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 RESOLUTIONS is over. The time for ACTION is now.
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 need to be reminded that we are all one in Christ. I am 100% on board with racial reconciliation and calling out the evil sin that it is. White evangelicals need to hold each other accountable, and I also believe we should ask our brothers and sisters from other ethnic backgrounds to do the same. They just may not have to do it as much.
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 in many respects but overdone in a few others. Todd’s has some problems that needed to be explored. The aspirational title was one that I wish were better handled. It is right on target.
It’s tough to classify folks on this. I’m not certain where “system defenders” and “whatabouters” fit. These aren’t neat categories with bright boundaries. It seems to me that those who claim the mantle of racial conciliators are too quick to be dismissive of others once the label of “system defenders” and “whatabouters” has been applied. I wish for less in the way of broad generalizations and casual, ill-considered use of trigger words.
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 see a bigger picture than some want to take the conversation.
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.
Are there white racists in my city? I’m sure of it. And can they make black people uncomfortable? I’m sure of it.
But this whole idea of needing to be hush hush about black racism and only speak about white racism is mystifying to me.
Two of my girls went to a middle school that was mostly black and were picked on for being white. Sin is in everyone.
Reconciliation is a two way street. No matter who strong one’s feelings are about how bad blacks were treated, and for a good many, it was horrible, for Christians, for Christian black people, for all Christians, the command is to press on, to forgive, and to grasp that no suffering in this world compares to what we actually earn by our sin.
Repeat. No suffering we suffer in this world matches up with the suffering we have earned because of our sin. We deserve much more than we get.
Some of us suffer more than others. I get that. But the remedy for suffering is to flee to God. Period.
My relatives suffered and died to free the slaves. I don’t know how horrible their deaths were but many in the Civil war did die horrible deaths. Many widows were left poor and destitute and with a brood of kids to raise. It was a price that had to be paid. Not that their suffering makes up for other suffering. It never works that way unless your name is Jesus.
From what I have read, the north didn’t always treat the black people properly. They were denied jobs and decent living quarters. Sin is a terrible thing. But if we as Christians want to be united, we have to accept that we are sinners saved by grace. And that we should do at least these two things: one stop sinning against each other, and two, forgive each other for the sins committed against us.
What is being proposed by much of these posts seems much more complicated than that.
Simply: there isn’t anyway to make up for the atrocities committed against blacks.
Because, there is not a single way to make up for sin you didn’t commit against people that it wasn’t committed against.
Unity is achieved by recognizing that in Christ alone there is peace and forgiveness and oneness. Oneness with God and with each other.
To put it another way. We as humans owe God every single moment of obedience to Him, and we have failed to obey. Thus we are in debt with no hope except by His grace and mercy. However white Christians treat blacks properly from here on out is how they always should properly treat them and is what they already owe God anyway. You can’t make up for sin.
Reconciliation happens because each party surrenders to the Lord and finds in Him unearned acceptance and forgiveness for their own sins and thus can accept and forgive and unite with those that have offended them.
The political forces both formal and informal have been given over by God to the sinful desires of their hearts, and some over to depraved minds to do what ought not be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. And as the USA travels down this road, we as the Church need to stand in UNITY and together in LOVE as we boldly proclaim the GOSPEL if reconciliation with GOD and man, so as to give our countrymen the path and the WAY to truth and to freedom from the oppression that is coming.
Thus the white Christians and the black Christians and the Hispanic Christians and all the rest of US need to step up and openly reconcile without conditions and without reservations. And those that do not will be swept away in the upcoming tide.
A white man and a black man hugging each other condemns racism of all stripes.
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 out of patience for this one. I need to write more with that goal in mind.
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 civilization. Sweeping away our skeletons due to our modern sensibilities may not be the best way to express our disagreement with the sinful attitudes of the past. The Mayor of Birmingham recently ordered workers to cover a Confederate Monument in Linn Park with plastic. It can be argued that art and history and culture are being destroyed on the altar of racially charged politics. I don’t believe espousing the “Don’t Mess With History” philosophy defines a person as a racist.
