Dr. Akin read from Revelation 7:9 and following, the passage about the multitude from every tribe and nation gathering around the throne.
Matthew 28:19-20. “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Last words are meant to be lasting words.
At Southeastern in the 90s. A student fired from his church because some black students came to VBS. They came and presented themselves for membership and the deacons immediately fired him because these black children came for baptism and membership.
Later, the chairman of the deacons called him for a recommendation for a pastor candidate. Dr. Akin said, “you already have a pastor. Satan. I don’t have an enemy I hate enough to recommend to your religious club. You are Ichabod.”
Legs upon which the stool of racial reconciliation rest.
1. Biblical truth. We cannot go to the world if we are discriminating here at home.
2. An indiscriminate gospel. One body. One bride. One family. One Father. ONe Savior. One Spirit.
The naysayers are just dead wrong. This IS a gospel issue.
3. Intentionality. We must make intentional inclusion of the nations a core value in all we do.
At SEBTS, racial diversity is one of the 5 core values.
Whites are learning the value of listening to others and to learn from others – other races and other cultures.
Ethnic minority population at SEBTS has doubled. $400,000 has been raised for ethnic scholarships. (This is the long term solution – seminary students building relationships and friendships that last a lifetime).
By God’s grace and for his glory – WE WILL GET THERE!
His prayer: Lord, I long for the day when the church on earth looks like the church in heaven!!
Great LINE by John Perkins. Poverty and racism and violence and this guy wants 60 million for a jet? That’s exploitation and heresy!
Dave
Yes! At its lowest level
But his last name is Dollar!!!
Akin at Southeastern in the 90s?
I think he might have been a Dean.
Or, I could have misunderstood. I’m listening and typing at the same time. If someone wants to correct the record, I’ll take it.
He was a Dean there during Paige Patterson’s service at SEBTS.
I think he served at Criswell, SEBTS, then SBTS before coming back home to SEBTS.
Thanks for the updates, I’ll have to watch parts of the conference next week when I have time to do so. Danny Akin’s talk is first on my list to see.
@Adam, yes Dr. Akin was here from 1992-1996 as Associate Professor of Theology and Dean of Students. He went to Southern, and came back as President in 2004.
“Gospel Issue”…..sounds like these guys are taking their sound bytes straight from TGC.
Behold, the latest fad template for biblical interpretation.
Scott…please explain how it is fair to criticize those who say it is a gospel issue in light of Paul’s words about Peter not eating with gentiles…that he was not in step with the Gospel?
What exactly is the difference?
This will be blunt Andy but I do appreciate the question.
It’s fair to criticize because I’m personally sick and tired of “The Gospel” and “The Canon” and “The Word” and “The Bible” being used as a shield to deflect questions or Spirit-prompted thought about the disconnect between biblical instruction/truth and the games of profile, commentary and social engineering being played by denominational “leaders”.
To me it’s almost akin to taking the name of the Lord in vain.
“The Gospel” is the diety, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What the Holy Spirit does with and through individuals (sanctification) who embrace that saving reality is HIS BUSINESS and HIS WORK from beginning to end.
Not that of an organization (denomination) which is convinced the Holy Spirit needs to get more with the times by employing quotas so “the church on earth will look more like the church in heaven”.
I did not know the spiritual bodies of Christians in heaven would be distinguishable by skin color or ethnicity.
Can somebody proof text that one for me?
Scott correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have seen you before on other websites be at least nominally supportive of “quotas” when it comes to Calvinists in positions of authority/leadership in the SBC. That is you would want such positions to reflect the numerical reality of the SBC as a whole. Now again, correct me if I am wrong, but if you DO agree with that, why are you opposed to the idea of using such quota standards to the ethnic and racial makeup of our convention and its leadership?
1. I guess I missed the talk of quotas…I was referring only to the statement that racial recconciliation is a gospel issue…if quotas are the Issue, why distract from that by attacking the “gospell issue” language?
2. Am I hearing you correctly that if a Christian friend of mine were expressing racial discrimination, that I could legitimately call him out, saying his behavior was a gospel issue, but that it doesn’t work on a macro Denomination scale….since a denomination can’t repent, only I individuals?
As for me, I am consistently against quotas – whether they be Soteriologically based or skin tone based.
As I’m convinced that quotas only exacerbate the problems and tensions relating to the issues and do nothing toward the reconciliation intended.
That said – I do believe that most of the people who are calling for quotas in our hiring practices on the entity level – are well-intentioned. It is my belief that that those who advocate such quotas tend to think that even the appearance of racial discrimination must be combatted.(which I contend much of this is – especially when it comes to SBC entity employment.)
As to the “gospel issue” mantra – I think I tend toward the understanding that racial reconciliation –- which I define loosely as treating all people as equals created in the image of God and as He commands in his word that we treat people -– is an evidence of the gospel when it is lived out in obedience and discipleship.
It’s not part and parcel of the gospel – but it is evidence of the gospel – or is I think someone said one time it is a “gospel command for living”.
I have trouble with the idea that is often conveyed when someone says it is a “gospel issue” that One must be involved in “racial reconciliation” to be saved. That idea to me is getting too close to heretical liberation theology – and community salvation. Let me be quick to say that I do not believe that Moore and the gang (this is intended as a jovial attempt to not have to name everyone) are supportive of our teaching liberation theology – or community salvation – i’m just saying that if were not careful with the language I fear that can be unintentionally conveyed.
You know, I hear a lot of criticism about Calvinists talking to much about being “Gospel Centered.” As a Calvinist, I hope and pray that that criticism remains.
Agreed. But here is what I hope doesn’t happen:
It seems to be one of Satan’s devices, in order to destroy the good tendency of any truth, to get its advocates to [make it trite] out of its senses, dwelling upon it in every sermon or conversation, to the exclusion of other things. Thus the glorious doctrines of free and great grace have been served in the last age, and so have fallen sadly into disrepute. If we employ all our time in talking about what men ought to be and to do, it is likely we shall forget to put it into practice, and then all is over with us. -Andrew Fuller, Nov. 21 1786
Amen Tyler!
Andy:
If a Christian friend of mine was exhibiting blatant racism I would surely call him on it.
If the denomination that claims to represent 15 million Southern Baptists wants to increase it’s position and profile in Washington by pointing its finger of racial accusation at local autonomous congregations…..I’ll surely point that out as well.
I’ll post this here as well because I think it is relevant to Scott’s comment:
I’m one who believes we are over-using the word “gospel” almost to a point where it is becoming meaningless. But in this particular instance I don’t believe saying that racial reconciliation is a gospel issue is a reach. Here is why.
The gospel is not just the good news of how God redeemed me. The gospel is the good news of how God is rescuing sinners from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue. I believe this is Paul’s argument in Ephesians. God has broken down the dividing wall of hostility in the gospel (that’s what the gospel has done). This is part and parcel of the good news. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that racial reconciliation is a gospel issue. That unity is something that Jesus has already purchased in the gospel–and if we are to be people who “walk in a manner worth of the gospel” (that is accurately represent what God has done for us in the gospel) then we had better be people passionate about racial reconciliation.
Well said.
SVMuschany:
You are right about seeing me engaged in this conversation before. You are wrong about me ever being in the slightest supportive of the idea of forced quotas in church congregational life whether the church’s affiliated denomination supports the idea or not.
As far as the SBC as a denominational entity is concerned, I see that purely from the standpoint of politics. The theology du jour of the SBC has shifted back and forth in its history and is likely to keep doing so if the entity can stay alive financially.
At this point and after the debacle of the so-called “conservative resurgence”, I could care less whether the denominational entity goes Calvinist, Armenian or Buddhist ….as long as its games and pronouncements are questioned and kept at arms distance by local autonomous, spirit-led congregations.
Russell Moore:
“The Cross and the Confederate Flag Cannot Coexist, one will set the other on fire.”
Moore has combined images of burning crosses and the KKK with the historic representative flag of the Confederacy (at a time when Lincoln wasn’t even sure about how to proceed with issues of states rights and sovereignty).
What does Russell Moore have to say to practicing Christians who are not racist but still recognize the historical significance of the Civil War as registered “Sons of the Confederacy.”
Are these among the adherents of “Redneck Theology” that need to be rejected in our churches?
You mention “states rights.” The Civil War was about SLAVERY, not states rights. If southern states were so concerned about states rights, then why did they insist that the federal Fugitive Slave Act was superior to the Personal Liberty Laws passed by northern states? If the southern states were so concerned about states rights, then why did the Confederate Constitution not allow any Confederate state to outlaw slavery?
On the surface, and at the time period in question, I would say our antecedents in the South saw federal legislation on the issue of slavery as trumping individual state legislation.
Not denying that the issue of slavery was a “just cause” for fighting the war…..but the issue of abolition evolved naturally from an ongoing argument over states rights between abolitionists and economically minded legislators from both North and South.
Check your sources.
The Civil War was about State’s rights and unfair taxation. Slavery was just one of the many State’s rights issues, and because of the nature of the topic it moved to the head of the list. Slavery brings about a much greater emotional response, and is much more polarizing than the issue of South Carolina paying an unfair portion of their port taxes to the federal government. Southern states had a good argument and a good reason to want to go their own way, but slavery was used to demagogue the citizens of the North into supporting the war, and as the cliche goes, “history is written by the winners”. Having said all of that, it goes without saying that slavery in America is probably the darkest, most horrific scar on the face of American history, and it certainly needed to be abolished, but to over simplify this issue into something so black and white (no pun intended) is to show a complete disregard for history and the Federalist ideas that this nation was originally founded on. We are seeing the same demagoguery play out today in 2015. Racism is the product of a wicked and fallen world, introduced into society by wicked and fallen people. Race should never even be an issue is the church, because we are all one in Christ Jesus. Ensuring that your organization is hiring enough black people, or having quotas, is just as racist as ensuring that your organization doesn’t hire any black people at all. In light of the great multitude in Revelation 7:9, I wonder if Jesus said “OK, we have a lot of people up here, but we need more black people, or Hispanics. OK, no more whites… we have enough of them” Of course not, and to think so is absurd. We should be the same way, and in fact, because of the prophetic nature of Revelation 7:9 we should take great comfort in knowing that there will be representatives of all people and all races in heaven when it is all said and done, and I doubt that result is dependent on the SBC or any other “religious” organization putting racial diverse practices in place. We are all of the same blood, and we are all image bearers of God. God is glorified through His created order, and the pinnacle of His great creation is mankind, black, white, yellow,… Read more »
Further evidence that the Civil War was about slavery, not states rights: in 1863 a Confederate Army marched into the free state of Pennsylvania, captured 1,000 free blacks and turned them into slaves.
