New World.” It begins as a unified story, then splits 

into Protestant and Catholic narratives as the Reformation impacts European 

colonialism and, ultimately, the church’s response to slavery. Particular attention 

is paid to slavery in the United States. 

Slavery and the Early Church 

Jesus of Nazareth. Whether you see him as God the Son, a prophet or 

simply a wise teacher, his life altered human history. Jesus offered a new 

path to God and wanted his listeners to connect faith with their daily lives. 

Jesus expanded the understanding of who was human to include women and 

children, the poor and the sick, and all who had been marginalized. Since all 

human life was valuable, the actions of those who followed Jesus should reflect 

this. Jesus called his followers to connect belief and action and, thereby, 

1


2 

change the world. Those who follow Jesus should “in everything do to others 

as you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12). This new approach to 

life challenged religious and societal structures. 

While Jesus did not specifically address slavery, slaves were viewed as 

marginalized human beings, not simply property. This radical message was 

passed on to Jesus’s followers. The Apostle Paul proclaimed, “There is no 

longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male 

or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:23). Paul did 

not condemn slavery or call for its abolition. He, in fact, supported it by 

commanding, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in 

singleness of heart, as you obey Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). But, he also wanted 

to change the institution, commanding masters to, “stop threatening them... 

and...do the same to them” (Ephesians 6:9). 

Paul was in a difficult position. The growth of the Church was a threat 

to the Roman Empire. Its existence was uncertain. Paul needed to “prove 

that Christians were good citizens and upheld traditional Roman family 

values: namely, the submission of wives, children, and slaves.” 1 His teachings 

do this, but they also include challenges to the social order by placing 

new expectations on husbands, fathers, and slaveowners. Masters could no 

longer do whatever they wanted with their slaves. Instead, Paul reminded, 

“You have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality” 

(Ephesians 6:9). 

As the early church emerged, positions taken on slavery were affected 

by concern over survival and the expectation of Jesus’ imminent return. As 

time went on and the church grew, leaders such as Polycarp and Ignatius of 

Antioch spoke out against slavery and some Christians freed their slaves 

upon conversion. 2 Many Christians found slavery repugnant to the dignity 

of the image of God in all. However, this voice changed when Christianity 

was established as Rome’s state religion. Most church leaders supported the 

institution of slavery, in part, because the Roman Empire was dependent 

upon slave labor. As the decades rolled past, the church became inseparable 

from the state as the church of martyrs aligned with an earthly government 

that used military might to maintain control. 3 

Even though most church leaders were complicit on slavery, occasionally 

individuals spoke out and worked against it. For example, in a remote part 

of the Roman Empire, a Christian missionary named Patrick (who spent six 

years as a slave) declared slavery was sin and authored, “a letter excommunicating 

a British tyrant, Coroticus, who carried off some of Patrick’s

converts into slavery.” 4 The influence of Patrick (and the church) helped end 

slavery in Ireland. 5 

After the fall of Rome, Church leaders continued to support slavery as 

a means to maintain societal order. Pope Gregory I (c. 600) wrote, “Slaves 

should be told . . . not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are 

only slaves.” 6 Slavery was an integral part of European economic and social 

life and Christians enslaved other Christians with little concern for the morality 

of the enterprise. 7 This changed, however, in the eighth century, when 

the Muslim Moors raided coastal areas from the Mediterranean to Britain 

and carried large numbers of Christians to markets on the Barbary Coast. 

As a response, the church now spoke out against the specific enslavement of 

Christians, a first step toward an anti-slavery stance. 8 But, Christians continued 

to enslave other peoples, for example, pagan Slavs, and Muslims. 9 

Slavery and the Medieval Church 


While the institutional church prohibited Christian slaves, some individuals 

pushed for the end of all slavery. In the seventh century, Bathilda (the 

Queen Regent of Burgundy and Neutria) campaigned to stop the slave trade 

and free all who found themselves in this condition. In the ninth century, 

Anskar (a Benedictine monk who established the first church in Scandinavia) 

tried to halt the Viking slave trade. Venetian bishops worked to prevent 

the slave trade in the tenth century. 10 While these efforts did not succeed, 

the prohibition on Christian slaves (and the subsequent conversion of most 

of Europe) led to the de facto end of slavery there. This prohibition was 

enforced by rulers and churchmen such as William the Conqueror, Wulfstan, 

and Anselm. 11 

During the early Medieval period, the church promoted pilgrimages to the 

Holy Lands (Palestine) as a means to practice penance (essential for the forgiveness 

of sins) and renew one’s faith. Between the eleventh and fifteenth 

centuries, hundreds of thousands of pilgrims risked disease, shipwreck, robbery, 

and enslavement. Simultaneously, Seljuk Turk Muslims gained control 

over the Holy Lands and threatened Europe. Church leaders including Bernard 

of Clairvaux and Pope Innocent III called for Palestine’s liberation and 

the resulting Crusades led not only to the enslavement of captured Muslims, 

but Orthodox Christians as well! 

During this period, Christian Western Europe also began to expand trade 

into North Africa, where merchants encountered dark-skinned African slaves. 

Arab Muslims there had been involved in the slave trade for centuries with 

3


4 

three to four million black African slaves sent to Mediterranean markets 

between 750-1500 AD. 12 European traders saw a new way to make money 

and justified this form of commerce by viewing black Africans as inferior 

beings. Thus, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the church was required 

to further develop its ideas on slavery. This task fell to Thomas Aquinas, 

who made the distinction between “just” slavery (where owners work for the 

benefit of the enslaved) and “unjust” slavery (where owners work for their 

own benefit) and concluded that “unjust” slavery was a sin. 13 The church’s 

support of “just” slavery was closely tied to its support of “just” war, a concept 

earlier developed by Augustine. 

So, the church fell short of outright rejection of slavery, partly, due to the 

close connection between church and state. The threat from Muslims led the 

church to support the state through “just war” theology. While the church 

continued to forbid Christian slavery, the enslavement of non-believers was 

permissible. This position would prove crucial as the Muslim threat dissipated 

and European colonial expansion took center stage. 

Slavery in the Age of Colonization 

Africa has often been portrayed as a continent of “savages” 14 but, in the 

early fifteenth century the Portuguese began their exploration of Western 

Africa and discovered advanced kingdoms with complex economic, political, 

and social systems. 15 Instead of undeveloped cultures to conquer, the 

Portuguese found new customers for their luxury goods, such as textiles, 

jewelry, liquor (later tobacco), and iron. 16 Africans traded gold, malaguetta 

pepper, textiles, ivory, and people for these luxury items. 17 Prior to European 

contact, the majority of slaves were prisoners of war, criminals, or debtors. 

However, as the Portuguese and other nations began to bring black African 

slaves to Europe, a commercial slave trade was created with Africans procuring 

slaves from neighboring or rival tribes to sell to European buyers. 

Slavery was simply good business for everyone involved. 

The number of black African slaves in Europe rose slowly throughout the 

fifteenth century and these slaves were integrated into the nations’ economies. 

During this century, the church’s position flip-flopped as Nicholas V 

and Innocent III affirmed the right to enslave non-believers, 18 but Eugene 

IV, Pius II, and Sixtus IV condemned slavery outright, especially among 

indigenous populations in the Americas. 19 While the church continued its 

march toward the outright rejection of slavery, Portugal and Spain colonized 

the New World and needed cheap, stable labor to maximize the production

and removal of raw materials and resources for the mother countries. Black 

Africans slaves were perfect because they were not Christian and were not 

considered civilized; they could be legitimately exploited. 

Another part of the moral justification came through a changed understanding 

of “the curse of Ham” that ascribed servitude based on the darkness 

of one’s skin. 20 This was the curse placed on Ham and his descendents after 

Ham viewed his father Noah in a drunken, naked state. This notion—the 

darker one’s skin, the more inferior—would be the key in the expansion of 

the African slave trade for centuries. 21 

Slavery in Central and South America 


By the end of the fifteenth century, the age of colonization moved into full 

gear with the voyages of Columbus. It was in colonization that the marriage 

between church and state found its fullest expression, and this marriage was 

perfected in Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella united their throne, defeated the 

Moors, expelled the Jews and seized their property, and placed a Spaniard in 

the Vatican. The expansion of their kingdom was not merely economic and 

political. It was interwoven with religion. They sent Columbus on a complex 

mission to seize territory, take wealth, and convert heathens. Columbus himself 

desired wealth and power and to extend the Kingdom of God. Thus, he 

claimed lands for Ferdinand, Isabella, and the church. 22 

This approach to the extension of Christianity was conquering and enslaving 

lands and inhabitants. The marriage between church and state gave rulers 

support for their imperial ambitions and gave the church a means to spread 

the Gospel. The idea of religious liberty and choice had yet to emerge. Rulers 

decided the religious faith of their subjects throughout Europe, the Middle 

East, and Africa. This is largely how Christianity and Islam spread. This is 

how Christianity expanded in Central and South America. The subjugation 

of the New World was accomplished through soldiers and priests as inhabitants 

were stripped of their property and way of life in order to control and 

exploit colonial wealth. 

The enslavement of the indigenous populations in Central and South 

America was, at times, challenged by the church. In the first decades of the 

sixteenth century, priests like Antonio Montesinos and Bartolome de Las 

Casas waged a campaign against the enslavement of native peoples and their 

efforts led Pope Paul III to tie slavery to Satan and threaten those involved 

with excommunication. 23 But, the need for more laborers trumped this position 

and led the Portuguese and Spanish to import increasing numbers of 

5


6 

black African slaves. By 1600, the Portuguese and Spanish had brought one 

million black African slaves to South America and the Caribbean to work on 

plantations and exploit the wealth of the region. 24 

If rulers refused to abolish slavery, the Catholic Church could do very 

little about it. Popes threatened excommunication with little effect. Church 

leaders did not alter the official rejection of slavery, but their limited political 

power meant they had to settle for ameliorating slave conditions. For 

example, in the New World, the Catholic Church confirmed certain slave 

rights (e.g., their material and spiritual welfare) and imposed obligations 

on slaveowners (i.e., limiting their control). The Code Noir of 1685 is one 

example. It laid out the rights and obligations of slaves and their owners. 

Slaves should be baptized, allowed to marry, and guaranteed basic food and 

clothing, but they could not sell sugar cane, carry weapons, gather together, 

hold office, or participate in lawsuits. Masters were to care for their slaves 

and treat them as human beings. 

The Black Code made a difference in the lives of slaves confirming that 

they were fully human in the eyes of God. This belief led to an accepted 

mixing of black, indigenous, and European populations—something that 

did not happen in North America. Slaves were also able to purchase their 

freedom and masters frequently granted manumission. This led to a large 

free black population that comprised the majority in Santo Domingo, Puerto 

Rico, Venezuela, and Caribbean Columbia. When Spain tried to reestablish 

racial segregation and a slave plantation economy through the Code Negro 

Espanol in 1783 it proved impossible because too many free blacks had been 

integrated into society. 25 

The conditions and experiences of native and black African slaves in Central 

and South America were very different from their counterparts in North 

America. The Catholic Church declared that slavery was a condition of service 

not a matter of nature and worked to improve the conditions for black 

African slaves. This was not the Protestant approach. While this does not 

excuse the Catholic Church’s complicity in the enslavement of millions, it 

illustrates the limited power of religious leaders when opposed by political 

leaders. The best example comes from the Jesuit Republic of Paraguay. For 

150 years (1609-1768), the Jesuits worked with the indigenous Guarani to 

create a remarkable civilization with thirty-plus communities. This was still 

an effort to Christianize and civilize, but the Jesuits used persuasion, not 

force, and tried to protect the Guarani from colonial officials and planters. 

This experiment offended the elite. So, when Portugal and Spain re-divided

South America in 1750, both countries attacked and destroyed the republic. 

The natives were enslaved and the Jesuits expelled. 26 

The Catholic Church was unrelenting in its official call to reject slavery. 

Individuals risked much and, at times, died to protect slaves. But slavery was 

simply too important to the economies of Portugal, Spain, and their colonies. 

The economic advantages of slavery outweighed its moral and religious repudiation. 

Would the same be true for slavery in North America? 

Slavery in British North America 


Many immigrant conquerors of North America came as religious refugees 

from Western Europe. As the seventeenth century unfolded, several small 

groups split away from state-supported Protestant churches and left Europe 

to practice their faith freely. Yet, the majority did not believe in religious freedom, 

per se. Rather, they continued to support a close connection between 

church and state. In all colonies, except Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, 

colonists established a “state” church and required that everyone conform 

to its doctrines and dictates. At times, government policy and colonial law 

conformed to religious beliefs. At other times, religious beliefs conformed to 

policy and law. In this regard, there was little difference between the Church 

of England in Virginia or the Presbyterian and Puritan (Congregationalist) 

denominations in other colonies. 

There was little debate about the legitimacy of slavery. As the colonists 

in Virginia quickly discovered, the cultivation of tobacco (which proved to 

be their salvation) required much labor. The colonists considered enslaving 

the indigenous population, but these peoples were tough, resourceful, defiant, 

and initially outnumbered them. 27 They were also quickly decimated by 

diseases. 28 The only answer was to import labor. 

The first choice was indentured servants from Europe, but there were two 

disadvantages. First, they proved to be an inefficient and expensive labor 

force since colonists could only get a few years of service out of them before 

they were free of work obligations. 29 Second, once free, the indentured 

servants became competition as they utilized their own skills to cultivate 

tobacco. In order to maintain their financial status, large landowners needed 

a long-term, stable labor force. The answer was black African slaves. 30 

The first load of twenty slaves arrived in Jamestown in 1619 from the 

British West Indies. 31 This was the beginning of the commercial slave trade 

to North America. Millions of black Africans died during forced marches 

from the interior to the west central African coast and during transatlantic 

7


8 

crossings. The slave trade brought ten-fifteen million black Africans to the 

New World, with the majority ending up in Central and South America. Still 

more than five hundred thousand black African slaves ended up in North 

America. 32 Slaves became indispensable as the economies of the colonies 

developed and allowed southern colonists to create large plantations that 

sent vast quantities of cotton and tobacco back to Europe. The importance 

of slave labor created many dilemmas for the churches in the American 

colonies. 

On the one hand, black Africans were non-Christian and subject to the 

“curse of Ham.” Yet, it was the work of the churches to convert non-Christians. 

But, Christian tradition said conversion made one a free man (or 

woman). Evangelism thus might lead to a continuous turnover of slaves as 

those converted were replaced by newly imported pagan slaves. This would 

be impractical and expensive. What was the solution? Between 1660 and 

1700, the slave codes of six colonies (i.e., Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, New Jersey, and New York) were altered to affirm that 

baptism was not a basis for freedom and that, regardless of religious status, 

slaves were required to serve for life (e.g., the Virginia slave codes of 1667 

and 1682). 33 The churches could now actively convert slaves and slaveowners 

did not have to fear the loss of their property. 

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the established 

churches seldom spoke out against slavery. In Virginia, the Church of England 

denied that there were any inconsistencies between Christianity and 

slavery. This meant that the church did not question the right of its members 

to hold slaves and made no effort to emancipate them. 34 The same was true 

for the Presbyterians, where the right of members to hold slaves was not 

questioned and no official action towards emancipation was taken before 

1774. 35 While it was up to individual churches and ministers in the Puritan/Congregationalist 

congregations, here too there was little action taken 

against slavery. Even the non-established churches were silent. Lutherans 

initially opposed slavery but the need for labor led to a change in position 

where slavery was justified because slaves gained moral and spiritual advantages 

(i.e., salvation). 36 The Baptists and Methodists left action against 

slavery to individual ministers and members. In general, the positions of 

the churches expressed pragmatic concerns about the economic and social 

impact of emancipation. 37 

The First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s focused on religious 

revival and conversion. Preachers like Stoddard, Frelinghuysan, and Ed-


wards called individuals to “feel” and repent of their sin, then follow God. 

The message preached was one of spiritual, not social equality. Salvation 

was for all, but equality came only after death. This fit nicely into the policies 

and laws of Colonial America. The call was to individual change, not 

societal transformation. Still, a nascent abolitionist movement began to grow 

as individual Christians saw the moral inconsistency between slavery and 

Christianity at the same time as the power of mainline Protestant churches 

declined. 38 

Earlier, two smaller denominations had openly advocated an end to slavery. 

In 1688, Quakers and Mennonites made the earliest pronouncement in 

Germantown, Pennsylvania. 39 The Quakers were consistent in their official 

opposition to slavery and were one of the first denominations to expel members 

for owning slaves. Other small denominations like the German Baptist 

Brethren (later the Church of the Brethren) also actively opposed slavery. 

These early voices had little impact, but the First Great Awakening increased 

this influence as the connection between the established churches and colonial 

governments was questioned. Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this 

early opposition was that it demonstrated that not all Christians or churches 

supported and defended the institution. Anti-slavery Christians listened to 

the viewpoints of slaves like Olaudal Equiano (1789) who asked, “O, ye 

nominal Christians! might not an African ask you, learned you this from 

your God who says unto you, Do unto all men as you would men should do 

unto you?” 40 If slaves had souls and needed to be saved, how could they be 

treated as less than human? While most churches did not change their official 

stance, the beliefs of individual Christians began to yield results. 

Slavery and the Church in England 

The period between 1750 and 1780 saw much promise for the abolition of 

slavery in the northern colonies, where there was less economic necessity for 

slave labor, as well as religious and moral critiques. While official church renouncement 

of slavery was slow, more and more Christians regarded slavery 

as inconsistent with Christianity. These individuals found allies with those 

influenced by the Enlightenment ideals of equality for all. 41 

Another important influence was the growing abolitionist movement in 

Great Britain. The colonies were very much influenced by the “mother” 

country. In the late eighteenth century, British Christians organized various 

societies to alleviate social ills, including slavery. John Newton was a powerful 

voice. Remembered for writing “Amazing Grace,” he was an ex-slaver 

9


10 

who, as an anti-slavery advocate and pastor, influenced many members of 

the Clapham Sect, a group of prominent and wealthy evangelical Anglicans 

dedicated to social reform that included William Wilberforce. 42 The call to 

abolish slavery quickened in the 1780s. As a member of parliament, Wilberforce 

repeatedly introduced pieces of legislation aimed at ending slavery in 

the British Empire. In 1788, Wilberforce introduced a twelve-point motion 

detailing the atrocities associated with the slave trade. 43 While the motion 

was defeated, Wilberforce became convinced that the abolition of slavery 

was God’s will and thus, his calling. 

Wilberforce faced an uphill struggle. Powerful West Indies plantation 

owners, African merchants, ship owners and captains, and the British Crown 

were opposed, fearing the end of slavery might lead to a national recession 

and personal financial ruin. There was some legitimacy in this argument. 

The slave trade was essential to commerce in the New World. 44 Starting in 

the West Indies with sugar plantations and expanding into North America 

with tobacco, then cotton, the British used slaves for territorial expansion 

and financial gain throughout the seventeenth century. The slave trade was 

a key component in Great Britain’s commercial and naval strength. When 

Britain gained a monopoly to supply slaves to Spanish colonies under a 1713 

treaty, Britain became the leader in this form of commerce. At its peak in 

1770 Britain transported fifty thousand slaves to the New World. 45 

Oddly, the general English public cared little about Africans. It was the 

social and political elite that ended slavery in Great Britain in 1772. During 

the American Revolution, the British government promised freedom to any 

slaves that fought on their side. This offer enticed thousands of slaves to 

do so and many pro-British slaves fled to Canada in the early 1780s. 46 But, 

enormous profits kept the slave trade going. In 1806, as the supporters saw 

the end coming, there was a rush to transport a final forty thousand black Africans. 

After more than a decade of struggle, Wilberforce and his parliamentary 

allies abolished the slave trade in February 1807. The timing is crucial 

because a few months later the United States also outlawed the importation 

of slaves; however, the elimination of the primary source of transportation 

made the American ban as much a matter of practicality as morality. 

In Great Britain, once the slave trade was abolished, the general public 

began to support the abolition of slavery itself. In 1814, more than one million 

signatures (about 1/10 of the British population) were collected calling 

for the abolition of slavery throughout the Empire. The perseverance of 

Wilberforce, the rest of the Clapham Sect, and countless others won the

day. In 1833, three days before Wilberforce died, the Emancipation Act 

was passed and slavery was abolished in the British Empire. The key abolitionists 

were Christians who believed that they had been called by God to 

destroy this evil. 47 

Slavery in the United States 


The experience of British Christians encouraged and motivated many 

American Christians. The early actions in Britain and the efforts of individual 

Christians placed pressure on many northern colonies to restrict slavery prior 

to the American Revolution. The culminating event was the banning of slavery 

by Rhode Island in 1774. 

As the colonies moved towards independence, the issue of slavery illustrated 

the frequent disconnect between belief and action. The Declaration 

of Independence proclaimed the ideals of human equality coming out 

of the Enlightenment. Prior to and immediately after the War of Independence, 

prominent leaders such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson 

spoke out against the institution of slavery, even though they refused to free 

their own slaves. 48 Others such as Noah Webster, William Livingston, and 

Benjamin Franklin were active in anti-slavery societies. Many in the northern 

colonies opposed the continuation of slavery, but independence did not 

bring its immediate abolition. 

The American Revolution was about democracy, political independence, 

and control over a growing economy. The English controlled the colonial 

economy through many rules and many taxes. The war changed those in 

control, but did not change the basic economic system. Wealth was concentrated 

in the hands of a few. The southern colonies depended on slave labor. 

The Constitutional Compromise of 1787, in which slavery was made legal 

and permanent, was necessary for the union to be achieved. The Constitution 

cemented the dehumanization of African slaves as they were considered 

only 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining political representation 

and viewed as property. Yet, the struggle over the morality of slavery was apparent 

as limitations were placed on it. Slavery was forbidden, for example, 

in new territories through the Northwest Ordinances of 1787 and 1789. And, 

the importation of slaves was to end by 1808. Slavery was enshrined and 

protected in the original colonies, but would be prohibited as the new nation 

expanded. 49 

While there was a growing consensus on the immorality of slavery, there 

continued to be a gap between belief and action. Washington, for example, 

11


12 

used the army to prevent slaves who had fought with the British from leaving 

the United States. Jefferson had a long-term relationship with a slave 

named Sally Hemings 50 and was capable of great cruelty when punishing 

his slaves. 51 Some northern churches, such as Methodists and Presbyterians, 

denounced slavery, but did little to enforce the position. This gap between 

belief and action, in part, can be explained by the commonly held view that 

Africans were sub-human creations with an uncivilized nature, intellectual 

inferiority, and darkness of complexion. 52 In theory, slavery was wrong—it 

was an embarrassment and abomination—but, in practice, it continued to be 

acceptable because Africans were inferior. 

This belief even impacted the abolitionist movement. While northerners 

came to believe that slavery was wrong, this did not mean that they believed 

that black Africans should live freely amongst them. This mirrored the 

beliefs of British Christians who helped establish Sierra Leone for blacks 

discharged from military service as well as runaway slaves. In 1816, Rev. 

Robert Finley (a Presbyterian minister from New Jersey) founded the American 

Colonization Society to promote the emigration of free blacks to Africa. 

The rationale for these societies was that “blacks and whites” should not live 

together and that the removal of blacks would protect Americans. This view 

was held by James Monroe and James Madison, who helped establish the 

nation of Liberia where some fifteen thousand blacks emigrated to establish 

a nation for ex-slaves. Of course, the colonization approach did not win the 

day, but it highlights the problems associated with abolition. 

As the United States emerged, religion again took a backseat to economics. 

This was particularly pronounced in the new territories where the focus 

was on free (or cheap) land, not religion. The rejection of religion moved 

many, especially Methodists, to action. Between 1800 and 1840, Charles 

Finney and other leaders of this Second Great Awakening expected that 

transformed lives would lead to a changed society because the Gospel was 

meant to do more than just get people saved. It was also to clean up society. 53 

Influenced by British Christians who had established reform groups to address 

societal ills in the 1780s, American Christians from various churches 

organized hundreds of societies that touched every aspect of American life. 

One of these causes was the abolition of slavery. Charles Finney proclaimed, 

“Let Christians of all denominations meekly but firmly come forth, 

and pronounce their verdict . . . and there would not be a shackled slave, nor 

a bristling, cruel slave driver in this land.” 54 As the 1830s progressed, the 

great revival and the anti-slavery movement at times became one and the 

same in the northern states as slavery was declared to be sin. “Sin could not


be solved by political compromise or sociological reform . . . it required repentance 

. . . otherwise America would be punished by God.” 55 Abolitionists 

established newspapers and distributed pamphlets to persuade slaveowners 

to repent and free their slaves. While northern abolitionists had little effect 

on the South, anti-slavery societies helped change the northern churches’ 

positions on slavery. The hope was that if the churches saw the truth they 

would encourage and, ultimately, require members to give up slavery. Tensions 

within denominations increased in the 1830s and 1840s, leading to 

several divisions that would ultimately mirror the split in the Union. For example, 

the Baptist movement was split into two large factions between 1841 

and 1844 as southern members formed the Southern Baptist Convention. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church divided in 1844 when anti-slave clergy and 

laity formed the Wesleyan Methodist Church. 56 

In the northern states, some churches became strong advocates for abolition. 

But, there was very little movement by southern churches. 57 Early opposition 

to slavery on moral and religious grounds gave way to pragmatic 

necessity. The economy of the southern states was primarily agricultural and 

was dependent upon slave labor. Even the 1808 ban on the importation of 

slaves had little effect as slave women continued to be viewed and used as 

“breeders” to increase the supply of needed workers. But, the evil extended 

far beyond this as thousands of slave women “were not only whipped and 

mutilated, they were also raped” by their masters. 58 “Sexual exploitation of 

enslaved women was widespread in the South. The presence of a large mulatto 

population stood as vivid proof and a constant reminder of such sexual 

abuse.” 59 While the churches did not approve widespread sexual promiscuity 

between white males and black females, this behavior was seen as the slaves’ 

own fault or that it was not happening despite the evidence all around. As 

Mary Boykin Chestnut testified: 

God forgive us but ours is a monstrous system, a wrong and an iniquity! 

Like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives 

and concubines; and the mulattoes one sees in every family partly resembles 

the white children. Any lady is ready to tell you who is the 

father of all the mulatto children in everybody’s household but their 

own. Those, she seems to think, drop from the clouds. 60 

Slaves were the lifeblood of the southern economy and culture. While 

state governments enacted laws to protect slavery, southern churches provided 

the moral justification. The churches turned to “the curse of Ham” 

along with other passages in the Old Testament (e.g., Lev. 25:44-46; Ex. 

13


14 

21:2-6, 7-11, 20-21) and New Testament (e.g., 1 Tim 6:1-5, Titus 2:9-10, 1 

Peter 2:18-29) to demonstrate slavery was initiated by God. The Bible was 

used to prove that black Africans were inferior and meant to be slaves. 

Although at first resistant, just as in the North, the biblical commission 

to convert “heathens” did lead the southern churches (especially the Baptist 

and Methodist churches) to eventually evangelize slaves. As conversions 

occurred, the churches took care to emphasize verses in the Old and New 

Testaments that supported slavery. However, they hesitated teaching slaves 

to read. Literacy might lead to discontent and discontent to revolution. One 

of the worst crimes a slave could commit was learning to read. 61 Yet, an 

important part of Protestant Christianity is the need for each person to read 

the Bible and make a decision about whether to follow God. This led some 

southern Christians to covertly teach slaves to read. But, again, care was 

taken to emphasize verses that supported slavery. 