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 plantations. Many plantation owners resisted this because it would put “hope” in the heart of slaves and that could make them less compliant. The Anglican members of the House of Burgesses passed a law that receiving baptism would not change the status of any person (thus no emancipation). The Anglican ministers backed off, but Baptists who came into Virginia in the 1750s began preaching to the slaves and lower-class whites to great effect. Regretfully, Baptists also bought into the slave system when they could afford it, and thus began our checkered record in this area.
Here is a framework from the Psalms that may be helpful:
God’s people respond to cultural pressure one of two ways:
Response 1:
Psalm 106:35b observes that [Israel] learned to do as [the nations] did. This was not a compliment of Israel’s ability to adapt. They adopted the cultural (including religious) patterns of their neighbors. .
American Christians when they justified participating in the slavery system; citing infamously Genesis 9:25 as justification (God’s curse on Ham’s descendants).
Response 2:
Psalm 94:20 calls Israel to resist wicked rulers: “Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute?” [This encouraged Israel to resist the demands of the majority.]
American Christians also [resisted the demands of the culture] on the issue of slavery. The Abolition movement was the effort of northern Christians and Christians in England (Wilberforce) to stop the trafficking of slaves. The Underground Railroad had Christian conductors.
God ultimately judged America’s sin of slavery through the Civil War.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Christians faced a related issue: Jim Crow Segregation. Those who believed that separate but equal was a good way to maintain the peace. Their support ranged from passively going along with the rules to actively participating in mob rule against any “uppity” African-Americans who would not “stay in their place.” They played to the fears of some that their place would be usurped by such. This group facilitated the long, drawn-out and demeaning struggle for equal rights. (Dave – these are like today’s system defenders and whatabouters.)
Christians who resisted segregation were catalysts for the Civil Rights movement. There were Anglo resisters who stood with African-Americans. Bus loads of young adults, “Freedom Riders,” made their way into the south to help register African-Americans to vote. Like their abolitionist ancestors, they met with violent resistance, but thanks to television and other media, the violence was not hidden. Civil rights laws were passed. The United States is still working out the details.
Thoughts for Today:
Christians today face a similar decision. Do we compliantly watch the alt-right and alt-left take our communities down into hate-filled cataclysm or do we say “enough.”
I watched the Charlottesville violence, and I wondered where the Baptist pastors were. They may have been there and the media did not play up their presence. I did see pictures of mainline church leadership visible in their robes. They were seeking to be a peaceful presence there. Regretfully it was not enough because the church is still divided over how to respond here.
I would love it if the next alt-right rally was met with a massive group of Christians (pastors, deacons, laypeople) who would encircle them and sing hymns and quote scripture loudly. Surely there are enough churches of all sorts in an area where these people want to gather to do this. Shame on the church for letting the antifa and other #resist groups demonstrate “moral authority”, and thereby deceive people into thinking a leftist utopia is possible.
Part of our messaging must be a call to resist the racists and call them to repentance, and to offer tangible expressions of our repentance. For example, Russell Moore’s call to not give the confederate flag a place of prominence in our communities seems to have been a catalyst for some of the calls to remove these monuments from public space.
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.
“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 broad, tendentious snarl phrase. There are points that can be made on this issue. I have yet to see one of my friends and colleagues here approach it in a way that might be persuasive and eventually profitable.
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 hiding behind heritage is an incomplete answer at best.
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 that was exploiting fellow human beings for economic gain. I realize not all southern whites owned slaves, but the whole community benefited from the system. Many large plantation owners would rent their human property out to less well-off neighbors to make a few bucks, for example.
The kind of repentance that I am urging is to admit that there is the stain of sin of slavery on the Confederacy. Those nineteenth century southern foot soldiers (my ancestors) were not supporting the good guys; the pure ones standing up for justice. They were participating in an effort to support an ungodly exploitive economic system (thus the parallel to communism).
