We had a discussion today on our private “editorial board forum.” That’s a fancy term for our private Facebook group that started out as our Pastors’ Conference advisory board. Now it’s where we gather to solve the world’s problems, talk about sports, and discuss issues related to this blog. “Brain trust” might be a generous term at times, but it’s the closest thing SBC Voices has.
Today our attention turned to our recent discussions of race. Our contributors here have a wide range of view on many subjects, but on issues related to racial reconciliation, we tend to operate from the same playbook. We believe that tearing down the walls of division between races and working to unite under the banner of Christ is an imperative of the gospel and we also think it is one of the chief issues facing the SBC today. That is obvious from the fact that we have made this a focus of many of our recent posts.
No doubt the discussions on these posts have become tense and frustrating. We have been annoyed at the responses of some of our readers and some of you have felt that we were unfairly painting you as racists for not agreeing with our views. We disagree with the characterization, but as we looked at the discussions we understood why people felt that way. Our goal is to bring people over to our side, not to drive them into an intransigent defense of positions we believe are unhelpful and in some cases harmful. We want to convince people not coerce them. Of course, we also recognize that some people will not be convinced and confronting them in their wrong views is the only option. We want that to be the last resort, not a first response.
So, we are working through how to keep doing what we are doing; how to convince people that racial reconciliation is a gospel priority, and how to convince people that some of their rhetoric is harmful, unwise, and misguided, without unnecessarily putting people on the defensive.
I like to categorize. Here are some of the characters I’ve observed in this discussion.
The Cast of Characters
1. There are racists in the SBC. Make no mistake about it. They are here. I do not believe they exist among our denominational structure and there are very few pastors who fall into this category, but there are members of SBC churches who hold to despicable, dark, even Satanic views on racial issues. There were probably Southern Baptists in Charlottesville. I believe they are a minority among us, but they are here.
2. There are system defenders in the SBC. This is a much larger group. They do not actively harbor hatred toward Black people, but they love their way of life and do not want the “system” to change. They are true conservatives – wanting to “conserve” what exists. Some love the culture of the South and so resisted on the Confederate Flag issue. They don’t mind people of other races taking part in our denomination as long as they don’t change the way we do things. Culturally, politically, ecclesiologically – they just don’t want things to change.
System defenders resist most efforts toward racial reconciliation because they bring change. Black believers often don’t share our political outlook and many of our cultural assumptions. They don’t accept our system as right and good and best. They see things from a completely different perspective and system defenders do not like their rigid world view threatened.
3. The ‘whatabouters” abound. When someone brings up racism, they respond with a “whatabout” statement. “Whatabout. BLM?” Whatabout this? Whatabout that? They refuse to deal with racism unless every form of hatred out there is also condemned. We cannot condemn white supremacy unless we also condemn the Antifa and BLM and you name it. They specialize in moral equivalence arguments.
They do not deny that racism exists and protest loudly that they are not racists, but insist that white supremacy and racism only be dealt with as a part of the spectrum of evil, not as a unique or separate thing. If you don’t deal with ALL sin you can’t deal with any sin.
4. There are “gospel issue” folks like most of us here at Voices, who believe from Revelation 7, Ephesians 2, and other passages that the formation of One Body out of many nations on earth is a key purpose of the death of Christ – therefore a “gospel issue.” We cannot ignore it. The racially divided church is not fulfilling the purpose of God. We believe that it is incumbent on the church to address the effects of 400 years of racism and do better than we have been doing.
Of course, there are more than these four categories, but these are the main groupings I’ve seen in our discussions here. And, unfortunately, there’s plenty of the “works of the flesh” in all our discussions!
Going Forward
Our views and approaches are not identical – we have had some disagreements among the Brain Trust about approaches and such. But in general, we agree that racial reconciliation is a core gospel issue for the church. Many of you do not see it that way. Of course, that is going to lead to some tension and conflict. Discussions of race are always fraught with tension and full of land mines. We understand that. Discussions of race are not going to be easy – ever. But we want to make our agenda plain and clear and share our heart about tactics.
But we want to make our agenda and purposes as plain as we can. It is not our purpose to be disrespectful or disdainful, but we are passionate. We are constantly trying to figure out how to do this better, but make no mistake, we are going to continue to do this! So, here are some of the things we have discussed.
1. Alan Cross uses the term “tell a better story.” That’s what we want to challenge the SBC to do. For most of 200 years we’ve told a story to the world about race that has not been the greatest. We want to challenge our beloved denomination to “tell a better story.” Speak love. Speak unity. Speak reconciliation. Condemn racism in every form. Sorry, but we are not planning to back down on this issue.
2. We at Voices are not infallible (duh?). We understand that disagreeing with us doesn’t make you a racist. We really do.
Because we are passionate in stating our views we get that a lot. “You are calling everyone who disagrees a racist.” Actually, we haven’t done that. Because we say we don’t think the way you respond is good does not mean we are calling you racist.
- If we believe a comment is RACIST – it gets deleted. BOOM! We do not tolerate racist comments. You would receive either a private or public rebuke and would go on moderation. No tolerance. If you are commenting here, it’s because we HAVEN’T labeled you a racist.
