For the record, I’m typing on an iPad and I’m terrible at it. There’ll be a lot more typos than normal. I’m summarizing Dr. Moore and other speakers, not quoting. I don’t type that fast. His text was Ephesians 3.
Dr. Moore begins telling a story of a Sunday School teacher warning him of putting money in his mouth because a “colored person” may have touched it. She wasn’t anti-gospel. Right after that, they sang, “Jesus loves the little children of the world – Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.” People just didn’t see the contradiction. We send quarters to missions to reach black people in Africa but did not want to touch black people in the same neighborhood.
She would have assumed, had you confronted here, that you had a political agenda. This attitude persists today. Our denomination was founded by men who knew the Bible and could exegete it well. But no one knows the names of the men and women who were kidnapped from their homes to work those same men’s fields. Women were raped while these men preached on family values.
That blood cries out from the ground even today.
Today, white supremacist remarks are not welcome in our circles. But the problem persists in our culture. We are divided. Issues split us — white, black, hispanic, asian. The reason we are here today is that these are not simply cultural, political or social issues, but these are gospel issues. The Spirit is saying to the church that if we are going to be on mission for Christ, we must figure out two issues.
1) What is the gospel?
2) What is the church?
Ephesians defines the gospel as God taking us from one kingdom into another. It is the mystery of Christ. Eph 1, Everything is summed up in Christ. In Eph 3, Jews and Gentiles are united in one body through the gospel. The gospel unites us all in Christ.
Whites assume we are Jews and other races are the Gentiles! NO! Whites, blacks, asians, hispanics – we are ALL equally Gentile. There were NO WHITE PEOPLE in first century Jerusalem.
(I am very upset. I’ve tried to update and lost several updates into cyberspace. Not sure where they are going. Folks, you need to hear this! Watch the video!)
The CHURCH as Fellow Heirs
It would have been so much easier if Paul had just authorized Greek and Jewish churhes. But the apostles did not do that. They demanded a unified church. They demanded a church that was fellow heirs.
The kingdom of God is not about co-existence but about reconciliation. Jesus Christ did not die for a denomination, but for a church. The SBC will not outlast the solar system, the church will.
The problem is that on Sunday morning, when we are showing the world the kingdom of God, we are showing the world what we would do if Christ had never come back from the dead.
LINE OF THE DAY: “But we like to be with people who we like and are comfortable with. Yeah, and I’d like to fight, fornicate and smoke weed. That doesn’t make it right!” The church is called to unity even if it is uncomfortable.
Maybe racial reconciliation in the church should start with reconciliation betweenthe ages and generations in the church. The fracturing of the modern American church is not of God.
The Worship issue – maybe we should stop worrying about our personal preferences and teach people what worship is all about!
By altering our musical styles, we are telling people – you are welcome here. Reconciliation is all about putting others first. That’s the manifold wisdom of God.
Paul talks abut the church as a sign to the rulers and powers of this present darkness. When Satan sees a group of people with the dividing walls torn down, with human divisors blown away, Satan trembles. One body, displaying Christ, shows Satan his downfall.
Where Do We Start?
Preach the gospel and be the church. When the church is the church, we can speak to the community as we should.
We don’t know how to do this. We don’t have an easy program. This is a work of God.
There is a lot that could be said about this post but I will stick with the last sentence. It is probably the most inflammatory and asinine thing I have ever seen written on this site. Shame on you.
.????
I second the ?????
“This is a work of God”…OHH SOO SCARRY! Really? How about, racial reconciliation is not something that can be solved by a simple, easy to integrate program, but rather will only happen THROUGH the work and power of our Lord God. Seriously Mark, I know Dave’s live typing of someone else speaking is a bit awkward, but it was not THAT hard to follow what was being said.
Maybe you need to go back and reread my post. I referenced the last sentence. I did not reference “it was a work of God”.
My apologies when I originally read this I believe, at the time, the last line was:
“Whites assume we are Jews and other races are the Gentiles! NO! Whites, blacks, asians, hispanics – we are ALL equally Gentile. There were NO WHITE PEOPLE in first century Jerusalem.”
That is the comment I was referencing.
The last sentence of what Dave wrote WAS “This is a work of God.” Maybe when you attack someone for simply reporting another man’s speech you should be more clear, and to not do so (in my opinion) is “asinine”.
Mark, regarding your “apology” I still have to echo Dave’s original, ?????
I fail to see what exactly you have a problem with. I hope I can assume you are not one of those pathetic few who believe Jesus was white, blond haired, and blue eyed. I hope we all can agree to that. Simply put, almost everyone recorded in scripture would not be recognized as “white” by today’s standards. Further, by scriptural standards, everyone who is not a direct descendant of the 12 tribes of Judah, are Gentiles. Whether you are african, middle eastern, South Asian, East/Southeast Asian, Mongolian, European, ect….ALL but ethnic Jews are by definition Gentiles. Seriously, what is so wrong with what Dave paraphrased Dr Moore as having said?
Who are these white people who think they are Jews and everyone else is a gentile? I want to hear some names.
Arnold Murray of the “Shepherd’s Chapel” for one, racist scumbag of the highest order. I say this about very few people, but thank God he is no longer on this earth spewing his hate…(though his followers and others like him, still do).
Tell me, have you ever heard of the Christian Identity movement? IE, Americans (through the British) are the lost and “true” tribe of Israel, and all other “races” are inferior.
I personally know someone, who was attending a SBC affiliated college with me during the mid 2000’s, who was shocked and offended when I said Jesus was not “white”.
There are more people out there who believe this garbage than you probably realize. Just FYI
Not to be contrary but they are not worth bringing into this conversation either on this blog or at that conference. All comments like that do is inflame and the impact of those knuckleheads is actually little to nothing. They certainly have absolutely no impact on race relations in the SBC. It was a very poor thing to bring up.
Those types of people have more sway in the SBC than you think.
Tell you what, how about during your next state convention, you make a motion to kick out all churches that have in their by-laws and constitutions (and who refuse to change them) provisions preventing “people of color” from being members (or even attending) their church. I would wager you would not like the reality of the reaction that you would get. I would wager that there are several areas where such motions would not pass (or be allowed to come to a vote).
I may not agree with some of these ERLC speakers on how to solve these race issues, but I most certainly agree that the problem is bigger than most would like to believe.
Sorry, I do not buy that for a second. If I were to ever discover that were true I would be one of the loudest voices screaming against it. Louder than Dr. McKinsic. If you think I am just talking, try me.
SVM said “these people have more sway in the SBC than you think”
It seems that this is a rather sweeping statement. I would need more proof of this truth than just this statement. Facts are our friends.
I agree
Well…Clearly Bro Dwight and others DO see something wrong with the SBC when it comes to racism. So tell me…why are you not speaking up? Why is your only voice attacking Dave here for simply repeating what he heard at a conference? You say you don’t believe it, attack those who say it exists, and then pretend as if you would actually speak up if you “actually” saw something.