War is hell.
Further evidence the civil war was NOT just about slavery…The north completely and totally destroyed the south’s industrial base….and never rebuilt it after the war.
Jeff,
Are you saying that Lee’s invasion of the north was primarily to procure slaves? I hope you know your history better than that.
It doesn’t matter whether it was the primary purpose. The fact is that the southerners invaded a free state and took away the freedom of free men. They totally disregarded the rights of the state of Pennsylvania, thus they they were not really motivated by the principal of states rights.
Jeff.
Jeff,
“They totally disregarded the rights of the state of Pennsylvania”.
Using that logic. the Federal Army disregarded the rights of the following States:
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Georgia
Alabama
Florida
Mississippi
Arkansas
Louisiana
Texas
Hope I didn’t leave any out.
You left out Missouri there Ken. Particularly what Jayhawkers from Kansas did to/in western Missouri, and what Union soldiers did in STL to Southern sympathizers…
I would throw in Kentucky as well as while still a “Union” state, there were a lot of Southern sympathizers who…lets just say did not fair well under Union military lead martial law during 1864-1865. Look up Union General Stephen “The Butcher” Burbridge, aka “The Butcher of Kentucky.
Thanks SV. My apologies
At least on this Scott, we can agree. Dr Moores statement there put a sour taste in my mouth. As a student of history, who has actually dealt with primary source materials (and not just swallowed what liberal academia has spewed as historical “truth”), the Civil War was NOT “just” about slavery. Was it an important factor? Yes. Was it the proverbial “straw that broke the camels back”? Sure. Did slavery have everything to do with it and states rights had nothing to do with it? Absolutely not.
And like you, this coming from me, someone who is not racist, and indeed thinks the best course of action for the SBC right now is to take flame throwers and bulldozers to any churches that still practice open discrimination when it comes to ethnic groups in their churches. Certainly blows the stereotype that all “pro-south” folks are racists.
The three historical facts I brought up prove that the Civil War had nothing to do with states rights and everything to do with slavery. The southern states were willing to violate states rights anytime they wanted to defend slavery.
Here is another lacking in primary source materials.
And as I said, the north did not stop at just “freeing” the slaves, they destroyed the south’s ability to form an industrial and economic base leaving that power and wealth in the hands of northern business men and industrialists. If this was all about slavery, why did the north do that? Answer? for them it was not just about slavery, it was about money and power and control over the nation.
The Civil War was all about states rights. It’s foolish revisionists history to state otherwise. People in the South fought for the right of their states to make their own decisions rather than the central govt. controlling the states. MOST…and I mean MOST…of the people in the South did not own a single slave. Only the very rich owned slaves. They fought against central government control. Slavery was just one of the issues.
“At least on this Scott, we can agree. Dr Moores statement there put a sour taste in my mouth. As a student of history, who has actually dealt with primary source materials (and not just swallowed what liberal academia has spewed as historical “truth”), the Civil War was NOT “just” about slavery. Was it an important factor? Yes. Was it the proverbial “straw that broke the camels back”? Sure. Did slavery have everything to do with it and states rights had nothing to do with it? Absolutely not.”
This issue is always confused. This is oversimplifying but….It was about both because slaves were considered the “property” of a certain state. States could enforce their property laws but the issue was reciprocity from other states with different laws or even more confusing….. in the “territories”.
The states rights issue was one of the ingredients of the Great Depression. Only the Gov. of NY had the power to stop the margin calls. When Hoover called him to ask him to intervene after the crash, the Gov FDR, said no. After he became President it became Federalized anyway.
My point is that states rights can be good or bad. And these days, the states rights issue is going to become HUGE because the Feds have overreached to epic proportions.
My gosh…I am agreeing with Scott AND Lydia in the same thread? Oh and it looks like Vol made a post I am in agreement with. Oh My! What is the world coming to!
SV,
“Dr Moores statement there put a sour taste in my mouth.”
Exactly. I just cannot for the life of me understand why such seemingly Intentionally inflammatory language so staunchly defended – as working toward any meaningful reconciliation.
One thing I doubt will ever know is whether these provocative phrases like the ones you mentioned were in his prepared remarks or mention off-the-cuff – if they came off the cuff it be much easier to offer grace toward him and his remarks – however if they were in the prepared remarks that implies intentionality and Lends itself toward him actually trying to be divisive and offensive to some – that to me anyway – seems to me to be counterintuitive to what the conference was supposed to be about.
Scott
Your history is dead on. However I think 100 years latter these are symbols of our past good or bad, a part of our history. Eliminate the Con. flag and we eliminate the symbol of a dark period in our history. We don’t want to forget, we want to correct.
I went through the Holocaust Museum in Israel in 1983. I only made it half way through and came out and barffed up everything I had eaten for two days. It was horrific, but it need to stay as a reminder that never again shall Masada fall and never again should we allow such evil to run upon the face of the Earth. When we forget we repeat.
As a novice student of history D.L.
I tend to take the road of leaving the historical record (good, bad or otherwise) intact with all its associated imagery and icons for exactly the reason you’ve described…..
So that we don’t forget.
By the way D.L.
Have never had opportunity to visit the holocaust museum but imagine my reaction would be exactly the same as yours.
Could not sit through Schindler’s List.
Maybe that’s the subconscious reason I’ve never visited.
Scott
It was an experience I will never forget
Just like anyone else novice history student or not, I am both novice and 3 years of college history, you only know what you are taught or read. None was there. I see more evidence that it was about slavery than it was not. Just as the Civil Rights movement was about freeing blacks, who were segregated and mistreated beyond my understanding.
As I said these comments are simply unbelievable. I thought this type of thinking was dying. Obviously not.
Debbie
You are exactly right, we only know what we read. We did not experience those events first hand. The problem is who are you going to read and believe? Therein lies the discussion. Scholars of equal value differ on this issue.
As far as not believing comments, one cannot change what a historian has said. Only he can change that. For us to change it is called revisionism.
We are witnessing revision history as we speak. The White House interpret osur historic relationship with Israel as fluid and changing as it relates to the best interest of the United States. Historically we have said that a solid unwavering commitment to Israel IS is the best interest of the U.S.
Trying to revise history will more than likely bring disastrous results at worst and intellectual dishonesty at best. Just a thought
“Moore has combined images of burning crosses and the KKK with the historic representative flag of the Confederacy”
A former Confederate General was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK.
Scott,
Russell Moore:
“The Cross and the Confederate Flag Cannot Coexist, one will set the other on fire.”
Did Moore actually say this? If so, it an insult to every person with an ancestor who fought for the Confederacy.
In my opinion, this is enough to call for his resignation.
The Confederacy was one sustained act of treason. Everybody who fought for the Confederacy was a traitor. I am ashamed that some of my ancestors fought for the Confederacy.
Sorry, the southern states dissolved their relationship with the United States. Don’t see treason there.
Jeff,
Are you equally offended if you have any ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war – as they were traitors as well.
Russell grew up in Mississippi, a child of the South. He is not unfamiliar with what the flag stands for.
When he speaks of that flag, he speaks of what it represents, especially to the black people ground down under the heel of oppression, of slavery, of racism, of segregation and discrimination, by the states that flew that flag.
I applauded him when he made that statement. I’m thankful we have someone who cares more about advancing the Kingdom of God than defending the culture and heritage that enslaved, persecuted and systematically oppressed black people, and then resisted desegregation to the very last!
So, you folks can defend the Confederate flag all you want. But know that when you do, it usually drives a wedge between you and people for whom that flag means something very different – something ominous and evil.
Why hold on to that cultural wall of division when Christ came to tear down those walls and create “one new man” out of the two?
Whatever that flag means to you, you might consider what it means to others, to your brothers and sisters in Christ who don’t look back on the past with fondness. As Christians, our duty is not to please ourselves, but to serve others. When Christians proudly fly the Confederate flag, it sends a message. It may not be what you intended or what’s in your heart. But it says something to a lot of people who hold a very different view of the Confederacy (for very good reason) than you do.
As a northerner, whose ancestors never held slaves, at least not in the USA, I wish to tell you all what the confederate flag fluting means to me.
It means either one of two things, or both. It means redneck and racist.
Under redneck, comes rebellious and immature. So when I see the flag displayed [usually on a pickup window or bumper as a decal] I think that the owner or the ‘flyer’ of that flag is at least romantically embracing the spirit of the rebellious south.
And I usually think the person [but not automatically every time] is a racist.
Now I never meet these people,so I do not know how they feel or why they actually have the confederate flag on their bumper [in fact, they could have bought the vehicle used with it already on there].
But those are the two things the confederate flag stands for in my view.
flag flying [not fluting]
So Mr. Miller – are you saying that anyone who disagrees with Dr. Moore statement in the use of the pejorative term word “redneck” is “defending the Confederate flag and the feelings of racism that are associated with it”?
*disagrees with Dr. Moore’s statement being discussed and the perjorative term – “redneck”.
I’m trying not to get frustrated here.
I never said ANYTHING at ANY TIME about “anyone who disagrees with Dr. Moore” about ANYTHING. That is a fantasy you continue to concoct in your own mind.
I explained my view – that the Confederate flag means something ominous and evil to a large group of people and it is my conviction that a godly response might be to care less about defending a culture and heritage and more about the people that culture oppressed.
I thought Dr. Moore expressed that well.