The legacy of the Jim Crow segregation period complicates this for all of us. Like Israel having to live with the consequences of learning to live like the peoples around them, we Christians need to acknowledge the hurtful legacy of supporting a system that made American blacks second-class citizens (either through inaction or action).
We have made a good start in rectifying this as Southern Baptists but we have a ways to go. Our history should propel us to lead from the front the effort to promote racial reconciliation.
Repentance sometimes must be more than internal; it has to be tangible. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (a Methodist) set an example by retiring the Confederate Battle flag from the SC capitol grounds for display at a museum.
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 pastors and leaders in many Southern churches including Baptist churches. Were those folks not Christians back then because of their racist beliefs in the 1960s or the 1860s? If not, when did unrepentant racism become a litmus test for salvation? There are many unrepentant sins we would say do not disqualify one from being a Christian. And while I agree racism is a vile and disgusting sin, can we kick them out of the Kingdom? Or do we need to disfellowship with them and pray for their enlightenment? This is not a theoretical situation. In many of our churches there are racists on our roles and even in our leadership. What should we do about that? I am not an alt-right supporter in any way. Just wondering if it goes too far to say racists cannot be saved now if they could be saved back then. Are the social norms of the day that relevant to our salvation? Help me out here.
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 to formal church discipline involving the entirety of the church. They would be disfellowshipped, barred from taking communion, and removed from the church membership role and any leadership roles they had. We would pray for their repentance and that the Holy Spirit would convict them of their sin and that God would save them, but we would treat them as an unbeliever. We do this with any sin that has taken a hold of a persons life and becomes a severe disruption to the church.
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 and the world of every visage of racism that spans back 400 years, questioning every person who does not toe the party line ala Robespierre and Torquemada. In example the only way that I could get out of the torture chamber yesterday is if I would unequivocally denounce White Supremacists, even though I had already done so.
My complaint in example of Charlottesville and the post yesterday is on point. My question of the lack of balance in an article that only dealt with the hatred of White Supremacists in an event that held many hate groups then got me a multitude of swarmy comments and dealt me in the category of “Whatabouts”. Franklin Graham gets placed in that same category when his quote is also displayed in that stream, even all he said was he was disappointed in the fact that police presence was not what it needed to be.
I got deleted three times yesterday on another stream for what reason I do not know. I was not being racist, but somehow somebodies frustration got the better of them. I asked for guidance and received none, and then that post was deleted.
You guys want a conversation. Great. I love spirited and challenging conversations. I learn a lot from them. Believe it or not I have learned much from these series of conversations. The passion involved is refreshing from my oftentimes day to day activities. I’m going to tell you something though = this myopic blindness and “everybody has to agree with us” stuff is going to be the end of this blog. Guys like me will stop posting and we will stop coming. You will not have us to push around anymore, and all you will have will be the echo chamber.
I am glad you had a meeting of the minds. I hope and pray that a refreshing is in store for all the contributors.
Rob
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.
Rob
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 someone that she doesn’t know their occupation.
On the other hand, a person’s race or skin color is not very important to me. The internal qualifications and not the external are those that are important. The color of a man’s character and not that of his skin is what qualifies him to be a friend. Which results in attitudes and work habits being much more important than race to me , and by extension, calls for racial reconciliation often lack focus and clarity.
Racial reconciliation is obviously of significant importance to many of us. However, the focus of this discussion seems to be primarily on addressing some past or present mistreatment of “our black brothers and sisters.” Should we also be just as concerned about reconciliation with “all nations?”
Dave, I hear your message, but we are to be doers and not hearers only. I want to learn “what you do” to understand better what you are. Help me to understand your vision of what a racially reconciled United States and a reconciled world would look like and how people would act. What actions are necessary to accomplish that objective? In your opinion, what are the significant obstacles to be overcome or bypassed?
I understand you undertook a mission to an unreached people in Senegal. How is that outreach progressing for you and your church? Is that missionary work helping to advance the goal of racial reconciliation? How?
I enjoy reading the discussions that appear on this site. Often, such as now, there are opinions expressed or topics considered that provoke an examination of my own understanding and responsibilities. I appreciate the leadership and commitment to the work demonstrated by those who contribute topics. Thanks.
