Originally posted at SBC History
The recent conference marking the 50th Anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has sparked many conversations across the SBC about race and racism. Sermons by Matt Chandler, Russell Moore, and David Platt and other in and out of SBC life have all been called simply products of current social justice trends or meant to please men and not God. Discussions online and in person have been heated as people discuss how much churches and the SBC should push for racial reconciliation today.
One of the most common responses to those calling for racial reconciliation is that we just need to focus on the gospel and that the rest will take care of itself. The application of the gospel in the area of racial reconciliation has been called cultural Marxism, social justice, or obscuring the gospel.
This article will share a short history of racial reconciliation in the SBC, sharing people and institutions who have worked to do more than just acknowledge and repent of the legacy of the SBC but have pushed for racial equality on the basis of the gospel. The goal is to show that those who speak for racial reconciliation today are continuing a long line of Baptist leaders who have stood for the same things.
This is not meant in any way to make light of the past of the SBC, which has been well documented elsewhere. We need to acknowledge the past of the SBC and repent of it. But repentance is not enough. Al Mohler writes clearly on this topic.
“The Southern Baptist Convention was not only founded by slaveholders; it was founded by men who held to an ideology of racial superiority and who bathed that ideology in scandalous theological argument. … We bear the burden of that history to this day. …It is not enough to repent of slavery. We must repent and seek to confront and remove every strain of racial superiority that remains and seek with all our strength to be the kind of churches of which Jesus would be proud — the kind of churches that will look like the marriage supper of the Lamb.”
As segregation and Jim Crow loomed large in America in the first half of the 20th century, Southern Baptists did little to stop it. The majority of SBC members and leaders were at the least complicit in racism, and others led out in it freely. Of those who spoke against it, Dr. TB Maston was the most vocal. As early as 1927 he challenged the racial prejudices of the South. Using the biblical premise that “God is no respecter of persons” Maston urged Southern Baptist’s to accept all races as equal. Maston’s book “The Bible and Race” takes eight different passages from the Bible and considers the impact these passages should have on our understanding of race. Maston dispels such heretical views as the “Curse of Ham.” A professor at SWBTS, he wrote many books that touched on the subject of race, but The Bible and Race was his most influential book.
In 1949 EW Perry was the first African American to address the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting. When the convention met in Oklahoma City that year Perry was pastor of Oklahoma City’s historic Tabernacle Baptist Church, where he served from 1915 to 1969. At the time of his address, he was serving as President of the National Baptist Convention and was called a brother in Christ by SBC President RG Lee.
The Home Mission Board made concerted efforts to reach out to Black Baptists in America and hired Emmanuel McCall as the first African American employee at the Home Mission Board in 1968. Other SBC leaders worked to promote a biblical view of race as well, like Henlee Barnette, who invited Martin Luther King Jr to preach at SBTS in 1961. Foy Valentine at the Christian Life Commission worked to give the SBC a biblical understanding of race, often too much pushback from members and churches in the SBC.
As time passed SBC individual and entities continued to buck against racism in the SBC.
SBCLIFE writes
Some of the earliest racial barrier breaking occurred in the six SBC seminaries. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, began teaching black students on its campus in 1942 in a “Negro Extension Department.” Initially, they received instruction from professors and graduate students in vacant faculty offices since a Kentucky law prohibited educational institutions from teaching both white and African American students as pupils.
Garland Offutt earned the number of credits necessary for the master of theology, and the faculty granted him a degree in 1944, making him the first black graduate of any Southern Baptist seminary. During the mid-1940s, Southern began allowing black students to sit in classrooms with white students in violation of state law. The seminary officially admitted black students in 1951.
As president Duke McCall explained, “We decided to ignore the law. We thought we had moral ground—and probably the legal ground as well—to ignore it.”
Theology professor Wayne Ward recalled an incident when a police officer arrived at his class to issue a warning about violating the law. When the officer showed some hesitation to enter the class, Ward told him God would punish him if he arrested anyone.
Similar activities took place at SWBTS, which enrolled black preachers in 1942. The other SBC seminaries integrated long before was required by law. In 1968 Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, California, claimed it had more black students than any other seminary on the west coast and more foreign students than all other west coast seminaries combined.
It was not all good news though. Southern Baptists remained bitterly divided on how to approach the issue of racial reconciliation. Racism still abounded in the SBC. It was the official or unofficial policy of many churches to deny membership to African Americans. Foy Valentine and the CLC wanted to put an end to that practice.
