Most SBC resolutions are both forgotten and forgettable but indications are that the resolution to be submitted by Dwight McKissick, Resolution on the Elimination of the Confederate Flag from Public Life, will be much more notable than what the SBC is accustomed to.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution political writer Jim Galloway has an article about the proposed resolution in yesterday’s AJC, Southern Baptists asked to endorse ban on public display of Confederate battle flag, in which he says,
Passage of the resolution would be an important milestone in the Southern Baptist Convention’s long struggle to come to grips with its origins — and expand its appeal to minorities. But as the strongest religious conservative condemnation yet of what the Confederate banner has come to represent, support for a ban on public display would also send shockwaves across the South.
If that sounds a bit hyperbolic, don’t complain to me. Galloway is nothing if not in touch with the politics of the South.
He wrote,
Though an SBC resolution would be binding neither on congregations nor its 15 million members, heritage forces that want to keep the battle flag flying at Stone Mountain Park, for instance, would be deprived of an important acre of moral high ground.
Such a move would also give succor to politicians who stepped up in the days after the Charleston massacre, like Mississippi House Speaker Phillip Gunn, who has unsuccessfully argued for removing the Confederate battle emblem from his state flag — as Georgia did in 2001.
Astutely noted by Galloway is the composition of the SBC Resolutions Committee. The group includes “ranking executives with both the Family Research Council and the National Religious Broadcasters” as well as “Mat Staver, attorney for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to process marriage licenses for gay couples.”
The resolution has “high profile” written all over it.
A certain blog made Galloway’s column,
Though it won’t become full-throated until messengers assemble in St. Louis, the debate has already begun. On SBC Voices, a denomination-oriented blog, McKissic emphasized in a post on the topic that the resolution would be aimed only at Confederate flags on public ground. “Where this flag is displayed on private properties, it is none of my business, unless those who wave it claim to belong to God’s Kingdom,” he wrote.
A moderator ultimately shut off commenting on the post, in part because of the “racist” tone of some critics.
Obviously, some connected SBCer talks to Galloway because in the print column he calls SBC Voices a “denomination-sponsored” blog. This is corrected to “denomination-oriented” blog in the link above.
I support the resolution. It needs some tightened language and a bit of tweaking to clarify some things but the resolution committee will certainly handle that. There’s no chance at this stage of the resolution being buried in committee. There is a chance that Southern Baptists will embarrass themselves in the debate but my guess is that such will be very closely controlled by the moderator.
All the lost in the world and all we as Southern Baptist can fuss over is the Conferate flag shame on us there are many more things we need to discuss at our convention how about the missionaries who have been retired or asked to step down? Come on lets get into things that should be of Kingdom importance.
I expect many other issues to arise at the convention. Someone may submit a resolution on the IMB actions. It should be noted that not a single mssy “was retired” or “asked to step down.” If you know of one, please inform us.
Were our missionaries “retired” or “asked to step down?” Well, there certainly was an organized effort to draw down the size of our missionary force. They were enticed by a premature retirement offer they were told was the best deal they would ever get. If left completely alone, they would not have come home on their own.
No one held a gun to their heads, but this was definitely an example of a “caused” or “induced” reduction in force. I don’t think it is right to candy coat it with the technicality that “no one was asked to step down.” Hundreds were asked to prayerfully consider stepping down to save the IMB from a financial crisis. That’s pretty close.
No Rick. Not a single person was forced to resign or asked to retire. Anytime someone says they were, I’ll correct them. Every single one was voluntary.
It’s called telling the truth, not “candy coating” it. No one denies the crisis nor the steps taken to fix it.
Rick,
I agree.
David R. Brumbelow
It was clear. Retire early, or the next step….if we don’t get enough to retire…
I heard a lot of missionaries saying that they felt like they had to do this….not that they wanted to.
David
David, there’s a lot of difference between how you put it and saying any mssy was “asked to step down”.
Asking thousands as a group to consider where God is leading them is not the same as forcing people to resign or retire.
“Asking thousands as a group to consider where God is leading them is not the same as forcing people to resign or retire.”
It really wasn’t thousands. It was targeted toward those missionaries over 50 with so many years of experience. That narrowed it down a great deal.