Whether you accurately interpret my words or not is up to you, Dave. I cannot control your fanciful interpretations of my words, but I will not admit to them either.
Dave and/or Parsonmike,
Just wondering, What is your definition of “redneck”? What do you believe Dr. Moore’s definition is?
When I was a youth pastor in Florida, there was a segment of kids who self identified as rednecks. It was hardly a pejorative. They wore boots and wide belts, listened to country music.
It was descriptive of a southern-focused, country culture.
I’m not sure when it became the horrifying slur that some have claimed it to be.
I don’t speak for Dr. Moore, so I can’t define the term for him.
For the record, I don’t remember the reference to rednecks or redneck theology. Not denying he made it. I was furiously typing and I may have been typing something else when he said that.
So, I don’t remember the use of the term redneck or the context in which he used it.
For the record, I have found the term “redneck theology” attributed to Jimmy Scroggins, a Florida pastor in reference to the same sex marriage issue, in December 2014.
Dave,
It depends on who is using the word redneck, much like it depends on who is using other words that are deemed racist. Some use it to describe themselves as southern or country, some use it to describe others as ignorant or racist and probably both. It is usually not hard to figure out when it is being used that way. So it can be an offensive term. Of course we could all just be grown ups and quit getting offended so easily.
I posted this in one of the threads someplace – but here is again…
If the speaker(s) are comfortable with using the word Redneck to describe the people or the positions they are arguing against (and we all agree that biblically racism is sinful and must be repented of) then one might ask if they also used the word “thug” to describe the opposite side of the same coin.
I doubt it. One reason is that often “rednecks” are not racist just “country” and often “thugs” are not racist just “inner city”.
Another reason being the perception that this conference – while dealing with what we all identify as the SIN of racism – seems to only be dealing with it “one way” AKA whites need to repent – While that is true – racist whites need to repent – Folks the sin of racism is alive and well in all “directions” folks….and if we are going to deal with this scourge within our household of faith – we must call believers – of all skin tones to repentance of wrongs as well as encourage forgiveness relating to real and perceived wrongs – and that starts and will only be successful within our local churches and communities.
Name calling, IMO, is not helpful in discussing the sinfulness of racism.
Dave and everyone,
Dave, I appreciate your view on the confederate flag and the concerns you raise. Nevertheless your post demands a proper response on the historical use of the flag.
Time does not permit this now, but I will leave 2 quick questions for anyone to respond to in the meantime:
Is the flag of the State of Mississippi offensive/racist? Why or why not.
Is the flag of the State of Georgia (adopted 2003) offensive/racist? Why or why not.
U.S. flag on South Carolina state capitol was lowered to half-staff to mourn racist massacre, but the Confederate Flag is still flying high!
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/south-carolinas-confederate-flag-not-lowered-half-mast-after-church-n378316?hootPostID=e394596796177aa2907024fac1779afe
Governor Haley, take down this flag!
Dylan Roof’s car flies the Confederate Flag, just like the South Carolina statehouse! The Confederate Flag is a symbol used by those who persecute Christians.
Mike Leake,
I think as long as the world stands there will always be racism. As long as there is a devil there will be racism. In church or out of church, there will always be racism. As long as there is religion there will be racism. There is no way to avoid it. As long as people appear, and believe differently there will always be racism. That is the nature of the beast.
Religion, tradition, greed, and politics are responsible for more wars than anything else. A white Christian doesn’t have to be black to love blacks. A black Christian doesn’t have to be white to love whites. I will point out a fact of life. The majority of whites prefer whites. The majority of blacks prefer blacks. It’s nature, and there is nothing we can do about it.
I moved from the mountains to the other end of the state. I was shocked by the culture difference. I wanted to move back to the mountains. It took me two years to get used to these people, and they were the same color as me.
I think the most we can hope for is that people will respect one another regardless of race, religion, politics, and tradition. I rest my case by past comments here on voices, such as purity of the gospel, boots on the ground, food stamp president, condemning other denominations, and greed.
Who do we think we are, the elite, the big boys, the know it all’s, or what? I do think we are not the church of Jesus Christ anymore, at least not until we start having home churches once again. Do I have a better plan? Yes I do. We must do our first works over.
“Here is another lacking in primary source materials.”
Those are three well-known historical facts that all historians agree on. Are blog comments supposed to be footnoted with verbatim quotes from primary sources?
You mean all far left liberal historians, many of whom (at least the ones I knew) were openly socialist and/or communists. Someone who clearly does not have much if any knowledge of the current state of the historiography on 19th century America, should not be trying to lecture people on what “all historians agree on”.
So, Allen Guelzo is a socialist and communist?
Tell me specifically how my 3 facts are wrong, instead of just insulting me.
Instead of telling you “how your facts are wrong”…how about you telling us where/how you arrived at the conclusion that the issue of slavery was first and foremost the cause of Civil War without consideration to other economic and political factors?
So, you are admitting my 3 facts are right, since you have given up on refuting them.
My 3 facts prove that the southern states were willing to violate the principle of states rights anytime it got in the way of slavery.
Facts taken out of context are like statistics. You can make them say anything you want.
The Northern and Southern sections of the United States developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed. All of this led to disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as states rights versus federal rights.
Slavery
The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.
The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.
The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery. Learn more about Slavery in America
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war
One of the issues one must face in reading history is “whose history”. As a history major (that and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee in most any town in the lower 48), I soon discovered that history is written with a bias. When one studies Intellectual History one soon discovers that objectivity is relative. The writers beliefs, background and even his personality shades his interpretation.
You doubt that? Read the history of WW2 written by a former high ranking German soldier and then read one written by a ranking American soldier.
As it relates to the issue at hand there are certain undeniable facts. However what those fact reveal will be debated long after I no longer care.
D L,
Exactly! And, what most pele need to remember is that MOST people in the old South did not own a slave. My Great Great Grandfather, who rode with Gen. Forrest in the war, did not own a slave, and probably had never ever seen a Black man. In fact, his wife, my Great Great Grandmother, was a full blooded, Creek Indian. So, what would that tell you he was fighting for? States rights…I can tell you.
I think an obvious point needs to be put on the table. While there is debate about how we got to where we are, the fact is, we are where we are. The issue of this conference, from what I understand, is how do we move forward and do what we know is the right thing to do in Racial Reconciliation.
I don’t think “The cross and the confederate flag cannot coexist…” and avoid “Redneck Theology” are exactly calls for “moving forward”.
Scott
Good point
“People in the South fought for the right of their states to make their own decisions rather than the central govt. controlling the states.”
1. Then why did southern states oppose the right of Northern states to make their own decisions about passing Personal Liberty Laws and insist that the federal Fugitive Slave Act overruled these state Personal Liberty Laws?
2. Why did the Confederate Constitution not allow southern states to have the right to outlaw slavery?
3. Why did a Confederate army march into the free state of Pennsylvania and capture 1,000 free blacks and turn them into slaves?
From the Confederate Constitution:
“(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Your cherry picking is impressive Jeff, but it fails to see history without an agenda IMO.
From the “Georgia Platform”, adopted by Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama:
“That it is the deliberate opinion of this Convention, that upon the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Bill by the proper authorities depends the preservation of our much loved Union.”
In other words, these states would not stay in the Union unless the federal Fugitive Slave Law overruled all laws passed by northern states. This is proof that for the southern states, slavery was more important than states rights.
Why were there like-minded folks in the North who sided ideologically with their evil Southern counterparts……because the agrarian economy of the South kept em in goods and services.
Was less of a geographical divide than you think.
Again, as others have suggested, check and compare ALL your sources.
I can cherry pick as well Jeff.
In light of my last post about the Fugitive Slave Law, I find it ironic that so many libertarians/conservatives are sympathetic to the Old South and Confederacy. It would have required a massive police state in order to fully enforce the Fugitive Slave Law – in other words, very BIG GOVERNMENT to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.
Furthermore, enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law required a massive infringement upon freedom of religion, because many Christians acted in accordance with their religious convictions in helping slaves to freedom. There is really no difference between southerners who tried to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law and gay rights advocates who try to force Christian businesses to act in violation of their conscience.
My great great grandfather was a Union volunteer from Northwest Arkansas in the civil war … his brother volunteer calvary.
However, the biased and, IMO, historically revised perspective of Jeff, makes me tend to wish that if an internal divide ever occurs again in this country, it does so according to geographical north and south.
“In light of my last post about the Fugitive Slave Law, I find it ironic that so many libertarians/conservatives are sympathetic to the Old South and Confederacy.”
I am not one bit sympathetic to the Confederacy. Are you confusing a discussion on states rights with supporting the Confederacy?
The irony is that this issue was front and center since the Declaration of Independence. It WAS, at some point, going to be tested. Does that mean that states rights have no place? No. But it will always be a debate. And Obamacare, as time goes on, is going to provide the issue.
I did not say ALL libertarians and conservatives. I just said “many,” and I have met many who were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Most famously, Ron Paul (who I actually like a lot) has unfortunately associated with lots of pro-Confederate types.
“You are exactly right, we only know what we read. We did not experience those events first hand. The problem is who are you going to read and believe? Therein lies the discussion. Scholars of equal value differ on this issue.”
It is really interesting to read some of the old “congressional globe” archives if you can get your hands on them. I like reading that sort of source material even when it reads like making sausages. :o)
One character from that time who gets little attention is Republican Senator Thaddeus Stevens. History has painted him as a radical rabble rouser which I think is a bit unfair considering the fact that he advocated for reparations in the form of land confiscated from the slave owners to give to the slaves. Things might have turned out much differently….
Lydia
How did you find these?
DL, Years ago a prof friend of mine had some years during the Civil War on microfiche. Remember back in the day when research was really research?
You can google “Congressional Globe” and buy them. It is now known as the “Congressional Record”
Here is an example:
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/civil-war-cogressional-record.html
Scroll down. This link gives a hint of what is included and shows a senator questioning Lincoln about Habeas Corpus suspension in Maryland. It also shows some interesting clips from the discussion on the very first income tax in 1861. Interesting stuff. Scroll down…
Lydia
Thank you so much. I had no idea that was available.