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. My pastor and youth pastor were very open racially.
I believe that the SBC needs to do whatever it can do to extend invitations and opportunities to other races to be a part of what we are doing. Because of our history, this issue often gets discussed as a black/white issue. But Hispanics are as numerous in our country as African Americans. And there are other races as well.
I am a bit dubious of the label “racial reconciliation” because I often don’t know what it means.
I am interested to hear remedies people propose. I don’t think that labels are all that helpful. What are the specific remedies being proposed to assist with fostering better racial relations. I may agree with some. I may disagree with others.
I believe that SBC finances, scholarships, etc. should be race neutral. But having said that, the results should be watched. If over a 5 year period, no finances/scholarships etc. went to other races, and they all went to whites, that would need to be changed.
I am not for any regime or remedies that smack of quotas or affirmative action, as that is actually doing the very thing that we do not want to do – treating people differently on the basis of race.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a recent Supreme Court decision, “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” I believe that is a good way for people to live.
I do not think that this website or other official or unofficial SBC websites should make statements about “the racists among us.” Our language should be aspirational, not accusatory or presumptive. When a racial incident occurs, call it out and deal with it. But in my view it is corrosive to dialogue and moving forward to start a conversation with, “Well, we all know there are a bunch of racists in our group…”
We think that we are dealing with a problem by saying that. We are not. We are unwittingly setting up a very judgmental system where people may be put in this category, or fear being put there, based on the judgments of others.
I don’t have an interest in identifying racists. I have an interest in promoting what is good. When people identify themselves as racists, when they say they believe in White Supremacy, then action can be easily taken.
I also don’t have any interest in a contest to see who can be the greatest racial reconciliator. This, again, gets back to methods and specific proposals.
I am prepared to treat people with respect, and not accuse them as aiding and abetting racism or not being as interested in racial reconciliation as I am just because they don’t go along with some specific recommendation that I may make.
I am not interested in tearing the fabric of the SBC apart at annual meetings over issues that are really not that important. Are we going to see, for example, a resolution proposed next year asking all states and cities to remove statues of figures from the confederacy? That could be proposed. I am not necessarily against it. But I do not believe it is imperative to what we are doing as a Convention. Those who voted against such a resolution – what will we do with them? Label them? Take them off Boards? Btw, I note in the news that a pastor in Chicago is asking that a statue of George Washington be removed.
People have a right to self determination on all of these questions – even to the point of re-writing the Constitution because, after all, the framers and founders owned slaves and believed in private property etc.
I believe that believers may have different opinions about all of those issues.
I am not for removing Boyce, Broadus, Manly, Williams and others from SBC history because of their views on race. We can tear the convention up over it if people want to, but I do not.
That is why it is especially important for people to identify remedies and proposals. Travelling under a banner is an invitation to disruption because the goals change every year.
Finally, despite your good intentions, I am for the Gospel. I am not for “Gospel Issues.” Neither Jesus nor the Apostles wrote or spoke in these terms.
As a Convention, we have a stated agreement on what the Gospel is and that we should proclaim it.
We do not, or will we ever have, a list of what issues are “Gospel Issues.” And the moment that we have such a list – the “Issues” will be more important than the “Gospel.”
I know that you guys don’t intend that, but all you have to do is look at the denominations, churches, seminaries, organizations that begin to emphasize “Gospel Issues.” Over time, they all devolve to dealing with issues, not the Gospel.
Creating a series of issues as “Gospel Issues”
I am
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 of stable like minded people to the church roles. The needy and the not like me are ‘welcomed’ but not with great enthusiasm.
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 not going to happen. I guess you could say my concerns were correct. Everywhere we look there are people demanding that monuments be torn town. For goodness sakes there was a group in NYC that wanted to tear down a statue of President Teddy Roosevelt.
I spent the break times at my very new job a year ago DEFENDING the SBC against the white nationalist/supremacist trash. I don’t post a lot on twitter so those tweets are likely still fairly high up in my history. That’s right, a guy who would have voted against the resolution was defending it against the racists, go figure.
