When it comes to the issue of race, many today advocate that we take a “color-blind” approach. That is, in our interactions with people we should refuse to allow race to be a factor at all, whether we are interacting with a neighbor, talking about social issues, or choosing a Convention president. At this point in our history, however, a color-blind approach is counter-productive to achieving the racial unity we all desire.
Certainly, the sentiment behind a color-blind approach is a positive one. It stems from a desire to act in a way that is free from racism and achieves the dream set forth by Dr. King that we judge others not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” A worthy dream indeed! We desire to be color-blind because we want to put racism to rest – relegate it to the past. The only problem is that racism is not yet past. We have not yet achieved racial reconciliation. Race still matters, especially to people of color who remain on the receiving end of institutional racism. As much as we want to move past racism, we dare not act as though the problem is already behind us.
One reason many of us whites stumble, and why we don’t see racism where it exists, is that we view racism almost exclusively in personal, individualistic terms. As a result, we often deny or at least ignore the systemic racism that pervades our culture. We reject the idea of institutional racism precisely because we are not consciously engaging in discrimination and therefore do not feel racist. Yet, when we the majority unconsciously create systems in which whites have a favored status and white culture is preferred, we are indeed perpetuating a form of racism. Further, by keeping ourselves ignorant and thus silent about systemic racism, we give it our tacit approval and are passive participants in it. We are racist, even though in our minds and hearts we hold no racial prejudice.
We Southern Baptists are not conscious racists, but that does not mean that we have overcome racism as a denomination. Like the systemic racism in the larger society, our Southern Baptist culture, left alone, prefers whites. Now, I expect a statement that provocative will cause some to balk. After all, we do not intentionally exclude Blacks and other minorities from participation. Yet, collectively, we have maintained a culture and system in SBC life in which whites have a privileged status and only whites have held the highest positions of leadership.
Even though we don’t feel racist, if we accept a culture in which our race is preferred and in charge we are accepting a form of racism. We cannot claim color-blindness until our collective actions match our sentiment. If at this point we select our leaders and say, “I don’t see color,” we may think we are saying something noble. What we are unconsciously communicating, however, is that it’s ok if we never include African Americans or other non-whites in the highest positions of leadership as long as we don’t have ill will toward them in the process. Everyone is white, but that’s OK, because we don’t see color.
In the end, our color-blindness will not be measured by how we feel about other races or what we say about racism. The true measure will be whether we have demonstrated in our actions what we believe in our hearts. The true gauge of a color-blind denomination will be when blacks and other people of color feel welcome, respected, included, and trusted as equal partners with us.
Color-blindness a worthy pursuit, but it is a pursuit that is premature. We must first pursue a culture in which all races are valued and represented as equal partners. Only then will we have the basis on which to truly move beyond the issue of race. We cannot shortchange that process. We cannot act as though race is no longer an issue. Our intentions may be honorable, but mere intentions are not good enough. We cannot afford to be color-blind if the end result is the perpetuation of a whites-only reality.
This reality is why I think that the election of black president is a needed step. This is why I think that this first step should be followed by the continued selection of men and women of godly character and competence, of every race, to share in the leadership of our boards and agencies and be included among our entity heads. Until that happens, I will still see race – not because I don’t want to be color-blind, but because godly color-blindness is incompatible with a mono-color reality.
Really enjoyed this post, Todd. Are there any books that have informed your thinking on this issue (specifically the individualistic vs. structural/institutional analysis)?
BDW,
Over the past year, I have read extensively on multi-ethnic church, racial reconciliation, and trans-racial adoption. The particular thoughts about our individualistic approach to race came from my journal reflections after reading “Being White” by Paula Harris and Doug Schaupp; particularly what they called “unaware/covert racism”. Though, I am quite sure my thoughts have been influenced by other reading as well. My thoughts and experiences concerning race have been developing for some time, due in no small part to the calling God has placed on my life to minister in a multi-ethnic community.
