![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kayreSo, I was reviewing the bulletin rough draft, and discovered that the handbell director had included notes on the two pieces they are playing. One is a setting of "Let Us Break Bread Together On Our Knees," and the note made reference to "the experience of slaves worshiping at communion services in Anglican churches in the late 18th century." I shot off a note asking where this came from, and the director answered-- "from our hymnal." Sure enough, there it is.
In its literal form, the note is true; slaves worshiped (or at least were present) in those Anglican services. However, I think two other things were implied: slaves were receiving communion (maybe, maybe not); and they were singing the song (almost certainly not).
Christians had held slaves before the African slave trade began. The big difference with enslaving those taken from Africa was that it was lifelong slavery, without any assurance of being able to earn freedom; and children born to slaves were slaves from birth. This created a dilemma when some of those African slaves expressed belief in Christ, because somehow it didn't seem appropriate to hold a brother Christian in lifelong slavery. And if belief in Christ, and baptism, became a ticket to earning one's freedom, well, pretty soon they'd all be free. Can't have that-- so most churches stopped baptizing slaves, and thus wouldn't be serving them communion.
Then there's the musical side of things. Would "Let Us Break Bread" have been sung in an 18th century church? Let's see.. in the 20th century, there were raging arguments about including that very hymn in an Episcopal hymnal, with 'experts' arguing that spirituals contain far too little theology, may include pagan influences, and are unsophisticated musically. (Really?) Two centuries earlier? Almost certainly not-- not even in special early services just for the slaves.
And now I have to write an honest but not too offensive blurb to replace the great big white lie. Within the next 9 hours. Whee.
In its literal form, the note is true; slaves worshiped (or at least were present) in those Anglican services. However, I think two other things were implied: slaves were receiving communion (maybe, maybe not); and they were singing the song (almost certainly not).
Christians had held slaves before the African slave trade began. The big difference with enslaving those taken from Africa was that it was lifelong slavery, without any assurance of being able to earn freedom; and children born to slaves were slaves from birth. This created a dilemma when some of those African slaves expressed belief in Christ, because somehow it didn't seem appropriate to hold a brother Christian in lifelong slavery. And if belief in Christ, and baptism, became a ticket to earning one's freedom, well, pretty soon they'd all be free. Can't have that-- so most churches stopped baptizing slaves, and thus wouldn't be serving them communion.
Then there's the musical side of things. Would "Let Us Break Bread" have been sung in an 18th century church? Let's see.. in the 20th century, there were raging arguments about including that very hymn in an Episcopal hymnal, with 'experts' arguing that spirituals contain far too little theology, may include pagan influences, and are unsophisticated musically. (Really?) Two centuries earlier? Almost certainly not-- not even in special early services just for the slaves.
And now I have to write an honest but not too offensive blurb to replace the great big white lie. Within the next 9 hours. Whee.
no subject
Date: 2015-10-30 09:53 am (UTC)