During the 1964 annual meeting in Atlantic City, the Christian Life Commission put forward a resolution that recommended that the SBC approve an open door policy for churches, regardless of race, and pledge to support laws designed to guarantee the legal rights of African Americans. The resolution also urged Southern Baptist to “give themselves to the decisive defeat of racism.” The resolution was defeated in a close vote. In response, a 90-year-old retired pastor put forward a resolution, sent to committee, that called forced integration of schools unbiblical and only got more racist after that. At that same meeting, the SBC refused to be part of a joint committee of various national Baptist groups, in part because of their unwillingness to join hands with black churches.
That year’s outgoing President K Owen White said that the SBC had made strides in race relations, but that Baptist ecclesiology did not allow the SBC to institute reform on its churches.
“We are making progress–good progress–but by the very nature of our democratic, New Testament way of life we shall do more by proceeding prayerfully, lovingly, and courageously upon the local level than by making great, sweeping pronouncements.” (5/20/64 BP)
In 1965 the Home Mission Board and the Christian Life Commission sponsored “Race Relations Sunday” across the SBC. Baptist Press reported that “Some said “Praise the Lord” but others regarded it as evil when the Southern Baptist Convention observed its first Race Relations Sunday,” showing that there was still great tension among churches over the issue. (2/24/65 BP)
Later in 1965, Baptist Press reported that
Thirteen of the 29 state conventions affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention either adopted resolutions on race relations, accepted African American churches into the convention fellowship, or commended the Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission for its leadership in the area of race relations(11/24/65) BP
At the Sunday School Board in Nashville, Executive Secretary-Treasurer James Sullivan worked hard to bring about racial equality. In 1953 Sullivan integrated the cafeteria at the SSB making it the first integrated company cafeteria in Nashville. In 1967 the SSB helped organize a group of businesses to promote job equality for women and minorities. In that article from BP Sullivan stated that “Since 1953 the board has made no distinction in its salary structure between men and women, Caucasian and non-Caucasian. Fringe benefits and other such matters have been the same. Employees are paid by job description regardless of sex or ethnic background.”(10/17/67 BP)
Through the years the SBC passed various resolutions against individual and systemic forms of racism and urging members to follow the teachings of Christ regarding the value of all mankind.
The 1978 “Resolution on Racism” noted that racism existed “in both individuals and the structure of society” (emphasis added) and that “racism continues to deprive minority persons of practical means of advancement.”
In 1989 in Las Vegas, the “Resolution on Racism” urged “That our agencies and institutions seek diligently to bring about greater racial and ethnic representation at every level of Southern Baptist institutional life.” http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/897/resolution-on-racism
Among these resolutions, the 1995 “Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention” stands out the most. In it, the SBC apologized for it’s role in perpetuating slavery in the past, and opposition to secure civil rights for all. This resolution was a landmark decision in the SBC but was preceded by other calls for racial healing. In 1993, Southern Baptist spokesman Richard Land, director of the Christian Life Commission, called for white Christians to initiate racial reconciliation. (4/29/93 BP)
The SBC has continued to speak for racial reconciliation. In 1996 they spoke against the recent rash of arson at African American churches. In 2009 they voiced joy at “our nation’s pride in our continuing progress toward racial reconciliation signaled by the election of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America.” In 2007 they spoke against the Dredd Scott decision on its 150th Anniversary, in 2015 they urged SBC churches to “increase racial and ethnic diversity in church staff roles, leadership positions, and church membership.“ Most recently, they passed resolutions against the use of the Confederate flag in 2016 and against the Alt-Right in 2017.
The recent calls for racial reconciliation are only the latest in a long line of voices within the SBC calling for repentance for the past, and positive steps for the future. Those who spoke up in the past did so at great risk. Sadly, those who speak up today face some of the same obstacles. The SBC has not always made the right decisions regarding race and slavery and has apologized for those decisions. But as Mohler, points out, “repentance is not enough” in our day and age. We must seek to remove every strain and thought of racial superiority in the SBC. Racism still exists in America and it is our duty as citizens of another kingdom to speak against it. The history of racial reconciliation shows that while the SBC has a tainted past, there is also have a long line of leaders who have pointed us towards the gospel and towards reconciliation.
This is a fascinating historical review.
I would love to be able to go back and see the reactions of people who said, “We don’t need to do this. There isn’t a problem. Etc.”
Some of those early actions were met with hostility. Later actions have met with resistance as well, but more subtle. some will ALWAYS oppose any effort at racial reconciliation as unnecessary.
This list is not exhaustive. But I think the story about the man who offered the counter motion to the Christian life commission shows some of the general attitude then.
Yes
I guess I will ask the obvious question: if Dr Mohler says repentance isn’t enough then what will be enough and will there ever enough. I see no institutional racism in the SBC and would speak against it if I did.
