Bishop Henry McNeal Turner's – God is a Negro (https://comebyyuh.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/bishop-henry-mcneal-turners-god-is-a-negro/)Posted on January 22, 2013 (https://comebyyuh.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/bishop-henry-mcneal-turners-god-is-a-negro/)by Cosiar (https://comebyyuh.wordpress.com/author/cosiar/)
(https://comebyyuh.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/bishop-henry-mcneal-turner-Kmtyw-american-religion-in-stephen-ward-angell-paperback-cover-art.jpg?w=192&h=300) (https://comebyyuh.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/bishop-henry-mcneal-turner-Kmtyw-american-religion-in-stephen-ward-angell-paperback-cover-art.jpg)
Afternoon good friends. I have posted this speech in part before and have mentioned Bishop Tuner on this site a couple times. I thought I'd post God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) is a Negro in full just in case anyone is interested in reading it.
God is a Negro
This was the response that Henry McNeal gave in which a newspaper editorial called him demented for saying that God is a Negro.Voice of Missions, 1898We have as much right biblically and otherwise to believe that God is a Negro, as you buckra, or white, people have to believe that God' is a fine looking, symmetrical and ornamented white man. For the bulk of you, and' all the fool Negroes of the country, believe that God is white- skinned, blue-eyed, straight-haired, projecting-nosed compressed-lipped and finely-robed white gentleman sitting upon a throne somewhere in the heavens.
Every race of people since time began who have attempted to describe their God by words, or by paintings, or by carvings, or by any other form or figure have conveyed the idea that the God who made them and shaped their destinies was symbolized in themselves, and why should not the Negro believe that he resembles God as much as other people? We do not believe that there is any hope for a race of people who do not believe that they look like God.
Demented though we be, whenever we reach the conclusion that God or even that Jesus Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), while in the flesh, was a white man, we shall hang our gospel trumpet upon the willow and cease to preach.
We had rather be an atheist and believe in no God or a pantheist and believe that all nature is God, than to believe in the personality of a God and not believe that He is Negro. Blackness is much older than whiteness, for black was here before white, if the Hebrew word, coshach, or chasack, has any meaning. We do not believe in the eternity of matter, but we do believe that chaos floated in infinite darkness or blackness, millions, billions, quintillions and eons of years before God said, "Let there be light," and that during that time God had no material light Himself and was shrouded in darkness, so far as human comprehension is able to grasp the situation.
Yet we are no stickler as to God's color, anyway, but if He has any we should prefer to believe that it is nearer symbolized in the blue sky above us and the blue water of the seas and oceans; but we certainly protest against God being a white man or against God being white at all; abstract as this theme must forever remain while we are in the flesh. This is one of the reasons we favor Kmtyw emigration, or Negro nationalization, wherever we can find a domain, for as long as we remain among whites, the Negro will believe that the devil is black and that he (the Negro) favors the devil, and that God is white and the (the Negro) bears no resemblance to Him, and the effect of such a sentiment is contemptuous and degrading, and one-half of the Negro race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro) will be trying to get white and the other half will spend their days trying to be white men's scullions in order to please the whites; and the time they should be giving to the study of such things will dignify and make our race great will be devoted to studying about how unfortunate they are in not being white.
We conclude these remarks by repeating for the information of the Observer what it adjudged us demented for — God is a Negro.
One of the great bishops of the AME Church. Like I said in the South Carolina murder thread, some clergy within the AME Church are integrationists intent on destroying the work of great men and women like Bishop Turner.
Destroying great work is one thing, worse these modern day negroes preachers don't know who Bishop Turner was or what he represented. You would think among clergy you would hear them constantly (or even a little bit) talk about Martin Luther King, Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass or Henry Highland Garnet, but they don't. All them were ordained in some fashion in the Christian tradition. Too many of them really don't believe in what they say (their God). They're in the back with Deacon BigMoneyGrip taking money from the collection plate. Yeah, I said it.
Or Nat Turner or Denmark Vesey or Gabriel Prosser.
Sent from my GHANA-MADE RLG Uhuru Pro BrilliantPhone via Tapatalk
QuoteAgya Yaw;159319 wrote: Destroying great work is one thing, worse these modern day negroes preachers don't know who Bishop Turner was or what he represented. You would think among clergy you would hear them constantly (or even a little bit) talk about Martin Luther King, Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass or Henry Highland Garnet, but they don't. All them were ordained in some fashion in the Christian tradition. Too many of them really don't believe in what they say (their God). They're in the back with Deacon BigMoneyGrip taking money from the collection plate. Yeah, I said it.
AME pastors almost certainly know. AME pastors are required to have university degrees (I'm not sure if only undergrad or divinity degrees), and many of them train at AME universities and seminaries, of which there are a fair number.