The concerns of slaveowners proved accurate. As slaves learned to read, 

they resonated with biblical stories like Exodus, related them to their own 

experiences, and gave them entirely different interpretations. White Christians 

saw themselves as the chosen people led to the to fulfill a divine 

mission. African Americans interpreted the story through their own life circumstances. 

“America was more akin to Egypt than to the Promised Land, 

the firm belief was that God and God’s agents would deliver them from 

bondage.” 62 The slaves saw much hypocrisy. Frederick Douglass, a mulatto 

slave who escaped and became a powerful voice for abolition, described his 

experience to an audience in Scotland, “It is quite customary to brand slaves 

. . . all this done by men calling themselves Christians; and not only this, but 

deeds of darkness too revolting to be told, and from which humanity would 

shudder.” 63 African-Americans gradually developed a sense of personal, if 

not social, equality with the slaveholders and worked for freedom. 

Without the support of the majority of churches, it would have been difficult 

to condone, encourage, and participate in one of the most deplorable 

forms of slavery in human history. African slaves were kidnapped, sold like 

livestock, and forced to perform backbreaking work. Families were torn 

apart as young children were sold and sent away from their parents to distant 

places and husbands and wives were separated. Slaves were forced to 

endure beatings, rape, castration, branding, maiming, and murder. There was 

no legal recourse because slaves were not human beings; they were private 

property. 64 

It is difficult to say whether the churches led or followed societal opinion.


Most likely, the churches did both. What seems clear is that from the early 

colonial period through the 1820s, the majority of churches were, at best, 

silent and, at worst, complicit on the issue of slavery. Of course, there were 

individuals who dissented, but for two hundred years, the majority of Christians 

did little to bring about the abolition of slavery. 

Significant change occurred through the outgrowth of the Second Great 

Awakening, when individuals and eventually entire denominations spoke 

out and acted. The early American abolitionists hoped to end slavery through 

moral persuasion. But, unlike the experience in Britain, this approach did 

not work in the United States. As the moral and religious attacks intensified, 

southern churches and Christians deepened their defense. North and South 

used the Bible as the basis for contradictory positions. 

The nation and the churches were at an impasse with no acceptable middle 

ground. Many framers of the Constitution hoped that their compromises 

would lead to the gradual elimination of slavery. Early abolitionists hoped 

for a peaceful resolution through moral persuasion or legislation. But, the 

struggle to end slavery was headed for a violent resolution. Frederick Douglass 

summed things up in 1857: “The whole history of progress of human 

liberty shows that . . . if there is no struggle, there is no progress . . . Power 

concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will . . .” 65 

The South would not concede because slavery was central to the southern 

culture and economy. The North would force concessions through its power 

and army. These differences over slavery had religious overtones. 66 While 

there were other significant causes of the Civil War, the beginning of the end 

of slavery came through the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and 

civilians during this national conflict. 

Conclusions 

The tragedy of slavery is multi-layered and immense. Millions of black 

Africans and, subsequently, African-Americans suffered brutality. The pain 

caused by slavery did not end nor disappear with its abolition. Today, most 

Christians see slavery as a sin, but the church’s role and response to slavery 

has been complicated and disjointed. 

In general, the church supported, promoted, and defended slavery when 

there was a close connection between state and church. When the church 

and prominent Christians gained economic and political power, they worked 

to retain it. From the time of Constantine through the nineteenth century, 

individuals and entire groups misused the Bible to justify subjugation and 

oppression. 

15


16 

Some denominations and individuals did not remain silent. The Catholic 

Church eventually spoke out against slavery. Many British and American 

Christians acted against it and some denominations used the Bible to argue 

against slavery, even as individuals often ignored these calls. While the role 

of Christians and different denominations was crucial, the lack of a unified 

Christian voice against slavery is part of the tragedy. The residue of slavery 

remained for more than a century with Christians on all sides. 

Even after slavery was abolished, some Christians supported segregation 

and civil rights infringements through Jim Crow laws. Other Christians 

worked to end discrimination and usher in Civil Rights legislation in the 

1960s. There is still a segment of the evangelical Christian population that 

continues to support anti-miscegenation as a general principle. 67 As late as 

1976, President Jimmy Carter’s home church, in Plains, Georgia, refused 

to allow black people to be members. While much has been accomplished, 

African-Americans still experience discrimination in areas such as education, 

employment, and home loans. The lack of a unified Christian voice still 

haunts America. 

As the Christian community reflects (and repents) on the connection between 

Christianity and slavery, there may be lessons to learn and apply today. 

Namely, it takes both churches and individual Christians to speak out 

and act against injustice. It would be easy to assign slavery to the pages 

of history as a lesson learned, but slavery continues today with millions of 

people enslaved in different parts of the world. 66 

The classic form of chattel slavery still persists. The human crisis in Sudan 

is, in part, due to the revival of a racially based slave trade where armed 

militias raid villages. In Mauritania, Arab-Berber masters hold as many as 

one million black Africans as inheritable property as a result of a chattel 

system established 800 years ago. 

The most common form of slavery, however, is debt bondage. In povertyravaged 

areas, many families must borrow simply to survive. Human beings 

are used as collateral for these loans and, unlike most industrialized nations 

where debt dies with the debtor, debts are often inherited and generations are 

ensnared in slavery. In countries like Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, 

it is estimated that fifteen-twenty million people are enslaved to pay off 

debts that may go back generations. 

In Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe the most common form is sex slavery 

where girls and young women are kidnapped, lured by offers of good 

jobs, or forced into prostitution to earn income for the family. If they resist, 

captors will rape, beat, and humiliate to break them down. Often, these vic-


tims are moved frequently and kept isolated with no documentation. They 

become sex slaves for tourists. 

In the United States and other developed countries, the most common 

form is forced labor, where people are promised good jobs but instead are 

enslaved and forced into prostitution, domestic work, garment sewing, or agricultural 

work. Living in fear and ignorance, unable to speak the language, 

these terrified individuals wait to be freed. 

The slaves of the past were seen as valuable commodities. Today, with 

booming populations and staggering poverty, there is an unending supply. 

Slaves are cheap. They are used then discarded. Slavery is efficient and profitable. 

It continues, and will always be, good business. 

People of conscience need to awaken to denounce and act against all forms 

of modern slavery. Each of us can help stop the practice by buying “fair 

trade” products guaranteed to be slave-free (and conflict free) and giving 

producers a fair price, investing in companies that do not use forced labor, 

and supporting groups working to end slavery. The lesson of history is that 

it takes individuals, churches, and governments to speak out and act against 

injustice. Will the majority of churches and Christians remain silent or will 

there be a unified voice to denounce and act against all forms of slavery? 

NotES 

1 Craig Kenner, “Subversive Conservatism: How could Paul communicate his radical message 

to those threatened by it?” Christian History XIV (3) (1995): 35. 

2 Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great 

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity 

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 

3 Gillian Clark, Christianity and Roman Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

2004). Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion from Paganism to Christianity (New 

York: Henry Holt & Co, 1997). Peter Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine 

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 

4 Mary Cagney, “Patrick the Saint,” Christian History XVII (4) (1998): 14. 

5 Thomas Cahill, How the Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic 

Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe (New York: Doubleday, 1995). 

6 Gregory I. (c.600). The Book of Pastoral Rule. In Phillip Schaff, Leo the Great, Gregory the 

Great, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. XII (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics 

Ethereal Library, 2004). 

7 W.E.B. Du Bois, Darkwater: Voices From Within the Veil (New York: Harcourt and Brace, 

1920). Scott L. Malcomson, One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race (New 

York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2000). 

8 Marshall G.S. Hodgeson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization 

Vol.2 The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Period (Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press, 1997). Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry 

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 

17


18 

9 Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry (New York: 

Oxford University Press, 1990). Giles Milton, White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas 

Pellow and Islam’s One Million White Slaves (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004). 

10 Rodney Stark, “The Truth about the Catholic Church and Slavery,” Christianity Today, 

July 14, 2003. 

11 Ibid. 

12 Ralph Austen, “The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade: A Tentative Census,” in The Uncommon 

Market: Essays in the Economic History of the Slave Trade, ed. Henry A. Gemery and Jan S. 

Hogendorn (New York: Academic Press, 1979). 

13 Rodney Stark, “The Truth about the Catholic Church and Slavery,” Christianity Today, 

July 14, 2003. 

14 Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (New York: 

Little, Brown and Company, 1993). 

15 Basil Davidson, The Search for Africa: History, Culture, Politics (New York: Random 

House, 1994). Randall Robinson, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks (New York: 

Plume, 2000). 

16 Basil Davidson, The Search for Africa: History, Culture, Politics (New York: Random House, 1994). 

17 David Richardson, “West African Consumption Patterns and English Slave Trade,” in 

The Uncommon Market: Essays in the Economic History of the Slave Trade, ed. Henry A. 

Gemery and Jan S. Hogendorn (New York: Academic Press, 1979). John Thornton, Africa 

and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1680 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 1992). 

18 Nicholas V. (c. 1452), Dum Diversas, in European Treaties Bearing on the History of the 

United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, ed. Francis Gardiner Davenport (Washington: 

Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917: 75-78). 

19 Joel Panzer, The Popes and Slavery (New York: Alba House, 1996). Rodney Stark, 

“The Truth about the Catholic Church and Slavery,” Christianity Today, July 14, 2003. 

20 Benjamin Braude, “The Sons of Noah and the Construction of Ethnic and Geographic 

Identities in the Medieval and Early Modern Period,” William and Mary Quarterly, 54(1), 

January 1997. 

21 Scott L. Malcomson, One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race (New 

York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2000). 

22 Kevin A. Miller, “Why Did Columbus Sail? What your history textbooks may not have told 

you,” Christian History, XI (3): 9-16. 

23 Paul III, Sublimis Deus (1537), http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm 

24 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 

1995). 

25 Richard Turtis, “Race beyond the Plantation: Slavery and Freedom in Colonial Santo 

Domingo,” (New Haven: Yale University (unpublished paper), 2005). 

26 Justo L. Gonzalez, “Lights in the Darkness: As sincere believers marched to subjugate a continent, 

other Christians had to oppose them,” Christian History XI (3): 32-34. Rodney Stark, 

“The Truth about the Catholic Church and Slavery,” Christianity Today, July 14, 2003. 

27 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins Publish- 

ers, 1995). 

28 William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (Garden City: Anchor Press, 1974). Jared Diamond, 

Guns, Germs and Steele: The Fate of Human Societies (New York: W.W. Norton,

1999). 

29 Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (New York: 

Little, Brown and Company, 1993). 

30 Richard N. Bean and Robert P. Thomas, “The Adoption of Slave Labor in British America,” 

in The Uncommon Market: Essays in the Economic History of the Slave Trade, ed. Henry 

A. Gemery and Jan S. Hogendorn (New York: Academic Press, 1979). 

31 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins Publish- 

ers, 1995). 

The Tragedy of Slavery: The Church’s Response 

32 Basil Davidson, The Search for Africa: History, Culture, Politics (New York: Random 

House, 1994). Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins 

Publishers, 1995). 

33 William W. Hening, The Statutes at Large; Laws of Virginia, volume 2 (New York: R & W 

& G Bartow, 1823). Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal 

of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975). Leon A. Higginbotham, Jr., In the Matter 

of Color: Race and the American Legal Process: The Colonial Period (New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1978). 

34 David D. Humphreys, An Historical Account of the Incorporated Society for the Propagation 

of the Gospel in Foreign Parts Containing Their Foundation, Proceedings, and the 

Success of Their Missionaries in the British Colonies, to the Year 1728 (London: Joseph 

Downing, 1730). Charles F. Pascoe, Two Hundred s F. Pascoe, Two Hundred Years of the 

S.P.G.: An Historical Account of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 

Parts, 1701-1900 (London: S.P.G. Office, 1901). Daniel O’Connor et al., Three Centuries of 

Mission: The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1701-2000 (London: Continuum, 

2000). 

35 John Robinson, The Testimony and Practice of the Presbyterian Church in Reference to 

Slavery (1852). Maurice W. Armstrong, Lefferts A. Loetscher and Charles A. Anderson, 

The Presbyterian Enterprise: Sources of American Presbyterian History (Philadelphia: 

Westminster Press, 1956). 

36 Henry E. Jacobs, History of Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States (New York: 

The Christian Literature Co., 1893). 

37 Marcus W. Jernegan, “Slavery and Conversion in the American Colonies,” American Historical 

Review 21 (April 1916): 504-527. Mark A. Noll, The History of Christianity in the 

United States and Canada (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992). Lester B. Scherer, 

Slavery and the Churches in Early America, 1619-1819 (Grand Rapids: William B. 

Eerdmans, 1975). 

38 James D. Essig, The Bonds of Wickedness: American Evangelicals against Slavery, 1770- 

1808 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1982). Mark A. Noll, The History of Christianity 

in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992). Mark A. 

Noll, The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity (Grand 

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002). 

39 Joseph Walton, ed., Incidentes Illustrating the Doctrines and History of the Society of 

Friends (Philadelphia: Friends Book Store, 1897). J. S. Hartzler and Daniel Kauffman, ed., 

Mennonite Church History. (Scottdale: Mennonite Book and Tract Society, 1905). Commager, 

Henry Steele Commager, ed., Documents in American History (New York: F.S. Crofts & 

Co., 1944). 

40 Olaudal Equiano, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudal Equiano or Gustavus 

Vassa, the African (New York: Penguin Group, 1789). 

19


20 

41 Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, ed., On Race and the Enlightment (London: Blackwell, 1997). 

42 Chris Armstrong, “The Amazingly Graced Life of John Newton,” Christian History XXIII (1): 16-24. 

43 Garth Lean, God’s Politician: William Wilberforce’s Struggle (Colorado Springs: Helmers 

& Howard, 1987). Christopher D. Hancock, “The Shrimp Who Stopped Slavery,” Christian 

History XVI (1): 2-19. 

44 Mark Galli, “A Profitable Little Business: The Tragic Economics of the Slave Trade, ” 

Christian History XVI (1): 20-22. 

45 Ibid. 

46 Morten Borden, The American Profile (Lexington: Heath, 1970). 

47 Ernest Marshall House, Saints in Politics: The Chapham Sect (London: George Allen & 

Unwin, 1974). Garth Lean, God’s Politician: William Wilberforce’s Struggle (Colorado 

Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1987). 

48 William B. Allen, ed., George Washington: A Collection (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 

1988). Adrienne Koch and William Peden, ed., The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas 

Jefferson (New York: Random House 1993). 

49 James C. Juhnke and Carol M. Hunter, The Missing Peace: The Search for Nonviolent 

Alternatives in United States History, 2nd edition, (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2004). 

50 Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (New York: W.W. Norton 1974). 

Diane Swann-Wright, chair, Report of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and 

Sally Hemings (Monticello: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 2000). 

51 Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (New York: Little, 

Brown and Company, 1993). 

52 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787) http:www.yale.edu/lawweb/Avalon/pre18.htm. 

Winthrop Jordan, White over Black: American attitudes toward the Negro, 

1550-1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1968). Winthrop Jordan, The White 

Man’s Burden (London: Oxford University Press, 1974). 

53 “The Return of the Spirit: The Second Great Awakening,” Christian History, VIII (3): 24-28. 

54 Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, ed. William G. McLoughlin (1835; 

reprint, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), 302. 

55 Tim Stafford, “The Abolitionists,” Christian History, XI (1): 21 

56 Donald A. Mathews, Slavery and Methodism: A Chapter in American Morality, 1780- 

1845 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965). Christian History, “Broken Churches, Broken 

Nation,” Christian History, XI (1): 26-27. 

57 Donald G. Mathews, Religion in the Old South (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

1977). Thomas V. Peterson, Ham and Japheth: The Mythic World of Whites in the Antebellum 

South (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1978). James Oakes, “Slavery as an American Problem,” 

in The South as an American Problem, ed. Larry J. Griffin and Don H. Doyle (Athens: 

University of Georgia Press, 1995). 

58 Angela Y. Davis, Women, Race & Class (New York: Vintage, 1981), 23. 

59 Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (New York: Little, 

Brown and Company, 1993), 122. 

60 Mary Boykin Chestnut, A Diary from Dixie (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1949), 

21-22. 

61 Mark A. Noll, The Old Religion in a New World (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 

2002). Rudolph Lewis, “Up from Slavery: A Documentary History of Negro Education,” http// 

www.nathanielturner.com/educationhistorynegro6.htm.

The Tragedy of Slavery: The Church’s Response 

62 Mary R. Sawyer, The Church on the Margins: Living Christian Community (Harrisburg: 

Trinity Press International, 2003), 87-88. 

63 Frederick Douglass, “A Few Facts and Personal Observations of Slavery: An Address Delivered 

in Ayr, Scotland on March 26, 1846,” in The Frederick Douglas Paper, Series One 

- Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, ed. John Blassingame (New Haven: Yale University 

Press, 1979), vol. 1. 

64 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins 

Publishers, 1995). Randall Robinson, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks (New York: 

Plume, 2000). 

65 Frederick Douglass, “Speech Before the West Indian Emancipation Society on August 4, 

1857,” in The Frederick Douglas Papers. Series One - Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, 

ed. John Blassingame (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), vol. 1. 

66 Randall Miller, Harry S. Stout and Charles R. Wilson, eds., Religion and the American Civil 

War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). 

67 Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (Baton 

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995). 

68 United Nations, “Fact Sheet No. 14: Contemporary Forms of Slavery” (New York: Office 

of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1991). http://www.ohchr.org/ 

english/about/publications/docs/fs14.htm.ibolish (2005). “Fact Sheet.” http://www.ibolish. 

com/today/factsheet.htm. 

21


22

Response to Scott Key’s “The Tragedy of 

Slavery: The Church’s Response” 

W. MARShAll JohNStoN 

Response to Scott Key’s “The Tragedy of Slavery” 

Students in my classes usually agree that Hallo and Simpson’s definition 

of history is the wisest way to take an evidence-based, inductive, positivist 

approach to the discipline they are studying: “a temporal analysis of causality 

through texts and other documentary remains of the past.” This definition 

nicely explains how we (or many of us) do history, and what distinguishes it 

as a discipline; however, a student in the discussion will often interject that 

he or she feels we should be able to learn lessons to illuminate the present 

if history is to have real value. After all, history itself—the discipline—is 

simply a matter of constant revision as methods and evidence change. I tend 

to see my own pursuit of history as purely reconstructive or inquiry-based, 

and I find myself blessed by student reminders of its larger function. I am 

blessed also to have been called upon to respond to an article that is similarly 

invested in using history to understand and educate the present; my colleague 

Scott Key (hereafter S.K.) and other faculty and students, in written 

and verbal exchanges, have shepherded me out of my parochial solipsism 

into an understanding of the need to see how each of our pursuits illuminates 

the present.* 

I heartily agree with S.K.’s conclusion and call to action. Slavery was and 

is a scourge. I would add that we can’t let the modern fascination with the 

perfectibility of man and belief in progress suggest that dangers of such evil 

institutions are past us—we must remain ever vigilant. We also must avoid 

whitewashing our own history because of a belief in American exceptionalism. 

S.K. points out the number of ways slavery still sears the modern world, 

a reality we in the West often fail to see in our own cities and fields: just last 

month there was the announcement of an Indonesian family held in slavery 

on Long Island. He is equally right about the unfortunate complicity of the 

church in the institution: as men lead the church, it is all too likely to be affected 

by the spirit of the day, and not look to the transforming spirit of the 

eternal truth. As to whether the state sponsorship of the church is especially 

to blame for such problems, I believe that is a subject for a separate study. 

Indeed, I think S.K.’s primary difficulties come in dealing with too big a 

picture. 

23


24 

In consideration of both the church and slavery, S.K.’s case would have 

been stronger if he had grounded his comment in clear definition. He addresses 

the history of slavery very broadly: from its ancient realities to the 

early modern transcontinental trade and its abolition by law. He enumerates 

forms of slavery from debt-bondage to serfdom to chattel status. It would 

be worthwhile to focus how he is defining the broad term, and then to explain 

the nuances of how the institution has functioned through the years. 

It is common practice among us ancient historians to define slavery in the 

ancient world as, “being in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Though 

slavery was indeed often a terrible condition, especially in such places as 

mines and quarries, it does give a different context to comments like those of 

Paul—there was not a clear belief that slavery was a lower status on a chain 

of being. 

If we look to slavery among the Greeks and Romans, we find that some 

realities of the condition illuminate the more recent form of the institution 

by contrast. The Greeks believed they should not enslave other Greeks, but 

even that idea was imperfectly followed. In any event, in the ancient world 

slaves were visually indistinguishable from free people. It certainly was the 

case that barbarians were thought more appropriate for slavery, but they were 

still valued for their ethnic origin and skills. Persian subjects, for example, 

were considered especially servile primarily because their land lacked the 

freedom of Greek city-states; as Aristotle said, man is an animal that belongs 

in a polis (a uniquely Greek way of living). 

In the Roman world slaves could be educators and run households perfectly 

comfortably within their social system. The Romans understood the 

advantages of a Greek education: as a Roman poet said, when Greece was 

conquered by Rome, she in turn conquered the conqueror. Slaves frequently 

could win or work to their freedom, and they were at times paid a small 

amount: the word “peculiar” derives from the slave’s purse. Thus, while 

slavery was usually bad luck, it did not always mean a bad life. 

My upbringing in the American South has made clear to me how different 

the status of slaves in this country was from what had prevailed elsewhere in 

history. To this day (and even more so in my youth) there is still an attempt 

to explain what had happened in the time of slavery and Jim Crow by means 

of convenient fictions. We have—in many cases also to this day—ignored 

the role of the Klu Klux Klan in our cities and towns. When I have heard 

southerners talk about the institution and its aftermath, I have encountered 

tortured efforts to ameliorate what happened: “in the South no one minded


living near a black person, they just wouldn’t elect them to office. In the 

North, blacks gained office, but were ghettoized.” Of course the reality is 

that—again, to this day–there are communities of blacks near southern towns 

that are essentially living in subsistence conditions. This result of slavery has 

yielded another offensive rationalization in the South: the slaves (and exslaves 

under Jim Crow) “need our help” to run their lives and households. 

Of course I should point out that the North was complicit in these social 

conditions by having effectively condemned the South—blacks and whites 

alike—to a century of poverty. 

Thus, the legacy of what a race-based slavery has done to us makes for a 

very troubled prism through which to look at the history of the institution. It 

is often said that we historians look into the well of time and see ourselves— 

our preconceptions—looking back up, and the understanding of slavery is 

an example of this problem. Though slavery was throughout history an unfortunate 

social status, how it was practiced in this country and in the “New 

World” was a very different matter. This practice may have been socially, 

historically, and geographically determined (according to some modern theoretical 

approaches), but nonetheless it gives us cause to be aware of how 

blind and destructive human institutions can be. We at FPU experienced how 

the sequel to slavery and the church continues to be a baneful influence this 

semester: a student who was trying to understand African-American history 

in the U.S., when asked how the vast majority of that community could be 

Christian, could only respond that current society is constructed in such a 

way that the identification can’t be avoided. 

The realities of American slavery of course make the church’s complicity 

even more reprehensible, and they call us to be even more aware of ways 

in which the church might continue to use its interpretation of Scripture to 

treat minority groups unfairly. S.K. is very wise to point out that the church 

was not monolithic in its complicity. I would like to have seen him dwell 

more on how Scripture was used to support slavery, though he does get at 

the basic method: a confusion of the social conditions of the New Testament 

period with the transcendent message of Scripture. I would like to see, however, 

an overview of how the “curse of Ham” could gain the currency it did. 

Certainly such inquiry would provide a useful background to discuss issues 

in the present church such as the roles of women and the poor: S.K. nicely 

touches upon the radical message of Jesus in this area. 

If we are to understand our role as Christians dealing with a history of 

acceding to this institution, we should first look to the evangelist Matthew 

25


26 

and understand that a blind legalism may well lead us astray when the Holy 

Spirit requires of us a higher calling. Matthew would have us not simply 

proof-text the law, but exceed it as followers of Christ. The dangers of not 

doing so are illustrated by our spiritual ancestors, the Hebrews: while they 

seem to have had an idea that all Hebrews had an equal role in the covenant, 

they nonetheless allowed forms of Hebrew slavery within some limitations. 

Then, by the time of the eighth-century prophets, it seems that the rich had 

sidelined the role and identity of the poor in the polity. There had come to 

be an idea that certain people were “less Hebrew”—and the kingdoms had 

prophets to speak the truth on the matter, much to our enlightenment if we 

have ears to hear. 

S.K. also could more specifically define what we should think of as the 

church. He points out that at times the hierarchy of the church was indistinguishable 

from state interests. It is, however, the case that the idea of the 

monolithic Church is a tough one to use historically. He speaks of a change 

from the church of the martyrs to a state religion: that change was equally 

as much—at least conceptually—a change to a church of ascetics and missionaries 

as it was to a state organ. Though Constantine liked the idea of 

organizing the church by state parameters, and that organization is visible to 

this day in dioceses and hierarchy, he was unsuccessful, for example, in his 

main goal at Nicaea: agreement on core theology. 

Perhaps if S.K. had said that at various times institutional churches—Roman 

Catholic, Protestant, or Anglican (he only touches upon the Eastern 

Churches)—involved in colonization had complicity in allowing practices 

that were seldom adequately resisted (he does cite some good examples of 

resistance to the zeitgeist), we would have a little more ground for agreement. 

However, how the complicity worked is a little slippery: S.K. points 

out that the popes were often quite anti-slavery in their views, and clearly 

had little control a world away. I guess my largest concern here is that the 

church is the body of all believers: He indeed calls us to be one and to work 

for His Kingdom. And yet we are fallen people. Thus there will always be 

institutional tension between the prophetic and the worldly. 

The profit motive for slavery is a further area in which I would like to 

see S.K. more robustly support his ideas. He takes as source material very 

speculative, and theoretically driven, authors such as J. Diamond and H. 

Zinn, and we do not get a clear idea of why, or if, their narratives are compelling. 

In the ancient world the emergence of gigantic farms (usually called 

latifundia) in the Hellenistic period initially led to big slave economies, but


it is generally agreed that these farms in the early Roman empire tended to 

become share-cropped (to use a modern term), because it was cheaper to pay 

a pittance to a semi-free person than take care of a slave. Now, this concern 

might have been lessened by the supply of slaves brought to the New World, 

but even if so, can profit be the entire explanation? 

For a piece with which I very much agree, I obviously have a few reservations, 

but I’m sure many can be seen as quite idiosyncratic. I would, for 

example, not use decades-old textbooks to support points unless the piece 

was overtly historiographic (that would be an interesting study!). I also fear 

that without firmer grounding in the primary sources and treatment of the 

differences among epochs, the piece appears encyclopedic rather than argumentative 

or advocatory, and it seems clear that S.K. wants (quite correctly) 

to convey advocacy and admonition. I commend S.K. for the hard work he 

has done bringing together this history, and I hope to see this conversation 

continue as we consider the church and its relation to slavery. I am most 

intrigued by how we can learn from the rationalizations that were used for 

slavery in order to listen to what the Holy Spirit is telling us about the church 

today. 