The obvious answer is that it will never be enough. I and others have asked on this site what the end goal should look like and no one seems to know. But…we’re supposed to be working toward that unknown end goal anyway!
Because no matter what we say, you refuse to hear, Dan B. It does no good to talk to people who refuse to hear.
It will be enough when racism is ended, not just in the SBC but everywhere. The goal of Christianity is, in part, to bring an end to these institutional evils. We want to end communism in China, and oppression in Russia, and apartheid in Africa, and racism in America, and abortion everywhere. We want to end drug abuse in small towns, to end alcoholism, and to end pornagrpahy addictions. If we pray for God’s kingdom to come on earth, this is part of what it would look like. So it will be enough when racism is eradicated.
This is the question then; how do we do it? How do we eradicate racism? Because it does feel as though the way we are going about it, is by apologizing for other peoples racist actions and being told of the latent (unprovable) racism that must be repented of at every level of the SBC.
One good start would be to stop opposing every effort at humility and reconciliation. Stop denying that a problem exists. Stop blaming everything on “angry, unforgiving blacks.” Admit that there is a REAL problem in American culture that was caused by 400 years of brutal treatment of minorities (not just blacks but Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and more recently, Middle Easterners). Don’t classify every effort to FIX things as white guilt.
Become part of the solution.
Dave, I don’t know if that is directed at me, or a comment that was on another post, or a comment that was deleted. I may be reading it wrong, but it seems very angry; seems.
I’m not opposing humility and reconciliation, I do think a portion of our convention is going about it the wrong way. I want to understand the problem. Explain how the SBC of today is institutionally racist. I admit there are many real problems, caused by real sins; these problems are deeper than treatment of people over 400. These problems are not aided by a reconciliation movement, but by Christ.
I understand there is a racist element of our society (and convention) but oppose labeling every member of the SBC as a racist in need of repentance for this sin. Maybe I am missing something, but I see this issue being the real divider of our convention over the next 20 years. I don’t want that, but I don’t want good men and women of God castigated for a system they had not part in and a sin that is not theirs.
It was not specifically directed at you, Michael, but I am increasingly frustrated at deniers and deflectors who read from the same playbook every time good and decent people write about racial reconciliation.
Cultural marxism.
We already apologized.
How much is enough?
What good does apologizing do? (This is often a Jesus juke – given with extreme sanctimonious attitude)
Give us specifics.
White guilt.
No matter what we say, we get these same tired responses – and yes, I am weary of it.
We’ve written biblical explanations of this, but get asked why we don’t rely on scripture.
We write specifics, but get asked why we don’t give specifics.
We say it isn’t about white guilt but about correcting the problems the past has created but still we hear, “you are wallowing in white guilt.”
It gets frustrating to even talk to the deniers and deflectors because NO MATTER WHAT we say, they just stick to the anti-reconciliation playbook.
In no effort to continue your frustration; let me say this. Just as there is an element of the SBC that is racist, there is an element of the reconciliation movement that is some of those things. Some members will never be apologized to enough, and will never be certain in unity.
That said, this is a difficult issue to deal with because it does require a certain lens through which to view the society at large. I disagree with that lens because I think it surrenders to a worldly system that seeks only division and destruction. I also do not see our convention as systemically racist, therefore I do not see the end of this “movement” (I don’t mean that as a pejorative, I don’t know how else to phrase it). That is part of the problem in this discussion, it is trying to navigate matters of the heart & mind and we can’t do that. We have to proclaim the Gospel and apply it as specifically as we can or we run the risk of this issue tearing our foundations to shreds.
Michael,
In another post a good question was asked, What are some actual practical actions that can help with some of these issues.
I think that is one way we begin to move past “apologizing” and move to reconciliation. For example, predatory lending practices take disproportional advantage of minorities in our country. We should work to end those businesses that feed off the poverty of others.
Unfair housing practices have made many minorities a permanent underclass because it has kept them from owning property, which is a major milestone in economic mobility. We should work to right this wrong.
Wage stagnation and underemployment are huge issues in minority and majority communities. We should work to end these unjust labor practices and tie wages to a real number- like inflation- so no one goes left behind coonomically.
Social programs, like food stamps (SNAP) are constantly being cut, and the cuts are always targeted at training and education benefits which makes it almost impossible to get a job in a technological, global economy. We should advocate to end these cuts and restore funding.
I could go on. The results of 200+ years of institutional racism have left a lot of carnag behind. I would be happy to move beyond apologizing, if we could come to an end of the list of wrongs and begin making amends.
How would you start addressing one of these issues in your community or church? Which one affects your city the most? In OKC, it is the training/ed piece and the predatory lending institutions. That is where I have started.