- We have a couple of our regulars who push that line from time to time but don’t cross it. They make comments that horrify us but don’t quite cross the line into racism.
- We have a few folks who seem to resist EVERYTHING that the SBC ever does to promote racial harmony and reconciliation – I mean everything. Every resolution, every action, every effort – they loudly claim not to be racist but oppose every effort we do against racism. We form some opinions about these folks – I won’t lie to you.
All of that to say, we do not believe the vast majority of you are racist. If we did, your comments would be BLOCKED!
3. However, we do believe some of you hold views that hinder the process of racial reconciliation. The system defenders and whatabouters may not have racism in their hearts but are often defending an unhealthy status quo and hindering necessary changes. We ask you to understand that in our view, defending the status quo, being a “system defender” or a “Whatabouter” is harmful to the godly work of racial reconciliation. That doesn’t make you a racist, but it makes you a hindrance!
So, we can say, “What you are doing is hindering the process of reconciliation” without believing that you are a racist. We believe that some of you do things that “tell the wrong story” and that hurt our Black brothers and sisters, damaging our witness in this world. So, we confront your words, your tactics, and your logic, because we believe they have effects we hope you don’t intend, hurting the divinely commanded process of building One Body from many nations.
4. We also realize that stridency can be counterproductive. We cannot back off or compromise, but there comes a point when our frustration and irritation rises to a level where our rhetoric escalates. People dig into positions we don’t want them to hold on to and would like to convince them to abandon. We want to convince you to join the racial reconciliation movement if you have not already. We want to convince you to stop whatabouting and system defending. We cannot just “agree to disagree” because the issues at stake, for us, are rooted in the gospel. Some of you just won’t be convinced, no matter what, but we want to be productive and redemptive where we can be.
So, we are working on “telling a better story” and telling our story a better way. Ultimately, though, we believe it is the truth of God and we trust that the Spirit of God will convince you. We just don’t want to hinder that with anything we would do. It is tricky and we will never get it perfectly right.
We will never stop trying.
Scriptures to Ponder
Revelation 7:9-10 After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:
Salvation belongs to our God,
who is seated on the throne,
and to the Lamb!
Ephesians 2:13-18 But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who made both groups one and tore down the dividing wall of hostility. In his flesh, 15 he made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations, so that he might create in himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace. 16 He did this so that he might reconcile both to God in one body through the cross by which he put the hostility to death. 17 He came and proclaimed the good news of peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one spirit to the Father.
Obviously racism is a BIG problem and one that is not ever going to go away. HOWEVER, we can and should address the issue both in and out of the SBC. Deliberate actions all SBC pastors can take: 1) Befriend black pastors in your community and Association. 2) Invite Black pastors/evangelists to speak in your church and black singers to sing. 3) Participate in community organizations that allow you to interact with minorities and other ‘not like me’ people. If you do not have that in your community, get involved in the closest larger community that does. THE TIME FOR… Read more »
Allen,
Good suggestions
David, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We Christians need to be more vocal about what walking with Christ looks like and more committed to living it out in a lost world. We need to be willing to move from what we may feel, to how Jesus would have us live and treat others. In the end, what we feel really doesn’t matter much, only what Jesus says. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
Seems like a beam and speck issue on all sides. Maybe trying that approach might help. I come in between the “whatabouters” and your position. Sin is sin, but some sins need more direct attention. For white evangelicals the beam is a lot larger than the other persons speak, so we need hard line approaches to eradicate the beam. You all though have to admit that at times the other ethnicities have a speck that grows into a beam at times, maybe not so much from inside the SBC as out, but nonetheless, it needs to be addressed. All ethnicities… Read more »
Contrary to what some think, I believe we have to take sides and it has to be the side of the oppressed not the oppressor. To not take sides blames the oppressed and gives power to the one oppressing(racist, alt-right, white supremacist). So yeah, I am taking sides and how.
“To not take sides blames the oppressed and gives power to the one oppressing(racist, alt-right, white supremacist).”
For me, I don’t want to take the side of the alt right or the alt left.
Amen, amen. Yes
I don’t know what was discussed about the discussions but there is a marked difference between the three articles on Charlottesville and the last big racial series here, the SBC alt-right. The former, latest here, was much improved by the absence of some commenters. The articles by Alan Cross, Kyle James Howard, and Todd Benkert were all appropriate to the occasion and all were helpful in some ways. I thought Alan erred only slightly and I should have left that alone. It was a splendid, eloquent, and well written article (mebbe a teensy bit wordy). Kyle’s was interesting and informative… Read more »
It is not the articles, but the discussions that trouble us.
I don’t think any if us regret what we have written, but it is when we begin interacting with comments that frustrations sometimes arise.