Blessings,
Todd
Maybe it is just where I hang out but I really think this is changing in unexpected ways. Just last Saturday, I was at a large church for Upward Basketball. I was there most of the day and was very surprised to see so many couples who were either black/white or white parents with black children. It was not one or two but at least a dozen or so of this variation over the course of a day. In my own extended family several have adopted black children.
What will be the outcome of this? It will be awesome and they will look at pieces like this and wonder what on earth you are talking about. After all, their brother/sister/mom/dad are a different color and it means nothing.
That is what will end racism.
First time to comment here. I really appreciate this post and wholeheartedly agree. I’m encouraged to see that some in the denomination I grew up in are taking this view. Thanks for this – I hope it spurs further thought and reflection for us all.
Sounds like something influenced by university ethnic studies/anti-racism curriculae.
Racism is not a social problem. It is a sin. We can no more truly be “rid” of racism than we can adultery, especially if we use Jesus Christ’s definition of adultery, which would preclude so much as glancing at the anorexic teenager-looking “models” that practically every advertising campaign relies on these days. Yes, regeneration through faith in Jesus Christ forgives our sin, but the Bible makes it clear that the old man, the sinful fallen nature, the body of sin and its effects on our thought and behavior, must be dealt with via sanctification. Expecting any large body of Christians to be free of any sinful tendencies and behaviors … where does the Bible promise that this would be the case?
Now if you see racism as a social problem, then it is perfectly legitimate to condemn our Christian brothers for failing to “get with the program.” And that is exactly what civil rights/ethnic studies/anti-racism ideology does. But if you see it as a sin problem, then the imperative is to bear each other’s faults, forgive as the Lord forgave us, after the manner of Colossians 3:13.
Asking someone to be “color-blind” is akin to asking them to be perfect, free from sin, and being so after the flesh apart from their identification with Jesus Christ. Why on earth would anyone want to put such a burden – a Pharisaical burden – on members of the body of Jesus Christ?
Allow me to tempt you with this further thought: if you are going to put this burden on people, at the very least attach whites and nonwhites to this yoke of yours equally. Demand that blacks – for example – stop attending black churches and instead join doctrinally sound majority white ones. So, blacks fought to integrate schools, restaurants/hotels, workplaces, housing etc. but make no effort to do the same with churches where no barriers exist? Or if black churches must exist due to housing patterns, socioeconomics, tradition etc. then at the very least they should stop affiliating with black denominations like the National Baptist Convention and the Progressive National Baptist Convention and instead join the SBC. (They no longer even have to use the name that is associated with support for slavery and segregation … they can become “Great Commission Baptists” instead!) Any yoke that cannot be borne by blacks is unfit to be used on whites, because such is not a yoke but a noose. After all, didn’t the Bible bid masters to be good to their servants AND servants to be good to their masters? No distinction was made, and the responsibilities on both were the same.
Resisting the world and its temptations includes rejecting apostate theology as well as fallen worldly ideas (Romans 12:1-2 and Colossians 2:8). The way that the mainstream views racism – and its remedies for that issue – definitely qualifies. And though I only addressed the liberal angle – because that is the angle from which you wrote – I say the same of conservatives whose approach to the issue is to ignore it or deny that it is a problem. What other sins are “not really a problem” or the fault of being provoked by those who were sinned against? For example, is theft not a problem, and should those robbed simply “rise above it”, “ignore it”, “overcome it” and “stop playing the victim”? Or should we blame the existence of thieves on the fact that some people have more money and possessions than do others? Or is “genetic predispositions” an appropriate way of dealing with the 8th commandment issue? Clearly conservatives have their worldly “social issues” and their worldly responses to them also (consider “The Bell Curve” written by the atheist Charles Murray and the Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein … it was very conservative but not a source of Biblical truth).
I am reminded of Isaiah’s declaration “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
All sin is individual, but it can also be societal and cooperative.