* In carrying out this response, I am indebted not only to the hard work of Scott Key, but also 

to incisive review by, critique from, and conversation with Pamela Johnston, Richard Rawls, 

Rod Janzen, and Daniel Crosby. 

27


28

The Two Faces of Racism—Undeserved 

Discrimination and Undeserved Privilege 

ZENEBE ABEBE 

Note: This article was originally envisioned as a collaborative effort with 

Mary Ann Larsen-Pusey. Soon after we began work, on the morning of July 

14, 2005, Mary Ann was found slain in her home. She was passionate about 

racism and taught a class on the topic for many years. I will always remember 

her strong interest in the topic and her support. I wish to dedicate this 

article to her. 

“So God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created 

them; male and female he created them.” Gen. 1:27 (NRSV) 

Introduction 

The Two Faces of Racism 

This article is about racism within the context of Christianity’s influence 

in the world. Given the breadth of the subject matter discussed, I will begin 

with several rhetorical questions. First, since Christianity’s emergence some 

two millennia ago, how have Christians, particularly those in positions of 

power, viewed persons not sharing the same external physical characteristics? 

What role did the construct of race play in Christianity’s approach to 

such persons over the centuries? Though there is no specific biblical reference 

to race as a way to classify humans, institutional Christianity has had a 

mixed record on the issue of race. The Scriptures only speak of tribe, people, 

language, and nation, not of race. 

I propose to show how institutional Christianity has both supported and 

opposed racism. I also want to probe the confusing stance many Christians 

today continue to take in their approach toward people who have been defined 

in some way as being from a different racial group. Since racism continues 

to be a pervasive and chronic problem in this country, 1 the aim here is 

not only to look at what happened in the past, but also at the current climate 

of racism in the United States. The broad spectrum of opinion quoted in this 

article may be provocative, but it represents the range of experiences and 

expressions of racism today. Racism, both within and outside of the church, 

continues to be a painful reality for people of color. White Americans need 

to realize that the Civil Rights movement has not wiped out racism. Racism 

is alive and well and continues to disrupt the daily lives of people of color. 

29


30 

In this article I will define race and racism; trace the influence of Christianity, 

the responses of Christians as individual believers and of the church 

as an institution to this tragedy; delineate how race is used as a tool for both 

evil and good; and finally, I will examine the effects of racism in our world 

both on the victims and on the perpetrators. 

In the Christian Scriptures one can find a rejection of identifying believers 

on the basis of race or any other category. From Genesis to Revelation, 

God’s position on anti-racism has been documented. Perhaps drawing inspiration 

from the creation of mankind in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) numerous 

Christian passages (Acts 17: 26, Galatians 3:28-29, Ephesians 2:11-18, 

and Revelation 7:9) show that God’s plan was for people to live without dividing 

walls, that together they would bring glory to Him. While there have 

been instances of racism throughout the world, the focus of this article will 

be on the racist ideologies of Westerners through the centuries and racism 

in the United States in particular within the context of the modern Western 

constructions of race. The impact of this upon the Christian churches cannot 

be ignored. 

What is racism? 

The term race as a category primarily referring to skin color was first used 

by Francois Bernier, a French physician, in 1684. This was during a period 

of European expansionism throughout the world and helped European 

countries justify their domination of people in the burgeoning empires. Early 

categories included labels such as Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid. 2 The 

term white was first used in 1691. This terminology replaced earlier designations 

of people by nationality or ethnic group. By the 1700s, race began to 

supplant the prior division of humans as either Christian or pagan. It was 

during this same period that Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German naturalist 

and anthropologist, divided the human species into five races: Caucasian 

or white race, Mongolian or yellow race, Malayan or brown race, 

Negro or black race, and American or red race. Color labels such as red, 

brown, and yellow, black, and white persist in the English language of the 

Western (Christian) world. 

We see that these classifications persist in the twenty-first-century Christian 

churches. The Myth of Race 3 classifies race as: Caucasoid (Caucasian or 

white from Mt. Caucus), Negroid (black), Mongoloid (yellow from Mongolia) 

and Australoid (brown from Australia). As in this video and elsewhere, 

the shift from geographical to a hierarchical ordering of human diversity 

has to be the most dangerous transition in the history of Western science.


However, today, the term race/racism is not only designed to divide people 

by color from whites socially, but it is used to confuse and divide and to 

insure domination by whites. It is a tool to provide opportunities, power, and 

privileges for whites and to systematically marginalize and provide nothing 

but disadvantage to people of color. 

For instance, in working with students, I find that most of them confuse 

the terms race, diversity, ethnicity, culture, and nationality, as well as prejudice 

and racism. I believe that they are not alone in this confusion. Census 

Bureau surveys use terms that include race (black, white, Negro, Caucasian), 

as well as ones that relate to ethnicity, culture, or national origin (Hispanic, 

Asian, Asian Pacific, Mexican, Mexican American, etc.). Therefore, it is important 

to have a clear understanding of the term race and how it differs from 

culture, ethnicity, or nationality. 

According to Katz & Taylor, in the 1937 edition of Webster’s unabridged 

dictionary, the word racism was not even included. By 1949, however, it 

clearly had entered into the lexicon, probably because of the racist philosophy 

of Nazi Germany. In the 1949 edition of Webster’s Intercollegiate Dictionary, 

the term is defined as the “assumption of inherent racial superiority 

or the purity and superiority of certain races and consequent discrimination 

against other races.” 4 

At the core of the race-related issues is the difference between individual 

prejudice and the institutional advantage of one group over others. Joseph 

Barndt has defined racism as “race prejudice plus power.” 5 I believe, as others 

do, that there cannot be racism without power. Here, I am talking about 

a misuse of institutional power that makes the impact of racism highly consequential. 

Caleb Rosado 6 not only sees racism as the most important and 

persistent social problem in America and in the world today, but he makes a 

clear distinction between prejudice and racism: “Racism goes beyond prejudice 

(an attitude) to structure this power advantage politically, economically, 

culturally and religiously within a social system, whether it be simple (as in 

personal bias) or complex (as in the role apartheid played in South Africa), 

which gives social advantage to some at the expense of others perceived to 

be inferior and undeserving.” 

All humans have prejudices. We hold preferences that steer us toward that 

which is familiar rather than to that which is exotic or foreign. Most of us 

also tend to form our judgments about others without extensive knowledge. 

Given the dynamics of social patterns that are the legacy of institutionalized 

racism in the Western world, it is not surprising that most people do 

not know people from cultural or ethnic groups other than their own. In this 

31


32 

sense, prejudice is not the same as racism. Perhaps we can simply say that 

prejudicial attitudes could be limited to an individual behavior, but racism 

in the words of Barndt is, “a collective responsibility rather than personal 

guilt.” 7 The collective responsibility becomes institutional responsibility— 

what we call today institutional racism. 

Most social institutions suffer from the legacy of “institutionalized racism.” 

Constantine & Wang Sue 8 and others have described institutional 

racism as racism that is embedded in our social structures, granting different 

treatment to groups of human beings based on skin color and physical 

features. There is ample evidence that in all social institutions (health care, 

economics, education, etc.) people of color receive inferior treatment than 

people who are considered “white” (Hacker, Obama, West). 9 For example, 

in the United States, the study of disease concentrates on illnesses that afflict 

primarily “white people,” with less attention granted to diseases of people of 

color. In the field of education, it means that less-experienced teachers and 

fewer resources are provided to schools that are predominantly composed of 

students of color. Economically speaking, people of color pay higher interest 

rates when securing loans, pay higher prices for consumer goods, and are 

less likely to hold positions of power in industry, education, and business. 

Frequently, they are the last ones hired and the first ones fired. 

Racism is about economics, although its roots and results are also deeply 

cultural. In addition, he states that racism has extensive psychological, sexual, 

religious, and political repercussions. As demonstrated by Adelman, 10 

there is no known scientific measurement to define race. We also know that 

the Bible does not recognize the term race. However, for the most part, the 

outcome of the research is no more than politically and socially motivated 

investigation, without any useful scientific information about race. Plous 11 

noted that throughout the past century, research on prejudice has closely 

reflected the ideological leanings of society, telling us as much about the 

personal biases of the scientific community as about prejudice itself. 

As documented by Barndt, Lang, Obama, and Constantine & Wing Sue, 12 

persons of color (African American, Asian American, Native American, and 

Latinos) in the United States encounter daily mistreatment and discrimination 

simply because of color of their skin. When it comes to employment, education, 

and public services, this group receives less recognition and benefit 

compared to white people in this country. Whether they are at government 

institutions, private or church-related institutions, or public institutions, the 

treatment is the same. It is not unusual to hear persons of color complaining

about a multitude of barriers keeping them from obtaining positions at all 

levels in companies, corporations, and higher education institutions. Stithcalls 

this condition “the glass ceiling.” 13 The glass ceiling as described by 

Stith is an artificial barrier, based on attitudinal or organizational bias, that 

prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organizations 

into management level positions. Since such treatment of people of color is 

practiced by institutions, there is no one individual to blame. Ethnicity, nationality, 

and race play a role in preventing persons of color from achieving 

their God-given potential. 

Christianity’s mixed record on race 


Historical examination reveals how Christians have differed in the nature 

of interaction with those not of their own group. They have based their actions, 

including empire building, on both their interpretation of Scripture and 

their worldview as influenced by other factors such as culture and ethnicity. 

The Crusades were fought in the name of Christ. The “conversion” and 

enslavement of indigenous people of the western hemisphere was done with 

the cross in one hand and the sword in the other. The English colonists readily 

slaughtered indigenous peoples of North America as they sought their 

conversion to Christianity. (Of course, many more were also killed by diseases.) 

Many Christians justified enslavement of people with black skin as 

being in accordance with God’s will. During the Civil War, many Christian 

groups supported slavery and opposed its abolition. During the era of Jim 

Crow in the United States, the “white” church seldom took an open stand 

against the separate and unequal treatment of blacks in the South or the discriminatory 

housing and education policies in the North. 

On the other hand, there were English colonists who treated the indigenous 

peoples with dignity and respect in the name of Christ. A Catholic 

bishop, Bartolome de las Casas, criticized the Spanish crown for its treatment 

of indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, this had the inadvertent result 

of increasing the African slave trade. In 1688, Pennsylvania Mennonites 

were the very first in colonial America to protest the buying and selling 

of African slaves as a violation of the Ten Commandments. In the 1800s, 

Christian groups such as the Quakers spoke out against slavery, and many 

of the abolitionists were avowed Christians. In the twentieth century, the 

Civil Rights movement was based on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s interpretation 

of Christian teachings. 

So why do Christians have such a mixed record in regard to racism? Let 

us examine further the origins of the construct of race as we know it today. 

33


34 

Eloise Hiebert Meneses 14 notes that nineteenth-century anthropologists, 

influenced by Darwinian evolutionary theories, searched for similar explanations 

regarding human physiological morphology. Just as biologists were 

classifying previously unknown species of plants and animals, anthropologists 

(Christian or not) attempted to classify populations of people according 

to physiological differences. 

Today, society continues this practice of dividing humans into categories 

based on skin color and physical features, despite recent discoveries that 

DNA structures reveal a greater difference within racial groups than between 

groups. 15 

A growing body of research has indicated that race is no longer a physiological 

reality; however, race continues to exist as a social construct. Over 

one hundred years have passed since Darwin’s theory appeared in The Descent 

of Man. 16 Today scientific studies clearly have shown that the race 

theory is cultural rather than biological. However, white people continue to 

benefit from race classification or the “whiteness” ideology. In the words of 

Hacker: 

Hence the weights Americans have chosen to give to race, in particular 

to the artifact of “whiteness,” which set a floor on how far people of that 

complexion can fall. No matter how degraded their lives, white people 

are still allowed to believe that they possess the blood, the genes, the 

patrimony of superiority. No matter what happens they can never become 

“black.” White Americans of all classes have found it comforting 

to preserve blacks as a subordinate caste: a presence, which despite all 

its pain and problems, still provides white with some solace in a stressful 

world. 17 

Just as Hacker did, other scholars and social activists in the field of race 

and racism continue to show that the majority of white people in this country 

not only believe on the superiority of whiteness, but they also understand the 

benefit that comes by supporting the institutionalization of the idea. 

A PBS documentary Race: the Power of an Illusion 18 revealed that most 

of us continue to believe that people have innate biological differences, that 

we enter this world divided into categories of red, black, white, or yellow. 

This particular program follows a dozen students, including African American 

athletes and Asian string players, who sequence and compare their own 

DNA. The participants of the study were surprised by the results. They said, 

“One by one, our myths and misconceptions about racial differences are tak-


en apart...” This documentary suggests that when looking at skin color differences, 

disease, human evolution, even genetic traits, we learn there is not one 

characteristic, one trait, or even a single gene that distinguishes all members 

of one race from another. The Apostle Paul speaking to the people of Athens 

affirmed the idea “one humanity” in Acts 17:26, when he said: “From one 

person God made every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, and 

he decided the allotted times and the boundaries of their habitation.” 

Yet due to this fabricated idea race, Christian churches and many of their 

members still believe in and practice racial separation. Dr. King, speaking 

from his experience, said: “It is appalling that the most segregated hour of 

Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning, the same hour when 

many are standing to sing in Washington.” Segregation was so prevalent that 

in 1964, the National Council of Churches formed a commission on religion 

and race to work on desegregation of the northern mainline churches. 

Findlay 19 states that the program never got off the ground and in less than a 

year it disappeared altogether. He further notes that this was testimony to the 

powerful presence of racism in northern communities, through it manifested 

itself more openly and forcefully in the South. This philosophy of separation 

is rooted in the ideology of tolerance rather than acceptance. It is not hard to 

imagine that segregation is fueled and encouraged by institutional racism. 

Today there is debate on whether Christianity is a segregated religion. 

Barndt 20 asserts the fact of racial separation. Schmidt, 21 on the other had, 

declares that Christianity is not a segregated religion. The NBC Evening 

News on September 24, 2000, reminded Americans that in parts of the United 

States institutionalized racism clearly continues to be the law of the land. 

For some of us with close ties to denominations and church agencies, we 

know that today’s church-related institutions would not escape the blame of 

institutional racism, for they, too, have been using their “institutional” power 

to marginalize, exploit, and control people of color for years. Stith asserts 

the lingering effect of such institutionalized racism in this way: 

…Blacks and other minorities are still feeling the symptoms of “institutional 

racism.” For more than four hundred years racism has existed 

in our country. It consists of written and unwritten laws and public 

policy designed to discriminate against black and other minorities. It 

was known as institutional racism because it was acknowledged and 

openly practiced by reputable institutions including public and private 

business, law enforcement, colleges, government officials and agencies… 

22 

35


36 

Whites are socialized to be racist through a public discourse that continually 

bombards them with the desirability of whites (Barndt, Constantine 

& Wing Sue). 23 Even though there are governmental laws against the 

violation of equal opportunity policies, individual and institutional racism 

still persist. 

I admit that for persons of color, confronting individual, institutional, or 

cultural racism is not an easy task. Similarly, Christians avoid mentioning 

racism as sin and a misinterpretation of God’s teaching. Moreover, the issue 

of race in America is a sensitive topic that many people prefer to avoid. No 

one wants to be called a racist. As Clarence Page wrote in Mazel: “Racism 

is a sensitive word. Americans often avoid mentioning it, even when it is relevant...it 

is a sensitive word because it exposes so much, institutionally and 

personally. It is a Rorschach word, a linguistic inkblot test. How you define 

it reveals something important about you, how you see the world and your 

place in it.” 24 

Rosado asserts that racism consists of the culturally sanctioned strategies 

that defend the advantages of power, privilege, and prestige. To this 

end he writes: “Ever since the European restructuring of the world from the 

sixteenth century on, racism has become affirmative action for whites. It is 

both an attitude and an act of structural superiority, which justifies its very 

existence by given biological differences such as language, religion, ethnicity, 

or accent a negative value and meaning” 25 

Racism goes beyond prejudice and discrimination. I believe, as others do, 

that racism is an ideology that transcends even bigotry, hatred, and violence. 

It is an assumption through which whites have used economic and political 

advantage for centuries at the expense of people of color. For the most part, 

white individuals are supported and encouraged by the current system that 

exploits the privilege that comes with whiteness. As Manning Marable is 

quoted as saying, “whiteness in a racist, corporate-controlled society is like 

having the image of an American Express Card…stamped on one’s face: 

immediately you are ‘universally accepted.’” 26 This clearly illustrates the 

complexity of racism today, how settled and hidden it is and how difficult 

for people of color to do any thing about the problem. When people of color 

are asked to define racism, they tend to list institutions and systems that deny 

them education, employment opportunities, and upward mobility where they 

work. This does not mean individuals are not capable of racism. 

the effect of racism 

It is not difficult to understand the impact of racism on people of color in


the United States and elsewhere in the world. Historically, it has involved the 

way society has designed the government and non-governmental institutions 

to exclude people of color. Katz & Taylor are particularly direct when writing 

about some of the historical effects of racism on all people: 

Many American groups have suffered discrimination in various forms. 

But once again, the phenomenon for blacks is different, made so by 

their being the only group to experience the confluence of race, slavery, 

and segregation. It is race, as socially defined by British tradition, that 

defines black American… 27 

The problem of racism generally speaking, and what it did to people of 

color in particular, is not only historical, but as Joe Klein reported in TIME, 

the problem persists. According to Klein white racism is the original American 

sin; it helped create the culture of poverty that existed in places like New 

Orleans’ Ninth Ward. He goes on to say that “George W. Bush’s Republican 

Party was reborn in racism, having sided with Southern segregationists in 

the 1960.” 28 Racism is entrenched in social systems and institutions such as 

schools, government agencies, banks, and church organizations. In the words 

of Mazel: “Racism is not simply about the attitudes, dislikes and motivation 

of individuals or individual acts of bigotry and discrimination. Instead, racism 

refers to the way society as a whole is arranged, and how the economic, 

educational, cultural and social rewards of that society are distributed. It is 

about collective injustice.” 29 

While racism does not negatively affect whites as much as it does people 

of color, the effect of racism on whites is more perceptual and has little effect 

in their lives. As a result, some are unable to see all the tragedies that 

the black community has suffered. Racism has created a white blindness 

that cannot grasp the impact of racism. Many cannot see a problem with the 

current state of racial relations, and simply believe that blacks are in charge 

of their own destiny. As one student in class put it, “Many whites feel that 

African Americans are ‘milking’ the slavery issue and that the civil rights 

movement has eliminated the woes of the African Americans.” There is a 

tendency to mistakenly believe that racism is the problem of the past and that 

blacks and whites have no reason not to live together in peace. On account of 

such assumptions and mindset, there is a racial gap between black and white 

that does not exist between any other races in the United States. Many white 

Americans will never fully understand the crisis that exists or even begin to 

imagine the crisis, because they do not feel the impact of inequality caused 

by racism. Some even may say they are not aware how it operates in our 

37


38 

current world. Because racism hides itself very effectively, white people can 

live their lives without even noticing any racism. There is a need to somehow 

dispel the myth of racism’s demise so that all people, black and white, 

realize that racism is still a very strong force in our society. 

Writers and social activists alike have documented that the effects of racism 

on people of color, regardless of the time period in this country’s history, 

remain the same. The effect of such injustice is white supremacy, with its 

uneven distribution of privilege and wealth. These injustices are, of course, 

readily perceived and decried by people of color. Gerzon quoted a seventyyear-old 

African American, Sherwood Sanders, who stated: 

I believed, in essence, that there was a white power structure that existed 

off the blood, sweat, and tears of black people. I didn’t think about other 

races much at the time. It was a kind of modern, urban slavery. Whites, 

as I saw it, were either evil or incapable of feeling. They don’t know, or 

don’t want to know, the pain and suffering that they are causing … 30 

Meanwhile, today’s racism at the institutional level, although perhaps less 

blatant and more sophisticated, results in a painful reality for persons of 

color. Church-related or not, institutional racism is everywhere and it cuts 

across the board. 

At some church-related higher education institutions, attempts to introduce 

anti-racism training and diversity training have not only failed, but 

frequently have been undermined. A case in point is that at the time of this 

writing, I wish to reflect on my employment history of 20-plus years at 

church-related higher education institutions. I know too much to be quiet, 

am too connected not to care, and I am passionate about the issue. I am a 

member of Mennonite Church USA. Through the years, I have expressed 

my concerns about the issue of racism to my colleagues, and to presidents, 

deans, and board chairs. I have not only spoken about the evil of racism, but 

have taught classes, planned workshops, and conducted anti-racism trainings. 

Because of the passive-aggressive tendencies within my church culture 

and because of my academic freedom, I have not been silenced; however, 

my voice has not readily been heard. 

My church, Mennonite Church USA, and the denomination that operates 

Fresno Pacific University, Mennonite Brethren, have talked more than 

most about addressing racism from the perspective of peace and justice. But 

I have also discovered that, church owned or not, there is no noticeable 

difference in the behavior of institutions when it comes to racism. A report 

from Mennonite Education Agency, which oversees six church colleges and 

universities, revealed that in the past 100 years, none of these colleges/universities 

and seminaries: 31

• Has had a person of color as a president. 

• Has a person of color serving at the president’s cabinet level. 

• Not one of them has a person of color serving as chair on the board of trustees. 

• There are only three persons of color with full-time tenured faculty status 

in all eight church institutions. 


The student population in the two denominational church-owned college/ 

universities and seminaries (total of nine) reflects even greater disparity: 

• Only one university (because of its geographical location) has about 25 

percent of its student population made up of Latino students. 

• The other eight institutions barely show more than 3-5 percent of the student body 

populations who come from any one of the student of color groups in any given year. 

While there are well-qualified, highly-educated people of color with years 

of experience at these church institutions, top leadership continues to be 

occupied overwhelmingly by white males. I observed that these top-level 

positions are traditionally filled, for the most part, by less educated, less experienced 

white males aged 40-50. In my opinion, this clearly is institutional 

racism that contributes to the promotion of white supremacy. 

When I contacted the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, an 

association of evangelical institutions, for similar data, my findings are even 

more revealing: 

• Out of 120 institutions in the United States, there are no persons of color serving 

as president. 

• Only five persons of color are at chief academic dean’s level (three African American 

and two Asian American). 

This data shows that the leadership of church colleges and universities remains 

in the hands of white people and is systematically segregated in many 

ways. When I reviewed the mission statements of some church institutions, 

all seem to suggest that they are about preparing leaders for the church and 

the world. That is, of course, well and good in theory; however, the question 

then is what church and which world? Will these institutions continue to 

think of leadership in “the white church or white world”? 

A truly modeled, Christian-rooted leadership must be about change that 

corrects past mistakes, gives hope to the hopeless, and promotes equality 

and peace and justice for all. Johnnetta B. Cole stated best it when she said, 

“Leadership is about decisions and the speed with which one can follow a 

wrong one by making one that works.” 

While most writers on race-related issues have focused on people of color, 

a few are beginning to document the effect racism has on white people. Jo- 

39


40 

seph Barndt wrote about this impact. 32 His work served as the basis for the 

Damascus Road training as it was developed by Crossroads Ministry for the 

Mennonite Church. This approach agrees with a discussion by Cornel West. 

He says: “To engage in a serious discussion of race in America, we must 

not begin with the problem of black people, but with the flaws of American 

society, flaws rooted in historic inequalities and longstanding cultural stereotypes.” 

33 

As I discuss more and explore the effect of racism with white friends who 

are concerned about the evils of racism, it is not unusual to hear guilt-loaded 

comments or confessional speeches. Some come right out and say how 

guilty they feel about their white privilege. Some tell powerful stories from 

their experiences, and the way they feel now. Nothing more is revealing 

than the words of McIntosh: “As a white person, I realized I had been taught 

about racism as something which puts others at a disadvantage, but had been 

taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts 

me at an advantage.” 34 There is evidence to suggest that some whites have 

moved beyond guilt and are involved in anti-racism work, joining hands 

with people of color to make a difference for the new generation. People are 

beginning to notice racism’s impact on white people and a few white brothers 

and sisters are even taking leadership in some anti-racist endeavors. 

For example, Barndt wrote, “…we will become aware of the ways 

in which racism hurts and destroys us, and how it uses us to hurt and destroy 

others.” 35 A student in my “Analysis of Racism and Power” class 

explained the effect of racism this way: “Many white Americans will 

never fully understand the crisis that exists or even know that a crisis exists, 

because they are not feeling the inequality biases of our society.” 

Another student stated: 

My eyes were opened to a problem I hardly realized still existed. I’m 

embarrassed to say that prior to the class I thought racism was a problem 

of the past. Little did I know that even though it is now illegal to 

discriminate based on race, a more dangerous and more lethal form of 

racism has emerged since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. 36 

The following are additional unedited quotes from “Analysis of Racism 

and Power,” a course I taught during the past six years at two Mennonite 

institutions. The ongoing effect of racism on all people came alive when our 

students began to reflect on their experiences in a weekly journal that they 

kept. Their reaction to correct information or misinformation, fears, frustrations, 

hope or the lack of it, in their own world is surprising:

“I have to strip away all the propaganda that has been fed to me for years so I can start 

from the beginning.” 

“Learning more about white privilege has helped me understand my own 

experience of racism better.” 

“It is hard to focus on the hope for change when dealing with such a massive dilemma.” 

“I’d like to do the impossible, which would be to pair everybody up with someone of 

another race and make him or her hang out and be friends.” 

“Perhaps the best way for me to combat the hopeless feelings that America’s racial 

situation today leave me with is to dive in and get involved.” 

“I think it is a problem when our institutions follow and abide by constitutional practice, 

yet do not find all people with equal opportunity.” 

“It was fascinating for me to learn that scripture seems to not only denounce anything 

along the lines of racism, but race is not even a concept.” 

“Now I know why Malcolm X had such a deep hate for us Christian whites.” 


Based upon these reflections, I recognize that racism is not simply a temporary 

belief that one will outgrow, but rather it is a hard-core ideology 

passed from generation to generation that preserves white power, unearned 

rights, and undeserved privileges. It is a learned behavior that is generally 

unnoticed by its beneficiaries until they examine it more thoroughly. However, 

it is clear that recognizing and dealing with racism may be a painful experience 

for both whites and people of color, but racist thinking is a behavior 

that can be unlearned. 

For example, Yancey witnessed the evil treatment of African Americans by 

whites in the 1960s. He describes the lingering effects of racism on himself as 

a white observer: 

Today I feel shame, remorse and also repentance. It took years for God to 

break the stranglehold of blatant racism in me—I wonder if any of us gets 

free of its more subtle forms—and I now see that sin as one of the most 

poisonous, which has perhaps the most toxic societal effect. When experts 

discuss the underclass in urban America, they blame in turn drugs, 

changing values, systemic poverty, and the breakdown of the nuclear 

family. Sometimes I wonder if all these problems are consequences of a 

deeper, underlying cause: our centuries-old sin of racism. 37 

When most people think of the problem of racism, some consider it a sin, 

and others simply brush it off, believing that it will go away. Of course, as 

41


42 

we have seen so far, racism is still a major societal problem that this country 

that has yet to deal with effectively. I believe that for Christian churches to 

support and culturally endorse race as a biological difference among God’s 

people is outright dishonest; worse yet, promoting “white supremacy” ideology 

is even immoral. Racism is a vocabulary that communicates not only 

ideology but a territory that limits certain people from reaching certain opportunities. 