But see that is debate and debate in the proper fashion seems to lack greatly in the SBC, between Calvinist and non-calvinist, between whites and blacks, between contemporary and traditional, between urban church planters and rural church planters. Name a category and I can get you that proper debate is lacking and broad generalizations abound. Don’t make it seem like you want to write your articles and then not be open for debate. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Dave – One of the problems (with this article) is the following comment… “We want to convince you to join the racial reconciliation movement if you have not already. We want to convince you to stop whatabouting and system defending. We cannot just “agree to disagree” because the issues at stake, for us, are rooted in the gospel. Some of you just won’t be convinced, no matter what, but we want to be productive and redemptive where we can be.” The whatabouters and system defending (as you seem to use it) on this forum want racial reconciliation. It seems they… Read more »
Jon, [and all] I agree with you. I work with black people every day. I went out to dinner with my wife Sunday, and the table next to ours had three white guys and two black men enjoying food and convo. A black lady at Giant Eagle let me use her store card to get a discount. The point is that in the everyday life around me I don’t see racism nor do I see traumatized-by- slavery black people. If i have no reason to notice, I don’t see skin color and it doesn’t seem that anyone else is either.… Read more »
BTW,
i forgot, which Sunday is National Reconciliation Day?
Mike W,
Sorry, I couldn’t find a command or suggestion to have such a day in the church. All I seem to find is worship the Lord day.
Can you point me to where in scripture I can find the idea of such?
Jon,
I think its every Sunday, at least
Jon,
or better yet, every day
Ephesians 4:32
Thanks Dave. I agree the tensions get high quickly on this subject and I know they do for me when I see attitudes I think are unhelpful. I think it’s a worthy goal to work harder to convince people and bring them along than to write them off and condemn them. The hardest part for me is that I like to keep my comments short (for sake of my time and for readability) so the comments section is probably not the best place to do that for me. Others will spend much longer writing and reading extended comments. I’m already… Read more »
Dave, I pretty much agree with your analysis. There may be another category of “Move On Already” people who believe America was doing better on these issues, for example, in the Bush administration. Their premise is that the more we talk about it the worse it actually gets. I don’t believe espousing the “Move On Already” philosophy defines a person as a racist. Morgan Freeman describes this view in this one-minute clip. http://bit.ly/1j4dT8F Another category might be the “Don’t Mess With History” crowd. Like it or not, we have flags and monuments and buildings that tell the story of our… Read more »
I will remember your “Don’t mess with history” advocacy and invoke it if someone ever tries to change the Abstract. Consistency and all.
But that is another discussion for another time.
Whether or not one is automatically defined as a “racist” by those positions, I think they both utterly fail to listen to the concerns of fellow believers who are black, who should be the first voices to whom we are willing to listen.
There’s a difference, of course…between the two…IF (and I’m not saying it is) the abstract is wrong, as the legality of slavery or segregation was wrong, then it should be changed, but neither requires Getting rid of Monuments to either Robert E Lee, or JP Boyce. You can change current actions and laws and documents and procedures without getting rid of every reminder of the past.
Dave,
Thank you. That is all.
James
I do not want to change the Abstract.
I could support, however, a proposal one day asking all of our seminaries to abide by the same confessional statement and no other. This would encourage the teaching of all SBC approved soteriological positions without bias at each of our seminaries.
The other way to balance matters would be to create specific seminaries for the promotion of specific views. For example, SWBTS could formally adopt The 2012 Traditional Statement in order to balance the use of the Abstract at SBTS.
But destroying history seems like a bad idea.
Brent,
Those who embrace the “Move On Already” view are not “utterly failing” to listen to black people as long as we can all agree that Morgan Freeman is black.
I realize there are black people who disagree with Freeman. But agreeing with one black man instead of another is not “utterly failing” to listen to the concerns of black people.
Rick,
I believe Dr. Patterson had to sign the Abstract when he was at Southeastern, and made sure all faculty signed it and taught within its boundaries. If I am wrong in this please correct me, but I believe my source is accurate.
James
Jim Forbis,
You are not wrong.
I thought you were against whataboutism. This is a perfect example of it.
Thank you for laying out your priorities on the issue of race. Western culture leaders assume that the church will go along with whatever the majority culture wants, however unbiblical it is. There is historical precedent for this. From 1619, when the first African-born slave was imported into Jamestown, Virginia, to 1865, slavery was legal in the southern United States. Plantation owners relied on the ability to control human capital to raise the crops that built their wealth. Anglican ministers were given instructions by their Bishop in London to offer Christian catechism classes to the slaves living on the parish… Read more »
“Whatever the “heritage” argument, it is a heritage that defended a wicked economic system that exploited people as bad as any communist government ever has. Confederate symbols should be in museums and parks, not on the main street or lawn of the capital buildings, where all people are equal under the law.” Too bad a thoughtful, lengthy comment was soiled by an intemperate last paragraph. If you don’t know what it is you are labeling a “heritage” argument (“whatever…it is”), then how can you pronounce judgment on it? This is the language that stifles discussion. “Confederate symbols” is an overly… Read more »
Mr. Thornton, Thank you for your response and I apologize for any offense my short hand created. I have seen the argument that those celebrating the Confederacy are motivated to honor their “heritage”; they are not seeking to promulgate “hate” of other people. I am a daughter of the south so I get the desire to honor ancestors who fought and died for “their country.” That was Robert E. Lee’s motivation. However, our “country” is a part of a larger community that sees that heritage through the lens of the injustice of the Jim Crow system. Repentance is needed and… Read more »
No need for any apology.
