Devon Dick
RECENTLY, the Church of England made a profound confession. That church communion repented for the role the Church of England played in the evil system of slavery. They recognised that they benefited from slavery while others suffered grave injustices, including loss of land, liberty and the ultimate loss of life, and concluded that on the issue on slavery the church was part of the problem and part of the solution.
This admission comes at a time when the world, next year, will commemorate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. This confession has far-reaching implications because the Anglican Church is a large and well-connected confessional Christian body. The Church of England has the Queen, one of the richest women in the world, as its patron. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the first among equals within the Anglican community, is appointed by the Prime Minister of Britain. This confession can reverberate throughout the British Empire, especially when it is remembered that the monarch also prospered because of engagement in the trade of human traffic.
NOT NEW
This attrition for endorsement of, engagement in, and enrichment from slavery is not new. The Pope on a visit to Jamaica made a similar statement. However, in spite of the fact that all the major historic churches that operated during slavery benefited from slavery and were also a participant in enslavement, I cannot recall any such admission. Many denominations have written official histories about their witness and work during the period of slavery and no word of regret or repentance.
The Church in Jamaica has not come to grips with its role in slavery.
Take, for example, the fact that churches are named for English Baptist missionaries William Knibb, James Phillippo and Thomas Burchell who served during slavery, but there is no church named for George Liele, the founder of Baptist work, the first Negro preacher and missionary in Jamaica and the first successful preacher to the enslaved.
It is not expected that a church would be named after Sam Sharpe because he organised a strike and that would be elevating a trade union leader and freedom fighter too highly. Perhaps, Sharpe is not as lily white in character as his English Baptist counterparts.
Recently, I was at a Baptist church and a poster caught my eye that had in bold print 'Pioneer' and in smaller print 'work of Baptists'. Naturally, I thought that there was going to be some commentary on George Liele based on Baptist historian Clement Gayle's book. To my surprise the pictures on the poster were of Phillippo and Knibb.
UWI EXHIBITION
Similarly, there is a an exhibition at the University of the West Indies (UWI), entitled 'Women in Emancipation' with a sub-section 'Emancipation: The Event'. What pictures would you expect to see? Do not think I am exaggerating, and I kid you not, the pictures are of William Wilberforce and James Phillippo. I complained to the librarians of UWI and the National Library and nothing was changed. Wilberforce was not alive when the Emancipation event happened. Why could we not have a picture of a woman who fought against slavery if we are talking about Women in Emancipation? Why could we not have a picture of a Negro who fought against slavery? It is, I believe, that the Church and country have not fully recognised that slavery was awful, the persons who struggled against it were heroic, and as Richard Hart has captured, we need to recognise the slaves who abolished slavery.
The Church needs to repent in Jamaica for slavery. It was part of the problem and the solution.
Rev Devon Dick is pastor of Boulevard Baptist Church and author of 'Rebellion to Riot: the Church in Nation Building'.
