Jeremiah Wright and Richard Allen had something in common: the Obama Flap of 2008 and the Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793

In his 1909 poem entitled "If", Rudyard Kipling seems to speak to the current controversy surrounding the misrepresentation about Dr. Jeremiah Wright's sermon when he says "...don't deal in lies." Kipling added, " If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken, Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools." These are words to live by.

And while this wise counsel is usually a good course of action to take when people are being less than honest about who you are and what you've done and what you've said, there is also a time when someone must speak up on behalf of those who have been wronged. It is not dealing in lies, but it is issuing a response for future generations who will one day wonder what their fore parents thought about the important issues of the day. It is in that light that I am proud to be a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Rather than sit back quietly while the character and ministry of one of America's most prophetic voices is maligned, clergy and laity of the AME Church have been vocal in their support of Dr. Wright (even though he is not a member of the AME Church; a point that has become a 'bone of contention' with some AME's-see the current Christian Recorder Online, RE: Dupont Walker and Mr. Bill Dickens). At least 3 notable responses have been making the email rounds that I'm aware of, and I'm sure that there are more. One is by Bishop William DeVeaux, Ph.D., presiding prelate of the 6th Episcopal District, another signed by Bishop Carolyn Tyler Guidry, presiding prelate of the 16th Episcopal District, chair of the Social Action Commission of the AME Church and submitted by Mrs. Jackie DuPont Walker, a lay person and member of the Commission, and still another is by Rev. William Watley, Ph.D., esteemed pastor of the St. James AME Church in Newark, New Jersey. Some may say that responding to such foolishness as Dr. Wright being compared to Adolph Hitler is a waste of time, but I would argue that the historical record demands that someone tell the other side of the story. (Click here to hear Dr. Wright's so-called controversial 9-11 sermon for yourself and you be the judge of whether or not he went too far.)

In fact, the uproar about Dr. Wright and the response by the community of faith within and without the AME Church, can be compared to an episode early in the life of the Black Christian Church in America, as it came under assault by the media of the day. In 1793, the city of Philadelphia (then the capital of the United States) was besieged by an outbreak of the Yellow Fever. This outbreak led to the deaths of 4 to 5,000 people (of a population of just under 30,000!). As President George Washington, the Congress, and almost all of the other citizens of Philadelphia fled the city, Richard Allen, Absalom Jones, and other free Blacks remained to care for the sick and dying. Allen and Jones had been convinced by Dr. Benjamin Rush (a signer on the Declaration of Independence and a leading physician) that Blacks could not become infected by the disease. Although, over 200 Blacks lost their lives as a result of this erroneous information, the group nonetheless worked tirelessly and bravely in the face of death.

However, their thanks for placing their lives on the line was to come by way of an accusation by Matthew Carey, a 1790s publisher in Philadelphia. Carey was a leading journalist in that day and wrote an account of the events during the Yellow Fever outbreak (A short account of the malignant fever, lately prevalent in Philadelphia). His short pamphlet was so popular that it went through 4 printings. In the first 3 editions, he accused the Black nurses and grave diggers who stayed to help in the crises of stealing from the dead and inflating their prices to take advantage of the sick. While he was generous in his comments about Richard Allen and Absalom Jones, he was less than kind with the majority of Blacks that stayed behind.

Even though by 4th edition, Carey had changed his story and corrected his error, the story had become a part of established myth and lore. The lie, in other words, had taken hold. And so Allen and Jones picked up the pen to set the historical record straight. While some would have been content to just let the story fade away on its own, they decided it best to tell their side of the events.

Allen and Jones were quick to point out that maybe Carey's memory was not clear on the events because he fled the city during the plague, even though he was designated to stay and help the sick! Yet, now upon his return, he was quick to point the finger at those who risked their lives to stay. While Allen and Jones agreed that there was stealing and the inflation of charges by some in both the White and Black community, these events were the exception, not the rule. Hear their own words about the bravery of those left behind:

