Editor: Dr. McKissic is well-known and respected among Southern Baptists. This article was written in response to issues raised here at SBC Voices and on other blogs. I offered this respected brother in Christ the chance to state his views related to this recent debate.
The largest animal the Jews knew in biblical times was a camel, as the gnat was the smallest. Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! …Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24)
“Straining out a gnat” describes the custom of the strictest sect of Pharisees who strained everything they drank for fear of swallowing an insect that was considered unclean. “Swallowing a camel” intentionally introduces an exaggerated figure of speech in order to demonstrate the Pharisee’s propensity to major on minors and to minor on majors. Jesus was saying to the Pharisees, you take care to strain the smallest insect out of your drink, but you are like people who swallow a camel without even knowing it. The German Common language version translates this phrase as “but you swallow a camel without seeing it.” It was characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees to strain out the gnat and yet to swallow the camel. The Southern Baptist Convention is “swallowing a camel” without seeing it.
The church where I serve as pastor joined the SBC at our inception in 1983. For the past thirty five years, as a college, seminary student and church planter/pastor, I have observed SBC life. I can honestly say that during these years the major focus, impact and effectiveness of the SBC has been where it should have been; and that is on exaltation, evangelism, edification and the elevation of society. Indeed my life, family, congregation and society as a whole are far better off because of the witness, work, word and worship of the SBC.
Whatever strength that our church enjoys, the roots of that strength can be traced back to the church planting and discipleship efforts of the SBC. For this I shall be eternally grateful.
During my thirty five year pilgrimage in SBC life, I’ve noticed periodic and intermittent intervals, where many in the SBC, and often the gatekeepers, have reminded me of the words of Jesus, “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” In recent days, I’ve noticed that this periodic and intermittent tendency continues.
The recent flap over Jamar Jones, a pianist at The Potters House where Bishop T.D. Jakes serve as pastor, is one of many examples that I want to address of the SBC, “straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.”
Todd Littleton has addressed this subject in a factual, historical, scriptural and kingdom minded manner. I commend him for his great post. Todd is correct! “It seems there is nothing that T.D. Jakes can do that will answer his Southern Baptist critics.” Suffice it to say that no SBC personality has provided any evidence that Bishop Jakes is a modalist. As a matter of fact, as Todd so ably pointed out, there is evidence to the contrary. Yet, I’ve recently learned that Jamar Jones has voluntarily removed himself from the role of playing the piano at the SBC Pastors’ Conference because of his desire to be helpful to the Kingdom and Southern Baptists, rather than a hindrance. The truth of the matter is that Bishop Jakes was the target; Jamar Jones is a casualty of not so friendly fire from fellow Kingdom soldiers. It is tragic, sinful and shameful that Southern Baptist missed an opportunity to bridge an obvious racial divide and to fellowship with a Kingdom saint who is not of the SBC fold, simply because the SBC periodically and intermittingly choose to “strain out gnats and swallow camels.”
About twelve-fifteen years ago, I was asked to be a guest on TBN; and I was informed that Bishop Jakes would be the host. I initially hesitated accepting the TBN invitation because of all the hoopla about Bishop Jakes being an alleged modalist; and at the time I had not researched the matter. I consulted with a professor at SWBTS (that I will not name) and a highly respected, well known pastor with a doctorate degree in systematic theology (that I also will not name). Both informed me that they viewed Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity as “technically incorrect, but not cultic.” Now that more light has been shed on his views, I don’t believe either the professor or the pastor would view Bishop Jakes’ view as “technically incorrect.” They both encouraged me to accept the TBN invitation because they viewed Bishop Jakes as a genuine Christian. Upon their recommendations, I accepted the invitation and had a wonderful experience.
If Bishop Jakes is going to be rejected by Southern Baptists because he uses the word “manifestations” to describe the Trinity, if Southern Baptists are to be consistent as Todd Littleton points out—they would also have to reject Hershel Hobbs—a revered, renown SBC pastor/theologian who also used the word “manifestations” to describe the Trinity. He too probably would be labeled “technically incorrect, but not cultic” by the pastor and professor. Since that time, Bishop Jakes has used the word “persons” to describe the Trinity; but this still does not satisfy his SBC critics, because periodically and intermittingly the SBC simply chooses to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” One would be hard pressed to find one Black SBC pastor, let alone ten, who would publicly or privately state that Jamar Jones should not play the piano at the Pastors’ Conference because he is associated with Bishop Jakes. I pray that the Father forgive the SBC for they know not what they do. The SBC views every evangelical denomination as having some views that are “incorrect but not cultic.”
I must admit that I’m not surprised by the Jamar Jones treatment, because I watched the SBC dismiss a great number of missionaries, simply because they would not sign the 2000 B, F, and M, although they signed up as missionaries under the 1963 B, F and M. If the SBC would dismiss experienced, successful missionaries for superfluous reasons under the guise of doctrinal purity, it stands to reason that they would castigate a pianist who belongs to a church that many in the SBC consider doctrinally suspect—without one iota of evidence. Here is another example of “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” The very reason that the SBC had to recently lay off six hundred missionaries due to a lack of funding is because of this bizarre propensity to “strain out gnats, while swallowing camels.” The SBC/IMB/NAMB policy of firing and not funding missionaries who pray in tongues in private is another example of the SBC “straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.”
Our church has baptized over 2000 souls since 1983. Had the SBC questioned me about my views and practice as it relates to praying in tongues in private, these 2000 souls would not be credited on SBC records, nor would I have been able to serve as President of the SBTC Pastors’ Conference or preach at SEBTS and many other places. The SBC “swallowed” me, because they did not know me.
In the 2008 presidential election, I was shocked that SBC pastors, by and large, did not rally behind Mike Huckabee. The reason Huckabee did not get SBC support is because he was reportedly sympathetic and cooperative to the “moderates” while president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention. I publicly endorsed Mike Huckabee. Had Southern Baptists wholeheartedly and enthusiastically embraced Huckabee, he perhaps would be President today. Consequently, same-sex marriages, the Mexico policy, the Health Care policy that funds abortions and bailouts would not be moving into the mainstream and becoming public policy. But because of the SBC’s propensity to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel,” we are now faced with these policy initiatives that most SBC pastors and pew-sitters disagree with.
Southern Baptists have watched women in the SBC be denied opportunities to teach Hebrew and Church History and serve as an IMB vice president, because of this periodic and intermittingly bent toward “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” Female seminary graduates are denied positions as chaplains endorsed by our convention because of our pettiness and unscriptural views toward women. God forgive us. Male pastors and staff members who have violated and abused women and girls in our churches will not even be given the dignity and respect of having convicted persons’ names registered in SBC life because of the SBC’s long bent toward chauvinism. Women like Christa Brown and others who express valid and legitimate concerns about sexual abuse at the hands of clergyman in SBC life are often disrespected, disregarded and once again violated by males because they simply point out the truth and make an effort to protect females in our pews by identifying documented abusers. The SBC deny women all kinds of ministry opportunities and affirmation that is not restricted by the Scripture—yet they allow women to be abused and violated even further by not exposing abusers. I agree with the late African American Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. George McCalep, who said, “The SBC views and practices regarding women are driven by testosterone more so than by biblical doctrine.” Once again, our treatment toward women in our quest for doctrinal purity is simply “straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.”
A few years ago, an African American was being considered to serve as an entity head. When he was questioned about his views on women in ministry, he expressed a view in keeping with the B, F & M 2000 and remains in SBC employ; however, his view of women in ministry was still to expansive for the decision makers; therefore, he was not offered the entity head position. The good news is he was not rejected because of his race. The bad news is he was rejected because he did not express a hard-line position against women in ministry. Once again, the SBC drifted toward their tendency to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”
The very reason Vance Pittman is President of the Pastors’ Conference and not Troy Gramlin is because the doctrinal purist in the SBC disliked Gramlin’s affirmation of women in ministry. His views and practices are within the boundaries of the B, F, and M 2000 Statement and the Bible, or else he would have been dis-fellowshipped by his Association, State Convention and the SBC. Nevertheless, he was rejected in favor of Vance Pittman because the SBC loves to “strain out gnats and swallow camels.” All the dissension and dissatisfaction registered in the blogosphere over the Pastors’ Conference is in my opinion—poetic justice—because of the ill, malicious treatment by many toward Troy Gramlin.
The only reason that the SBC include a statement in their constitution making it clear that they will not seat messengers from a church that affirms homosexuality, but they refuse to and artfully and hypocritically dodged voting on an amendment to the constitution to not seat churches that affirm racism, is simply because the SBC has a higher tolerance for racism than they do homosexuality. The stated reason at the Orlando Convention for not allowing a vote on the racial discrimination amendment was simply to give the lawyers a chance to vet the amendment. However, the messengers were assured that the executive committee was sympathetic to this motion and would be supporting it. The response to my motion could be a case study in dishonesty and deception.
The “camel” that the SBC has been swallowing from her inception until this very hour is racism, sexism and factionalism—“they are not one of us mentality.”
One of the objections that some have raised regarding the racism amendment is that it would be hard to prove. This simply is not true. All of the excuses used to object to the racial discrimination amendment, remind me of all the excuses that were used to deny Blacks equality, fairness and justice across the years.
In the 90’s I served on the missions funding committee of the BGCT and discovered at that time that all Black churches were required to pay 6% interest on loans and low income White, and Hispanic churches paid 0% interest. This can be documented and verified. They changed their practice after I objected to this in three consecutive meetings. The persons and churches that supported this policy should not have been seated as messengers.
In the 90’s a cemetery owned by an SBC congregation in Georgia would not bury a child of an interracial couple, because the deceased baby was half-Black. This church’s messengers should not have been seated. Interracial couples have joined many African American churches because they were made to feel unwelcome, or in some cases, the pastor refused to perform their wedding ceremony. Messengers from these churches should not be seated.
Black ministerial students at Samford University were sent out along with Anglo ministerial students to preach in SBC churches in Alabama in the late 90’s or early 2000. Some Baptist papers reported this. When some of the Anglo churches discovered Black students would be preaching, they canceled engagements. Messengers from these churches should not have been seated.
Black SBC denomination employees have expressed to me that they have been invited by virtue of their positions to speak at Anglo SBC churches. However, like the Samford students, when it was discovered that they were Black, the invitations to speak were withdrawn. The messengers from these churches should not be seated. Black SBC employees have also informed me that when Black churches or ministries rent certain SBC facilities they are charged a higher rate than Anglo churches. This reminds me of the BGCT practice; therefore, I find it believable. Churches and messengers who support this practice should not be seated.
I heard with my own ears, Mrs. Criswell teaching on the radio on a Sunday Morning embracing the view the Africans were cursed because of their descent from Ham in the mid 90’s. I purchased a copy of the tape/CD. The messengers of FBC Dallas should not have been seated at the Convention, unless Mrs. Criswell repented. The Vice President of Criswell College repented a couple of years ago of calling Hispanics “wetbacks.” Had he not repented, the messengers of FBC should not have been seated.
An SBC church in Louisiana, dis-invited an IMB Anglo missionary couple from speaking at their church within the past three years as reported by the ABP. Why? This couple adopted native African children. This church’s messengers should not be seated. As a matter of fact, it was my reading about this church that in part inspired my proposed racial discrimination amendment.
Dave Miller, a man I have tremendous respect for, talks about being denied a raise by his predominately Anglo SBC congregation. Why? He allowed Blacks to play basketball on the church parking lot. If that was the basis for the decision, this church’s messengers should not have been seated.
Tim Rogers saw a local SBC church in North Carolina, where Dr. and Mrs. Patterson were members at the time vote to fire their pastor because African Americans were baptized in the baptistery. To their credit, Dr. and Mrs. Patterson announced he would not be back because he could not support a church that would take that kind of action. Neither should the SBC seat the messengers from this church.
William Thornton of Georgia, an SBC pastor, stated, “I once supplied at a church who had in their statement of beliefs an article that they believed, ‘God has ordained the segregation of the races…'” This SBC church had this printed on the back of their weekly bulletin, right along with the deity of Christ! Certainly, the messengers from this SBC church referenced by Pastor Thornton should not be seated.
Persons from churches who hold these views and practices are eligible to and sometime serve on SBC boards and committees. Are you expecting us to believe the persons who make personnel and policy decisions from these churches for the SBC do not take race into account in their decisions? If these churches will not allow interracial marriages, people of color to be baptized in their church or play basketball on their church parking lot, are you really expecting us to believe they will objectively make a fair hiring decision about African Americans as an entity head? Could it be that people from these churches decided that we don’t need a racial discrimination policy in the SBC Constitution? This is unbelievable.
In the early 90’s two Black SBC churches including the church where I pastor traveled on a 15-day mission trip to South Africa to construct a small church edifice. The two African American churches heavily funded this trip. The trip was coordinated by a non IMB, SBC related mission’s group based in Tennessee. At lunch time, we noticed that volunteer South African Anglo workers were invited to eat lunch with the mission’s crew from America. The native Black South African volunteer workers were not invited to eat lunch with the American Mission’s team. When I questioned this, they explained to me that this was simply the custom and tradition in South Africa. I vehemently objected to this practice because it was blatantly racist. The missions group that coordinated this trip were all members of an Anglo SBC church. Messengers from an SBC church that engage in such racist mission practices should not be seated at the SBC annual session.
I’ve been told numerous stories of this kind by many Anglo SBC pastors. The EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS SIMPLY IN DENIAL. Bart Barber, another SBC pastor that I respect greatly but often disagree with, has acknowledged in the blogosphere the fact that racism exists in the SBC. Dr. Russell Moore at Southern Seminary has also addressed the historic racism among conservatives in the SBC, and the tentacles of that admitted racism is visible today. Ironically, moderates did not swallow racism. Unfortunately, in some instances, they would sometimes swallow liberalism.
While attending the African American Banquet at the Orlando SBC, I was stunned as I heard the newly elected president, James Dixon, state, “The pink elephant in the room at the SBC is racism, and nobody wants to deal with it.” A Baptist Press reporter was sitting there. I knew she would report this, but not one word. I regard James Dixon highly. I’m convinced that he will address these issues during his tenure as President. It is doubtful that you could find one African American pastor who could not share with you a story of racism that they have experienced in SBC life.
A guest singing group at SWBTS wanted to display a Confederate flag at their appearance. Dr. Paige Patterson rightfully stopped them. This would have been offensive to many African American and Anglo students. The University of Texas removed a picture of one of their former law professors from the wall because he was a Klansman. Several pictures hanging on the wall of former presidents at SWBTS were slave holders and Klansmen. Their pictures should be removed. We cannot let the world have a higher standard than the Church.
While serving as a trustee at SWBTS, I was going to have to cast a vote regarding investing a substantial portion of seminary funds. I asked a fellow SBC pastor to research this matter for me in order to be able to cast an intelligent vote. This pastor discovered that the investment company leadership had a jaded history. Therefore, I decided that I could not, with a clear conscience, vote to invest SWBTS funds with this company. Unfortunately, my SBC pastor friend posted this information on his blog, and the seminary then decided not to hold a vote on this matter. I was then accused by a trustee committee of breeching a non-existent confidentiality policy. Furthermore, they recommended to the SBC that I be dismissed as a trustee. They later withdrew this request after I held a heart-to-heart talk with Dr. Patterson.
Interestingly, before Claude Thomas could assume the role of seminary chaplain, one of the trustees circulated “confidential” information that led to the seminary withdrawing the offer of the Chaplain’s position to Brother Claude. My question is, if two trustees both exposed “confidential” information, why wasn’t the other trustee recommended to the SBC for dismissal and publicly humiliated as the Seminary attempted to humiliate me?