“All sin is individual, but it can also be societal and cooperative.”
Of course. That is why I mentioned that it is extremely difficult not to be an adulterer in this society as this sin is described by Matthew 5:28. So what are we to do about this? We could A) follow the world and become feminists, B) distort Matthew 18:9 by plucking out our eyes or C) rely ever more on our identification with Jesus Christ. Societal and cooperative sin is still sin, so it is still dealt with in the same way: regeneration and sanctification. Granted, the world has its own methods to deal with issues (i.e. with crime by police and jail) but the church is not the world, and worldly remedies cannot and should not be used to solve spiritual issues – sin issues, or at the very least issues with spiritual immaturity – in the church.
And as I said before, if this sin is societal and cooperative, then nonwhites are very much part of the problem, as they are cooperating members of the society.
Job, that is a very thoughtful, probing, perhaps controversial post.
I hope others will read it in the spirit it was offered.
Thank you. Although if they don’t, I have only my own regrettable checkered history of unhelpful comments on SBC Voices (and SBC Today and SBC Tomorrow!) to blame 🙂
After reading this, I am imagining George Constanza trying to prove he wasn’t racist.
I remember an Aesops Fable that applies here:
WHEN A FOX who had never yet seen a Lion, fell in with him by chance for the first time in the forest, he was so frightened that he nearly died with fear. On meeting him for the second time, he was still much alarmed, but not to the same extent as at first. On seeing him the third time, he so increased in boldness that he went up to him and commenced a familiar conversation with him.
Acquaintance softens prejudices.
And now for the rest of the fable:
Then the lion ate the fox and said, “Foxes make good desert.” 🙂
“””Now, I expect a statement that provocative will cause some to balk. “”
Of course, it is now impossible to engage your post without being labeled a priori as a “balker.”
But, I’ll go ahead any way. You use terms like “we” and “collectively” so I assume you me to indict all SBC groups. Fact is, our State Convention top leadership has not been white for decades.
I’m sure that there are some racially sensitive Southern Baptists. I’m also sure there will always be racially sensitive Southern Baptists. But, to suggest there is some “insidious, sub-conscious, systemic” plan to exclude non-whites in SBC life, just doesn’t ring true in my opinion.
As far as I know (and I don’t know everything to be sure), in the last 40 years no non-white nominee for the President of the Convention as ever been denied the right to run for election.
Can we treat each other with greater kindness, broader vision, and more solid support regardless of skin color? Why, of course. If your post is: “we can do better.” Well, I’m 100% on board.
If your post is: there’s an “insidious, sub-conscious, systemic” plan to exclude non-Whites, then I offer my dissent.
I believe my post is clear in saying that there is no intentional exclusion of blacks in our denomination. I am simply arguing that we will not achieve racial diversity in our participation and leadership unless we are intentional about inclusion. I am writing to counter the idea that we will somehow drift into diversity through a color-blind approach in our selection of leaders.
Particularly, I am writing to support specific actions by our Convention such as adopting the report on ethnic diversity last year, the purposeful election of people of color to serve in leadership, and the intentional hiring of non-whites to serve as entity heads (like the position currently vacant).
As for the “balk” line, I did not intend to stifle honest disagreement. I merely wanted to acknowledge the provocative nature of what I was saying, explain why the comment might be rejected, and then offer a reasoned response.
Hope that helps clarify things 🙂
“””Now, I expect a statement that provocative will cause some to balk. “”
Of course, it is now impossible to engage your post without being labeled a priori as a “balker.”
But, I’ll go ahead any way. You use terms like “we” and “collectively” so I assume you me to indict all SBC groups. Fact is, our State Convention top leadership has not been white for decades.
I’m sure that there are some racially sensitive Southern Baptists. I’m also sure there will always be racially sensitive Southern Baptists. But, to suggest there is some “insidious, sub-conscious, systemic” plan to exclude non-whites in SBC life, just doesn’t ring true in my opinion.