A group of employees is told hundreds of them need to retire (though no way they could really retire on what is offered) because of being millions of dollars behind. The reason they are in such a financial mess is because of the IMB’s mismanagement. Employees are told if enough of them do not “retire” the next offer will not be nearly so generous.
I heard missionaries tell how pressured they felt. And how their lifelong dream were ended.
And yet people are still saying there was no pressure and the IMB resignations were voluntary?
I don’t dispute that drastic measures needed to be taken.
But don’t call it voluntary on the part of those pressured to leave.
David R. Brumbelow
It was voluntary. Not a single mssy who left the IMB did so apart from their own decision (save for the few from the PR section that was eliminated).
No one denies that the organization as a whole was compelled by finances to make drastic reductions.
When I read the narrative advanced about “forced” resignations and similar, I figure that these commenters either (a) want to take shots at current IMB leaders whom they dislike for other reasons anyway, (b) are uninformed, or (c) are inclined to our SBC birthright to gripe.
IMB has done their reset and are on sound financial footing. SBCers in the main responded splendidly by unprecedented offerings of transitional help to those affected as well as shattering the record LM offering (my prediction).
Let the irascible critics squawk. The rest of us will try to move forward.
“(a) want to take shots at current IMB leaders whom they dislike for other reasons anyway, (b) are uninformed, or (c) are inclined to our SBC birthright to gripe.”
“Let the irascible critics squawk.”
William, sorry, I don’t claim to be in any of these groups.
I don’t care what kind of organization it is.
When any organization says things are not going well and we are going to have to get rid of several hundred workers,
I simply don’t see that as voluntary.
I suppose you do.
David R. Brumbelow
Rick said, “If left completely alone, they would not have come home on their own.”
Actually, if left completely alone, they would all be coming home eventually because the payroll checks would stop coming.
Paul said: “For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. … For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:15, 17)
And: “Behold, now is the favorable time; behold now is the day of salvation. We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry.” (2 Corinthians 6:2-3)
The flag grieves many of our brothers and is a ministry obstacle to our proclamation of the gospel to those offended by it. The only stumbling block the Bible allows for is the gospel itself–the crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus. Dealing with the flag in our denominational culture as *Southern* Baptist churches IS of “kingdom importance.”
I don’t know of any Baptist church that flies a Confederate flag or instructs their members to fly one…so what is this about?
What does the Bible say about strife, arguments and quarrels and what they produce?
There is also not baptist churches that give out payday loans at exorbitant rates, but we passed a resolution against it because it’s an evil practice. Resolutions aren’t always about what churches do but what we see that’s needs to be spoke against in culture.
Pastor Bob,
If you don’t see a flag that originated in the context of White Supremacy & Black oppression as not being a Kingdom issue of high priority, & nine people were mustered by a man whose identity was wrapped in that flag…then I don’t know what would be more of a Kingdom issue. Those nine lives were aborted outside the womb. Nine lives makes it a Kingdom issue. The fact that many, I would even say most(not all) who fly the Confederate Flag today are racist & White supremacist is a Kingdom issue. The fact that racist attempted to comment on this blog in defense of the CF makes it a Kingdom issue. The SBC justified slavery by “biblically” dehumanizing the slaves, consequently, then allowing slavery to be less than a Kingdom issue. We shouldn’t allow history to repeat itself here.
Wonder if anyone will get offended by this resolution against the Confederate flag?
Those who are not racist, but are proud of the non-racist part of their heritage?
Does anyone care if they get offended?
The North won the Civil War. But part of reuniting the country was allowing both North and South to freely put up their own statues and flags.
Perhaps we should remove not only all statues of Confederates, but also of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, Thomas Jefferson and all other founders of our country who were slaveholders. Maybe stop referring to anyone in the Bible like Abraham who owned slaves; maybe even take that out of the Bible.
Then we can cleanse our history and be pure as the driven snow.
Wonder if one day a group of people, for whatever the reasons, will be offended by the statues and streets named for Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Will we not want to offend them as well?
How about all the statutes, flags, books existing together? They can accurately show the history, complexities, diversity, and progress of our country.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
This resolution doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom to put u a confederate flag.
It is non-binding.
And there will probably be a lot of people offended by the resolution, even by its proposal.
But David, why should they be offended?
If they want to fly the flag, they can.
The resolution calls for the removal of the flag in public places, but has no power to effect that removal.