Ok, this gives me something to work with & towards.
What are these unfair housing practices, I’m not a realtor and do not know? What are the predatory lending practices?
Wage should be tied to the value of the work not inflation, so I don’t see how that is racist and/or discriminatory.
SNAP could and should be cut (I say this as someone who is and has been dependent upon it). Tying the cuts to educational requirements has nothing to do with race, therefore it is not racist to cut SNAP.
I’m not being a pain, but this is part of the point. There are two sides to this and one side sees institutional racism, while the other sees cultural decay. It does no good to lob accusations at people of being racist when they view the system as damaged but not evil, and that is the feeling of those who are (for lack of a better descriptor) opposed to the racial reconciliation movement.
Happy to expand a little bit.
Predatory lending is what is also called payday lending or signature lending. It is a predatory practice because it uses “quick cash for emergencies” to take advantage of low wage earners who wind up owing and paying far more than they ever borrowed. These types of institutions are always located in high poverty areas and those areas are ore often than not high minority pop.
Unfair lending practices devalue the lending to minorities even with demonstrable income. NPR did a great expose on this earlier this year- tracking several high earning minority couples and watching them be denied for loan after loan, while Caucasian couples with less demonstrable Nd stable income were blue to easily qualify for loans much higher than what the minority couples were applying for. One of those banks in the show is now under federal investigation if memory serves me correctly.
You are welcome to have your opinion about wages, but cost of living is a reality and not tying wages to cost of living increases hurts everyone. For example, did you know working 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job cannot lift a family of 2 above the federal poverty line. In many rural communities, those are the only jobs available which means that the use of federal poverty programs like SNAP are rising even as unemployment drops. Minorities are the most likely people to work for minimum wage as a main breadwinner in a family whici is how this issue ties to race.
As far as SNAP goes, you make a blanket statement that it should be cut. On what basis do you make that statement? My connection of SNAP cuts to race have to do with the substttandard education that many minorities have access to due to poorer performing schools, school consolidation, and generational educational issues affecting education. This means that minorities would benefit the most from training and educational programs designed to move people off of SNAP and into the work force. When SNAP is cut, these are usually the first programs to go and that disproportionately affects minorities.
Glad for the civil dialogue. Hope I have answered some of your questions.
Ok, payday lending is not in and of itself racist. There may be racists doing it, but the practice, while wrong, is not racist.
I have no idea about the NPR story and have what may be a plausible reason: My wife was denied immediate access to several colleges when she was a high school senior. She had the grades and the test scores for these schools. The reason: previous students from her school and community performed quite poorly at these universities. Therefore, she was not granted immediate acceptance. Is that what the bank did? I don’t know; I do highly doubt they are overtly racist, but if they are I join you in a call against them.
Minimum wage jobs are not meant to support a family as the sole income, 40 hours or not. Did you know pastoring a church in the midwest is not enough to raise a family of 4 above the federal poverty line? Does that mean we should have minimum clergy salaries for pastors with Master’s Degrees. I doubt it. Wage should be tied to value of production, not governmental standard. And that is the same thing I told my wife’s brother (he a high school dropout with a G.E.D.), work hard, learn some skills and make a way in the world.
My issue w/SNAP and virtually all welfare programs is that it puts the government in the charity business. The government is neither equipped nor prepared for such an endeavor. Hence the problems with SNAP, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc.
Ultimately many of these situations fall into what I mentioned in another comment; are these products of racism? I don’t think so. The part of North Carolina I used to live in had many payday lenders owned predominantly by Native Americans. Are those business racist or predatory? I think the answer is predatory. That is immoral, but not racist. I’ve known many poor whites and blacks who had the same opportunity at the same garbage high schools for the same low income jobs. That is racism, it is the product of sin in the world that breaks down our communities and lives.
Thank you for this Luke. It not only demonstrates the ignorance of those who stand against the #MLK50 conference in their calls against such practices, but it shows that they are ignorant of history as well. And we know those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Praying this leads to some repentance.
Repentance from whom and for what specifically? Opposing the decision to have an MLK50 event does not necessarily indicate any ignorance.
That’s my hope. There is much to learn from our history if we will only pay attention.
I’m only a couple hours from you Ryan, but I don’t think we have ever met. I hope we can get together some time.
Where in the Word of God does the Holy Trinity ask the Regenerated Person to repent for a sin that they did not do? Do I ask forgiveness for Adam’s sin in Genesis? Al Mohler and others of the SBC and TGC should read II Kings 14:6. Also, sin is described by Charles Hodge as “Sin is Want of Conformity to the Law of God”. Why do the leaders of the SBC and TGC lead the Regenerate into error? It is because they do not seek God’s forgiveness but MAN’s.