Speaking of opportunities, (on November 26, 2004) reflecting 

on his past experience while narrating “Eyewitness to History,” Tom Brokaw 

framed the past and present state of racism in America this way: “When 

I first began my journalism career, if my skin color was one shade different 

from what is now, I know then, I would not have been given all the opportunities, 

and I couldn’t have gotten where I am now in my career. Things have 

not changed much now.” I believe what he said is true, and yet in my opinion 

what Mr. Brokaw told is only half of the story; about the other half, I am left 

to wonder whether he contributes to the problem or not. 

The influence of institutional Christianity 

I believe that Christianity is good for all of us if practiced as it was meant 

to be. Christianity must be about equality, healing, and hope. It is about making 

things right and working for justice for everyone. For example, as we 

recently witnessed, Christian organizations from nearly every denomination 

were actively involved in the recent Tsunami relief work, providing food, 

medical supplies, and housing to those in need. In addition, the impressive 

response by Christian churches and agencies coupled with non-governmental 

organizations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is further evidence of 

addressing racism. This outpouring of help and hope occurs in the name of 

Christianity after many other catastrophic events as well. 38 

However, as recently as 100 years ago nations colonized, enslaved, and 

exploited many people in the name of Christ. In the United States, social 

movements of the 1950s and 1960s made some progress in moving society 

toward an interest in social justice. Christian churches, however, limited 

their involvement and did little to create awareness of equity and justice 

for all. The notable exception was the Southern Christian Leadership 

Conference. 

Although Christianity may not be different than other faiths when it comes 

to social involvement and direct action, it is worth noting that in 1963 it was 

the Protestant churches and the National Council of Churches that first became 

supporters of “direct action” and direct involvement with the national 

black community in the struggle for racial justice. 39 However, in the United


States white Christians were seldom cognizant of or attentive to racism until 

the 1960s. 

Evidence suggests that Christianity as an institution has been the instigator 

of much injustice committed in the name of God. For example, as West 

states so eloquently: “as the Christian church became increasingly corrupted 

by state power, religious rhetoric was often used to justify imperial aims 

and conceal the prophetic heritage of Christianity.” 40 West further pointes 

out some of the Christian church’s collective past behavior: “…This terrible 

merger of church and state has been behind so many of the churches’ 

worst violations of Christian love and justice—from the barbaric crusades 

against Jews and Muslims to the horrors of the inquisition and the ugly bigotry 

against women, people of color, and gays and lesbians.” 41 

Perhaps the behavior of white churches in the South was best understood 

by Dr. King when he noted that white churches were uninvolved in the struggle. 

In King’s words, “…where were their voices when a black race took 

upon itself the cross of protest against man’s injustice to man? Where were 

their voices when defiance and hatred were called for by white men who sat 

in these very churches?” Out of his frustration Dr. King even questioned if 

white churchgoers of the South worshipped the same God he did. 

I recognize that individual Christians were involved in the civil rights 

movement and some even gave their lives. However, as an institution, the 

Christian church not only remained uninvolved, but continued to act on its 

racist views, showing little interest in the lives and well-being of people of 

color. In the words of Yancey: 

Yes, we have examples of St. Francis of Assisi trying to halt the Crusades, 

of monks who outdo Gandhi’s asceticism, of missionaries who 

serve the suffering, of Quakers and Anabaptists who oppose all violence. 

But by and large the history of European Christianity is the record 

of a church that relies on wealth, power, prestige, and even coercion 

and war to advance its cause. 42 

Jesse Jackson’s account of racism in the South is even more explicit. He 

notes that as recently as 35-40 years ago Christians remained loyal to the 

racist system, turning away from involvement in the Civil Rights movement. 

In Jackson’s words: 

… the insult of racial segregation remained an institution for nearly a century. 

Created by an economy of exploitation and greed, sustained by the politics of 

divide-and-rule, defended by the pronouncements of law that had no moral 

43


44 

foundation, nurtured by the religion of white supremacy, it was enforced, 

on a daily basis, by a police state. This is one of the fundamental lessons of 

the American national experience. (emphasis mine) 43 

Jackson’s observation is a good reminder that racism is imbedded in systems 

and institutions. The construct of race created false assumptions about 

the human condition. As a result racism and white supremacy flourished, giving 

rise to a great evil on the part of white Christians of the United States. 

In addition, it became a missed opportunity by Christians and Christianity 

to follow a biblical invitation (Romans 12:15-18) to live peaceably with all 

God’s people, without regard to human-created divisions. 

Today, the residual of racism may be present in many forms and in many 

countries. To some extent, however, Christians worldwide, particularly 

those from the West, will not escape the blame for the origin of racism in our 

society. Though slavery formally halted in the U.S with the ratifications of 

the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), degradation of people of color continues. 

Furthermore, white nations continue to exhibit oppressive behavior toward 

black ones, even today. The late Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia spoke 

against racism to world leaders. On October 4, 1963, he gave a speech to the 

United Nations, speaking out against racism: 

…until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior 

is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until 

there are no longer any first and second class citizens of any nations; 

that until the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the 

color of his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed 

to all—without regard to race—until that day, the dream of lasting 

peace and world citizenship and the role of international morality will 

remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained… 44 

Today, 44 years after Emperor Selassie Ethiopia appealed to the world 

nations, asking for equality of all people, racism is still spread widely across 

society and all institutions. White institutions, large and small, have the privilege 

to not let their guard down and disregard institutional racism for one 

simple reason: “power.” It is the misuse of collective power that makes racism 

work. As Dr. King once said, “There is nothing essentially wrong with 

power. The problem is American power is unequally distributed.” 

We have the opportunity to be part of the solution. As Christians, we are 

called to do something about it. Perhaps it is important to note that the process 

of dismantling racism cannot be done in a short period of time. The


fact that it existed for more than 500 years and that it is entrenched in history 

means that it may take a generation or longer. It may not be possible 

to redeem the nation from the sin of racism without dismantling racism. As 

Barndt says, “we cannot build a pluralistic society without tearing down the 

walls of racism.” 45 A multicultural institution may be a goal, but it will not 

be a possibility without eliminating institutional racism. 

Collectively, Christian churches must see un-doing racism as their vocation 

and promote peace and justice. Peace without justice will be a remote 

possibility in our time. In a world of today, we cannot continue to separate 

and isolate some because of the color of their skin. Christians are called not 

only to meet the spiritual needs of people, but the physical, social, and political 

needs of everyone. The mistakes and hurt of the past will take time to 

heal. The process of peace and healing from the sin of racism will even take 

longer, and we may run out of options, but now is the time to make things 

right. 

Conclusion 

I argue about the ever-persistent problem of racism in our nation and in the 

Christian churches. I also seek to encourage acknowledgment of the issue, 

solicit help in promoting greater understanding of racism, and request partnership 

in discontinuing its vicious cycle. Most of all, this is an invitation 

to all Christians and Christian institutions to re-examine their views of race 

and to begin to teach against the sin of racism for the purpose of healing 

and hope among all people. In addition, it is an invitation to respect and 

honor all of God’s children as equals and to live peaceably with all people. 

Perhaps the challenges to all of us will be how to respond to those who say 

“we are equal—there is no problem.” However, evidence shows that we are 

not equal in all things that matter: in the distributions of power, in the distribution 

of resources of income, and in the way we perceive whiteness and 

blackness in our society. 

We have the opportunity to repent of our sins and make it right. Christianity 

and the institutional church must embrace the task of reconciliation. It 

is possible to complete the unfinished work of the Christian Church and to 

engage humanity in the work of reconciliation. The time has come for the 

Christian church to begin institutional change and provide creative leadership 

that promotes love not hate, collaboration not selfishness, and most of 

all, human equality not superiority. As Dr. King said, “Light has come into 

the world, and every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of 

creative altruism or the darkness of destructiveness.” Christians have unique 

45


46 

opportunities to systemically change the way most white people control, use, 

and abuse the power of institutions they created and operate. The country is 

divided by wealth, race, and ethnicity due to practice of white supremacy. 

We need to think of an inclusive model of leadership that does not discriminate 

based on skin color. The persistence of human suffering, poverty, and 

inequality in “this so-called Christian nation” depends partly on the quality 

of future leadership that the Christian church provides. This new generation 

of leaders must be sensitive to the needs of all God’s people. Churches can 

and should begin the development of future leaders by identifying the problem 

of racism. I hope that the Christian church of today and its members are 

ready for the challenge, prepared to acknowledge past mistakes, and poised 

to move forward to develop a new generation of church leaders. 

Acknowledging and naming the problem will take us one step closer 

to finding the solution. A case in point: President George W. Bush, in his 

speech during the 50th anniversary of Supreme Court Decision Brown v. 

the Board of Education named the problem, and he said, “the habits of 

racism in America have not been broken.” His acknowledgment of a major 

societal issue by a national leader will give our country the impetus and 

legitimacy to change the pattern of entrenched racism. It will make it easier 

for people to discuss an issue that most people do not want to talk about 

publicly. Bush also appointed African American and other persons of color 

to key cabinet posts. 

Today it is not unusual to find churches and church institutions that oppress 

people of color by undermining their presence and disempowering 

them structurally. Recognizing and naming the problem may be the first 

positive step toward peace, but more is needed to dismantle the sin of racism. 

For Christians who believe in white supremacy to change, and for people 

of color to forgive, is to move in the right direction toward rebuilding 

the broken relationships. However, without change in the power structure, 

people of color cannot challenge the ideology of white supremacy in our 

culture. Central and critical to this anti-racism process is the transformation 

of the church and the church’s power structure. The church’s teaching 

the theology of peacemaking without providing the tools for anti-racism 

process is not sufficient. 

Finally, moving white Christians from being non-racist to engaging them 

in anti-racism endeavors will be difficult and will take a long time. Meaningful 

anti-racism work is possible if Christian churches will move away from a 

false biological identity, which is whiteness, and exclusive cultural identity, 

which is European, toward an inclusive theological and spiritual identity,

which is the family of God. In Acts 17:26, Paul provides such a model when 

he said in Athens: “From one ancestor he made every nation to inhabit the 

whole earth.” Now all Bible-reading Christians must face and confess if they 

don’t understand what is not included in the term “every”. Unless Christians 

choose to believe Scriptures selectively, the Bible is clear that the word 

“every” means all humans without labeling them by color. Racism that is 

not confronted will continue to harm all people and ultimately hinders our 

earthly goal: the expansion of God’s kingdom. It has been said that race may 

be an illusion but “racism” is real. 

NotES 

1 Madonna G. Constantine & Derald Wing Sue, ed., Addressing Racism: Facilitating Cultural 

Competence in Mental Heath and Educational Settings (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006). 

2 Berel Lang, ed., Race & Racism in Theory & Practice (New York: Rowman & Littlefield 

Publishers, Inc., 2000), 5. 

3 “The Myth of Race,” Damascus Road Anti-Racism Training Production (Akron: The 

Mennonite Central Committee, 2000). 

4 Phyllis A. Katz & Dalmas A. Taylor, ed., Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy (New 

York: Plenum Publishers 1998), 6. 

5 Joseph Barndt, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America 

(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991). 

6 Caleb Rosado, “The Web of Culture: Prejudice and Racism—the under girding actor is Power: 

Toward an Understanding of Prejudice and Racism,” http://www.rosado.net. 



8 Madonna G. Constantine & Derald Wing Sue, ed., Addressing Racism: Facilitating Cultural 

Competence in Mental Heath and Educational Settings (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006). 

9 Andrew Hacker, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal (New York: 

McMillan Publishing Company, 1992). “The Myth of Race,” Damascus Road Anti-Racism 

Training Production (Akron: The Mennonite Central Committee, 2000). Cornel West, Race 

Matters (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993). 

10 Larry Adelman, executive producer, C. Herbes-Sommers, episode producer, Race: The 

Power of an Illusion, PBS documentary, 2003 (Burlington: California Newsreel). 

11 Scott Plous, ed., Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (New York: McGraw-Hill, 

2003). 

12 Joseph Barndt, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America (Minneapolis: 

Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991). Madonna G. Constantine & Derald Wing Sue, 

ed., Addressing Racism: Facilitating Cultural Competence in Mental Heath and Educational 

Settings (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006). Berel Lang, ed., Race & Racism in Theory 

& Practice (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000). “The Myth of Race,” 

Damascus Road Anti-Racism Training Production (Akron: The Mennonite Central Committee, 

2000). 

13 Anthony Stith, Breaking the Glass Ceiling, Sexism & Racism in Corporate America: The 

Myth, The Realities & The Solution (Toronto & Los Angeles: Warwick Publishing, 1998). 

14 Elois H. Meneses, “Race and Ethnicity; an Anthropological Perspective,” Race, Sex and 

Class, (1994):137-146. 


47


48 

15 Larry Adelman, executive producer, C. Herbes-Sommers, episode producer, Race: The Power 

of an Illusion, PBS documentary, (Burlington: California Newsreel, 2003). 

16 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, ed. Robert Maynard 

Hutchins (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1952). 

17 Andrew Hacker, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal (New York: 

McMillan Publishing Company, 1992), 217. 

18 Larry Adelman, executive producer, C. Herbes-Sommers, episode producer, Race: The 

Power of an Illusion, PBS documentary, (Burlington: California Newsreel, 2003). 

19 James F. Findlay, Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and 

the Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 78. 



21 Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 

2001). 

22 Anthony Stith, Breaking the Glass Ceiling, Sexism & Racism in Corporate America: The 

Myth, The Realities & The Solution (Toronto & Los Angeles: Warwick Publishing, 1998), 64. 


(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991). Madonna G. Constantine & Derald Wing 

Sue, ed., Addressing Racism: Facilitating Cultural Competence in Mental Heath and 

Educational Settings (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006). 

24 Ella Mazel, And Don’t Call Me a Racist! (A Treasury of Quotes on the Past, Present, and 

Future of the Color Line in America) (San Francisco: Argonaut Press, 1998), 13. 

25 Caleb Rosado, “The Web of Culture: Prejudice and Racism—the under girding actor is 

Power: Toward an Understanding of Prejudice and Racism,” http://www.rosado.net, 3. 



27 Phyllis A. Katz & Dalmas A. Taylor, ed., Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy 

(New York: Plenum Publishers, 1998), 24. 

28 Joe Klein, “In the Arena: Let’s Have an Antipoverty Caucus,” TIME, October 3, 2005, 29. 



30 Mark Gerzon, A House Divided: Six Belief Systems Struggling for America’s Soul 

(New York: G.P. Putnam, 1996), 75. 

31 

In 2006 Fresno Pacific University named an African American to the position of Provost. 



33 Cornel West, Race Matters (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993), 3. 

34 Scott Plous, ed., Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (New York: McGraw-Hill, 

2003), 191. 


(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991), 66. 

36 Sarah Yoder, “Lesson from a class on racism and power,” The Mennonite, September 

2003, 16. 

37 Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church (New York: Doubleday, 

2001), 16. 

38 “The Myth of Race,” Damascus Road Anti-Racism Training Production (Akron: The 

Mennonite Central Committee, 2000).

39 James F. Findlay, Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and 

the Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 

40 Cornel West, Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism (New York: 

Penguin Press, 2004). 

41 Ibid., 148-49. 

42 Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 

162. 


43 Pete Seeger and Bob Reiser, Everybody Says Freedom (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), xi. 

44 Lance Seunarine, The Lion Roars: Selected Speeches and Letters of Haile Selassie 

(New York: Trican Books, 1998), xi. 



49


50

Response to Zenebe Abebe’s 

“The Two Faces of Racism” 

hoNoRA hoWEll ChAPMAN 

Response to Zenebe Abebe’s “The Two Faces of Racism” 

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free [person], nor is 

there masculine [thing] and feminine [thing]; for you all are one in Christ Jesus.” 

Galatians 3:28 

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and foreskin, barbarian, Scythian, 

slave, free [person], but all things and in all is Christ.” Colossians 3:11 1 

How many people these days think of themselves as a “foreskin”? Probably 

very few. And nowadays there aren’t many people, whether Christian 

or not, expressing pride in their Scythian roots, either. Ways of categorizing 

people in the West have definitely changed in the last two thousand years. 

There are, however, many today who identify with the other categories Paul 

delineates in his exhortations to unity within the burgeoning Christian communities 

of the mid-first century. As his letters attest, Paul was passionate 

about stamping out divisiveness. 

In Paul’s vision of a church of the new creation (Galatians 6:15), there 

simply cannot exist distinctions based on ethnicity, physical and gender 

characteristics, or political status. In fact, for him the unity of the church 

as one body in Christ absolutely depends upon this rejection of superficial 

differences. It’s not that Paul is trying to deny the physicality of his fellow 

believers; instead, he is pressing them to look beyond these banal categorizations 

of their physical existence and to embrace what makes them ultimately 

special: their spiritual belief in Jesus as the Christ. Despite the clarity of 

Paul’s message on this point, institutionalized Christian churches and their 

related organizations, such as universities, have found ways to marginalize 

or exclude people based on the very distinctions that Paul sought to downplay 

for the sake of unity. 

Zenebe Abebe has clearly shown how the construction of race by skin 

color as a categorical definition of humanity since the seventeenth century 

has had an insidious effect upon the lives of people who have not fallen into 

the “white” category. None of us can deny the horrible impact of slavery, 

segregation, economic deprivation, lost opportunities, and other social ills 

upon those who have fallen into the “Negro,” “black,” “Indian,” or any other 

dreamt up non-white category. Christian churches, even when consciously 

51


52 

attempting to help others and to spread the Gospel, have not been immune to 

this tendency to categorize and thus are complicit in this degradation of fellow 

human beings, including other Christians. How strange it is that Christians 

have not wholeheartedly embraced the example of the apostle Philip, 

who had no problem sitting next to, conversing with, and then baptizing the 

eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians (Acts 8:26-40). 

The racism that lingers in American churches hardly exists in a vacuum. 

It is shocking to think that anyone living in the United States over fifty years 

after Brown v. Board of Education (and over 135 years after the Thirteenth, 

Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution 2 ) 

still fosters racially based exclusionism, but old habits and outlooks die hard. 

CNN.com reported on April 23, 2007, from Ashburn, Georgia: 

Students of Turner County High School started what they hope will 

become a new tradition: Black and white students attended the prom 

together for the first time on Saturday. 

In previous years, parents had organized private, segregated dances for 

students of the school in rural Ashburn, Georgia, 160 miles south of 

Atlanta. 

“Whites always come to this one and blacks always go to this one,” 

said Lacey Adkinson, a 14-year-old freshman at the school of 455 

students—55 percent black, 43 percent white. 

“It’s always been a tradition since my daddy was in school to have the 

segregated ones, and this year we’re finally getting to try something 

new,” she said. 3 

I could end here with a happy story of integration, but in fact, life is just not 

that easy: 

But not everyone in the town of 4,400, famous for its peanuts and Fire 

Ant Festival, was breaking with the past. 

The “white prom” still went on last week. 

“We did everything like a regular prom just because we had already 

booked it,” said, Cheryl Nichols, 18, who attended the dance. 

Nichole Royal, 18, said black students could have gone to the prom, but 

didn’t.


“I guess they feel like they’re not welcome,” she said. 

Nichols said while her parents were in support of the integrated prom, 

some of her friends weren’t allowed to go. 4 [emphasis mine] 

This prom may seem frivolous in the big scheme of things, but it points 

to something more important. Notice that Cheryl Nichols’ parents see a 

different future, “something new” as Lacey Adkinson puts it, but other 

parents do not; many of the latter probably consider themselves good, 

church-going Christians. I suspect that it will take another three generations 

for these segregationist tendencies to die off, when everyone who 

can remember Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal”—and their children—are 

dead and gone. What Paul said almost two thousand years ago 

still pertains: people have to see themselves as part of a new creation if 

they are going to enjoy unity as a church in Christ, but when they cling to 

the old ways and definitions out of tradition, malice, or ignorance, they not 

only harm themselves but also others. 

Abebe has argued vigorously for race as a socially and historically constructed 

category, 5 and he has rightly called upon Christian churches to reject 

this artificial divide between people. Paul argued essentially the same thing 

when he denied the importance of identifying people as Greeks, Jews, or 

Scythians, which is the closet thing Greco-Roman antiquity had to the early 

modern category of “races.” Paul as a Jew had been raised to think of everyone 

who was not a Jew as belonging to ta ethne, the [foreign] nations, 

and in Galatians he even refers to non-Jewish Galatian Christians with this 

terminology, while calling the Jewish Christians who were promoting circumcision 

“hoi Ioudaioi,” the Judeans/Jews (Gal. 2:12-13). 6 Paul may not 

have had “race” as a skin-color category, but he and his society certainly had 

various ideas about ethnic categories and their characteristics. 

Paul and his contemporaries could also see differences between the Jews 

and the rest of the nations, because besides abstaining from pork and observing 

the Sabbath, the Jews practiced full male circumcision. 7 So, when the 

Roman state was hunting down people evading the fiscus Iudaicus tax on 

Jews towards the end of the first century A.D., the authorities used visual 

evidence for determining a man’s Jewishness, as the biographer Suetonius 

(Domitian XII. 2) reports: “I remember as a young man being there when 

a ninety-year-old man was inspected by a procurator and a very crowded 

court to see whether he had been circumcised.” Thus, ethnic identity as a 

Jew did, in fact, have a physical, observable manifestation, though usually 

kept covered unless at the public baths or latrines. If only modern Christians 

53


54 

could heed Paul’s call for spiritual unity and ignore all physical markers that 

set people apart—including physical disabilities—and concentrate instead 

on what really matters. 

Abebe has wisely chosen a passage, Acts 17:26, as a paradigmatic statement 

of Paul’s position on “the idea of ‘one humanity.’” 8 What is fascinating 

is to see in this chapter of Acts how Paul tries to reach out to his overeducated 

Athenian audience by quoting soon after this verse directly from one 

of the recognized classics of Greek didactic poetry, Aratus’ Phaenomena: 

“For we are indeed his offspring.” Aratus in this poem on constellations 

and weather is talking about humans descending from Zeus, but Paul (or 

the author of Acts narrating this scene) shows his cleverness and cultural 

sensitivity by trying to bridge the gap between the two ethnic groups, Greek 

and Jewish, and their respective teachings in order to prove that they share 

common roots. 

Paul, however, in his sweeping drive for universalism, stepped beyond 

just the boundary of ethnicity when building his new Christian communities 

around the Mediterranean. He also exhorted his newly minted fellow 

Christians to disregard the other categories that divide people. In his day, 

legal status and gender were two other very obvious ones besides ethnicity/national 

heritage. 9 

People became slaves through warfare, debt, and birth, and under Roman 

law they were literally “things”—property to be bought and sold. Paul tells 

the recipients of his letters in Galatia and at Colossae 10 to transcend their 

labels of “slave” or “free” and to concentrate on what matters most: their 

faith. In another letter, he asks Philemon to think of his slave Onesimus as 

a “beloved brother” (Philemon 16), yet Paul never denounces slavery as an 

institution, to the dismay of anyone who cherishes a society where everyone 

is free. 

Furthermore, in Galatians Paul rejects gender as a defining element of a 

person in a Christian community. He refers to the genders in the neuter form 

(arsen kai thelu), which has the effect of distancing these biological categories 

from the male and female-identifying people to whom he is talking. 

It’s as if he is pushing them towards gender neutrality with his very word 

choice, or least downgrading the importance of gender distinction. Imagine 

all modern Christian churches doing the same, not just in their words but in 

their actions, too! 

Abebe has demonstrated that “Christianity must be about equality, healing, 

and hope.” What, then, can we do with twenty-first century individuals,

churches, and institutions that continue to cling to categorizing people in a 

variety of ways, a practice that Paul himself dismissed so long ago? 

As Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke’s Gospel (15:11-32) so 

vividly shows, forgiveness and unconditional love are the key to being one 

with God. 11 This applies not only to individuals but also to Christian organizations, 

as Paul (or his imitator) explains: 

Put on, therefore, as chosen ones of God, holy and loved, compassion, 

kindness,…; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so also you [should forgive]. 

And above all these, [put on] love, which is a bond of perfection. 

(Colossians 3:12-14) 

Hopefully, those who have found themselves discriminated against for a 

variety of reasons within their own Christian churches and institutions can 

forgive those who have perpetrated this injustice and separation, and communities 

as a whole can start to “put on love”—a daringly simple solution 

to all of society’s ills. 

NotES 


1 Translations are my own, based on the Greek text of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition. 

2 Notice that the Fifteenth Amendment specifies both race and color in order to eradicate any 

gray areas of categorization when granting suffrage: “The right of citizens of the United States 

to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, 

color, or previous condition of servitude.” 

3 http://www.cnn.com/2007/us/04/23/turner.prom/index.html. 

4 I thank my son, William Chapman, for alerting me to this story. 

5 This constructionist viewpoint is within the mainstream of current academic scholarship. See, for instance, 

the review article by Nancy Appelbaum, “Post-Revisionist Scholarship on Race,” Latin American 

Research Review 40.3 (2005) 206-217; the books she discusses might further enhance Abebe’s argument 

by extending its scope to the other Americas, where the construction of race has played different 

roles than in the United States. 

6 Furthermore, for his ethnically Greek readers, Paul is tapping into the Greek view of the rest 

of the world by using in his list of categories the term “barbarian,” i.e., all the rest of the world’s 

population who babble in a non-Greek language. 

7 On types of circumcision in antiquity and Paul’s strong rejection of forcing it upon men who 

wished to become Christian, see H. Chapman, “Paul, Josephus, and the Judean Nationalistic 

and Imperialistic Policy of Forced Circumcision,” ’Ilu, Revista de Ciencias de las religiones 

11 (2006), 131-155. On Jewish nationalism in this period, see D. Goodblatt, Elements of 

Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 

8 Interestingly, the Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon entry for “genos,” the 

word Aratus uses for “offspring,” gives many English equivalents, of which “race” is the first, 

but this term in Greek does not connote color; to use “race” in a translation would, as Abebe has 

shown, lead one possibly to think in terms of skin color. 

55


56 

9 Notice, however, that Paul does not mention the rich/poor dichotomy in Galatians 3:28, which 

would have been very apparent in society as a whole; does this indicate that Paul’s Christian 

communities were not economically diverse enough to make this an issue? 

10 This letter might not have been written by Paul; see S. Mason and T. Robinson, Early Christian 

Reader (Peabody: Hendrikson, 2004), 151-166. 

11 St. Augustine uses this parable as a running theme in his Confessions to describe his journey 

towards God. A recent movie, The Second Chance (2006), does the same while dramatizing 

the interaction between two Christian pastors—one black, the other white.

The Church and Women: 

Power, Participation, and Language 

in Christian Institutions 

hoPE NISly 

The Church and Women 

In the late twentieth century, the institutional church began to make 

much-needed, long-overdue progress in the formal inclusion of women in 

its structure and life. To be sure, women had always been part of church life, 

but generally with a silent role and/or forced to create their own spheres of 

influence without official acknowledgment or access to power. Even with 

recent changes churches, at best, appear ambiguous on issues of inclusion 

and, at worst, remain misogynist and confining. It is important, therefore, to 

discuss the role of women in matters of faith, and to ascertain how women 

have carved out niches within structures that have long marginalized their 

position and presence. It is equally important to note that despite changes 

promising fuller inclusion there is ongoing resistance, in both subtle and 

overt ways. 