Yes I remember when we had to do research without a google machine….actually used books….you know those things with pages stacked up with hard covers. Learned a lot from those things.
Lydia, DL,
You should see my library on this issue. Dozens of actual books with words and real pages in them. Some of them are old, too. 🙂
“You should see my library on this issue. Dozens of actual books with words and real pages in them. Some of them are old, too. ”
I would love to see it! I collect old books. My fav is a gift from my Brit friends. An 1850’s Bible whose provenence includes Gladstone.
Do we ever stop to think what a honor it is to be able to read? Not that long ago it was a class distinction yet America changed that thinking.
The Civil War was about slavery. It was about states’ rights only in the sense of the right of states to own slaves, to takes slaves with them into Free territories, to have slaves returned, and to advance slavery into other areas. It was all about slavery and the right of states to affirm and protect their ownership of slaves.
Slavery was at the foundation of the Southern economy.
What other issue could have been significant enough to lead to secession.
Slavery was mentioned in several states articles of secession as the reason for secession.
Arguing that the Civil War was about slavery is like arguing that water is wet. It is obvious and fits the definition of terms.
The war would never have happened if not for that issue.
Are we seriously having this conversation?
Alan, can I find this in your book?
Adam G.,
I talk about it in chapter 2 but more from the perspective of the role of the churches. There is an amazing quote from SC Senator John C. Calhoun on the floor of the Senate during the Missouri Compromise debate in 1850 when he pointed to the breakup of the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian denominations 5-6 years before. He said that their division over slavery predicted the ultimate division of the nation if we could not work this out. Ultimately, we could not.
Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the interpretation of modern historians to discover what primarily led to the Civil War. The people of the day left their own extensive record. It was about slavery and defending the rights of states to have race-based slavery as the cornerstone of their economy and society that led to the Civil War. Not to be dismissive of our Southern Partisan friends here, but there is really no substantial argument against that point.
Yes, Alan as long as you and Jeff want to infer that there was a superiority of thinking among all folks living north of the Mason-Dixon just prior to and during the Civil War …we’re really having this conversation.
None of us said there was a superiority of thinking among “all folks” living north of the Mason-Dixon line. A lot of people in the northern states opposed abolition or were ambiguous about the issue. Nobody denies that.
I don’t know ALL of the people living above the Mason-Dixon Line in 1861, so your comment is rather ridiculous.
But, the line of thinking that race-based slavery, man stealing, buying/selling other human beings, ripping families apart, and all that went with it – the idea that that was wrong an unbiblical is superior morally and biblically to arguments for race-based slavery. Wherever the superior arguments were held, I would side with those people on the issue, even if it meant siding against my own Baptist ancestors from Mississippi who owned slaves and fought in the War.
Its also true that Northerner would aid and albeit rich southern plantation owners in such kidnappings and the like – many time the family ripping you speak of happened in the North when northerners got paid to turn away from such and in some cases facilitate and participate in the kidnapping and selling of slaves to the south.
Again…not as simple as some make it…and the Northerners were not always “pure” in the age of American slavery.
*abet (rather an albeit)
So many straw man arguments.
Who is saying the North was pure?
Who is saying Secession was only about slavery?
Why, when trying to learn from the mistakes of the past so we can apply those lessons to today, we are accused of condemning people even though we agree with their own assessment?
Lots of things being argued against are not being said and what is being said is often being reinterpreted.
This is not directed at Tarheel, per se.
I also find it interesting that some of the same people who consistently say that we should not talk about race and that blacks should get over what happened 150 years ago and get on with things quickly rush to the defense of the Antebellum South and lament Northern Aggression and Sherman’s March to the Sea as though they were sitting on the porch at Tara watching the blue columns coming up the road before running inside to grab a revolver and hide Mama’s silver.
The constant call for blacks to stop being aggrieved over the past while simultaneously acting as a Confederate apologist is a curious position to take – one that might bear some consideration.
Again, this is not directed at Tarheel, per se. I just wrote it here. And, if what I have written doesn’t apply to anyone else, then just ignore it.
As for me i’m only saying that the issues are not as simple as some try to make them – that’s all I’m saying it was fault on both sides – by in large the inhabitants of the north during the early years of Americas formation were racist as it relates to the slavery issue the south were racist as it related to the slavery issue – thank God that slavery is now a part of our distant past.
I’m not defending antebellum slavery – I’m not defending the Confederate south – only saying the issues surrounding the Civil War are more complex then is often conveyed.
Tarheel, I agree that it was complicated and both sides did wrong and all that. I have never said or thought otherwise.
But, I stand by the assertion that without slavery, you don’t have secession and that those who opposed slavery, be they Northern or Southern, were in the right and those who affirmed it, be they Northern or Southern, were in the wrong. I am not sure why we are discussing these other things.
Alan
As always a helpful comment. It could be that you are 100% dead on. I don’t know not having been there. I am a victim of what I read and I read conflicting opinions.
My first point: there are reputable scholars on both side of this issue. That could be problematic or it could be education pending on one’s point of view.
My second point: you asked if we were really having this discussion. I ask the same question but from a different perspective. We are where we are regardless of how we got here. A better discussion would be how do we move forward.
As DL said, I have many historians say different, Alan. They have said it wants not just about slavery. It was more about states right. I have heard historians say that Lincoln made it a war about slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Auto correct butchered what I was writing. Autocorrect is our worst enema.
If you want to give some credit for making it more about slavery than economics as we were attempting to turn territories into (slave or free) states, give some credit to Harriet Beecher Stowe for “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. When Lincoln met her, he said, ” So you are the little Lady who started a big war”.
Alan,
You are right, this is a well worn path, what would be more interesting is to know how Freemasonry shaped the morals and ethics of the church in the south from reconstruction to the present and its connection with the Klan. This might help us all come to grips with why racism persists as it does.
wilbur
True enough, Alan…but the north did not want the blacks to be free in the sense many often convey today….there was much consternation in the north about what to do with “the negros” (as the too called them, if the flooded the north – because they too, by in large, believed blacks to be inferior beings.
Lincoln did not support equality – he had a economic reason based in morality that “a man who works should receive benefit of his labor” he did not believe that blacks were equal with whites.
In fact Lincoln, like most Northerners at the time believed that blacks should all go back to Africa.
The emancipation proclamation was a military tactic not a humanitarian one (although it had humanitarian benefit obviously)….it was so that the north could get more soldiers to fight against the south (blacks) so as to “preserve the union.”
Yes, the southern states fought the north to keep their slaves (among other reasons – its overly simplistic to say that slavery was the only reason for succession though) …at the same time its not exactly accurate to say that the North was only fighting to free slaves….as there were other reasons at play to put down the insurrection.
The civil war and the motives behind the fighting of it was much more complex that simply saying “the south wanted slaves and the North wanted to free them.” Can we at least admit that the “North” was not pure as the freshly driven snow?
“there are reputable scholars on both side of this issue.”
Name the scholars who say that the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery.
Jeff
Jeff, not sure of the context of the question. If it is for information I will get back to you tomorrow for I must go down to my study and did up some very old study material. Off the top of my head I would suggest Dr. John Eighmy and Dr. William Estep (I will admit that Dr.Estep was verbal in class and I cannot footnote).
Somewhere in the back of my Suspicious Mind (a great song by Ray Charles) I feel this is a put up or stay quiet question. If so do you really believe that this is a one sided issue in the academic commnity.
William Estep doesn’t count since he was not a Civil War specialist. His specialty was in the Reformation, particularly the Anabaptists.
Oh my Jeff. Do you really believe that that brilliant man was limited to Anabaptist history. Me thinks you are trying to rattle my cage :-).
What works did Estep publish on the Civil War? I am sure he knew something about it to teach in survey classes, but that doesn’t make him a Civil War specialist.
Jeff
OK Dr. Estep knew little about the Civil War. You are getting hung up here on trivialities.
I wish to be kind but I also wish to be pointed. Are you such an intellectual elitist that you feel that yours is the only valid opinion on the table?
Jeff
Re-read you question. I have never said it was NOT about slavery. I know of no one who has. There are those who say the major problem was States rights and slavery was an issue that became involved in the fight. The thinking that was put forth was that the South would clean up its slavery issue in time but should be left alone to take care of it. I have absolutely no idea which is right since I was not there. I only know what I have read.
Jeff this is why I said elsewhere that this is the wrong discussion. What difference does it make. We are where we are and we must move forward. That is why the historical change that Dr. King made is of great significance. He changed the course of history and set the bass on which this discussion should replace the dissuasion of the Civil War. Many of us were there during those years and have first hand information by being in the streets. We have more reliable information from which to learn and move forward.
“The thinking that was put forth was that the South would clean up its slavery issue in time but should be left alone to take care of it.”
The South was NOT on a trajectory to eliminate slavery on its own. In the 1790s, southern leaders regarded slavery as a necessary evil that hopefully would be eliminated. But by the 1850s, most southern leaders were arguing that slavery was a good thing that produced a better society than the north’s “wage slavery.” Far from merely wanting to be “left alone” to deal with slavery, the south was aggressively seeking to expand slavery into every territory in the Union. Far from merely wanting to be “left alone” to deal with slavery, the south insisted that federal troops be used in northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law and sought the extradition of slaves that fled to Canada. Far from merely wanting to be “left alone” to deal with slavery, the Confederacy invaded Pennsylvania and captured 1,000 free blacks and turned them into slaves.
We cannot move forward until we have an honest reckoning with the past. That is why the SBC publicly apologized in 1995 for its support of slavery at its founding in 1845.
Jeff
Again I say I don’t know. I was not there. I only know what I have researched. I am sure your historical facts are accurate and have no argument with them. I am not trying to pick a fight but I do think that seeing this as a one sided argument ONLY, has the taste of intellectual elitism.