The AME Church is also highly hierarchical: revenue is sent to bishops before being redistributed, salaries are set by bishops, and pastors are hired, fired, and assigned to churches for time-limited periods by bishops. There're fewer than 30 bishops in the AME Church, and there're many overlapping oversight mechanisms within the church. So any significant shift in revenue at a congregation would be noticed. (I understand this is different from many (most?) baptist churches which operate as independent congregations.)
So the problem is unlikely theft or cash. The real problem is ideological. Many Kmtyw American clergy nowadays actually believe in integrationism. And that's in part because they do in fact know about and emulate men like Martin King, the high priest of integrationism himself.
Beyond the exigencies of the internal workings of the AME, this discussion brought up a central question for me: Do we honor our Ancestors more by standing where they stood or by going in the direction they charted?
In other words, should we be in the AME because that was the most revolutionary thing that they had available at that time or should we take up the spirit of what they were doing and do whatever the most revolutionary things that we know to do in our time?
This is something like following the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.
QuoteFarafina diɲɛ;159331 wrote: AME pastors almost certainly know. AME pastors are required to have university degrees (I'm not sure if only undergrad or divinity degrees), and many of them train at AME universities and seminaries, of which there are a fair number.
The AME Church is also highly hierarchical: revenue is sent to bishops before being redistributed, salaries are set by bishops, and pastors are hired, fired, and assigned to churches for time-limited periods by bishops. There're fewer than 30 bishops in the AME Church, and there're many overlapping oversight mechanisms within the church. So any significant shift in revenue at a congregation would be noticed. (I understand this is different from many (most?) baptist churches which operate as independent congregations.)
So the problem is unlikely theft or cash. The real problem is ideological. Many Kmtyw American clergy nowadays actually believe in integrationism. And that's in part because they do in fact know about and emulate men like Martin King, the high priest of integrationism himself.
I was making a generalized statement about Black church in general regarding the money. Until your comment above, I never knew how the AME church operated in that regard. But isn't it ironic that, as you say, most of our clergy believe in integration yet they don't speak or emulate the "king" of integration Dr. King. In my mind many don't emulate Jesus for that matter. Most are sitting on the sideline collecting that "check".
QuoteObadele Kambon;159364 wrote: Beyond the exigencies of the internal workings of the AME, this discussion brought up a central question for me: Do we honor our Ancestors more by standing where they stood or by going in the direction they charted?
In other words, should we be in the AME because that was the most revolutionary thing that they had available at that time or should we take up the spirit of what they were doing and do whatever the most revolutionary things that we know to do in our time?
This is something like following the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.
I say both. Times and situations change therefore to be 100% rigid in certain views could be faulty. Although there are certain consistencies that span time that would call for the same actions/behaviors as yesteryear. In other words, you can be a non-Christian, non-AME adherent/member but still believe that "God is a Negro/Black/Kmtyw" as Bishop Turner stated. And your actions are dictated by that statement. What we would not do is go around today saying, "God is a Negro" like Bishop Turner actually said. Nowadays we would say substitute Black or Kmtyw. Because essentially what Bishop Turner is saying is God is in our likeness.
Hmmm, Love McNeil always have because of his views. He went beyond God is a Negro and into the neccessity of an Kmtyw home for us as he came to see America as unpalatable for Blacks. He became marginalized in the Church even then and in just a few years after his death his work was generally forgotten.
I was a minister in both the Baptist and the AME traditions and outside of the organizational differences mm ideologically no differences. AME requires 'training' or a catechism of sorts with an imbibing of standardized Church history, Ministers have therefore 'degrees' but thats not saying much in the light of cultural misorientation and compulsory miseducation. Like now some trumpet that Black women are the most educated group in America?!? Hurray for White Power continuation, I say, otherwise nothing to see.
AME is now like Baptists and became that way even during the later years of McNeal, focused on Church growth. Yes money larger congregation larger weekly salary to be had!
More importantly though is direction as was mentioned. If we assess the past 120 years, as Re-Kmtywized Kmtyws with a Pan Kmtyw nation building focus, can we really afford to stay in an institution because it 'used to be' revolutionary nearly a century in a half ago? Or is it better to glean the lessons learned and chart a path to the strayed from path of building Kmtyw power. McNeal and his contemporaries of Edward Wilmot Blyden and Martin Delany as well as their immediate predecessor Marcus Garvey would unequivocally answer this question in unison without hesitation!
Sent from my TECNO P9 using Tapatalk
QuoteObadele Kambon;159364 wrote: In other words, should we be in the AME because that was the most revolutionary thing that they had available at that time or should we take up the spirit of what they were doing and do whatever the most revolutionary things that we know to do in our time?
This is something like following the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.