Daniel 10:3-20.
I’ve read Daniel 10:3 – 20, three times and don’t see it. Please be more specific.
Daniel confesses the sins of Israel. He says, ‘We’ have sinned. Daniel was one of the most holy men in the OT, but he prays ‘we’ as a corporate prayer for his forefather’s sins. We have sinned and the reality is that the fruit of that sin remains in our country’s racial brokenness. We should be broken that our forefather’s mis-used biblical passages to oppress others. We should should be broken over our brothers and sisters who continue to be discriminated against today whether we are personally oppressing someone or not. We, like some of our forefather’s mentioned above, should be speaking out to defend any and all who are mistreated as if we were caring for Jesus himself (Matt 25). There are many defending the oppressed among us but it makes me sad every time this is mentioned the number of people who speak out against us doing anything at all.
1. Still don’t see we have sinned in Daniel 10:3 – 20. That notwithstanding; I am not Israel and do not occupy a land or covenant built upon the work of my “forefathers”. Men to whom I owe no allegiance or obligation.
I don’t disagree with anything else you have stated. So please, help me out. I do not think the majority of our world is racist or titled against people of color. Neither do I believe the SBC at large is harboring racists and keeping minorities from entering service up to the highest offices. I despise any exegesis that seeks to undermine the Biblical truth.
Therefore, where is the injustice I am to speak out about? Where are the oppressed that need my voice? Where is the discrimination that is demonic?
Strider,
Its in Daniel 9.
Not 10.
But, he is praying for the sin of his people,as in SINS. he knew from the Psalmist, even as we know from there and Romans 3, that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
So yes, Daniel was a godly man, but he was a sinner. Only Jesus did not sin.
Even so, it was a generic prayer, covering all different kinds of sins, including his. Hence, “we have sinned”.
So yes, we the SBC have sinned. We have sinned all sorts of sins. And anyone of us coud pray and ask God to have mercy on this, our people, despite our present and past sins, including their own.
But that is not the same as asking forgiveness for one’s self for sins one never committed.
The SBC has prayed that prayer. And as a body has repented of racism. The individuals within that body who have committed or even now do commit racist acts, need to repent. And they need to repent again and again, as often as they sin. And if we discover our brother sinning in that way, we need to seek to restore him, using Biblical procedures.
Luke,
Incredible piece. Appreciate little known & unknown historical data, cutting both ways, challenging racism & affirming racism, which is an accurate portrayal of the SBC’s history. The Wayne Ward info, & the early ‘60’s info to vote against integrated churches were the two big takeaways for me. Well, a third one. Had no idea that the initial crop of Black students @ Southern attended classes under the threat of being arrested or
warned by the police for breaking state laws on segregation.
Amazing. That’s a story of biblical proportions. Or, am I misreading the story? Was the threat against SBTS officials or the Black students?
Hard to say for sure. But I’d guess it was against both. McCall and others were willing to take the heat. The problems of the SBC an racism are well documented. But there was some light over the years. And there needs to be much more.
I’m glad to see this brief but informative history of how institutional racism (within our convention systems and entities) was faithfully fought against and pushed back. Wow. To see that the SBC was out front on these matters even in the 30s, 40,s, 50’s, and 60’s is both fascinating and encouraging.
There’s still much work to do within local churches and the leadership of the SBC is spot on right to call pastors and churches to disciple (and when necessary discipline) their people in setting Thier passions from the earthly to the heavenly passions specifically relation to ongoing prejudice and discrimination. Pastors have to lead the way in this within their local churches. This is where the rubber meets the road – the SBC structure has done the work of rooting out systemic racism and are remaining vigilant in that endeavor – however it’s up to us pastors to do the same in our churches – calling on and discipiling men to lead their families in, as Lig Duncan so eloquently put it recently, “the dad gum second greatest commandment.”
Tarheel,
Your analysis is spot on. In light of the most polarizing, but worthy issues in SBC life over the past 40-50 yrs-the conservative consurgence-it’s worth noting the SBC visually & verbally opposing segregation(Duke McCall, Wayne Ward, T.B. Matson ) were the moderates.
I do find that fascinating. It’s not easy to write someone off as completely liberal or otherwise. I disagreed with some of what Valentine put forward, especially with regards to abortion, but he was right on this front.
Interesting history, Luke. Thanks.
I am appalled that the election of Obama was celebrated for the sake of racial reconciliation at the convention.
I think it is a good thing that America elected an African American president. We can be glad for that step without being supportive of his policies. I don’t think anyone thinks the SBC was supportive of those policies. It’s okay to celebrate a good thing, while still holding biblical positions on other topics.