As far as I know (and I don’t know everything to be sure), in the last 40 years no non-white nominee for the President of the Convention as ever been denied the right to run for election.
Can we treat each other with greater kindness, broader vision, and more solid support regardless of skin color? Why, of course. If your post is: “we can do better.” Well, I’m 100% on board.
If your post is: there’s an “insidious, sub-conscious, systemic” plan to exclude non-Whites, then I offer my dissent.
I was just hoping this wouldn’t get overlooked in all the name-change furor.
Todd,
You kept referring to Southern Baptist’s in this post? Who’s that? Who are Southern Baptists?
David
🙂
Well, we are still Southern Baptists at least for a few more months 🙂
As you said here, Todd, the next good step will take place in June in NOLA when we elect Fred Luters. It won’t end the process, but it is a good next step.
We might be able to claim some level of color-blindness if nobody had ever even mentioned Fred Luter’s race.
@Bob Cleveland:
The Bible is not color blind (Acts 13:1, Jeremiah 13:23, Song of Solomon 1:5) so neither should we be. The challenge is dealing with racism and other issues Biblically, and not to let the world (whether conservative or liberal) set the agenda. My issue with this fellow’s piece is that it attempts to superimpose liberal secular race theory (and I am no fan of conservative race theory either I should point out) into a Christian context.
Job,
I am not suggesting that racism is not a sin issue nor am I touting a liberal secular agenda, but I am saying that we will not overcome racism by ignoring race as a present issue. I’m trying to understand your objection to my post. If you can summarize your objection in a few concise statements, I will try to respond.
Blessings,
Todd
@Todd Benkert:
Why is racism a problem that the church should respect? Because it is a sin. For no other reason. Why is it a sin? Consider Romans 13:8-10 reads “Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.” As the racist does not love the object of his racism as he does himself, he is not loving his neighbor as himself, and so in a spiritual sense, being a racist is the same class or sort of sin as violating items 6-10 of the Decalogue. With that being the case, the church should treat racism no different from the way that it treats dishonoring your parents, murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness and coveting … as a sin. My position is that your piece does not.
Consider, for example: “We are racist, even though in our minds and hearts we hold no racial prejudice.” Are you a thief even if you have never stolen anything? Are you a murderer even if you have never killed anyone?
“One reason many of us whites stumble, and why we don’t see racism where it exists, is that we view racism almost exclusively in personal, individualistic terms. As a result, we often deny or at least ignore the systemic racism that pervades our culture”
Are whites alone guilty of murder, theft, coveting and adultery? And as you propose a sense of collective, systemic, institutional sin guilt for racism, does Voddie Baucham (for example) then share in responsibility black on black crime? Though many conservatives would want to and would support law enforcement’s racially profiling Baucham based on it, that is not a valid theological position for the Christian church.
In conclusion, the best way to deal with racism in the church is to treat it like any other sin. That would solve ignoring it, dissembling about it, and using unBiblical means to attempt to remedy it. So, whenever pondering about racism, one should ask themselves “would this approach be generally Biblically valid if I were speaking of liars or thieves?” If not, then it probably isn’t.
Thank you.
One objection is that you paint with such a broad brush and you use your experience (obviously not in the West) as the measure everywhere.
As I said in another post, our State Convention has been non-White at the highest levels of leadership for over two decades, or at least two decades.
Another objection, and I think Job points this out, is that you define racism as an “unconscious attitude.” Well, until an attitude becomes an action it cannot be dealt with, for one.
Also, if it is unconscious it cannot be dealt with.
So, your post could appear to be a solution searching for a problem. This is with the caveat as I’ve said before: in any instance we can always make improvement whatever the particular sin is we may be dealing with.
Those would be some points of objection I have with your post. I have no objection with your thoughts or attitudes of wanting to do better and be better. We can all benefit from some “home improvement.”
