Dear Dr. Mohler and Board of Trustees,
Greetings in the Name of our Triune God, “in whom we live, move and have our very being” (Acts 17:28).
The impact you have made on the SBC and the nation will be felt for generations to come (Psalm 145:4).
The purpose of this correspondence is to humbly and respectfully request that the President and Board of Trustees at SBTS remove from SBTS campus, any memorabilia of the founders: James Pettigru Boyce, John Broadus, Basil Manly, and William Williams.
Why? The founders should be acknowledged and appreciated for their role in the establishment and development of SBTS. However, it is biblically inappropriate to celebrate them though, due to the following reason(s): Because of the patriarchy, prejudice, and the promotion of “putrid exegesis,” practiced and preached by the founders of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, their names need to be removed from the Seminary as memorabilia; this includes the names of Boyce College, Broadus Chapel, and any other places where the names of the founders are displayed, including coffee mugs.
The founders’ stated motivations to relocate SBTS from Greenville, South Carolina, to Louisville, Kentucky, in 1877 was to escape the presence of freed slaves in Greenville, which they viewed as an “incubus and plague.” They expressed their desire to relocate the Seminary “in a White Man’s country.” Pastor Steve Bezner, who holds a Ph.D. in history, recently tweeted: “Boyce helped found the school because the SBC was founded on a pro-slavery hermeneutic and needed a seminary which would support that hermeneutic.” Those scathing words alone merit revisiting this matter.
The founders should be acknowledged and appreciated for their role in the establishment of and development of SBTS. However, it is simply inappropriate and unbiblical to hallow and honor these men in a prominent and celebratory manner.
By allowing the names of the founders to continue to be plastered on walls and memorialized publicly as men of high moral character—you are in effect upholding their legacy of being theological and practical proponents and defenders of White Supremacy and Black inferiority. Furthermore, you are stuffing it down the throats of those of us who find their actions incompatible with their faith and Baptist orthodoxy. As ministers of reconciliation, we can and ought to do better than this (II. Corinthians 5:18-20). When you build a monument or highlight names of people in significant places, you are telling people, “they did good.” When you build a monument to evildoers, you are telling people, “These evildoers did good!”
The Bible says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Honoring slaveholders by naming a college, chapel, library, and attaching their names on other high-profile places on campus is honoring them. By having done so, you have effectively called “evil good and good evil.” To defend and honor slaveholders is to defend and honor slavery.
It is a slap in the face of God’s people, and an affront to the Kingdom of God to keep saying slaveholders were theologically right but morally wrong. You cannot divorce theology and morality.
Currently, the BFM2K is the standard for doctrinal orthodoxy in the culture and life of the SBC. The founders of SBTS could not and would not meet the qualifications of being classified as orthodox, because they could not affirm the BFM2K, Section III, “Man.”
The first three sentences in this section read, “Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation.”
The final sentence in Section III, “Man,” reads: “The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.”
Boyce, Broadus, Manly, and Williams did not believe that “every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.” These men also opposed the suffrage movement and women voting as messengers in SBC annual sessions. These two positions were evidence of misogyny and patriarchy, which is counter-culture to the spirit and the letter of the BFM2K, Section III, regarding “Man.”
Therefore, based on SBC’s doctrinal statement, these men cannot be classified as orthodox. To label these men as “orthodox” radically redefine the historic meaning and usage of the term.
Defending their beliefs and behaviors by suggesting that they were mere men of their times, simply do not justify their heterodoxy or practices. The Quakers, Wilberforce, Spurgeon, James Madison Pendleton, and the Sandy Creek Baptists, all were spiritual leaders during the era of slavery, but they chose to honor Scripture and the fact that man was made—male and female—in the image of God—the Imago Dei.
Throughout biblical and cultural history, God has often chosen to hit straight licks, with crooked sticks, to accomplish His will. That statement would fit all of us to a certain extent, certainly me. Men and women who engaged in a multitude of sins are listed on the Hall of Faith (Hebrews 11). I am grateful that God has more grace than we have sin (Romans 5:20). All of the names in Hebrew 11 were repentant sinners. The Founders of SBTS either left no record of their repentance or in the case of Broadus, later in life, there is a record of him having changed his tune on practicing slavery, but I am yet to read where he changed his tune regarding his beliefs about the inferiority of the Negro.
