A Moment Aside ---- 6 October 2020
When we read the Scriptural story of Cain and
Abel (Genesis 4: 1-16), we encounter disappointment, sin, and what could be
called the first act of violence. Cain kills his brother and yet even as he is separated from all he knows, he is “marked” with the “mark of Cain”, forbidding
any one from killing him. None of us know what that mark is or what it looked
like… and y’know, it doesn’t really matter. The small poster set above this
text tells the real story. The mark isn’t one we might look for to see if any
among us still bear the “mark of Cain.” As the writer says, the mark is a sign
of mercy. Cain was confronted with his action, forgiven for his sin, and given
the life of a wanderer. The sign of Cain was a merciful sign; none should kill
him. It was a sign for all that this man was untouchable and that the justice of
God had been done for him.
There are many signs in the Scripture. The
rainbow over the ark showed that the flood and its punishment was ended. The
circumcision was a sign of dedication and covenant; like God’s commitment to
the Covenant, it cannot be reversed. The blood of the Passover lamb on the
doorposts of the Hebrews’ houses in Egypt was a sign that those within were to
be “passed over” by the angel of death. It became a sign that the descendants
of those Hebrews were free.
The cross is a sign of the great mercy of
God offered to all. Forgiveness, freedom, covenent and dedication are all tied
up in some way in the sign of Jesus’ cross. Some Christians take that sign over
their bodies each time they pray. The cross is an unfailing sign of the mercy
and love of God for all that exists despite that fact that it shows how little
mercy might be found in the lives of humans.
Cain’s mark… Noah’s rainbow… circumcision…
the blood of the Passover lamb… the Cross of Christ.
“From the beginning, God is merciful.”
May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
(Galatians 6:14)
When I first went to N.C. during segregation I was shocked to learn that the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham were interpeted to mean they became the founders of the black race! I just looked it up and learned this. 'American Protestant racial beliefs on the Mark of Cain
ReplyDeleteAt some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States, many[citation needed] Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan friar Symon Semeonis suggest that this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin.[21]
Baptist segregation
The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over doctrinal issues pertaining to slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught the belief that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.[22] Southern Baptists have either taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.[23] In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery.[24]
The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the United States and Europe[citation needed]. The majority of Christian churches in the world, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Oriental Orthodox churches, did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic dioceses in the Southern United States adopted a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer the sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishioners. This policy was not based on a "curse of Cain" teaching, but was justified by the widely held perception that slaves should not rule over their masters. However, this was not approved of by the Pope or by any papal teaching.[25]