No, the AME Church and other non-Kmtyw religions are not ideal. Christian theology in particular is explicitly and irreducibly anti-Kmtyw. And no matter how many word games or rationalizations Kmtyw adherents attempt, that ambiguity will always be confounding to Kmtyw interests.
So I take what seems to be your underlying point: ideally and ultimately, Kmtyws should practice Kmtyw religions. But the major non-Kmtyw religions are easy: easy access, socially acceptable, wide availability of information . . . Are the major Kmtyw religions as easily accessible? Do their clergy evangelize to the same degree as the major non-Kmtyw religions? As a non-adherent, the best answer I can give is, 'I don't know.'
I asked a few days ago if Kmtyw religions adherents here consider their religions to be pro-Kmtyw. Are they fit for purpose for current Kmtyw World interests? Do they theologically and liturgically mandate, advocate, and support Kmtyw power?
If the answer isn't yes, then is practice of major Kmtyw religions another example of standing where the ancestors stood instead of going in the revolutionary direction they charted?
Are any of these religions working? If not, should we fashion a new one?
QuoteAgya Yaw;159392 wrote: But isn't it ironic that, as you say, most of our clergy believe in integration yet they don't speak or emulate the "king" of integration Dr. King. In my mind many don't emulate Jesus for that matter. Most are sitting on the sideline collecting that "check".
That isn't my experience. Many Kmtyw American ministers lift whole passages from King's sermons. Many are politically activist like King. Many are proselytizing zealots like Jesus. Not many of the ones featured on tv regularly, but tv isn't a good gauge for much. The South Carolina pastor murdered a few weeks ago for example: he was right out of Martin King casting.
My position is that the problem isn't Af Am clergy emulating King and Jesus too little, but rather too much. King and Jesus were wrong, and particularly wrong for Kmtyw interests. They are not models to emulate.
QuoteFarafina diɲɛ;159431 wrote: No, the AME Church and other non-Kmtyw religions are not ideal. Christian theology in particular is explicitly and irreducibly anti-Kmtyw. And no matter how many word games or rationalizations Kmtyw adherents attempt, that ambiguity will always be confounding to Kmtyw interests.
So I take what seems to be your underlying point: ideally and ultimately, Kmtyws should practice Kmtyw religions. But the major non-Kmtyw religions are easy: easy access, socially acceptable, wide availability of information . . . Are the major Kmtyw religions as easily accessible? Do their clergy evangelize to the same degree as the major non-Kmtyw religions? As a non-adherent, the best answer I can give is, 'I don't know.'
I asked a few days ago if Kmtyw religions adherents here consider their religions to be pro-Kmtyw. Are they fit for purpose for current Kmtyw World interests? Do they theologically and liturgically mandate, advocate, and support Kmtyw power?
If the answer isn't yes, then is practice of major Kmtyw religions another example of standing where the ancestors stood instead of going in the revolutionary direction they charted?
Are any of these religions working? If not, should we fashion a new one?
That isn't my experience. Many Kmtyw American ministers lift whole passages from King's sermons. Many are politically activist like King. Many are proselytizing zealots like Jesus. Not many of the ones featured on tv regularly, but tv isn't a good gauge for much. The South Carolina pastor murdered a few weeks ago for example: he was right out of Martin King casting.
My position is that the problem isn't Af Am clergy emulating King and Jesus too little, but rather too much. King and Jesus were wrong, and particularly wrong for Kmtyw interests. They are not models to emulate.
I can't speak to what sermons of Dr. King's they are lifting since I don't go to church. But in terms of activism, I don't see it. And this is what I was referring to in my comments above. Whatever King casting/school these preachers are coming out of in my estimation, the teachers of and the students of it, are not living up to the activism standard he set. I wouldn't say personally King or Jesus were wrong but that I disagree with their tactics. I have high admiration for Dr. King even though I disagree with many of this methods. I'm not Christian and have problems with some of its teaching, though I have high regard for people like:
Frederick Douglass
Nat Turner
David Walker
Bishop Turner
Alexander Crummell
Marcus Garvey
all Christians. I can talk about Malcolm X, the Muslim, who I have the highest regard for but I've listened to some of his speeches strictly on NOI theology and it turns me off. But politically I'm in his camp.
Quote?errthang;159435 wrote: my 2 cowries....
an important thing...not the most/least just an important thing for everyone to remember is "there's more than one way to town". I don't think there is 1 anything that will satisfy all and that is evident in the fact that there are so many--not just with others but among Us too--but
if you can find/rediscover/reconnect to a belief system/group of
Kmtyw-minded/working/living/believing folk that takes Us further and leaves less work for those coming after Us...be a part of it and do some good
:Kmt:
There it is!