You say you want to do something? Make that motion at your state convention. Demand that any church that does not remove prohibitions against “colored” members be kicked out of your state convention. Do it and see the reaction you get. Surely if racism is as rare in the SBC as you think, you would have no problem getting that passed. Right?
OK well, there was no “attacking” of Dave. I do not make motions about issues that are non existence in order to go on a fishing expedition. If someone is to make such a motion it better have some evidence to back it up. Seeing as there are none outside of sweeping claims without foundation or substantiation I will leave the hysteria to others.
I agree. Where are these southern baptist churches, who believe this way?
And who are these who have influence in the convention.
Mark…You have selective memory of your own words…Here they are for your edification.
“It is probably the most inflammatory and asinine thing I have ever seen written on this site. Shame on you.”
Who are you trying to shame? Could it be the one who wrote this post?
As for fishing expeditions, you can leaver your blinders on if you want. I would prefer to go the nuclear option route. You don’t get rid of cancer by pretending as if it is not there. You get regular checkups BEFORE you see, think, or even suspect that something is wrong. And the second you find it, you go after it with a fury. You cut it out, you nuke it with radiation, you take medications designed for one job and one job only which is the eradication of any and all cancer cells. Pretending as if you don’t have cancer because you see no overt evidence of cancer is the quickest way to the grave. Trust me, I have had nearly a half dozen family members die from cancer.
My “solution” to racism (hidden or not) in the SBC (or Christianity as a whole) is regular checkups, with nuclear fury once any trace is found.
Overstating things is not the answer. I know what I said and it was not an attack.
SMV
“why are you not speaking up?”
Read my post to Debbie and then talk to me. “Speaking up” is not expressing an opinion on a blog and then going to bed. It is action. the proof is in the pudding.
Arnold of the Shepherds chapel is not Southern Baptist…nor is even evangelical…and I would go so far as to say not even Christian….
I have to wonder along with Mark….who exactly is saying “WHites = Jews and everyone is a Gentile”?
Growing up and living in the South my whole life (except a stint in the People’s Communist Socialist nation Of Northern Virginia) I have never heard that.
Straw men distract from the message – it seemed the points of the messages have been great – why play it that way and cause controversy? I don’t get it.
Dave,
Thank you for trying to give us an idea of what is going on at the conference. I look forward to finding out the substance of what specifically comes out of it. I am thinking that there is another day left.
wilbur
Today is day 1. Conference runs through tomorrow.
I’m getting the impression that this could be expressed in terms of the typical human way of seeing things as “Me and my group are OK; everybody else is suspect” – essentially self-righteousness spread out to a group level. It gets expressed at different group levels, some racial, some not. You don’t solve that by switching around groupings, you solve it by dealing with that essential group-righteousness, wherever it pops up. And you discourage seeing the church as yet another one of those “me and my group are OK” groups.
Have no idea what you are talking about,
That happens sometimes.
Dr. Moore said some very strong things. It was powerful and prophetic. The message will be available on the ERLC website (if it’s not already). I wish I had the papal authority to command you to watch it. Even if you don’t agree with all of it, you need to watch it.
From what I’ve heard so far, a lot of what’s being “prophetically” sounded at this summitt comes off more as knee-jerk reactions to culture, political correctness and a need to breed more white guilt.
By the way, one of the speakers mentioned needing to avoid “Redneck Theology”. What is “redneck theology” and if any of it happens to be biblically balanced, why does it need to be rejected by the rest of us lowly rednecks?
did you listen to the sermon? I heard a powerful call to live out the gospel call.
Just the excerpts you referenced and what’s already been posted online from the conference.
If the weight or meaning of the words printed are any different when hearing them in person, please advise.
Would still like to know the meaning or inference of “redneck theology”
I’d like to know if anyone in attendance is demanding an apology for the racially offensive slur “redneck.” At a racial reconciliation conference!!
Really?
Digging deep in the petty bin today.
Scott said “would like to know the meaning of “redneck theology'”
Let’s see….I live in Montana…I drive a four by pickup…It has a gun rack…when driving I am well protected….I ride horses….I can still cowboy i.e. roundup, calving, branding (Mountain oysters anyone) and I own one suit (wore it to a funeral 10 years ago) and several pairs of wranglers (not Levies, those are for Texas wusses)
Is he talking about me….hummm.
A white Southern man with sunburned skin and a pickup truck can be stereotyped as an intellectually inferior country bumpkin and nobody cares about branding him *literally* after the color of his skin–specifically the skin on his neck.
In fact, if the skin color is white turning to red, then any concerns are “petty.” But the skin other people have can never be talked about in such a way. I just think it is ironic that we are branding theology in terms of white people with red necks at a racial reconciliation conference. That’s pretty rich.
Rednecks are a race?
Miller…
Calling Rick for petty for that?
Question – are they using the word “thug” alot?
I doubt it.
Redneck is often used as a racial slur against white southerners…
Thug is often used as a racial slur against inner city blacks…
See the point? Of course both redneck and thug have meanings that are not inherently racist or intended as a slur – but what do people hear? Isn’t that a lot of what we have been talking about here – what people hear and feel not always being what we intend.
You can’t fight racism and prejudice and slurs by using them yourself.
Bill, Redneck is not a “race.” …but then again, neither is “black.” Redneck is a term used, often disparagingly to describe a group of people who live and act a certain way, in a certain place.
As has been pointed out before…the problem is not necessicarily “racism”…but “Group-ism”. IE, “My group is better than your group.”
ALSO, It does seem odd that Dr. Moore would use that term in that way…especially when I remember him back at SBTS often praising our “down-home” southern roots, and warning us students about wanting to be seen as respectable by the culture! Now he is berating and un-defined “redneck theology.”?
Best possible scenario: He is using redneck theology to describe the southern racist theology that once prevailed the sbc…if so, I can see his point, but better choice of words would have helped his point.
Berating an un-defined “redneck theology” is so unclear as to be meaningless.
Agreed, lots of substance!!!
Dave
Excellent post!!! Having experienced the 60’s first hand I never thought it would take us (i.e. SB) this long to make so little progress. I would like to make two observations in the what it’s worth department.
(1) Conferences are always good. They enlighten, inform and sometimes even inspire. I have attended my share. However, if conferences could transform the world or culture the Christian community would have transformed the world a generation ago. I will wait and see what comes from this.
(2) It is time for action. I think here especially those of us who are SB. We preach, we lament, we write, we blog, we conference and then……well you get the idea. Ferguson comes to mind. I lived in Ferguson my Senior year in Hight School and worked there in a grocery store during early college days. Ferguson is a small place geographically. One can walk across it before lunch. It is not Chicago or L.A. which could take years to change in any area. Ferguson could change in one or two voting cycles. My point: if the Mo. Bapt. Conv. (or one the the three is it) or even the St. Louis Metro Assoc. would organize a voter registration drive the makeup of the Ferguson council, Police etc. could look more like the community in a very short period of time. Very doable. A viable option to protest which turns violent.
