Testing the three Cs

By Fred Anderson

Conscience, courage and conviction are the three c’s which are tested from time to time in the lives of men and women. Slavery was one of the great moral dilemmas for Baptists in the Old South. In the closing years of the 18th century, Virginia Baptists adopted some statements which carried anti-slavery overtones. In 1785 the Baptist General Committee in Virginia adopted a resolution “Declaring hereditary slavery to be contrary to the word of God…” It stopped short of condemning all slavery.

He once was preaching in the Shoulder’s Hill area south of the James when “a gang of well-dressed men”–likely members of the Established Church–interrupted the meeting, dragged him from the preaching platform and, in mockery of baptism by immersion, attempted to drown him.

In 1788 the Baptist General Committee debated “the yoke of slavery” but postponed any decision. In 1790 John Leland, a minister used the testing of the three c’s, made his famous statement which was adopted. Leland stated: “Slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature and inconsistent with a republican government. [We] therefore recommend it to our Brethren to make use of every legal measure, to extirpate this horrid evil from the land …”

David Barrow increasingly be-came outspoken against slavery. He and his wife Sarah had 12 children whom he worked in his fields rather than purchase slaves. He faced social pressure by his fellow citizens who were slaveholders. In 1797 he removed his family to Kentucky and penned a powerful farewell in which he stated the reasons for his departure. Among them, he stated un-equivocally: “I believe the natural equality of man.” On another matter of conviction, he wrote: “All religious tests and ecclesiastical establishments are oppressive and infringing the rights of conscience.”

Two decades later, abolitionist sentiments again became a testing of the three c’s at Black Creek. Jon-athan Lankford was a native son and reared in Black Creek. In 1818, at what must have been considered an “advanced age” of 38, he became pastor of the church. He and his wife Martha had seven children and, like David Barrow, he probably worked his own family in the fields.

Black Creek was a small rural church. There were 85 members in 1818. The white membership must have been rather evenly divided between slaveholders and non-slaveholders. At some time, he developed problems of conscience regarding “the peculiar institution” of slavery.

In December 1825 Jonathan Lankford refused “in justice to his conscience” to administer “the ordinances of the Gospel … cowing to his opposition on the subject of Negro Slavery, a Part of the Church being Slave holders.” The church clerk stated that Lankford’s sudden declaration “has occationed [sic] much surprise as well as difficulty in the Church.” After all, the pastor had administered the Lord’s Supper and baptism “so long and so very lately.” Just a few weeks before his change of conscience, Lankford had baptized a slave owner.

The members appointed a committee to investigate the matter. In June 1826, “Bro. Lankford’s case was taken up and appearing that Bro. Lankford seemed unwilling to leave the church and the church unwilling to part with Bro. Lankford if it could be avoided, thought it best to postpone it until our next conference.” In September, the church members discussed the matter and decided to remove Lankford’s name from the church book and that he “be considered no longer a member, until he has fellowship with the church” or until he recanted his stand. In December, the church met in business session and the clerk was instructed to copy the record of Lankford’s case from “its commencement to his final exclusion.”

Up until the Lankford incident, the whole issue of slavery had been left by the members as a matter of personal conscience. Some of Lankford’s opponents charged that he was “under the delusion of Satan” and that “his sole object from the first to the last has been, to split the Church asunder, in some way or other, [for] his own selfish views and purposes.” They were incensed by the “abrupt, unbrotherly (and we think) unchristian manner in which he made known his opposition [to slavery].” They also were upset because he would not leave the church without an act of expulsion. They washed their hands of the man and the issue of the morality of slavery.

The opponents declared that the church “never thought him competent and therefore never call’d him to the pastoral care thereof.” Never mind that Lankford had been preaching at Black Creek for eight years. They also reasoned that Lankford was attempting to get the majority of the church, the non-slaveholders, on his side and felt that he “would of course have expelled every slave holder.”

Evidently, because of his convictions, Lankford became persona non grata among the Baptists of Southampton. The nearest Baptist church, South Quay, questioned whether its members should even listen to a preacher who had been expelled by another church and decided that “we deem it inconsistent for members of the Baptist faith and order to encourage excommunicated members by going to hear them preach or inviting them to do so.” Lankford had been thoroughly tested and paid a price for his convictions.