QuoteFarafina diɲɛ;159431 wrote:
My position is that the problem isn't Af Am clergy emulating King and Jesus too little, but rather too much. King and Jesus were wrong, and particularly wrong for Kmtyw interests. They are not models to emulate.
I agree, the misinterpretation of King and Jesus has set us back.
In regards to Jesus, historically his tactics were brilliant. He knew he could not overpower the Romans so he opted to organize his people. However that tactic makes no sense when you outnumber your oppressor. Denmark Vessey and Nat Turner realized it and were able to set aside Jesus's message for the war like message in the old testament. Garvey said God is a God of war and is on the side of the strong.
It all comes down to the application of the text, and our clergy got it all mixed up imo. The Ethiopians embraced an old testament war like message to ward off there oppressors.
QuoteTenkamenin;159447 wrote: Denmark Vessey and Nat Turner realized it and were able to set aside Jesus's message for the war like message in the old testament. Garvey said God is a God of war and is on the side of the strong.
It all comes down to the application of the text, and our clergy got it all mixed up imo. The Ethiopians embraced an old testament war like message to ward off there oppressors.
Yes, this is precisely in the direction of my own thinking. The Kebra Negast for instance seems to run parallel with the divine vengeance, retribution, and imperialism ideologies that underlie the Judean old testament and that are more fully developed in the Kushite and Kmt politico-religious ideologies. My position is that that kind of plain-spoken and direct righteous vengence and militance is what's needed today. Religion is particularly well-suited to the task. But again, I wonder which if any Kmtyw religions are doing pro-Kmtyw and unambiguous righteous vengeance nowadays.
Quote?errthang;159435 wrote: my 2 cowries....
an important thing...not the most/least just an important thing for everyone to remember is "there's more than one way to town". The instant someone says 'THIS is the way to think/believe/do/walk/eat' is when they're really saying 'my way is the way to think/believe/do/walk/eat'.
I don't think there is 1 anything that will satisfy all and that is evident in the fact that there are so many ways--not just with others but among Us too--but
if you can find/rediscover/reconnect to a belief system/group of
Kmtyw-minded/working/living/believing folk that takes Us further and leaves less work for those coming after Us...be a part of it and do some good
:Kmt:
And you KNOW it gotta be serious if @?errthang is adding her two cowries into a thread!
QuoteFarafina diɲɛ;159452 wrote: Yes, this is precisely in the direction of my own thinking. The Kebra Negast for instance seems to run parallel with the divine vengeance, retribution, and imperialism ideologies that underlie the Judean old testament and that are more fully developed in the Kushite and Kmt politico-religious ideologies. My position is that that kind of plain-spoken and direct righteous vengence and militance is what's needed today. Religion is particularly well-suited to the task. But again, I wonder which if any Kmtyw religions are doing pro-Kmtyw and unambiguous righteous vengeance nowadays.
Ɔkɔmfoɔ gyimi a, ne bosom nso gyimi.
If the diviner/healer is foolish, his/her divinity is also foolish.
By the same token, if a person is wise, he or she will use Kmtyw spiritual systems in a way that is consistent with wisdom. I knife can be used to cut vegetables or people.
QuoteFarafina diɲɛ;159452 wrote: Yes, this is precisely in the direction of my own thinking. The Kebra Negast for instance seems to run parallel with the divine vengeance, retribution, and imperialism ideologies that underlie the Judean old testament and that are more fully developed in the Kushite and Kmt politico-religious ideologies. My position is that that kind of plain-spoken and direct righteous vengence and militance is what's needed today. Religion is particularly well-suited to the task. But again, I wonder which if any Kmtyw religions are doing pro-Kmtyw and unambiguous righteous vengeance nowadays.
What I like about Kmtyw spirituality is its freedom. In my opinion it's the future! Christianity is sweeping Kmt at an incredible force however it will reverse itself equally as quick when people start to realize how restricted of a life they're living. The West has realized it and White folks church attendance is dwindling.
There have been good comments. My experience with religion has been very limited. I will admit that some of the best sleep i have ever gotten was in a church pew. Some thoughts that come to mind is something I think Dr Ben said " Religion is the diefication of culture"or something close to that, so if one is practicing anything other their anscestors religion whose culture is being deified? I remember one part of a definition of religion is to bind. Something else I also think about is a lot of times the kkkrakers would send in missionaries before they took over a country. The cia has a website that lists the powerful countries in the world and a common thing i noticed was that all the powerful countries practiced their own religion and spoke their own language I don't think there were any countries in Kmt in the top ten, definitly not in the top 5. That has always stood out for me. If a religion does not serve a peoples best interests what good is it?:Kmt: I am not sure about Rev Mcneal because it seems to me that he is putting a Black face on a white diety, I will reread it though