SBC Voices has been overwhelmingly fixated recently on questions of racial reconciliation. SBC Voices will be overwhelmingly fixated in the near future on same-sex marriage. I’m about to disengage from online media for a while in order to turn my attention to other tasks. This is a temporary vacation, not a retirement. But as a parting contribution, permit me an uncharacteristically brief post to connect these two topics.
A post of mine is forthcoming Monday at Canon & Culture in which I will suggest, among other things, that the racial integration of American Evangelicalism at the local-church level is an objective indispensable to the witness of our churches in a post-Obergefell America (I’m actually far more concerned about local-church integration than I am interested in the racial apportionment of boards and offices at the national level). Indeed, had this happened earlier, we’d be in a different position today, I think.
But, you can read that post for yourself when it comes out.
Here at SBC Voices I’ll offer this additional consideration: Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling has handed to Southern Baptists a golden opportunity such as has never come in my lifetime and may not soon come again. We can make great strides in breaking down racial barriers at this moment.
Many predominantly black denominations in the United States are going to embrace the same-sex marriage ruling and the new regime of law pretty rapidly. They’re going to do this because President Obama has embraced it (which will, sadly, trump what King Jesus thinks about it). If Southern Baptists from the national denominational level up to, most importantly, the local church level will seize this moment to extend a winsome hand of outreach to disaffected black Evangelicals, we might see over the next five years an historic movement of black Evangelicals into the Southern Baptist fold. And they’ll be just the black Evangelicals we’d most like to have: those whose commitment to Christ is strongest.
Fascinating strategy. To accomplish it is to implement the text of Scripture. You sure we’re up to that?
“… black denominations in the United States are going to embrace the same-sex marriage ruling … because President Obama has embraced it …”
To do so would be to be more black, than Christian.
The African American plight has been a legitimate struggle for civil rights. Homosexual rights have not been considered civil rights … until yesterday. Abraham Lincoln, in regard to slavery rights, said “You do not have the right to do wrong.” That quote applies to both the practice of slavery and homosexual sin. Southern Baptists should open their arms to receive black Evangelicals disillusioned with their own church stand on this and who know right from wrong … truth from error.
Do you anticipate either the National Baptist Convention or Progressive National Baptist Convention (the two largest African-American baptist bodies) embracing SSM? I know in my area that the pastors in both of these groups are speaking pretty strongly against It.
I anticipate that pastors will speak strongly against it. I anticipate that these denominations will embrace it nonetheless.
Thus the opportunity.
My guess is that, more likely, we’d see a split in the NBC similar to what we experienced after BFM2000. I think conservatives are in the majority in the NBC. Maybe Dwight can shed some light on this and offer his insights.
My preference is that we prevent a split by encouraging disaffected NBC pastors to come into the SBC instead.
Can that occur if it’s the conservatives that are in the majority?
Dr. Bart
Very well done my brother. I have preached for years that racial reconciliation will best be accomplished at the local church level. Now these many years later (MUCH later, today I celebrate my 72nd birthday), I believe that reconciliation will ONLY come as it comes through the local church. We have tried institutional reconciliation since the 60’s…..too long too little accomplished.
I absolutely, absolutely agree! Even though the rest of the society , e.g. the military, the workplace, housing, sport and entertainment, and the academia has been making progress in integration, the only place where we can come together regularly to pray together, worship together, study the scripture and serve together and build genuine relationships remains by and large and disturbingly unchanged. We need more spirited rationale, biblical warrants and practical insights for naturally integrated local churches.
It takes time and a lot of contact and effort. My church has been actively building bridges for years now and we still have a long way to go. However, there has been noticeable progress. It has been individuals, both pastors and average church members alike, in the corporate context that have made, and are still making, the difference in our area.
I think integration of our churches is an important pursuit. The two biggest barriers, IMO, will be cultural forms (music, preaching, expressiveness in worship) and leadership. The latter is easier than the former. Diversity in churches, whether old/young, rich/poor, or black/white will require that we Be willing to give up our rights and preferences for the sake of the gospel and gospel unity (1 Cor 9).