Southern Seminary was the SBC seminary of choice for African Americans in the 60’s – 90’s. Something happened. I’m not sure what. The Black student population of Southern has significantly declined. I attended a Black Church Conference at Southern in the mid seventies. Never in my life had I witnessed twenty plus Black PhD’s in religion, assembled in one place at one time. Martin Luther King spoke at Southern in the early sixties. In talking to Black Southern graduates, I’m told that the SBC and Southern’s shift to FUNDAMENTALISM, REPUBLICANISM, CHAUVANISM, and CESSATIONISM caused the Seminary to be less popular with Blacks. All four of these “isms” are generally rejected by African American SBC churches. I’ve visited Southern’s campus twice. I can say that I was treated with the utmost respect and cordiality while there. Russell Moore and Hershel York went out of their way to make me feel welcome. I was there engaged in independent study. I was not an invited guest of the seminary, but I was treated to lunch by Dr. York; and Dr. Moore went out of his way to find me in the library and made all the resources of the library available to me. Without compromising their theological convictions, Southern need to recapture their ability that they once had to attract Blacks in major numbers. I do not know Dr. Mohler personally. I owe him royalties for teaching the men of Cornerstone, his teaching on manhood almost verbatim. I did give him credit. When he was critical of Rick Warren for praying at President Obama’s inauguration and indicated that he would not have accepted that invitation, I was disappointed. Why? The message sent to all of his students, red, yellow, black and white, is that if you are not in political/theological agreement with a politician, you shouldn’t pray at their gatherings. I attended the inauguration and happened to meet and briefly visit Rick Warren there. But how do you say to students by written word and example that you shouldn’t pray at the President’s inauguration? This defies the clear teaching of Scripture (1 Timothy 2:1-8). Rick Warren did not compromise in his prayer. I commend Rick Warren for his prayer for our nation’s new President; but, I question why Dr. Mohler would object. If invited, Dr. Mohler could have prayed at the inauguration; however, he felt led and set a good example for his students. I believe that is one among other reasons that have made Blacks less attracted to Southern.
The Life Action Revival Team based in Michigan has conducted two very successful two-week revivals at the church where I pastor. Life Action is a predominately Anglo revival team of about twenty persons who are housed with church members or live in trailers on the church parking lot. I have nothing but praise for Life Action. Perhaps the greatest spiritual impact of any revival effort in the history of our church was led by Life Action and they were all Anglo, but one singer. Life Action leaders normally attend the SBC.
The only racial or cultural question that came up during their time with us was when I heard them practicing “Dixie” during the day, preparing to sing it that night. I hurriedly informed the Life Action team leader that “Dixie” is a reviled song to Black people. “Dixie” celebrates the ante-bellum South that is a very distasteful period for Black people. I told Bro. Steve Canfield, a great preacher by the way, that if they sang that song that night, I would be fired. He graciously asked the team not to sing “Dixie” at Cornerstone and I was certainly glad. However, we were the first African American congregation that Life Action had ever conducted a revival in. They sang this horrible song in SBC churches everywhere they go—not realizing how offensive this song is to African Americans. I am not suggesting that the SBC churches where Life Action leaders are members should not be seated, but I am suggesting that this is one among several cultural issues that I could name that keep the racial divide in the SBC alive.
The SBC is experiencing numerical, morale and spiritual decline in part because they don’t know how to diversify. The gnat they keep straining out is diversity. The camel they keep swallowing is racism, sexism and factionalism. However, if this convention is to grow and move forward, we must look past the gnat that have plagued us and we must reject the camels that have hindered us and pray for and embrace an eagle that can lift us to higher heights above the gnats and camels that have thwarted us.
I’m praying for President Bryant Wright as he leads us. I’m praying and believing that in New Orleans in 2012 the SBC will make a major step in the right direction and elect an African American as president. If the Lord says the same I plan to attend the New Orleans Convention, so that I can vote for our first African American president. When the SBC appoints a Black and other minorities to one of our entity heads, then I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that racial healing and progress in the SBC will have moved forward into the new millennium. Until such time we are operating under the old paradigm that Blacks in the SBC are a mission project—not mission partners. The fact that African Americans were overlooked as members of the original GCTF underscores the point that Blacks are viewed by the SBC as mission projects—not mission partners. This must change.
Consequently, Black SBC churches give slightly less than 1% to the Cooperative Program. Anglo SBC churches give 6%. Why is it that Black SBC churches give less than 1%? The answer is simple. They feel disenfranchised and unrepresented. Many Black SBC churches are like our Church that faithfully tithe 10% to missions, year after year, but recognize that under the current practices of the SBC racially, to give 10% to the Cooperative program would be an exercise in self-hatred and the financing of institutional and systemic racism. The camel swallowers have made it impossible to give to the cooperative program without supporting racism, chauvinism, and cessationism. Many would add to that list, Republicanism. In order for any church to give liberally to the cooperative program, they would have to overlook these issues in order to give. It is difficult to give, in our case, over $400,000 a year to an organization that has allowed Blacks to be members for over sixty years, but has never elected one African American or any minority as an entity head. Again, this is tragic, sinful and shameful. However, we swallow this camel—hook, line and sinker—while we strain out the gnat of diversity. God help us!
When Dr. W.A. Criswell, the patriarch of the conservative resurgence, spoke so eloquently and powerfully regarding, “The Curse of Liberalism,” at the San Antonio Convention in the mid 80’s, we saw, “The way of an eagle in the air.”
When Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, the architects of the conservative resurgence led our convention back to a place where we, without hesitation or reservation, declare that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, we saw, “The way of eagle[s] in the air.”
When Dr. Adrian Rodgers preached so powerfully and persuasively for the need of our convention to appoint to boards and committee’s persons committed to the inerrant Word of God, we saw, “The way of an eagle in the air.”
When Wade Burleson risked it all and put everything on the line in a gallant effort to protect the right of missionaries to pray in private in accordance with their conscience and biblical convictions, that led to a modification of the controversial policy and perhaps saved the job of Dr. Jerry Rankin, who admittedly prayed in tongues in private, we saw, “The way of an eagle in the air.”
When one looks at the racial divide in the SBC that is very apparent at every annual session, what we need now is an eagle who will arise that can bridge this gap. I’m convinced that Frank Page’s and Bryant Wright’s hearts are in the right place on this racial divide. James Dixon’s, the able, efficient and eloquent leader of the SBC African American Fellowship, heart is in the right place. My prayer is that God will anoint one of these men or the next president to be an eagle and help our convention to heal the racial divide, so that the SBC will begin to look like the Kingdom of God.
Vance Pittman’s commitment to diversity is excellent. He is greatly respected by Las Vegas’ Black pastors because of his commitment to diversity. Pittman’s worship leader at his church is an African American that he pays a very generous salary and encourages him to be true to himself and his heritage as he leads worship. Consequently, there are many Blacks who are attracted to Pittman’s church. The SBC can learn from him. I’m impressed with his lineup of speakers for the Pastors’ Conference. If I have one concern, it is that I don’t see an African American Southern Baptist pastor in the lineup. Pittman’s commitment to diversity is what’s causing the backlash. Diversity without doctrinal compromise is what the SBC needs. Pittman has managed to do a good job with this. I commend him. From what I’ve heard about him, he may be the eagle that can help bridge the racial divide. However, I regret that he accepted Jamar Jones’ voluntary withdrawal from the SBC Pastors Conference. I respect the fact that Jamar Jones was Kingdom minded and concerned about the unity of the SBC; therefore, he decided to withdraw. In doing so, he displayed a greater commitment to Kingdom unity and demonstrated Christian maturity at a higher level than his critics. Pittman’s commitment to diversity is the “gnat” that many in the SBC want to strain out. If the SBC continues to behave like this, they will do so to their own peril.
While Bradd Whitt, Ed Stetzer, Nathan Finn, Bart Barber, Peter Lumpkins and others celebrate or bemoan the personalities at the Pastors Conference, I wonder if they have paused to realize that last year and this year—not one African American Southern Baptist pastor preached at the Pastors’ Conference. What you all are doing is “straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.”
If I attend the Phoenix SBC, it will be to support James Dixon and his leadership of the African American SBC Fellowship. If Dave Miller and others choose to bring the racial discrimination amendment to the floor, I would like to be there to simply vote in favor. However, at this point, I’m ready to join the hundreds, or perhaps, thousands of other African American SBC who usually do not attend the convention, even if they are in town because to do so, you have to “swallow the camel” of the very noticeable absence of Black leadership and visibility of Black and minority platform personalities. I’ve decided that this is a camel that I can no longer swallow.
The excellent Annuity Board benefits, church planting and mission endeavors, seminary training, discipleship resources and Sunday school materials are reasons why Blacks join and remain with the SBC. Admittedly, the SBC provides a higher quality of these services much stronger than the National Baptist Convention. Therefore, many of us are committed to being a part of the SBC. However, if the SBC wants greater financial support and convention attendance from Black churches and pastors, they will need to be intentional regarding the inclusion and empowerment of Blacks at every level or nothing will change.
How could the SBC not see that the platform is generally all White at the annual session? How could the SBC not see that all of her entity heads are White? How could the SBC not see the potential for a major increase in giving to the cooperative program if they were intentional in empowering minorities? How could the SBC not see that if the Pastors’ Conference went two consecutive years without an Anglo SBC preacher preaching, there would be a revolt; yet they are blind to the fact that this is what African American SBC preachers are being asked to endure. The SBC is swallowing a camel without seeing it.
IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME THAT SBC persons would say that we cannot document racism in the SBC and we don’t need a racial discrimination amendment in the constitution. The truth of the matter is that the SBC is simply not sincerely and seriously opposed to racism to the extent that they seriously oppose homosexuality. Any other explanation is simply whitewashing a very serious issue.
The Bible says “The way of an eagle in the air” is a wonderful thing (Prov. 30:18, 19). If there is hope for the SBC, I pray that God will raise up an eagle among us who can help us soar to higher heights.
What African Americans in the SBC want is simply, Democracy. I close with this poem by the African American poet, Langston Hughes:
Democracy
Democracy will not come today,
This year nor ever through compromise and fear.
I have as much right as the other fellow has
To stand on my two feet and own the land.
I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course. Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.
Freedom is a strong seed planted in a great need.
I live here, too. I want freedom just as you.
Pride goes before destruction (Proverbs 16.18). The dictionary defines pride as “inordinate self esteem.” Paul defined pride as thinking of oneself as more highly than one ought (see Romans 12.3). Racism is pride, pure and simple. And the Word of God is quite clear that pride precedes destruction. If we are serious about wanting the Lord to use the SBC, then we must be serious about humbling ourselves.
Thank you Dwight for documenting specific examples of racism within the SBC. White pastors like myself, who have not witnessed these examples, have a hard time seeing them. Your prophetic voice ought to break our souls and bring conviction to our pride.
I appreciate Dr. McKissic’s words. I would like to respond to them first (though maybe someone will beat me to the post a comment – my comment might be sort of long).
We need to listen to what he says and respond appropriately.
I believe that white Southern Baptists need to listen to our black brothers in Christ and try to see the racial issue from their side. We trumpet the progress we’ve made and like to believe that we’ve solved the racism problem in the SBC. But black Southern Baptists still feel they are being marginalized and excluded. We can either defend and justify ourselves or we can work to convince those with different shades of skin that they are equal partners in our work.
I think that the listing of stories of racism and discrimination are disgusting, shameful and embarrassing. We can do better. We must do better.
Issues of Disagreement
I disagree with Dr. McKissic on some of the points that he made. While he is right that we Southern Baptists have tended to make major deals over petty issues, I believe that maintaining doctrinal integrity in the SBC is important, even godly. There is a balance we must strike between doctrinal integrity and petty enforcement of doctrinal conformity.
But I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity matters. I believe that TD Jakes, who comes from a Oneness background, employed modalist language in his doctrinal statement, and has made statements that sound an awful lot like modalism.
I am sorry that Jamar Jones may have gotten caught in the crossfire here, but we need to maintain doctrinal integrity.
I disagree with Dr. McKissic that debate was simply “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.” If it was a discussion of private prayer language or something like that, I would agree with him completely. But we were talking about the Trinity – a doctrine that matters, that undergirds the gospel.
Perhaps we went too far, or spoke before we had all the facts. But I am glad to be in a denomination that holds its leaders doctrinally accountable.
Second, I completely disagree with what he says about women in the SBC. Yes, I thought Patterson’s firing of Klouda was a huge mistake and simply wrong. But I believe that SBC doctrine relative to women is ministry is grounded in sound scriptural exegesis.
The Bible teaches that men should be servant leaders in their homes and reserves the role of pastor/elder and deacons for men. I say that not out of any desire to oppress women.
Frankly, I wish he has left this out of his article. Racism is an offense against God. Obeying the Bible’s teachings on gender roles is obedience.
Southern Baptist racists went to scripture and found what is not there – justification for racism. They did so because the culture they were in approved of racism. They molded biblical teachings to gain cultural approval.
I think egalitarians are doing exactly the same – going to scripture to find justification to mold biblical teachings to gain popularity in culture. You simply cannot justify egalitarianism on exegetical grounds without doing great violence to biblical and hermeneutical principles.
I think it was unfortunate that Dr. McKissic tried to tie these two issues.
We MUST Take Action
However, what he says about racism simply cannot be ignored. We have a racist denominational beginning and a long history of racism. It is our job to do something about it.
It is our job to prove to Southern Baptists who are not white that we are going to make a real and determined effort to change the nature of Southern Baptist work.
What is that action we must take? That will have to be decided. I am not sure at this point.
I intend to continue to write and discuss this issue here. Maybe that makes little difference, but it is something.
We need to so something significant and symbolic at Phoenix. What will that be? Maybe we need to bring Dr. McKissic’s motion out of the penalty box. Maybe there is another action we could take. But whatever we do, we must do something.
Again, there is no African-American speaking at the pastor’s conference (There is an African speaker). Will the podium be a whites only club again this year? That is yet unknown.
I think that we have, in the last 20 years or so, opened the door to black Baptists to include them in SBC life. We have made progress. But we have not done much to include them in SBC leadership. That is the key at this time.
While I felt the need to express a couple of minor disagreements here, let me be clear:
THE SBC NEEDS TO LISTEN TO DWIGHT MCKISSIC AND DO SOMETHING REAL, SOMETHING DRAMATIC, SOMETHING POWERFUL ABOUT THIS ISSUE!!!
(Yes, I’m shouting)
Dave,
Thanks for posting my voice on SBC Voices. I love the way you model allowing diverse viewpoints on this forum. The SBC could learn from you. Dave, you present the perfect balance of all “factions” in the SBC. I hope that the “kingmakers” will one day ask you to serve in leadership at the highest pinnacles of the SBC and the Lord lead you to say, yes.
With regard to the Bishop Jakes/SBC/modalist controversy, I 100% agree with your statement: “Perhaps we went too far, or spoke before we had all the facts.” This is exactly what happened. I don’t believe that Bishop Jakes or Jamar Jones is expecting, wanting or waiting on an apology or explanation, but I appreciate your humility and honesty in making such an admission. Your integrity and leadership is the type that I could enthusiastically follow. I know you believe that the jury is still out with regard to Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity, but you at least allow for the possibility that your earlier statement was a rush to judgment.
With regard to your statement, “I completely disagree with what he says about women in the SBC,” would you be more specific and reference a particular statement or points that I’ve made that you disagree with. The only examples you gave would be points of agreement: “I thought Patterson’s firing of Klouda was a huge mistake and simply wrong. But I believe that SBC doctrine relative to women in ministry is grounded in sound scriptural exegesis.” David, would you point to any statement that I’ve made that conflict with your quotes that I just referenced? I agree with every word in the B, F and M 2000 statement with regard to women. Again, point to any statement that I’ve made that will conflict with the B, F, and M 2000 statement regarding women. I even agree with your statement, “The Bible teaches that men should be servant leaders in their homes and reserves the role of pastor/elder and deacons for men.” I believe that an argument can be made for women deacons as John McArthur. However, in Black Baptist churches women are referred to as “deaconess” and primarily take on the role of preparing the Lord’s Supper and ministering to women. However, in some churches, women deaconess takes on servant leadership roles under the authority of the male senior pastor. I agree with your statements about women in the church, so what qualifies me to be an “egalitarian”?