Fast forward to this year. I, like many others, and issues with the alt-right resolution. As originally worded, I believed it strayed too close into “Trump and anyone voting for him are racists” territory. As it happens, the version that the Resolution Committee brought out was one that I would have supported.
I am greatly concerned in seeing folks who I suppose would be in the “gospel issues camp”, get dangerously close to saying that Freedom of Speech should be denied to some people (like the White Nationalists). As Christians who’s views on things like abortion and homosexuality are increasingly under attack, do we really want to go down that road? It is an old saying but a good one, “I hate WHAT you say, but I will fight for your RIGHT to say it.” Is expressing that view a hinderance to racial reconciliation? I should hope not. Oppressing the Freedom of Speech was one of the hallmarks of the Jim Crow era in their efforts to silence and marginalize the black population.
I am a proponent of the nuclear option as regards to white supremacists in our churches. I say it is time that on the national, state, and associational levels, we kick out those churches that are racist, that will tell visitors “wouldn’t you be more comfortable at the church down the street” (aka “We don’t want blacks in our church”). Churches that would rather move across town, rather than minister to the changing demographics where the existing church sits. Yes disfellowship with these churches, return their money, don’t sit their messengers until they repent and change.
Yet because I say “all racism is bad” I am a racist? Let’s not even touch on the case where I was accused of something I did not do, and to this day I suspect they still don’t believe it was not me. Because after all, I am a racist thus I cannot be trusted.
I truly hope this new leaf is something that takes root. I hope that SBCVoices can be a place where people who may agree in principle but have different paths to the goal are allowed to participate. Because frankly, the “my way or the highway” attitude was kind of sour.
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 that President Gaines is further proof of the racial problem in the SBC.
If that’s how they feel, and they are willing to say it, what does that do to the prospect of having peaceful racial reconciliation in the SBC?
Any thoughts?
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 never does.
The other thing that bothers me is that while we must deal with the fallout of the slavery that our forebears engaged in 150 years ago, we rarely talk about the slavery that is happening today in the US. Maybe that falls into the “Whatabouter” category. I don’t know. Maybe it’s because there are only an estimated 60,000 slaves today versus the 600,000 slaves that were brought from Africa. I think that possibly, if we all work side-by-side together to eradicate the slavery we have here today, then we might find ourselves a lot closer to the racial reconciliation we seek from the evil that drove the slavery of yesterday.
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 think that some hear correcting with certainty as though it must be ‘ungentle’. Speaking with a superior tone of voice, or with arrogance, or with disdain towards the ‘correctee’ would be ‘ungentle’ (and sometimes speaking with certainty is combined with those), but speaking with certainty is not by itself ‘ungentle’. It may be hard to figure out correcting with gentleness when surrounded by a culture that often interprets disagreement as hatred, but it is possible (or else it wouldn’t be commanded). We need to pay attention to the attitude with which we correct others, but we also need to make sure we don’t automatically take corrections (whether correct or not) addressed to ourselves as ‘ungentle’ and therefore out of bounds.
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 the images of slavery, torture, rape oppression, hatred and racism to virtually every black American living (Christian and otherwise) in this country?
Our own Russell Moore’s words on this ideology after the Charleston, S.C. church murders two summers ago bear repeating today, ““White Christians ought to think about what that flag says to our African-American brothers and sisters in Christ, especially in the aftermath of yet another act of white supremacist terrorism against them. The gospel frees us from scrapping for our ‘heritage’ at the expense of others.”
With all due respect, a heritage built largely upon the tortured and tattered backs of African-American slaves is the kind of heritage I would find worth forgetting, rather than remembering and paying public homage to.
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 demanding a statue of President Theodore Roosevelt be torn down?
It is an unfortunate fact that this country was built on and with slavery. The Constitution of the United States bears witness with the 3/5ths compromise. Should we then cast down this country and forget its past? Should we do away with the 4th of July? Where do you draw the line?