When did the founders of SBTS face accountability for their racial and gender sins? They did not! When did the founders repent of their racial and gender sins? They did not!
I am aware that President Mohler and SBTS faculty have released a 71-page, well-researched document in recent years. This document acknowledges the Seminary’s complicity in participating and contributing greatly to the diabolical institution of American chattel slavery—which, by the way, was radically different than biblical slavery. One was much more brutal and degrading than the other.
I applaud and appreciate SBTS for releasing this brutally honest document on SBTS slavery report. However, acknowledging their heinous sins, while leaving their celebratory memorabilia intact is shortsighted and incongruent. “If a person kidnap, steal and sell your child, where do you want to place the statues [memorabilia] of that person?” Absolutely nowhere! (Rev. Joel Bowman’s quote) Yet, that is exactly what SBTS has done.
We would all agree that the four founders of Southern Seminary could not imagine or fathom that a day would come, that sons and daughters of their slaves would be admitted as students and serve on the faculty. They did such a good job of instilling the sin of White Supremacy and Black inferiority into the fabric, theology, policies, and image of the school until it was almost 100 years later before a Black student was admitted to SBTS. Is it really fair to ask this generation to honor these men in light of their heterodoxy and immoral lifestyles? If the founders had been drunkards and adulterers, rather than being men stealers and kidnappers, would you honor them? No! Why then are you honoring them? Is it because you don’t see the sin of slaveholding as wicked as drunkenness or adultery?
If there is one major takeaway to recent protests of police brutality and systemic racism, it is—this generation is not going to tolerate, accommodate, or defend the racial hypocrisy and sins of the forefathers. Black students and faculty currently have to walk the halls of SBTS always remembering and being asked to appreciate the captives of their ancestors. That’s a tall ask. Again, future generations will not tolerate what previous generations have accepted. Take note of the departure of Pastor John Onwuchekwa and the Cornerstone Church, Atlanta, from the SBC, if you don’t believe me.
One pushback to my request may be: shouldn’t we extend grace, forgiveness, forbearance, etc., toward the founders? Absolutely! Beyond a shadow of a doubt; and I do. But I can forgive you, and be gracious toward you, without hanging your pictures and memorializing your name in a celebratory fashion around my home.
You are honoring men who never repented of their rebellion and treasonous acts against the United States by serving in and supporting the confederacy. Why then honor them?
The founders were felons while engaged with the Confederacy. Why then honor them?
You are honoring men, who never recanted or repented for teaching and modeling White Supremacy. Why then honor them?
You are honoring men whom according to Dr. Mohler, engaged in “putrid exegesis” of the Scripture in order to justify the enslavement of descendants of Africa. Why then honor them?
You are honoring men who would not have allowed T. Vaughn Walker, Curtis Woods, or Jarvis Williams to have taught at SBTS. Why then honor them?
You are honoring men who would not have allowed Martin Luther King, Charlie Dates, or HB Charles to have preached in chapel at SBTS. Why then honor them?
You are honoring men who would not have allowed your wives to cast a vote for President Mohler’s choice for President, Donald J. Trump. Why then honor them?
You are honoring men, who some were praised for being benevolent slaveholders. That is tantamount to honoring a person for being a benevolent kidnapper. Who would do that? No one, in their right mind. Why then honor them?
The founders were also child abusers. It is impossible to be slaveholders and not simultaneously be child abusers. Why honor them?
You are honoring men, who dishonored Black people and women of all colors. Black people and women had no say so in the decision to honor them. Why honor men who were elected to be honored by other men who essentially found no fault with their beliefs and behaviors?