Right!
I honestly cried tears of joy the night Obama was elected because America had finally elected an “African-American” president… Celebrating just how far we have come as a nation… from the national systemic and institutional racism of our past.
I then spent the next 8 years agonozing in frustration and opposition because of his plans and policies.
I opposed his policies ferociously and feel we are still not past the atrociousness brought on thereby – but I did and do celebrate the symbolism of the 2008 election.
I know that some SBC seminary Prez’s have told proffs to keep their mouths shut on this issue with the threat of termination
Name one and provide a legitimate source.
Rumor-mongers do not have to provide facts or have sources.
For instance, people can make up lies like, “the ERLC is funded by George Soros” – a complete lie – repeat it often enough and people believe it.
“White privilege and Microaggressions promote divisiveness, not inclusivity:
Why give any race an excuse to hate another? ‘White privilege’ and so-called ‘microaggressions’ aren’t indicators that racism is still prevalent in America. To the contrary, they’re proof that cases of racism in America are rare. Consequently, instead of enjoying the racial progress that our ancestors made, young blacks are finding reasons to yell ‘racism’ if their feelings are hurt. It’s as if they have it so good they don’t know what to do with themselves.”
-Carl Jackson
https://townhall.com/columnists/carljackson/2018/04/23/three-ways-the-starbucks-apology-tour-will-hurt-not-help-black-americans-n2473664
David R. Brumbelow
So, the problem is “those blacks” who are not grateful for the progress we’ve made?
No, the problem is a society that values victimization (see Parkland) that gives rise to an ideology (intersectionality) that seeks to identify every person based on how many victim-classes they fall into. This strikes directly at the heart of the new creation in Christ that Christians are supposed to be.
By dividing our world by color/race, we are no longer united as believers under the banner of Christ. In an effort to do a good thing, reconcile racial tension, I believe many have elevated what is a small problem to a status it neither deserves or needs. Hence, we speak of ending this and fixing that, and it is all grand language with no concrete steps of action and no real boogey-man to hate. We are left playing the world’s game of division and hatred and not focusing on the life giving power of Christ.
If there are instances of brothers & sisters in Christ being racist, then they should be called to repentance. If there is an avenue of SBC life that is closed off due to racism, then we should charge that gate and kick it in. If there are world systems that are racist then we should preach the Gospel in their face and call those participating to repent.
But we never get these real life steps, we seemingly get slogans and statistics that may or may not show a real causality. Therefore, people like me get confused. I don’t know where the problem lies, though I see a root in society that may be afflicting the church. I have a genuine fear that well meaning brothers in Christ will be cast out for refusing to bow the knee to a system they neither have contributed to or truly understand.
Well-said, Michael. Complete agree and share that same concern.
So racism is dead and the only reason we’re talking about this is those blacks…. it’s all so clear now. Thanks.
Why?
Are you going to beat me up?
Call me a Liar?
I bring it up to show that it is a very volatile issue, and some are being muzzled which is ok if thats what you want.
1. Why should I tell you of all people?
2. There is more than 1 of the 6 doing this
This issue is def not goin away anytime soon
Mr. Mercer,
Please maintain civility.
I assume this comment was directed at me.
I am not interested in beating you up or calling you anything sir. I am simply asking you to substantiate a very serious charge or admit that you can’t prove it.
I don’t like rumors or innuendo. I really don’t like them when they are lobbed into a discussion lik this one.
And to answer your question 1, because I am your brother in Christ and asked.
Please never use the term “microaggression” to make your point. It’s not a real thing.
Now you’ve triggered me.
What is the solution for racial reconciliation?
Simple.
Treat others as you would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12), period.
Have a colorblind society, just as MLK proposed.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
David R. Brumbelow
Luke:
Thanks for a very interesting piece.
It was interesting to see how the SBC acted at various points, and how it basically tracked with a lot that was happening in the broader society at the time.
For those who have asked about practical ways to determine racism, I suggest something very simple. First, how many Southern Baptist Churches exist in areas where there are mixed races within a given radius, second how many of those churches have both white members and members who are people of color, and third, among those that do, how many of them have ratios that match the ratio in their communities? I said “a given radius” because some churches exist in very remote or rural areas (especially those in pioneer areas), and because patterns of church membership are different from what they were a century ago. Back then, most members of many churches lived within a “three mile radius” of the church building, but now we are in a “Walmart” mentality where it is more like a 10 mile radius (if not more). Still, fill in whatever radius you want to. And if you have no clue about other churches, what about your own? I will suggest that there is some sort of racism at play if your church has no, or at most a couple of African American members, yet your community is 20, 30, 40 or more percent African American, as it is in many areas of the South. The church I serve has a better ratio than most in our Association, but we have maybe 20% people of color in an area where the percentage is close to 50%.