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 those symbols to most reasonable people. And we must then ask ourselves what messages to those symbols convey?
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
To me, the monuments whose purpose it is to memorialize the South and to symbolically call to mind the South rising again need to go. To museums. To battlefields. To private collections. We don’t need to celebrate those who fought to continue the enslavement of human beings.
The truly historical monuments that serve a teaching purpose should remain. I doubt you will see anyone but the most radical and closed minded calling for them to be removed- since thinking people know we need to learn and remember history so as not to repeat it.
A lesson our President is learning this week…
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 a black man in Lexington, and insisted he not be buried in his confederate uniform. He would have been appalled at a statue being erected and the violence which has ensued around said statue. ”
I tend to agree with my friend about Lee and others who fought in the Civil war. Some of those men surely had some dark nights of the soul and would rather have been born in another time. . . . just thinking.
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 not involving guys who frequent this blog to make my point.
Maybe I should have said, “Not everything the POTUS says is right and not everything the POTUS says is wrong.”
Maybe the guys who run this blog will understand my motives for the comment now. Gentlemen, it is my opinion that you defeat your goal as stated in this post written by Dave Miller because you do not let the dialogue work itself out. Sometimes, in my opinion, you tend to disallow some people who come here to make statements because of who they are and what they generally say.
(Not talking about myself. I get a lot of grace here and everybody knows its. ROLL TIDE Y’ALL.)
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 the anarchy many on that side are fomenting and carrying out is fear of being branded a racists. I have seen it with my on eyes on my on FB feed. Attempts at shaming for not speaking out against the KKK and such and they throw POTUS in there too. “If we are silent, we are with the KKK and such” they imply. The left leaning rarely call out their own for violence and lawlessness because calling them out doesn’t serve their agenda and cause. And on many other sites and posts, speaking out about the other side (like POTUS dared to do) only heaps more accusations of being a racist. Weird times we live in.
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 have to be about race/color? There are lots of uninformed people in our country of all sorts of ethnicities.
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 alt-left, and the Antifa. We don’t have much of an issue with them in the SBC. We DO have an issue with the alt-right.
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 the evil coming from the left as well…as we wish they were called out too. I think until the alt left or extreme left or whatever you want to call them is held to account, this supposed conversation on racism is going nowhere. Average Christian, non racist man and woman are tuning out the calls for “understanding” our African American brothers and sisters when they largely remain silent on the left’s tactics (groups like BLM and such).
And in that broader context, Russell Moore IMO is missing the opportunity to call ALL Christians, white, AA, and whomever, to abhor racism from all corners and of all stripes. I know he is not the subject here, but in the broader national conversation he has a large hearing. I think until ALL are called out to denounce all racism it will fall on a lot of deaf ears.
But again, I can see that that is not what Voices is about. So be it. I was just lamenting the lack of balance to CB above.
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 Christians should be able to and should speak from a position of power and purpose against whites who perpetrate racism against others.
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 white Christians should be able to and should speak from a position of power and purpose against whites who perpetrate racism against others.
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 human rights.” — John Stonestreet
“Turn off the news and love your neighbor.” — a meme posted on Facebook
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Anyone who hates a brother or sister is in darkness and walks in darkness.” — John the Beloved (1 John 2:11)
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 and other leaders on the left refused to say “Islamic terrorism”, people (rightly) had a fit. While we all acknowledge that “all terrorism” is bad, we understand that Islamic terrorism, in this day and age, is a particular problem. Would any of you be happy with the “all terrorism is bad” argument?
So yes, all racism is bad, but the scale difference is enormous. White supremacy is a legacy problem, a problem we thought we might be leaving in the past but it seems that we are not. There are still people of color who live in fear of what white racists will do to them. How many of you are worried that BLM or Antifa is going to come knocking on your door? How many of us are unsettled because we think we may have secret BLMers or Antifa-ers in our churches?
I get it. A lot of you are tired of what you see as white shaming, and frankly I agree with some of that sentiment. A lot of you want to defend the president. I absolutely do not agree with that, no surprise.