To say that it is permissible to honor the founding slaveholders of SBTS because they were not primarily known as slaveholders is simply an inaccurate statement. The slaves knew them exclusively as slave masters. Shouldn’t they count? The slaves did not call the founders “Professor”; they called them “Massa.” Do you really want to continue honoring them? And one can’t study the history of the founders, without soon discovering that they were slaveholders and their wealth derived from slave labor helped to subsidize SBTS, mightily. To ignore the reality of the slaves’ relationship to the founders is to abuse them posthumously. To downgrade the prominence of the founders being well known as slaveholders is being dishonest.
Do you want to continue the legacy and sins that were passed down to you, by passing over this God-given, perfect moment to “remove the stain of racism” from SBTS campus? Why continue to honor them?
Being slaveholders was very much their identity. They were also known as being providers of a theological license to the church and larger society to justify slaveholding. Why then honor them?
Christ should be honored above culture. This is your opportunity to redeem SBTS’ slavery legacy, for the Kingdom of God.
Please don’t let this moment pass. Please make the right decision for the health of the school and for future generations to not have to wrestle with the question: Why is our college and seminary buildings named after “putrid exegetes,” White Supremacist and misogynist, and men who were not orthodox according to the BFM2K and the Bible?
I am formally requesting that Dr. Mohler and the SBTS Board of Trustees, prayerfully and deliberately take up this matter in the 2020 Fall Trustee meeting, and publicly report their findings. Future generations will honor you and hold your great legacy even higher, if you will make a wise decision, in the best interest of the SBC, SBTS and the nation’s health—that so desperately needs racial healing. Dr. Mohler, to paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, “Tear Down Those Names.”
For His Kingdom,
Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.
Dwight continues to build a case for this action, and I believe this is the strongest case I’ve seen in one place. These points should be seriously considered by Dr. Mohler & trustees in consultation with Dwight and other African American Southern Baptist leaders.
It’s difficult for me to see a case being made for “keeping” the names in place that’s stronger than what Dwight has argued here.
Brent and Dwight, With great respect to Dwight, I am less then convinced by the article – because I see the premise as faulty – that the naming of the buildings as racist or advancing racism/slavery. I would simply say the men mentioned are not being celebrated FOR what Dwight argues against. *No one today at SBTS argues for or supports that*. The founders and thier actions are celebrated for something all together different – much nobler and godly things. Just like MLK, Hamilton on money, the guys on mount Rushmore….on and on. Men with feet of clay repected and… Read more »
Well written and researched.
I would imagine the only thing that would satisfy some would be to dig up thier bones and burn them. If the entire SBC was built upon a putrid biblical interpretation,why not call for the dismantling?
Using your logic, Philemon should be removed from his honored place in the Bible. After all, this book is read many times per year, and we can’t have a slave-owner so predominantly and importantly displayed. While you are at it, you might also take a look at Paul for holding him in such regard. Please stop this divisive foolishness and instead unite us.
Why is it that an opinion YOU disagree with is divisive?
Brother McKissic addressed this issue in his post,
“This document acknowledges the Seminary’s complicity in participating and contributing greatly to the diabolical institution of American chattel slavery—which, by the way, was radically different than biblical slavery. One was much more brutal and degrading than the other.”
Smarter men than me discuss biblical slavery: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/
I agree with Timo.
I see Dwight’s premise as faulty – so his argumemts in furtherance of that premise, in my view, are unconvincing.
But, I reject the idea that he is being foolish. I think you should apologize. Dwight is a good man. I understand where he is coming from – but disagree. I further did not see him being divisive or over the top – just passionate in his views.
I agree with this completely. I am in sympathy with Bro. Dwight, but cannot agree.
