We received this letter from a friend of the NOBTS community. It was addressed to the faculty of NOBTS which was circulated around noon yesterday. After receiving the letter we contacted Dr. Dew for permission to post it here. Upon our request and our encouragement to him that this is an important statement which we believe could be a healing salve in the midst of our family strife he gave us permission to do so.
Dear NOBTS & Leavell College Faculty,
Greetings and Merry Christmas to you all. I hope that you are having a restful break and that you are enjoying your time with family and friends this holiday season. I continue to be grateful for each of you and your dedication to the work that God has called us to.
These are interesting and challenging days in the SBC, and yet, I remain hopeful for what we might build for God’s Kingdom, and prayerful for the part that we are called to play in that work. I envision a day when the broken are healed, the lost have the Gospel preached to them, and the church is strong. I envision a day when God brings restoration and reconciliation to His children on earth. My hope for us as a denomination, and for our school more specifically, is that we would humbly devote ourselves to this work and spend each day seeking that which is pleasing to our Lord and good for His people. Because I have that hope, I want to offer a few words to you, the faculty, about what is, and is not, in my heart related to some of the racial discussion of late in our denomination. I also want to let you know what our doctrinal commitments will be under my leadership as president.
As you have likely seen by now, last month I joined my colleagues on the Council of Seminary Presidents in a statement that reaffirmed the BF&M 2000, condemned racism, and said that CRT is incompatible with the BF&M 2000. Since then, the statement has been widely discussed and debated on social media and in the media at large. Knowing that you may likely be getting questions from your peers, students, alumni, and the churches we serve, I want you to hear from me on these important matters directly.
Over the past three weeks I have had nearly 50 conversations with African-American pastors, students, and alumni. After listening long, it is clear that for many of our African-American brothers and sisters, our statement came off as insensitive and hurtful. For some, the statement left the impression that we do not fully appreciate the historic struggles of African-Americans in the United States, both in the past and in the present.
This was certainly not my intention. I regret that this caused pain or that I gave the impression that I am aloof to concerns and struggles of our African-American brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope that a few words of clarification will be helpful and healing.
One question I have received is: “Why speak to this issue, and why now?”
This is a fair question. I recognize that it wasn’t immediately clear what prompted our statement, and as such, a wide variety of speculations have been offered about my motives in affirming it. In short, each of the presidents has received a countless number of questions over the past 18 months about where our institutions stand on CRT. I have been asked by pastors, students, and trustees in recent months about our doctrinal fidelity in this area. In addition to this, in November, several state conventions took up the issue and passed resolutions speaking to it.
As the President of an institution that exists to serve the churches of the SBC, I am accountable to answer those questions. I am also accountable to uphold and teach according to the BF&M 2000. Therefore, in our annually scheduled meeting for the Council of Seminary Presidents, I felt obligated to answer the question as straightforwardly as possible. We were not pressured from any outside group to do so. For my part, it was simply a good faith effort to respond to the honest questions of the people I am accountable to serve.
I do have deep theological concerns with the ideology of CRT. My prayer is that those concerns might be heard, without my African-American brothers and sisters feeling as though I do not sympathize with the struggles they have experienced throughout their lives. Since some of you have asked what those concerns are, I will simply mention three quickly: (1) CRT comes from a family of ideologies that deny the possibility of objective/universal truth claims, (2) CRT locates oppressive and destructive motives in one race of people as opposed to the whole of humanity, and (3) I fear CRT’s understanding of human nature has detrimental effects on important doctrinal affirmations.
As I have explained these concerns to my African-American brothers in recent days, they appear to have understood those reservations and many of them share those concerns with me. In the end, it seems clear to me that many of my brothers and sisters of color, are not particularly concerned with defending CRT ideology. Rather, they have simply wanted assurance that we do indeed recognize their significant struggles through the years.
Another question I have been asked is if I truly understand the struggle of our African American brother and sisters.
While I have not shared their experiences, I have worked hard throughout my career, especially in recent weeks and months, to learn and listen well, and to hear the concerns of my brothers and sisters. I am often asked if a rejection of CRT entails a denial of the historical struggles of African-Americans in our country. I want to be clear that it does not. As any basic survey of our nation’s history makes clear, racism—both individual and systemic— has been a cancer in our society for centuries, infecting both people and the fabric of society. That is, when the sin of racism is in the hearts of people that shape society, its laws, and its customs, there will be systemic and structural harm for the marginalized.