I grew up in a church (in the Conservative Mennonite Conference) that 

required women to cover their heads at all times in symbolic submission to 

the “godly” chain of authority. The order was explicit and clear: God, Jesus 

Christ, man, woman. By the time I was an adolescent several things were 

apparent: First, the rules of my church had the greatest impact on women 

and they were a burden despite assurances that these strictures were actually 

a protection for females, denoting respect and honor. Furthermore, I 

noticed that there were women around me who seemed at least as competent 

as the male leaders, yet their participation in official church business was 

restricted. They could teach other women or they could present an essay at 

the Sunday evening service. In the main worship service on Sunday morning, 

however, women could speak only few words of testimony.The scenario 

referenced was from a different time and place, and there are significant 

differences between that and twenty-first century church practice. Yet today, 

when I sit with female colleagues from church institutions and churches 

(even ones that ordain women and hire them for management positions) I 

continue to hear about struggles to be heard on an equal basis with male colleagues, 

about being scrutinized and held to more rigid standards than men, 

and of the difficulty in finding and retaining positions. I hear from women 

whose institutional evaluations include comments on their style of clothing 

57


58 

along with actual performance assessment. I observe churches that make a 

distinction in whether women can be associate pastors or lead pastors. 1 

To be sure, the landscape differs from my Sunday morning experiences 

and observations at age thirteen. Church organizations have women in some 

upper-management positions. A few churches ordain women without major 

debate. There is the occasional church or denomination that encourages 

speaking of God in images that are not solely male. There may even be 

denominations where the “mommy wars” are not perpetuated in the name 

of God and the Bible, and where women find support for whatever decision 

they make regarding home and career. 

The fact that these things have to be acknowledged, however, indicates 

the tenuous nature of the progress toward full inclusion. In addition, there 

has been a retrenchment of positioning that makes it necessary to continue 

to discuss the topic. After all, we have no need to discuss the query: “Has 

the church been good for men?” That question has a quality that renders it 

irrelevant. 

So the debate churns on over ordination, women’s roles in home and 

church, and whether one can conceive of God as anything other than “he.” 

The church enters these debates with too little sense of history, with scant 

knowledge of the construction of gender roles and how they have limited 

women’s lives with the explicit guidance and sanction of the church. 

Even so, women in the churches (usually at the margins, and prior to 

institutionalization) have found ways to participate. They have seldom done 

this without opposition, but nevertheless, they have done it. Does that mean 

that the church has been “good for women?” I have to reiterate that the 

institutional church has not been good for women unless one considers the 

church at its origin and the churches at the margins. It is there where change 

happens and where, yes, the church can be good for women. 

The issues, if they can be sorted out at all, are many. Is it about women 

in leadership? Is it about how we speak of God? Is it how we understand 

gender roles at any level of society and church? Is it how we view female 

(and male) sexuality? Is it about more than access to power—i.e. how are the 

daily lives of women impacted by church decisions and mandates? Why is 

violence against women as prevalent within the church as without? Finally, 

how do we tell the stories of the church in ways that reflect lived experience 

alongside ideological mandates? 

When Mary spoke to the angel saying, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; 

let it be with me according to your word,” (Luke 1:38) she exhibited readi-


ness to take her place in the community. A Jewish woman with few temple 

rights who was in the uncomfortable position of an inexplicable pregnancy, 

she was willing, nevertheless, to assume a public role. As a prophet, Mary 

“went with haste” to Elizabeth, who recognized in her a woman with a vital 

part in a larger plan, embodying the best of their tradition. 

The lyrics of Mary’s song foresaw a shift in power that her son would 

soon portray. Her words illustrate the potent impact faith can have on the 

lives of those who live (as Mary did) at the margins of society. The power 

to which she referred would bring, “down the powerful from their thrones, 

and lift up the lowly.” This power would not entrench itself in maintenance 

of the status quo, but rather allow each person to find his or her own place, 

regardless of social status. 

In the ensuing development of Western civilization, the story of women’s 

participation in the church followed a circuitous path, one that too often reflected 

societal fears and ambiguities regarding women’s sexuality. Yet, the 

impact of Jesus’ model of an “upside down” power ran deep, surfacing in 

unusual places and potent ways. Women, along with other marginal groups, 

saw in Jesus’ life a call to ministry in many ways, while the institutional 

church generally limited them. 

Authentic faith, however, can not be suppressed indefinitely. Despite 

wounds of exclusion, being burned as witches, or banished simply for being 

outspoken, and within an overwhelmingly patriarchal structure, women (and 

at times, a few men around them) searched for the ideal of the early Jesus 

movement. The church marginalized women (and other groups) and the 

subsequent historical record eliminated their stories. 

I will highlight a few examples where women played an important role 

in the life of the church in the Western tradition. These are the exceptions to 

the rule, but it is in the exceptions where hope resides. I have chosen only 

two examples, with the acknowledgement that I have omitted major parts 

of the world and other eras for lack of space. In addition, I chose to look 

only at women in the Christian tradition and not to compare their experiences 

to that of women in other cultures and religions. It is a worthy study 

to determine why the historic treatment of women is poor among all world 

religions. 2 However, I ask that those of us who are Christians hold ourselves 

to our own best standard as set by our own Scripture and prophetic voices. 

This article looks at the ideal set by Jesus and his early followers, highlights 

several places where women took active roles in church life, and discusses 

implications for the twenty-first century church. 

59


60 

Each story is fraught with the complexity of human experience. We are, 

of course, affected by more than faith. Faith is always informed by societal 

mores, political institutions, economic structures, and more. In most cases, 

women anchored change within the predominant patriarchal rhetoric and 

structure. The cultural and ecclesiastical establishment prohibited a radical 

deviation from the norm even when (as with Anabaptists) people were discarding 

the prevailing foundations in favor of one determined to be more 

purely New Testament in structure. When women assumed different roles 

but acquiesced to cultural rhetoric, analysis is challenging. For the purpose 

of this article, I note simply that women altered their roles at great cost and 

with enormous effort. 

Searching church history for women’s contributions involves uncovering 

obscure names, revealing forgotten stories, and developing alternative 

frameworks of history and theology. The recovery of women’s voices illuminates 

some of the best of Christian tradition, for it is in lives on the margin 

where we find the powerful impact of authentic biblical Christianity. The 

story of the progress of the church is uneven, even painful. Nevertheless, it 

is the story of the possibility of redemption, in the re-creation of Jesus’ ideal 

where the church is willing to listen to the people on the edges and all voices 

are incorporated into church dialogue on any given issue. 

Women in the Early Jesus Movement 

With biblical roots, the Christian church has viewed itself as a place of 

redemption, where hurting people can turn for healing and hope. At its best, 

the church has served as a sanctuary from injustice. For all the times when 

the church has used the Bible to justify injustice (slavery, subjugation of 

women, warding off peasant revolts), there are those places where it has 

turned to its roots in the life of Jesus and elicited the best of its possibilities. 

For good and for bad, Christianity has affected the everyday lives of people, 

hidden beneath a broader structure of race, ethnicity, class, and gender. 

The biblical record reveals the depth and breadth of the possibility of 

the difference Christianity can make. Jesus modeled and voiced a new life 

of egalitarianism with full participation by everyone in the society. For the 

most part, Jesus never spoke directly to the subject of women’s roles, yet 

his actions provide an ample and eloquent example of an alternative way of 

living. 

In the first-century society under Roman rule, life was difficult for peasants 

and small farmers. The imperial system nearly destroyed community 

and family structures. There were ethnic and class tensions. Roman officials


disdained the Jewish people, seeing them as fit only to be Roman subjects 

or slaves. It was a world lacking in individual dignity and justice. 3 Into this 

chaos came Jesus with an alternative worldview. 

At the intersection of Roman, Greek, and Hebrew worlds, core values 

included honor and shame, lack of individual identity, and purity laws with 

a “place” for everything, including women. In ideology (although not always 

in practice) women’s identity rested with the men in their lives. In 

theory, they could bring honor or shame on their household without deserving 

honor. 4 Lived experience, however, does not always reflect ideology, and 

despite being restricted in their rights to speak theology and enter parts of the 

synagogue, women of the time were elders and prophets and leaders. 5 

Alongside this reality of women as elders and leaders, there was an ongoing 

debate regarding the appropriateness of women taking part in public 

worship. Jesus and his earliest followers, however, emphasized right relationships 

and community, advocating for an inclusive and egalitarian society 

and family. Warren Carter speaks of the Gospel as a “counternarrative, a 

work of resistance.” 6 This “counternarrative” extended to the role of women. 

The community Jesus modeled embraced new gender roles as well as economic 

and political ones. In fulfilling the best of his own Jewish tradition, 

Jesus provided an alternate emphasis on healing, hope, and inclusion of the 

marginalized. He called women into service for him, listened to them, and 

offered respect even when they disagreed with him. 

In his preaching, Jesus used examples from the lives of women and employed 

images that come from women’s experiences of life. These were no 

small things in this society where gender roles were clearly delineated and 

where women’s virtues centered on the private sphere and included obedience, 

silence, and chastity while men’s were public and based on courage 

and honor. 7 

In the twentieth century, lay theologian and Christian apologist, Dorothy 

Sayers wrote: 

Perhaps it is no small wonder that the women were the first at the Cradle 

and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this man—there 

never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged 

at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; ...who took their questions 

and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for 

them . . .; There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole gospel 

that borrows its pungency from female perversity . . . 8 

61


62 

In other words, Jesus granted women dignity they had not known. There 

was no talk of submission. He called everyone alike to life in a new community 

where people respected and served each other. He expected everyone 

to live with love and to lead with justice. Ultimately, the political and social 

implications of this message, which would turn power on its head, led to his 

death. 

In the early church, there is a mixed presentation of women’s roles. This 

has led to tension in the church throughout the centuries. Paul supported 

women’s leadership in church and society, but he also spoke about a subordinate 

role for women. One passage that subsequent generations interpreted 

to mean that women are to be subject to men (I Corinthians 11), also contains 

the suggestion that women can prophesy (v. 5) and issues a call for mutual 

submission (v.11). Amy-Jill Levine suggests that the problem may be less 

about the misogyny of Paul and more related to issues of interpretation. 9 

The prevailing societal structure informed Paul and his contemporaries. 

And yet in the world of early Christianity, roles within the early church were 

based on faith rather than gender, in line with Jesus’ teaching. It was a radical 

statement (Gal. 3:28) to say that in this emerging movement that there was 

no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. This passage was 

a key to the early church’s understanding of itself. 10 Female converts helped 

build the church, with Paul calling them his co-workers, referring to them as 

apostles and prophets. However, Paul’s writings also reflect “injunctions of 

a patriarchal reaction which, on theological grounds, decree the subordinate 

role of women.” 11 

Alongside the message of subordination, the early church provides examples 

of women in leadership. Lydia, the “seller of purple,” was a wealthy 

business woman. She asked to be baptized, then became a leader in the 

church. Lydia opened her home to meetings and led new believers in an 

exploration of the implications of Jesus’ words. Paul spent time in her home 

and Lydia used her wealth and influence, to support his missionary work. 12 

Priscilla also opened her home to the community of gathering believers. 

She and her husband taught Apollos regarding the resurrection and meaning 

of Jesus’ death. Wahlberg likened this to someone informing Billy Graham 

that he had a flawed understanding of the Gospel. 13 

The question is always how we interpret the New Testament, as well as 

how we remember history. It makes a difference whether we emphasize 

Paul’s radically new model of peoplehood in Galatians or stop with his 

words of subordination and submission. Georgia Harkness notes, “The first 

of the these two sides of the paradox has been largely overlooked, while the


second has been very influential through the centuries in keeping women in 

subordination to men in both church and society.” 14 

Paul caught the vision of new possibilities, but he was still a product of 

his time and place. The women of the early church lived within the reality 

of this paradox, but saw a new vision. Interpretation of the texts continued 

to reflect the patriarchy that Jesus opposed. Then as the first generations of 

the church struggled for survival, along with recognition and credibility, the 

process of institutionalization led it into forcing women out of roles of leadership. 

15 It even debated the words that were acceptable regarding the image 

of God, leading away from the feminine (Sophia) and toward the masculine 

(Word.) 16 

It is Jesus’ vision to which we return when we record and interpret Christian 

history, where the Spirit is given to all (Acts 2:17); where there is neither 

male nor female (Gal. 3:28); where we heed Mary’s song (Luke 2:52) and 

turn power upside-down. 

Anabaptist Women 

The paradox of Paul’s words continued to manifest itself throughout the 

following millennia of church history, often with the church choosing to 

follow the Pauline proclamations for women to keep silence. There were 

exceptions, however, when parts of the church followed a different path. Too 

often the recording of history has minimized or omitted those exceptions to 

the rule. Recovering Jesus’ ideal for women is, therefore, more than a theological 

issue; it is also about the re-telling of our past. 

The Anabaptist movement of the sixteenth century provides one glimpse 

of an alternative view of women’s place. The names of many martyrs are 

familiar. What descendent of the Anabaptists does not know that Felix Manz 

was the first martyr drowned in the Limmat River? On the other hand, Anneken 

Heyndricks, Maria of Monjou, Anna of Freiburg, and Margarette 

Preuss are less recognizable, even though The Martyr’s Mirror relates the 

stories of these women, and many others, alongside the men. In the conclusion 

to the accounts of martyrs of the sixteenth century, the writer states, 

“We have presented to you, kind reader, many beautiful examples of men, 

women, youths and maidens, who faithfully followed their Saviour, Christ 

Jesus, in the true faith, feared God from the inmost of their soul, and with a 

pure heart sought eternal life…” 17 

For Anabaptists, the place of a martyr was one of honor. Anabaptist 

women left their families and followed the directives of their new-found 

63


64 

faith to their deaths. They gave their testimonies, printed and distributed the 

movement’s ideals, and ultimately, died for their faith alongside the men. 

While they did not openly challenging the principle of male leadership, they 

followed their consciences. The call to discipleship superseded even the call 

to care for their families. Placing Christ first, led them to the highest show of 

Christian commitment—martyrdom. 18 

The prophetic voice of the Anabaptist movement espoused discipleship 

and the “priesthood of all believers,” positions derived from reading the 

Bible and attempting to return to a New Testament model of the church. 

These women and men took their new-found theology seriously, leading 

them to places where practice diverged from cultural and spiritual norms 

of the time. In order to follow this call to radical discipleship, Anabaptist 

women had to study Scripture and theology thoroughly. When it came time 

to stand before the judges who questioned their faith, they spoke with conviction 

and clarity. 

As is often the case, the ideas on women’s roles varied. Menno Simons 

commanded women to be obedient and prescribed subordinate roles for 

them. Dirk Phillips, however, was critical of reformers for omitting women 

from their teaching. From prison, Jerome Segers wrote a letter to his wife, 

Lijsken, in which he declared, “And though they tell you to attend to your 

sewing, this does not hinder us; for Christ called us all, and commanded us 

to search the scriptures . . .” 19 

As Anabaptists recaptured a New Testament ideal for the church, women 

spoke freely and condemningly to their captors. They were teachers in the 

movement, they printed and disseminated Anabaptist materials, and they established 

congregations. With Jesus as their model, the theology was egalitarian. 

Martyrdom was an honor accorded to women as well as to men. 

Slave Women in the United States 

The experience of slave women in the United States provides another 

historical example of women’s involvement in the church. Born into slavery, 

denied even the right to raise their children and establish families, black 

women created communities founded on faith and rooted in the churches. 

Isabella Van Wagenen was one such woman. An illiterate slave woman who 

was forced to marry only to have her children sold away from her, Isabella 

became a compelling preacher whose sermons combined calls to Christ 

with abolition and women’s suffrage. She boldly preached her message to 

everyone, changing her name to Sojourner Truth to reflect her journey and 

mission.


Black women from the time of slavery onward were spiritual leaders 

within their churches. They preached and wrote, often combining their ministries 

with abolition, civil rights, and women’s suffrage. Despite debates on 

the roles women should play, individual congregations of many denominations 

often supported and encouraged the women to follow their callings. 

Mission, leadership, and ministry were often a flawless part of social rights 

movements. 

Sojourner Truth, whose spiritual revelation led her to become a compelling 

preacher of salvation and abolition, is well known, but she was not 

alone. Maria Stewart was another minister who spoke for the rights of black 

women and openly criticized male clergy. Slave women such as Mother 

Suma and Aunt Hester preached and converted, even among their owners. 

Jarena Lee, the first female preacher in the African Methodist Episcopal 

Church, received the endorsement of the bishop, but was refused a formal 

pastorate and became an itinerant evangelist. Still others went to the mission 

field through their churches. 20 

Within restrictions, they did the work of the church for which they often 

were excoriated. For black women in ministry, there was always an additional 

restriction. The African-American church was the one place where 

black men exerted influence. Women frequently held themselves back to 

allow men the power they lacked elsewhere. 

Despite obstacles, slave women paved the way for women who became 

ministers, evangelists, and theologians after them. They drew on their African 

traditions and images of God, incorporated Christian beliefs, worked 

within their particular context of slavery and violence to create a religious 

tradition of unbounded strength and hope. 

Where Do We Go From here? 

The stories of the power exerted by Christianity in women’s lives lies in 

the lives of many women. Throughout the centuries, women found many 

ways to carve out their own worlds, to participate in the life of the church, 

to form their own spiritual traditions. From mystics such as Jane Lead to 

twentieth century Mennonite Brethren missionary Paulina Foote; from Joan 

of Arc to Simone Weil to Pentecostal women ministers in the early years 

of the movement; from Quaker abolitionists to Catholic lay leaders such as 

Dorothy Day; women laid claim to the power of the Gospel. We know some 

of these women, others are hidden in history. 

Paulina Foote, a Mennonite Brethren missionary to China, wrote in her 

memoirs, “What a surprise to me when Elder Foth in his sermon at the or- 

65


66 

dination proved with Scripture passages that women should preach.” Foth 

used the biblical example of Mary Magdalene being the first at the cross and 

the first to “tell the greatest story of all stories” of the resurrection. 21 Foote 

provides a moving description of her own internal debates regarding the 

implications of being a single woman in ministry. 

Within the revival movements, men such as John Wesley and Charles 

Grandison Finney granted women the right to speak when the spirit moved. 

Finney wrote, “...I urged females both to pray and speak if they felt deeply 

enough to do it, and not to be restrained from it by the fact that they were 

females...” 22 

In societies that did not allow women to speak authoritatively in mixed 

groups, women found their own ways to take part. That usually meant they 

could become missionaries (like Foote) or join a new Christian sect. It was in 

new sects, particularly ones with holiness-style inclinations, where women 

could speak in public. However, as these groups moved into the mainstream, 

the institutionalizing process forced women into a role that prescribed “silence 

in public.” 23 

There is a common thread in these stories, as disparate as they might be 

in time, place, and social orientation. First, inclusion of women occurred at 

the margins of church and society, in emerging sects or in outcasts from the 

mainstream. The most noticeable moments of inclusion happened at times 

when the church was in unusual circumstances and needed a broader pool 

of leaders (such as the Anabaptists or the slave churches.) Generally, people 

continued to employ the prevailing rhetoric of subordination. Finally, when 

the group moved toward the mainstream in an effort for recognition and/or 

survival, the church forced women out of leadership roles. So what does this 

say to us? 

In June 2006, the Presbyterian Church USA approved a document on the 

Trinity, in which the writers affirmed traditional language (God as Father, 

Son, Holy spirit) while expanding the image to embrace the full mystery 

of God. Traditional language, they noted, served to uphold a view of God 

as male and women as subordinate. “Faced with the alternatives of never 

speaking of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and only speaking of 

the Trinity as Father, Son and, Holy Spirit, we see a way that is more consistent 

with the scriptures and theological and liturgical tradition.” 24 

This document came to my attention through an editorial in a local newspaper. 

The writer, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, believed that the 

document reduced church beliefs to a “sorta-holy trinity.” She went on to 

state, “What’s wrong is that we live in anti-father, mad-at-daddy times,”


and she reduced the document to a polarized “women good, men bad” dichotomy. 

25 

How can one respond when our society reduces many things to polar extremes? 

When we allow this kind of reduction of concerns we miss so much, 

just as this columnist missed the affirmation of traditional language and imagery 

upheld by the document. The writers of that document recognized the 

futility of polarization and called their church to greater faithfulness. That 

is the best of a Jesus-based faith, a move away from our tendency to see 

everything as “either-or.” So how does this illustration involving trinitarian 

language inform the church? Before we can address any issue facing the 

church, it is important to learn to sidestep polarization. Then we can look 

at areas of concerns such as women in leadership and women’s economic 

issues of work and pay. We should reconsider how we discuss topics such as 

abortion and parenthood, and we can speak candidly about violence against 

women. We might consider and analyze ongoing resistance to expanding the 

language and imagery about God. 

There has been some progress. Ordination of women is more common. 

Women have expanded work opportunities. People are more aware of language 

and how it undergirds our understanding of women’s roles. Even so, 

there continues to be resistance to women in full leadership roles. A glass 

ceiling continues to exist, while women and children make up the largest 

portion of the working poor, and “mommy wars” needlessly pit work-for-pay 

women against stay-at-home moms. Violence against women is as prevalent 

as ever and the church is hesitant to address this reality. Many continue to 

resist the idea that language both reflects and perpetuates societal attitudes. 

The best, most biblically authentic agenda for the church will gather the 

voices of all the marginalized: women, people of color/non-western cultures, 

those who are not heterosexual, and the poor. These voices are the ones with 

much to offer to the church precisely because they have experienced the pain 

of isolation, disenfranchisement, and suffering. It is in this effort that the 

church gives its best. 

The church must not make a few gains and then halt. With each step forward, 

it must analyze candidly (facing the discomfort this elicits) its own 

power structures for gaps and weaknesses. It must compare itself to its own 

best traditions and prophetic voices. It must examine the past and uncover 

hidden stories, while formulating future goals. 

The church should examine its sermons, its literature, its history-telling. It 

should analyze library collections, scrutinize its language. Church colleges 

and universities should train youth to understand power and privilege in gen- 

67


68 

der, race, and class, striving to determine “what would Jesus really do.” The 

theology of submission might be seen as non-hierarchical in the best biblical 

model. 

In the end, there are more questions than answers. That is, I believe, how 

it should be. It is only in continuing to ask the pertinent questions (despite resistance) 

that we will make any progress. The particulars of how the church 

accomplishes this lies in the individuals, the denominations, and the church 

institutions that make up its core, as we learn to talk to each other through 

the screens of our differences. 

NotES 

1 Barbara Brown Zikmund et al., Clergy Women: An Uphill Calling (Louisville, Westminster 

John Knox Press, 1998) is one study that supports this anecdotal evidence. 

2 See for example, Joan Chittister, “Religions Have Some Repenting to Do,” National Catholic 

Reporter, http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/fw031104.htm. 

3 Warren Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press 

International, 2001), 46-50. 

4 Ross Saunders, Outrageous Women, Outrageous God (Alexandria, Australia: E.J. Dwyer, 

1996), 4-20. 

5 Karen Torjesen, When Women were Priests (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco), 19-26. 

6 Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations, 53. 

7 Torjesen, When Women were Priests, 115. 

8 Dorothy Sayers, Are Women Human? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 47. 

9 Amy-Jill Levine, A Feminist Companion to Paul (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004), 1. 

10 Elisabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 199. 

11 Rosemary Radford Reuther and Eleanor McLaughlin, Women of Spirit (New York: Simon 

and Schuster, 1979), 37. 

12 Rachel Wahlberg, Jesus and the Freedwoman (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 130-144. 

13 Ibid., 147. 

14 Georgia Harkness, “Women in Church and Society,” in Women of Spirit, ed. Rosemary 

Reuther and Eleanor McLaughlin (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), 62. 

15 Karen Torjesen, When Women were Priests, 38. 

16 Leo Lefebvre, “The Wisdom of God: Sophia and Christian Theology,” Christian Century, 

Oct. 19, 1994, 951; Elizabeth Johnson, She Who Is (New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 

1997). 

17 Thieleman J. van Braght, The Bloody Theater or Martyr’s Mirror (Scottdale: Herald Press, 

1950), 1098. 

18 Lois Barrett, “The Role and Influence of Anabaptist Women in the Martyr Story,” 

Brethren Life and Thought, Spring 1992, 87. 

19 Ibid., 90. 

20 Delores C. Carpenter, “Black Women in Religious Institutions,” The Journal of Religious 

Thought 46:2 (Winter 1989/Spring 1990): 7. 

21 Paulina Foote, God’s Hand Over My Nineteen Years in China (Hillsboro: M.B. Publishing 

House, 1962), 26.

22 Nancy Hardesty et al., “Women in the Holiness Movement,” in Women of Spirit, ed. 

Rosemary Reuther and Eleanor McLaughlin (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), 230. 

23 Barbara Brown Zikmund et al., Clergy Women: An Uphill Calling (Louisville: Westminster 

John Knox Press, 1998), 12-15. 

24 Presbyterian Church USA, “The Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing,” http://www.pcusa.org/ 

theologyandworship/issues/trinityfinal.pdf. 

25 Kathleen Parker, “Church Beliefs Should be More Solid,” Fresno Bee, July 5, 2006, Local 

& State section. 


69


70

Response to Hope Nisly’s 

“The Church and Women: 

Power, Language, and Institutions” 

VAlERIE REMPEl 

Response to Hope Nisly’s “The Church and Women” 

As Hope Nisly suggests, reflecting on the question of how the church 

has been good for women is far from an irrelevant question. While most 

Christians would agree that the Gospel itself is good news for all people, 

the church as an institution is often flawed and thus has a mixed record in 

regards to women. 

If one were to define “good” as primarily about access to power and decision-making, 

than the church’s record is, indeed, dismal. As Nisly points 

out, while women have often been active in new expressions or movements 

of Christian faith, their voices and roles have generally been restricted as 

those movements became institutionalized. That was true of the early church 

experience and has been more recently true of the Pentecostal movement. 

Leaders within the Christian tradition have often allowed themselves to be 

shaped as much by larger societal patterns as by the liberating words of the 

Gospel. 

It must be noted, however, that women have exerted a great deal of power 

in the creation of parallel worlds within the institutions of the church. For 

example, monastic houses throughout Christian history have frequently been 

places of scholarship and service in which women formed strong bonds and 

developed effective ministries. During the nineteenth century women created 

a network of missionary societies and organizations that helped finance and 

staff protestant missionary efforts around the world. In fact, some scholars 

have argued that the leadership skills nurtured within the evangelical tradition 

gave impetus to the women’s rights movement. More recently, scholars 

are beginning to examine the contemporary women’s ministries that are congregationally 

based, as well as para-church organizations such as Women 

Aglow, and pointing out the ways in which women exercise power and develop 

skills for leadership. While not without problems, these are ways that 

women have worked at the margins of the church to create meaningful space 

for themselves. 

Any answer to the question of whether or not the church has been good 

for women must include the area of spirituality. Here the record is more 

positive. Many women have found a rich and authentic spirituality within 

71


72 

the Christian tradition. The intimacy of conversation with God, an affinity 

with the sufferings of Jesus, and a sense of the direct guidance of the Holy 

Spirit have empowered many women. Within the Catholic tradition, Mary 

the mother of Jesus and the female saints have provided a counterpoint to 

the overwhelmingly male imagery of the church. The Protestant tradition’s 

emphasis on Bible reading and prayer has helped nurture a sense of personal 

relationship with God. These have been possible because of the church’s 

own teaching and spiritual practices. 