Based on several interactions, I do not believe Pastor McKissic to be attempting to divide. He sees things from a different vantage point than many here at Voices, but it always is seasoned with a love for God’s church and a desire for it to move in a more Christlike direction. I agree there is some logical inconsistency, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that Pastor McKissic raises points of history that are admitted within SBTS’ own report on its founders. That history is troublesome at best. Personally, I don’t subscribe to scrubbing history from every institution, but if Southern… Read more »
Dwight, you’ve presented a well-reasoned argument here. I found this argument especially convincing: “If the founders had been drunkards and adulterers, rather than being men stealers and kidnappers, would you honor them? No! Why then are you honoring them? Is it because you don’t see the sin of slaveholding as wicked as drunkenness or adultery?” You are right. We would not honor an unrepentant drunkard or adulterer with his name on a building at one of our seminaries. We shouldn’t honor slaveholders in that way either. Especially those who made theological arguments in support of slavery. I agree. Tear down… Read more »
We would however, have an ERLC of the SBC conference held in the honor of an adulterer. Whose theology would not be aligned with the BFM2000.
#Just sayin’
Many of those who opposed the naming of that conference in honor of such a man on the basis of his heretical theology and immoral life were dismissed and derided as racists or racially insensitive.
I argued then and now MLK should be honored for his noble work re: civil rights…..he, a man with feet of clay, achieved and worked for good things despite his clear and obvious sims, shortcomings and faults.
Many were whiskey-drinking, cigar-chomping Baptists. Boyce, in particular, appears to have been opposed to temperance societies, at least on political grounds. So we do praise them, even though some of them were unrepentant consumers of alcohol — and likely in levels we’d consider intemperate today.
#1 – He complains about these men not supporting suffrage. The women at the time didn’t support suffrage either. They didn’t want the vote because they didn’t want to be forced to serve in the military (Selective Service).
#2 – He complains that these men wouldn’t allow MLK to preach there. No church or seminary should have allowed MLK to preach there. The guy was an unashamed adulterer. (Wasn’t that part of the argument for not honoring someone?)
#3 – The patriarchy? The use of the word “men”? I guess we have to ban the Bible.
David was an adulterer and a murderer and Jesus was named in praise in honor of him. History includes the sins. Leave it be.
It is difficult to present sarcasm over email. However, I shall try. In the same spirit as those who wrote this open letter, I respectully request that any epistles or references to Peter and Paul be removed from the Scripture. It is inappropriate to include the words and actions of someone who denied Jesus Christ three times. It is even more grossly inappropriate to include words, actions, and mentions of someone who persecuted the Christian Church, imprisoned believers, and murdered Stephen, the first Christian martyr. Not only should Scripture be sharply edited but all references to the teaching of Peter… Read more »
The statement implying these men are celebrated because of their support of slavery is flawed ….they are celebrated because it is their fortunes and money that built SBTS. Broadus was quoted after the Civil War he enjoyed preaching more to Black congregations more than White. A formidable fact if indeed a “racist” he would have not have done so. As Dr. Roger was quoted “when you have half of the truth you have none of the truth”. No one teaches the theology alleged in this request. It is “cancel culture” at best……popular these days…..
“celebrated because of their fortunes and money that built SBTS”…That’s my point! Should we celebrate people whose income was derived from acts clearly displeasing to God, which is sin. The money’s given Southern was derived from forced labor, of fellow human beings, that the founders redefined & falsely classified as sub human in order to justify their evil actions. You can’t honor these men without sanctioning their evil actions.
With respect….most of SBTS was established after slavery had been abolished during the Reconstruction era that punished the South for the war…however applying your sin definition consistently ….why is the request silent on the Democrat Party history in your social and moral argument?
Help me document MLK’s repentance of using prostitutes and conniving with communists…I know he did it publicly but I can’t find the documentation.
And I can’t find the documentation that shows your charges written here are true. J Edgar Hoover was not a fan of MLK and was the most diabolically unscrupulous FBI director in history. He was known to taint information, to spread unfounded rumors in order to destroy anyone he chose. MLK was someone he definitively wanted to destroy. Since the records are now sealed until the future, I think the use of this unfounded and I believe inaccurate information to shut someone like Dr. McKissic up is a horrible use of anyone’s time. It’s also very unoriginal to do so.… Read more »
As an SBC pastor, I think the author’s case is indefensible and is born of secular cancel culture. Both Luther and Calvin would have had baptists imprisoned or worse. Should we remove all recognition of those men too? McKissic seems to be under the impression that slavery is the unpardonable sin and that any slave holder ought to be viewed as an unregenerate pseudadelphos. This, however, is neither biblical nor reasonable. Ought not we be pleased that the prophetic voice of Spurgeon and his abolitionist views prevail at the institutions which once rejected him? Recognizing these flawed men is not… Read more »
Well written and argued by Dwight McKissic but where is the line to be drawn? Billy Graham got a speeding ticket. Paul the apostle was guilty of assisting in the killing of deacon Stephen. An Egyptian was murdered by Moses. King David committed adultery and had a general put her husband in a place it was certain to be killed. The disciple Peter lied in denying he knew Jesus. On and on it goes. moreover, not only must we know where to draw the line but also who is qualified to draw it?