Thus the purpose of the resolution is to consider the heritage of the oppressed people for which the flag symbolizes that oppression, and thus to make a statement both of repentance for the past sins the SBC committed and to recognize the racism that the flag [for many black and white] represented.
Furthermore it would show a community of folks that the SBC seeks not to marginalize them due to the color of their skin, and recognizes that in the past, we did so marginalize them oppressively.
So I ask again, why would anyone be offended by this resolution?
David B.,
“Those who are not racist, but are proud of the non-racist parts of their heritage?”
So, is that an admission that there is a racist aspect or part associated with the origin, original use, and (sometimes) contemporary use of the CF?
Dwight,
I bet you just might have some racists in your heritage.
You don’t have to be white to be a racist.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I’m sure u are correct. Recently discovered that McKissic males in Phillips County fought for the Union army. Quite proud of that.
The question remains, was the statement that you made that I quoted indicative of or an admission that the CF was rooted in racism? And if it was, that makes it tainted & undeserving of display on public properties.
The flags displayed at the Alamo are flags which Texas has been under. One argue that those flags represent history, nothing more, nothing less.
Dwight,
You should be proud of your ancestors who fought for the Union in the Civil War.
I’m proud of my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy.
You, however, should be more proud than I. Because ultimately on the slavery issue, the Union was right and the Confederacy was wrong. Period.
I’m with then Governor Sam Houston who opposed Texas leaving the Union in 1860.
As a Methodist pastor in the South said after the Civil War, We have sinned and God has smitten us.
To some today, however, the Confederate flag is also history, nothing more, and nothing less.
And, some would also say the American flag is rooted in racism. So, where does it end?
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
What parsonsmike said!!!
From the OP:
[McKissic emphasized in a post on the topic that the resolution would be aimed only at Confederate flags on public ground. “Where this flag is displayed on private properties, it is none of my business, unless those who wave it claim to belong to God’s Kingdom,” he wrote.]
I read the posts on the resolution, but I don’t remember seeing that quote from Mr. McKissic. Dwight, is that quote attributed to you accurate?
Ken P,
Yes, that’s an accurate quote. However, it’s my prayer that the impact of the resolution passing will be that believers will not display it on private properties-maybe other than for educational purposes. But, it is not the intent of this resolution to tell or even suggest to people what to display on private properties. It’s the public waving, flying, and displaying of the flag, that this resolution is addressing.
Dwight,
Thank you for that clarification. The part of your statement that is concerning to me is “it’s none of my business, unless those that wave it claim to belong to God’s Kingdom.”
Tomorrow, May 10th is Confederate Memorial Day here in South Carolina. State Offices will be closed. Confederate veterans graves will be decorated with a battle flag in many places. The Son’s of Confederate Veterans have placed honor guards at Confederate Memorials in past years. Some guards display the Battle Flag in a historical context and most of the memorials are on public property, typically on the courthouse square in most counties.
I see nothing racist in these displays. The battle flag is used because it is the flag that the soldiers fought and died under. I suspect that many of the people participating in these events are Christians.
From your statement, you seem to me to be saying that you may express your opinions about Christians and the Battle Flag, which is your right. I just hope you are not implying that using the Battle Flag in these observances is unchristian or you are not questioning their citizenship in God’s Kingdom. I believe it up to the conscience of each believer whether or not to use the Battle Flag in these observances. I would hope you would respect their beliefs regarding remembering Confederate soldiers.
At the San Jacinto Battleground, where Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836, they fly all six flags of Texas, including the Confederate flag. There is also a monument there to the battle and the history of Texas.
Should this flag be taken down?
Another thought,
when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution praises the SBC, we must be on the right track! 🙂
David R. Brumbelow
This was an opinion piece, David, and was pretty good in the context of assessing exactly what such a resolution might do.
The most notable example of public use of the flag is its incorporation in the Mississippi state flag which flies above every state building or institution. If the SBC takes this up and passes it what will prominent Mississippi Baptist pastors and leaders do? The MBC executive leader is already on record saying it is time for a change. Perhaps the resolution will add to that.
I’m thinking that the San jacincto display is educational/historical. While that doesn’t matter to some flag opponents, I think it would be acceptable…but DMcK can answer if he wishes.
William,
You could add the use of the “Stars and Bars” design that flies above every state building or institution in Georgia.