Job and Frank,
I think your criticisms have merit and are well received. In a short essay such as mine, some things get overlooked or assumed and thus become legitimate points of critique.
Job, on the issue of sin – I do not ignore it as much as I assume it as such. Racism is most definitely a sin and affects us individually and collectively. I still submit the distinction between individual and corporate sin is hard to see because we tend to think exclusively in individualistic terms. You mention lying and stealing as individual sins, yet in both cases I can foresee circumstances in which we could be corporately be guilty of either. If, for example, we passed a resolution which contained factual inaccuracies or was intentionally deceptive then we would be guilty, corporately of the sin of lying. If also, for example, we knew that one of our agencies were guilty of illegal business practices and we refused to hold the agency to account, then we could be corporately be guilty of the sin of theft. Does that make sense? So, if (and “if” is an important word) we allow a system that somehow communicates to non-whites that they are not valued as equal participants and co-laborers, then I think we can legitimately say we are corporately guilty, to some extent, of the sin of racism.
Further, as a Convention we have already, by way of resolution, stated “That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27).” I am merely suggesting that we must follow through with specific conscious action.
Frank, your point on state conventions is well taken. I recognize that many State Conventions and local associations have done better on this issue than others and the national Convention at large. However, State Conventions and associations are autonomous bodies. My comments are relating specifically to the national Convention and in support of the race report last year and the election of Luter this year. Hope that clarifies things.
My broader goal is to engage in dialogue on the issue. Overall, I think it is important to continue our discussions about race, racism, and racial reconciliation – not only to clarify the issue, but to move together to overcome the sin of racial strife and live in light of our future hope.
Blessings,
Todd
Todd, I accept your spirit on the matter. My question would be, “when is enough, enough?” What would it take for you and others to declare, “racism is no more of a problem in our Convention than say, infidelity?”
I personally do not think there will ever be such a point for some people. There are people who literally make a living on the “race” issue. As long as we try to deal with it at a National Convention level, it will continue to be a problem, in my humble opinion.
Remember, nothing done at the Convention is binding on anybody but the Convention. Individuals will still be autonomous.
To demonstrate the truth of my proposition, just bring up any sin in a blog post and see if it does not create a healthy discussion.
The most pressing problem, in our minds, is the one we are discussing. I’m just wondering–and I could be completely wrong about this–does our discussion alleviate or exaserbate a problem if the discussion continues ad infinitum?
I don’t think that time is that far off, but there are some remaining hurdles to overcome. I think we’ve come a long way in overcoming overt intentional racism and perhaps we can say that for the most part, that kind of racism is behind us.
The biggest hurdle in front of us is what my friend Raymond calls “true relationship building and cultural competence.” Until we learn to have meaningful relationships across racial and ethnic lines, I think we will still struggle with some forms of unintentional exclusion. Until that time, we will have to be more deliberate in sharing leadership while those relationships are developed.
I repeat. When we make note of someone’s race, when telling others about him, we lose a claim to color-blindness.
As a Southern Baptist minister who studied Black History (now called African American History) in undergraduate, graduate (M.A.), wrote a prospectus for a Doctoral Dissertation in Black History at an Ivy League School, and then did my project for the Doctor of Ministry on Christian Love & Race Relations, following my years growing up on a sharecropper’s farm in Arkansas, I do think we need to awaken to the reality that the relationship between Blacks and Whites definitely needs improving. This past Feb. 5 our son had a Black man who joined his church. He has a few others in his church, and we have perhaps 20-30 in the church I attend. The change is beginning to accelerate, and I pray that the issue will become moot in the very near future. Even the church in St. Louis where I was baptized and ordained, that would not admit an American Indian back in the fifties would have a Black deacon in the eighties. I can say that when I read the records on how Blacks were treated during the time of slavery, it gave me nightmares just like the pictures of one of the holacaust camps taken by one of my church members during WWII. One thing I learned long ago was that, if you treat a person like he or she is a human worthy of dignity and respect, you will often find that it comes back manifold.
dr. james willingham – Every time I read all your credits I remember that you believe a Novel which is fiction is a History Book. Amazing.