Ned, you are comparing individual sin, to corporate & systemic sin that SBTS founders participated in, and developed and promoted the false doctrine to give to SBC churches to “justify, rationalize, & defend” the maltreatment of the slaves.” Old apples to oranges analogy, comes to mind.
Your argument when applied would surely consider the men attacked were all Democrats…..as was the support for the Confederacy…..it was the Democratic Party who opposed Civil Rights…following the same “corporate application”….any person supporting Democrats should also be called out because of association (note the letter referenced politics)….if not the logic is inconsistent
Your question is the right one, Ned. Where do we draw the line? The simple fact is that for most of SBC history drinking a glass of wine has been a FAR greater sin than racism. I have not formed an opinion on renaming buildings, but I do think there is one thing we MUST do. We must see slavery, racism, segregation, and all such sins as heinous. Many want to cancel over a woman speaking on Mother’s Day but see racism as a nothing offense. My guess (and I’ve not discussed this with him) is that Dwight and other… Read more »
believe that and i am not sure you really do either
Not sure what you are saying, but I am not in the habit of saying things I don’t mean.
for most of SBC history drinking a glass of wine has been a FAR greater sin than racism
https://baptistnews.com/article/baptist-history-on-alcohol-not-totally-teetotaling/#.Xwz6lxOSlRY
first resolution i found
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/42/report-on-temperance-and-prohibition
The issue here seems to be clear. Anything other than a complete erasure of these men and the buildings bearing their names is equal to full throttled racism. Clearly it has to be one or the other. You simply must be a racist unless you agree both with premise and conclusion. It is shocking to me the way in which this conversation abandons orthodoxy in terms of the doctrines of sin and redemption. All are guilty in the heart of racism until they prove otherwise through an external libation at the demands of ones who know not their hearts. Oh,… Read more »
Honestly, I think you need to work harder on comprehending what people are saying.
Not even close Mark.
Mark: I understood what is being said, why can’t you?
Unfortunately I don’t think we (as a whole) fully comprehend the unspeakable evil of slavery and all it entailed. I think many see it as an mere unfortunate lapse of morals.
Question for Dr. McKissic: You are a Southwestern graduate as I understand your biography. How and why did you become interested in the buildings at a Seminary you haven’t attended that is over 800 miles from your home? I ask out of curiosity as I personally have no idea what the building names are at schools I haven’t attended and I would be interested to know how this came to your attention and how you got involved with this subject. Did you have students from your church who went to Southern? Did some Southern students bring it to your attention?… Read more »
It dawned upon me, watching the name & statue removals, legally & illegally, primarily in response to George Floyd’s murder, that SBTS was founded & funded by White Supremacist, & men who’d profited mightily from slave labor. That’s a moral outrage & it needs to be redressed from my perspective. No longer honoring the kidnappers & men stealers is a substantive way to redress this scandalous episode in SBC history.
Thank you for responding.