There is a AME Church right up the road from my church as well as a COGIC and Missionary Baptist which are to my knowledge as equally as attended by African -Americans in percentages as the SBC church has white members which I Pastor. Are they racists?
Someone else has said it better than this, but African American churches only existed because white churches existed first. Meaning, many white churches wouldn’t accept minorities as members so they had to start their own churches. They cannot be blamed for forming their own churches when they had no choice.
But none of those facts prove racism today. They proved racism when the church rejected black folk, back then. That was evil. But that doesnt make either church racist now. Neither does Koreans going to a Korean church. Choosing a church to go to isnt about hating people of different skin color. People go to churches where they feel most comfortable and/or where the style of music or singing is most appealing, among other factor, like who they know for example.. That there are cultural differences is not racism.
Not true my church accepted Africa American it was after the civil war the spirit occurred.
African Americans split
Luke – you are likely correct in so many cases throughout the Deep South (which I’m most familiar with). So we are heirs of that historical development. But I don’t think it follows (as John Fariss implies) that a given church’s membership has to reflect the demographics of a given radius or there is racism. There are Mandarin speaking churches, Korean speaking churches, etc. They are not racists and neither are we for worshiping in English.
ETA: see Mike White’s comment below. He says it well.
Language churches are a law unto themselves. That is an entirely different matter.
In the South, many Baptist churches allowed slaves to attend, even be members. \They had slave attics for them, where they were locked in during the service. But after the wear, they were noi longer welcome, and had no choice but to form their own churches.
I was interrupted before I finished my comment, and accidentally hit “post.” Here is what I meant to say.
Randy, language churches are a law unto themselves. That is an entirely different matter.
In the antebellum South, many Baptist churches allowed slaves to attend, even be members. They had slave attics for them, where they were locked in during the service. But after the Civil War, they were no longer welcome, and had no choice but to form their own churches. I tend to think that puts a slightly different spin on African American churches that are 100% black. Even so, we have one African American family who left their 100% African American church because they got tired of the pastor moaning about 11 AM on Sunday being the most segregated hour in America.
Mike, you said, “People go to churches where they feel most comfortable and/or where the style of music or singing is most appealing,” and I agree to a point. Someone raised in an African American church, with its distinct styles of preaching and music may prefer that style though it is not a certainty. In the first North Carolina church I served, I often heard that argument (usually followed by, “Rev. ____ invited a black family to come, and we fired him the next business meeting”). But the two presuppositions in that argument are (1) that an African American raised in a traditional African American church is either not open to or not able to change, and (2) that all African Americans were raised in church, so none will be open to white church styles. Both are fallacies. I do not have a clue what percentage of the African American population was so raised, and suspect it is higher than the current white population, but I guarantee it is not 100%. We have African American members who were raised in traditional African American churches yet chose to attend here anyway, and others who were had no church background at all.
And by the way, I did not mean to imply it had to be a 100% match, only that that ratio was something to look at and consider as a possible indication of racism.
John,
Actually it is not churcheswho sin, it is their members. Thus if the members are racist, one could say the church is racist. But having a racist or even a few in ones church does not make it a racist church. But like any unrepentant sin found out by one’s brothers, they then have a responsibility to seek repentance from the sinner [in this case the one being racist].
Take a man who likes children, so we should consider that as a possibility that he is a pervert child molestor? So every man who works with the youth has such an indicator? Rather we take precautions
and enforce rules to protect our children and our men, but we otherwise dont look for indicators that might also indicate the exact opposite.
Why are you looking for such indicators whenthere are better explanations than racism for them?
With all due respect Mike, I think you are arguing a point I was not making. Churches which are racist? Members which are racist? I suppose one member can make a church racist, depending on the influence that member has. But for this issue I am equating “church” with “congregation.” The larger point I am making is why, if a church serves an area including multiple races but is all one race, is there likely not some form of racism at play? And maybe there is another reason, but I believe that the old saw about “blacks preferring a different style” just does not hold water. Racism may institutional or it may be cultural racism, and it may be subtle or blatant, but any of those is still racism.
John,
Of course they can switch churches or go to any church they want. That is a deflection of the point. The point is that the racial makeup of a church is no indication of racism, no matter what the make up of the communuty is. We dont choose who comes to our church. No church does except the racist ones who exclude minorities.
The tendency is to paint whites and white churches with a broad brush. That is being false to reality.
The tendency is also to mix church and state when talking about racism. That is another broadbrush contra reality. The line of truth is narrow but it is there to those willing to seek it. And in seeking it, one must find it using both wisdom and humility.