Time for less talk and more action. My two cents worth feel free to give me change.
D.L. Point #1. Thanks for saving me time.
We didn’t when the world with the “Bold Mission Thrust” slogan. We didn’t circle the Globe with the gospel using the Sunday School Spiral. And . . . I’ve never thought that turning faith into an acronym was a good idea. I’ve been to more conferences than I could afford.
I confess I was passionately for all of this. But, it’s a different world. I’m not sure that Baptist leaders–Moore or any others–do more harm than good when they speak. I am also not saying they don’t. I just have a bit of ambivalence about it all.
I certainly don’t think Moore is a bad man. I haven’t had a chance to listen to the entire sermon. Some excerpts have obviously touched a nerve or two. Anything anyone says can always be said better. I’ve never lost a bet on a game that is a rerun.
My point after this rambling: Moore’s message (or the conference in general) will be a drop in a very big bucket when it comes to making a real difference in real places.
But . . . even a drop seems heaven sent on parched lips.
Jack
Last line….good point.
Since I did not hear what Dr. Moore said, it might not be germane to say what I want to say about the matter. However, there is a problem. African Americans are less interested in our emphasis on their adherence to I Cors. 13 and Dr. King’s non-violent resistance and unconditional love than we are. The other day I spoke at a senior center on the subject, Agape Love The African Americans. The most disheartening thing for me was that not one African American commented on the speech. The White Americans there did. I could only figure that I missed the boat, except I know that as far back as ’71, when I was at Columbia, some African Americans let me know in no uncertain terms that they were more interested in push come to shove. Can’t say I blame them, but they do not realize that they have won already. While some individual Whites will have problems, the Blacks will find that they are accepted in local White churches, if they know some of the Whites in that church, if their children play and go to school with the children of the Whites, if they can put up with what the average White also has to endure, namely, getting accepted in a group that already has ties to one another and are, at times, ill-prepared to accept others into their group/groups simply due to self-preoccupation.
Unfortunately, we are also facing an attempt to get a civil war going by people agitating for controversy, conflict and open hostilities between Whites and Blacks. Drive by shootings have been going on for years, and, it is likely, that they have been increasing. Part of this is out of despair, part out of the gang hood mentality, part out of the lack of gainful, meaningful employment, a problem that is also confronting Whites. What some folks want is for us to kill one another off, leaving them folks with their desired end, a greatly reduced population that they can more easily control and also ridding them folks of us “useless eaters.” Cf. the Guidestones of Georgia and H.G. Wells’ The Open Conspiracy. You can google the first and even read the reduction idea in English or a number of other languages on you tube. If memory serves correctly, the Guidestones have been around since about 1980.
Line of the Day:
“We like to be with people who we like and are comfortable with. Yeah, and I’d like to fight, fornicate and smoke weed but that doesn’t make it right.”
So cultural affinity is now a sin akin to rabble rousing, fornication or sorcery?
Ain’t buyin it.
He’s making the point that our preferences are not sanctified. We are called to unity, even with people we don’t like or aren’t like us.
The Body of Christ is for every tribe and nation, and preference!
Cultural affinity can be just as evil as anything else. As someone who has pastored a multicultural church where there was a clash of cultures and a fight for one to be dominate over the other in direct conflict with the dominant surrounding demographics, I can say this with clarity and reality. More times than not these issues are about cultures clashing rather than skin culture. If we are going to deal with the issue we need to deal with the real issues and stop assigning false reasons for the hostility.
As one who also previously pastored a multi-cultural church with no such animosity between races, I’ll see your declaratory statement on the “evils” of cultural affinity and raise you two denials of its accuracy.
God must not have been thinking clearly when he created/allowed folks of different color, culture and heritage?
Your experienced does not negate the reality elsewhere. Also, It may help you to go back and reread my post considering every word. To deny cultural clashes even within churches is to hide your head in the sand.
Not denying the existence of “cultural clashes” there Mark. That has been an ongoing characteristic of the human race since the beginning of time and will probably continue until the end.
Not sticking my head in sand here, just flat rejecting some of the suggestions being offered up as solutions to a problem that seems to exacerbate exponentially each time we pool our collective ignorance on the matter.
Oh? Statements like “I will see you two denials” makes it appear so. My mistake.
How does he know the individual “preferences” of the those he intends to addresse. Is he omnipotent and able to judge the thoughts and intent of every heart.
Just because a preacher declares our preferences toward cultural affinity aren’t sanctified doesn’t necessarily make him correct in the realm of truthful reality.
When a pastor excerisces the sense of call from one church to another, is preference ever involved in the decision?
So lets force the social engineering model with representative quotas church-house by church-house, congregation by congregation?
Sounds more like Washington than a denomination of autonomous congregations to me.
You know, I truly DO NOT want to “fight, fornicate or smoke weed.” I am not constrained from doing these things just because I OUGHT NOT to do them. They just don’t appeal to me at all.
Did he actually say that he wanted to “fight, fornicate and smoke weed?” Wow! (BTW, I do realize the subtext is that we cannot and should not do everything we want to do, but still, what examples!)
Rick, I realize there’s nothing he can say you won’t criticize. He was making a point that we do not follow our fleshly desires.
It was clear.
Wow.
I complimented him just this week for his position on ISIS. On SBC Voices, no less. I agree with about 33% of what Moore says and about 25% of what he does.
But I just found it unusual for him to say, “I want to fight, fornicate and smoke weed,” but he doesn’t do it because it would be wrong.
I’m not a hater. Just interacting with his provocative quote, looking at it from a slightly different angle.
You are correct about a strange choice of words in an equally strange all-or-nothing comparison.
I really hope I can be like holy like you someday.
Not really “holier than thou” here, Tyler. I’m just not wired to fight people. I’m happily married. I have always hated smoke of any kind.
Those three desires just struck me as a strange way of making a point. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a preacher say, “I want to _____ but that doesn’t make it right.”
Your righteousness, like mine, is only because of Christ in us. Sorry if my comment came across in a self-righteous manner.
Please folks…go to live.erlc.com and watch this message!
OK guys, I am still at point one. Help me to understand why another conference telling us what we already know is of any real value. Maybe I am just cranky today, but I fail to be impressed by more speeches.
Watch Dr. Moore’s message. Then tell us what you think.
Dave
I don’t have to, I’ve heard it before, many times. I see title change. I have heard the same passion concerning evangelism many times yet baptisms continue to go down.
I am simply saying; you know, I know, and I dare say everyone who hears what Dr. Moore has to say knows what to do. We don’t need more more talk regardless of how eloquent, we need to act and do what we already know needs to be done.