I still believe however that the framework for the discussion should be the 50’s and 60’s and the historic changes brought by Dr. Kin,g rather than the Civil War. I totally support the apology. I would rather see our convention take up where we dropped the ball in the 60’s
Jeff seems agitated about arguing his perspective on Civil War History by telling us “we can’t move forward until we have an “honest reckoning.”
Ironically, Jeff is not promoting an honest perspective historically.
Consequently, I fear that most folks who grasp history in an unbiased fashion have moved forward on this issue leaving Jeff and the talking heads from ERLC behind and whining like a bunch of cry babies.
Don’t know what kind of “reckoning” he has in mind but certainly shouldn’t be based on revised history.
“We cannot move forward until we have an honest reckoning with the past.”
Jeff, I actually agree with much of what yo say concerning the expansion into the territories and so forth. History is always very nuanced. though in many respects so we cannot say there was total unamity on both sides. It is not that simpl e.
But I am more interested in your position on an “honest reckoning”. That sort of talk has little to do with the complex issues leading up to the Civil War.
What would an ” honest reckoning ” look like to you?
Would it look like blacks and whites working along side each other in cubicle farms all over the South? A black President elected twice? Same for the SBC? I could go on and on with the list of achievements
You see, this issue is used by many, both black and white, to keep the animosity alive because it is always a media event. It is an easy media event. It makes them look pious.. It is a positioning issue. To me, its not unlike how the Palestinians continue to allow themselves to be used.
Their media seeking “champions” don’t see competent equals who have gained a hard won equality. They see them as incompetent unequals who need their help. It is insulting to competent equal adults. The soft discrimination of low expectations.
“Using that logic. the Federal Army disregarded the rights of the following States”
The Confederate army had no right to exist. It was rebelling against the sovereign authority of the United States of America. The U.S. Army had every right to invade southern states and suppress an illegal and treasonous insurrection against the sovereign authority of the United States of America.
Your opinion.
My opinion: I believe secession at the time was right of every state. Know of no prohibition against it.
The Constitution was ratified by state ratifying conventions representing the people of the United States, not by state legislatures or state governments. Therefore, it was “We the People” who formed the U. S. government, not the states. Therefore, the states are part of an indissoluble union.
Was the word indissoluble in the Constitution at the time? If so, where?
Talk about civics fail!
First when a state has a constitutional convention, do you know how that is formed? FYI, it was by the existing governments of those places.
Second, more so than US Congress, each state’s legislative and executive branches are more of a reflection of the people of those individual states.
Third, I think you have never heard of or read the Tenth Amendment.
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
Thomas Jefferson
Funny…Countries like China, North Korea and many muslim countries say the same thing when they use their militaries to target, harass, and murder Christians. After all those Christians are “rebelling” against the sovereign authority of those countries, they deserve to be killed! Oh wait…Only people you disagree with deserve to be killed…I get it.
So, southern slaveowners are in the same category as persecuted Christians? A real insult to persecuted Christians.
A very small minority of southerners owned slaves, an even smaller minority owned more than a dozen at a time. Union armies, in particular during events like Sherman’s “March to the Sea”, did not differentiate between the rich southern slave owners, and the poor common folk struggling to get by. Are you suggesting that just being a citizen in the south was deserving enough to be tormented as many were?
Right. A small minority owned slaves. But the majority regularly voted and organized to keep an entire race enslaved for their own benefit and profit. And even after they lost the war, they continued to persecute African Americans via unjust laws, poor educational standards, and other means.
Only in recent days- the last two decades- have Southern whites begun to confess, repent of, and seek to bring resolution to their oppressive, racist past.
You live in a fantasy land. It’s time to stop romanticizing the old South, to stop covering for the racist causes of the Civil War, and own the sin.
For some reason SV you and Scott have a hard time doing this. I’m praying something would break your hearts soon.
Me personally own the sins of the south? Why? I actually know my genealogy quite thoroughly, and none of my ancestors fought on the side of the Confederate States. Indeed, my grandfathers great-granduncle was actually a surgeon for the Union.
I can say with certainty that prior to the past 20 years, (and depending on how you characterize the St Louis Metro area of Missouri), none of my family had lived in what would be considered “the south” since colonial times. So what do “I” need to own?
Way, way too broad here. “They…they…Southern whites…” It’s your own form of prejudice.
William,
Then please tell me who was voting to institutionalize slavery before the Civil War and who was putting Jim Crow into place post CW. It’s not prejudice it’s true.
I don’t think every white Southerner was guilty of these crimes but the majority were, otherwise these historical facts would not have occurred. And would not need to be repented of. And we would have no cause to have this conversation.
Jim Crow laws (and slavery itself) were wrong, I don’t think anyone would argue against that. However I do find it interesting that people like you Ryan, who seem to want to demonize everything about the South, fail to remember that it was not exactly “easy” for non-whites in the north in the later half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Did you know the majority of the “race riots” to occur during the Civil Rights era actually happened in northern cities?
I’m not demonizing SV I’m just not romanticizing like you are.
You act as if you are the only student of history on this board. You’re not. I would be happy to discuss the race riots in multiple northern cities with you, but that’s not the subject of this thread.
I’m glad to see you acknowledge the sinfulness of slavery and Jim Crow. You can blame Sherman and other Union generals for the South’s demise all you want to. It doesn’t change the fact that if the South had been willing to let go of slavery the CW never happens.
Further, the North may have had an economic advantage post CW but the U.S. Governemt had a $2.7 billion dollar debt as a result of the CW. Plus they had a ton of bad greenbacks out not backed by gold. There wasn’t much to help the former rebels to get back on their feet. If the South had not held on to slavery, none of this happens. They had no one to blame but themselves.
Or…One could argue that if the North let the South seceded, the South, on their own would have ended slavery likely within 10 years. Why do I say that? Because the South’s primary export, cotton, was in demand throughout Europe. That was their “cash cow”. BUT Europe was very strongly abolitionist and by the time of the Civil War, as much as Europe wanted southern cotton, they did not want to be seen as supporting slavery. Trade relations between the Confederate states and Europe would have deteriorated to the point the South would have had no choice but to end slavery or have no one to sell their cotton to.
Indeed the British demand for southern cotton was so strong (at least prior to the mid 1860’s when they started growing it themselves in India and Egypt) that they were almost ready to actually openly support the Confederate States (along with France). However Lincoln and the United States congress made it clear that any support for the Confederate States by any European power would constitute an act of war, and as England and France were both getting large percentages of their wheat from the North, they chose to remain nominally “neutral” throughout the war.
Now, what do you think would have happened in the South had slavery ended voluntarily and without a war after the South seceded? Take an educated guess.
Great Britain said the same thing about the colonies prior to the Revolution.
But they did rebel against the tyranny of the crown….and won.
As mentioned previously, many poor southerners who did not own slaves fought (As Jeff would hopefully do on behalf of his own family) against an invading army that was burning to the ground everything in its path.
At that point, the motive for fighting is no longer states rights or the issue of slavery……..the motive becomes self preservation and the protection of ones family, friends and neighbors.
“The Confederate army had no right to exist. It was rebelling against the sovereign authority of the United States of America.”
Well, that interpretation had not really been tested, had it?
Go back and read around this issue since our Founding up to that time. State militias. Of course we banded together to fight Indians and Santa Anna.
But, did Virginia not have a right to a militia? You see the problem?
“Sorry, the southern states dissolved their relationship with the United States. Don’t see treason there.”
The relationship cannot be dissolved. The Confederacy never existed as an independent nation. No sovereign state ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation. After the Civil War, all the states that rebelled all acknowledged that the Confederacy never existed as an independent nation. All of those states remained part of the Union during the war, but were in an illegal, criminal act of treasonous rebellion against the Union.
“The Confederacy never existed as an independent nation.”
The Federal Army made sure of that.
As they should have to liberate a people. The military of the United States exists to defend its people. Millions of people of color were held captive in the South. The U.S. military came to their rescue and liberated them from their oppressors.
And then promptly let them starve and rot in the aftermath. Oh wait…you didn’t know what happened to many of the freed slaves who tried to follow the Union armies back north? Many did not make it. Or how during reconstruction, the punitive and crippling decrees made by the government harmed not only the “whites” in the south, but those now “freed” slaves as well. The south is still to this day disproportionately poverty stricken, across all racial lines, compared to the rest of the country (rural and urban).
That last line about poverty puts a new perspective on the game. I knew of the post war tragedies among freed slaves, but never extended it to poverty that exists today in quite that way.
So the South’s economy being built on the blood and sweat of slaves had nothing to do with their impoverished condition post CW and then having to replace a free labor force?
And I’m sure Jim Crow and segregation had nothing to do with the impoverished condition of freed slaves.
Do you realize that if post CW Southerners had treated frees slaves as equals and had worked to incorporate them into the labor force the South would have recovered faster. The South suffered because of their refusal to renounce their racist positions.
Ryan…Sherman and other Union Generals completely and totally destroyed nearly all of the South’s industrial base. While cities through out the North (and in particular the Great Lakes region) like Detroit, and Pittsburg and Chicago had tremendous growth during the later half of the 19th century, primarily due to the rise of the industrial age; the south languished in poverty because Northern business interests made sure that no industrial growth would take place in Southern states.
SV….these guys, Jeff and Abernathy wouldn’t know a carpet bagger from a carpet cleaner.
LOL
“The south is still to this day disproportionately poverty stricken, across all racial lines, compared to the rest of the country (rural and urban).”
You missed the 80’s, didn’t you? Too young, I suppose. Economics went from North “Rust Belt” to the “Sun Belt”. The South was booming from Fla to Texas. Many of us took advantage of it after college. You could not swing a dead cat in Atlanta or Dallas without hitting a Northerner who had moved there.
The opportunities were incredible.
“The U.S. military came to their rescue and liberated them from their oppressors.”
Exactly! Thank God!
Again – the north did not want to “liberate” people of color. They did not want people of color to have the same rights as whites. Not even Lincoln Or Grant wanted that.
Most Northerns, including Lincoln and his allies wanted blacks to leave the US after slavery ended. They considered them inferior beings.
