Pastor Ivor Myers blame American Protestant for the tragic long-standing practice of slavery?

1. The Claim That Stuns: Myers’s Argument That American Protestantism Spawned Slavery

Pastor Ivor Myers frames the “two-horned beast” of Revelation as an apostate American Protestantism that has historically “spoken like a dragon,” tolerating slavery, segregation, and persecution; he urges Adventists to reject alignment with that system and to recover what he sees as prophetic truth ^[1]. Myers’s rhetoric links doctrinal apostasy to concrete social harms, asserting not merely theological error but institutional complicity in slavery and later forms of Christian nationalism. This claim is grounded in denominational prophetic readings and appeals to historical examples; it operates as a both a theological diagnosis and a call to separation. Critics note Myers’s broad brush risks implicating all Protestants and conflating diverse historical actors under a single prophetic label ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Pushback from Inside the Tradition: Critics Say the Argument Is Flawed and Politically Charged

Commentators such as Gerry Wagoner and Scott Ritsema argue Myers’s approach is vague and conflates prophetic interpretation with contemporary political critiques, accusing him of leaning on ideological frameworks like critical race theory or “cultural Marxism” rather than careful historical analysis ^{[3] [5]}. These critics emphasize that many respected Adventist interpreters disagree with equating the second beast strictly with American Protestantism; they warn against merging eschatology with partisan rhetoric, noting that such moves can alienate members and distract from pastoral priorities. Ritsema and others call for nuance, insisting that while racism must be confronted, prophetic categories should not be weaponized to dismiss legitimate religious or civil concerns ^[5].

3. Historical Scholarship That Complicates the Picture: Protestants Were Often Complicit

Historical research documents clear strands of Protestant support for slavery and the development of theological defenses for the institution, particularly among white evangelicals in the antebellum South; scholars like Charles F. Irons trace how evangelical interactions shaped proslavery arguments and institutional behavior ^[2]. These studies show that proslavery ideology drew on biblical sanction, historical precedent, and pseudo-scientific claims, and that religious institutions sometimes sanctioned exclusionary civic structures. The historical record therefore substantiates claims that parts of American Protestantism played a significant role in justifying and perpetuating slavery, even as other Protestants opposed those practices. This complexity undercuts categorical absolutes while validating concerns about denominational complicity ^{[2] [6]}.

4. Where Theology Meets History: The Adventist Prophetic Lens Versus Secular Scholarship

Myers’s interpretation rests on an Adventist prophetic framework that reads Revelation’s beasts as real-world institutions; this theological lens produces moral urgency and a distinctive set of historical attributions ^[1]. Secular historians approach the same evidence as contingent social, political, and economic processes rather than prophetic fulfillment; they emphasize nuance, agency, and regional variation in Protestant responses to slavery. The disagreement is methodological: prophetic readings generate categorical moral claims, while historical scholarship highlights mixed motives and uneven complicity. Both angles contribute: prophetic critique raises ethical alarm, and historical work supplies calibrated evidence about which denominations, leaders, and regions supported or resisted slavery ^{[1] [2]}.

5. What the Critics and Supporters Agree On: Not All Protestants Were the Same

Across the sources, there is consensus that Protestant involvement in slavery was neither monolithic nor uniform; many Protestants opposed slavery and later fought for civil rights, even while other Protestant factions supported or rationalized injustice ^{[4] [2]}. This shared observation cautions against blanket indictments and urges targeted, evidence-based critique. A prudent reading recognizes both institutional failures and individual resistance, holding denominational institutions accountable where history supports it, while acknowledging reformers and abolitionists within Protestantism. Critics of Myers use this fact to argue his rhetoric should be narrowed; supporters use it to call for clearer denunciation of the systems that enabled oppression ^{[4] [2]}.

6. Bottom Line: Truths, Limits, and the Need for Honest Historical and Theological Conversation

Myers’s claims sharpen attention to religious complicity in moral wrongs and reflect longstanding Adventist prophetic concerns, but commentators warn his framing oversimplifies complex historical realities and risks politicizing theology ^{[1] [3]}. Historical scholarship affirms significant Protestant roles in defending slavery while also documenting robust Protestant opposition; the evidence supports a qualified indictment of certain Protestant actors and institutions rather than an undifferentiated condemnation of American Protestantism as a whole ^{[2] [6]}. The productive path is an honest interdisciplinary conversation that uses rigorous history to inform theological judgment and theological urgency to motivate substantive institutional repentance and reform ^{[5] [1]}.