Illustration…Many years ago I heard Adrain Rogers with tears streaming down his face preach the best sermon I have ever heard pleading for pastors to get a burden for souls. I went back to my church inspired but nothing changed. A few years later, by a fluke, I got to spend 10 minutes with him and I discovered not only could he preach ABOUT a burden for souls he HAD a deep burden for souls. When I pleaded with God for such a burden things begin to change.
Not trying to pick a fight, but we are long on conferences but short on action. As I said earlier maybe this one will be different…that is my prayer.
“When I pleaded with God for such a burden, things begin to change.”
And they always do, Brother Payton. Adrian Rogers was my parents’ pastor … he was the real deal. Our ministries are not what they should be because both pulpit and pew don’t have a burden for souls as they ought. God needs to break our hearts and restore the vision … I have a feeling that is coming.
(I doubt that Brother Rogers ever wanted to fight, fornicate and smoke weed … he was too busy fighting devils without and within the SBC).
I fear what’s been termed “A Gospel Issue” is actually a profile issue for the ERLC of the SBC based on media and DOJ interpretation of events in St. Louis etc.
That is a slur against the sincerity of these men. You might not agree with their perspective but I don’t see why you need to insult their Christian fidelity. I certainly sensed genuine conviction and gospel passion.
To call this a crass and craven political move is I think unfair and an insult against a man of God.
You call it “slur” David. I call it a personal perception based on history, words and the evolving reality of events.
Have no doubt about their “sincerity”…. motive is what I sometimes question.
I’m not sure it’s a political move, but I DO think calling it a “gospel” issue is an inappropriate use of the term “gospel.”
The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for the sins of the world, the good news that for those who repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ, they can have eternal life.
Thus, the sin of racial prejudice would only be a gospel issue to the same degree as the sin of unforgiveness, lust, greed, etc., in the sense that the gospel frees us and delivers us from sin.
I’ve noticed something about Moore and his tribe. The leftward leaning issues–racial reconciliation, homosexuality, environment, etc., are all considered “gospel” issues, but the rightward leaning issues–second amendment protection of one’s family, opposing socialism which always destroys religious liberty, judicial civil disobedience, etc., are never branded as “gospel” issues.
Think about it: What Christian is going to argue against the gospel? If you can redefine your issues as “gospel” issues, you’ve taken the semantic ground in the debate. I think it’s an unfair tactic.
Rick, I’ll probably be banished agreeing with you, but I do think you offer a point that should at least be considered. I may not come to the same conclusions you do but I do think it is easy to turn the gospel into a political cause rather than a spiritual one.
I think that is a fair part of the debate.
Rick
Your point about the gospel is dead on. I hasten to say, I have no problem with Dr. Moore, from what I know he is a sincere man. I am not convinced that sincerity or passion is the issue here. I cannot get past the idea that those who will hear this already know this. I would much rather see Dr Moore led the ERLC to take some concrete practical steps that could lead churches to bring reconciliation in their neighborhood. “Neighborhood” is the key here. We seem to think on the national level, while we should focus on our neighborhood. I have never affected (or is it “effected”) the nation but I have effected (I am 50% correct) one church field in the area of race relations.
D.L.,
To some extent I agree with you that never ending meeting can get pointless, but if you are saying we shouldn’t have people preaching things we already know we should be doing (or not doing), then you just ended at least 95% of the preaching that gets done behind Baptist pulpits.
Jon
I get that. I am not talking about the Pastor in his pulpit. I’m talking about the endless line of conferences that we have and then feeling that we have done our job or whatever. We are never going to change the nation by having national conferences and preaching on the subject.
Let me say again ( it was Jack I believe who also spoke to this)….the leadership needs to put these at the Associational level with practical information as to HOW to change our own backyard. While the national event will not bring change, we can change things backyard, by backyard by backyard.
“Think about it: What Christian is going to argue against the gospel? If you can redefine your issues as “gospel” issues, you’ve taken the semantic ground in the debate. I think it’s an unfair tactic.”
Bingo.
Back in the day when I wanted something as a pastor I called it “missions” and got all my WMU votes.
No here’s an honest guy. I would attend his church.
Its a Gospel issue in that the Gospel effects everything. Even the small things. Like a Gospel Centered view of race. The Gospel changes everything.
Tyler, I think you have proved Rick’s premise.
The gospel “touches” other things but is NOT therefore, by course of logic, equal to those other things.
When we conflate the gospel with the affect (or effects, both would be accurate) then we denude the gospel of the very power it has to “touch other things”–indeed, every other thing.
I don’t want to put words in Rick’s mouth, but that seems to be the gist of his premise.
A social gospel always becomes more social work than gospel work.
Jack: The Holy Spirit in us after we accept Christ as Lord and Savior, should turn into social work. Doing good, giving the best life possible to all people. We have been given a new life on the inside which should transform into us giving people new life on the outside via social work, and offering them new life on the inside, which then transforms into them giving people new life on the outside and offering them new life on the inside(Christ) and etc., etc.
Debbie
I would feel a whole lot more comfrotable if you would have completed that thought.
Agree 101% Jack.
Tyler said:
“Its a Gospel issue in that the Gospel effects everything. Even the small things. Like a Gospel Centered view of race. The Gospel changes everything.”
Amen and Amen Tyler.
Rick Patrick,
What are you talking about?
Alan Cross,
What are you asking about?
These speeches are for the media DL.
Even though the speakers are quick to indict the churches they represent, this is not primarily about the churches….it’s about the speakers.
Why not engage the ideas and stop the personal attacks on the motives and integrity of other believers.
You admitted you haven’t watched. How do you know the motives and intent of the speakers?
Have read the available texts and excerpts Dave. That’s all I need.
Still looking for an explanation of Redneck Theology.
I’m from northwest Caddo Parish LA. Lotsa rednecks working on farms and drilling rigs.
Would like to know from the ERLC crowd how they plan to remove our influence from local churches
“These speeches are for the media DL.
Even though the speakers are quick to indict the churches they represent, this is not primarily about the churches….it’s about the speakers.”
Double Bingo. It is what is called a “positioning” issue. It is like shooting fish in a barrel to be quite honest.
I really hate doing this because I consider it unseemly but to illustrate my point. Here is a conference “talking” about the issue while I am simply “living” my life. This evening I was involved in a secular event for teens as the “gopher” mom. I was helping the event leaders. One was a delightful black Muslim woman who covers and the other was a black man in his 30’s who teaches middle school boys at an inner city school. He is very handsome/sharp and I am toying with fixing him up with a friend of mine.
Tomorrow I will go work on a project in the worst neighborhood in town where about 80% of the adults I will work with are black. I will be an equal with some and lower to others in the project. IOW: It is not whitey coming to fix the poor people in a bad neighborhood as is so often portrayed. And that is a pretty typical day. I am a Born again believer in all these venues just doing life.
(And to even go back further my 1st grade SS teacher was black!)