“Not even Lincoln Or Grant wanted that.”
It was not that simple with Lincoln. He toyed with a colony in Africa but Frederick Douglass eventually had a lot of influence on him. Not to mention Mary Todd’s seamstress, Mrs Keckley.
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history/videos/civil-wars-greatest-myth?m=528e394da93ae&s=undefined&f=1&free=false
3 minutes long and worth seeing.
Of course the main cause of the war was slavery. It would not have happened without it, but at least one northerner thought the main object of the war was to save the union:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Abraham Lincoln
August 22, 1862
Slavery was the reason the South revolted. Saving the union was the reason the North invaded. The original reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was the help that slaves provided to the Southern war effort. In the early years of the war, a negotiated settlement might have been possible that left slavery intact. Ironically, Lee’s victories in 1862-1863 insured that the ultimate result would be freedom for all slaves and economic devastation for the south (Sherman never marches through the south if the war ends in 1862).
“There’s a great deal of misunderstanding about the Confederacy, the Confederate flag, slavery, the whole thing. The political correctness of today is no way to look at the middle of the nineteenth century. The Confederates fought for some substantially good things. States rights is not just a theoretical excuse for oppressing people. You have to understand that the raggedy Confederate soldier who owned no slaves and probably couldn’t even read the Constitution, let alone understand it, when he was captured by Union soldiers and asked, What are you fighting for? replied, I’m fighting because you’re down here. So I certainly would have fought to keep people from invading my native state. There’s another good reason for fighting for the Confederacy. Life would have been intolerable if you hadn’t.’
Shelby Foote
1916-2005
Historian
Author: The Civil War: A Narrative
Boom! From Shelby Foote
Jeff,
I’m guessing you see the American Revolution as treason also…
In some sense, yes. Although there was a stronger case for the American Revolution, since the colonies had no representation in Parliament. The southern states in the United States had representation in Congress (they were actually over-represented since slaves, who could not vote, still counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes, and thus the south got extra pro-slavery congressmen and electoral college representatives). The south rebelled simply because the United States elected somebody for President that they didn’t like.
Wait..The south rebelled simply because of the president that was elected? I though it was ONLY about slavery! I’m SOOOOO confused! /sarcasm.
Because they thought that President would be opposed to the institution of slavery.
interesting article.
Was Lincoln an abolitionist?
Was Lincoln for equality of whites and “the negro”?
Why was the amancipatin really declared and signed?
These and other questions answered here….
http://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
Also, the independence of the new American nation was eventually recognized by other nations, such as France. No nation ever recognized the independence of the southern states which were in rebellion.
“””and own the sin.”””” This has no meaning for one of two reasons. One, I can’t own the sins of others and accept perpetual guilt for something I cannot make amends for; Two, if people can be guilty because of the sins of others in distance generations, why limit it to slavery in the South.
What about all the people killed by mobsters in the North? There were more than a few people killed by the Romans.
I don’t follow the line of thought: make someone guilty of something they had not culpability in order to make them fight for the justice of those that demand they be held accountable for what they did not do and have no ability to change.
This thinking is just one step from requiring reparations. Again, this is reparations for something somebody had nothing to do with. It is like demanding that people give to a charity. Sort of defeats the purpose of charity.
I think we have to find another way to discuss this issue besides the “guilt trail.”
I know this is not a popular view with many, perhaps the majority on this blog. But, these discussions seem stuck in a vicious cycle. This line of reasoning tends to make enemies of allies.
Jack,
Amen!
David
“””I’m praying something would break your hearts soon.””” See above.
I don’t think we serve ourselves well in questioning the hearts and motives of others, who I think–SV and Scott can speak for themselves–support seeking racial harmony and unity in general in America.
I don’t see their perspectives as any form of attack against freedom and equality for all. Maybe I just don’t know them well enough. Hopefully they will chime in and make it clear: are you both, or either one of you, against racial harmony?
Thank you jack. Seeing as I have been criticized on these recent threads for supporting the nuclear option on finding and rooting out churches that practice racial discrimination in the SBC today, no…I don’t think anyone could consider me against racial harmony.
Jack.
I don’t give a rat’s rear end anymore about being called racist.
The term itself is slowly losing any of its previous negative notoriety because it’s no longer used to identify those with genuine racist inclinations. It’s now obviously being used to detract from those who approach the study of history objectively without a religious or personal agenda.
God knows my heart and my deeds on this issue. The Jeff’s and Abernathy’s of the world can spew their venom and white guilt all they want but the inconsistencies and bias in their work is obvious……why else would we be having this conversation?
SV did indeed suggest the SBC should “bull-doze” racist churches.
I suggest that neither the SBC or the ERLC have the power to push a Tonka toy truck on the issue of race relations until they start dealing with it in an historically honest way characterized by humility.
Right now, all I’m hearing is posturing and sensationalism.
I think it’s real easy for a bunch of White men to speak critically of the South and cry out against racism in this day and age when it doesn’t cost them much at all to do so.
If they had lived in the South back in the 1940’s and said the things they’re saying now, then that would have been real courage. Also, to put down Pastors in the pre Civil War South for not ending slavery, or to put Pastors in the pre 1960 South for not ending segregation and other things is also very convenient and a little arrogant. A lot of the pastors of the past loved God, won souls, preached the Gospel, and taught the Bible; all the while pushing the envelope of racial issues for their day and age. They lived in a different day and age, and stepped out on a limb to preach to people to treat their slaves better…to treat them with respect and kindness…to look upon them as men instead of animals. And, for pre 1960’s pastors who told their congregations to not hate people of other races…to treat Black folks with kindness and respect…to look upon them as equals…even though they didn’t fight to end things like segregation and other things that we think are so bad today.
I know some men, who really faced off with racism, pastors…Southern Baptist Pastors…who spoke against racial hatred in the 1960’s…and had Klan members threatening their lives and families. They didn’t march, or boycott, or petition the school board to end segregation, but they did preach that we should love all people and treat everyone with respect and kindness. And, it’s a little convenient for people in thi s day and age to make some of the statements of condemnation and digust of these men of the past, who lived in a much, much different world.
I do agree. I wish more would have been done. I was born in 1961 in the South. I was living in Memphis when Dr. King was killed. I saw racists and racism, up close. I don’t like it. And, we have come a long way. And, we surely have more to work on, in this area. No doubt. But, some the comments I have been reading… Smh.
David
Read Alan’s book and then tell me your sad story again.
Smh
As I said…it’s real easy for people to say words of condemnation today when it’s really easy.
Why waste time with something that’s not worth reading.
Scott, that is a ridiculous and insulting comment. Alan has written a very good book that he put heart and soul into. There is no reason for you to be so inflammatory. This is not Christ-like speech and I won’t tolerate it. You can be fired up about this topic but you don’t need to be insulting to Alan.
Until you can show that you can be passionate without degrading, I’m putting you on moderation. Dave can lift it if he so desires.
Mike,
In Haiti right now and just checked in for the first time on this post. I probably am not in 100% agreement with either side of how this is being discussed FWIW. i.e. I agree with some comments made on the issue of how racial reconciliation is portrayed as a gospel issue. There are some good points on both sides.
However, I bought Alan’s book and read it. It is an excellent book and I think a must read on this issue of race and SB history. Thank you for calling out Scott’s insulting comment and moderating his comments. Needed to be done.
David, Montgomery, AL Baptist pastors met in 1966 and issued a statement declaring their error over the previous 10 years. They said that they should have worked with black pastors more closely, they let unregenerate people infiltrate their churches and dictate to them what to do, and that they were too closely aligned with racist Southern culture. Those men back then at the time admitted that they blew it. God forgives, of course, but us talking about it now and trying to learn lessons from it does not disparage them. We are agreeing with them. I talk about that meeting in my book on page 155-156. Not trying to self-promote or anything, of course. Just citing the reference. It was reported in the Alabama Baptist paper at the time and Wayne Flynt wrote about it in his book, Alabama Baptists. JR White, pastor of FBC-Montgomery goes before his church in 1965 and says that he has been wrong – the church has been wrong. They HAD to open the doors to all people. Then he said it was a GOSPEL issue and that the gospel was for all people and they must welcome ALL. Page 146 of my book. Then, you have WA Criswell who was spewing pretty horrible racist language in the late 1950’s repent in 1968 with the statement, “Never have I been so blind.” He realized his error then and said he was blind. Page 145. This is on page 47: “Historian Wayne Flynt agrees that many early white Baptists in the South before 1820 were originally against slavery and did not see a biblical defense of perpetual race-based slavery. It took time for them to agree to it. He points to the work of early white Baptists in Alabama in trying to include blacks in their worship services and congregational government. He cites the Alabama Baptist state leader E. B. Teague who stated in 1840 that he was not “clear as to the perpetuation of the curse pronounced on Canaan,” and believed that no race “was created for the perpetual service of another race.” However, Flynt tells us that these “misgivings about slavery soon passed. As Baptists prospered on plantations, they extolled the positive benefits of slavery. Strict Calvinists, many of whom owned slaves themselves, led the assault on the antislavery forces.” The growing wealth and status of Baptists in the South changed their perspective on… Read more »
“It matters today to learn why they erred so we can better navigate the terrain today.”
The SBC even voted to change their name and this was one of the arguments for it: Race relations. Mohler even tweeted about the new sign for the seminary when the vote passed. The new sign with the new name is still not up.
David:
I wouldn’t actually call it “criticism” until they get some of their history straight. Closer to bloviating at this point.
It’s pretty obvious that these guys have written some things that they’re committed to promoting albeit without giving careful consideration to the historical record.
Prime example of authors getting too close to their writings to tolerate having them scrutinized by folks with a little information.
Praise God for the men, who had the courage to stand on the truth….who were willing to speak out in the world they LIVED in…who were willing to truly use the knowledge and understanding they had at that time, to encourage people to grow in their understanding about how to love people….all people.