My friend, Tim Rogers, wrongly used the word “moderate” in responding to you on an earlier post and you kindly rejected his use of the word in the context of that conversation. I agreed with you. By using the word “egalitarian” in the context of my post, or directly or indirectly referring to my expressed views, have you done to me, what Tim did to you?; and that is, imposed a label on you without merit or justification. Unfair treatment toward Blacks and women is imbedded in the DNA of the SBC. Therefore, these two issues are tied together. I’m grateful, that we are in agreement on the most salient point and I love being a part of an SBC that does not require uniformity of agreement on secondary points. Thanks again for posting this article; By the way, I totally believe you when you said, “I can tell you that my concern over Jamar Jones and T.D. Jakes was 100% focused on theology, not race.” God bless you brother.
You are right. I assumed you were expressing an egalitarian position in your post, essentially accusing those of us who believe that only men should be pastor/elders of sexism.
If I erred in that, I apologize.
What I said about egalitarians is my conviction. If I wrongly assumed you were advocating that position, that is the error for which I apologize.
Dave,
Thanks for the apology and appropriately redressing this matter.
I agree with every word in the B, F and M 2000 statement with regard to women.
I wasn’t clear where you stood, doubtless due to my own ignorance. I appreciate that you took the time to clarify. This has been a very eye opening post for me to read. You pointed out things that I’d never heard and it breaks my heart to hear about stuff like that happening. Thank you.
Who can respond to this with anything other than Amen! Our disagreement over Baptist distinctives ought to be overshadowed by our agreement over Christian distinctives.
Thank you, SBC Voices, for allowing Dr. McKissic to share a passionate and much-needed critique of some of the illnesses that plague the SBC. His identification of the 4 “isms” of racism, chauvinism, cessationism, and Republicanism that serve as deterrents to African American brethren feeling wholly accepted as equals in the convention is a timely word. I expect that he will receive a backlash from those quick to defend their stance on the role of women in ministry, tongues spoken in private, and conservative politics, but his words should at the least be carefully weighed and considered by all rather than summarily dismissing his arguments. I’m grateful that this brother in Christ had the courage of his convictions to state his case and do so in a gracious manner.
I am completely serious here.
There should be a movement that begins right now.
Dwight McKissic should be elected president of the SBC in 2012.
I have experienced firsthand an African-American preacher, who was not voted to be an interim pastor, because it would make people “uncomfortable.”
If every blogger, personality who knows that what Dr. McKissic writes is true, stand together and say this should happen. It could and it should. In fact, he should be able to run unopposed. Every person who is worthy of running for president of the SBC, should bow out and say I am supporting Dr. McKissic for president.
We need to make it clear right now, that we are a people of the Savior, who is saving a people of every tribe, tongue and every nation.
Further,
When he is nominated, a motion to close nominations should be given, and he should be elected by acclamation.
I am convinced that the tears of joy that flowed that day, would be the first step to washing away the blight of racism, intentional and unintentional, that plagues American Christianity in general, and in the SBC in particular.
I disagree with Dwight McKissic on his views of women in SBC. I have concerns about T.D. Jakes. I am not all that certain that I like his views on private prayer language. He has had leadership positions in the SBC, BGCT, and SBTC Pastor’s Conference. In his words “The SBC “swallowed” me, because they did not know me.” Well now we do. I would not vote for him because I do have some theological differences with him; maybe they are minor. But I wish him well in his ministry and would consider any man or woman on the basis of shared faith and practice based on the BFM 2000 for leadership within the SBC.
I do have friends with whom I disagree theologically, one is the pastor of a Pentecostal church and another is a Presbyterian.
No one should be a leader in the SBC just because of race. Our theological confessions should actually matter.
Dennis Salley,
I ask of you the same questions that I asked Dave Miller regarding your disagreement with my views of women in the SBC; would you be more specific?
I have no aspirations to serve as president of the SBC. However, I believe every word of the B, F, M 2000. What then would disqualify me if I desired to serve in your judgment? Be specific about a position that I hold that contradicts the B, F and M 2000.
Dwight McKissic
I read your clarification to Dave Miller (above) on your view of women in SBC. I also went to your blog site and read “Attitudes Toward Women In Baptist Life” and “Why A Resolution to the SBC on Affirming and Apologizing to Women?” so please allow me to amend my entry to say:
“I “may” disagree with Dwight McKissic on his view of women in SBC.”
I will also say again that my theological differences with you are minor. But I want to emphasize that they are theological not racial.
I do not think that for the purpose of this article that there is any value in being specific about any of them. Maybe another article or another place.
Your article is about racism in the SBC. Sadly, I beleive that the examples you gave are the kinds of things that can and do happen in our churches and convention but I also believe that men and women, churches, and the convention are working to correct these kinds of attitudes and actions.
My initial reply to your article is driven in part by the other articles in this series that Dave Miller has posted:
“The SBC, Racism, and the Future: My (Lily White) Brothers, We Can Do Better!”
and
“The Racism Motion: A Response From the Inside.”
A point made there and in your article is that there are no African Americans on the platform of the SBC and that this is because of racism. What can we do about this?
I would like to remind readers that the SBC has people of racial and ethnic diversity in places of leadership. We are intentional in dealing with race. You yourself are such an example. You have served on a few Boards in state convention and SBC life. Most pastors much less SBC laity will never have such privilege and responsibility.
Your reply to me states that you have no aspiration to be president of the SBC. I can understand that! I have served in small associations all of my career as a pastor. I have no apsirations for more responsiblity at even greater levels. Being the president of the SBC is a great and terrible privilege and responsiblity!
You asked me what would disqualify you from serving as president since you believe in BFM 2000. Obviously nothing!
When I vote for leaders at the conventions, I try to take note of things that reveal a person’s theology, missions support (CP giving), church health, evangelism, ministry, previous servcie in the convention (have they served before, maybe its time for them to let someone else have a chance to serve)…things that speak to the character of the person not to his race. I have voted for minority leaders and those who were not the megachurch leader; and of course some of those people were not elected. (While I am at it, I’ll say that I would like to see the leaders we elect be from churches that give a higher percentage through the Cooperative Program.) The things you have said about your church and its giving are commendable and exemplary in my mind.
As I have dealt with my church, association, state convention and SBC, I use the BFM 2000 as my guide. I understand and hope that most do as well, that the BFM 2000 is not the Bible so it does not define my relationship with Christians outside of SBC life. It does help me say what I expect from SBC churches, associations, state convetions, and SBC leaders.
So your article raises a concern. You have served in SBC and Texas convention life yet you wrote in your article “The SBC “swallowed” me, because they did not know me.” What is it that we do not know? When a person is hiding something or will not answer a question I don’t want him to be my leader. I don’t want to be in partnership with him. I am not saying that you are hiding anything. You seem to be rather straight forward. But what did you mean? Can you see that I might have questions about theology that are not motivated by race?
I know there is room for improvement and change in the SBC but I want to have leaders who are clear in their confession of SBC doctrines and practices regardless of their race or ethnicity.
Dennis Salley,
What can we do about “no African Americans on the platform of the SBC”? If African Americans and other minorities are a part of the planning group (whoever they may be) that determines who is on the platform at the SBC, I assure you that there will be persons suggested to make presentations who are African American. By the way, that’s the same way Anglos get to serve on the platform.
However, to tackle the broader problem, and that is a lack of minority representation at all levels of the SBC, I would suggest that the SBC do what many corporations and other denominations have done; and that is, appoint a director of diversity to help guide the SBC to becoming a racially diverse convention without compromising the B, F, and M 2000. I believe that this is the best way to improve race relations and inclusiveness in our convention.
I stated, “The SBC swallowed me, because they did not know me.” You asked, “What is it that we do not know?…Can you see that I might have questions about theology that are not motivated by race?”’ Good questions.
Although I’ve been very open about my theology and practice as it relates to the gifts of the Spirit and particularly the gift of praying/praising in tongues (I Cor. 14:2) in my pulpit and many other places since 1981, when I first prayed in tongues in my dormitory room at Fort Worth Hall, after hearing Professor Jack Gray at SWBTS affirm all the gifts of the Spirit including tongues, the SBC/SBTC as a whole was not aware of me, therefore obviously not aware of all facets of my belief system. And that’s what I meant by “The SBC swallowed me, because they did not know me.” I firmly believe that the Scripture teaches that the role of the Senior Pastor and Elders are to males. This position is in our church constitution, and it is our practice at Cornerstone. Given those two biblical mandates, I believe that the Scripture allows for women to function in many roles in the life of the local church and our conventions that does not violate the Scriptural mandates. I have a more expansive view of the role of women in our local churches and the SBC than many of the gatekeepers. They have a very, narrow limited view of the role of women that not only restrict women from serving as the Senior Pastor or Elders, but virtually, it restricts them in every other major ministry assignment in the life of the church and convention. I see no biblical basis for this. I don’t believe the SBC was aware of my expansive view of the role of women in the local church within the parameters of the Bible and the B, F and M 2000. This is simply what I meant by my statement. Absolutely! I believe this whole discussion about Bishop Jakes and modalism is driven by “questions about theology that are not motivated by race?” That would include you and everyone else who’ve addressed this issue, including me. I hope that I’ve addressed your questions.
However, to tackle the broader problem, and that is a lack of minority representation at all levels of the SBC, I would suggest that the SBC do what many corporations and other denominations have done
I’m not sure I disagree with this and it might be a good practical soulution, but I’m curious–I’ve always thought that in hiring folks for a job, for instance, that if you interview a broad enough pool of people that you’re going to find sometimes the best person for the job happen to be black, other times the person happens to be white, while other times the person best suited is a latin american. Do you think it would be effective to try to cast a “wider net” of applicants/potential speakers/yadda yadda?
All I can say is Wow! I live about 20 min from Dr M’s church, and while very happy where I attend plan to take a visit over there as soon as possible
Don, I’m not sure that Dwight McKissic would want to do this. But I would agree with you. There have been other names put forward and whether it’s Dwight or someone else, I think your idea is a good one.
Let’s elect an African-American SBC President in 2012.
That would be a good next step.
What are the other names?
If we cannot stand together on this issue and denounce racism at every turn, we will deserve what happens to us.
Sometimes the only way to confront an issue is to tackle it head-on.
What if all those who have written against Bell, stood together and said with one voice, racism is not and will not in the future be tolerated in the SBC?
Don, several people have mentioned a New Orleans pastor named Fred Luter. Gary Frost, who was instrumental in the movement to repent of racism in 1995 is also a possibility.
“Pastor Luter is also a respected speaker/preacher across the country. The senior pastor made headlines as the first African-American to be elected to the Executive Board of the Louisiana Baptist Convention in 1992. He made headlines again in June 2001 when he was the first African-American to preach the Southern Baptist Convention Message. In the Summer 2002 issue of Growing Churches Magazine, Pastor Luter recounts how it was both exciting and nerve-wracking to “preach to preachers, seminary professors and former presidents of the Convention” and to be in the company of Southern Baptist dignitaries Jerry Vines, Dr. Adrian Rogers, and Dr. Paige Patterson among others .
Despite FABC’s growth and recognition (FABC is the largest Southern Baptist church in the city and state) Pastor Luter wants the congregation to remember Franklin Avenue is not in competition with other churches. He wants members to “continue to stay focused on what God has called us to do as a church.” That calling is embodied in the church mission statement: to spiritually impact our families, neighborhoods, city and state by exalting the Savior, equipping the saints and evangelizing the sinners. And, under Pastor Luter’s continued tutelage and vision for the Church, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church will do just that for many years to come.”
I don’t recall at the moment, but I have heard Dr. Luter preach somewhere. He would be a fine choice.
I took that bio from his church’s website.
The last time I wrote on this, several people mentioned Fred Luter as a great example of a Southern Baptist pastor who is black.
I’m sure there are more. The Iowa Baptist Convention president is black, but we didn’t elect him for racial reasons. We elected him because he has been a faithful part of our convention for decades. (Ted Keys is his name, by the way.)
I think one of the best choices we could make for President would be Voddie Baucham. I just heard him speak recently at a fundraising banquet for the Pregnancy Crisis Center here in Athens, GA and it was a stirring speech about African-American genocide through abortion. From top to bottom I think there could be no finer candidate than Voddie. I can imagine McKissic and Baucham disagree mightly on a number of issues, but I wonder if McKissic would support Voddie, a fellow Texas Southern Baptist – for President.
Another guy who would be a terrific candidate (though unfortunately he is currently not a Southern Baptist, but has been in the past and could very well be in the future) is Thabiti Anyabwile.
Both these men would be outstanding leaders for our convention.
Dave,
Instead of electing an African-American as President of the Southern Baptist Convention for the sake of electing an African-American will, in my opinion, do more harm than good.
Now, I do believe that there are many African-Americans within the sphere of the Southern Baptist Convention who would make very fine leaders of the convention. I’ve voiced my own support that Fred Luter would make a very fine and capable President for the convention.
However, I would suggest that we take a page out of the playbook from the Conservative Resurgence. Let’s place these very capable African American and other minority leaders in leadership roles at local, state, and agency levels and demonstrate that they are very capable with the mantle of leadership and that they, as demonstrated with Luter and others, wear this mantle very well.
I firmly believe that just electing an African American solely because he’s an African American would have a denigrating effect on the basic changes that we, you in particular, are championing.
However, with all that I’ve just said, I would proudly vote for either Fred Luter or Dwight McKissack because they have both modeled and exemplified the leadership, character and integrity that I expect from someone leading our convention.
Dwight may be more able to speak to power in this kind of forum than as President of the SBC. After all, with our history, I fear this would be more symbolic (1995) that real.
You go Dwight!
I don’t agree that 1995 was symbolic. I think it was a real and necessary step. We may disagree about the concept of corporate sin and repentance, but I think that 1995 was important.
We, perhaps, made the mistake of seeing that as an end to a process instead of a beginning.
Dave,
My reference to symbolic is in the context of your own posts here on Voices along with Dwight’s. I was there for the vote. Many of us had hopes that those who could do something with this would do something with this. Sixteen years later and we are now calling for action from the floor of the convention? And, you really see the action in 1995 as more than symbolic? You are too kind to the powers to suggest we saw the vote as an “end to a process instead of a beginning.” You are much to vocal about this issue and far too bright to gloss this in such a manner. I applaud your charity and “benefit of the doubt,” but we would question anyone’s repentance after sixteen years of the same.
Here’s where I come down on all this. I know there are pockets of racism and discrimination still around in the SBC.
But I think today’s problems stem from a couple of sources.
1) We don’t see the world the way black Baptists do. We think we repented and we aren’t actively discriminating, so there’s no problem anymore.
2) We tend to view only active discrimination as the problem. Dwight says that the convention podium was a white’s only enclave. Do I think that Johnny Hunt issued an edict that no blacks were allowed? Absolutely not. I’m sure he would be horrified even to read that sentence. But while no one actively tried to exclude blacks, we did, in fact, do just that. We were passively exclusive by instead of by intent.
I think the repentance in 95 was genuine and sincere. I was there when we did it (though my memory of where we were is evidently faulty.)
Our failure was that we thought we had solved the problem instead of seeing that as a first step in the process.
Dave,
We “Free Church” Baptists get personal repentance. But, we are horrid at systemic repentance – what some refer to as corporate. Since we are non-connectional in our associations with each other we don’t think in terms of corporate save our Sunday morning gatherings. And therefore our understanding of systemic ills are very limited, unless of course we are privileged to have relationships with those in large institutions who help us understand just how this works in the world. (Please do not read condescension. This is merely a generalization and not an indictment.)
What Dwight references are systems that are in place that in fact come off like “a priori” commitments for the whole even if we want to claim we don’t see the world the way black Baptists do. We don’s see the world the way any minority does. And, until we rise to that reality and our systems face the weight of this neglect, we will inevitably be racist, chauvinistic, patriarchal, and patronizing.
It would have been good to meet you in New Orleans in 1995. We could commiserate on the symbolism of the decision made in the deep south not far from many of the districts where systems continued then, and likely today, to keep minority peoples “in their place.”
And as to the comment below. I am not suggesting the problem was with 1995. The problem was in a move that was and still is largely symbolic. If the repentance did not result in intentional action, we can only conclude our intention was no action at all.