Where have you people been? I am really sorry Russ Moore has such thinking about people who have more pigment in their skin than others. (TIC)
Here is what I want to know. What will this racial reconciliation “look like”? How will it be measured so that we can announce it is a success? And how come nobody is noting this country elected a black president not once but twice?
Can we possibly move on and see people on an individual basis as actual people and simply love them as we go about our lives as believers?
You guys are killing me here. Good grief. Go and listen. How hard is that unless too many facts would get in the way of your whining.
Debbie
Sorry but not in the mood for it tonight.
You are out of your league. Have you ever during the sixties been in the streets advocating better racial equality? No? I didn’t think so. I have. Have you ever gone to pastor a church when you were 30 being paid more money than you ever dreamed but needed to resign because the deacons told you to stop visiting on the South Side? No? I didn’t think so. I have! Have you ever uprooted your family having no place to go because you were pastoring a church that would not allow Blacks to be baptized? No? I didn’t think so. I have! Have you ever pastored a metro mid city church in a changing neighborhood that became 30% Black and watch a Godly group of deacons lead the church to become 30% Black? No? I didn’t think so. I have!
Sorry Debbie…when you have been bruised and bloodied then speak to this “whiner”. “Whining”? “Lack of facts”? I think not. I repeat, we don’t need another sermon, we know why is right and what to do. It is time for action…no it is well past time for action. I don’t need to listen to the sermon. I have heard them many times. I have herd them from the best.
(Dave I realize this is over the top feel free to delete)
DL: I was in grade school in the 60’s, but was active even then against racism.Your comment to me then puzzles me even more as to why you believe your other comments are aok? I would think you would be glad for this conference.
You admittedly have not listened to the messages, claiming that you have heard it before. How do you know if you do not listen to them. Out of my league, hardly.
Debbie
Tell me, how many conferences does one need to hear before one will act. A conference is a conference is a conference. Action is where the..well… action is. I like conferences. The seats are comfortable, the food is good, I see good friends, all on my churches dollar. It beats the stuffings out of getting fired because of your stand on race.
I think Alan gave a most excellent answer DL.
Debbie
Alan always makes excellent comments.
Go to http://www.erlc.com click on the stream link where it has you fill out a small form, then listen to the messages.
Debbie
Why?
I realize Dr. Moore inspires a lot of hate. Never understood why. Once again I will say he proclaimed Gods word with boldness.
He made a strong defense of the importance of racial reconciliation in the gospel.
Those that are interested will watch the video of Dr. Moore’s message.
Others will question his motives and do pick at him without even giving him a hearing. I’m going to supper and then there’s more messages. Won’t be engaging the comments unless I see one that is a question or that engages what he said.
Dave, I agree with you. I have never heard him say anything that should inspire hate. I’ve already said I’ve not listened to the message because I have been teaching all afternoon.
Some of the “hate” (I’m speaking of the milder version) is a general distrust for Baptist leadership that arose out of the long battle during the CR. When everyone the room is slinging mud from all sides everyone leaves feeling dirty.
I think this “nit-picking” (hate) is at least in part an unintended consequence of a necessary battle. Add to that the increasing divide between the local church and the denomination in general and I can see where some of the “hatred” comes from.
That does not make it right of course. It does offer some explanation perhaps.
It’s one thing for a family member to point out my flaws, but when someone I perceive is living in an Ivory Tower does it, I tend to recoil. Every criticism Moore (et. al.) make in regard to me may be absolutely on the mark but will likely not find fertile soil because I just feel so disconnected from them as people.
Again, I’m not saying my feelings are justified, but they are real.
I have to dig down deep in my devotion to hear what I need to hear even when the messenger is not someone I have any reason to believe really cares about me. In fact, how could he (or the others). They don’t even know I exist.
Now, here’s a take away: how much more effective would multiple conferences be if they were held say at the State Convention level, or even better at the Associational level where real personal interaction can take place?
This is a piggy-back response to D.L.’s “point #1” below, or above, or somewhere.
“I realize Dr. Moore inspires a lot of hate”
Hate? Seriously?
I certainly do not “hate” Russell Moore. But when his first five staff members included five Gospel Coalitionists, only two of whom were Southern Baptists, I could not help but question whether his greatest sympathies did not lie more with the Gospel Coalitionists than with the Southern Baptists paying the bills.
He is unlike me in so many ways–more of a Democrat than a Republican politically, more of a Calvinist than a Traditionalist theologically and more of a Communitarian than a Libertarian philosophically.
I’m tired of him (a) making fun of dispensationalists, (b) criticizing Southern Baptists for telling the kids to “get off my lawn,” and (c) appearing to throw in the towel and push people away from the strong, bold, cultural engagement of Land-Dobson-Falwell-Reagan Christian conservatives.
I think his positions are confusing to both the media and to other Southern Baptists. In the name of “giving up on the culture wars” he seems to have thrown in the towel when it comes to taking a bold and powerful, counter-cultural stand for righteousness.
No, I do not hate Moore, and I occasionally agree with him. But his overall philosophy, I think, is destined to fail. He alienates his base of Southern Baptists on the right without picking up any more support or favor from the left. It is strategically, politically and philosophically a mistake, in my humble opinion.
Rick, just for the record, I put the word “hate” in quotation marks because I do not agree it is a good word to use.
I think it is inflammatory and really makes the discussion less helpful.
Having said that, I don’t think you present the strongest argument against Moore’s position simply by outlining how different he is from you.
Some might think you are implying that your position is correct by default.
I do agree with you I have been somewhat confused by positions he has taken, for a few, but just not in sync with many.
When disagreement us characterized as hate you have shown you do not have a good position to stand on.
Jack,
Thanks. I did understand your position that “hate” was too strong a word–and I agree.
By the way, I pointed out that Moore was different from me, not to hold myself up as a perfect standard, but merely to explain how we are, within the same denomination, almost polar opposites in many ways.
I was trying to explain why I think I have such a hard time with some of his comments and actions. We do clash a bit–on many levels.
Rick, I got that perfectly. I think many would stretch your point to make it look like you were making yourself the standard.
I think what you show is that though SB’s have always had differences, they seem to be much more strident and varied these days than in the past.
For me, I feel a disconnect, as I said, with Moore on several levels also. I felt much more in tune with Land, though I’ve never really examined why.
I suspect that on many levels I had a sense of camaraderie with Land that I have yet to establish with any of our national leaders, today.
Also, Rick, I think you and I would have differences of perspective on many issues but they would be different versions of a common belief.
That’s how I’ve felt many times over the last 40 years, but there always seemed to be that “connection” that kept me firmly set in the SB concrete–and that sure seems like a bad metaphor in so many ways.
These “disagreements” show why the SBC has not progressed racially. These comments are pretty unbelievable. Especially coming from church going Christians and in some cases here ministers.
Well there ya have it. When you do not have anything substantial you can always attack the calling. As far as “has not progressed racially” goes such statements are just flat out wrongheaded. These exaggerated statements never further discussions.