"A poor coloured [sic] man, named Sampson, went constantly from house to house where distress was, and no assistance, without fee or reward. He was smitten with the disorder, and died. After his death his family were neglected by those he had served. Sarah Bass, a coloured [sic] widow woman, gave all the assistance she could, in several families, for which she did not receive any thing; and when any thing was offered her, she left it to the option of those she served. A coloured woman nursed Richard Mason and son. They died. Richard's widow, considering the risk the poor woman had run, and from observing the fears that sometimes rested on her mind, expected she would have demanded something considerable; but upon asking her what she demanded, her reply was, 'fifty cents per day.' Mrs. Mason intimated it was not sufficient for her attendance. She replied that it was enough for what she had done, and would take no more. Mrs. Mason's feelings were such, that she settled an annuity of six pounds a year on her for life. Her name was Mary Scott. An elderly coloured [sic] woman nursed--with great diligence and attention. When recovered, he asked what he must give her for her services--she replied, 'a dinner, master, on a cold winter's day.' And thus she went from place to place, rendering every service in her power, without an eye to reward...We do not recollect such acts of humanity from the poor white people, in all the round we have been engaged in. We could mention many other instances of the like nature, but think it needless. It is unpleasant for us to make these remarks, but justice to our colour [sic] demands it." Excerpt from The Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours of the Rt. Rev. Richard Allen, pp.35-36.

In support of their statement of the facts, Mayor Matthew Clarkson of the city of Philadelphia wrote on behalf of Allen, Jones, and those that were employed by them that their "...diligence, attention, and decency of deportment, afforded me, at the time, much satisfaction." Even with the endorsement of the mayor and Benjamin Rush, it is certain that many Whites still harbored ill feelings toward their Black neighbors for years after the plague due to this unwarranted and misguided attack from a media celebrity.

It is likely that the effect of the current controversy with Dr. Wright's sermon will follow him the rest of his life. This is sad and unfortunate for one who has given his life for the betterment of all people. But, this is also why it is so important that we put down in writing the true context of these events so that future generations will not have to wonder what we thought.

Thank God that Allen and Jones had the foresight to write their own account of those tragic events. Thank God that members of the AME Church and others continue to do so in the present. I close with the words used by Allen and Jones to sum up their own feelings about their controversy:

God and a soldier all men do adore
In time of war, and not before;
When the war is over, and all things righted,
God is forgotten, and the soldier slighted.

The 1870 California Conference: The More Things Change...

For those who closely follow the (sometimes turbulent) political life of the African Methodist Episcopal Church [AMEC], there is often a misconceived notion about the Church. Many mistakenly think that there was a time in our history when everyone got along; when going to Conference was a time of spiritual renewal that was void of political gamesmanship; and when disagreements between the bishops and the pastors did not exist. Not only is that not true to our history, it is not even Biblical. From the time of the first Biblical record of human interaction between siblings with Cain and Abel falling out over an offering that was given during a worship service, men and women of God have often found themselves striving against one another in the Church.

Many people in the Fifth Episcopal District, my native district, are currently engaged in a rather spirited "difference of opinion." And while it may seem out of place to some observers, I would file it under the section entitled: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Consider the early days of the California Annual Conference and the case of Bishop Thomas M.D. Ward and the Rev. John R.V. Morgan, pastor of Bethel AMEC in San Francisco. (At the time, the California Conference was not in the Fifth District. In fact, before arriving in the Fifth, it bounced around in the Third, the Fourth, and the Sixth, to name a few.)

Bishop Ward made a name for himself while serving as a missionary to the West Coast during the mid-1800s and laying the foundation of African Methodism beyond the Rocky Mountains. The denomination rewarded his effort in 1868 by electing him to the Episcopacy and sending him to serve as the Bishop over the California Conference. One of the most prominent pastors serving in the Conference at the time was the Rev. J.R.V. Morgan. Like Bishop Ward, Rev. Morgan had come to California from the East Coast for the purpose of building up the AMEC. Morgan was a well traveled pastor and had served in the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New England Annual Conferences.

By the start of the 3rd session of the California Annual Conference in 1870, it was clear that Bishop Ward and Rev. Morgan were not on the same page with regard to many issues. Bishop Ward, a resident of San Francisco where Rev. Morgan served, was not happy about the progress made at Bethel Church under his leadership. The minutes from the Conference (unlike many of the day that were often cleaned up and sterilized of any negative comments) reveal a great deal of strife between Ward and Morgan during the days of the Conference. I am grateful to the Archivist of the Flora Lamson Hewlett Library at the Graduate Theological Union for making a copy available to me for research.

The two men first began to have problems over the issue of money reported to the Conference by Bethel. The bishop felt that Bethel could do much more than $13.55 reported for the Contingent Expense Fund. The amount was reported as much less than the previous year. Morgan stated that the drop in funds was due to the fact that he inherited a congregation with a $3200 debt that he had been able to reduce by $2100. Also, pointing out that the days of the Gold Rush were over, Morgan added that "California of the present is not the California of the past." While the good Bishop applauded the effort to pay down the debt, he also added that "Still I think the amount reported...is very small. I know well what the liberality of the Church at San Francisco can and will do if proper efforts are made." This terse exchange on the second day of the Conference was only a preview of what would come by the end of the meeting.