Someone needs to definitively research where 1995 convention was. I would have sworn that it was at Indianapolis. I think it was BDW who told me it was at Atlanta. Now, you said New Orleans. I’m so confused.
I think if we may be discussing apples and oranges here, when in fact our views are very close to each other.
Well, the Resolution was “Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and….”
So, Atlanta is your definitive answer.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899
In other words, I don’t think the problem was with 1995, but with what we have done in the last 16 years.
Got my passport in New Orleans in 1995 during the SBC. The next year was in Dallas. Here you go – http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899.
And, we may indeed be close together. My shorthand would be, “the system is broke that cannot execute the repentant will of the Convention.”
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and
I’m so confused.
But on the positive note, I agree with your statement.
1995 was in Atlanta. That was also the year we voted on the “New Century” stuff: rename FMB to IMB, merged a bunch of stuff with HMB to make NAMB—it was initially approved in 1995, finished in 1997.
I think the resolution on racism effected as much real change as the restructuring effected greater effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. However, I’ve been wrong twice this week, so that could be the third time. Suffice to say that words and votes express intentions but don’t always get results.
As we used to say at UPS: “Efforts are nice, but results matter.”
OK, me too. I was not in Atalanta. Maybe there was discussion in 1996. Because, after fact checking, the 1996 was in New Orleans. Ah, that is right New Orleans was the Disney Boycott as the powers were unhappy with the unexpected election of Jim Henry. We Southern Baptists and our resolutions.
But, we did reach some agreement. Wow.
Maybe we are on some time-travel episode of “Baptist Trek.”
Am I wrong in remembering that we passed the motion one year and then formally repented the next or something like that.
I know I was there, but I didn’t think I went to Atlanta.
I don’t know. The resolution passed in 1995—but was there a prior vote to contemplate our options or something?
I won’t tell you you’re old to have been there—but I know where I was that summer. And it wasn’t involved in SBC politics.
Doug,
I hear ya man. In 1995, I was serving as a summer missionary in Eureka Springs, AR during that summer. And I didn’t pay much attention to SBC stuff either. As a matter of fact, my wife and I went on the first week of our honeymoon to Disney World at the end of May in 1996, so we got it in before the boycott was voted on. 🙂
I think the timing of the race resolution was intentional.
1995 was the 150th anniversary of the SBC (which was birthed over the slavery question)
The first gathering of the SBC was held in Augusta in 1845.
Todd Littleton,
Let me thank you for your post, which triggered mine. I originally wanted to write in response to Dave’s piece on Jakes/Jamar Jones. You said every thing I wanted to say, far better than I knew how to say it. Therefore, I was able to address more salient issues. Thanks again, and you’re right! Jamar Jones and I may best serve Southern Baptists by not serving Southern Baptists. However, I do love and pray for Southern Baptists, and I want to serve those who do serve Southern Baptists.
Thanks Dwight.
Dave,
I respectfully disagree with you. Bishop Jakes has made his position clear and as Dr. M says, you would also have to disagree with Herschel Hobbs. The SBC should be ashamed that Jamar Jones is not leading worship, should ask for forgiveness and ask him to return as worship leader. If you disagree his position on women in leadership, so be it. Our convention will never move forward until we diversify and make our churches resemble Heaven.
Dr. M, thank you for an incredibly insightful and awesome post! You would have my vote for sure. God bless you my brother!
I was unsure whether to even bring up those small disagreements, but I thought I would try to state my feelings and then move on with the racism discussion.
I can tell you that my concern over Jamar Jones and TD Jakes was 100% focused on theology, not race.
I agree with you 100% on your statement about making our churches resemble heaven.
And, Michael, that is the vision I am trying to put forward here for SBC Voices. “Respectful Disagreement.” Dr. McKissic called me and disagreed with my post. I asked him to write this one, which I agree with 100% in terms of its point and purpose. I just expressed a couple of minor disagreements with things he said.
I want SBC Voices to be a place where we can state our opinions and discuss them respectfully. Even disagree – respectfully. I am trying to take the name of this site seriously. We want to be a forum for all the voices of the SBC, not just mine.
I appreciate your contribution.
I stopped reading (for now) after what was written about TD Jakes, the Trinity, et al. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with God.
While I appreciate Jones voluntarily removing himself, he is more than just a pianist. He is the Executive Director of Music and Fine Arts at the Potter’s House.
Now. The Hobbs issue was addressed. I have pointed out the “manifestation” is used by the largest existing Oneness denomination. However, this does not prove that Jakes holds to Oneness doctrine anymore than Hobbs use of manifestations proves those rejecting Jakes would also “reject Hershel Hobbs.”
Two authors who have written on the doctrine of the Trinity read/listened to Jakes comments concerning the word “persons.” Neither of these men were comfortable with Jakes explanation and left comments on my site noting as much.
In Health, Wealth & Happiness:Has the Prosperity Gospel Overshadowed the Gospel of Christ? (Kregel, 2011), by SEBTS professor, Dave Jones and, former SEBTS professor, Russell Woodbridge note Jakes trinitarian problem as well as his problematic prosperity teaching. Hank Hanegraaff also documents Jakes prosperity teaching in Christianity in Crisis.
There are numerous articles documenting that Jakes held to Oneness doctrine including the words of Pastor Lawrence Robinson, Director of Ministry Affairs at the Potter’s House (at the time), who confirm that Jakes denies the biblical position of the Trinity even stating that the Roman Catholic Church introduced the concept of three gods. (source)
In Jakes recent statements about God and persons he said, “I believe that in a way that persons is a limited word for the Godhead.” That is not a clear affirmation of the Trinity. He still fellowships with Oneness folks and infers that they are Christians.
If McKissic can respond, “Suffice it to say that no SBC personality has provided any evidence that Bishop Jakes is a modalist.” I can, in turn, comfortably reply, Suffice it to say that no SBC personality has provided any evidence that Bishop Jakes is a Trinitarian.
This is hardly an issue of majoring in the minors. Rather, on this particular issue, it seems some want us to swallow a camel and tell us it’s only a gnat.
I would agree with much of what you say, Mark. But I would also encourage you to set aside those differences for now and read the rest of the article.
Differences over Jakes or WIM should not stop us from looking at the reality of racism in our convention.
Mark,
If you don’t accept Todd Littleton’s post as sufficient, regarding T.D. Jakes’ view on the Trinity, so be it. May God bless you and your work.
Dwight,
I wrote a post on Jakes before Todd wrote his. E. Calvin Beisner was one of the theologians I asked about Jakes’ recent comments to which Todd referred. (Actually, I posted the audio before Todd.) Beisner agreed with me (and others I noted above) that Jakes position was still not a clear representation of Trinitarianism.
Interestingly enough, a little over two years ago Voddie Baucham wrote The SBC And Calvinism: A Personal Perspective. His post does not speak directly to the topics at hand, but he made some interesting comments. He said:
and
I thought it was interesting that Jakes names came up. I digress.
I’ve yet to read the rest of your post, but upon scanning it I’m sure I will mostly agree with you. I saw the names you mentioned and I don’t fit in with those guys. In my letter to Vance Pitman I praised him for having guys like Piper and Patrick.
Does it bother me that there aren’t more (any?) black men speaking at the SBC annual events? You bet! I grew up in the South and was even a Free Mason I’ve seen and heard racism. It’s sickening. (There is certainly more I could share.) I also grew up and was baptized in a sect of Mormonism so I’m sensitive to doctrine.
Anyway, I appreciate you taking your time to let your concerns be known.
In Christ,
Mark
P.s. Have you ever talked to Eric Redmond about his experience as the Second Vice-President during 2007-2008?
Mark
I have very little familiarity with Oneness Pentecostal theology. I pose this question for my own benefit: Are you saying that Oneness Pentecostals are not authentic Christians? Does their belief system guarantee that they will spend eternity in hell? At first opportunity I will study this question by reading their doctrinal statements. However, it appears that you are much more studied on this question that I am. I kindly and appreciatively await your response. I have not talked to Eric Redmond about his experience as Second Vice-President but I soon will. I look forward to meeting and dialoging with you as well.
As one who has expressed concerns about the ability to document racism….
I think I’ve been shown to be wrong. I also think I’ve misunderstood ‘not seat messengers’ as permanent, when it could be changed the next year—so we’re talking about a single year step that would allow a church to correct actions and remain with the SBC once done.
I think I may be more in favor of the racism amendment than I was.
Anyway—as to the rest: obviously we could parse and split all of the doctrinal hairs mentioned by Dr. McKissic. I think I see the point on the ‘isms’ mentioned. We need to consider if we have majored on secondary doctrines that we could do without.
I’m starting to hear this as a broken record in my mind: we have too greatly expanded the doctrinal unity expressed in the SBC: there are legitimate differing interpretations on some issues that we should be able to cope with and still work towards the Great Commission together. The private prayer language issue is one of those; the political axe we grind is more like 10 of those issue (mind you: life is still a moral, Biblical issue, not a political one. Tax policy? Health care reform apart from killing the unwanted? Different questions entirely).
Do we want to: reflect God’s priorities? Accomplish the Great Commission? Then we need to learn to look past our bubbles and do it. Diversity of ethnic backgrounds, diversity of races, and a better diversity of gender would do us a world of good. We might find ourselves making disciples again.
And on the gender issue: I think Scripture is clear about a difference of roles while not establishing a difference of value or worth. Some of you disagree. Can we have the argument elsewhere? Please.
Bravo, brother Dwight! Bravo!
Les
For any who might doubt Hobbs’ believing in the Trinity:
Dr. Hobbs’ short note about the Trinity says, “This word does not appear in the Bible. But it is clear that the one God reveals himself as Father, Son, and Spirit (Matthew 28:19). It is a revealed doctrine, not one arrived at by human reasoning. Yet it submits itself to reason.”
-Herschel H. Hobbs, A Layman’s Handbook of Christian Doctrine, Broadman Press, Nashville; 1974.
“He is the triune God, three in one.” -Herschel H. Hobbs, The Baptist Faith and Message, Convention Press, Nashville; 1971.
David R. Brumbelow
I had never heard of these sorts of things happening when I was in the SBC. Obviously, my experience was very limited and/or I need to get out more. I am shocked and saddened. Thank you for an eye opening post.
I just want to point out something that I always point out, that the BFM does not forbid women deacons. This would indicate that while the BFM framers might not all endorse the idea, they acknowledge that Baptists might reasonably come to an exegetical understanding that the bible allows for women deacons (or deaconsesses if preferred).
I tried to enter a response yesterday, when there were only 2 or 3 there, but my computer froze up. So I will try to recreate what I said then.
I agree totally with what Brother McKissic has written. And my perspective is is one originally from the Deep South who has pastored in the Upper South, now in Maryland (technically south of the Mason-Dixon Line, but in a Washington suburb where almost no one id from “here”). I assure you, racism is alive and well–not just in the rural areas of the South, but in our churches as well. I have heard and experienced incidents where pastors were threatened with firing for inviting African-Americans to worship, where non-Anglos were directed to other churches rather than be seated, and where African-Americans were rejected for positions solely on the basis of race–and I do not mean back in the ’60s, I mean as recently as a couple of years ago. And to not take a stand opposing these things is to affirm them! Maybe the flap over Jamar Jones is theological–maybe, though frankly, I am not sure how any heretical theology (or good theology for that matter) would be communicated through instrumental notes played on a piano. Before I entered the ministry, my boss (in a security consulting company) used to say that, “We are in the position of Caesar’s wife: we must not only be right, we must look right as well.” Maybe we are right in withdrawing the invitation to Jones, but it certainly does not look right, not to a world that needs to see Southern Baptists affirming racial diversity, or to racists in our churches that need anything but to be able to interpret the actions as continuing our (almost) all-white denomination.
John Fariss
I’m starting to feel an enthusiasm building . We are doing better.
I think that if there is going to be any “real change” concerning racism, then the theology of the N.T. concerning “Spirit baptism…and other doctrines related to it” needs to be taught.
I do not think merely proclaiming “Stop being racist!” in essence is going to change what really needs to be changed. I think this might produce folks who end up “tolerating” racial diversity within the Christian faith, but not welcoming it in their hearts.
What needs to be challenged are the underlying beliefs that give rise to racism. And what challenges these beliefs is N.T. doctrine.
Accordingly, I think anyone who denies inerrancy in substance is left without a foundation for challenging racism. If Paul was wrong about Adam, then maybe he was wrong about different kinds of folks being one in Christ too.
Well, seems the dear brother hit the nail on the head and stepped on the tales of a few sleeping cats and dogs with the result being a lot yelps and snarls. If you think being black or female is open to second class Christian membership, you should try second marriages. God’s grace of forgivenness doesn’t mean a bucket of dry spit as far as letting people serve Him who have such a problem. I did learn until years later that they would not let my mother work in the nursery of the church where she rededicated her life even though at the time she contributed two babies to that nursery and eventually a total of four southern Baptist preachers (counting a son-in-law as one). We need to go back and read our bibles a little more closely. Consider this a church is an ekklesia, and an ekklesis was a place of equal membership, a governing body of a Greek city state (the term belongs to that culture and language. If you were a member of an ekklesia you had an equal say in its deliberations and decisions, and you were the equal of any other member member. Divisions or different classes of membership are as foreirgn to the concept of an ekklesia as any one can imagine. that was the implication of some of the developments of thinking on the nature of the church in the 1700s introduced into real action by the Separate Baptists. there is a whole lot moe freedom in biblical orthodoxy and openness too than most people imagine, especially those who talk about hierarchism as though some Christians are superior to others who are surely inferior. Baloney! Ain’t no such thing with god’s children in his family. Every child in the family of God is the equal of every other child. My mother once said to my oldest half sister, Debby who had said, “You must love Jim, Joy, and Sarar more than me, because their so much smarter than me,” “I don’t know but what I love you more cause you try so darn hard.” Debbie was hndicapped from a birth injury, borderline in intelligence (and yet made Cs & Bs in school competing with normal children. With a hand that was paralyzed and a walking upon the toe of one foot, she taught herself to tie her own shoes. Consider the effort, the time, the frustration, etc., that required. I don’t a one of us thought Mom had overstated her answer or resented her answer. Now those voices are silent in death of a terrible tragedy< I know how I feel about the insane second class Christianity that is frequently dealt out to African Americans (They were Black Americans when I was studying for Ph.D. in the field), females (I use to be a complementarian until I really thought through what was going on in Sandy Creek Association in the 1700s with eldresses). I still hold some complementarian ideas, but in the area of authority I am aware of the differences between authoritative and authoritarian. The first is healthy and the second is sick.
Elitism is the doom of our civilization. If we don't rise bbove the stupid nonsense that one person should rule the other just because he or she was born and grew up in a different class, had a different color of skin, had more money, a different culture, we will find ourselves in a mess that we would not believe possible. And, if we don't wake up the forgivenness of God and its removal of every hindrance to serving Him, we might find out that we are not His true followers.
1. The most charitable interpretation of T. D. Jakes possible is that he is a barely-Trinitarian who wishes to bring together Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians into unity. (“No truth exemplified by the Trinity is greater than Christian unity”, quoted in T. D. Jakes, “My Views on the Godhead,” Christianity Today, February 2000). He follows the baptismal formula of the Oneness Pentecostals (Ibid.), was ordained by a Oneness Pentecostal church (Ibid.). Whether he is a Trinitarian or not, his bluntly stated agenda of removing Trinitarianism as a dividing line between truth and heresy is reason enough that nobody representing the Potters House should be a marquee personality at any SBC event.
2. Todd Littleton is 100% wrong on one point, and it is a point that has been repeated in this post. Todd said, “It seems there is nothing that T.D. Jakes can do that will answer his Southern Baptist critics.” Not true. If Jakes were to issue the following statement—”I have rejected and I repudiate as heresy the teachings of Oneness Pentecostalism with regard to the nature of God, embracing instead the historic doctrine of the Trinity”—then no question would remain about Jakes’s Trinitarianism. Instead, Jakes is telling everybody on all sides that he’s one of their number on this question. But the position of Oneness Pentecostalism and the position of Trinitarianism are mutually exclusive and mutually condemning. There is no middle way. It will be clear that he has come “over here” when it is clear that he has left behind “over there.” Otherwise, he seems simply to be arguing that Oneness Pentecostalism IS Trinitarianism of a sort. He can say that all that he wants, but that doesn’t make it so.