I think this conference is a very good beginning toward Dwight McKissic’s dream.
Sorry, Debbie. Remember we are “willfully blind” when it comes to racial issues.
“These “disagreements” show why the SBC has not progressed racially. ”
Fred Luter does not count?
Lydia: Fred Luter was a start, but not far enough. Again, this is 2015 and all you can give me is Fred Luter? All this country can give is Obama as the first black President? The Civil Rights movement was in the 1960’s. You do the math.
I was sitting by Richard Land and visiting with him during the first session. I do not think he would agree with your characterization. Richard Land was a bold and courageous leader in the area of racial reconciliation (against a lot of opposition from Southern Baptists who didn’t think he was conservative enough on these questions). If anything said this morning troubled him, I wasn’t able to tell it.
I can certainly AMEN that Richard Land was a bold and courageous leader in the area of racial reconciliation–an effort I clearly favor as well–despite my concerns over the manner in which Moore has addressed this issue relative to Ferguson, Eric Garner, etc.
I would not expect the former ERLC President to speak against or be troubled by the current one in any way. Still, I believe one can observe a clear difference in the way Land and Moore approach this and other issues, and I prefer Land’s approach.
Rick,
Land focused more on politics and getting candidates elected as his strategy to bring change. He fought the issues of the day from a culture war perspective. That was the way of the Relgious Right at the time. I did not disagree with Land’s positions overall, but him wanting to marry the Republican Party and have a ring put on our finger was his weakness (1998 quote).
Rick, you seem to want political dominion and to have righteousness enforced through Law. I get that and understand that desire and agree that all law is a reflection of value and morality on some level or another. The problem is that we were NEVER going to win this war in the period of 1970-2010 when the Falwells, Dobsons, Lands, and others of the Religious Right that you admire so much rose up and tried to “save” America – even if we did win many battles for a time.
The reason that it wasn’t going to happen is because Evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular DID NOT rise up and repent and do justice for the least of these or those oppressed in the previous 150 years before that on the issue of Race, Slavery, Segregation, etc. We went along with it and arranged America to promote and defend our own way of life at the great expense of others. We violated Scripture and sided with oppression so that we could have our society and our culture.
When it all came to a head, we had chances to repent. If Southern Baptists would have repented in 1955 or 1960 or 1961 or 1963 or 1965 and would have led the way in “tearing down the wall” of segregation and oppression of black people instead of being the chaplain to the South as it was FORCED by the Federal Government to do the right thing, then would we have had the response that we had in other areas from 1965 on?
The weakness of the Religious Right is that it was fighting the results of the disillusionment that its own previous positions on Race had fostered as we did not challenge our culture but were subverted by it in the South and in other parts of America too. As the Baby Boom generation was coming of age and looked for guidance and wisdom and instead saw fire hoses and police dogs and bombings and beatings of people who simply wanted to vote on their TVs, they began to question authority. So, many in that generation looked elsewhere and rejected their parent’s “way of life” and rebelled and embraced other perspectives that were being offered that seemed more tolerant and respectful of human difference and ultimately of desire.
The way that Evangelicals fought against the cultural shift in the 1970-2010 period was ultimately self defeating. It was destined to fail from the beginning because it was another attempt to promote, preserve, and defend our own “way of life” – Except on the Abortion issue, which truly was focused on the least of these and, it should be mentioned, that is the area where we have had a great deal of success and have changed many hearts and minds.
What is being addressed at this conference has VERY much to do with positioning Southern Baptists and Evangelicals to be a witness for Christ in a post-Christian America. Moore’s strategy here is what is needed for this time and it is the strategy that we should have adopted in 1965. Or 1845.
Can you tell me how Moore and Land differ on any significant moral/ethical issue? Has Moore changed any position that Land held? He might take a different approach to engaging a culture that is no longer welcoming of our views, but how has he abandoned any belief of Southern Baptists or disagreed with the substance of Land’s positions on anything?
If the reason that people don’t like Moore is because of his style and approach, that seems to be shortsighted. Things in our country have changed quite a bit from 1988. Different approaches are needed.
Alan,
I assure you I do not want *political dominion and righteousness enforced through the Law,* as you surmised. I simply want us to stand up boldly and prophetically against sin. This seems missing today.
When people talk about giving up on the culture wars, it too often sounds like simple defeatist resignation. That is what I oppose. “Aw, shucks, we lost the Culture Wars.” I think we should go down swinging until Jesus raptures us…and it does not seem to me that we are still doing that, no matter how it plays on CNN.
If I understand your middle paragraphs, you view the entire issue of Christianity’s influence in America (family values, abortion, homosexuality, morality, drugs, faith, etc.) from a “race relations” prism, that if we had only done better with race, we would have been more effective at addressing all these other sins. I respectfully disagree with that analysis.
I will grant you that most of Moore’s policy matters are similar to Land’s, if not exactly the same. But the WSJ and other media outlets, not to mention Southern Baptists ourselves, have been quite confused by his approach. Many have suggested we must have changed our positions.
Basically, I think Moore’s communitarian approach is too often and easily confused with simple liberalism. That, combined with his strong rhetoric against old guard Southern Baptists and apparent alliances with those on the left, create the impression that the SBC is no longer as socially and morally conservative as we used to be.
Thanks for your thoughts, and the exchange.
Rick
You make valid points. The next “battle” will be the same sex marriage issue. According to Dr. Iorg it is going to get very messy for the church.
While your points in general are valid, the mistake that has been made was to marry our ideology and theology to a particular political party. That made us more politicians than a prophetic voice crying in the wilderness
Rick,
Can you please share with me what you think 40 years of culture war have accomplished?
What are the gains? Where have conservative Bible believing Christians made an impact on the culture via the tactics you are lamenting?
Ryan,
I think your question misses my point. Even if the culture continues its long slide into immorality and decay, I don’t believe we should stop holding forth the light and truth of the gospel and declaring in a counter-cultural way that the solutions this world offers are all wrong and destined to fail.
The “gains” are faithfulness to stand boldly against culture rather than caving in and just accepting it as normal with little to no pushback. We don’t have to “win” but we do have to “stand firm.”
By the way, I don’t think we’ve been fighting for 40 years. We gave up about 10-15 years ago. Look how much worse it has gotten since we stopped!
Rick,
No, I do not see everything that happened from 1965 till the present through a “racial prism.” I apologize if I miscommunicated that. What I am saying is that America sought to deal with its historic sin of racism and the resulting segregation and oppression of African Americans 50 years ago. That reckoning was led by the church, but it was the black church in the South, largely acting in isolation from the white church in the South that either ignored the movement or opposed it outright. We should have joined in.