I think, respectfully, that shorthand doesn’t work here. It’s a more complex matter. Maybe you know what you mean by “repentance is needed” but I don’t. By whom? For what? Who is “hiding behind heritage?” I’m open to being persuaded but what is offered is a demand (plea?) for repentance.
Thank you for asking for clarification. As a white southerner and as an American, I understand the emotional conflict. Americans see themselves as the good guys; the pure ones who get liberty and freedom right. We are not ones to admit that we are wrong easily or readily, generally speaking. I’ve been present at only one or two gatherings of Southern Baptists where we repented collectively of going along with what the culture expects. As a white southerner, whose ancestors fought in their state units for the Confederacy, I understand the desire to soften the memory of supporting a system… Read more »
Here is an article of 15 “theses” in support of moving Confederate monuments to places that exist to preserve history:
https://arcdigital.media/15-theses-about-confederate-iconography-80ce126ca5e7
He has previously expanded on what he means by the distinction between “forward-looking” and “backward-looking” monuments here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/confederate-monuments-belong-in-museums-not-public-squares/article/2007785
Interesting ideas. If the brain trust decides to explore this fully, those are worth reading.
Right, William Thornton.
I have been thinking through the whole “monuments” thing, but not being a southerner, I am not sure my opinions hold much weight.
I thought this guy’s views were interesting, but some of the language was confusing to me.
Laverne S- “Whatever the “heritage” argument, it is a heritage that defended a wicked economic system that exploited people as bad as any communist government ever has. Confederate symbols should be in museums and parks”
The comparison is obscene. The Confederates didn’t slaughter 100 million people. They didn’t liquidate entire populations by starvation. And they didn’t work people to death in Gulags.
While the scale was certainly smaller, the comparison focuses on the fact of exploitation of weaker humans for economic gain. Another modern parallel could be the way factory owners exploited their workforce before the Labor movement helped changed the law.
Mrs. Smith is right about exploitation for economic gain. However, therein is the only point of her comparison that will hold historic scrutiny.
Slavery in America was always about economics. Men have always been willing to sale their own souls for money and it was not and is not a great leap for them to sale other people for money. Once you have sold your own soul, you care little for the souls of your fellow man.
Charlottesville is not the only place where these folks have showed up. In other communities their presence was tolerated with peaceful counter protest or simply ignored. I do not know why Charlottesville became so violent unless that is what somebody wanted all along, which is my suspicion. Our nation and the rule of law are in grave danger because of Charlottesville and other mob actions tearing down other statues in the name of ‘what is right’ vs. what is legal.
Comments discussing a particular person – pro or con – are not productive and and will not be permitted.
Here is something I posted on 316 Roundup. Would appreciate everyones thoughts… JUST FINISHED watching the last little bit of Trump’s crazy Press Conf and some Fox News Analysis. Nobody liked what Trump had to say. Many Christian voices are denouncing the Alt right in terms like ‘you cannot be a Christian and an alt righter or a KKK mbr, etc.’ I understand the alt-right needs to be denounced in the strongest terms. But here is my concern. We MUST admit that many SBCers and other evangelical Christians, even in the Jim Crow, recent past vs. Civil War past, were… Read more »
Allen, I’ll briefly attempt to answer this. My church would put any person found to be a vocal racist in either the blog-sphere or in public under church discipline. This also goes if they were members of the KKK, neo-Nazi movement, any alt/right, white nationalist, or white supremacist group. They would have the opportunity to repent and confess their sin privately to the elders and deacons and if that’s as far as it went then that would be fine. If though they were unrepentant and unapologetic after approaching them privately and then with the other elders and deacons we’d proceed… Read more »
Dave, one key thing to note about the Revelation reference is that the folks from every tribe, tongue, and nation are all members of the elect. Local churches don’t have that absolute benefit. This is why I think that Paul never commanded the local church to “look like Heaven”. There’s more of an emphasis in Scripture on spreading the gospel, discipling, and letting God change hearts. That’s ultimately where our focus and efforts should be, not criticizing churches who don’t look a certain way demographically.
Could it be that most are not so much racist as shielded by their white heritage and surroundings?
I am not a “Whatabouter”. You can call me that bro, but I am not. I understand that everybody is frustrated. So am I. You may be frustrated that I will not come around to your view that this issue has the primary importance it has to you. I share your thought that it is important – but to place it above the category of every sin to me is anathema = you have in my opinion become myopic and blind to everything else. Like Captain Ahab after his whale this blog has blindly charged forward to rid the SBC… Read more »
Rob Ayers,
At the risk of my being deleted again,
I agree and thank you for your comments.
David R. Brumbelow
Rob, your comments were deleted for attacking the character of a person.
David, your comments were deleted for your link drops back to your own site.
We’ve been fairly consistent on those rules and you should not be shocked or dumbfounded by them. We don’t delete comments merely for disagreeing.