3. Dwight’s motion at the SBC deserved a better outcome than it received. I do not believe that racism is the cause of its rejection. In my experience, that which the does not originate within the Executive Committee, it tries to kill by default, apart from any serious consideration of the merits. Since its inception in 1917 there has been the risk that the Executive Committee would come to regard itself as the parent and the churches as the children. I think we’ve all known parents who had fallen into a default position of answering their children’s requests with a default “No!” before even thinking the matter through clearly.
I personally know of three Southern Baptist couples whose life-plans were devastated by the Ethiopian government’s announcement that it would reduce international adoptions by up to 90%. Racism is dying in the SBC, and resolutions or constitutional changes are not contributing to the death of racism at all. The most powerful attack upon racism in the SBC today is the family—adoption and inter-racial marriage. It may single-handedly slay this beast once and for all. It is, after all, very difficult to hate one’s own grandchildren.
1. “No truth exemplified by the Trinity is greater than Christian unity” stated by Bishop Jakes does not mean that Bishop Jakes has a “bluntly stated agenda of removing Trinitaranism as a dividing line between truth and heresy…” as stated by Bart Barber. How one could extrapolate that interpretation form Bishop Jakes statement is not easy. In my view your interpretation requires a lot of elastic.
Jesus wedded world evangelization with Christian unity (John 17:21). That’s how I interpret Bishop’s Jakes statement -nothing more – nothing less. I remember reading once on Wade Burleson’s blog that you didn’t like the taste of words crammed down your mouth- you just place words in Bishop Jakes mouth that I don’t believe that he would agree with. Admittedly, Bishop Jakes has a Oneness Pentecostal background. Bishop Jakes statements regarding the Trinity certainly don’t parallel with what little I know regarding the Oneness Pentecostal view of the Trinity. Inherent in Bishop Jakes statement is that the Trinity exemplifies truth. That does not sound like a modalist. I simply don’t see your interpretation of the Bishop’s statement as accurately reflecting what he said. Jamar Jones will not be appearing at the Pastors Conference, so at this point it is a moot issue.
2. Todd Littleton believes his statement is true. I believe his statement is true. We both could be wrong. Todd’s statement was, “It seems there is nothing that T.D. Jakes can do that will answer his Southern Baptist critics.” Bishop Jakes in my opinion would never issue the statement that you postulate that would clear up matters, because he believes that he has sufficiently addressed the issue. If he made the statement that you proposed, I believe that it would definitely satisfy your concerns and perhaps gain Jamar Jones approval by you to be a marquee name at an SBC event, but I don’t believe that it would satisfy everyone in the SBC who for whatever reasons dislike Bishop Jakes and their interpretation of his theological views. If Bishop Jakes made your statement, they would then go on to attach other “heretical” views to him and continue the objections. Bishop Jakes is not desirous of being a marquee name at SBC events. I’m told he’s appreciative of Ed Young, Jr., Ed Young, Sr., and Jack Graham who have not allowed the discussions about his theological views to effect their private or public fellowship. I got the impression from your comments (and I could be wrong) that you don’t believe Oneness Pentecostals are genuine Christians. Am I misreading you? I’m not familiar with Oneness Pentecostals, so I don’t have a strong opinion on the subject, but that’s the sense I get from your comments.
3. One of my fondest memories of the Orlando SBC is reflecting on you and others seated near you enthusiastically supporting my amendment. You could be 100% correct about the reason why my amendment was rejected, nevertheless it would have spoken volumes to those of us who believe racism is a problem in the SBC and forced people of all races in the SBC who practice racism to think twice, because there could be consequences. I believe that you are spot on about adoption and inter-racial marriage having the potential to slay the beast of racism more so than resolutions and amendments.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I have no axe to grind with TD Jakes and I am more than willing to be convinced.
I’m just one person.
1. Jakes’s statement does not simply affirm Christian unity; it very explicitly states that unity is more important than the Trinity. Jakes’s statement is not obtuse. He believes that people should not divide over different views of the Trinity. I believe that we must do so.
2. I believe that the rejection of the Trinity is something done only by those without the gospel. Oneness Pentecostals are not genuine Christians. To use Dr. Mohler’s framework, this is a primary theological issue, explicitly named as such in his article on theological triage.
3. I agree that the adoption of the amendment would have been tremendously important. Wes Kenney’s motion (also scuttled) would also have been important. I don’t think there’s any of us who haven’t been shot down by the EC (if, indeed, we even made it that far!) at some time in the recent past.
Dwight,
I will just add a bit to what Bart said in reply to the question of whether or not Oneness Pentecostals are genuine or authentic Christians. I’m in agreement with Bart’s points 1 and 2 concerning the question of Oneness folks.
I will just quote something from our own Apologetic arm at NAMB. Under New Religions and Cults > Oneness Pentecostalism is stated that:
and that
As an aside, it’s not as if Oneness folks readily accept Trinitarians either. For example, Promise Land church, pastored by Kenneth Phillips – the father of Randy Phillips of the band Phillips, Craig an Dean – explains their view of Trinitarians as such:
Bart and Mark,
What can we do about “no African Americans on the platform of the SBC”? If African Americans and other minorities are a part of the planning group (whoever they may be) that determines who is on the platform at the SBC, I assure you that there will be persons suggested to make presentations who are African American. By the way, that’s the same way Anglos get to serve on the platform.
However, to tackle the broader problem, and that is a lack of minority representation at all levels of the SBC, I would suggest that the SBC do what many corporations and other denominations have done; and that is, appoint a director of diversity to help guide the SBC to becoming a racially diverse convention without compromising the B, F, and M 2000. I believe that this is the best way to improve race relations and inclusiveness in our convention.
I stated, “The SBC swallowed me, because they did not know me.” You asked, “What is it that we do not know?…Can you see that I might have questions about theology that are not motivated by race?”’ Good questions.
Although I’ve been very open about my theology and practice as it relates to the gifts of the Spirit and particularly the gift of praying/praising in tongues (I Cor. 14:2) in my pulpit and many other places since 1981, when I first prayed in tongues in my dormitory room at Fort Worth Hall, after hearing Professor Jack Gray at SWBTS affirm all the gifts of the Spirit including tongues, the SBC/SBTC as a whole was not aware of me, therefore obviously not aware of all facets of my belief system. And that’s what I meant by “The SBC swallowed me, because they did not know me.” I firmly believe that the Scripture teaches that the role of the Senior Pastor and Elders are to males. This position is in our church constitution, and it is our practice at Cornerstone. Given those two biblical mandates, I believe that the Scripture allows for women to function in many roles in the life of the local church and our conventions that does not violate the Scriptural mandates. I have a more expansive view of the role of women in our local churches and the SBC than many of the gatekeepers. They have a very, narrow limited view of the role of women that not only restrict women from serving as the Senior Pastor or Elders, but virtually, it restricts them in every other major ministry assignment in the life of the church and convention. I see no biblical basis for this. I don’t believe the SBC was aware of my expansive view of the role of women in the local church within the parameters of the Bible and the B, F and M 2000. This is simply what I meant by my statement. Absolutely! I believe this whole discussion about Bishop Jakes and modalism is driven by “questions about theology that are not motivated by race?” That would include you and everyone else who’ve addressed this issue, including me. I hope that I’ve addressed your questions.
Bart and Mark,
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this matter. I will be traveling to Philadelphia next week to meet with a group of Black Southern Baptist pastors. However, if time permits before I leave, I will post in detail my thoughts on this subject, and if Dave for any reason doesn’t accept the post on SBC Voices, you can certainly find it on my site. As for now I thank the two of you for the dialogue; by the way, after reading just a little about Oneness Pentecostal theology, I’m inclined to agree with you on the point that anybody who embraces the fullness of Oneness Pentecostal theology cannot be a genuine Christian. Bishop Jakes’ public statements suggest to me that he has distanced himself greatly from traditional Oneness Pentecostal theology.
Anything you submit to me will be posted, Dwight.
Previous comment posted incorrectly as reply to Bart and Mark. The comment is the reply to #14, Dennis Salley.
Bart,
Most who approach these matters with an a priori commitment that they are right will always make of another’s grammar what best fits their preconceptions. Thus, the word “seems” functions in your grammar as an inconsequential in the discussion. Without “seems” properly located in my sentence you are then able to make me say what fits your point of opposition. Solid example as to why conversations are disallowed among strident SBC super-loyalists.
Todd,
Fact–all Jakes would have to do is clearly, distinctly state that modalism is a heresy and that he is not a modalist. He hasn’t done that. Therefore, people have every right to question his theology. Answering those questions would take about a New York minute.
Joe,
Evidently you missed the point of my comment to which you replied. And, unfortunately it “seems” the nexus of the original post. Policing T.D. Jakes’ theology is not, nor was it my intent. Calling attention to the disingenuous way someone was treated in the name of doctrinal purity was and is. Too often we miss the forrest for the trees. Our aim should have been to act in the Name of Jesus, rather than in the name of your need for someone else’s doctrinal position in order to play the piano.
Again, when a person comes to a post with an a priori commitment to make their point to the original post it is a good idea to pay attention to the grammar used. An helpful illustration is over at Bart Barber’s blog in his exchange with a friend of mine, Ryan Abernathy. Too bad he gets to remind someone of the grammar and when I do it I get “facts.”
I am sorry that Dwight’s post on racism in the SBC is even being trumped by this sidelight to it.
Todd,
Do you believe that you are furthering conversation when you declare that nothing will please those who object to non-Trinitarianism? Talk about “a priori commitments that [one] is right”!
Bart,
Let’s be clear. I am Trinitarian. But, when you or anyone else presumes to parse another’s words, I find it helpful for conversation to point out a more charitable way over against a stridency to disbelieve another because you or anyone else does not like the grammar. If a person refuses that kind of charity then yes, I am hopeful to open up space for a conversation.
And again, since the word “seems” is imbued with something other than “it appears” when you read the post I find it very difficult to have a conversation for you appear to take seems as though it is an exhaustive charge. And, for that I would figure that once noted now for the second time you might be as charitable with my grammar as our brother Ryan was on your own blog when you went the extra mile to point out his mis-read.
Maybe it was Ryan’s reply that made it appear to me you could indeed both express what you intended despite his interpretation.
Not sure why you appear to be mousing my point so it seems.
*missing
Bishop Jakes statement “No truth exemplified by the Trinity is greater than Christian unity” taken a face value does not present a problem. His statement wrongly interpreted does present a problem. Ephesians 4:4-6 says “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” I believe that this all your quote from the Bishop reflects.
Bishop Jakes statement “No truth exemplified by the Trinity is greater than Christian unity” taken a face value does not present a problem. His statement wrongly interpreted does present a problem. Ephesians 4:4-6 says “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” I believe that this is all your quote from the Bishop reflects.
When I did my project for the Doctor of Ministry at SEBTS on Christian Love and Race Relations, I did not dream that it would serve the purpose of helping a family in the church that would be the proud granparents of two black grandsons. Two or three years ago, one of the wives of one of the deacons who had participated in the project (it involved a pretest, ten sermons on I Cors.13 in the morning services with no references to race allowed) and ten lectures on Black History in the evening services, followed by a post test to see if there had been any changes on the issue of race. Not much change.) said to me, “Mr. Willingham, I took my grandsons on our Senior Citizens trip, and they were so polite and well-behaved. I got so many compliments from my friends and neighbors!” She beamed as she said it. The black children and grandchildren will do more to melt the prejudice than most would believe. God is doing something about it. We have about 20-30 who attend our church, and perhaps about 20 have joined. Our son has Black children and one interracial couple attending his church. Things, as they say, are a-changing…and on this issue it seems to be for the better. Now, if we could just get some change on the other issues…..
Brother Dwight,
Sorry for showing up late to the dance, but dancing is something I love doing. 🙂 Seriously, when you and I spoke the other day I did not ask this because I did not think about it. But here goes. Could you define what you would see as “racist” practices within the SBC–as Entities, Congregations, and individual church members?
I ask this question because of your statement that churches who practice racism should not be allowed to seat messengers. Here is one example that you and I did not discuss but I just realized may be something you would not appreciate. I believe until we can clearly articulate a definition of racism and its resulting practices we will have a problem implementing such a motion as you presented. For example. FBC Columba, SC is the church where the “Succession Papers” were signed back in the 1800’s. Because of the historical significance of the event, FBC Columbia has the room along with the table on which the papers were signed listed in the national historical register and the room is cordoned off. Anyone who visits that church can go by the room and see where the Succession Papers were signed. Because FBC Columbia has preserved this room and listed it with the national historical registry, Would you think that we should not allow FBC Columbia to send messengers to the convention?
Blessings,
Tim
Sorry for the mis-spelling that should be “Secession” not Succession.
Remembering history isn’t racism. We should be able to distinguish between remembering history as FBC Columbia does and as SWBTS does with portraits of past presidents (some of whom did own slaves) and promoting a racialized ideology based on historical myths (displaying the Confederate Flag as the singing group planned to do)
BDW-
History is not racism, but celebrating and revering that racist history is unkind at best and racist at worst. I would say the table in question belongs in the Smithsonian along with the rest of the remnants of Southern arrogance and folly and not in a church. But that is just one man’s opinion.
I think there’s a bit of difference between “remembering history” and “celebrating history”
I find it interesting that you seem to think that the church should have no role in preserving history, specifically its own local church history. Instead, we should leave the task of preserving history to the Smithsonian. Huh?
If we remove a portrait of every historical figure who ever owned a slave, where would that take us? For starters, we’d probably need to give the Dollar Bill a new face.
Celebration and revering of history is the Secession Ball, Confederate Heritage Month, etc.
But remembering history involves preserving that history for the sake of current and future generations to learn from the past and deal with the past. We can’t do that if we attempt to cleanse the walls, books and rest of society of anything and everything possibly associated with the social evils of discrimination and oppression, etc.
I’m personally in the history business. I finished up a paper for academic publication not long ago about how Black Baptists, including Black Southern Baptists, have drawn from the history of the civil rights struggle, and specifically Dr. King’s conception of the Beloved Community, and applied it to current political debates, namely gay rights. I think it would be a rather huge mistake to suggest some history is useful and appropriate for remembering while other parts of history deserve to be stored away in a wing of the Smithsonian.
Tim Rogers,
My dear friend, I wondered when you would chime in. The answer to your question is, no. I do not see what you described at FBC Columbia as violating my proposed racial amendment. I will probably do a follow-up post further addressing your question. By the way, I do believe the slaveholders’ pictures at SWBTS should come down. I did not say that messengers from any church of the officers at SWBTS should not be seated. The pictures just need to come down for the same reasons that the University of Texas took them down.
DWIGHT McKISSICK wrote this: ” By the way, I do believe the slaveholders’ pictures at SWBTS should come down.”
Yes, it would be meaningful, as I can see that in 1995, the following resolution was written and adopted in good faith:
. . . ” in 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially apologized, by resolution, for her previous views on the subject of slavery. The resolution declared that messengers, “unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin” and “lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest.” It offered an apology to all African-Americans for “condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime” and repentance for “racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
(from archives of Wade Burleson’s blog)
Well , I got my Bishops confused as I suggested I might have in the post but I’m sorry that it caused someone who was moderating at the time and knew about as much as I did to take the entire Blog off. Let me make amends by remembering a Bishop Courtney McBath in Norfolk , Va who has created a church that develops businesses and employs church members both black & white. He’s also a dynamic speaker that saves seats in the front row for visitors and “runs over” most of the time. Dr. McKissic is as open as I am and confronts issues head-on with clarity, – and I like that in a Leader.
I would like to thank Dr. McKissic for writing this post and for detailing SPECIFIC instances of racism in SBC life. There have been plenty of people who have denied that this horrific sin still exists in widespread practice in SBC life and Dr. McKissic does an excellent job of disproving this notion and bringing to light how far we really have to go.