I am saying that because we were wrong there, then we were not able to effectively speak into the issues to come. Everyone sins and everyone makes mistakes. I am not trying to throw stones. But, what I am saying is that our history limited our ability to lead effectively during the years of the Religious Right. We had a majority of people on our side, but our argument was not convincing in a sustained way because it was deemed to be self serving. And, on many issues it was. Not abortion, though. And, we should not be surprised that our shift from protesting at abortion clinics to engaging with unwed mothers and pregnancies and adoptions and foster parenting and developing a holistic approach has done much to change hearts and minds – that and the science of when life begins.
I DO NOT see everything through a racial prism. Please hear me. But, I DO see our ineffectiveness in changing our culture as related to what happened 50 years ago. Dr. King said that clearly in his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.” He said that future generations would no longer see the church as an authority on how to live because of what was happening on Race right then.
Now, the really good news is that we can regain real authority through dying to ourselves and living for Christ. God always redeems and restores and that is the story of Scripture. I believe that Dr. Moore is repositioning us to regain that authority as a witnessing minority of aliens in a strange land and ambassadors of Christ. We do not have to hold power, nor should we try. But, rather, we should witness to another way – the Way of Jesus.
The reason that the mainstream media is confused by Dr. Moore is because they expect the battle hardened rhetoric of the Religious Right and they don’t understand what he is witnessing to. They expect a grab for power. They do not expect a loving, humble call for righteousness with nothing to gain for ourselves.
The SBC started in error when it came to Race/Slavery and because we did not correct that error on our own and we clung to Southern Culture, we suffered through the Civil War, Reconstruction, and did not help to liberate African Americans but watched while the government came in and did what we refused to do. So, we should not be surprised when people trust the government more than they do us because they saw the government set people free when we wanted to keep them bound. That is not my position, but I understand that that is what others think. Dr. Moore sees that too and is trying to change the approach.
Rick,
You said we “gave up” the culture wars 10-15 years ago?
No we did not. That is historically untrue. In 2004, Religious Conservatives passed law after law across the country in favor of Biblical Marriage. Evangelicals elected George Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Then, the Iraq War happened. Southern Baptists supported that war with vigor, even though it violated Just War Theory. That war wrecked Bush’s presidency and the Republican Party. In 2008, instead of getting behind Mike Huckabee, all of the leaders of the Religious Right supported other candidates like Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. The leaders of the Religious Right fractured and supported candidates that did not represent Evangelical concerns because they were more focused on national security issues, tax cuts, and access to power with the GOP. It was a sad spectacle.
The Religious Right died in the 2008 election from self-inflicted wounds. There was nothing left to follow because the movement itself was exhausted. It focused on the wrong things.
We didn’t give up. The movement itself imploded. And, trying harder at the same things that clearly aren’t profitable is not the answer. I am glad that we have a leader like Dr. Moore who can recognize these things.
Alan
I wish I had said that. I do to want to put words into your mouth but the word that comes to mind is “credibility”. Dr. King gained credibility in part because he spoke from or to hostile surroundings (i.e. Birmingham jail). He was truly a prophetic voice crying in the wilderness. Perhaps we need to get a little more “messy” with our involvement…perhaps we can regain credibility. Maybe we should take vacation and spend three weeks in Ferguson and get our hands burned a little. Not really a suggestion, just thinking out loud….trying to grapple with what I feel will be a worsening situation.
Alan,
Thanks again for your interaction here. We differ both on the value of the “Christ against culture” view and on the best strategy going forward.
We may quibble on exactly when the Religious Right took its foot off the gas pedal, but I certainly agree with you that it has lost its way.
When I’m lost in the woods, I want to get back on the path. I think it’s the right path, and we have just been wandering a bit.
You see us as being on the wrong road entirely, calling for a completely different approach.
I can appreciate and respect our differences. Blessings to you, your family and your church.
Have you folks not read the tweets and some of the stuff that has been out there about Dr. Moore. I did not say you guys were hateful though there are a couple who have come close.
But a lot of the tweets and blogs out there about him are nothing but hateful.
I did not say ALL criticisms of him were hateful. However those who criticize without bothering to listen to the message can hardly be expected to have their criticisms taken seriously.
Scott was explaining Dr Moore’s motives, heart attitudes and purposes – all without bothering to even listen to the message. DL said he didn’t need to listen to it to dismiss it’s import.
I’ll bet they’d be furious if someone did that to them!
They most likely would be furious if it happened to them. It is also wrong to do as they did. Assigning hate to their actions is no different than what they have done and only works to further inflame discussions.
Mark: I don’t know how this discussion has not become inflamed by some of the flaming comments here. Something is being done, finally. A conference is a start. A place for leadership to gather and spell out the problem plainly, coming to a solution or at least beginning to, but is it praised? Is it prayed for? Is there one Amen? No.
Without listening to one sermon which is available online, the flaming begins. This conversation was inflamed before Dave or I or Alan commented. I was inflamed reading them quite honestly.
Lydia: The problem is that the SBC does not have enough people that are not white in office or in churches of the SBC. They are left out. This conference isn’t necessarily about your life. It’s about churches and the SBC needing to understand how those like Dr. McKissic feel and the lack of people of color being in leadership. Something is being done. It’s a start.
Wouldn’t poor gasoline on a fire would ya Debbie?
Debbie
You get inflamed????? Noooo! 🙂
Just picking at you girl, not being serious
Dave
No, did not say dismiss it. Said I have heard it many times from the best. All I am saying is less preaching and more doing. Good grief Dave you have been around long enough to know that we have conferences and conferences ad nauseum. Little changes. I repeat I would rather our leaders outline a practical way in which Pastors can change their backyard…backyard by backyard. We have practical conferences on church planting, farm clubs etc. Why not the same practical training for this area.
Yes, I admit I am a little excited. However I see earmarks that this nation could face racial issues that would take us back to the 60’s. So… we hold another conference. Just don’t get it.
Just do not see the benefit of another conference.
DL,
I agree that we have a lot of conferences, but we also have a lot of church services and a lot of preaching. What good does any of it do? Well, I guess it depends on the preaching. The Bible that we both believe says that faith comes from hearing the Word and that obedience comes from faith. So, the Word has to be preached and heard, faith then arises, and then obedience occurs. And that faith without works is dead.
So, having conferences or Sunday services and preaching is not the problem. The problem is that we hear the Word but do not do what it says so we are like the man who builds his house on sand and it falls with a crash when the storm comes.
Southern Baptists know what to do on Race – or we should. As Philippians 2 says, we are to put the interests of others ahead of ourselves and consider others better than ourselves if we have anything of the Spirit in us. Until sacrificial love toward others begins to flow out of us in obedience to the Word that we have heard then none of this matters too much.
But, the problem is not with the conferences or with Sunday church, if the Word is being preached – and I can say that what I heard here yesterday was pretty incredible and NOT what I have heard at other SBC events – but the problem is with us who hear and do not obey. We build our house on the sand.