I would argue that racism, while many times isthe case in situations you mention, is not always the defining issue for such demographic abnormalities. Remember, we are Baptists, we split over music, over theology, over the color of the carpet. Yes there are churches that are racist and resist welcoming visitors and potential members whose skin color is different than theirs. I know of such a church personally. The good news is that church is dying, and I say let it die. Indeed, I have long been a proponent of someone introducing a motion/resolution calling for the disfellowship of churches that practice such racism (in a manner similar to what we do with churches that promote homosexuality and/or woman senior pastors).
Again, I agree that a church’s congregation should strive to match the demographics that it is located in. But when it does not, it would be in error to assume the only, the primary, or even “a” reason is because of racism.
I agree with you SV, if a church practices racism, disfellowship it if it refuses to repent.
My church sought [and seeks] to reach the minority population around us. We even brought in Shai Linne to gove a free concert, which they were glad to attend. But not one joined our church. Some did join a church, but it was a basically all black church. We have more Latino/Mexicano than African as members though those minorities are far less in number than Blacks. Thats just the way it is. But we are not giving up. Our job is to proclaim the Gospel: to everyone. And that will continue to be what we do.
I certainly agree that racism is not always the only explanation, and you agree that it often is the explanation. However, too many of us whites agree racism exists, but then spent a lot of time arguing that it is not the “only” explanation to the point that all others (especially people of color) see or hear is that we believe there are a lot of “other” explanations. Sort of like Shakespeare wrote, “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.”
I just finished reading Christ Above Culture by Sherard Burns. He advocates that we no longer use the term racism because it is defined differently by so many people today but instead use the term exclusion which we can do by assimilation. We are welcoming of people of different cultures which makes us believe that we are not racists but we exclude them when we expect them to check their culture at the door and completely adopt ours. Instead of completely embracing and learning from them we accept persons when they become like us He does a much better job of explaining all of this and I highly commend the book.
Steve,
Can you cite some examples of welcoming but not accepting their culture?
I apologize for not coming back sooner. I believe that we see exclusion as doing something intentionally mean. It is not doing something intentionally mean but simply being immersed in our own culture without taking into account the cultures living in our community. For example, in my church we sing songs from the hymnal, some southern gospel and contemporary christian because that is what is familiar to me and my worship team. However, we have an African American lady who attends my church. I have never once thought about singing a Gospel song in my church, a song that maybe she was familiar with from her culture. I have never even thought to ask her about the music she likes. When I preached her brother’s funeral, I was introduced to some great music that was theologically sound but I had never heard before because they were not a part of my culture. She had to conform to us to worship with us. She does, but we did not love her enough to tear down a barrier to learn from her tradition. Now my brother Randy says that it is impractical to reflect every culture. I agree. But if there are some cultures represented in our church and in the community in which we serve, that we can reflect in a simple way that we seek to identify with them.
Steve – I realize you didn’t specifically mention church but I assume by “door” you a referring to a church door (bad assumption?).
In our church, it would not be unusual to have brothers/sisters in attendance on the Lord’s Day from every continent on the planet save Antarctica. That’s a lot of different ‘cultures.’ While I don’t think there’s any sort of “check your culture” attitude, it’s simply not practical to shape our gathering around any one culture. Rather, we have to ensure our ‘worship’ is Scripture-based and emphasize the common denominators, e.g., I Co. 12:12-13. FTR, I think that brothers/sisters that come to America from other nations understand that there will be cultural differences. They don’t expect to superimpose their’s in some fashion.
I like that, although I have not read the book. It’s similar to what I read somewhere years ago, that some churches have an unarticulated policy that, “You can be one of us when you act like us,” and others, “You can be one of us when you look like us.” The later can be applied racially, socio-economically, culturally, or possibly some other way.
I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea that a church being welcome to minorities isn’t enough, you gotta go “get some”. Of course we should be witnessing to and inviting people from any race, but it seems like we are thinking of minority folks as commodities to be gathered to prove our non-racism-ed-ness.
Bill Mac, if I gave the impression I was arguing we ought to “go get some” I apologize. That was not my intent.
John: Thanks but there’s no need. We’ve all got good intentions here but different ideas on methodology.
If anyone wonders if the problem is solved, just look at the most recent NOminating Committee Report. Of the 69 nominees for Trustee positions, 67 are white. Yes, we could only find 1 African American and 1 Asian American that was considered worthy to serve as a trustee.
No, I don’t think the people sat around the room intending to exclude minorities, but this is why we have to keep this on the front burner. If we don’t keep it front and center we tend to end up all-white like this year’s nominations.