I find the continued fascination with Jamar Jones and TD Jakes fascinating to say the least. I find it more than a little disturbing that the “solution” to the Jakes theological conundrum is for Bishop Jakes to couch his theology in terms that are palatable to white, theological neatniks. Truth is, in reading the statement of belief on The Potter’s House website, the description of God does use the word “manifestations” but precedes the term with “eternally existing.” That does not square with Oneness Pentecostalism, which holds to the three “manifestations” not existing at the same time. The only reason to not take this statement at face value would be to discredit Bishop Jakes and his church- which I think some have set out to do.
Requiring Bishop Jakes to couch his theology in terms certain segments of the SBC are comfortable with is a violation of our Baptist distinctive of autonomy. If there were legitimate concerns, surely a simple private conversation would have been enough- which I imagine a man like Vance Pittman was intelligent enough to have before Jamar Jones was even named to the program.
As the parameters for cooperation are narrowed by those with BI leanings, it does not surprise me to see the repeated and continued violation of the Baptist principle of autonomy and the replacement of autonomy with a call for “conformity” and whatever that means to whoever has the biggest stick and the loudest following.
We have seen in recent days a flurry of written desires for a return to the “good old days.” Articles by Brad Whitt, Bart Barber, Peter Lumpkins, and Tim Rogers speak of feeling “irrelevant,” accusing people of moving toward “Presbyterianism” (which I have STILL never been given an explanation on what that means), and who gives what to the CP.
Here’s the truth. Times are changing. If the SBC is to survive as a relevant, useful tool for the Kingdom the way to do so is moving forward, not backward. Ending systemic racism is a huge part of moving forward. Passing an amendment refusing to sit messengers from churches who are racist is a part of that. Listening to people who are not “like us” is a part of that. I pray that there are more men prepared to move forward than there ware who steadfastly cling to the icons of the past. I truthfully fear that the opposite is true.
Thank you Dr. McKissic once again. I pray we will heed your words.
Brother Ryan,
First you say racism; “exists in widespread practice in SBC life.” Could you please express some examples of where you see racism existing in widespread practice within SBC life?
Second, you say;
Brother, this in itself is a racist statement on your part. Just because some are calling for Jakes to deny Oneness theology does not mean that it is palatable to white theological neatnicks. Your terminology is clearly a racist statement and that racism is geared against whites.
Third, you try to point out that people, as myself, are trying to define the SBC in our own terms. But then you assure us that there probably was a private conversation between Jones and Pittman when you say;
If that is the case, then why did Jones back out when the controversy arose? I know that Dr. Pittman received at least one private letter from a concerned pastor and it wasn’t until after the private correspondence with Dr. Pittman did the announcement of Jones stepping back. Thus, it was evident there was no private conversation between Jones and Pittman concerning this issue.
You then end your non-factual statement, (Where has Bart Barber, Peter Lumpkins, or myself ever said we were feeling irrelevant?) by saying;
Here, I ask again. What churches are practicing racism? What are the outward signs of racism being practiced? How do we present this to the convention? I use FBC Columbia once again as an example. Is that something you would consider a Racist practice? What about a church that is registered as a historical site that still has the old slave pews in the balcony? Help us define what you mean as “racist practices”.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim-
Did you read Dr. McKissic’s article? All the evidence you need is there for the existence of racism in SBC life. Even Joe Blackmon was convinced (comment 56 above) and he is not easily convinced of anything.
The fact that you perceive my statement about Jakes being required to couch his remarks in a certain fashion as racist reveals your ignorance of the situation. Dr. McKissic is convinced of Jakes’ sincerity. Todd is convinced. I am convinced. Is there any person who is not Anglo who is crying foul on Jakes’ Trinitarian theology? If you can find one, then I will withdraw the statement. Until then, I will stand by my assessment.
I find it darkly humorous that you claim my statement was “racist” against white people. Reverse racism is a sad tool of a thankfully soon to be bygone era. It’s an accusation I will not dignify with a further response other than to say that type of nonsense is beneath you Tim. Please, don’t go there.
I know no more than you do about why Jamar Jones withdrew, but I would be willing to guess that he is friends with someone who helped plan the conference and that he withdrew once he became the point of controversy. I would do that for any one of my friends. Further, considering how inhospitable the environment become for Jones and his church in our online communities why would he want to come? Many were far less than charitable or welcoming in their comments and diatribes.
Your FBC-Columbia example is easily answered. What purpose does the room and desk serve? Is it a shameful reminder of a racist past now serving to warn away those who would seek to impose racial barriers to the Gospel or the gathering of the saints OR is it a badge of pride and a rallying cry for those who long for a return to the Antebellum South and its racist heritage. If its the former, it’s not racist. If it’s the latter, it is racist.
As far as further defining “racist practices,” I would again refer you to Dr. McKissic’s article. Surely you can see those actions as racist.
Finally Tim, maybe you are not feeling irrelevant, but you HAVE played the Presbyterian card on several occasions (which was part of the sentence where I included the “irrelevant” remark) and never answered what you mean by that label. You are currently doing a series on your own blog castigating the “young, restless and reformed” for leading the North Carolina Baptists into what you label “contemporary, cultural elitist stew.” That’s a nice way to talk about fellow believers. So forgive me if you did not feel “irrelevant” but your words in your own blog and your comments elsewhere made me think differently. If I have misrepresented you, I apologize.
I hope this serves to answer your questions. I stand by my statements.
Your apology, in the way you have castigated me and called me “ignorant” of the racist situation is insincere and rejected by me because of your insincerity . If you will read the article once again you will find MY NAME referenced by Dr. McKissic. So for whatever reason you feel the need to apologize it is not necessary.
As to standing by “your” statements, you have yet to tell us of racist activities that you have witnessed. You have used all of these that others have told you. You say that racism exist in the SBC. How do you know? Are you merely going by what others are saying? What do you know and name the places you have seen it.
As for my “dark humurous” remark you have referenced. You seem to forget that if you would have placed “black” instead of “white” in your statement you would have been banned by Dave Miller from this post for saying such a thing. Look, I know you do not appreciate my point of view as well as Peter Lumpkins, and even now you have placed Bart Barber and Brad Whitt in the same position. But you have to deal with us because we are not going any place.
Also, as to my “Presbyterianism” comments: What are you talking about? The series I am producing says nothing as to what you have referenced. There is a post that I placed concerning those yelling the sky is falling because of Rob Bell’s book. I did state that we were selling our souls for an elitist stew. But that was not in reference to any Presbyterian bend noted in the convention. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember stating we were heading toward Presbyterianism. Could you help me with any references I made to that? I mean the link not just pulling something out of context as you have clearly already done.
Tim
Further, considering how inhospitable the environment become for Jones and his church in our online communities
I’m sorry. I missed the part where that was a bad thing.
Well said, Ryan.
John
Thanks John I am afraid other don’t agree. Surprise, surprise.
I think Athanasius sought precision himself:
As many then as desire peace with us, and specially those who assemble in the Old [Church] and those again who are seceding from the Arians, call to yourselves, and receive them as parents their sons, and welcome them as tutors and guardians; and unite them to our beloved Paulinus and his people, without requiring more from them than to anathematise the Arian heresy and confess the faith confessed by the holy fathers at Nicæa, and to anathematise also those who say that the Holy Spirit is a Creature and separate from the Essence of Christ. For this is in truth a complete renunciation of the abominable heresy of the Arians, to refuse to divide the Holy Trinity, or to say that any part of it is a creature. For those who, while pretending to cite the faith confessed at Nicæa, venture to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than in words deny the Arian heresy while they retain it in thought. (bold mine)
#3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm
Tim-
For your most recent reference to Presbyterianism in the SBC refer to the following link, your comment (#2) in the stream:
https://sbcvoices.com/its-deja-vu-all-over-again-the-traditionalcontemporary-battle-flares-again/#comments
I didn’t realize to demonstrate the racism exists in the SBC I had to provide my own “examples” with names and dates. I thought Dr. McKissic’s list was sufficient. I can add to it, but see no reason to do so.
Your acceptance of my apology is up to you. It is sincere. I did not mean to misrepresent you as feeling “irrelevant” if you did not feel that way. That was all I was apologizing for as it was at that time the only thing you seemed to take personal offense to.
I know you and your buddies are not going anywhere. Neither am I. I am willing to learn to live with your tribe. Are you willing to learn to live with mine?
Is there any person who is not Anglo who is crying foul on Jakes’ Trinitarian theology?
I do not know if Voddie Baucham has changed his mind, but on November 19, 2008 he said this:
Or who knows, if the likes of James White are not stopped, we may have non-Trinitarians like T.D. Jakes come and teach at our conferences. (bold mine)
http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2008/11/voddie-baucham-sbc-and-calvinism.html
I suppose someone might could e-mail him and ask him his opinion today if one would like to.
Is there any person who is not Anglo who is crying foul on Jakes’ Trinitarian theology?
Thabiti M. Anyabwile made these statements (February 14, 2010):
But the book is named The Decline of African American Theology because when you zoom out and take the wide angle look at what leading African American figures have thought and taught, you see the downward spiral from the earliest writers like Lemuel Haynes and Jupiter Hammon to the prosperity preachers like Creflo Dollar and heretics like T.D. Jakes of our day. (bold mine)
Zoom forward in time and the African American commitment to the sufficiency, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture is weakened, alternative conceptions of God take root—like Jakes’ modalism… (bold mine)
http://www.thechristianmanifesto.com/index.php/2010/02/14/an-interview-with-thabiti-anyabwile-author-of-the-decline-of-african-american-theology/
Part of what concerns me about the Pastors Conference is what are the parameters for the participants. I have generally assumed that the preachers and musicians were Southern Baptists but I am beginning to think that I am wrong about that. I have not gone back to check references on men I have heard. If I have heard some great preaching and singing from non SBC’ers, well Praise the Lord, I am not complaining! For some of us, the Convention is our best chance to hear some of these preachers and worship leaders. I just wonder what the standard might be for these preachers and musicians. I really do not want to say that it should be SBC only… but this is the Pastors Conference at the Southern Baptist Convetion.
On the other hand there are other meetings where we can meet with Christians who believe and confess differently. I was able to attend Together for the Gospel in Louisville in 2010. The first person that I met there described his church as charismatic, calvinistic, and family based. I was intigued. The only people I met from my state were African American. I am white. The conference leaders are SBC, PCA, and (whatever C.J. Mahaney is, I don’t know or really care. I liked it all). The thing that is interesting to me is that even though there is a variety of theology in this group’s founders, they have drawn up a confession of belief. You know where they stand and whether or not you want to stand with them. There are some differences but we came together on common ground. There have been other conferences that I have chosen not to go to because I don’t agree with the theology of the leaders and I have not wanted to stand with them.
In Christian life there are some distinctions that matter and they are not always easy to deal with even as we seek to be in fellowship with other Christians. But as the SBC we have identified some. The struggle will always be where and for what purpose will we hold to our confession or come together even though there are differences.
Personally, I am not comfortable with T.D. Jakes’ view on the trinity. I think it is a distinction that matters. I have read Voddie Baucham’s books and I really like his Family Based ministry for evangelism and discipleship of youth. I am a home schooling father and pastor; Voddie’s work really strikes a chord with me. I got to meet Thabiti Anyabwile at T4G and I have read his book “The Decline of African American Theology” and have quoted it to illustrate some of my sermons to demonstrate good theology.
Here’s my point, someone coined a term in one of the blogs that has lead to this article…”theological puritan” and along with the above “white, theological neatniks.” The implication has been stated that we need to be willing to cross the theological and cultural divide in order to get more ethnic and racial diversity in the SBC. But with examples like Voddie Baucham who is SBC, and writings of Thabiti Anyabwile whose affiliation I do not know, I would rather that we seek to be sound in our theology by being more rigorous not less.
Some have suggested that we elect Voddie Baucham as SBC president. I have wondered if Voddie Bauchum could be elected because his views are not mainstream. Frankly I wonder if he would want to be elected. He is busy raising a family in his church.
Dennis Salley , Even if they are not all Southern Baptists they will all be your friend . Fear no Evil .
Jack,
I hope I am not misunderstood. I went to T4G because I knew who they were and what they professed. I wanted to meet with Christians who were thinking of the gospel as T4G does. The experience was wonderful! I was among friends that I had never met before.
There are other conferences that may also be useful in many ways including fellowship with Christians who believe some things differently than I but I choose not to go because I do have some sense of the overall theological mix. It is not about fear or even theological purity. Its just about stewardship of my time, effort, and finances.
The SBC annual meeting is for the business of our convention so of course it will be guided by our confession. So I had always thought that the related meetings associated with the SBC were also SBC led. The PC may be an exception and I am not saying that it should be limited to SBC but it is the PC of the SBC. It just seems reasonable to me that the speakers and musicians would be in harmony with SBC Confession of Faith.
“Part of what concerns me about the Pastors Conference is what are the parameters for the participants. I have generally assumed that the preachers and musicians were Southern Baptists but I am beginning to think that I am wrong about that.”
You are. CJ Mahaney, among others, have been invited to preach. Seems we do not have enough internal talent. (wink)
There is nothing wrong with inviting CJ Mahaney. To invite others outside the denomination who are Biblical is key to spiritual growth as well. We do not have the inside track on Biblical theology although we do have so many things right. To reach out to others outside who are Biblical is showing that we do not have the inside track on Christianity as well as we can learn from speakers in the SBC as well as outside our denomination. You may not agree with CJ but he is within the parameters of orthodox teaching, Biblical in his theology and a welcome addition to the pastor’s conference.
This post has gotten so off topic of it’s original intention that I find it disturbing. Dr. McKissic has written an important post which once again has been slid off course. This should disturb all of us. Or some just don’t care. Which is it?
I also find it disturbing. I would like to believe that some care, but it is easier to discuss things we feel more comfortable with.
I just read this post. Was out of town when it was posted.
An appropriate response to this entire post cannot be written at this time. I, too, am opposed to racism in all of its forms. I would be glad if those practices and churches mentioned in the post were all named and exposed in a way that would cause them to change. Most of them are not named, as far as I could see.
I believe that Bart Barber is correct on addressing racism in the SBC. Resolutions, motions, debates etc. are not going to bring a unified response to this problem. Many who are not racists at all may oppose certain motions because of concerns about the cure being urged.
The SBC has the problems that it has because of its history. BDW is correct in his comments about history and what to do about portraits etc. Southern Seminary was founded at a time and place when Slavery was legal and practiced. It is not something we celebrate, but it is part of our history. Boyce and Broadus both owned slaves. Broadus support succession. Boyce did not, but supported the South once it occurred. Interestingly, Crawford Toy was especially hot for succession among the early facutly. So, racism knew no theological boundary in those days.
I believe that addressing racsim in the convention does not need to look like the reverse of a purge in Mao’s China. I fear that the cure urged by this post would result in exactly that. I do not doubt the writer’s heart, only weather what he urges is a wise course. And, moreover, I fear that anyone who might urge a different course will be seen as “weak on racsim”.
The convention is a large thing. 16 million people, 40,000 churches – all autonomous. The convention has spoken to the question of racism on many occasions, and has elected African Americans as officers, has had participation of different races on boards, committess (the 2000 BFM is a good example). Plus, we have many races represented in the SBC, not just African Americans.
Racial equality should be, and I believe is, prized in the SBC. I don’t know of any racists in the SBC circles that I travel in. I just don’t. I will readily concede, for the sake of argument, that each and every example provided here is true. My question is, why haven’t these churches and practices been mentioned before? Is there a blog or article that diclosed these things when they occurred? If so, why hasn’t someone gone with mic in hand to the place where these things occurred and asked, “Why did you do this? Would Jesus do this?” etc. This collection of bad behavior, being gathered up in this way, at this time, doesn’t prove to me that we need a particular cure, except to continue to expose bad practices and encourage these people to stop these sinful practices.