Remember the Da Vinci Code , Illuminticus – Both Novels – Not History Booksto from which to take facts.
I understand the thoughts of the writer but I think we need to go deeper than the statement “continued selection of men and women of godly character and competence”.
We have coninued to move unqualified people into positions becuase of “Quotos”. I remember as a Fire Department Chaplain our training was altered to meet the needs of women. Up until that time firemen were required to carry 150# dead weight 50 yards. None of the women applying could do it. So we lowered the standards to 125# 25 yards. Some of the firemen put signs on the fireboxes that said: “If you weigh over 125# do not use this box” No sense of humor!
Unfortuneatly, our convention is not run by Godly Leadership. What I mean is there are Godly men and women in those positions, but there is a vote of the people, many “ungodly” that directs the outcome.
I pastored, in 1992, the first Anglo Southern Baptist Church that became dual aligned with the National Baptist (course I only lasted 6 more months but that is another story). Most of the pastors were in support but the total church population of hte other SBC churches were upset. In fact, they moved toward having an association constitutional change forbidding churches from having dual relationships.
The other side is that African American need to raise the bar of education (which has been started) and interested in changing thier own prejudices and acceptance of other. I got my “African American Cultural Competency” cerificatiion hoping to work with black Pastors in raising the level of their ministering skills with thier congrefations. In 4 years i have not been able to get the first pastor to be willing to go through the training IN THE DELTA!. This was going to be at no charge, in fact I was going to pay for thier membership in BAACC.
Lastly: I hate to get into politics but based on your comments I must. The election of an African American President has a positive and negative. The positive is that there is no excuse for any African American not to go as high as they want to do. The negative is when we do things, based upon “it’s tiem we did it” we get unqualified people whom do a below standard job. I believe our present president will create a future African American from being elected for a long time. God Bless
Job,
Could racism be the exclusion or isolation of a person based upon the color of his or her skin? If so, and this is prominent in our churches yesterday and today, would the exclusion or isolation of economic status, social status, education status, job, hair length/color, fashion, beauty and abilities be consider a cultural type of “racism”? If so, should we deal with this kind of sin in the same way you have grouped the sins of the 10 Commandments?
BTW, I wish I could have said what you have said the way you have said it because I am in agreement with you.
One thing I have to do that I didn’t see in the “Color Blind” post is that I must set my focus on my relationship with Christ 100% rather than “any” focus on the subject matter to be able to properly relate to the color issue that dwells within each of us as well as any other sin. I do not think Christians are independent thinkers to be able to place any attention on the sin to be able to overcome it. When we do that, we overreact or underreact to make the person respond the way we think they should respond. We begin to analyse the good and bad that we did with the first person and try to correct or place emphasize on the good response on the next person and they give a different response. We are in the flesh and we are not genuine and the other person can tell it. Actually, by focusing on the “race” issue we could easily become more racist.
Todd,
I didn’t know that I would live long enough to see a “Southern-Great Commission Baptist ” speak with this level of heartfelt understanding and truth. If your thinking in this post represent growing and majority SBC thinking, our convention has a bright, prosperous, and “colorful” future ahead. Thanks Todd. Great job.
I encourage anyone who has engaged in this discussion to read a critique of my post by Raymond Dix, now on SBCvoices.
Mr. Wolford, I sure would like to know what in the world you are reading. I seldom read fiction these days, preferring more objective materials.
I think a better word is color blessed. Folks who are color blind have a tendancy to make insulting remarks to others of color. I pray we are headed in a good direction. One thing I do know: if love won’t bring us together, pain sure will. SBC has a long way to go. I guess they will love us girls next.