At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the language of submission 

has been used in ways that have deeply perverted the Gospel. Many 

women have experienced the Gospel message as mediated by the church to 

be deeply harmful to mind, body, and soul. Curtailing education, limiting 

participation in the ministries of the church, and emphasizing a particular 

creation order have often resulted in the oppression of women in church 

and society. All too often the institutional church has ignored the reality of 

domestic violence or implied that if women would only “behave” such problems 

would go away. The language and practices of the church have often 

been used in ways that diminish women’s own humanity and distort the image 

of God. 

That women have been able to work within oppressive institutions and 

structures gives witness to the power of God to work in ways that challenge 

the limits of our own structures. This does not mean we can say a simple, 

“yes, the church is good for women,” or rest content. Instead, it calls us to 

continually examine the patterns we set in place and to judge them by the 

liberating message of salvation.

What’s in a Name? 

lARRy WARKENtIN 


The intent of this article is to refine and augment the material written 

about the name Warkentin. Genealogists and historians seem to have been 

stymied when tracing the origins of the name. Some historians place the 

name in the Dutch-Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition while others assign it an 

Old Slavic-German origin. Of particular interest is the way in which this 

discussion contributes to the long-standing debate regarding the origins of 

the Mennonite communities in Prussia (Poland) and South Russia (Ukraine). 

Are they originally from Holland (The Netherlands) or from Northern Germany? 

Johan Postma, a Dutch historian, proposes that Warkentin is, “a diminutive 

of a very old Zeeland first name, Warrekin.” 1 He sites evidence that 

Warrekin can be found as early as 1227. But he doesn’t explain adequately 

where the tin suffix originates. If it is a Dutch diminutive meaning little 

Warrekin, are there children today with this name in the Netherlands? When 

did it become a family name? Are there other examples of Dutch family 

names with the tin suffix? Does the name ever appear in Dutch histories or 

legal documents as a family name? Without answers to these questions, his 

suggestion is at best hypothetical. 

The Mennonite Encyclopedia skirts the issue by suggesting that Warkentin 

is “a common Mennonite name of Prussian background.” 2 It is true that 

the name has a Prussian-Mennonite history. In 1667 Arendt Warckentyn 

married Sortjen Tamsen in the Danzig (Flemish) Mennonite church. 3 This 

is the earliest occurrence of the name in Prussia. Arendt must have been 

comfortable with the Dutch language since this congregation worshipped in 

Dutch until at least 1750 and Dutch-language hymnbooks were in use well 

into the eighteenth century. 

The Brandregister of 1727 identifies Mennonite landowners in Poland. 

Among those listed are Jacob Warckentin in Tiege, Andres Werkentin in 

Heubuden, and the widow of Johann Warkentin in Ladekoppe. Individuals 

who were taxpaying landowners in 1727 would have been born around 1700 

or earlier and would have lived in the area for some time. 4 

John Thiesen’s transcription of the Heubuden (Poland) Mennonite church 

records lists Arend Warckentin (1706-1777) of Heubuden and Peter Warckentin 

(1705-1786) of Siemonsdorf. 5 This Peter Warckentin is possibly the 

73


74 

same individual who is named in the royal privilege granted by Augustus III, 

King of Poland in 1736. 

Moreover, we promise on our own account and that of our most serene 

successors that neither we nor our most serene successors shall remove 

or alienate from the possession of the aforesaid property the aforesaid 

honest men, Martin Tornis, Jacob Conrad, Isaac Conrad, Peter Warckentien, 

Jacob Penner, Peter Classen, Jacob Dyk, Jacob Conrad, Isaac 

Dyk, Francis Conrad, and Christina Barbara (widow Sassow), and their 

legitimate heirs and successors; . . . 6 (italics mine) 

After 1790, when Poland was partitioned between Russia, Austria, and 

Prussia, the area in which most of the Mennonites lived was taken by Prussia. 

7 German language was made mandatory and military service became 

obligatory. In reaction to military conscription many Mennonite families 

decided to accept the invitation of Catherine II to move to South Russia. 

“Stumpp records that 27 families named Warkentin left West-Prussia for 

Russia.” 8 From there the name spread to North America, South America, 

Germany, Siberia, and various provinces of the former Soviet Union. 

This brief history of the name in Prussia substantiates the assertion in the 

Mennonite Encyclopedia that the name, “is a common name of Prussian 

background.” But that is certainly not the entire story. 

Peters and Thiessen add the following information: “Penner, the West 

Prussian genealogist, suggests that it is a name of residence, based on the 

place name of Parkentin, in Mecklenburg. In this region, bordering West 

Prussia, the surname of Parkentin and Warkentin can be found.” 9 This is 

intriguing. The name in the principality of Mecklenburg apparently predates 

the arrival of Mennonites in Prussia. Many immigrants from other parts of 

Europe had been settling in Prussia because of the religious toleration of its 

rulers. “Up to the year 1703 twenty thousand Huguenots and thirteen thousand 

Protestants from other countries had settled in Brandenburg and Prussia.” 

10 This could account for the appearance of the first Warkentin in Danzig 

in 1667. 

According to Peters and Thiessen the Warkentin name is associated 

with the village of Parkentin in Mecklenburg. In fact, the suggestion is that 

Parkentin may have evolved into Warkentin by some highly unusual consonant 

shift. That this is extremely unlikely will be shown in the following 

paragraphs. 

However, we must first look critically at Horst Penner’s statement: “The 

Warkentins apparently come from the small market town of Parkentin, 15


km west from Rostock. As early as the 16th and 17th centuries there are a 

large number of Werkentins (Warkentins) especially in Güstrow, which is 

near Parkentin.” 11 Clearly the name is present in this area and is unquestionably 

found near Parkentin. But Penner leaves several uncertainties. He only 

speculates that the name has its origin in this area, and the name just happens 

to be near the village of Parkentin. 

Penner goes on to show that Parkentin and Warkentin families migrate to 

Prussia and both names appear in Mennonite church records. “Whether the 

Parckentins/Warkentins all came to Westprussia as baptizers [anabaptists] 

one cannot say.” 12 Penner never states unequivocally that the two names actually 

became one, and it would be wrong to make that assumption. 

Additionally, Penner mentions that Rostock University, which is only 15 

kilometers from Parkentin, includes several Warkentins in its matriculation 

list. This opens a fascinating door. 

The city of Rostock holds a strategic location at the mouth of the Warnow 

river. It served as a port for ships sailing around Denmark into the Baltic. 

As a member of the Hanseatic League Rostock benefited greatly from the 

tax and duty that was gathered from produce brought up the river from the 

agricultural areas of Northern Germany, and the goods that were brought by 

ship from The Netherlands, England, and Spain. 

Before the Reformation the region was under the spiritual administration 

of the Bishop of Schwerin. Long before Martin Luther sparked the Protestant 

Reformation in Wittenberg or Menno Simons had brought the Anabaptist 

teachings to nearby Wismar, Rostock had gained a reputation for religious 

dissent. 

Daniel Borberg describes several of these pre-reformation personalities in 

his article, “Die Einführung der Reformation in Rostock.” Among the most 

influential were Rutze, Krantz, and Pegel. 13 

Nikolout Rutze, who studied at Rostock University between 1477 and 

1485, was a strong advocate of the writings of John Huss. Rutze’s book, The 

Three Strands: living faith, hope and love, influenced the students and the 

citizens of Rostock toward a more personal expression of faith. He stressed 

the importance of a pure heart, rather than rituals. 

Albert Krantz, another influential teacher in the university, was also immersed 

in the teachings of Huss. In the early sixteenth century humanist 

scholars Konrad Celtes (1487), Herman von dem Busch (1507), Ulrich von 

Hutten (1512), Johannes Hadus (1515), and Nicolaus Marschalk (1510) 

were associated with the university. Marschalk had worked at Wittenberg 

University before coming to Rostock. The humanists introduced the idea of 

75


76 

studying Scriptures in their original languages. 

The most influential teacher in Rostock during this period was Konrad 

Pegel. He opposed the control of Rome and argued that the only mediator 

between man and God was Jesus Christ. Pegel was appointed by Duke Heinrich 

of Mecklenburg to be the tutor of his son, Magnus. This permitted Pegel 

to shape the future of the principality as it embraced the Lutheran reformation. 

Rostock University was founded in 1419 and its matriculation book lists 

more than 40,000 names of students, dignitaries, and professors who participated 

in the life of the institution. A transcription of the register was published 

in 1904 and reprinted in 1976. 14 Penner apparently consulted this publication 

when he identified Gabriel Werkentin from Goldberg who attended 

the university in 1621 and two Warkentins from Güstrow who attended in 

1632. 

Penner did overlook several facts from this list, which may have tempered 

his inference that Warkentin and Parkentin are somehow linked. First of all, 

he overlooked several earlier Werkentins on the list. Johannes Werkentin 

from Sternberg is registered in 1574. 15 This is the earliest written record of 

the Werkentin name so far discovered. Two decades later, in 1594, Gabriel 

Werkentin from Sternberg is listed. 16 Then follow the names mentioned by 

Penner: Gabriel Werkentin from Goldberg (1621), and Jacob Warckentin 

and Michael Warkentin, both from Güstrow (1632). Arguments over the exact 

spelling of the name seem irrelevant since these two come from the same 

village in the same year yet have different spellings. They do represent the 

more common spellings which would become ubiquitous in Prussia. 

The pronunciation and spelling of Warkentin changed with its national 

and linguistic setting. In Plaut-Deetsch (Low German), a dialect that had no 

written form until the twentieth century, it is pronounced Woajtenteen with a 

v and a distinct diphthong on the oa. The jt is a uniquely Low German sound 

similar to the tch that begins the name Tchaikovsky. 17 

In America most people pronounce the initial syllable wor with a long o. 

In German it would be var as in varnish. The Plaut-Deetsch oa made an easy 

transition to wor in America since English prefers the long o as in a military 

war. 

In Rostock University records it was written Warckentin or Werkentin 

and would have been pronounced Varkenteen. The university list is written 

in Latin and most of the names are given a Latin ending. For example, when 

the son of Martin Luther is listed in 1567, only seven years before Johannes


Werkentin appears, he is recorded as, “Paulus Lutherus, Martini Lutheri filius. 

Artis medicae doctor.” 18 But the Warkentin name, no matter how it is 

spelled internally, never appears with the Latin us ending. 

In Prussia the teen suffix was clearly indicated by spelling the name 

Warkentien. However, many German place names continue to use only the 

i to indicate a long e sound. Stettin, which is near Rostock, is pronounced 

with a long e in the final syllable. Even Berlin is pronounced in German with 

a long e in the final syllable. And no Renaissance scholar would pronounce 

Georg Spalatin other than with a teen final syllable. 

The family of Aron Aron Warkentin, who was born in Prussia in 1777, 

may serve as a sample of how the name changed over time: 

Aron Aron Warkentin b. 1777, Prussia 

Aron Warkentin b. 1807, Ukraine (South Russia) 

Aron Warkentin b. 1862, Ukraine (South Russia) 

Aron Warkentin (1862-1931) arrived in America as a sixteen-year-old 

boy in 1879 and the Americanization of his longstanding surname began to 

evolve. His father died in Russia in 1875 and his mother remarried Jacob 

Graves. Aron was on his own to find his way in America. 

On his marriage certificate, August 31, 1884, Aron’s name is written six 

times and each time it is spelled Warkentine. This would appear to be an 

attempt to accommodate an English pronunciation of the name. The word 

routine would justify this decision, unfortunately, it also leads to the possibility 

of a long i in the final syllable, as in the word mine. However, when 

his name appears as a witness to the marriage of his son, Dietrich, in 1908, 

it is spelled Warkentien. And on the same document Dietrich spells his name 

Warkentin. In each case the handwriting appears to be rather formal and 

may have been the work of a court scribe. Nevertheless, Aron and Dietrich 

would have been aware of what was written and father and son approved two 

contrasting spellings. 

When Aron’s wife, Helena (Mackelburger) died in Fairview, Oklahoma, 

in 1931 the notice in local papers identifies her as Mrs. A. M. Warkentien, 

and one article written in the first person by Aron clearly spells his name 

Warkentien. This same article lists all eight sons and in every case they are 

identified as Warkentien. It is no wonder then that his sons chose three different 

spellings: Warkentin, Warkentine, and Warkentien. But all preserved 

the teen pronunciation. Other Warkentins in America changed the spelling to 

Workentine, while some gave the final syllable the American pronunciation 

tin as in tin metal. 19 

77


78 

Each of the villages with which the Warkentins in the Rostock University 

list are identified is in the area of Parkentin and near Rostock. But this does 

not necessarily confirm Penners theory that Parkentin and Warkentin are 

linked. Other names on the list cast an even darker shadow on his theory. A 

host of students with names such as Roggentyn, Scharentin, Sankentin, Dubbertin, 

Bechentin, Buckentin, Techentin, and Barkentin, along with Parkentyn, 

attended Rostock University with the Warkentins (Werkentins). 

The region is sprinkled with villages whose names have the tin ending. 

Daniel Schlyter lists forty-two villages with tin as their final syllable in his 

Web-based Mecklenburg Gazetteer. 20 Two of these villages deserve special 

attention. Wargentin was a village near present day Malchin and Basedow. 

The village is first mentioned in documents as early as 1215, though it may 

have existed even earlier. It no longer exists as a village; however, there is 

a street in Malchin named “Wargentiner Strasse” and the Wargentin village 

site is still marked by a grove of trees. 21 

The second village of special interest is Wargen in East Prussia. It might 

be the source of the name Wargentin in Mecklenburg. There is also a town of 

Varchentin in the Mecklenburg Gazetteer. This town still exists and shares 

its name with two lakes in the vicinity. In German the v is usually pronounced 

as f. When pronounced, rather than seen, Varchentin sounds very 

much like the typical pronunciation of Warkentin. Names such as Wargentin 

and Varchentin are possible sources of the name Warkentin. This would be 

more likely than that the name evolved from Parkentin. The difficulty is that 

all of these names claim a Slavic-Wendish origin that does not seem consistent 

with the Warkentin family Low-German Mennonite history. 

Language alone cannot be used as proof of ethnic background. Many 

Warkentins in America speak only English and it took less than three generations 

for their German linguistic roots to disappear. It is entirely possible that 

a person who grew up speaking Dutch in seventeenth-century Mecklenburg 

would have grandchildren who spoke only German in eighteenth-century 

Prussia. 

Abraham Friesen, in his fascinating book, In Defense of Privilege: Russian 

Mennonites and the State Before and During World War I, explores 

at great length the origins of Anabaptists in Prussia-Poland. Although his 

argument seems to favor a Dutch origin, he references many authorities who 

claim that a major portion came from Germany. This controversy concerning 

the Dutch or German origin of the Mennonites took on heightened importance 

during the early twentieth century when the Soviet government 

decided to disenfranchise people of German background.


If truth be told, there were some German citizens who converted to the 

Anabaptist perspective. Who could argue that a name like Mackelburger did 

not come from Mecklenburg? Yet Aron Warkentien married Helena Mackelburger 

in 1884 in Jansen, Nebraska. They shared Mennonite faith and communicated 

in Low German. And just as certainly names such as Patzkowsky, 

Rogalsky, and Schapansky entered the Mennonite tradition during the Polish-Russian 

interlude in Mennonite history. Friesen summarizes the question 

in his reference to a study by Felicia Szper: 

The scholarly opinion, both Mennonite and non-Mennonite, on the 

matter of the ethnic origin of the Prussian Mennonites was therefore remarkably 

uniform prior to World War I. This unanimity was punctuated 

by Felicia Szper’s 1913 study entitled Nederlandsche Nederzettingen 

in West-Pruisen gedurende den Poolschen Tijd (Dutch Settlements in 

West Prussia during Polish Rule). Setting the coming of the Dutch 

Anabaptists in the sixteenth century into the larger context of Dutch- 

Prussian contacts, trade, even the occasional settlement, going back to 

the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Szper sought to determine the date 

on which Dutch Anabaptists made their first appearance in Prussia and 

the precise regions in the Netherlands from which they came. And in an 

appendix she reproduced some twelve documents, beginning with one 

dated 1555 and ending with another dated 1766, that consistently spoke 

of these settlers as coming from Holland. 22 

A surprising argument for the German origin of Mennonites appears after 

World War I: “The divided opinion of the Russian Mennonites on this question 

after the war contrasts sharply with the virtually unanimous verdict of 

the scholars before the war.” 23 This debate, however, never suggests that 

Anabaptist-Mennonites came from the Wendish-Slavic ethnic tradition even 

though a name such as Warkentin appears in a context where many Wends 

lived. In fact, the Rostock-Wismar-Lübeck branch of the Hansa was called 

the Wendish League. The German term designating people of Old-Slavic 

origin is Wendish. 

There is a possibility that Warkentin originated in this Slavic tradition, but 

there are many stronger facts that point to a Dutch origin, as will be shown 

later in this essay. Most Wends embraced the Lutheran reformation and became 

conservative followers of this tradition. They maintained a unique language, 

which has its origin outside the German-Dutch-Saxon tradition. A 

large group of Lutheran Wends immigrated to Galveston, Texas, and remain 

committed to the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. 24 

79


80 

None of this Wendish identity seems consistent with the later history of 

the Warkentin family. They spoke Plaut-Deetsch (Low German). The Low 

German spoken in Poland by Mennonites was somewhat different than the 

language commonly referred to as Low German in the northern provinces 

of Germany. Yet both dialects had their origin in Dutch-German-Saxon languages, 

not in the Slavic tradition. 25 Many, but not all, of the Warkentins 

embraced the radical reformation of Menno Simons. And they migrated to 

Poland rather than remain in the Lutheran-dominated area near Rostock. As 

usual, when migration of a group is described, it is necessary to acknowledge 

that not all Warkentins participated. The Warkentins who have no connection 

with the Anabaptist history can be found in the Rostock region to 

this day. A Web search of the Rostock telephone directory shows several 

families with the Warkentin name. 26 

Some Mecklenburg Warkentins migrated to the United States in the nineteenth 

century. For example, Ronald Dean Warkentien, who lives in Illinois, 

is the descendant of Ernst Christian Warkentin who was born in 1778 in 

Lüdershagen, Güstrow, Mecklenburg, Germany. His son, Christian Wilhelm 

Warkentin, emigrated from Güstrow to America in 1850. His children were 

baptized in a Lutheran church: 

Ernst Christian Warkentin 1778-Güstrow 

Christian Willhelm Warkentin 1812-Güstrow (1850 to USA) 

Frederick Charles Johann Warkentien 1852-Cook County, Illinois 

(baptized Lutheran) 

Walter A. Warkentien 1901-Starke County, Illinois 

Ronald Dean Warkentien 1932 27 

If the Warkentin name is not of Slavic origin, then what is its origin? One 

clue is the suffix tin, which many Mecklenburger names have in common. 

The name Roggentyn, for example, is among the earliest names on the Rostock 

University list. It has been most thoroughly researched. According to 

the name advice center at the University of Leipzig, Roggentyn is a place 

name. The suffix in indicates, “from the place of ....” 28 

Not all students with names ending in tin are associated with villages that 

match their name. For example, Baltzar Parkentyn 29 is not from Parkentin, 

but rather from Hannover. Marcus Techentin 30 is not from Techen, but rather 

from Lübeck. There is a small community of Techentin near Goldburg in 

Mecklenburg, and a town in central Germany named Techen, so it is possible 

that the tin suffix indicates, “from the place of Techen.” Apparently, Marcus 

chose to be identified with the larger city of Lübeck rather than the small


community of Techentin, or perhaps his family had moved from Techen to 

Lübeck. 

That the suffix tin might be added to a place name is clearly shown by the 

case of Georg Spalatin, who was a friend of Martin Luther. Georg was born 

on January 17, 1484, to the Burkhardt family in the village of Spalt, southeast 

of Nürnberg. He completed his baccalaureate degree at the University 

of Erfurt in 1499, where he is listed as Georius Borgardi de Spaltz (Georg 

Burkhardt from Spalt). He attended newly founded Wittenberg University in 

1502 and was among the first group who completed a master’s degree there 

in 1503. 31 In 1508 he was ordained as a priest by Archbishop Johann von 

Laasphe, the same cleric who had ordained Luther; however, he did not meet 

Luther until 1513. 32 

As at Erfurt, he registered at Wittenberg under a latinized name: Georius 

borkhardus de spalt. 33 The slight difference in the spelling may be an 

indication of the relaxed attitude toward spelling which is found throughout 

Europe in this period. However, this bright young student decided to 

give his name a more universal status upon graduating with the master’s 

degree. He may have been influenced in this decision by his mentor, Nicolaus 

Marschalk, who later in 1510, went to Rostock University where the 

Warkentin name first surfaces. Among the group of fourteen students who 

completed the degree on February 2, 1503, listed as number eleven, is the 

name, Georgius Spalatinus. 34 Georg Burkhardt never used his family name 

again in his professional writing, and in the history of the Reformation he is 

always remembered as Georg Spalatin (George from Spalt). 

A more famous name ending in in, and one that clearly comes from a 

Slavic source, is that of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. He wanted a name that 

indicated strength, grandeur, and Russian background. So he added in to the 

Siberian river name Lena and became Vladimir Lenin. This may not be a 

strong argument for the origins of the Warkentin name, but it does indicate 

that in Slavic traditions place names can be claimed by adding in. 

In the case of the Roggentin family name mentioned above, it would appear 

that the tin ending comes from the Slavic (Wendish) tradition. Historians 

agree that people of Slavic background migrated to the Baltic region 

as early as 600. Their linguistic influence is evident in Poland and the 

Baltic states. Hans Bahlow, in his comprehensive book, German Names, 

lists Warkenti(e)n as being derived from a Slavic place name. 35 However, 

the Slavic origin of tin can hardly be applied to Georg Spalatin, who came 

from Bavaria near Nürenburg in Southern Germany and, even if his heritage 

81


82 

might be traced to the very early settlements of Slavs who can be found in 

Bavaria, it is evident that he chose the tin ending after attending university. 

The example of Spalatin, the Dutch-Mennonite connection, and the Low- 

German linguistic history in the Warkentin family argue against a Slavic 

origin. 

One can conclude that Warkentin means “from a place named Warken.” 

But there are a number of locations to be considered. Warken, Werken, 

Werchen, Verchin, Wargen, and Workum can be found on the map of northern 

Europe. And there is a concentration of villages in Mecklenburg with tin 

as their final syllable. This tin ending has an Old Slavic linguistic origin and 

the presence of Slavs in this region is well documented. Theirs was a pagan 

tradition and the Christianization of this region around 1100 forced them to 

convert, depart, or die. 36 

Scholars have logically, but perhaps too easily, assigned an Old Slavic 

origin to every name ending in tin. The example of Georg Spalatin puts that 

practice to the question. 

The most direct origin of Warkentin may be the village of Wargentin, 

which appears in documents around 1250 and disappears from maps after 

1800. A Dutch-published map of Mecklenburg from 1645 shows Wargentin 

south of Rostock near the town of Malchin. 37 Yet, it is not a completely satisfactory 

place of origin since the name Werkentin appears not far away at 

Rostock University in 1574 with a k and never with a g. Evidence can neither 

confirm nor deny this as the place of origin, and there are other places which 

deserve equal or greater consideration. 

A family might have come to Mecklenburg from Workum in The Netherlands 

where Anabaptists were well established and then changed their name 

to Warkentin. But that would require a number of consonant shifts and there 

is a more logical, though often overlooked, possibility that we shall pursue. 

There is a village named Warken in Gelderland, The Netherlands. Is this 

merely serendipity, or can a connection be made between Rostock in Mecklenburg 

and Warken in Gelderland? Certainly such a connection can be made 

on the basis of circumstantial evidence. As early as 1150 people from Flanders 

had been invited by Albert the Bear, Margrave of Brandenburg, to settle 

along the Baltic near Rostock. “They received bigger farms than the Slavs 

retained, were practically exempt from taxation and enjoyed such a high 

degree of secular and ecclesiastical favour, as compared with the Slav population, 

that a large proportion of such natives as had survived the slaughter 

of battle left the country.” 38


The princely sons of the Slav leader, Niklot, died in their attempt to retain 

their territory in Mecklenburg and Pomerania. Pribislaw, the elder son, 

declared war on Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, in 1164. His speech rallying 

his troops at the castle of Ilowe clearly identifies people of Flanders as 

unwelcome foreigners in his realm: 

You all know how much injury and disaster the violent rule of the Duke 

has brought upon our people. He has robbed us of the inheritance left 

by our fathers and bestowed it everywhere upon foreigners, Flemings, 

Dutchmen, Saxons, Westphalians and others.’ 39 (italics mine) 

It is also evident that the people of Flanders and Holland thought of the 

Baltic coast as a place of hope and refuge. The “Shakespeare” of Dutch 

literature, Joost van der Vondel (1587-1679), sets his most famous play, Gijsbrecht 

van Aemstel in the fourteenth century, and has his hero escape 

from war-torn Holland and resettle in Danzig. 40 Such an escape from the 

problems in Holland did not seem unrealistic to Vodel’s seventeenth-century 

audience. And it must be noted that Vondel was an Anabaptist-Mennonite in 

1650 when he wrote this drama. 

A century after Gijsbrecht supposedly escaped to Danzig, the presence of 

Netherlanders is again noted in Mecklenburg. The Rostock University matriculation 

list names several students who claim cities in the Netherlands as 

their home. Gisebertus Nicolai 41 is from Leyden, Bernhardus Lewerdianus 42 

is from the state of Friesland and probably from the town of Leeuwarden, 

as his family name implies. This establishes the fact that students from The 

Netherlands did attend Rostock University. But can such a clear argument 

be made for a student coming from the village of Warken? This will depend 

upon additional circumstantial evidence. 

Warken is a small community of several hundred people in Gelderland. It 

is situated five kilometers east of Zutphen and since 2005 it has been incorporated 

into that larger municipality. According to Dutch historian Michel 

Groothedde, Warken was spelled Wercken during the 14th and 15th centuries. 

43 Dutch etymologist, Jan ter Laak, believes that Warken means “curve in 

the river.” Warken is located on the Warkense enk near the river Berkel and 

is named after the curve in this river. Excavations in nearby Eme and Leesten 

reveal that the site has been occupied by farmers for more than 5,000 years. 44 

Zutphen, which would have been the governmental center for Warken, has 

a well-documented history. It is the ninth-oldest city in the Netherlands, receiving 

its city rights in 1190. It is located in the state of Gelderland and 

83


84 

since it is one of the last major cities in the south where the terrain becomes 

a fen it has been given the name “south-fen.” 

Zutphen had a Mennonite community in the eighteenth century, but that is 

the earliest mention of their presence. 45 That no earlier Mennonite congregation 

is found in the written record may be due to the fact that under Philip II 

new congregations were forbidden. So any Anabaptist congregations in the 

Zutphen area would have had to be secret. There was enough religious turmoil 

in the region to produce martyrs like Anne of Utenhoven, who is recorded 

in The Martyrs Mirror, and to precipitate an invasion by Philip II in the late 

sixteenth century resulting in the massacre of citizens in Zutphen. 46-47 

It was one of the Hansa cities and therefore had economic connections 

with Lübeck, Rostock, Danzig, and other cities along the Baltic coast. The 

rivers and canals flowing through Zutphen lead to the Dutch coast and from 

there to all the major ports of the Baltic. At the peak of trading activity in the 

fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as many as 1,200 ships annually made the 

voyage between The Netherlands and ports of the Baltic. 48 

Establishing the year when a Dutch-speaking family would have left 

Warken and relocated in the Rostock area may be impossible. But the name, 

Verken, definitely appears in Rostock in the late Middle Ages. 