Dr. Cross
I have total agreement basically with what you have said. I would repeat that I am to talking about the pastor in his pulpit. The operative phrase here is “in his pulpit”. I am talking about national conferences. The pastor can change his backyard if he has the tools with which to do it. As you have pointed out he knows why he should do, the question is does he have the tools with which to do it. My backyard in St. Louis was changed partly because of principles and training from Dr. Pinson and even more because of Godly deacons who determined that the the church would present the same gospel and invitation on thursday night visitation to the person standing in the door regardless of the color of his skin. I could get on board with another conference if the Pastor was required to take his deacons.
In my state the race issue is the Native American. You are totally correct, my Pastors want to reach and bridge gap with them. They lament that they cannot get it done. We have had trained associational leadership for decades on a myriad of issues i.e. evangelism, how to use the Sunday School literature, how to partner with a church plant. Why not how to bridge the gap between the native american and the African American. At any rate the is what we have tried to do in my backyard.
Dr. Cross, I am just saying that if one could receive a Ph.D in conferences attended I would have three. I have just seen more lasting change when things are done closer to home. This is a very doable strategy for the ERLC.
Dialogue with you is always a pleasure…thanks for the interaction.
Thank you, DL. I am not a “Dr,” though. Just a lowly pastor with an M.Div. But, thanks for the assumption. 🙂
I agree with you than we need more action than words. Absolutely. That is why I don’t go to evangelism conferences or many pastor’s conferences anymore, for the most part.
The SBC has never had a conference on this issue, to my knowledge. Or, at least not in many years. So, I think that getting the message out there can be helpful. Hopefully, it will be as you say and action will result.
Alan Cross (M.Div not P.hD. :-))
Your last line is certainly worthy of our prayers and seeking the face of God.
Sheesh. Go back and at least read my words Dave.
I said I did not doubt sincerity, motive is what I sometimes question. I’ve done that with my own kids and you have to.
I swear you can twist a two-by-four without kerfing and water exposure.
Nice wood-working analogy… 😉
Thank you Andy, I take you’ve breathed a little saw-dust yourself.
The truth can be brutal. I commend Russell Moore for his message that confronts the historic racist roots of the SBC. His message would have been more credible had this conference been held at the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi where less than three years ago the church refused to allow a black couple to have their wedding on church property.
Actions are important. Using the autonomy of the local congregation as an excuse, racism (and the pastors who practice racism) continue to be tolerated in the SBC.
Here’s a lady who has absolutely no background in Southern Baptist History.
Let’s talk about the color of Easter Eggs.
Scott
Would love to talk about Easter eggs. The church I attend, where my son is pastor, in Laurel Montana will stuff and put out 50,000 eggs this year for an easter egg hunt. Last year we have a little over 3,000 at the event. For us Easter eggs are our friends 🙂
Big fan of Easter Eggs here D.L.
pickled, egg salad, quail, Reeces and Cadbury.
Red and yellow black and white….they are precious in my sight.
He mentioned that church…both their sin and their genuine repentance.
Dave,
Is there a link to Dr. Moore’s sermon? I am getting the livestream but cannot find individual segments.
Techno challenged,
wilbur
From what I understand, it is a sociological demonstrable fact that relatively powerful cultural majorities in any society have a tendency to unfairly use that power in order to maintain their position of relative power, which, whether motivated by hate or not, translates into keeping relatively unpowerful minorities out of power. As white Christians in the US, we have often not been immune to that. It is human nature. But the ethics of the gospel and the love modeled by Jesus call for us to lay down our positions of power and privilege and to become the servants of all, and to work for and support justice for the oppressed and relatively unpowerful.
I don’t know if this is offensive to some of you. But as I understand the statements in this post, it is saying essentially the same thing as Dr. Moore—only he is using more colorful language and rhetoric in order to get his point across and make more impact.
Just read what David Rogers said. Absolutely dead on.
And, read it again.
“Lydia: Fred Luter was a start, but not far enough. Again, this is 2015 and all you can give me is Fred Luter? All this country can give is Obama as the first black President? The Civil Rights movement was in the 1960’s. You do the math”
What is the quota?
Lydia,
I would say that the quota is more than one. If 20% of the SBC churches are ethnic minority/majority, and if 36% of America are non-white, and if over 50% of America will be non-white in approximately 25 years, then I would say that the quota is more than one.
Doesn’t the issue of numbers (if quotas are the norm) run a straight line back to the autonomy of the local congregation when it comes to representation?
Local churches pick who they want to be their leaders, multi-cultural or not.
The SBC nor the ERLC as tails have any power to wag the dog. They can have conferences on any subject they wish until the world looks level.
These events will only affect the media and public perception of the denomination but will not touch the operative dynamic at work in individual local churches.
Scott
Last paragraph…BINGO…the task of the agencies should be practical ways and training on a more local level that could bring change.
Agreed. An approach like that would probably be most helpful to the aged members of local churches who are still “works in progress” in the area of race relations.
I fear our denominational leaders have publicly forced us back into a posture we thought we’d moved beyond 15-20 years ago.
Alan, the government including all its recepient organizations and most corporations are way ahead of the SBC in quota programs.
So why is there still a “race problem”?
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.
Mike,
“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.”
You have touched on the philosophical underpinnings here…individual (libertarian) versus group (communitarian).
I agree we should be passionate about racial reconciliation…along with a great many other social and moral issues.
Is marriage a “gospel” issue since it pictures Jesus and the church? Is honesty a “gospel” issue since it values truth? Is “abortion” a gospel issue since it emphasizes new life?
I think we can take almost any moral or social issue and connect lines to the gospel. I just don’t define gospel so broadly as to include everything under the sun.
Perhaps the Gospel Coalition has been using the term this way for a while. I don’t really know. But it would be nice for those who are using “gospel” as an adjective for everything to explain which issues they do NOT view as “gospel” issues, and why.
Rick,
I think most who use gospel as an adjective are often using it in the way that you just mentioned—drawing lines back to the gospel.
For me, I think there is a difference between what we ought to do in response to the gospel and in what the gospel has already accomplished.
I’d put something like honesty and even abortion in the former one. I.e. Because of the gospel we can live in honesty and we must live in honesty to accurately reflect Christ.
Where would I put racial reconciliation? I think it depends on what you are talking about. A person who is a fundamental and philosophical racist is denying the gospel. Because the gospel is about God uniting men and women from all peoples. Such a one is denying what the gospel has already accomplished.
But if you are talking about application of this principle–rooting out a heart of racism, favoritism, self-centeredness, etc.–then I believe racial reconciliation is more about what we do in response to what Christ has already done.
I see a bit of both happening in this conference. But I don’t think in this particular instance it is unfit to say that racial reconciliation is a gospel issue.
Mike, that is definitely the over arching theme here at the conference. A too narrow living out of the gospel leads to division.
Good things happened in the conference this morning. You know…EARLY this morning.
Somehow, those things seem not to have been live-blogged. Anyone wish to offer a theory as to why?