My first comment was borderline. My second comment questioned if anybody here could identify with the quoted comment at hand. My third comment asked for guidance. That third comment could have gotten a response then like sending me to the written guidelines so I can peruse them. In any event I was not questioning your character. If anything I questioned the character of the racist you quoted. I have done blogs before and I always communicated with people what I was doing and why even though the rules were fairly known. It was the common and decent thing to do.… Read more »
The characteristics we use to identify others often also identifies ourselves. Who do you see when you look in a mirror? How do you describe yourself when meeting someone for the first time? What qualities do you file in your memory that you recall when remembering someone? One of the characteristics I use to sort people is their vocation. It’s important to me to know “what they do.” A characteristic of no importance to my wife of many years who had a career in education and health services. I’ve learned to deal with the frustration of when she is describing… Read more »
While I agree with most of what was written in this article, I think including the section classifying people under different labels is counterproductive to the goal of persuasion. Ascribing labels to people that they haven’t assented to tends to entrench people in whatever position they currently hold.
Thanks for this post. I find myself in lots of these categories in different ways, but none of them describes me. I am solidly against racism. It’s not been a part of my past, present, or future. I was blessed to be part of an integrated youth group at a conservative SBC church back in the mid 70s. I suspect my experience is unusual in that regard. I did not grow up in the rural, deep South, where the vestiges of Jim Crow have had a more permanent imprint. And this church was in a changing part of the city.… Read more »
Sorry for the orphaned typos at the end!
Allen Caulkins:
I like your action points!
Not so much that “Racism is a Big problem in the SBC etc.”
If I though racism was a big problem in the SBC, I would move my church to leave the SBC – yesterday.
Who would want to be part of an organization in which they believed racism to be a big problem?
Will this attract others to join the SBC? Or are we seeking combatants to join to drive the scourge from out midst?
From my personal experience as a pastor for 25 years and active in Assoc work all that time I would say racism is a BIG problem still in the SBC…not KKK styled racism but personal preference kind of racism that is much more socially acceptable. The white couple visiting gets hounded to join. The black couple…not so much. Nobody at church called them the ‘N’ word or anything. But they just do not appear on the radar as much as fellow whites. The SBC also has a BIG problem with economic/class prejudice. Our churches want to grow by the addition… Read more »
I guess I am classified in the “what about” camp, something I was placed in the “lets ignore his posts” moderation camp. So I find this article interesting. A year ago, during the lead up to the Confederate Flag resolution offered by Pastor McKissic, I expressed my concerns. I, having never flown any form of the Confederate Flag, was concerned that the drive to ban those flags would not stop there. I was concerned about what would want to be banned next. I was told my concerns were unwarranted. I was told by people on this forum that that was… Read more »
This is not a government site. Freedom if speech is not unlimited here.
Dave, I was referring to people saying that white supremacists should be denied the right to speak in public. I have in fact scene conservative Christians of some prominence express or show support for that idea. That comment was not a swipe at this site, or any other private entity. Indeed, I am all in favor of kicking racist churches out of the SBC, and preventing their hate speech from being associated with the SBC.
Sorry to be a comment hog today. But here is a tweet from our SBC President, Steve Gaines: “If you are white & you hate blacks, you’re a racist. If you are black & you hate whites, you’re a racist. It’s time to stop hating others.” I think this statement is fine. But I know for a fact that the people who fancy themselves are more racially progressive and into “racial reconciliation” in the SBC (and I am not talking about you guys), would say that President Gaines’ tweet is racially insensitive, and that he doesn’t get racial reconciliation, and… Read more »
I am all about racial reconciliation. The thing that bothers me most about the way we go about it is that it looks too much like the way that the secular world thinks it should be done. It is a Gospel issue, and the way we should do it should follow the pattern of the Gospel. I haven’t seen a whole lot of that at all. I see people on all sides making demands of other people saying that if someone else submits to the demands, then we will see racial reconciliation. It’s not going to work that way. It… Read more »
Always like your perspective.
Thanks, Dave!
Does what Paul says in 2 Tim 2:24-26 about a servant of God being required to not be quarrelsome, and to be kind to all, patient when wronged, and to correct opponents with gentleness enter into this? I know from a reply to a recent post of mine on the subject that some interpret ‘correcting with gentleness’ as involving speaking uncertainly, of saying ‘I think’ instead of saying ‘this is true’. I don’t think that’s true – you can correct with certainty (otherwise, is it really a correction?) but still be correcting with gentleness (which isn’t optional). But I do… Read more »
I don’t know if there’s a category for the group I’m thinking of; “Blindspotters?” But, I’m wondering how biblical Christians in general and church leaders in particular, can support the public display of confederate flags and symbols at taxpayer expense. How difficult can it be for ‘Alt-Right’ or traditional and cultural southern sympathizers, to understand that the confederate flag and statues of the likes of former confederate general and KKK member Nathan Bedford Forrest, are needless and antagonistic reminders of a war that cost 600,000 plus lives, nearly the United States as we know it, as well as conjuring up… Read more »
Makes sense.
I’m not sure I’m in favor of taking down MOST of the historical monuments out there – I would rather see some kind of historical frame of reference.