I know you are a flag expert and I did read your repeated forays into the last discussions here. I don’t see your point as relevant but it’s nice to know this stuff.
William,
My point is that I do not understand why the Battle Flag (with all of its baggage) is offensive and the Stars and Bars, the official flag of a government arguably founded on slavery and racism is not offensive?
I wish someone would give an opinion about my question.
You’re the expert but when people refer to “the confederate flag” we know what they’re talking about….never seen a pickup with the official CSA flag flapping.
It’s the flag that Dylan Root was draped in, that was the one most offensive. That’s the one that makes Black people blood crawl.
William,
Every Confederate statue is historic and educational.
I might even add very educational for all races.
Yet there is a growing movement to take them down.
The CF resolution will not stop there, they will move on to these other issues.
As I said before,
How about all the statutes, flags, books existing together?
They can accurately show the history, complexities, diversity, and progress of our country.
David R. Brumbelow
William, some pastors in MS would promote an agenda to change the state flag of MS. Mississippians do have a quality that comes from a century or so of being called backward, behind the times, uneducated, worst place to live, etc… where the opinions/pressure from outsiders is often received with disdain.
I suspect any flag agenda that is successful in the Magnolia State will have to be born in the heart of a Mississippian free from perceived outside influence.
What I thought interesting about the AJC article was the secular political writer’s thinking that if the SBC passed this resolution it would be helpful to some southern white politicians who took some risk in proposing or supporting the removal of such flags.
…that and the mention of the pre-convention discussion here.
I don’t see much sense in having the same discussion here again but…whatever…
Is there going to be a resolution against the usage of the raised fist that we see by the uniformed black female cadets of West Point military Academy?
Certainly the raised fist has been used, over the years, as well a symbol of hatred and racism – Will there be a resolution banning the use of that?
(I really don’t want one – but I’m simply making a point of where does the stop – if the Southern beverage commission is going to make resolutions regarding symbols represent hate or that offend people?)
I agree, Tarheel.
The southern beverage commission should make no resolutions regarding Pepsi, Coca-Cola or sweet/unsweetened tea.
Lol! That was supposed to be Southern Baptist convention and my phone somehow changed it to Southern beverage commission.
that is LOL funny!
Just think of the acrimony a sweet vs. unsweetened tea resolution could create between the deep south and the pioneer states.
Or better yet, submit a resolution banning auto-correct.
I’d vote for the latter with tremendous enthusiasm – concerning the former I’d fight to the death for sweet tea!
My question is: What is the tangible results of this resolution? Will the evils of racism be eradicated? Will the next racist act be traced to the American flag? is it wrong for one to quote the president “Be confident in your heritage, be confident in your blackness.” even if there are parts of that heritage of which to be ashamed.
i resolve : that the MODERN scourge of slavery be opposed vigorously as a flag or a monument from 151 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa
here is a frightening chart
Yes, William, we’ve been over this issue before, but you brought it up in this post.
Recently SBC Voices has published three different posts in favor of the resolution against the Confederate flag.
This issue was also presented here about a year ago.
So, don’t blame those who then proceed to discuss it.
No question where SBC Voices stands on this issue.
Or, their support of J.D. for president.
And, I agree with others. This resolution against the CF will have zero effect on reducing racism.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
It can have a positive impact on those who will be mourning the martydom of 9 Christian brothers & sisters….to know that a convention that once supported the confederacy is now repudiating it’s flag
It can have a positive impact on Black congregations considering joining the SBC, but are somewhat because of their racist history.
Passing this resolution can impact the up & coming Dylan Root to perhaps rethink his love for the confederate flag & White supremacy if he has to filter it through the moral indignation expressed by the SBC toward this flag.
Dwight,
Why make a political issue of those black folks murdered in South Carolina?
Why do people want to get something out of this tragedy?
We already have laws to cover this.
We already have laws against murder that cover those of any race.
I haven’t seen a credible person in America of any race, who has condoned or excused this SC church murders.
Up and coming racist murderers will be discouraged by the arrest, trial, and execution of the SC murderer. Or, at least his sentence of life without parole.
They will also be discouraged by America condemning these murders.
That the SBC has repudiated racism is well documented. It has affected every area of the SBC. If a church of any race wants to join the SBC, they can do so, based not on our past, but our present.