I read the report Southern issued that documented the slave ownership of the original faculty etc. I note that many are mentioning “man stealing.” So the OT condoned slavery, but not man stealing. And the NT did not mention slavery but did instruct a runaway slave to return and his master to accept him. And the NT gave various instructions applicable to servants and masters 2 questions for you theologues: 1. Isn’t every person who owned a slave the beneficiary of the initial enslavement? If Rome conquered a territory and enslaved 5000, and sold them off at various places such… Read more »
Louis, the slaveholding business was dependent upon kidnapping, stealing, bartering, or by any means necessary, securing men & women against their will to sale to others as slaves. The cost of the slave inevitably included the cost of the kidnapping/man stealing aspect of it. The Bible is clear that with regard to the sin of homosexuality, those who engage in the act will be judged, but also those who give approval to same-sex encounters(Romans 1: 32). The slaveholders would surely be complicit with the approval of stealing the slave from Africa, thus granting approval, thus guilty of being an accessory… Read more »
Isn’t that therefore true of slavery generally?
Do you have a thought as to why the OT would condone slavery and the NT would be silent?
Your logic would condemn every one I think.
This is academic for me, but I am interested in the theology of this.
Thanks.
Louis: I don’t see where the OT condones slavery, which btw slavery in scripture and the slavery of the Black men and women, children was apples and oranges. Two different birds. I think you have been told this many times before and I ask where you think the Bible condones it. I do not.
Dear Dr Mohler and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Board of Trustees, Please do not give into the cancel culture call of Pastor McKissic and the administrators of SBC Voices. While it might be momentarily expedient for you to do whatever they say, given the pressure and outrage that he and those who think like him will undoubtedly bring upon you if you do not give into this “humble” and “respectful” request, removing the names of Boyce, Broadus, Manly, and Williams is not the way forward. Are these men laudable? Absolutely! In all areas of their life? No way! You see, these historical giants suffered… Read more »
Amen.
Southern can remove all these names that offend, but it will not change the hearts of racists. The worst bondage to be in is not to earthly masters, but the bondage of sin, “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Romans 6:17). From what I have observed in my 52 years, it seems many believers rejoice more when any physical injustice is corrected, than when a spiritual problem is corrected. Until the gospel is obeyed from the heart, the sin problem… Read more »
Honest question: is it not true that the most significant memorabilia of these men is the seminary and even the SBC itself? And would not consistency require that those who want to abandon more trivial memorials abandon these too? Corporate guilt is continually assumed; but all that ties us to the sins of SBC past is the name & memorabilia at present. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for about 21 years. Am I guilty of corporate SBC racism of the past? If so, all I need do is change membership to an indy baptist church and–voila!–no longer corporately guilty. So… Read more »
Pastor McKissic, do you honor the name of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and support his name being used in memorial on schools, buildings, streets, and such? Although he did so much good, he was theologically heretical, denying fundamentals of Christianity such as the divine sonship of Christ, the virgin conception of Christ, and even the bodily resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, he was repeatedly unfaithful to his wife. His close friend wrote wrote that even the night before King’s assassination, he had committed adultery with multiple women. Is this man laudable? Absolutely! In all areas of his life? Absolutely not!… Read more »
Well said, but for McKissic to suddenly regain his consistency and call for the removal of any reference to the grossly immoral Christ-denier MLK would mean an immediate loss of any stature or respect that McKissic currently enjoys with the black and woke-white communities…a bridge too far. MLK made the list of American heroes, not through the content of his character, but through the color of his skin…our first Affirmative Action Hero. Yay!
No, Gina, I really do believe that MLK made the list of American heroes because of the content of his character, but so did Boyce, Broadus, Manly, and Williams in the Southern Baptist context. MLK and the Founders of SBTS were all great men who had some great flaws.
Pastor Dwight,
The only thing I can say to this article for certain is this: our great God took profits from horrid behaviors and put them to use at an institution that has done a tremendous job for many years providing theological educations to the SBC.
Clearly, what men did that was evil but God turned for our good.
Grace and Peace.
Let’s forget comparing slavery to wine. What if the founders had owned and operated legal brothels? What if if the founders had been child abusers? What if they tortured people (even if it was legal)? What about rapists? Would their “correct” theology have seen them through to honors and memorials? Can anyone claim with a straight face that slavery was a lesser sin than any that I have mentioned? In fact, other than brothels, slavery incorporated all the other sins I mentioned and more. I don’t care about building names or statues frankly, but it just seems like we pooh… Read more »
Which is worse…..slavery that ended in 1865 or abortion that exists today?