The financial and political success of Rostock was dependent on the cooperative 

relationship it had with other exporting cities in the region. As early 

as 1257 Rostock was in negotiation with Wismar, Lübeck, and Ribnitz with 

the goal of establishing rights of commerce. One concern was the active 

presence of pirates and thieves along the coast. 49 The relatively small ships 

used for commerce in the late Middle Ages required navigation by visual 

landmarks, keeping them near the shore and susceptible to piracy. 

The oldest city records of Rostock are on several undated parchment pages. 

Thierfelder has determined that these pages predate the City Record of 

1261. 50 Fragment I-3 records a legal transaction regarding Nicolaus Verken, 

his daughter Margaret, and Herman of Blisecov. 51 This transaction definitely 

predates 1261 and most likely was recorded in 1258. Nicolaus Verken was 

living in, or near, Rostock in 1258 and was old enough to have a daughter, 

which would place his birth around 1230. 

In the late Middle Ages family names (surnames) had not yet developed 

a standard taxonomy. A person may be known as Johann the fisherman, or 

Johann son of Heinrich, or Johann of Lübeck, or simply as Johann. It may 

be only accidental that Nicolaus Verken is not recorded as Nicolaus “de” 

Verken. Even without the insertion of “de” one can conclude that the final

Name of Article Here 

name indicates a place of origin since it is neither a father’s name nor a vocational 

name. Werken in both Dutch and German means “to labor, work,” 

but it would be quite unusual for a verb to become a family name. 

Spelling of names is not standardized in this early Rostock document. 

For example, Walter is spelled Walterus, Walderus, Wolterus, Wolderus, and 

Volterus. 52 It is therefore not surprising that the village in Gelderland, which 

today is spelled Warken, was spelled Wercken during the Middle Ages. And 

just as the w may morph into v so does the ck easily become k. And the great 

variety of spellings of Warkentin (Werkentin, Werckentin, Warckentien) 

demonstrates the shift between a and e. 

It is also consistent with geographic and economic history that there would 

be migration within the region known as the Low Countries. This label is not 

confined to the area presently comprising the state of The Netherlands, but 

is applied to the entire northern area from Emden to Danzig. Into this region 

all the major rivers of northern Europe flow, making for efficient transport of 

inland produce to the Baltic coast. Even though the Hanseatic League was 

not yet fully developed by 1250, there was already significant trade between 

cities along the Baltic coast and cities along the shores of Western Europe. 

The Rostock city records of the thirteenth century mention cargo such as 

wheat, rye, barley, oats, malt, hops, lumber, potash, wax, honey, dried salted 

herring, flour, cloth, linen, copper, iron, fur pelts, salt, cement, and farm 

animals that were exported from its port on the Warnow river. 53 

Thierfelder has created an alphabetical list of family names found in the 

Rostock city register. 54 It is clear from this list that many families had found 

their way to the area around Rostock from Flanders, where the village of 

Warken is located. There are seven entries, some including several family 

members, with the last name Flamingus, Flamincgus, or Flemingus, clearly 

indicating their origin as Flanders. Other names that may have origins in The 

Netherlands include Brabantinus, Brant, Vollandi, and Harlendie. The cities 

of Zwolle and Utrecht (Traiecto) are also mentioned as places of origin. 55 

That Nicolaus Verken would not have been the only person of Dutch origin 

living in Rostock in 1260 is clearly shown by the presence of these other 

names on the list. It is historically possible that his name refers to the village 

of Wercken (Warken) in Gelderland since Zutphen and its satellite village, 

Warken, have a history dating back to 1190 and existed as an agricultural 

area reaching back five thousand years. 

Many names in Thierfelder’s summary of the Rostock Register would 

later find their way into the Mennonite tradition. Perhaps these are simply 

85


86 

common Germanic names, but it is more than coincidental that so many of 

these names have survived in the Mennonite-Anabaptist tradition that swept 

through this area two centuries later. The following names, which can be 

found in twenty-first century Mennonite congregations, are recorded on the 

Rostock list before 1273: 

Medieval spelling Modern spelling 

Bloc Block 

Born Born 

Bouman Bauman 

Brant Brandt 

Bulle Buller 

Voghet Vogt, Voth 

Friso Friesen 

Gunterus Günther, Gunther 

de Hagen Hagen 

Heince Heinze 

Heinricus Heinrichs 

Herderus Harder 

Hildebrandus Hildebrandt 

Heyer Heier 

de Lawe Loewen 

de Lippia Lepp, Loepp 

Martinus Martens 

Reimarus Reimer 

Sibertus Siebert 

Symonis Siemens 

Slichtinc Schlichting 

Sroder Schröder 

Wibeken Wiebe 

But why should one look for migration from Flanders to Mecklenburg so 

early in history? It has usually been assumed that Mennonites fled from The 

Netherlands to Northern Germany and Prussia as the result of religious persecution 

in the sixteenth century. However, the matriculation list from Rostock 

University and the earliest Rostock city records show that this assumption 

may be only partially correct. In addition to the “Mennonite” names listed 

in the thirteenth century city records, the university register in the fifteenth 

century lists the following names, which can be found in twenty-first century 

Mennonite congregations. These families lived in Mecklenburg long before 

the Anabaptist message took root: 56

As listed Modern spelling 

Lowe Loewen 

Berken Bergen 

Voghet Vogt 

Conradi Conrad 

Schroder Schröder 

van Epen Epp 

Bulle Buller 

Bolt Bolt 

Symonis Siemens 

Mertens Martens 

Borchman Barkman 

Brand Brandt 

Smyt Schmidt 

Radyke Radke 

Kruse Kruze 

Block Block 

Pletze Plett 

Goldbeke Goldbeck 

Reymer Reimer 

Berch Berg 

Decker Decker 

Gortzen Goertzen 

Flemingh Flaming 

Dreger Drieger 

Yseken Isaac 

Knake Knack 

Suderman Suderman 

Eyttzen Eytzen 

Funke Funk 

Zukow Sukow 

Langhe Lange 

Bergh Berg 

Vlamynk Flaming 

Sperling Sperling 

Schulenborch Schellenberg 


The fact that the first Werkentin does not appear in the register until 1574 

might lead to the conclusion that his migration from Warken occurred in the 

late sixteenth century and may, indeed, have resulted from religious persecution. 

However there is another possibility. In 1456 a student named Bernardus 

Verken attended Rostock University. 57 

The only information given about Bernard Verken is that he came from 

the village of Hagen. There are several villages and cities of this name in 

87


88 

Germany but the one closest to Rostock is most likely his home. It is located 

northeast of Rostock on the large island of Rügen, along the Baltic coast. 

The Verken name was long established in the Rostock area since Nicolaus 

Verken has been shown to be there in 1260. And there is also a village southeast 

of Rostock which is named Verchen on modern maps, but on earlier 

maps is spelled Verken. 

Since Bernard was of university age in 1456 he was probably born between 

1430 and 1440. Rostock University, established in 1419, would have 

been an attractive place for a young man of ambition. A university education 

was a good entrance to a more successful life and Rostock University was 

the most prestigious place of learning along the trading routes of Northern 

Europe. 

With many families in the region using the suffix tin to indicate their 

place of origin, it would be a logical progression for the Werken family 

to add it to their name just as Georg Burkhardt from Spalt became Georg 

Spalatin. Bernard Werken attended the university in 1456, and in 1574, a 

century later, Johannes Werkentin registered. And it should be noted that 

Nicolaus Marschalk, who was Spalatin’s mentor at Wittenberg University 

in 1503, came to Rostock University in 1510 before the first appearance of 

the Warkentin name. Is it possible that he influenced a student from Warken 

to change his name to Warkentin? At any rate, by 1574 the family name was 

firmly established as Werkentin with the suffix tin indicating their place of 

origin. This would explain why the name in its full form has not been found 

earlier in any other place. 

Further research may add valuable information concerning the names and 

locations of Werken and Werkentin in the Rostock region. A family well 

enough established to send their son to a university most likely had other 

children and possibly relatives in the region. The Rostock matriculation list 

gives only a very selective view of families. Surely, not every young man 

named Werken or Werkentin was able to attend the university. 

At present an attempt is being made to test DNA samples from Warkentins 

in the Prussia-Russia-Mennonite line and from Warkentins in the Mecklenburg-Lutheran 

line. The results should indicate the common ethnic origins 

of the name. Bahlow may be correct when he writes that Warkentin is based 

on an Old Slavic place since there are several villages in Mecklenburg with 

similar sounding names. However, that would still not prove that people 

carrying the name are of Slavic origin. Without question people of Flemish- 

Dutch ancestry have lived in the Rostock region for more than five hundred


years. They might have brought the name with them, or they might have 

acquired the name from villages in Mecklenburg. 

One intriguing question can be answered satisfactorily. If Bernard Werken 

lived in Mecklenburg before 1500 he would have been a baptized Catholic. 

Rostock had several large Catholic churches and monasteries. Any one living 

in the area before 1500 would have been devoutly, or at least tacitly, 

Catholic. How did the Werkentin family and the many other families with 

Mennonite ethnic names become associated with the Anabaptist-Mennonite 

Christian tradition? 

Menno Simons, after whom the Mennonite tradition is named, came from 

Witmarsum in the Dutch state of Friesland. He spent the last fifteen years of 

his life in the region where the name Warkentin is first recorded. 

According to Harold S. Bender in Menno Simons’ Life and Writings, 

Menno fled Holland because a bounty was on his head for being a religious 

heretic who did not follow the strict teachings of the state church. In the 

Baltic north he would be under the sovereignty of the more tolerant King 

of Denmark. In 1553-54 Menno lived in Wismar, which is between Lübeck 

and Rostock. 58 In this town in 1554, he participated in a theological conference 

with the leaders of the Mennonite (Anabaptist) churches. During these 

years he worked on a translation of his Dutch writings into the provincial 

Low-German dialect spoken in the Baltic region. Menno died in 1561 on the 

estate of Bartholomew von Ahlefeldt in the village of Wüstenfelde, which is 

located between Lübeck and Hamburg. 

It is likely that the Warkentins and many of the other Mennonite-related names 

on the Rostock matriculation list were converted to the Anabaptist view of Christianity 

by Menno himself, or by his most influential disciple, Dirk Philips, who 

also worked in this region. As stated earlier, the first Warkentin in Prussia is Arendt 

Warckentin in 1667, and his name is recorded in the Danzig (Flemish) Mennonite 

church, of which Dirk Philips was the founder. 

The Warkentin name first appears at Rostock University in 1574 in the 

principality of Mecklenburg. Evidence suggests that it evolved from the 

place-name Warken by the addition of the suffix tin, which indicates a place 

of origin. And the logical place of origin is the village of Warken in Gelderland, 

The Netherlands. The family became Mennonite Anabaptist and moved 

to Prussia before 1667. Evidence clearly shows that the name predates the 

Prussian era and it indicates that not all Mennonites in the “Dutch” tradition 

came from The Netherlands as the result of religious persecution. 

The presence of Flemish people in Mecklenburg well before the Refor- 

89


90 

mation precipitates an interesting question. Even if DNA evidence shows 

a Dutch origin for a person of Mennonite background, is it reasonable to 

claim Dutch privilege if the family lived in “Germany” for centuries? If the 

Warken family moved from Flanders to Mecklenburg as early as 1200 can 

they claim Dutch heritage? This would be comparable to a descendant of a 

Mayflower family claiming privilege as a citizen of Great Britain. 

The search for a name’s origin never ends. But the search itself opens windows 

into history, politics, economics, geography, faith, and faithfulness, 

and provides insights for living in the present. What Tennyson wrote of a 

flower in a crannied wall, can be said of a name: 

but if I could understand 

What you are, root and all, and all in all, 

I should know what God and man is. 

NotES 

1 Johan Postma, Das niederländische Erbe der preussisch-russländischen Mennoniten in 

Europe, Asian und America (Leeuwarden: A. Jongblood c.v., 1959), 102 #532. 

2 Cornelius Krahn, Warkentin, vol. 4 of Mennonite Encyclopedia. (Scottdale, PA: Herald 

Press, 1959), 887. 

3 Horst Penner, Die ost-und westpreussischen Mennoniten in ihrem religiosen und sozialen 

Leben in ihren kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Leistungen Teil I 1526-1772 (Weierhof: 

Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein E. V., 1978), 353. 

4 Glenn H. Penner, trans., Brandregister of 1727, http://www.mennonitegenealogy.com/prussia/Brandregister_1727.html. 

5 John Thiesen, www.bethelks.edu/jthiesen/prussian/heubuden.html. 

6 Peter Klassen, trans., from manuscript from the Gdansk National Archive for a forthcoming 

book by Peter Klassen (Fresno: 2006). 

7 Sidney B. Fay, The Rise of Brandenburg-Prussia to 1786, rev. Klaus Epstien (New York: 

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1946). 

8 Victor Peters and Jack Thiessen, Mennonitische Namen: Mennonite Names (Marburg: 

N. G. Elwert Verlag 1987), 132. 

9 Ibid. 

10 Hermann Schreiber, Teuton and Slav: The struggle for central Europe, trans. from the 3rd 

German edition by James Cleugh (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), 241. 

11 Horst Penner, loc. cit. 

12 Ibid. 

13 Axel Borberg, Die Einführung der Reformation in Rostock, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 

Schrift 58, XV. Jahrgang. Vereinsjhar 1897-1898, (Halle: 1897), 35. 

Hans Bahlow, German Names, trans. and rev. Edda Gentry (University of Wisconsin Press, 

2002), 535. 

14 Adolph Hormeister, vol. 1-4 of Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock (Rostock: Commission 

der Stillerschen Hor-und Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1891, Kraus Reprint, 1987).

15 Die Matrikel vol. II, 182 #35. 


17 Peters and Thiessen, loc. cit. (additional discussion of Low-German pronunciation is 

available in the introduction of Jack Thiessen’s Low-German Dictionary and other 

Mennonite names may be studied in Gustav Reimer, Die Familiennamen der westpreussischen 

Mennoniten. (Weierhof: Mennonitischen Geschichtsverein, 1963). 


19 The materials relating to Aron Warkentin (1862-1931), my great-grandfather, are in my 

personal collection. 

20 Daniel Schlyter, Mecklenburg Gazetteer, http://www.progenealogists.com/germany/mecklenburg/meckgaz.htm. 

21 Die Stadtgründung Malchin-Mecklenburgischen Schweiz, www.absolut-mecklenburg.de/ 

root/ll_00_00006/index.php?seite=301. 

22 Abraham Friesen, In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State Before and 

During World War I (Winnipeg: Kindred Productions, 2006), 306. 

23 Ibid. 

24 Schwausch Wendish History, www.netmastery.com/ancestors/whatsawend.html-7k. 

25 Jack Thiessen, Mennonite Low German Dictionary: Mennonitisch-Plattdeutsches 

Wörterbuch. Studies of the Max Lase Institute for German-American Studies (Madison: 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2003), 27-30. 

26 Rostock directory available at http://www.teleauskunft.de/. 

27 Ronald Dean Warkentien family genealogy available at http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ 

cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=vortext155&id=l1052). 

28 Roggentin family history available at http://www.alfred-roggentin.gmxhome.de/page6.html. 

29 Die Matrikel 1522 vol. II, 83 #27. 

30 Die Matrikel 1567, vol. II, 164 #28. 

31 Irmgard Höss, Georg Spalatin: 1484-1545 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1956), 14. 

32Albert Hauck, ed., Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Leipzig: 

J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung,1906), 547. 

33 Georg Spalatin 13. 

34 Georg Spalatin 14. 

35 Hans Bahlow, German Names, trans. and rev. Edda Gentry (University of Wisconsin Press, 

2002), 535. 

36 Marija Gimbutas, The Slavs (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971). 

37 Meklenburg map of 1645 at UCLA, http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/reference/maps/blaeu/ 

meklenbvrg.jpg. 

38 Herman Schreiber, Teuton and Slav: The struggle for central Europe, trans. James Cleugh 

(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965). 

39 Teuton and Slav 59. (Quoting Helmold, Geschichte der Slaven, II.2.). 

40 Jost van den Vondel, Gijsbrecht van Amstel, trans. Kristin P. G. Amerce, Carleton Renaissance 

Plays in Translation (Dove house editions, 1991). 

41 Die Matrikel 1490 vol. I, 213 #77. 


43 Michel Groothedde, personal correspondence with the author, 2006. 

44 Jan ter Laak, personal correspondence with the author, 2006. 


91


92 

45 Zutphen-Gelderland, #0108887 (Family History Center, Salt Lake, Utah) 

46 Craig Harline and Eddy Put, A Bishop’s Tale: Mathias Hovius Among His Flock in Seventeenth-Century 

Flanders (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000). 

47 C. Bruneel, The Spanish and Austrian Netherlands in History of the Low Countries, ed. 

J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts, trans. James C. Kennedy (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999). 

48 Johannes Schildhauer, The Hansa: History and Culture, trans. Katherine Vanovitch 

(Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 1985), 39. 

49 Hildegard Thierfelder, Das Älteste Rostocker Stadtbuch (ca. 1254-1273) (Göttingen: 

Vandenhoeck and Rupert, 1967), 348. 

50 Älteste Rostocker 18. 

51 Älteste Rostocker 74 #23. 

52 Älteste Rostocker 338-339. 


54 Älteste Rostocker 292-319. 


56 Die Matrikel vol. 1, 1419-1499. 

57 Die Matrikel vol. I, 110 #85. 

58 Harold S. Bender, Menno Simons’ Life and Writings (Scottdale: Mennonite 

Publishing House, 1936), 42.

PAUL TOEWS 

Literature Review: 

Recent Titles in Russian History 

DAVID REMNICK 

lenin’s tomb: the last Days of the Soviet Empire. 

New York: Random House, 1993. 588 PAgES. 

ANNE APPlEBAUM 

Gulag: A history. 

New York: Doubleday, 2003. 677 pages 

oRlANDo FIGES 

Natasha’s Dance: A Cultural history of Russia. 

New York: Metropolitan Books, 2002. 728 pages. 

PAUL TOEWS, Literature Review: Recent Titles in Russian History 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a remarkably rich collection of 

books has resulted from the opening of archival holdings that were previously 

inaccessible to Western scholars. A number might be of interest to readers 

not particularly steeped in Russian history: David Remnick, Lenin’s Tomb: 

The Last Days of the Soviet Empire (Random House, 1994); Anne Applebaum, 

Gulag: A History (Doubleday, 2004); and Orlando Figes, Natasha’s 

Dance: A Cultural History of Russia (Henry Holt and Company, 2002) are all 

good reads. Remnick and Applebaum received the prestigious Pulitzer Prize. 

Figes, while not winning a Pulitzer, has received other notable awards. 

From 1988-1992 Remnick, as the Moscow correspondent for the Washington 

Post, had a front-row seat for observing the collapse of the Soviet Empire. 

He arrived in Moscow shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev had announced 

his policy of “glasnost” or openness. That policy, perhaps Gorbachev’s 

greatest achievement, also opened up Soviet history in a way which had not 

occurred since its beginnings in 1917. One of Remnick’s theses is an important 

reminder about the power of historical investigation. He argues that no 

people could face the past that was opened up in the 1980s. Unmasking the 

past undercut the lingering legitimacy of the Soviet system. The self-righteousness 

of the Lenin idealism and sense of the invincibility of the totalitarian 

state were destroyed. The state, it turned out, had survived only through 

a war against its own people. The “new history” also gave legitimacy to the 

nationalist claims that subsequently made it easier for republics of the Union 

93


94 

of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to move toward independence. 

Remnick analyzed the end Soviet period and the years of change through 

engaging interviews with hundreds of people. We get a glimpse of the texture 

of the lives of important and nameless people, party functionaries and dissidents 

under the Soviet system. These interviews reveal many things—the 

determination and capacity for people to carve out personal spheres amidst 

a very totalitarian society, the way in which commitments are shaped by 

personal and familial values, and the endless and subtle ways in which they 

either ignored the dictates of the state or consciously undermined its expectations. 

The composite is a lively accounting of the events that contributed 

to the sudden unraveling of what had been perceived by many as a powerful 

and enduring state system. 

Anne Applebaum’s Gulag: A History is not about the collapse of the Soviet 

Union, yet it does describe one of the features that surely led to its collapse. 

The history of the gulag is best known through work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (published both in Russia 

and the West in 1962) and the Gulag Archipelago (a three-volume work) 

initially published in the West in 1973 and in the Soviet Union only in 1989. 

Solzhenitsyn’s work could be published only following Khrushchev’s attack 

on the system in 1956. Applebaum followed Gorbachev’s 1987 more extensive 

attack on the repressive system. While Solzhenitsyn traced the gulag’s 

origins back to Lenin (earlier it had generally been assumed that Stalin was 

the initiator), Applebaum finds antecedents in Czarist Russia and similarities 

with prisoner camps established earlier by Western nations. Solzhenitsyn’s 

work effectively ended in 1956. Applebaum carries the story to the closure 

of the system under Gorbachev. Running throughout are comparisons with 

the Nazi death factories. While at times they acted in similar ways, Applebaum 

repeatedly notes that the Soviet camp system was different in that it 

was designed to build a state through terror and to help industrialize the empire. 

Of prime importance was that the gulag population fit into a camp production 

plan and fulfill a work norm. And so prisoners of the gulag cleared 

forests and built roads, railways, dams, and new cities and made everything 

from missiles to children’s toys. Many suffered along the way, but that was 

a by-product rather than the intent of the system. 

Solzhenitsyn’s work could not see the end of the equation. Applebaum 

does and is intrigued with the contrast to the end of the Nazi camps. For 

the crimes and injustices of the gulag there have been no trials of those 

responsible and no official investigations. There is no national museum of 

repression, no national monuments, and little public memory, as there is in

PAUL TOEWS, Literature Review: Recent Titles in Russian History 

Germany. She observes many reasons for the difference. Most importantly is 

the continuing dominance of leaders with roots in the Soviet past who have 

interest in concealing some of its worst features. 

Natasha’s Dance is a very different kind of work. This is a grand cultural 

overview. If you want a quick and enchanting entry into the history 

of Russian culture from Peter the Great’s opening to the West in the early 

eighteenth century into the mid-twentieth Soviet story, then this is the book. 

Natasha is a blue blood out of Tolstoy’s War and Peace who, when visiting 

an eccentric relative, finds some of the Russian peasantry in her own soul. 

In the encounter Figes, a professor of history at the University of London, 

finds a metaphor for the complexity of Russian identity. It leads us to the polarities 

of the ensuing cultural story: the Asian soul and the European mind, 

Moscow and St. Petersburg as competing intellectual centers, Westernized 

nobility and traditional peasantry, and artist and politician in the fashioning 

of Russian identity. 

Figes argues that for the past two hundred years the absence of a free press 

and inclusive and representative political institutions meant that the debate 

about national identity was carried on in the arts. The literati, alienated from 

the state functionaries by their political aspirations and from the peasants 

by their education, poured their energy into the quest for understanding the 

nationality ideal. As a consequence writers, artists, and musicians were endowed 

with unusual moral authority. In the introduction Figes writes, “Nowhere 

has the artist been more burdened with the task of moral leadership 

and national prophecy nor more feared and prosecuted by the state.” From 

Peter the Great (1700) through the Napoleonic wars (1815) the quest for 

identity among the intelligentsia, both national and personal, largely took its 

cue from the West. 

Following the Napoleonic invasion and the willing sacrifice of the peasants 

to defend their land the cultural elites began a search for identity within 

Russian traditions. It is this tension between the foreign and the indigenous 

that has nurtured some of the greatest writers, poets, artists, and composers 

of modern history. Writers like Leo Tolstoy, Fedor Dostoevsky, Anton 

Chekhov, and Alexander Pushkin; artists Marc Chagall and Ilia Repin; muscians 

Nickolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Sergei Rachmaninov, Pytor Tchaikovsky, 

Sergei Prokofiev, and many others drew on fashionable European forms and 

themes and the sentiments or rhythms of oriental Russia and its peasant culture. 

By the mid-nineteenth century a widespread conviction assumed that 

Russian art and music needed to liberate itself from imitation of European 

95


96 

forms. Only by incorporating the native traditions could Russian cultural 

life emerge from the shadows of Europe. As Vladimir Stasov, a towering 

figure in nineteenth-century Russian cultural life, described it the time had 

come for the “hoopskirts and tailcoats” of St. Petersburg to give way to 

the “long Russian coats” of the country. (p. 178). The emancipation of the 

serfs in 1861 encouraged an embrace of peasant virtues as the embodiment 

of a distinctive nationality. Figes traces many nineteenth century examples 

of the artistic reach from the recent Westernized past to the more ancient 

Slavophile elements of the Russian psyche. Ilia Repin’s famous painting, 

The Volga Barge Haulers (1873), idealizes the human dignity of the peasant. 

Musorgsky’s operas incorporate folk music of the steppe and the people not 

yet disturbed by the appearance of the railway. Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring 

(1913) recreates ancient rituals of harmony. Fedor Dostoevsky’s four great 

novels—Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Devils, and The Brothers 

Karamazov—Figes contends, were all variations on the theme of the Western 

educated man finding fulfillment by becoming a Slavophile. 

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 creates a deep chasm in this cultural 

story. Some artists became the keepers of the memory of the European civilization 

which was largely swept away, others became engaged in the construction 

of the new Soviet person and still others emigrated. The final chapter—“Russia 

Abroad”—chronicles the yearnings of the diaspora who fled 

initially to Berlin and Paris and often on to the United States in the 1920s and 

1930s. A cluster came to Paris, including Prokofiev and Stravinsky, where 

they sought to continue the cultural life of St. Petersburg. Here, Figes suggests, 

they sought to accentuate the European elements of their cultural inheritance 

while minimizing the peasant and Asiatic strains. For some who 

found Paris the “outlet to the West” in the immediate years following the 

revolution, the United States became a more permanent home. The poignant 

longings of the émigrés for the homeland fill the last chapter with pathos. 

The style of Natasha’s Dance is anecdotal and biographical. There are revealing 

glimpses into the lives of the artists and their patrons. We meet them 

in their cultural contexts and as part of the Russian quest for self-understanding. 

The book is enhanced by the presence of twenty seven color reproductions 

of some of Russia’s most celebrated and distinctive art. 

Paul Toews 


DOMINIQUE JANICAUND 

On the Human Condition, 

translated by Eileen Brennan. 

DOMINIQUE JANICAUND, On the Human Condition 

NEW yoRK: RoUtlEDGE, 2005 (FRENCh EDItIoN, 2002). 71 PAGES. 

A translation of L’homme va-t-il dépasser l’humain? (Will Man Overcome 

the Human?), Dominique Janicaud’s On the Human Condition is a 

cautionary meditation and “critical reflection.” Fluidly translated by Eileen 

Brennan, this short work is enhanced by an extended introduction from 

Simon Critchley. 