Dealing with that right now in our church. It is an ongoing struggle
Humility in leadership should be pursued, transracial context or not. I’d say it’s been the source of the biggest barriers to the proclamation of the gospel throughout church history. When churches split over the color of the hymnal, this issue isn’t color of the hymnal.
Here are some questions to ponder. Has the SBC at any institutional levels embraced the Homogeneous Unit Principle as a recommended path toward church growth and guideline for mission strategy? If so, how might this play into Bart’s suggestion here?
Let’s be sure to distinguish the principle from its application — being conscious of the HUP in evangelism is not the same as seeking to propagate homogeneous churches
Yes, Todd. That is why I included the qualifier “as a recommended path toward church growth and guideline for mission strategy.”
I think that you should consider the HUP in missions and evangelistic strategy, but I do not think that such a strategy necessitates the planting of homogeneous unit churches.
I agree. But it seems to me much of our mission strategies have been driven by a commitment to plant ethnic-specific congregations.
Here are some examples. Back shortly before Jerry Rankin retired, the IMB reorganized and divided the world into Affinity Groups instead of geographic regions. As an offshoot of this, missionaries previously assigned to Latin America were reassigned to Spain to look into facilitating CPMs among Latin American immigrants in Spain. At the same time, a lot of these immigrants were already successfully integrating into Spanish congregations and multiethnic church plants sponsored by the Spanish Baptist Union. I also understand that practically the only way to get appointed as a missionary to Brazil is to specifically target Brazilians with German ethnic roots, or Japanese ethnic roots, or something similar. But the preponderance of these people already speak perfect Portuguese and have integrated into Brazilian culture at large. In the US, a similar approach is seen over and over again with NAMB, state conventions, associations, and local church sponsored church planting initiatives. And I think this model is also being taught in at least some of our seminaries.
Also, though I don’t have as much direct experience with this, and am not sure to what degree the IMB has bought into this model, I have heard that in places like India, as a general rule, MBBs (Muslim-Background-Believers) and MBB-congregations are intentionally encouraged to avoid contact with non-MBB congregations and believers.
I am highly sympathetic to David’s concerns, here.
Me too. Thankful we just appointed a missiologist/cultural anthropologist to the IMB board
Because some efforts are sensitive, I can’t get as specific as going to Spain to pursue Latin Americans, but I can say that what this has allowed is for coordinated efforts towards difficult-to-reach people groups that have activities in multiple geographic locations. For example, proclamation can be done on one continent and follow-up done with individuals who respond in another continent.
I am more in line with Elmer Towns who advocated for the church being a heterogeneous unit made up of homogeneous groups/cells who could minister/evangelize effectively.
(see, e.g. 154 Steps to Revitalize your Sunday School, Step 17: Cure Ethnikitis by Opening to All)
I agree with Elmer Towns when he said, “My favorite kind of cake is pie.”
I say that same thing often. 🙂
If Bart is correct, and he has an annoying habit of being so, then going the second and third mile in racial reconciliation, and confronting whatever vestiges remain of racism in the SBC could pay some huge dividends.
Wouldn’t it be an act of God’s grace (and perhaps humor) if the SBC became, after our founding, an ethnic minority-dominated convention?
Dave,
That would really be something.
Lord, let it be.
David
At the Convention during the prayer time on Tuesday night, as people were crying out to God in repentance, it occurred to me that the SBC was being rebirthed as a massive multiethnic denomination. It is happening and will continue. We need to see it and embrace where God is moving.
Bart is correct. This is what must happen to both correct the errors of the past and to BE the church today that God calls us to be. With this pivot, there will be a new emphasis on rebuilding the broken foundations of our cities and our national structure.
Stop and read Isaiah 58 right now. It tells us exactly what we should do. Isaiah 61 reiterates this. Jesus highlights in Luke 4. AND, this is what the last 1/3 of my book is about, especially chapter 10. Really, everyone should read it. 🙂
But, one other thing that shouldn’t need to be said, but should be said just in case there is any confusion: We should reach out to people of other races/ethnicities because it is the right thing to do and it is what we should have been doing all along. If we are even a little self serving in it, then our motives are wrong. I think that this is absolutely what needs to happen for the future and it will strengthen the church for the days ahead, but not just for pragmatic reasons. But, because it is who God made us to be.