I do not believe that Southern is in any way racist. I have not followed the enrollment of African Americans there. But the fact that there are few no more proves racism than showing that 90% or more of African Americans vote reliably for Democrats over Republicans proves that Republicans are racist. If you simply contrast the 2 most recent Republican Presidents (Bush I and Bush II) with the last white Democrat President (Clinton), the idea that Republicans are racist is laughable.
But it is accurate to say that African Americans perceive their interests to be benefitted by the policies promoted by the Democrats, and thus, they vote accordingly. I don’t agree with that analysis, and I think that great effort has been made by the Republicans to address that, but with limited success. But I think it would be a huge mistake for Republicans to engage in a flury of “anti-Racism” intitiatives and language and set asides to try and further assuage the African American community. That would probably do more damage. The SBC may actually be in a similar position here.
Back to Southern, if the racial make up there has racial significance, then, let’s talk about it. If no connections can be made, then why bring it up? I suspect Southern’s appeal in the African American community may be related to the political statements that the SBC has made through its resolutions, or by political commentary made by Dr. Mohler. But, again, I think that pointing to the enrollment at Southern without any analysis or plausible explanation, is unfortunate. It has as much relevance as pointing to the enrollment at, say, Baptist Seminary at Richmond, the seminaries at Mercer or Baylor, and trying to make some larger point about race based on that. There is no racism at those places, to my knowledge, but I wonder how many African Americans attend there.
Also, I disagree with the reference to Christa Brown and her efforts to get the SBC to adopt her program for addressing clergy abuse. She has been heard by the SBC, and the SBC has decided to pursue a different course. But rather than respecting that decision, she has attacked several convention leaders. I invite you all to visit her website and see what she says about the people who serve the SBC at the Executive Committee.
Actually, Ms. Brown’s efforts and the SBC’s response is great example of what I am talking about. It’s not that any national, State or local Baptist body supports clergy abuse. The SBC has a strong, biblical stance on the sexual ethic. But there is a genuine dispute about how to achieve that in accordance with ecclesiology, efficiacy and practical wisdom.
But that genuine dispute and disagreement about how to address a problem has been turned, by some, into denunciations and the most intemperate language and treatment of brothers in Christ.
Are we going to see the same thing if this or that person’s recommended cure for racism is not adopted? Denuniciations? Prophetic woes uttered? I hope not, but I am not too hopeful.
And, finally, I could not let the Mike Huckabee reference pass. Most pastors did not rally around Mike Huckabee because they did not think he would make a good President. I am one of those people. Huckabee and I agree on some very important issues, but my disagreements with him on other issues, his spotty record in Arkansas, and the VERY critical analysis of conservatives who worked in Arkansas with Huckabee when he was Governor do not give me much confidence.
So, I am fully on board with addressing racism wherever it is found in SBC life, and I affirm this writer as a dear brother in Christ. But I am not on board with every prescription that might be urged to cure racism. And I am definitely not on board with me, or any of my brothers or sisters in Christ, being called weak on racism, abetting racism, blind to racism or actual racists at some present or future point because we have honest disagreements about how to proceed. I very much fear that will happen if we move forward without the requisite wisdom to address this issue in our context.
Louis,
Very good considerations.
David R. Brumbelow
Excellent post in spirit and content.
Forgive me but all of you who are responding Louis are white males. I don’t believe you are listening to the concerns of Dr. McKissic. You are wanting compromise where there should be no compromise. Excuses are a dime a dozen and all I hear is why we don’t and I’m saying I don’t care, as a Southern Baptist and a member in good standing at my church, I want something done.
Talk about racist! I don’t remember ever disclosing my race or ethnic persuasion.
I’ve pretty much bowed out of this contest because unless you are willing to support McKissic–to the point of electing him president of the convention–you are disparaged in all kinds of ways.
Not agreeing with someone does not mean one has not listened, or that one does not see some validity in what he (or she) is saying. In my opinion–and it is just my opinion–you very readily become a “man-worshipper” taking up and leading a blind charge for those men that you have decided to latch on to–whether in Texas or Oklahoma.
This blog has already shown that in regard to any opposition to what McKissic said (proposed), anything less than a hardy “Amen, sign me up” is going to bring a negative reaction.
I think Louis was very thoughtful and respectful. I’m willing to put his thoughts into the mix of this discussion and see if a good solution can be reached that actually addresses the problem in a Godly way.
Instead of defending yourself against something I did not say or ask Frank, I think we need to get serious about the concerns expressed by Dr. McKissic on this blog. I hear excuses concerning a data base bank, now excuses on this. Excuses are old and a dime a dozen. They look good on paper but in the end aren’t worth the time it takes to make them.
wrong.
Debbie you very clearly made the racist statement tha anyone responding (positively) to Louis was white. And male to boot-neither of which you know to be true.
I’ve offered my attempt at moving toward a solution, but you seem to think only your opinion matters.
You won’t even own your own words. How can one take you seriously?
“This blog has already shown that in regard to any opposition to what McKissic said (proposed), anything less than a hardy “Amen, sign me up” is going to bring a negative reaction.”
I have not commented on this post for the very reason that Frank stated. As a southerner whose middle name is Howell, but whose given name is Dixie (named after the legendary Alabama football player, Dixie Howell), I have found the spirit in which this discussion has taken place, including even the comments when one so much as tries to voice the least bit of disagreement with Dr. McKissic’s premises (some of which are I take great exception to), very discouraging.
I understand Dave wanting to advance this dialogue, but this has become a no-win situation in the climate that has been created, notwithstanding Frank’s desire to find good solutions. That well, I’m afraid, has been poisoned. Perhaps not irredeemably so, but poisoned nonetheless. The way some view this issue, I would have to change my first name to even be able to have a voice in this discussion. Count me out. And that goes for whistling as well! 🙂
I guess I’m a little confused at what you mean by that. Plenty of people have challenged Dwight’s views, my views and everyone else’s.
“Frank’s well thought out solutions.”
Howell, I must have missed these “well thought out solutions” and I scrolled down all the comments painstakingly. I saw reasons why we can’t pass a resolution but no solutions. Would you mind pointing these out to me. This is a win situation. All we would have to do is support the resolution. No dialoging, no going out of your way, just simply supporting and taking seriously the concerns Dr.McKissic has presented here, looking for a solution on those concerns. A resolution would be a good start.
Dave,
Against my better judgment, I commented on this post. I did not say that no one challenged Dwight’s or your views. I simply said that I have found this post and the subsequent comments discouraging. Others might find what Dwight wrote, and the manner in which he wrote it, and the broad brush with which he painted, encouraging. I did not find it so. Beyond that, I’m afraid I will be unable to help with any lingering confusion.
Debbie,
You did indeed miss “Frank’s well thought out solutions,” because that is not what I wrote, even though you quoted it as if I had written that. If you are going to quote me, I would appreciate it if you would quote what I actually wrote:
“I understand Dave wanting to advance this dialogue, but this has become a no-win situation in the climate that has been created, notwithstanding Frank’s desire to find good solutions.”
That you validated my point in less than an hour after I wrote my comment speaks volumes. I believe all Southern Baptists of good will have a desire to “find good solutions” to the race problems that still exist within the SBC. Despite my concerns on other issues within the SBC, I am not prepared to paint others with such a broad brush, particularly with regards to charges of racism, latent or otherwise. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Well, Debbie, just because men are white does not give you the right to accuse them of not listening to Dr. McKissic’s concerns based on their color.
You “want something done?” what exactly would that be? an investigation with microphone in hand, like the “white” Louis suggested above in his comment? (You are white aren’t you, Louis?) For all intents and purposes here, Debbie, my mother was born and raised in Algiers Africa. That makes me half African and half American. Which would probably qualify me as an being African-American. Hope that helps. 🙂
Harriette: I did not accuse anyone of being racist. Good grief! What I am saying, and this is true, we are not black. We have no idea the things black people, and those in the SB go through. We are not listening. We are giving excuses. To say that I am calling white men racists might sound good but it is furthest from the truth.
I am a woman, I have no idea what men go through. Not really. They have no idea what I as a woman go through or feel. It’s simply brainenomics. We need to start listening and quit making excuses why we can’t. Pure and simple.
BTW: What do I want done? That too is simple. Do what Dr. McKissic asks. Pass the racist resolution overwhelmingly.
Debbie, nice walk-back. you didn’t use the word “racist” and neither did I. I used your words and you adapted the word “racist” into what I said. imagine that! putting words in someone else’s mouth. I’m not the one who came out of the gate with guns blazing saying in comment 111 at 2:06 p.m.:
“Forgive me but all of you who are responding Louis are white males. I don’t believe you are listening to the concerns of Dr. McKissic.” You are the person who said that, Debbie. What does being “white” and responding to Louis in the affirmative, have to do with the price of corn in Iowa? Huh? Calm down, Debbie. More is understood when we are “quick to listen, slow to speak”. If you want the resolution passed, be there to vote for it. Or re-introduce it and bring all your messengers with you. selahV
So, let me follow your logic, such as it is. Whites cannot understand blacks so we should try to come to some sort of understanding?
Again, you assume for some reason I am white.
Harriette: In your last comment, you just said where you are in this issue.
And it is white males commenting here. And one white female. Giving excuses. Again.
Don’t think being of Algerian descent makes you African-American. Might be able to call yourself Arab-American though.
Aaron! how dare you! 🙂 now it probably would help for you to know my mother’s heritage, wouldn’t it? but since this whole thing was said in tongue-in-cheek because we were being slammed for simply affirming Louis’ comment, I have no desire to spread my family lineage before anyone. LOL. and it’s true of Frank L. we can’t know what color he is by what he says, now, can we? the point is, that just because someone agrees with one person’s comment, does not make them deaf or white, purple or green. It just means they agree with someone’s statements.
Take this one you made, I agree with half of it. ha ha. selahV
Aaron, and another thing. I like your photo. Your smile is becoming. how do you get that little picture to show up like that? selahV
Debbie, comments like this one do little good and set the whole conversation back. I wish you could enter a conversation and not just make pronouncements about the character and motives of others.
Dave: I am simply assessing the words in the statements. It is completely bypassing any concerns and instead crying out “but I’m not racist.” To me that is what is setting the conversation back(about 100 years actually), not anything I have said.
Louis, a keen eye with a neutral perspective on a very delicate and hurtful issue that could be explosive if not handled properly and reaonably. I agree with much of what you say here and also affirm my brother in Christ, Dr. McKissic. Wounds of racism are deep, very deep. Scars do fade with time as some might think. Scars are often most tender where one has once been injured.
May God give us grace and mercy and wisdom to work to reconcile ourselves to one another in His name. hariette
Louis: The point and the only point is that African American Southern Baptists feel displaced in our Convention. To say that such and such does not prove racism is not the point. I would say there is racism in the SBC intentional or not. But whatever….denying it is not a solution to the problem. That is just denying something to make yourself feel better. Meanwhile a population in our Convention feels displaced. Enough that Dr. McKissic is thinking of leaving. That would be a tragic mistake if he left. Others would follow. Now, that is what needs to be addressed, not thought out reasons why we are not racist.
It is simply not true that all African Americans SB’s feel displaced. That’s clearly a stereotype that is itself racist.
Also, are you only advocating for equality for blacks? There are other people of color.
This just proves the point I said to Dave Frank. If you are African American, you should be even more concerned should you not? I am asking an honest question. Evidently there are many who do that Dr. McKissic has spoken with. Are you saying he is wrong here? That those he spoke with were wrong here?
Frank, you could start anywhere, but right now this discussion is about the black community of SB’s. I would hope this start would spread to other people as well. Man just start somewhere, I don’t care where, but to continually discuss it without doing anything which we are so good at doing, is getting nowhere. I am now 55 years old and not much has changed since I was in my 20’s. Yep, I am impatient(if you can call waiting for over 30 years impatient) in that I want to be alive to see the changes, I don’t want them to happen after I am gone.
I am also saying that if Dr. McKissic would leave, it would be a bad thing for SBC as a whole. It would also show where are our hearts truly are.
Debbie, you switched horses in mid defense. You first say, “all” but you defend the word “many,” which I still don’t think you can defend empirically. In fact, I don’t recall Dr. McKissic saying “many.”
Certainly if you say many but not all it is more defensible than saying all. But, you said, “all.” You have not retracted that accusation.
You also continue to add racist statements. You said,
“If you are African American, you should be even more concerned.” That is a racists statement. Whether African American, White or Purple, racism should be thoroughly and unequivocably denounced.
The difference is that color means more to you than it does to me. I don’t start with color and end with justice. I start with justice and end in equality — or at least that is my deep desire.
We could pass a resolution to require that all persons on the platform be black, brown, or whatever and it will not automatically change one attitude.
It may help–I will not say. It may in fact only give the appearance of a change of heart–sort of like all the other such resolutions.
The big difference is you are convinced that if everyone did what Dr. McKissic has suggested the race issue would be solved, or at least mostly solved. I am not so convinced.
Frank,
Debbie, you switched horses in mid defense. You first say, “all” but you defend the word “many,”
I almost choked on my sandwich when I read that cause I laughed so hard. Debbie can’t stick with the same story. I mean, you’re not having a conversation with a reasoning, thinking adult who can form logical arguments. Debbie doesn’t do facts and Debbie doesn’t “think”–she “feels”. 🙂
The big difference is you are convinced that if everyone did what Dr. McKissic has suggested the race issue would be solved, or at least mostly solved.
But Frank, The Debbie has spoken. Once The Debbie has spoken, the discussion is over. She knows what is best for us.
Ok, sarcasm over. I don’t know if it would fix the problem but for my part if I were SBC and it came to a vote, I’d vote for it. I also think it was a mistake for the EC to not take action but that’s just my opinion.
Yes Frank, the color means a lot to me. And to say that it isn’t about color is to deny the real problem. Dave should know this by now, but I am a to the point person. I am so honest that sometimes it may be to my detriment. So I agree with you, color matters, and some may say it doesn’t, but I would say that is not being completely honest with ourselves. I have it on good authority that it is many. And I would use the word all without hesitation.
I should have said, I agree with you color matters to me because that is what this issue is all about and I would reread Dr. McKissic’s post again if I were you. I don’t think you quite get it.
I have it on good authority that it is many.
For someone who runs her big, fat, eternally flapping mouth about “links to sources” you sure aren’t offering any.
The big difference is you are convinced that if everyone did what Dr. McKissic has suggested the race issue would be solved, or at least mostly solved. I am not so convinced.
Haha Solved? We never solve anything in the SBC. No of course it would not solve the whole problem, but it is a step and I think a pretty big step. A step worth taking. To not do anything seems to be our standard MO and frankly I do not accept the “do nothing” way of thinking. Either we begin to live what we say we believe or be honest and say we don’t really believe it but are just speaking the words to look good and to shut up those who wish change in this area.
Joe: I normally would not answer you, but in this case I will. I cannot provide a link to a private one on one physical conversation. Guess you’ll just have to take my word for it. 🙂
Debbie, when I was running for the mayor’s office in a city a few years ago, my campaign manager used to warn me about people known for using others to accomplish a personal agenda. He used to say, “they like to make the bullets and have other people shoot them.”
This seems to be how you operate. A man, from Texas or Oklahoma, or whatever, captures your attention and you become like a little lap dog yapping and making noise on their behalf.
You say things that are outrageous and extreme, and when someone points it out, you attack them and say, “read this or that again. You just don’t get it.”
I do get it–and I reject it in part. I don’t care what personality is attached to a bad idea, I still would think it is a bad idea. In this matter, I just think the McKissic proposal is at best, an incomplete idea, and at worst a counter-productive idea. However, I am open to some means to get better representation or better race relations, or just a better fellowship altogether in the SBC.
But, when someone like you just say outrageous things that are not true, it only clouds the water. With you I always ask myself, “What will be her cause of the day tomorrow?
Attack, attack, attack. The problem is: you are attacking windmills.
I’m not going to comment on this issue anymore. I think it has been well-aired and all that can be said has been said.
I would urge you to contemplate the possibility that someone could disagree with you and it not mean they are stupid or bad (not counting Joe. of course) 🙂
I would urge you to contemplate the possibility that someone could disagree with you and it not mean they are stupid or bad (not counting Joe. of course)
You owe me a new laptop for the one I just ruined by shooting Diet Dr. K out of my nose. (Larf)
There is a saying Frank. “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you always got.”