Alan Volfan
This is a day of historic proportion in your life. You will be able to tell your grandchildren that you saw DL commit intellectual and denominational suicide on a blog 🙂
Your last two comments have somewhat hit at the heart of the burr under my saddle as it relates to this conference and even the blog in which I have had more that my share of comments.
In a word it is credibility!
The great Dr. King was an eloquent speaker/preacher without equal. He could move an audience with passion and compassion. As great a speaker as he was therein did not lie his credibility. That came from the fact that he was in the streets with the masses getting his hands dirty trying to bring a sense of justice to a nation in turmoil over race. To use the cliche “He talked the talk but he also walked the walk.
Credibility is the issue that we face today.
I am sure that the conference is full of eloquent, Godly, and sincere men. In spite of the fact that I feel a conference is just that a conference, I suspect had I have been there I would have been extremely impressed. Hearing a good sermon is a reward in and of itself.
But I will tell you what would have impressed me more. Namely that after the conference was over our entity leaders would have taken their staff, and various workers and gone into Ferguson and partnered for several days with the pastor’s in that area, get hold of those raw nerves, get their hands dirty, and try to bring some reconciliation in a community that has been torn apart.
Gentlemen we apologized in 95, signed statements in 66, written books, blogs, articles, now we have a conference with more recommended books to read. As Volfan points out that takes no courage. In my opinion, that gives us no credibility. My point is simple: we talk the talk, but guys we must walk the walk. Credibility.
I am not questioning motives, sincerity, Godliness, knowledge, or character. I am saying by talking the talk we are half way home. Leadership is talking the talk and by testimony doing so with eloquence and power. Now it is time to walk the walk.
P.S……I will be taking a three week vacation going to an undisclosed location….hence I can receive no comments by blog, mail, email, carrier pigeon, slow boats to China, slick talking used car salesmen, or your mother-in-law:-)
Bingo D.L.
I can stop now on this thread because you’ve summed up the entire problem with this “Summitt” in one word ……CREDIBILITY.
This is indeed the real “issue”.
But, but, but…DL….don;t you understand?
The conference itself is a victory, and attendance and unwavering acclamation is a bow in bonnets.
Surely, those who did not attend this gala event and/or may not agree with all the comments and tactics of Dr. Moore and others on this issue are quite obviously not appropriately concerned about the issues relating to skin color issues and clearly are just simply “haters” of Moore.
LOL
Lol
Sad comment.
It was a good conference.
So, Alan, do you think that anyone, who disagrees with Dr. Moore’s statements and other conference speakers, is speaking “hate?” Are being “racist?” Because, that seems to be what’s coming across on tweets, FB, and even in here.
I sometimes wonder how you read what people say and get the things you come up with.
David W.,
Not sure where that came from or why you think that. I have never said that. I don’t know what others are saying.
This reaction to the conference is very strange to me.
Miller.
“I sometimes wonder how you read what people say and get the things you come up with.”
Easily – you called people disagreed “petty” “haters” more than once.
Alan, I made that comment because of the sense of superiority that is conveyed on Twitter and Facebook (and yes, here) by those who went to the conference suggesting those who didn’t are just a little bit below standard spiritually. I stand by it.
That said. I’m sure It was a good conference and I’m sure that many good things were said – I’m also sure that many not so good things were said as that is the case with all conferences.
Some of the things that I’ve seen that were said were not good – were inappropriate – and we’re not comporting with the intent of the conference.
I’m not sure whether you have a reading comprehension issue or lack the willingness to read what I say honestly. I say SOME have been petty and hateful I never said all. But you act as if I laid that charge to everyone.
I’ve been careful in my words but your interpretation of those words has lacked integrity.
Tarheel,
The only people who participate here who were at the conference are Dave Miller, Chris Johnson, Bart Barber, and myself. Where has the superiority been? Where has there been any sense that those who were there are superior spiritually? If I have conveyed any of that to you, it was unintentional, as that never entered my mind. I have not seen that from the other three either.
That aside, perhaps we need to consider if it is possible for people to disagree with you without you accusing them of running you down, acting superior, or a host of other insults that you throw out? We disagree, Dave, but it isn’t personal. We just disagree. At the end of the day, we are still brothers. That is how I see it, anyway.
You are my brother, Alan. We largely agree in principle – it’s tactics/approach where we disagree.
Ryan Abernathy said: “Only in recent days- the last two decades- have Southern whites begun to confess, repent of, and seek to bring resolution to their oppressive, racist past.”
One of the more uninformed statements made in this comment stream. Before 1995 and the blessed advent of Xers and Millenials…
Would you care to demonstrate where the statement is inaccurate? The SBC itself waited until 1995 to acknowledge its racist roots and formally apologize for its stance on slavery and the Civil Rights movement. That apology wasn’t led by Xers or Millennials.
This has nothing to do with the advent of a certain generation and everything to do with refusal to accept culpability in the systematic enslavement, dehumanization, and degradation of a race of people simply because of the shade of their skin. And it continues to be an issue as demonstrated by several threads on this website and the reactions of some commenters to Dr. Moore and others.
LOL….the gospel truth according to Abernathy.
“This has nothing to do with the advent of a certain generation and everything to do with refusal to accept culpability in the systematic enslavement, dehumanization, and degradation of a race of people simply because of the shade of their skin.”
Who here is culpable and for what exactly? For not chiming in with the staged platitudes from a “conference”? Seriously? Do you know how easy it is to do a national conference, invite the media and speak platitudes from a stage?
I agree with DL. People who are serious about this issue live it out in their every day lives. They don’t have stages (nor do they want them) to point fingers at themselves. They are the ones actually building bridges one or two people at a time. They see them as individuals. Not a group.
You want to know what really bothers me about this issue? Go into a public school and watch for a while. The kids from certain neighborhoods who are a certain color are automatically thought of as “lower functioning”….even before they learn to read! Why is that? Where does that attitude come from? It actually comes from most liberals over the last 40 years. I watch them in horror as they think they are so compassionate in having low expectations because of skin color.
If you want to read up on how we should be thinking, read some Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver or Booker T Washington. Those three were brilliant.
William: I don’t think Ryan’s assertions are as far off as you want to make them seem that they are. In fact some are still apologizing. Just from what I’ve been reading Ryan’s comments are right on target and not limited to the SBC who did not apologize until well into the 1990’s. That is far too long.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93059465
Lydia,
Please don’t have a heart attack, but I agree with you. 🙂
People who are serious about this do practice it in every area of their lives.
I also agree that many minority students are victims of profiling of their ability to learn- by educators, admin, social workers, and all kinds of other people- although i would disagree that they are all “liberal” they are often well meaning Caucasians- who think they are “helping” and are in reality undermining a generation.
And I join you in celebrating the words and worms of Douglass and Carver and Washington and would add to that list Langston Hughes, Maya Angelou, and Malcolm X.
“Please don’t have a heart attack, but I agree with you. ”
Hey, It happened once before over the issue of Moses writing the Pentateuch. :o)
My position is I see too many people using this issue because it gets easy and good media coverage. Moore’s pic is all over the place for his 15 minutes of national positioning. I think that was the point. But then I am one who does not think the SBC needs an ERLC. I don’t want someone from the SBC speaking “for me” in Washington. Certainly not Moore. Frankly, I grew up around Baptists who were much too independent to put up with such a thing.
You made the assertion (“…the last two decades…”). Maybe you should demonstrate its veracity. All I need is one Southern white pre-1995 statement. I think there are, well, one or two.
You didn’t limit the assertion to the SBC, or official statements and the like. If you are venting or spouting, then I understand. You will not be taken seriously with this kind of assertion.
I think Ryan should be taken very seriously William.
Normally. The blanket assertion was the culprit…easily fixed.
William,
I am sure that there are individuals and groups who sought to repent and reconcile prior to the last 20 years. However, repentance on a mass scale has only begun occurring in the last 20 years. The Republican Party abandoning the Southern strategy put forth by Atwater, the Methodists and the Episcopals issuing apologies in the 2000s, the SBC, and the list goes on.
My statement was not meant to uphold one generations superiority over another- in fact most of these apologies and retractions were from Boomers- but to point out that it’s only in the last two decades that actually accepting responsibility as a cultural for the horrors of 200 years ago has occurred. I think that’s significant- and give the way the discussion on this thread has gone today- needed.
I’m not even saying the people offering the apologies are guilty of the sins of their fathers and grandfathers, but that their acknowledgement began a conversation that needed to happen in the South- and is now continuing. That’s a big deal.
I hope that clarifies my earlier statement. I wasn’t venting. I was serious. I think there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of my assertion. Perhaps my statement would be more palatable to you if it read, “Only in recent days- the last two decades- have the Southern whites, en masse…et al” Would you find that assertion to be more or less accurate than my previous statement?
Somewhat. You could easily have said that. I’m struck by the comparison between the sea changes in society in the 50s to 70s and the more recent activity which is mostly verbal. I’m a skeptic on the value of pronouncements. I’m a believer in the superiority of the earlier acts.
I don’t disparage Moore’s conference. Perhaps some good aside from positive messaging will ensue.
Someone should note that the SBC is today where our Moderate colleagues and former colleagues were a generation ago.
If anything, events like this may signal that the ERLC and SBC leaders are no longer wed to the GOP.
The saddest part of this whole series is the sniping and drive bys.
The Conference is over. Bhy testimony I hear it was great. That is good
No “sniping” no “drive buys” no sarcasm intended. Just honest questions. Now that the conference is over
(1) What will our entity leaders who made passionate speeches do Monday morning?
(2) What will the attendees do Monday morning?
(3) What will I do Monday morning?
D.L. I don’t think any of that is snipey.
I did an informal poll of how many in my congregation even knew about this conference. The result: one. Me.
I think it is sad, but the buzz on this conference will likely fade faster than the coffee stains on the ties of the speakers.
The most powerful change agents in this situation are the pastors of local churches. Moore gets the press . . . pastors get the job done.
I am committed to stomping out hate anywhere I find it.
The Denomination used to be a local church driven organization. Like all denominations, it became a bloated bureaucracy as part of the natural dying process of organizations. That’s partly why we think we have done something significant when we gather our experts for a conference.