The pragmatic situation makes it easier to accomplish. The right reasons motivate it. People should always get along. When they are a little beleaguered, they tend to do better at it.
Indeed. I just warned to be clear.
I fear this couldn’t be happening at a worse time, when the two big arguments, especially here in Mississippi, are same sex marriage at the Confederate flag. Are African American Baptists, fleeing from a convention that embraces the former, going to be willing to join a convention, in which they see many of their number embracing the latter? This may not be an issue in other states, but I think it will be a significant barrier in Mississippi right now. I pray that it can be overcome.
It’s huge in SC obviously. If those in our churches would humble themselves and let loose this idol it could happen quickly. I personally feel the SCBC should make such a statement, though that’s highly unlikely. Judging by the reaction to NASCAR now looking to remove all vestiges of the flag, I think leaders are terrified to address it even just in the context of the.churches. Wish it were different, but the cost of doing business outweighs the potential for the kingdom. In just a week the unity we saw last week after the murders has greatly diminished. In the hands of the politicians and the further we get from the emotion of Charleston, the less likely lowering it becomes. Humility in our churches here would see the flag down in a week. Would provide the cover the politicians need
Wade,
Your point here is a salient one. Most Black Churches that distance themselves from the historic Black Baptists Conventions, for whatever reasons, usually become independent Baptists(although they never refer to themselves that way) or join some affinity groups or fellowships that are Black led that have no relationship with the existing Black Baptist Conventions. This article by Bart has really caused me to do some soul searching & thinking. I’ve asked is Bart right in his analysis and predictions here? Is he wrong? Or is he partially right, which would also make him partially wrong? I don’t know for sure. But what I do know is this: the lack of systemic empowerment and inclusion in SBC life as it relates to minorities, and the fact that if a resolution hit the floor at an SBC annual session to recommend the removal of the racist, offensive, alienating flag from flying over state property in SC, it would either not get out of committee, or likely the resolution would not pass if a vote were permitted. Therefore, I believe that those two reasons would be the two biggest barriers to Bart’s healthy and right wish coming true. Furthermore, the jury is still out as to whether there will be any official embracing of same-sex marriage by historic Black Baptist Concentions. At this point, they are attempting to finesse the issue, and appease both sides, in my opinion. But, officially, they all in the bottom line says, marriage is between a man and a woman. Because of President Obama, Bart is right….there is an undertone and sympathy for what’s called “marriage equality” in the name of social justice or constitutional rights, that is held by many members in historic Black Baptist Conventions, that is causing these concentions to be somewhat muffled & muted on this issue. And this is disheartening to many of us, but acceptable alternatives also come with a different set of baggage. This the dilema. Thanks Bart for this provocative and courageous piece. Time will certainly answer some of our questions.
Typed on my Iphone. Please forgive the typos,I spellings, and bad grammar.
Many of us in SC have been encouraging, pleading with our state convention to address the issue here. Simply state something like in the biblical model of Romans 14 and in the interest of loving our brothers and sisters in Christ to call for support from our members for moving the flag. So far crickets. They are waiting, and I think praying fervently the politicians resolve this. Thing is we could give the politicians the cover they need to do the right thing, as I am unconvinced a 2/3 majority in both houses exists to remove it right now. My personal opinion is we are terrified of the financial push back from within our churches. I hope I’m wrong but it’s what I feel. One new development as the legislature prepares to begin debate next Monday 7/6. The Klan has a rally scheduled at the monument this week. Maybe a Godsend for proponents to move it and certainly a nightmare for those who wish to keep it there. I just wish we’d stand and do the right thing
SC Baptist leaders are in favor of removing the flag:
https://baptistcourier.com/2015/06/south-carolina-baptist-convention-leaders-agree-its-time-to-remove-the-flag/
Bless them for that statement. The situation in Charleston has created tremendous pain and it is very clear that the members of the church where it happened have responded biblically to the situation and deserve support on the political changes to help ameliorate the wound.
It’s time to treat this as a vestige of racism because those who suffered under racism have said it is a vestige of racism.