We have made progress in our country. But, as recent events have made clear, we are naive if we think that things are now where they need to be. We still have a long way to go and I am committed to helping do everything in my power to fix remaining problems. Recognizing these concerns and the need for further progress does not commit one to CRT ideology. Nor does rejecting the worldview of CRT entail a denial of these historic struggles for minorities. As Southern Baptists, since at least 1995, we stated in our “Resolution On Racial Reconciliation” at the 150th gathering of the Southern Baptist Convention:
“That we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past; and . . . 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); and . . . That we hereby commit ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry”
There are other questions that some will surely have. For now, however, I wanted to share my heart with you in the event that you have questions, or that you have been asked some questions about where my heart is. My prayer moving forward is that each of us would be able to navigate the difficulties and questions of our day in a way that is pleasing to our Lord, and helpful for His people. As a way forward, I offer myself to humble dialogue with brothers and sisters of various perspectives and concerns. As we have been instructed by God’s word, I pray we will be “swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger” (James 1:19).
I love you brothers and sisters. And as always, if I can do anything for you, please let me know. I hope that you all have a very Merry Christmas!
Your servant,
Jamie
This is a very good statement! Thanks for sharing it here.
What an outstanding repudiation of both Racism and Critical Theory/Intersectionality!
Great word!
Thoughtful response, and I have no doubt the other five seminary presidents would agree with this in both word and spirit. In addition, I have no reason to think but that the vast majority of SBC pastors and laity would agree with these sentiments as well, to the degree they are familiar with the discussion. Thanks for your leadership in this, President Drew.
In a perfect world, SEBTS would have tried to actually understand CRT, discipled and debated it, and Walter Strickland would have been taking the lead in saying these things two or three years ago.
Instead, it became seen as a threat to legacies, and only the presidents could speak — and the issues were papered over, while everyone defends their inerrancy.
Dr. Dew’s letter is good, as was Dr. Greenway’s. But they are signs of how sideways things have gotten.
Thanks Brother Jamie for your helpful clarifications on addressing racism and CRT.
This is what I wish each seminary president had taken the time to say when they issued their statements about CRT/I. So, here is what I would like to see come out of the upcoming meeting between the NAAF leadership and the SBC seminary presidents. I would like for the NAAF leadership to create a bullet-point list of the insights provided by CRT and Intersectionality that they believe are relevant for the SBC. I would then like to see the SBC seminary presidents respond to the list of insights one-by-one and agree or disagree that these are legitimate insights. The… Read more »
Yes sir. The humility and clarity is a blessing.
What role do the Seminary Presidents play in the SBC hierarchy? General Superintendents like the Nazarene, Bishops like the UMC, College of Cardinals like the RCC, the SBC Presbytery like most all Presbyterian denominations? Are we Baptists?
I think the answer to your question differs as to perspective. You and I could get together and issue a statement and it would have the EXACT same authority in the SBC as the presidents’ statement. However, in the eyes of people, they speak with more impact.
They are not the magisterium, but people often regard them as such.
Good word. Wish they had started with this mindset, rather than what they started with. I bet if they had spent as much time crafting the initial statement, as they have apparently have ret-conning and walking back from it, they wouldn’t be in this mess. It’s time for the seminaries to stop listening to the CBN and Founders, to quit worrying about Mohler’s presidential aspirations, and start worrying about educating our seminarians, So they can handle interacting with CRT, fundamentalists, German Higher Criticism, and everything else they will need to properly exegete the Word and serve the Kingdom in a… Read more »
Lots of assumption of the worst going on there.
Akin addresses some of your allegations in his recent B21 interview.
It is sad that you’d suggest that any of them are doing a con and flat wrong that any of them are walking back from their initial joint statement.
Ryan, who gets to decide who in the SBC is deemed worthy of being listened to and who should not? Your post sounds like anything that CBN and Founders has to say should be completely ignored. Also, you listed “fundamentalists” in the same breath with German Higher Criticism – Back in the 1980’s, the Conservatives who led the CR were called the fundamentalists, so I guess we have gone full circle and those of like mind as those who led the CR are now out of favor. Jamie Drew did not walk back from the original statement – In fact,… Read more »
So much of this goes back to how “wrongly” things were handled those days in June of 2019 and especially on June 19th. We will reap the bad fruit of that for years to come. Watch and see in June of 2021.