The bible, especially the NT, makes it clear that all sin is bad, but it has no problem denouncing individual sins without naming all of them. It also focuses on its own people group (Christians). It acknowledges, but does not dwell on the sins of unbelievers, but rather on the sins of believers. That’s why I’m harder on Christians, Republicans, etc, than I am on unbelievers, Democrats, etc. That’s why I wrote a lot about Trump and not Clinton, during the election. That’s why I think the problem of white racism must be particularly denounced and fought by white people.
I have no guilt about slavery and will not apologize for it. I reject the idea of white privilege and have little patience with the issue. I do not practice racism, but I do think I (being white) have a part in defeating it. I see no value in lecturing black people about their racism.
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 race problem will remain…and some will find that statement to be racist. But to me and many other white Americans frustrated by the constant demands for more to be done, it is reality.
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 least in my neck of the woods. I see more problems with sexual proclivities (adultery, fornication, incest and homosexuality) than I have ever seen with racism per se.
So is this crusade to rid our churches of the alt-right = closet white supremacists and Nazis inside the church house door? Or is to rid society of white supremacists in general? For if it is the former where is the evidence of it? I stand with you to help irradiate it. Lovingly call people into repentance, discipline churches through associations, state and the national conventions to help in the cause. Name the evidence and name the churches. Enough of the generalities. Lets get the work done.
But if all this crusade is to lament the existence of white supremacists and their hate, why all the selective outrage? Why not include all groups rather than pick on the easy one?
I have been accused of tactics which infers a greater agenda. That my repudiation of white supremacists was not real and that it was merely a tactic. Okay. What exactly is the agenda here? What’s the hidden agenda?
Rob
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 quick to criticize the fact that other hate groups need to be discussed also.
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 world. Even though that art celebrates mythology and paganism, and even persons who murdered Christians, I am not for destroying it.
It is clearly contextualized now so that it has little chance of persuading people to become followers of Nero and Zeus.
I really think the same is true of the confederate monuments. There is zero chance that this country will ever revert to slavery of African Americans because the statues of Robert E. Lee et al. exist.
Humans could revert to a form of slavery, in my opinion, but that would be because of the belief that it would be good to limit human freedom to achieve some socialist dream. That danger clearly exists.
That’s why it’s important to remember the horrors of National Socialism (Nazism), Communism, and other forms of socialism. At the time, the economics of those systems can be sold to people in a crisis or a perceived crisis.
But adopting those systems always requires giving up freedom.
That is a very real danger in my opinion.
Fortunately, our society is also constantly experiencing the fruit of freedom and invention – e.g. Facebook, Uber, Air-BNB, iPhones etc., such that even the people who want socialism the most, experience the blessings of human freedom, the right to contract, and property and capital being held by private individuals. This creates a great conflict that retards experiments in and the full implementation of socialism.
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 along with Evangelicals put him in office.
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 time building bridges. While they are frustrated by the existence of racism, they are also frustrated by the hollow words that come from those in their ivory towers who speak passionately against racism but, in reality, do very little to actually deal with the issue. The “more than worders” don’t have a lot of time to complain about monuments, resolutions, or the make-up of an SBC committee because they are too busy living in minority communities, attending minority schools or churches, walking with minority brothers in discipling relationships, breaking bread in their homes with minority families or adopting minority children. They are not content with just talking because they realize that relationships are much more effective than resolutions in healing the deep wounds caused by racism.
My hope is that all those who have spent time on this blog debating this issue, are “more than worders.” I had suggested a couple of weeks ago on another post that someone do a post that discussed all the specific ways in which they are pursuing racial reconciliation. I wonder how the conversation on this blog might have gone in the aftermath of Charlottesville if, rather than debating who was more at fault, the conversation focused on what each of us was doing in order to deal with the issue in our churches and communities.
I would ask/suggest to the “brain trust” that the next blog post about racial reconciliation revolve around what each of us are doing specifically–beyond keystrokes–to pursue peace. I am sure that we could all learn from each other and so I would love to hear how others are committed to being “more than worders.”