Mr Diaz, The problem is where do you draw the line? Most Presidents from Washington to Taylor owned slaves. The White House was built with slave labor. Should we tear down the White House? The Washington and Jefferson Memorials? Should Missouri change its capitols name and should Washington state change its name? The Atlantic slave trade was outlawed decades prior to the formation of the Confederacy. Many slaves shipped from Africa to the Americas were on boats flying the Stars and Stripes, should we tear down that flag as well? What about the recent protest in NYC where people were… Read more »
SV, you make a good point – also made by others as to precedent and where would historical manipulation and deconstruction end? President Trump made that point when referring to Washington owning slaves. However, we must draw lines or make distinctions. It is one thing to acknowledge historical facts – including the negative ones of our country’s history and I think it is quite another to put the symbols of such negative history openly on display for all to see and in position to reverence. Again, a community or local or state government’s display of such symbols conveys endorsement of… Read more »
History records that Nathan Bedford Forrest became a follower of Christ late in his life and mourned his personal history.
Personally, I do think it is high time the Stars and Bars is left behind other than in history book and museums. However, I tend to argue with myself about the monuments in some places New Orleans and Gettysburg among other places of historical significance.
For instance, if the statues and monuments were all removed from places like Gettysburg, how would we teach those who follow us about the Civil War and its primary cause?
Saw a news piece yesterday talking about the monuments at Gettysburg and that there are no plans or movements to remove them, because they provide a historical context to the site. To me that makes sense. Two sides were at Gettysburg. You can’t tell the story of the battle without both. That to me is the difference between the historical vs the celebratory. Many of the Confederate monuments in question went up in the early 1900’s as Jim Crow began to take affect and in the 1960’s in response to the Civil Rights movement. Here is a handy chart: http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras… Read more »
Ryan A- “Here’s a handy chart”
Actually, your chart is not very convincing. I see many monuments built from 1900 to about 1915. “Jim Crow” started right after the end of Reconstruction (1877). And I notice that the re-emergence of the Klan (1915-1920s) coincides with a general decrease in monuments.
1950s-1960s- Remember the baby-boom generation? I do. They had to build new schools.
What were they going to name them after? Abe Lincoln? William T. Sherman?
I was listening to the live news conference this afternoon concerning the renaming of schools, it is on a county by county and schools in these counties where the people are uncomfortable with the Confederate name, the state secretary of education will back them in changing the name. It is not mandatory nor is it the plan for the future to mandate it.
I think we are going to see our country change more and more. For example, my state of Oklahoma is having a discussion of changing the names of schools named after Confederates. For example Lee school in I believe Oklahoma City.
There is currently a live news conference on this subject and changes to our school curriculum.
Debbie Kaufman, I have often wondered about some of the men who led the Confederate Armies such as General Lee. He and many others on both sides were Christ followers. I think many of them had some of what might be called “Dark nights of the soul” regarding the Civil War. A friend of mine who is a faculty member of UVA-Wise recently wrote the following: ” If one reads of Lee’s life after the war, he asked not to be referred to as general, applied for a pardon (which was rejected), disciplined students at Washington College who beat up… Read more »
CB Scott, what we are seeing from the alt extreme left and favorably countenanced by lots of uninformed folks is lawlessness and just plain ol’ mob rule. Hardly a peep about the lawlessness in Durham re the RE Lee statue being torn down. Of the many voices outraged at the Charlottesville riots and the sad death of that young lady, said same voices in many cases are actually cheering the lawlessness going on. Exit questions: Where will it end? How much deconstruction and destruction of history is enough?
CB: “Just thinking” is good. I honestly don’t know about my feelings on taking down the monuments. It is not certain to me like my stance on the Confederate flag. So I am still thinking and weighing on that.
“Hardly a peep about the lawlessness in Durham.” You are right, Les Prouty. That was one of the things behind my thought processes when I wrote the comment earlier that was deleted here. (BTW, had some good conversations with a couple of guys about that, and I do not cry foul against them.) On down this thread Ben Coleman states, “In general, it’s a mistake to assume that anything a particular person says must be wrong.” That was what I was trying to say in my follow-up statement to William Thornton’s comment earlier. Maybe I should have used an illustration… Read more »
Good words CB. Yes, I agree that “Not everything the POTUS says is right and not everything the POTUS says is wrong.” Heck, I’ve even been wrong a few times in my day. Many times actually. But here’s the thing. I missed the comments that were deleted. I didn’t see any of that. I assume and hope that disagreeable (to the main folks here) opinions were not the issue. More often than not, more open dialogue is better, not worse. One of the things I’ve noticed and suspect is that the reason more people aren’t talking about the leftists and… Read more »
As a follow-up Dave, I would just want those markers of the confederacy available in the background or in museums as historical artifacts or landmarks, but not on higher profile, visible government property, which would lend credibility to such symbols, if not the visual and implied endorsement of them by governments.
Les,
Alt Left, really! Come on man, you cannot repeat anything Donald Trump says and use it for a legitimate argument. Uninformed folks!, really! So in your mind black people are uninformed along with white people who support their cause, and truthfully it’s the whole nations cause. Alt Left, Uninformed, I don’t think so.
In general, it’s a mistake to assume that anything a particular person says must be wrong. It just gives the devil a chance to have that person say some things that are true, in order to have you believe they’re false. You find truth by seeking truth, not by opposing people.
Ben, That last line is awesome!