I am cautiously optimistic, but I think we will die the death of a 1000 experts.
Jack, I agree with your last paragraph and your last sentence 100%!
“I think it is sad, but the buzz on this conference will likely fade faster than the coffee stains on the ties of the speakers.”
Speaking of coffee, the “convo on race” sure backfired for Starbucks
Not to be a broken record, but if some of you actually took the time to watch some of the videos, there was a LOT of practical advice on what to do. How to build relationships. How to build multi-cultural churches.There was a lot of discussion of gospel and theological issues, but there was also a ton of very practical discussion. The messages ranged from academic to simple and practical. There is a lot of very practical help there for those who might choose to listen.
I read these comments and the assumptions so many are making, based somewhat on my scribbled notes, and on their own preconceived notions, are so far from what was said.
I am glad the discussion is taking place, but the denigration and diminution of the conference by those who not only didn’t attend but refuse to even watch a video or two is discouraging.
I guess I don’t understand the mentality that says, “I’m going to opine authoritatively concerning the motives and conduct of those who conducted a meeting, but I am also going to refuse to take the time to watch a single message of anyone that was actually speaking.”
Frankly, from comments that have been made, I am quite sure several of our commenters never even read my summaries.
Ignorant expertise is kind of a scary thing. (I said ignorant – meaning the lack of knowledge, not implying stupidity!). When you refuse to even try to figure something out before you opine on its worth, it says more about YOU than it does about that thing.
Dave
You are missing my point completely.
(1) By practical I am not talking about generic concepts. i am talking about a strategy of action that can only be gain in on site situations and evaluations.
(2) Credibility remains the issue. It was a national conference covered by nation media. A legitimate question is “what will our entity head speakers who advocated action do when they leave”? Will they return to their offices and prepare for the next meeting, speaking engagement or administrative duties or will they participate in on site action? I repeat how much credibility would SB have gained in this area if our leaders would have gone to Ferguson and partnered with the pastors there for several days and worked to build relationships in a small community that has been torn apart.
(3) Historically, our mass informational/inspirational/ meetings have produced little. We have done this in the area of evangelism for decades yet baptisms decline.
(4) I am gad you and others enjoyed the conference. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. I would like nothing else than to in 5 years or so for us to look back on this conference and be able to say it was the catalyst that vaulted us to action. The words “I told you so” would be a welcome message.
You are not hearing me. How can you know if the conference presented “generic concepts” or “strategies of action”? You have eschewed the need to even listen to a single message. You are obviously uninformed about the conference, as your point 2 clearly shows. Russell Moore was the only entity head who was a speaker. Other speakers were pastors, rappers, college professors – people from a wide background. I’m not trying to be mean here, DL, but you have opined repeatedly about the conference, but this comment shows you don’t even understand what went on, and evidently didn’t even look at my synopses on here. You speak of credibility. These pastors and church leaders are in the trenches pastoring interracial churches, dealing with these issues. To me, they have a lot more credibility than someone who refuses to even acquaint himself with what the conference is all about before he criticizes and questions it. Do you realize how that sounds? You talk like this was a bunch of denominational employees and entity heads speaking. Russ Moore was pretty much the only one. Oh, and Frank Page was part of a panel one morning (I wasn’t there for that). This conference had nothing to do with “entity heads.” No one there even held out the hope that this conference was the solution to the racial problems of our convention or our country. They just wanted to talk about the issues. This much I know – the thousand or so people who attended the conference and those who followed along on the live stream have a better understanding of the issues than they had before and a deeper desire to seek solutions. No one thought we were going to meet for 2 days and solve everything. But I think it was highly productive. I can understand someone saying, “I’m not interested in the issue.” I have trouble understanding someone who says, “I’m going to opine about the value of the ERLC conference, but I refuse to even give the slightest effort to acquaint myself with what went on. I refuse to watch any videos. I’m not even going to read Dave’s weak attempts at live-blogging. I’m just going to tell everyone what I think of it without making any effort to find out what really happened. Would you read the movie reviews of someone who refused to actually GO to the movies… Read more »
Dave
Before you talk to me about being in the trenches read my early post to Debbie. You obviously do not know my background, and there is no reason you should. As you say someone of us are working quietly in the trenches.
Dave we have beat this horse to death, can you live with the concept that we simply disagree and still be friends.
I will let you have the last word.
Has nothing to do with either backgrounds or being friends. I’m not angry. But I don’t understand the juxtaposition of your a) opinions concerning the conference and b) your unwillingness to take even rudimentary steps to acquaint yourself with what the conference was all about.
You’ve expressed opinions that show a vast misunderstanding of what went on, but you seem wholly unconcerned by that.
I am not angry. I just don’t understand that.
Dave
As I said, you have the last word.
I am done with this thread
Thank you for the post and the opportunity to discuss an issue of which many of us are passionate.
Blessings, my brother.
Holocaust Museum, Houston, TX
Above a couple of you mentioned the Holocaust Museum in Israel.
There is also a Holocaust Museum in Houston, Texas.
I’ve been there; it is very impressive.
Certainly worth visiting.
https://www.hmh.org/
David R. Brumbelow
Also one in DC. I have never gotten over the room of shoes.
Yad Vashem has the shoes as well. It’s almost overwhelming to go. You almost have to harden your heart a little over it will tear you apart. It’s beyond emotional.
Dave
You are right. I spoke to this earlier in the thread. I got half way through and came our and barfed up everything for the last two days. It was beyond my wildest nightmares.
Yad Vashem in Jerusalem is almost impossible to go through. Just horrifying.
http://baptistnews.com/culture/social-issues/item/29945-no-forgiveness-for-slavery-racism-without-repentance-cbf-pastor-says
Dave Miller,
You said,
“When I was a youth pastor in Florida, there was a segment of kids who self identified as rednecks. It was hardly a pejorative. They wore boots and wide belts, listened to country music.
It was descriptive of a southern-focused, country culture.
I’m not sure when it became the horrifying slur that some have claimed it to be.”
Couldn’t much the same also be said about the “N” word?
Racial reconciliation seems to almost always be a one way street.
Whites are told where they are wrong; blacks are not told where they are wrong.
Whites are told where they have failed; blacks are not told where they have failed.
One side is to understand the other’s culture, the other side has no obligation to do the same.
Many quietly disagree, because they know if they openly disagree they will be suspected of racism.
Frankly, when these one-way dialogues happen, it can lead to more racial division instead of less.
Oh, and I’m speaking in general terms, not necessarily of the recent conference.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – For the record, today I’m ordering the book by Alan Cross.
Hard for me to compare the n-word to redneck. Just can’t go there.
If the N-word is deemed acceptable or unacceptable based on who says it in the context in which its used – shouldn’t the same be true for redneck?
As both words can be either pejorative and used as a racial insult – or …. Not.
Tarheel, et al: Has a redneck ever been whipped with a whip? Hung by his neck on a tree? Chased down and killed? Drank at a separate water fountain because it was the law? Told he/she could not swim in the same lake? Had to go to a school with “their kind”?
Seriously? I can’t believe these comments are even here, especially among Christians. BTW the answer to the above would be no, just in case one didn’t know.
Oh brother.
It’s an analogy that, like most analogies, is not perfect but – not unlike usual – you completely miss the point.
Whatever.
One word is a playful word that can be used in a way that conveys, perhaps, a slight insult.
The other is among the ugliest words in the English language, imbued with 400 years of hate, oppression, degradation, soul-stealing humiliation, dehumanization and brutalization.
To try to compare the “n-word” to any other word in the English language requires a willful (and I would say inexcusable) disregard of history.
For white people to act as if being called rednecks is in any way comparable to the horror inflicted through the n-word on African Americans is a true head shaker.
This comment was meant to be placed down lower. Not sure how it got here. Old Fogey disease.
Dave M., let me ask you a question in the context of racial reconciliation concerning the term redneck. Keep in mind, reconciliation is where all parties participate in reconciling with one another.
Question: how does calling anyone a redneck in the context of racial reconciliation help the cause?
what is the sound of one hand clapping?
I’m a redneck, born and raised in Hillbilly country.
I take it as a compliment.
PS–I WAS a high-class redneck. My house didn’t have wheels.
My house had wheels at one time, best time of my life. I love country music and rock and roll, Hank Williams is related to my grandchildren albeit far down the line. I used to ride in the back of a pick up truck and my friends and I would grill in the back of one at drive inn movies. Pretty redneck if you ask me.
Oh, and my dining room table and end tables were the spools from the telephone wires.
“I take it as a compliment”
Sure. I understand that. I know lots of people who do take it as a compliment.
However just like other monikers that fluctuate between slur and compliment – I think it is dependent on context it’s used in, who says it and why they say it as to whether it is an insult or not.
Tarheel, you would agree that the “N” word has a nasty history that redneck does not have–or, maybe you don’t agree with that.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Tarheel: I hope you don’t sincerely mean that because I would agree with Dave’s comment on the word. A real head shaker.
If it’s not exactly racism, it borders close to it.
jack – Of course, absolutely.
Let me ask you a few questions –
Would you agree that the term redneck is often – but not always – a term to reference a “white racists”?
And further would you agree that using it in the context of “redneck theology” was a use that was not intended to be a compliment and intended to convey the idea that rednecks are racists?
Or do you argue that it’s use in the context it were referring to was a compliment?
Just looking around, such as Wiki, helps.
“By the 1970s, the term had turned into offensive slang and had expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish and opposed to modern ways, and was often used as a term to attack Southern white conservatives and racists.”
Les, keep facts out of this discussion please!
😉
I do see their point though about the longer and more vile history of the N-word.
Although I do think they’re being a little (intentionally ?) selective regarding the use of the word “redneck”.
Tarheel,
Yes the N word has a longer “insensitive” use history. So is a shorter history of “insensitive” usage reason enough to dismiss it is being genuinely insensitive and an “ok” to employ it’s usage?
Les,
That appears to be exactly what we’re being told here.