Will the passage of this resolution please everyone? No, proponents will still be as angry as before. It will then just be on to the next politically correct racial issue.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I don’t object and will not attempt to halt this repeated discussion of the flag business. Absent any ugly turn, let ‘er rip again.
I brought it up again because it has and will have exposure and impact beyond our tight little SBC fraternity. Just watch.
William,
You are probably right.
We will either pass this resolution, or we will be condemned as backward, bigoted, racist.
Even though the resolution does not actually deal with racism.
David R. Brumbelow
Ken P.,
When u compare this resolution to a sweet tea vs unsweetened tea resolution, you really minimize the magnitude of the racial animus created with the ongoing display of these flags. Those displaying the flag need to understand this. Who better to convey that message than the SBC?
Dwight,
I apologize. My intent was only joking about Tarheel’s typo above (Southern beverage association) and not about your resolution at all.
He is correct, Dwight.
Neither of us were mocking your resolution with the short dialogue we had about sweet tea….now to be honest – Ken was mocking me though – and I deserved it after that hilarious typo.
Resolution Against the Public Display of the American Flag
Whereas the American flag is rooted in racism, and
Whereas many of the founders of America were slaveholders, and
Whereas America continued to support slavery for many years, and
Whereas America continued racism and segregation well into the 1900s, and
Whereas the American flag represents this evil nation and all its ills, and
Whereas some groups are offended by the display of the American flag,
Therefore be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention go on record as opposing the public display of the American flag, and
Be it resolved that we do not wish to offend anyone, and
Be it further resolved that we replace said flag with a rainbow flag that shows the utopian and diverse nature of our nation.
🙂
David R. Brumbelow
“Resolution Against the Public Display of the American Flag”
Yeah, there are other flags far more involved in slavery than the Confederate. Who brought the 10-12 million slaves across the Atlantic? Any of the ships have a Confederate flag? Not one.
Some months ago the state of Florida took the Confederate flag off their state seal because of its connection with slavery. But they left the flags of Britain, France, Spain and the United States. Oh, the irony.
David B,
The Charleston Nine are just as important as the abortion issue. The current SBC would not hesitate to oppose abortion by way of resolution, because they celebrate life in the womb. This resolution call for the celebration of nine lives taken by a confederate flag loving/wearing racist. Can’t the SBC celebrate their lives?
This is not a political issue, but a moral one. Why would u dare classify as political? There is zero intellectual or factual basis for such a classification. I am not politicizing this issue. I am moralizing this issue. That’s what the SBC stands for, correct? The church is to be the moral guardian of society. That’s the spirit of this resolution.
The SBC didn’t hesitate to condemn Mickey Mouse over the gay right issue. Frankly, I’m not understanding the consternation some in the SBC have over the Confederate Flag issue. Unless, they sympathize with the White supremacist & Black oppression roots that birth the Confederate Flag. Inasmuch as we all agree that the flag is rooted in racism, I’m not understanding your hesitancy to affirm the resolution. You by no means are racist. You agree that the flag is racially tainted. So, what’s your reasoning for not embracing the resolution?
Not sure why this comment got hung up in moderation.
“This resolution call for the celebration of nine lives taken by a confederate flag loving/wearing racist.”
You exaggerate. He had a website or webpage where he posted dozens of photos. In two or three he holds a stick flag. He was never “draped” in (-from resolution) or wore a Confederate flag. In his “manifesto” he doesn’t mention the Confederacy or its flag.
“This is not a political issue”
Sure, if you say so.
Tom,
Do u believe that the taking of 9 innocent lives, and your descriptions of him being pictured 2-3 times holding a “stick-flag” near his body–that I still consider as “draped” since his intent was to wrap himself in & identify with all the evil that the flag represents…do u nor see the immorality of this man’s actions, attitudes, and attire(the flag) constitute a moral evil? Thus making this issue moral/spiritual/theological, not political?
“do u not see the immorality of this man’s actions”
Absolutely. He’s crazy. But a flag didn’t drive him to do it. A lot of race rhetoric did.
The same stuff that caused Mercutio Southall to show up at Confederate Memorial Day with a loaded shotgun-http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/04/2_protestors_arrested_for_fire.html
Tom: I really think you get Dr. McKissic’s points about the flag, because a person would have to be absolutely blind not to, but it seems you refuse to accept it. That is very, very troubling.