By day 7, Disciplinary Question #15 was asked: Are all the Preachers blameless in life and conversation? In response to the question, 2 complaints were brought against Rev. Morgan by the Bishop. Bishop Ward then "vacated the chair" to take on Rev. Morgan himself on the floor of the Conference. Soon, Morgan found himself taking incoming fire from not only the Bishop, but also his colleagues. What a dramatic moment this must have been when the Bishop hit the floor. Morgan was first accused of keeping Trustees in office that were openly opposed to Bishop Ward. According to Ward, "Men have been placed in church offices by Elder Morgan who were my enemies, who have endeavored to injure me and destroy my influence and character." Morgan replied to the complaint, "The Bishop's mind has been fearfully abused. Elders only have the power to nominate Trustees. In the formation of my Board of Trustees I nominated such men as I thought were suitable and would serve. I disclaim any intention to appoint men who were enemies to the Bishop."

Bishop Ward also accused Morgan of allowing people to slander his name by accusing him of being dishonest. To that, Morgan retorted that the person that accused the Bishop was a man by the name of Mr. Davis and that the accusation was related to past bills that were allegedly unpaid by Ward. According to Morgan, "Mr. Davis-a man with whom I had nothing to do-appears to have spread a complaint, or insinuation, as to the Bishop's past conduct, and the conduct of other members of the Board, touching the use of funds and the non-payment of bills. I summoned Davis, and questioning him about his language. He denied using words charging the Bishop or others of stealing."

The Bishop then proceeded and moved into the personal life of Morgan, by questioning his concern and love for his wife. Morgan's wife had not yet joined him in California, but he stated that he was working on bringing her out to join him. My wife "has received moneys" and she "has no cause to complain," Morgan said. He went on to add that "no man can prove any charge of wrong conduct on my part towards my wife." At that moment, Ward produced a letter from Mrs. Morgan "in which she states that she has received no support from her husband and only two letters since he has been in California; that she is sick; cannot work, and unable to help herself."

As if things could not be worse for Morgan, the Bishop stated that he had taken personal pleasure in a failed fund raiser for Ward. "This is a delicate matter, but duty compels me to speak of it. Before persons who are my enemies, he [Morgan] expressed gladness at my failure in a festival held for my benefit. 'Good enough!' said he." There is no record of Morgan's protest against this complaint, unlike the others. Ward also expressed remorse in light of the fact that he still had an unpaid bill of $100 that was used to relocate Morgan to California: "Today I am responsible for $100, paid to bring Elder Morgan to this State. Elder Morgan should be a different man than he has shewn himself to be in these respects. His experiences, changes, sufferings, should have taught him differently."

The other members of the Conference agreed with Bishop Ward that Rev. Morgan was out of line in all cases raised. Not one person is on record coming to his defense. Rev. William H. Offer said that "it is the duty of the members of this Conference to defend our Bishop against complaints, charges, insults, abuse, designed to injure, destroy, wound, or weaken his influence, character, and usefulness. As long as I shall remain in the Church and Conference, and serve with and under him, I shall defend him to the uttermost." The Rev. Peter Green also weighed in, saying that "Elders should set the example of respect in their deportment towards the Bishop." A motion hit the floor and it was adopted that Rev. Morgan be censured because of his conduct toward Bishop Ward.

As though the day had not been bad enough for Morgan, another one of his colleagues, Rev. James H. Hubbard rose and said that "I have reason to believe that Bro. Morgan uses spirituous liquors." Morgan admitted that he often used Halferstien's Bitters for his digestion, which may have been the source of confusion. Bitters were a popular "medicine" in those days and were made with alcohol (and were sometimes up to 45 proof!). Some persons, obviously, used bitters for more than medicinal purposes.

Before he could completely overcome the accusation of his drinking, Bishop Ward returned with another complaint by accusing Morgan of "dereliction of duty" by failing to show up to preach at a fund raiser for the church in Sacramento. As a result, "the people were disappointed, and the effort was a partial failure." Morgan attributed his absence to the unnamed "force of circumstances" that prevented his travel.

By the end of the Conference, Morgan found himself no longer the pastor in San Francisco, but serving as Presiding Elder in Denver, Colorado. There, he died 2 months later. This very public and well recorded "spirited disagreement" between Bishop Ward and Rev. Morgan, 2 well respected figures of their day, should remind us that there is truly nothing new under the sun. While many of us long for the "good old days" of African Methodism, devoid of tension and stress when we gather, I have found no such day in our history. In fact, as I see it, the more things change...