Jess, from CNN: “Antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, is a controversial opposition group formed by a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform. Members are known for causing damage to property during protests and some employ radical or militant tactics to get their message across.” I would call that alt left…alternative left. There are leftists. Then there are these militants for example. Jess: “So in your mind black people are uninformed along with white people who support their cause…” Did I invoke color? Man, does everything… Read more »
Except that “alt-right” is a self-designation coined by the white supremacists themselves whereas “alt-left” is a label that has been imposed on certain groups and created by those that want to balance criticism of the alt-right.
Balance is much needed for the lawless ones on the left.
Maybe check out this “WHY THE ALT-LEFT IS A PROBLEM, TOO” in Vanity Fair by James Wolcott (who has advocated the overthrow of the Trump admin by intelligence agencies). It’s dated back in March. I don’t think he is some sort of hack for the alt right wanting to balance it out.
Les, no one denies that there are nuts on the left-wing, or that some of them are violent. My problem is that so many on the right just reflexively use the “whatabout the alt-left” thing whenever you try to deal with racism, white supremacy, and other great evil. “Let’s talk about racism.” Well, whatabout the BLM or Antifa? It is not that I support these groups, but this knee-jerk response begins to feel like a dodge – a way to avoid admitting the reality of racism – by some folks. I admit I’m tired of hearing about the BLM, the… Read more »
Dave, I don’t think you or any others on this thread support the lefties out there. I hope I haven’t given that impression. I get that Voices is aimed at SBC folks and to that extent it is good that racism is dealt with as the sin it is. My main point in my comments to CB were lamenting what is happening in a broader context. In that broader context many of us who agree that racism is evil and that the KKK and other such groups are evil, are effectively shouted down if we also try to point out… Read more »
Les, I agree that “balance is much needed” and sometimes misunderstood. If I am doing something wrong and say “look over yonder” or “what about so-and-so” it is pure deflection. On the other hand, if both of my children were doing something wrong I didn’t focus on one to the exclusion of the other (or if I did, I was wrong). Speaking balanced truth into a situation can address two wrongs. That said, while I disagree with some of the rhetoric of Dave, Brent, Todd and others on this issue, I understand and agree with the main point that white… Read more »
Robert, thank you for your words. Very wise. And I also agree that “white Christians should be able to and should speak from a position of power and purpose against whites who perpetrate racism against others.” And here is where I’m not supposed to go…African Americans should also do the same. It cannot be a one way street if we ever expect to get way further down the road of race reconciliation. Neither “side” should have knee jerk reactions.
Again, thanks brother.
Les, I agree that “balance is much needed” and sometimes misunderstood. If I am doing something wrong and say “look over yonder” or “what about so-and-so” it is pure deflection. On the other hand, if both of my children were doing something wrong, I did not focus on one to the exclusion of the other (or if I did, I was wrong). Speaking balanced truth into a situation can address two wrongs. That said, while I disagree with some of the rhetoric of Dave, Brent, Todd and others on this issue, I understand and agree with the main point that… Read more »
You’re welcome. Sorry that I got it posted twice. Maybe the moderators can remove the second one. Thanks.
Since communism was brought up in this thread, I would like to introduce folks to the group responsible for destroying a Confederate monument the other day in Durham, NC-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_World_Party
http://babylonbee.com/news/hilarious-white-supremacist-thinks-hes-christian/
Gold from the Bee.
Here are a few quotes I’ve read over the week, that might be relevant, appreciated and useful. “We should call evil by its name. My brother didn’t die fighting Hitler for Nazis to go unchallenged today.” — Orrin Hatch “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn “Racism is the very antithesis of the love of Jesus for all.” — Eric Metaxas “It’s the Church that’s most needed now. Politics will not save us from ourselves…Only the biblical vision of the image of God can ground universal dignity, value, and establish… Read more »
I think this thread has descended again into whataboutism. When has the SBC ever needed to list all sins to denounce 1 sin? It has had no problem denouncing alcohol while remaining silent on prescription drug abuse. It has no problem denouncing homosexuality while keeping mum on adultery. The topic of most of the recent posts has been white supremacy. It’s bad, it’s evil, and it’s a big problem, in my mind a much bigger problem than I realized. The election of Trump didn’t produce it, but it did bring it out into the open. They are emboldened. When Obama… Read more »
We need to realize this problem is not just racial. It is also economic and cultural. We speak as whites from a position of power more because of our financial status than the color of our skin. The problem is also cultural. The predominant white culture shuns racism. There is a sense of justice and fairness in the foundation of our white American culture (with a BIG helping of selfishness). The predominant black culture IMHO has as its foundation a victim mentality and a sense of entitlement because of past victimization. Until the foundation of black culture is changed the… Read more »
100% true, Allen. Well said.
Allen,
and Bill Mac,
Good points.
Obviously you are speaking in generalities for some blacks do not abide in a culture of victimhood while some whites are racists.
And the racists acts of the some are being used to paint with a broad brush, not only by those living in the culture of victimhood but by political forces that wish to use racial divide to empower and realize their own ends. And black victimhood and white guilt is and has been part of the plan.