Do we have to choose one?
Yes…one you have the opportunity to impact, the other not so much.
You question speaks volumes…
Yes. We CAN impact racism. We CAN show our Black brothers and sisters that we are serious. We can take serious action.
This “stick our head in the sand and pretend racism isn’t real” reaction will lead to more unfortunate situations like John Onwuchekwa’s church and will kill the SBC as America becomes less white. We cannot love our white heritage more than a gospel future.
Ad Hominem response…
You cannot affect/effect 1865 slavery as was addressed in the original reply.
Your response is insinuating character traits that I do not exhibit…
“Preachers” today rail against a history that cannot be changed. It should be evaluated and called out…absolutely. However, why we focus our energy and resources against something that we cannot change when millions of unborn are being murdered in our midst is appalling. Which do think is the “greater” sin? (I understand the evaluation of a sin hierarchy, so no need). The thing is, if people are being held accountable for something they had no part in.. what will be our reward as ministers of the Gospel when we force the removal of names on a building while innocent perish…… Read more »
I appreciate the comments & feedback. What Bill Mac said, would in a sense also be my answer to most questions I haven’t had the time to answer yet. If the founders owned a brothel, even a legal brothel, or to push a bit further…if they had been practicing homosexuals, or as Bill Mac said, if they had been pro-choice…there names would not be honored on the hallowed walls at Southern. However, because they were simply practicing racist, philosophical racists, & racist & slavery apologists….no big deal, we’ll give them a pass. It really hurts to see Dr Mohler &… Read more »
Just thought I would point out that Roy Honeycutt has a building named after him. He didn’t believe the Bible. Check out his Holy War sermon. Where does his sin rank on your list? Should his name be removed too?
The flaw there seems to be the idea that we cannot oppose BOTH racism and abortion. We do not have to abandon the gospel either.
There is no flaw in the reasoning as it is not a debate… Current culture (this woke cancel culture) is removing resources from the battle ground. Preachers are leading churches to battle against history when they should be advocating for the current (as in today/right now) loss of life. Take SBCV for instance…all the “chatter” is about what? Show me a current example of how the ADMIN of SBCV is currently advocating for the loss of innocent life (that too, is made in the image of God). My stance is not in opposition to racism and anyone that reads that… Read more »
if you can point to solid evidence of racism – really?
If you can’t see evidence of racism in America today, you are sticking your head in the sand. No amount of evidence will convince you. George Floyd. I watched a video of a police officer pulling over a black man for doing 5 miles an hour UNDER the speed limit in North Carolina. That was suspicious he said – going under the speed limit. “Driving while black.” The justice system. I talked to a black man in our church and listened to what he suffered through the years. But, no. Stick your head in the sand. Anyone who denies the… Read more »
You are throwing around insult-terms like “Woke” (which is telling) and then questioning the very existence of racism by demanding more evidence than what our eyes see and our ears hear. You need to spend time with Black brothers and sisters and listen to them. Instead of just trying to BATTLE what Dwight has to say, why not listen to it. Hear his heart. He has a great heart. What evidence will satisfy you that racism exists and is a real problem in America today? Systemic mistreatment of Blacks by police? Systemic injustice in courts? Systemic economic injustice? Segregation in… Read more »
So good Dave. Many of these comments trouble me so much that addressing them isn’t possible as I would say “unChristian” words.
Since you are the one downplaying racism and its impact on America, it would be helpful if you would give specifics about what evidence you demand and what evidence would convince you that America has a racism problem.
I deleted your comment because its purpose was to insult and demean. Engage in conversation, fine. Insult? No.
You have been insulting and aggressive in almost every comment, but you complain if I respond. Not sure how to do this. Evidently, you can insult, demean, and question my integrity, but if I respond, it is a character flaw.
Again, what evidence would you like to prove the reality of the problem of racism in America today?
Your first comment started with “woke and woke-leaning” insult. Then, you made a bunch of false assertions about us, casting us in a bad light. Accusing us of making racism worse, not better.