Praise God had not seen that William! Been in hospitals most of the last 2 days
Only place this has been reported is in the BP and state Baptist biweekly. Not even on convention FB page. As vehement as the secular press is here for it to be moved that’s surprising
Dwight, unfortunately I believe you are right about such a resolution not being able to pass at the convention. I would love to be proven wrong though. I think on this issue some people are so worried about the slippery slope, what’s next, that they are failing to ask themselves, “What is right in this particular situation?” I think that’s especially true in Mississippi, where the Confederate battle flag is actually a part of the state flag.
I think it all comes down to money unfortunately Wade. We’re afraid to offend the multitudes in our churches who want that flag to stay right where it is
Bart,
I want to say something that is very unpopular. The fact is, most of what I say is unpopular.
You spoke of integration, which I would like to comment on, Black Evangelicals entering into the SBC fold. I think you are referring to more black folks mixing with white folks in a typical SBC congregation. Forgive me if I’m wrong.
I don’t think your dream will happen, although there is some integration going on now.
The typical SBC church is dead, the Holy Spirit is not allowed to operate. If the singing doesn’t put folks to sleep the sermon sure will. I have never in my life seen SBC churches as dry as they are now.
Why would a black person or a white person even want to be part of a worship service that is dead. Someone that has been involved in a lively worship service will run from the typical Southern Baptist congregation. Can these bones live? I doubt it, but anything is possible with God. I think we are swiftly becoming a group of congregations that only have a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof.
We try to figure out why baptisms are dropping in the SBC, and most baptisms involve little children. I wonder what the answer would be to turn things around in the typical Southern Baptist church? We are full of knowledge but are starving to death for the Holy Spirit to operate.
That’s a very odd claim. How many Southern Baptist churches have you been a member of during your lifetime? And why did you become a member of a dead church?
Greg Harvey,
I just saw your comment, the answer is 17, 11 independent Missionary Baptist Churches, and 4 Southern Baptist churches. This is not counting all the Southern Baptist churches I have visited, I would guess the SB churches would total 15.
You can be against racism, and be on either side of the “get rid of the Confederate flag campaign.”
In fact, this issue may be making racism worse instead of better.
Everyone came together against the church murders, until the flag issue was brought up.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I definitely agree that there are many people who support the flag but aren’t racists. I know and am friends with quite a few of them. But I have yet to hear a good argument for why we should have a flag in Mississippi, representing an entire state, that offends a significant portion of the population.
David, I definitely agree that there are many people who support the flag but aren’t racists. I know and am friends with quite a few of them. But I have yet to hear a good argument for why we should have a flag in Mississippi, representing an entire state, that offends a significant portion of the population.
I’m not sure it matters. Continuing to protect those who insist that the Confederate flag(s) is (are) not racist is telling people who have dealt with racism that they don’t know what they’re talking about. And one of them is the President of the United States. Pretty sure that ship has sailed and won’t be back to port.
Greg, I’m not sure I am following you when you refer to “people who have dealt with racism who know what they are talking about.” And then, you mention Obama.
Are you referring to his families long history of owning slaves?
PS–for full disclosure I am not so sure that President Obama is not a prejudiced at heart.
I think if you listen to but a few of his sermons in Black churches, and there have been more than a few, he sounds a lot like Jeremiah Wright.
Also, Al Sharpton has been a regular visitor in the White House. These, to me, are not slam dunk evidence that the President is an expert on race relations.
It seems it could be argued that Obama has an agenda, not to unite but to divide. I certainly have not seen our country more divided in my brief lifetime.
I’m not saying he is a “racist” in the ugly sense of that word. I do think he is at least biased, or more so, than most people I know.
Marxism=class struggle=division
racial strife=class struggle
Blacks.
Let me clarify the issue if not offer a little pushback.
Materially speaking, any flag, the sort of which we are discussing, is merely a sewn rag in a design. Any meaning that it has is imbued by individuals and organizations of individuals. If it is used by an organization (state, nation, club, etc) for any purpose, you need to read that organization’s documents to find out what kind of meaning a particular flag holds for them. That a more objective meaning, but it is subjective in that it only holds that meaning objectively to that organization. A different organization can have the same flag and assign a different meaning to it in their documentation.