This debate has been forming ever since the convention passed the resolution in Birmingham. Knowing that there would be differences over the way CRT is viewed, particularly among African American Southern Baptists, what should have happened is that many of those pastors should have been invited to conference with Seminary presidents and any other self-appointed doctrinal guardians in the SBC for a thorough dialogue on the issue in order to gain an understanding from all angles of where people are settled. The views of African Americans should have been equal in weight. Instead, a small group of all-white leaders who… Read more »
What should have happened is that Resolution 9 should never have been forced on SBC delegates as it was, in June of 2019, without a teaching on CRT/I from someone who truly understands and knows about it – someone who is not a pastor and outside of the SBC. After the world view of CRT/I was correctly presented then the idea of studying up on it for the next year could have been placed before the delegates. It is ridiculous to treat the delegates as imbeciles and have them simply “trust’ the men and women who put together the resolution… Read more »
I think that what is needed is an actual apology for the insensitivity toward the struggle for racial justice endured by our African American brothers and sisters, manifest in, but not only in, the statement released by the presidents. From my vantage point, anything less comes across as parental. (But I will submit myself to my African American bothers and sisters to be corrected if necessary.) As long as white people keep insisting on defining the terms and the scope of conversations concerning CRT, while systemically excluding African Americans from the discussions, we reveal our own nod to white supremacy.… Read more »
Thank you Dr. Dew. As with Dr. Greenway you clarified the stance of the presidents. maybe we can curtail some of the rhetoric over a statement that is basically toothless and meaningless to 99% of SB’s. Resolution # 9 will not be rescinded if what has been posted on here in the past about the procedure to do so is truth. There is no way there will be a unanimous vote (which is required according to information in the past on here) to do so. Obviously there will be messengers at the convention to vote no thus resolution # 9… Read more »
Dr. Jamie Dew’s statement is very good.
His reason for opposing Critical Race Theory is a very good, short explanation.
David R. Brumbelow
Yes, it is good. It represents only the opinion of one Baptist. The statements of Marshall Ausberry, Ralph West, Dwight McKissic and other African Americans on this point are just as good, just as Biblical, just as consistent with inerrancy and just as consistent with the BFM. Will they get equal consideration and be invited to dialogue on this issue with the elitist, exclusive inner-circle who are the self-appointed doctrinal police of the SBC. If not, then the folks who add up the statistical information for the SBC annual digest of letters can start preparing for much larger declines in… Read more »
I’d love to see those men you mentioned and others on a forum with some or all of the seminary presidents discussing these issues. It seems like both “sides” are really on the same side, and need to work through things together.
That would be historic in the SBC, since the denominational culture does not allow dissent or disagreement with those in the inner circle of influence. I’ve never observed a dialogue or forum that didn’t have a heavy handed manipulation from the ‘de-facto” powers. And unfortunately, I don’t see any indication of interest in doing this.
Is that true though? Isn’t disagreement and dissent fairly common in Baptist life? We had a conservative resurgence because of disagreement and dissent. Seems like in normal years you can get behind a microphone and voice dissent at the annual convention. You can write a blog or do social media.
Honestly, I dont know what you mean by heavy handed manipulation. Can you explain how these individuals are engaging in it during their forums?
Whats interesting about this is that you had one group upset with Mohler because he was too friendly with social justice. Now you have another group upset with him and the other seminary presidents because he apparently hates it.
It seems like both groups are picking up arms to fight their brother like the Israelite did that one time. Then they found out they almost destroyed a bunch of people over misunderstanding or genuine differences that were not of a nature that required separation.
Sure, you can get behind a microphone, though I’ve seen that process carefully controlled by the chair multiple times. You can blog or go on social media, but that doesn’t mean it will be heard or considered. Within the convention itself and its entities, decisions are cut and dried when the inner circle of leaders, some elected or appointed, some de-facto self proclaimed, and dissent is ignored. Dissenters never make it to leadership positions and if you happen to work for an SBC entity, you must consider whether dissent is worth losing your job.
Have you heard the Baptist 21 podcast (2 parts) on the presidents statement and CRT? I think they do a good job of talking about this topic and I appreciated the perspective of William Branch. Akin doesn’t appear elitist or closed off to being wrong.
Let’s get others up there too!