Your second comment (ignoring all the pejoratives you were throwing out) accused me of liking to throw out pejoratives like candy. All I did was express amazement that you didn’t see evidence of racism.
Your third comment said I assumed the worst in you, something you’d been doing since the first word you wrote!
I deleted the truly insulting comment.
Does that seem fair?
Stop Ethan. Just stop. Stop.
Standing ovation on the inside for this comment Dave.
Which is worse, being a murderer or a racist? Moses, David, and the Apostle Paul are all murderers. Yet God in His grace did not cancel their names from history. In fact, two of these men are honored in the hall of faith found in Hebrews 11. God says “Be holy as I am holy” and “If you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will forgive you.” By God’s grace all men can be more than their sin. By the author’s logic, Washington, Jefferson, and every other unrepentant sinner should never be honored. I fail to remember MLK repenting… Read more »
YOU started out with insult-terms like woke. You come in with an aggressive and demeaning tone, then wonder why someone responds? You accuse me of “attacking?”
You demanded evidence of racism, something that boggles my mind. But I will ask again.
WHAT EVIDENCE do you need?
Are you denying you use it in an insulting way? I agree. Coming to realize the reality of racism was kind of like waking up, realizing that I’d walked through life uncomprehending. I needed to see things in a new way.
It was a lot like waking up. Dwight helped me do that.
But you guys use the term as an insult. Am I wrong?
I’m old enough to remember when it was just Cal v. Trad. Now it’s the enlightened vs. the head in the sand. It seems odd to me that most conversations are framed as “attacks” or non “attacks”. The world sees the church’s disagreement with them on moral issues such as sexuality as hatred. Does this blog follow suite now? Are disagreements all just examples of hateful attacks? Are disagreements merely a result of one not being awakened yet? Are disagreements possible? To be clear this is not an “attack”. This is not me being “aggressive.” At least not the way… Read more »
Ethan, what makes the woke “left”?
Ask Dave Miller why is a bad term
Specifically, what is the belief, practice, or worldview that qualifies one to be called “woke”? If you are going to label people in that manner as a pejorative term, u need
at least state the qualifications for one to be labeled as such.
SBTS as an entity & the SBC as an entity are responsible for the corporate sins, the
entity has committed or affirmed others in doing so. They must also bring fruit worthy of repentance. Removing the names & replacing them with more noble names, is the fruit I’m requesting that SBTS as an entity bring.
So we change the building names, and for consistency tear down all memorials to slavers. What comes after that DM? Cash reparations?
Dwight , I have often heard it stated that the difference between bible slavery and American slavery is that one is raced based the other. Would this be considered raced based ” 7 As for all the peoples who remained of the Hethites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, who were not from Israel— 8 their descendants who remained in the land after them, those the Israelites had not completely destroyed—Solomon imposed forced labor on them; it is this way today. 9 But Solomon did not consign the Israelites to be slaves for his work; they were soldiers, commanders of his captains, and commanders of his… Read more »
My comments are certainly not thorough enough for an essay or paper. Greg’s question, and various other threads touch on slavery in Scripture. The slavery in the OT was primarily economic, at least that is addressed in God’s Law. God made limits on economic slavery. He provided a way of freedom. Slavery was to be temporary state, and no one should be treated as property. Every person, slave or free, made in the image of God That’s a vast difference from the slave trade and the enslavement of Africans in our American history. The passage in 2 Chronicles 8 refers to forced work,… Read more »
There is a building at our State Fair grounds named after the State Senator who got the funding for it. The man was fairly corrupt, a womanizer, talked out of one side of his mouth and did another. I don’t think of him walking into that facility however. What a building is named has little impact on the current use of it in my opinion. As Jesus said it matters not what goes into a man, it is what comes out that is the issue. With respect to Dwight of whom I have never met but would love to, I… Read more »
Dr Martin Luther King spoke at the SBTS chapel in April, 1961. His sermon was entitled “The Church on the Frontier of Racial Tension.” See SBTS Archives online.