Individuals may assign whatever meaning they want. This is entirely subjective. There are a few common meanings the Confederate flag holds for individuals:
1. Slavery. I’m originally from Ohio and I was taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
When I moved to North Carolina, I heard the other side of the story. Sure, there was slavery and that was a regrettable chapter. But the reason the South had slaves, and not the fat that they had slaves, was the real cause behind the war. The North was in the business of turning the South into their economic slaves. The reason slaves were brought in to the South was encouraged by the North as a way of cutting textile costs, among other things. When the South found out that buyers in England would actually pay a fair price, they started selling to them. That was made illegal because it thwarted the North’s efforts to force the South to produce cheap textiles. So the Southern States started to secede. Thus the war, and thus the second meaning that people have:
2. States rights.
Of course the North got to write the history books. And Northern aggression in no way justifies slave-holding the likes of which we had at that time. Which leads to the next meaning:
3. Historical significance. It’s important to remember our corporate historic sins. There had been slaves in the North as well. While Northern States had abolished slavery, Delaware had not. There were slaves being held under the Union flag. It’s worth remembering that too. And while many slaves were abused, there were also many that were treated well. Some were treated so well, that they stayed with their former owners, not as slaves but as freed men and women.
So what does all this boil down to? It still represents slavery to some. They believe that someone who reveres the flag historically or for state’s rights actually has the motive to make them all slaves again. For some reason this thinking is encouraged despite the attempts of people to explain otherwise.
But as for Christians, it’s an unnecessary deterrent to racial unity and a hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. If we are trying to unite, we need to understand that some people simply don’t understand our true intentions. It should be a no-brainer. If you want people to understand you, you need for them to trust you first. Put the piece of cloth away so that there is no barrier aside from the message of the Gospel itself.
The “get rid of the Confederate flag campaign” is a “feel good” campaign.
It will make some feel good, but will not make a dime’s worth of difference in reducing racism.
Rather, it will make racism worse. It already has.
After the church murders all America came together in horror, love, and unity.
Then, the racial activists almost immediately started pushing the wedge issue of “get rid of the Confederate flag.”
Now, instead of love and unity, everyone is angry.
Now, instead of love and unity, protestors are getting into fist fights with each other.
Yesterday I saw a truck driving down the road flying two large flags, one American, the other Confederate.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Confederate flag being demonstrated that way.
If not for the PC campaign to get rid of the Confederate flag, I bet that fellow would not have been parading it down the road.
After the Amish school children were murdered America came together to condemn the senseless murders. That unity, love, and support continued, and does to this day.
Why?
Maybe because there were no activists trying to get something out of that terrible tragedy.
David R. Brumbelow
There are two simultaneous campaigns going on. In addition to the “get rid of the flag” one, there is also the “Christians, stop using the flag” campaign. The latter is more important, IMO, and will indeed be significant for reconciliation. Because our hearts are for unity and reconciliation while the flag often communicates a message we do not hold (racism and prejudice, etc.), getting rid of the flag will help our hearts align with the symbols we use. Ceasing to use the flag will be one more sign that communicates to our non-White brothers that we are serious about unity/reconciliation and we are taking steps toward that end.
For those who may wonder, or accuse.
I’ve never seen a Baptist church flying the Confederate flag.
I’ve never seen a Baptist church display the Confederate flag inside or outside their building.
I’ve never seen any church of any kind do so, though I’m sure a few white supremacy groups may.
I don’t fly the Confederate flag, and never have.
However, among those who are for keeping the Confederate flag in whatever capacity, they are overwhelmingly non-racist.
When Texas displays the six flags that have flown over Texas, one of them is the Confederate flag.
But then, that is just a fact of history.
History lesson – the six flags that have flown over Texas, in order, are:
France, Spain, Mexico, Republic of Texas, American, Confederate, American.
And the Confederate flag is not the Texas State flag, nor a part of our state flag.
David R. Brumbelow
http://bpnews.net/45087/namb-fund-to-assist-burned-black-churches
David R. Brumbelow