Concern for the, “unprecedented uncertainty about human identity” (1) 

generated this posthumously published legacy of the relatively ill-known 

French philosopher. Janicaud sums up his concern under the banner of humanism, 

but the reader should not comprehend the humanism of a former 

time that identified itself in part as antireligious, antitheist, or anti-Christian. 

This is expressly repudiated in Janicaud’s dismissal of any kind of humanism 

that would evoke Comte and positivism. Quoting Sartre to champion 

his perspective, our author writes, “The cult of humanity ends in Comtian 

humanism, shut-in upon itself, and—this must be said—in Fascism. We do 

not want humanism like that” (8). 

Devoting his first chapter to a consideration of humanism as a last defense 

of human integrity before the twin dangers of inhumanity and the hubris of 

a superhumanity that would betray the foundational humus of homo sapiens, 

Janicaud, energized by the insight of Martin Heidegger, is forced to confront 

the accusation that the Structuralism of Levi-Straus and Foucault conspires 

with the enemies of humanity. 

Ensuing chapters patiently face an assortment of challenges to the human 

species as it has been known throughout our cultural epochs. The great 

specter is “mankind,” itself, and precisely because one has the potential of 

being human, “man is, of all creatures, the only one who, through his violence, 

his barbarism and his sadism, can really show himself to be inhuman 

to the point of heinousness…” (19). Most sobering is the realization that the 

very attempt to “perfect” and thus overcome the burdens or limitations of 

our condition has so often issued in the monstrous, frequently responsible 

for one radical evil or another. If Janicaud appeals, in this first instance, to 

a fiction that has obtained, he tells us, the status of a myth—Mary Shelley’s 

97


98 

Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus—it is to highlight the, “powerful, 

near irrepressible, impulse that [is] virtually imposed upon [us] by the scientific 

spirit itself” (22). If this scientific and fantastic power to manipulate 

life once produced classical forewarnings in the dreams of fiction, it has 

matured into the nightmares of contemporary possibilities. Science and technology, 

the author alerts us, are capable of an imaginary enterprise beyond 

all fictional powers that risks, “an inhumanity aggravated to the point of 

monstrousness” (22). 

In his litany of cautions, Janicaud speaks of electronic, transgenic, or “bionic” 

attempts of technology to improve or transform humanity. He pays 

special attention to the theoretical suspicions of Jean-Michel Truonig that 

creative experimentation will produce a Successor to the race, founded upon 

an artificial “inhuman” intelligence that in due course will surpass human 

sapience and pass into a new form of life, impervious to the entropy that is 

the “death instinct” of our species. 

From science fiction, the author borrows an optic that suggests the myth 

of today is so often the reality of tomorrow. Here, he confronts the cyborg, 

a mixed being that is both man and robot all at once. “Man”: homo but not 

humanus, as Heidegger might say, completely lacking in humanitas. While 

the cyborg might simply remain a “big toy,” it could very well be, “that bioengineering 

and nanotechnologies, combined with new advances in miniaturized 

computing, allow for the perfection … of extremely robust, almost 

immortal, ‘human specimens’” (32). Such a wish-fulfillment would only 

evidence that we remain unstable and fragile beings, unwilling to accept our 

margin of liberty. Thus, Janicaud concludes, “That which endangers humanity, 

then, really derives from itself: a freedom that turns against itself” (34). 

The gap between fiction or fantasy and reality has been bridged by relatively 

recent clonings. The prospect of a mass production of, for example, 

military clones is overwhelmed by the greater conundrum that “cloning 

could strain the very principle of the individual singularity of human beings” 

(36). Nevertheless, nothing guarantees, our author observes, “that reproductive 

cloning would lead to the depths of inhumanity; nothing guarantees the 

contrary either” (39). 

A more repugnant consideration is that some future catastrophic necessity 

will provoke the species into a bioselection of the best of our “human 

herd” for stockbreeding in human parks or zoos. This “anthropotechnology” 

evokes the terrors of a still too recent war and the horrors of self-imputed 

masters who revealed themselves as wretchedly inhuman. So many attempts

DOMINIQUE JANICAUND, On the Human Condition 

to overcome humanity’s imperfect wherewithal have issued in grossly crude 

inhuman permutations. 

If so much of our inhumanity is predicated upon a lust for power, especially 

the power to be invincibly beyond restraint, then, our author warns 

(employing the insight of Ernst Junger), our situation is extremely grave 

since “man is in the process of liberating cosmic energies of which he is less 

and less the master”(43). 

Janicaud opens his ultimate chapter wondering if it is not the divine but the 

superhuman that now summons us from potentia to potency. The issue may be, 

the reviewer might interject, not the question of power or indigence but of the 

quality or kind of power we seek. If Heidegger speaks of, “a powerless superior 

power” the reader, at least a religious reader, cannot help but call to mind 

that power that is made perfect in weakness. Janicaud simply queries, “Can 

man find the dimension of Transcendence in himself?” (44) Suspending this 

conjecture to remain in a modest “critical reflection” prior to stratospheric ontology 

or faith, the author acknowledges Malraux’s assertion that we live, “in 

the first ‘atheistic civilization’, understood as a technician civilization” (44), 

which, in lieu of the sacred, values only efficiency. It is in this context that the 

call of the superhuman arises and seemingly drowns out that still quiet voice 

interfacing our contingency with the divinely transcendent. 

If our world has, “no god other than the future” and the unforeseeable to 

which the techno-scientific powers are leading us, the question begs to be 

asked, asserts our author, whether or not this life beyond our creaturely limitations 

is really a superior one or merely a liberation for the mediocre and banal. 

“A humanity that has no horizon other than the amassing of quantitative results 

or the purely technical increase in its physical and mental capacities collapses, 

loses all energy,” no longer equal to the task of human existence (49). 

The great terror, as centuries attest, is that the superhuman is always a call 

for the privileged elite who inevitably abdicate consideration and kindness, 

if not all morality or ethics. If “the most probable penalty for these ‘overcomings’ 

is the regression into new forms of the inhuman” (50), asks the 

author, are we not urged to modesty—not to say humility—and restraint? 

Janicaud’s conclusion makes clear what “overcoming” signifies. It is simply 

an escape, or attempted escape, from humanity itself. Whether we identify 

our condition as one of (biblical) creatureliness, contingency, finitude, 

or limitation, our mortality weighs too grievously upon fragile bones. It is 

our tenuousness that haunts, tempting us toward overweening omnipotence. 

The paradox of the human enigma is that its only solution is not theoretical 

99


100 

or scientific or technological but experiential. If G. K. Chesterton is obnoxiously 

cute in asserting that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; 

rather, Christianity has not been tried, he has nevertheless uttered an appropriated 

truth about our humanity. If Kierkegaard is correct that it is only 

in becoming human that we are human, or may be human, a never ending 

task, then it is clear that humanity has not been tried and found wanting. 

To make explicit Janicaud’s leitmotif, we—humanity—must always transcend 

but can never overcome. This transcendence, Christians scandalously 

believe, is solely via the divine dunamis or power or Spirit and—paradoxically—energized 

by this divine (we may even say Trinitarian) wherewithal 

to relate, we discover we can even relate to ourselves, contingent, finite, and 

imperfect as we are. This is an extraordinary transcendence that, rather than 

overcome ourselves, permits us to embrace ourselves and what one author 

has termed, “the earth of our humanity.” 

Janicaud’s work concludes modestly. Instead of prescriptions or solutions, 

he has found it sufficiently rewarding to highlight the assorted issues we ourselves 

are. In other words, knowing what is at stake, we have the opportunity 

of being the—or an—answer to the issues and questions of our own human 

enigma. 

Janicaud is content to espouse a two-fold strategy throughout his work. 

On the one hand, to caution against inhumanity, providing defenses against 

the inhuman, while at the same time remaining open to that which “passes 

man” (4). In other words, to the ambiguous call of the “superhuman,” or that 

which calls us to be “more,” to remain open to the authentic summons while 

sagely interpreting the dangers and misdirections of its mysterious allure. 

We have translated this as an open and humble—incarnating—transcendence, 

as opposed to an overcoming escape. Janicaud summons the insight 

of Pascal, rearticulated in our day by Eric Voegelin, to alert us that our path 

and province lie between the twin perils and poles of beast and angel. We 

are neither, or to put it so beautifully in the words of Martha Nussbaum in 

The Fragility of Goodness, “There are certain risks . . . suspended as we are 

between beast and god, with a kind of beauty available to neither.” 

Ernest Carrere 

Reference and Research Librarian 


LISA HANEBERG 

Focus Like a Laser Beam. 

SAN FRANCISCo: JoSSEy BASS, 2006. 153 PAGES. 

LISA HANEBERG, Focus Like a Laser Beam. 

In our fast-paced, immediate culture, multitasking has become the norm. 

We seek to do more tasks in a 24-hour period than is possible. We are a 

fragmented, stressed out, frenetic culture. Thus, Lisa Haneberg’s insights in 

Focus Like a Laser Beam remain intriguing as she discusses the importance 

of improving one’s ability to focus in order to achieve greater productivity 

and efficiency. Since customers from all sectors of business want services 

and products quickly, fresh ideas to address these needs are required. She 

has concentrated her book on ten strategies to help people sharpen their ability 

to improve clarity, thinking, and results. Her end result is an increased 

productivity in whatever environment one happens to find oneself. Haneberg 

divides the book into three parts: 1) Excite and Energize, 2) Tune Your Dialogue, 

and 3) Zoom In. 

Part One emphasizes the importance of building and understanding the 

relational aspect of focusing. In the forward of the book, Haneberg observes, 

“Leadership is a social act. It occurs in conversations. It makes sense, then, 

that leaders need to be master conversationalists, because this is the currency 

by which they produce results” (v). She includes in this section some important 

concepts, such as maintaining a universally shared vision of what is 

important, practicing methods that reinforce focusing, working together on 

tasks that are relevant, and aligning tasks and the organization for relevant 

work. Haneberg also includes the importance for an organization to be selfcorrecting—to 

discuss issues, assessing what has worked and what has not. 

As part of this, she emphasizes the significance of knowing one’s employees 

and having fun at work. Haneberg states, “To build intimacy, people need to 

get to know one another on a deep level. Employees want to connect with 

their managers and feel they are trustworthy. Leadership should show interest 

in their employees, too. Building and maintaining relationships is necessary 

for a focused and high-performing team” (25). Haneberg concludes 

this section by acknowledging the stress many individuals experience. To be 

focused, she asserts, one needs to relax. Stress thus remains an impediment 

to new ideas and focusing. 

Part Two suggests the need to narrow the conversation at work to what is 

relevant. Haneberg defines relevance as that which leads one to success. This 

101


102 

definition requires individuals to assess organizational meeting times: Are 

meetings focused and dynamic with a purpose? Do they encourage thought 

and participants to remain connected? Are attendees ready to participate? 

As part of this process of assessment, she emphasizes the need to engage in 

dialog that tests the everyday. She notes, “Challenges bring out the best in 

people and enable them to focus. The best leaders thrive on challenge and 

remain open to learning from people at all levels within the organization” 

(79). As one possible response to this challenge, she encourages the concept 

of collaboration or “huddling to improve conversation and clarity of purpose 

and to keep a team ‘calibrated’” (93). 

Haneberg’s final part discusses the “how tos” of focusing. She gives difficult, 

but important ideas: stop multitasking, say no with greater frequency 

to projects and tasks, focus on doing one great thing a day, and let go of 

those projects and tasks that are no longer central to the purpose of the organization’s 

success. Haneberg therefore declares, “Focus suffers when leaders 

don’t say no to good but nonessential tasks” (123). Her strategy to focus is to 

perform well on fewer tasks as opposed to doing poorly on many—a strategy 

that requires personal discipline to carry out. 

Focus Like a Laser Beam presents information from both qualitative and 

quantitative paradigms. The book is easy to read as it weaves the quantitative 

research into the story narrative. It may appeal to multiple audiences, including 

those seeking to improve their executive ability, leadership and management 

skills, and organizational effectiveness. The book presents critical 

information to improve our current organizational life. 

Janita Rawls 


B. M. LAVELLE 

Fame, Money and Power: 

The Rise of Peisistratos and 

“Democratic” Tyranny at Athens. 

B. M. LAVELLE, Fame, Money and Power 

ANN ARBoR: UNIVERSIty oF MIChIGAN PRESS, 2004. 370 PAGES. 

The subtitle of this new work by Lavelle (henceforth “L.”) immediately 

captures the interest of the prospective reader. The classic definition of a tyrant 

(Greek tyrannos) as “one who seizes power unconstitutionally” seems to 

preclude the adjective democratic, “pertaining to rule by the people.” Those 

who take up L’s work looking for a sustained discussion of this oxymoronic 

entity are bound to be disappointed, however, as the notion of a “democratic” 

tyranny is treated only briefly and (to my mind) inconclusively. However, 

anyone interested in a close reading, and carefully documented synthesis, 

of the source material concerning Peisistratos’ rise to power will find much 

within that is valuable. With five chapters and eight appendices, and almost 

one hundred pages of notes, it is a dauntingly detailed and intricate work, but 

most Greek is translated and/or transliterated for the Greekless reader. 

Peisistratos’ place in the overall span of Athenian history is usually bracketed 

on one side by the unsuccessful attempt at tyranny by the Olympic victor 

Cylon (c. 632 BC) and the reforms of the lawgivers Draco (c. 621) and 

Solon (probably 594/3), and on the other side by the democratic reforms of 

Cleisthenes in 507. After two failed attempts (probably to be dated to 561/0 

and 556), Peisistratos was in his third try (546) successful at establishing a 

tyranny that would be continued by his two sons Hippias and Hipparchos 

until the death of the latter in 514/13 BC and the expulsion of the former in 

511/10 BC. The ancient historians Herodotus and Thucydides both speak 

favorably of the Peisistratid tyranny; Herodotus (writing in the mid-fifth 

century BC) noting that during his rule Peisistratos “did not alter the existing 

offices or change the laws, but governed the city according to established 

principles, arranging matters well and fairly” (1.59.6). Thucydides notes that 

under the Peisistratids Athens “enjoyed the same laws that had been laid 

down previously with the exception in that they took pains that one of their 

own was always in the offices” (6.54.6). This evidence will be important for 

L.’s contention that Peisistratos was a “democratic” tyrant (90-92). 

Chapter one (Introduction) grounds the study, takes a brief look at the 

103


104 

(admittedly) scanty sources available for the Peisistratid period, and lays 

out L.’s methodology. L. is right to acknowledge both the usefulness and 

the limitations of Herodotus as his main source of information, although he 

makes perhaps too much of the idea that Herodotus’ narrative is an apologia 

for Athenian acquiescence to the tyranny: “The aim of the [Peisistratid] 

logos was surely to revise the history of Peisistratos’ rise apparently in order 

to absolve the Athenians to some degree for allowing it” (10). This is 

understandable given L.’s previous work (The Sorrow and the Pity: A Prolegomenon 

to a History of Athens under the Peisistratids, c. 560-510 B.C), 

which sought to show that the historical record concerning the Peisistratids 

was tainted by revisionism, resulting in a fifth-century “myth of resistance” 

to the tyranny. 

The second chapter deals with Peisistratos’ early life and rise to prominence 

through his role in Athens’ war against Megara in the 570s-560s. L. 

meticulously develops the argument that the Peisistratids used to great advantage 

their family’s connection to the mythical royal house of Pylos (18- 

29). It is in this chapter also that one can most easily see the care with which 

L. develops his narrative, painstakingly fleshing out the meager sources with 

excruciatingly detailed arguments. One example is illuminating: in a single 

sentence of Herodotus (1.59.4), we are told that Peisistratos while general of 

the Athenians “took Nisaia [from the Megarians] and performed other great 

deeds.” The writer of the Constitution of the Athenians (14) noted simply 

that Peisistratos “had distinguished himself in the war against Megara.” L. is 

able to expand this into a section on the “Peisistratan Phase” of the Megarian 

War covering nearly twenty pages (46-65), arguing persuasively for the 

idea that it was Peisistratos, not Solon, who was responsible for securing the 

important island of Salamis for Athens (64). 

Chapter three, on Peisistratos’ first attempt at tyranny, is the heart of L.’s 

thesis. Here he claims that Herodotus (1.59.3-60.1) is incorrect in his representation 

of three, essentially geographic, parties in conflict at the time of 

Peisistratos’ rise to power: the “men of the plain” led by Lycurgus, the “men 

of the coast” led by Megacles of the Alcmaeonid family, and the “men from 

beyond the hills,” who chose as their leader Peisistratos. Instead, based on 

Solon’s identification of conflict between two groups in Athens (Solon fr. 

5), the “commons’ (demos) and “the wealthy and powerful,” L. argues that 

the mid-sixth century struggle from which Peisistratos eventually emerged 

as victor is better understood along those lines. Are we to see in this dichotomy, 

as L. would have us (78ff), a full-blown two-party Solonic system, 

which can then be extrapolated into the politics of the mid-sixth century?

B. M. LAVELLE, Fame, Money and Power 

This seems especially problematic considering how little of Solon’s poetry 

is actually preserved. Yet, in this revised view, the struggle is re-cast as that 

of the wealthy elite (led by Lycurgus) against the people (led by Megacles). 

Peisistratos is successful because of, not in spite of, Megacles, who as “bankroller” 

(86) supports the outsider in his bid for power. 

One point upon which L. is insistent is that the people “elected” Peisistratos 

as tyrant by giving him a bodyguard (15, 68, 71, 86, 106). What L. terms 

the “deception strand” (86) of Herodotus’ account—that Peisistratos tricked 

the Athenian people into granting him a bodyguard, oblivious to the consequences—cannot 

be trusted. Instead, he argues, the voting of the bodyguard 

should be seen as a de facto vote for the tyranny, one which the demos later 

regretted and attempted to whitewash, as L. claims can be deduced from 

Herodotus’ account. Likewise, the event leading to the second attempt at tyranny, 

in which “Athena” herself (played by a very tall Paianian girl named 

Phye) rides into Athens in her chariot and convinces the populace to return 

Peisistratos to power (a ruse which Herodotus, 1.60.2-61.2, finds incredible), 

is actually a bit of pageantry, a coup de theatre enjoyed (but certainly not 

believed) by all (105). 

The subject of chapter four is Peisistratos’ exile to Eretria and Thrace, his 

money raising-activities while there, and the battle of Pallene (near Marathon) 

in 546, which restored him to power for the third, and final, time, until 

his death in 528/7. L. expands the tightly compressed narrative of Herodotus 

and the author of the Ath. Pol. by the same type of careful exegesis as in chapter 

two, and is especially successful in his reconstruction of the topography 

of the battle of Pallene (143-150). Once again, L. attributes contradictions in 

Herodotus’ account of the battle to the Athenians’ desire to suppress unpleasant 

memories of the defeat: “Herodotos’ (source’s) remedy for the memory of 

Pallene is brevity and vagueness—no glory for either side” (149). 

Chapter five is a final summary of the key points of the work, treating 

in turn the three themes of the main title: fame, money, and power. L.’s 

(over)insistence on the importance of the fame earned by Peisistratos’ exploits 

in the battle of Nisaia for his political career is certainly weakened by 

the fact that fame alone was not enough to secure his power in the first two 

attempts. L. asserts, “Nisaia was the pivotal moment in Peisistratos’ early 

career”; “Peisistratos’ success indicates in fact that by the end of the war 

he had become Athens’ most outstanding war leader” (155). Money (chremata) 

is supplied by Megacles, hence making possible Peisistratos’ first and 

second tyrannies (158); while Peisistratos’ own wealth acquired in Thrace 

allows him to “root” the third tyranny (159). L. describes the third element, 

105


106 

power, not as “the naked power of oppressive force” (although it is not until 

oppressive force is used at Pallene that Peisistratos manages to hold onto 

the tyranny), but rather as “the power of further success and gain” (161) 

whatever that is supposed to entail. Similarly opaque is the statement that 

Peisistratos, “failed in his first two attempts to sustain his place in politics 

because he lacked the means of its enrichment” (167). 

Perhaps most disappointing for those who turn to this book for a discussion 

of the intriguing concept of the “democratic tyrant,” it is not until the 

end of the work that we get an explicit explanation for L.’s terminology: 

“For that sharing [i.e. of success and gain], because he continued the offices 

and elections and so did not disrupt traditional government, and most of all 

because he would continue to react to the demos and its wishes, he was in 

essence a democratic tyrant” (162). However one may argue to the contrary, 

pandering to the people makes one not a democrat, but a demagogue. 

Pamela D. Johnston 


The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization 

BRYAN WARD-PERKINS 

The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. 

oxFoRD: oxFoRD UNIVERSIty PRESS, 2005. 239 PAGES 

Bryan Ward-Perkins’ Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization is an 

iconoclastic treatment challenging the last forty years of scholarship on 

the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. The historiographical traditions, 

which view the Empire’s western decline as less than cataclysmic, provoke 

the author into spasms of virtual apoplexy. Ward-Perkins (hereafter W.P.) 

views Rome’s demise neither as a peaceful transition to Germanic rule nor 

as a transformation of the ancient world into the early medieval world (as 

recent scholars suggest), but rather as a horrible era when marauding bands 

of Germans “invaded” the Roman Empire and inaugurated the Dark Ages. 

His thesis is therefore simple and lacking nuance: the people experiencing 

Rome’s decline, “would be very surprised, and not a little shocked, to learn 

that it is now fashionable to play down the violence and unpleasantness of 

the invasions that brought down the empire in the West” (13). He takes it as 

a duty to emphasize the horrors. 

Challenging antiquated orthodoxies and interpretations remains the duty 

of scholars, and W.P. does an admirable job of establishing the orthodoxy he 

intends to slay. His first chapter (1-10) and concluding comments (167ff.) 

provide a cursory but good summary of the interpretive paradigms to which 

he objects. The problem with these pages is that they give far too simplistic a 

summation, as if an international group of historians has conspired in unison 

to whitewash Rome’s fall in 476. In fact, the scholars in the last forty years 

who have questioned the traditional view of post-Roman Europe as “dark” 

have done so for a variety of reasons, with a number of contrasting interpretations, 

and using different types of evidence and interpretive paradigms. 

Contextualization of literary evidence remains one of W.P.’s biggest weaknesses. 

Chapter 2, which could have been written to great effect, bounces 

from battle to battle, barbarian group to barbarian group, and forward and 

backward in time with little explanation and to dizzying effect. It reads as 

if it were a laundry list of barbarian crimes against humanity. He makes no 

effort to engage the sources, explain them, or even tease out the nuances of 

the authors reporting the era’s vicissitudes. For example, many of the authors 

were Romans writing under barbarian kings. They maintained a vested 

interest in making their barbarians sound as civilized as possible while si- 

107


108 

multaneously portraying other Germanic tribes as the most violent and rustic 

hicks, a fact that W.P. finally recognizes with the Ostrogoths. Although he 

mentions the work of Walter Goffart, he omits Goffart’s Narrators of Barbarian 

History, which would have helped with the interpretive intentions of 

sixth and seventh century Roman historians. 

W.P. remains on firmer ground when analyzing the archaeological record. 

He seems most cognizant of the evidentiary weaknesses, too. For example, 

pottery in the centuries preceeding Rome’s collapse continued to be of outstanding 

quality. However, the decline of certain kinds of pottery following 

Rome’s fall does not necessarily prove conclusively that life had taken a 

turn for the catastrophic worse. He similarly observes, “We cannot take the 

apparent lack of post-Roman sites at face value, as unequivocal evidence for 

a cataclysmic collapse of population in post Roman times” (142). Notwithstanding 

this and similar protests to the contrary, he cannot resist discerning 

the decline of civilization based on a few friable Anglo-Saxon pots. Even 

when the evidence is solid—as for example with Visigothic coinage—he 

remains too ready to dismiss it without probing what it can reveal. 

Another problem with W.P.’s book is that it fails to prove its point. Despite 

his assertions, he admits a number of facts detrimental to his argument: 

foreign troops within the Roman Empire were almost always loyal 

(38); the Goths of the fifth century sought to share the wealth and safety of 

life inside of the empire, not destroy it (52); and the imperial authorities in 

the West often settled barbarians in the interests of solving imperial problems, 

while at the same time creating troubles for the locals (54-55). In other 

words, the interests of the center and the peripheral failed to coincide. W.P. 

needed to spend more time addressing this last point, especially since very 

little changed for most land-owning Romans in the post imperial world (66). 

Some fifth-century Romans in the provinces had scarcely seen imperial authorities, 

and when they did the authorities were often greedy and rapacious. 

W.P. needs to demonstrate why provincial Romans should have preferred 

Roman authority to that of barbarian kings, and he neglects to do this. He 

recognizes that many Romans served barbarian kings, but he does not provide 

enough evidence to persuade this reader that, all else being equal, these 

Romans would have really found life better under an imperial administration 

that ruled in abstentia. He argues persuasively that Late Antiquity witnessed 

a decline in material culture, but he cannot demonstrably conclude that barbarians 

were responsible. 

A fatal weakness of W.P.’s book is its sweeping generalizations, both an-

cient and modern. His claim that the Visigoths maintained the Gothic language 

well into later centuries—and that this is evidence they had never 

fully assimilated—flies in the face of what amounts to a scholarly consensus. 

The Visigoths by the end of the sixth century had for all intents and purposes 

ceased speaking Gothic as the language of preference. Although it is true 

that Gothic words survive in the legal codes, it is also true that the proceedings 

of the Third Ecumenical Council of Toledo (589 C.E.) were written in 

Latin, not Gothic. King Sisebut (612-621) composed a saint’s life in Latin, 

not Gothic, and St. Isidore of Seville (Roman father and Gothic mother, 560- 

636) wrote his treatises in Latin. W.P.’s further assertion that the Visigoths 

did not abandon Arianism until 587 demonstrates his ignorance about the 

role of Gothic bishops within the Catholic Church prior to 587. 

Finally, his Eurocentric critique of North American scholarship cannot be 

allowed to stand unchallenged. He asseverates that “One has to look to Europe 

to find a community of historians like me, with an active interest in secular 

aspects of the end of the Roman worlds, such as its political, economic, 

and military history” (180). This statement overlooks the books of North 

American scholars such as Thomas Burns (Barbarians Within the Gates of 

Rome and Rome and the Barbarians), Ralph Mathisen (Roman Aristocrats 

in Barbarian Gaul and Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity), and 

Michael Kulikowski (editor, Hispania in Late Antiquity and author, Late 

Roman Spain and its Cities), who rely on the archaeological record and have 

focused on military and political organization. W.P. further assumes that 

Europe has not produced its share of scholars focusing on religious or intellectual 

transformation. The last I checked, Peter Brown was educated and 

raised in the United Kingdom. Once again, the picture is far more complex 

than W.P. portrays it. 

The contribution of W.P.’s thesis deserves an honest assessment, and W.P. 

is to be congratulated for questioning recent assumptions about Rome’s demise 

in the West. The book is highly readable, capable of being used in 

advanced undergraduate as well as graduate level courses, and it contains 

helpful notes, chronology, and bibliography. Although the book’s 187 pages 

of text remain far too slender to tackle the issues to which it points, it nevertheless 

suggests that this will not be the final treatment of the topic. 

Richard Rawls, 


The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization 

109


110

Name of Article Here 

111

Pacific Journal - Fresno Pacific University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?