I do not see any problem with the alt-right in my church. Or in any of the local association churches. Or that matter in our State Convention. Not to say it does not exist…but if it does exist it is like finding a needle in the haystack. It can’t be found. Neither is racism (at least the overt kind) can be found among the people in my church. It it was, the person identifying with such would be under church discipline. So this big houpla over the alt-right and it being a big “problem” in the SBC is overblown, at… Read more »
Hi Dave, “We don’t have much of an issue with them in the SBC. We DO have an issue with the alt-right.” Surprised to hear that you guys up in Iowa are having trouble with Alt right folks in your churches. I haven’t seen anyone who are part of that in many churches I know here in Middle Georgia.
Dave: I think that your comment above is a really good one. It is appropriate to discuss and clearly condemn Nazism, White Supremacy, the KKK et al. It is also appropriate to condemn any other hate groups. But bringing up the other groups so quickly in response to a discussion about the KKK, White Supremacy, and Nazism in order to avoid that discussion is the problem. But in discussing these matters, we should give each other space and assume the best. If a person clearly condemns the KKK, White Supremacy, Nazism et al., I am not going to be too… Read more »
I just learned there is a statue of Lenin in Seattle. There is a news story about people insisting it be torn down. It’s really a good looking piece of art. It should not be destroyed, but perhaps put in a museum with a clear statement about the nature and results of the Communist experience. Here’s an article on the statue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin,_Seattle My parents were both artists. I am not for destroying art. I am glad that as Europe became Christian centuries ago, that they did not feel the need to destroy all of the pagan art from the ancient… Read more »
A week ago I stood in a city square where a statue of Lenin had once stood and then been torn down in the early 1990s. It’s beyond me why anyone would think a Lenin statue should be on public display and I would love to see it moved to a museum like Louis said here.
There are three statues of Lenin in the United States, but it is my understanding that all are privately owned. They are on public display, but not on publicly-owned property (if my understanding is correct). I’m not a fan of Lenin or his statues, but I do think a statue on private property is a different issue than one on public property.
If Wikipedia is correct, there are five rather than three.
I agree that a privately owned statue on private property is a different question.
FYI: “n the aftermath of violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, progressive activists nationwide have demanded, and in some cases illegally carried out, the tearing down and removal of statues and monuments to Confederate leaders and soldiers on public space. Now Black Lives Matter activists have gone even further — going so far as to call for a ban on all Confederate imagery — even in private possession.”
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/black-lives-matter-activists-float-criminalization-of-confederate-imagery/
Robert:
I agree. If the statue is on private property, it’s on private property, and should be left alone.
Les Pouty,
My friend, this is more fake news. You cannot repeat anything on Fox.
Jess, does Newsweek count in your mind?
http://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-ban-confederate-symbols-charlottesville-violence-651106
Do your fact checking first my friend. 🙂
Seems a little odd that more mainstream media are not reporting this. Pretty significant news, wouldn’t you say? I mean talk about alto 1st amendment.
Mike: That is true concerning the Democrats but it has shifted as those who were in the Democrat party moved to the Republican party and are in what is now the Republican party. Republican means to conserve and that was meant for those who wished to conserve their way of life aka slavery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU&fref=gc&app=desktop It was the Democrat party that changed the laws to what we have now for the African American. This video does well in explaining what I have just said. And I may remind you that the Alt-right and KKK voted Republican, voting for Donald Trump which… Read more »
Debbie, in God’s providence we have President Donald Trump. I’m so glad that in His providence we don’t have President Hillary Clinton.
“Republican means to conserve and that was meant for those who wished to conserve their way of life aka slavery.”
Where do you get your erroneous assertions? A Democratic Party talking point hand out? Seriously!
Debbie,
That was a nice but incomplete video. It didn’t mention the KKK who were Dems and how they persecuted both black and white repubs. It didn’t mention the Dems who segregated the black population in housing and schools. ( Most big cities had dem mayors)
It didn’t mention the government handouts that keeps many blacks dependent on Dems.
It’s not against blacks or immigrants to have proper policies and laws in place that expect all people to earn their own way legally.
Mike: Watch that video again or at least till the end. You are right. In the early 1900’s Dems were in the KKK as mentioned in the video. But this began to change when Franklin D. Roosevelt came to office. The biggest shift happening in the 50’s and 60’s when Civil Rights Acts were further passed. The video is accurate history if you will look at news reels and news papers from this era. This is history.
Les,
Mainstream media= the Left .
Which= the Democrats.
Which party was for slavery? The Democrats.
Which party was the KKK of?
The Democrats.
Which party ran the big cities and segregated blacks by housing and schools?
The Democrats.
So why is it any wonder that MSM fails to cover the atrocities of its party?
None.
Exactly Mike. My “seems odd…” was tongue in cheek of course. The MSM won’t largely report these things since it doesn’t fit their agenda. If they did, perhaps more people would speak up about the dangers to our country posed by groups like BLM.
So not really surprised. Just wanted to show Jess that this is not fake news by Fox News as he alleged. It wasn’t even Fox in the first place.
I would suggest one other group–the “more than worders.” These are believers who are genuinely concerned about the Gospel and racial reconciliation but rather than spending their time complaining about the issue on blogs or through resolutions or complaining about those who don’t seem to be complaining enough, they are doing the hard work in their church and community to pursue peace. Recognizing that they are powerless to eradicate racism on a national or global scale, they focus their time and energy on doing what they can in their Jerusalem in order to tear down walls while at the same… Read more »