Whenever I see opposition to a resolution because “it won’t really change anything”, I have to ask: Do resolutions ever change anything, ever? Take this for what it’s worth from someone who has never been to a convention, but I think whatever time is spent making, debating, voting, and reporting on resolutions as essentially wasted. They are not binding, and in many cases may well not represent anything except the opinions of a majority of a tiny minority of Southern Baptists. And yet when something like the latest alcohol resolution gets a little opposition, some corners of the SBC turn themselves inside out with righteous indignation. We can oppose alcohol (via resolution) but not racism? How long did it take to pass the regenerate church membership resolution? Years. I honestly doubt they do any good, but they certainly can divide.
Bill, I agree that the measurable efficacy of resolution is difficult to defend.
They do seem to serve one purpose at least: as compass of sorts showing what the general (perhaps very general) direction of the SBC might be at any given time.
I truly believe that God is speaking to His church on this issue, the question is are we willing to listen? Our Presbyterian brethern in the PCA are discussing some of these same issues.
http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-church/
Series entitled “Race in the PCA”
Good read Sima. Exactly. It’s 2011 for crying out loud.
Over the last few weeks I have thought about this matter of race relations in the SBC. One aspect I have not seen addressed much is how economic deprivation leads to continued attitudes–that if not racist, contribute or are vulnerable to racist expression.
I’m thinking that if we really wanted to improve the representation of blacks and other non-whites in our broader community, establishing schools in the inner-city would go a lot further than promoting a man of color as president of the SBC.
I think we have way too high an opinion of people who “rise to the top.” Yes, cream does rise, but so does pond scum — not meant as harsh as it sounds but to be suggestive.
I guess I’m more of a grassroots kind of person. That’s why in 33 years of SBC ministry I’ve never attended a national convention, even when it was almost withing walking distance.
I think that this issue is very significant and a blog discussion may go a very long way toward real change. Maybe it will even lead to another ethnic president (remember Johnny Hunt is native american).
I thoroughly believe that McKissic is very sincere, very capable and probably very other stuff. However, if we attach the issue his name alone, I think it will be counter-productive for a number of reasons. But I in no way suggest he is anything less than a wonderful person.
Frank L – Are you perhaps thinking of starting SBC schools in the inner city ? They already have several public schools in the inner city and the race relations there are generally o.k. And the cost of building a new school as you have suggested could be saved by inviting you and some others to take a class on improving race relations not only in Southern Baptist areas in the southeast U.S but also in the north central U.S in the city or out. Maybe then you and some others would have better suggestions on how to improve the SBC, SBC churches , themselves, and others who would like to join us and with whom many welcome the association. Money has as much to do with racism as it does with alcoholism in my humble opinion.
Jack, your ignorance in regard to inner city schools is obvious and your condescending attitude is wasted on me.
Further, an attitude like yours is precisely what I suspect will make any attempt at a real solution as ineffective as those that have gone before.
I’m not sure who your “us” is, but if you are representative, I’ll be happy to remain outside of your group. In my humble opinion, it is just such an “us/them” attitude that perpetuates a racist environment.
And, I thought I made it clear that I don’t believe changing theSBC will happen by making noise at the convention. I’m no more interested in joining that group as I am joining yours. I feel that is like jousting windmills.
“I’m thinking that if we really wanted to improve the representation of blacks and other non-whites in our broader community, establishing schools in the inner-city would go a lot further than promoting a man of color as president of the SBC.”
Well . . . twenty years working in the inner city public schools and I can tell you that we were blessed by many Church groups who brought school supplies in for the children at the beginning of the school year.
I don’t think our students could have afforded their own lunch, much less the tuition at a private religious school. but the Churches reached out to our children in ways that were needed, and in the ways that they could do it.
We were all most grateful to these good people.
Christiane – I was grateful as an inner city kid in Washington, D.C public grade school where everything and everybody suffered from the “shorts”. Trade a mustard for a mayo sandwich and kept our milk money in our pocket. It was fun and church was fun and well organised with different folks providing. We need a better product – better preaching than we are getting and they can peovide it. Better music and they can provide that also. We need more money coming in and they will bring it with them . We need more attendence by all of ” US ” being able to bring our friends not only from our old neighborhoods but doctors from John Hopkins who are black and not have to be worried that some goofy group is protesting. We need them because we are not doing and can’t seem to do enough for ourselves to make ends meet, or make everybody happy even to each other. They are doing us a favor by helping us provide a better , more enjoyable , more fulfilling , more smiling , laughing , gospel singing, spanish fiesta country music church programs that nobody could stay away from UNLESS their just out to cause trouble and that’s not going to work anymore – not in S.E. DC or SE USA. I’m ready to hear of any better way to pay the bills during the next 5 years.
According to a comment on my blog, it seems that the issue of racial preferences on who one associates with is not limited to one race. A commenter on the post “Is Your Church White? wrote:
Interestingly enough, a good friend in New Orleans who pastors a so called “white” church recently shared with me about a black family who attended for some time. Their black friends and family gave them all kinds of grief for attending a “white” church.
Of course, this mindset does not excuse any racial attitudes in the SBC, but it does show that racial preferences are not simply a white or black issue.
Mark: At the forefront forgive me for being blunt, but we as white people, and even white women, for the most part have had it pretty good. We haven’t been persecuted for the most part because of our color. In fact quite the opposite has happened. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for reverse discrimination toward white’s, afterall, we earned that. We are not losing jobs because of it, economically we haven’t hurt because of our color, again the opposite is true, that cannot be said of the black community, either in society or in church. They have been where none of us would want to be and some do not trust us. I don’t blame them.
That doesn’t make it right, but we caused it and it is up to us to reverse it in my opinion. Someone has to make the first move and it should be us.
We need to make this stand in my opinion. To not do so is to fail the black community. We are Christians first and foremost, and to say well…the black community…is to both shirk our responsibility as Christians and as Southern Baptists. It does send a message to the Black community that they are not wanted nor important and I am not so sure that message isn’t pretty accurate.
Funny, all I did was share another perspective from a black person. I did not disagree with Mr. McKissic nor argue against his proposals. Do you think a form of consequentialism is the right ethic for judgments and corrections in this situation? Why?
Along the lines of the point of my commenter, do you think that if more black Christians were in leadership positions in the SBC that more non-SBC folks would be drawn to join? Or, is it possible that no matter what one race or another does, the majority preference of a particular race will still be to affiliate with itself? If so, what should we do about that? (Note: I’m not saying this should be the case. I’m just asking questions which I hope also reflect real world scenarios.)
. . . ” do you think that if more black Christians were in leadership positions in the SBC that more non-SBC folks would be drawn to join? ”
I do. And it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘race’.
Racial diversity among the leadership would simply confirm to non-SBC folk that the SBC openly recognized the dignity of the human person as a child of God.
It’s about human dignity. And respect.
It’s about doing what is right.
Debbie,
What is reverse discrimination?
Mark: The context I used the word was whites were discriminating to blacks and it has somewhat back lashed(according to your comment) to us. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the reverse to us. We brought that on ourselves. As Christians that does not make it right, but from the human side, I understand it and don’t have a lot of sympathy to a white person complaining when it happens to them. We are not even near to it hurting anything but our feelings or pride. It certainly doesn’t cost us anything. We have no idea what true racism is against whites. We always have it pretty cushy in that area. The same cannot be said for African Americans or any other minority. Make sense?
No, it does not make sense. Discrimination is discrimination, unless, of course, someone like Rob Bell is answering.
That, my friend, is a brilliantly sarcastic comment. Bravo.
Sometimes we need a dose of the medicine we have given out in pain of others.
I highly recommend a reading of Alan Cross’s “Are Southern Baptists Missional”-Part 2. Our past history lesson might put things in perspective. In both the Civil War and Civil Rights Southern Baptists were either silent or opposed the call to justice. Seems the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I would like for that to change. Since the Civil war the response is the same. Now seems to be no different. It can be however and it’s time that it was.
Discrimination is wrong. I don’t care who is doing the discriminating. I think folks can debate the merits of affirmative action programs. Good Americans – white and black – have come down on different sides of those questions.
But again, discrimination is wrong. I don’t deserve to face discrimination because I’m white. That is utterly ridiculous. Really ridiculous. Who deserves to face discrimination? I’ve EARNED that? Because I’m white and my white dad was born to the son of a poor Mississippi sharecropper. Puhleeze. Do you really believe that all white Americans are equally privileged?
Oddly, Debbie’s plea to transcend racialization involves using racialized categories such as “us” and the implied “them” But I digress.
Debbie wrote: “In both the Civil War and Civil Rights Southern Baptists were either silent or opposed the call to justice.”
Really? Because my next-door neighbor from 1983-1986 in Louisville, Kentucky – on the campus of Southern Seminary – was a white gentleman named Henlee Barnette. Barnette was a civil rights activist who was responsible for bringing Dr. King to campus. I don’t remember too much about Dr. Barnette but I do have pictures of my first trick-or-treat at his home. My dissertation which I’m in the middle of is, in part, on Barnette and other progressive supporters of civil rights (all white Southern Baptists)
I wrote a book (out this summer) about a white Southern Baptist named James Dunn. He lobbied for civil rights legislation in the 60’s, fought for racial equality in the 70s and integrated the Christian Life Commission of Texas.
Foy Valentine, Jimmy Allen, Walker Knight, Carlyle Marney, T.B. Maston, Clarence Jordan (classmate of my grandfather in the late 1930s @ SBTS), etc. etc. – all part of a grand “genealogy of dissent” in Southern Baptist life that refused to be silent, rejected racial superiority and preached justice. This is a part of the Southern Baptist story that should be remembered and built upon.
If you’re going to offer a “history lesson,” at least offer something a bit more nuanced and accurate.
I just don’t see the value in the attempt to appeal to some guilt that folks are supposed to have because they are A)white and B)Southern Baptist.
A person doesn’t need to feel guilty in order to understand that diversity is a good thing and we should be intentional about achieving diversity and opposing discrimination in its many forms.
BDW,
I appreciate your response. Your last sentence on guilt and diversity is a nice conclusion.
All,
As I understand Christianity, it holds that we are all guilty before God. It is only by God’s grace through Jesus that we are saved from the judgment of our sin. For Christians, forgiveness does not require penance and neither should we require that of each other. That is, if we desire to be more Christ-like. We are speaking of what the Christian thing to do is, right?
Excellent, BDW.
But, on the other hand (and I’m not sure you would disagree) I would say that the fact that our denomination has been a haven of racism and discrimination for a century and a half does leave us with some burden to take decisive action to demonstrate that we are putting those ways behind us.
Maybe I should have directed my response to Alan Cross instead of Debbie as I see now – from reading Alan’s blog – that Debbie did a copy and paste job on the thought (see below) that I was responding to.
“Our past history lesson might put things in perspective. In both the Civil War and Civil Rights Southern Baptists were either silent or opposed the call to justice.”
Alan does at least acknowledge in the preface to his post that he is making “broad generalizations.” Although, seldom are broad-sweeping generalizations helpful concerning issues that are not overly simplistic. History is complex.
With all due respect Dave, you are simply speaking from a “white guilt” perspective. We each have a burden to submit our wills to God daily and ask that he cull our sinfulness (including un-Biblical discrimination). But I don’t believe there is any burden other than pointing out and confronting “racial” discrimination on an individual basis where ever it occurs. Your line of logic leads inexorably to the idea of reparations.
No it doesn’t. There’s no need to confuse a commitment to achieving greater diversity with reparations.
If racial minorities are underrepresented on stage at SBC meetings, boards and agencies, what’s the harm with advocating for the inclusion in leadership positions of more African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics?
Southern Baptists have a tendency to deal with issues on an individual basis while ignoring structural nature of problems.
I don’t know about white guilt, Greg. I think whites have been guilty and I think we need to take steps to correct it, to deal with the problems that have and still exist.
BDW & Dave – I hate that I’ve commented on this post at all… i really wanted to stay out. However, the open-ended “we have to do something” a-la-penance thought process is abhorrent.
1. I don’t subscribe to the false notions of “race” and “minorities.” The fact that people in the past and present (and undoubtedly future) use skin color as means-testing for discrimination and justifying it by the poorly contrived darwinian concept of “race” doesn’t change that fact that there are NO races in humanity save the human race.
2. No one can create “diversity” save God alone and I think He’s done a great job at it. But my perspective is based on #1 above. I understand your concept of diversity and feel that it perpetuates the false idea of “race” by creating classes that do not exist and creates an entire category of debate and confusion with no correct answer or solution.
3. As far as the concept of ethnicity I think there is some merit in the abstract, but it gets polluted by the concept of “race” in reality. Ethnicity references primarily culture and language. For example, lets say I’m of mixed Scottish, Irish, & Choctaw descent but was an abandoned child (orphan 2-4yo) in Kuwait, raised in the local culture, speaking the same language, adopted into a local family. Inspite of my parental origins, I would be ethnically (language & culture) as much an Arab as anyone whose family can be traced back 600years in Kuwait; “race” is a false component. As one who has studied multiple languages and lived in multiple palaces, I love cultural & linguistic differences; and especially food differences 🙂
America and the SBC in deed have horrible historical legacy’s of bowing to the evolutionary idea that humans evolved from apes, that some are less evolved, and can therefore be subjugated as lesser beings. I think that those who are descendants of those men and women who were thus subjugated in this country are at a disadvantage because as a society we perpetuate the FALSE ideas that there was a legitimate reason behind slavery and discrimination: “race.” As a society we will only move beyond this horrible past when we dispense with the false idea of “race” that was the basis for the disparity and discrimination in the first place.
Haven’t had a chance to read all comments, but I agree with the recent comments from Mark and BDW.
Racism cuts both ways. Racism is wrong for whites, wrong for blacks, and any other racial group. There are racists in every group. We all need to watch out for it.
Racism is a terrible wrong. It is also a terrible thing to falsely accuse someone of racism. Could that be as great a sin as racism itself?
Yesterday on NBC World News they had an interesting clip about many black folks moving from the North to the South. The reason was that segregation and racism is gone and the South is full of opportunities for African-Americans. That is great. Good for the South.
David R. Brumbelow
Maybe I have missed it, but I think the issue here is far more important than race, racism, and discrimination.
This is a Gospel issue. Forgive me for going all biblical on you.
Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” see also Rev. 7:9, 11;9, 13:7, 14:6 (NASB)
Discrimination is wrong because God is not a respecter of persons, All have sinned: Red, yellow, black and white. All are in need of a Savior:Rich, poor, old and young. All fall short of the glory of God: educated, uneducated, blue-collar, white-collar. The reality is the Gospel removes all of these divisions. It puts us all on the same playing field, sinners in need of a Savior.
Now having become Christians, we are called to live in a manner like Christ. Love God, and Love each other, regardless of race, ethnic origin, childhood and background. It doesn’t matter where you were born, who your parents where, the church you attend, the work you do. We are all EQUAL before God.
Discrimination is wrong because if places us in the place of judgement that belongs solely to our God.
Further, the gospel demands forgiveness for past wrongs against us. Thus, reverse discrimination is negated and not a Christian attitude.
Having said all of that, got a little preachy there, as SBC’rs, we must prove to racial minorities that we really believe these things. Why, history for one thing. Words mean things, actions backing up those words mean far more.
Racism is a scourge and a persistent stain on Southern Baptists collectively, and we pray that God has granted and will continue to grant us forgiveness. We need to cleanse and remove this stain, not because it feels good or it is pushed upon us, rather we must do it because we desire to live out the gospel in every way.
Here’s short poem I wrote today in reponse to the discussion. Grace and peace.
A New Way Through by Tassima Warren
You see me as the other, even though I am your brother.
A little too bit different from you when my skin is a different hue.
You will accept me on your terms, as long as I don’t do anything to make you squirm.
So I learn to deny, suppress, and sometimes even hate differences in culture-that God did create.
But the Spirit within me says, “No, there must be a new way through to the ‘new man’ I have formed in you.
A place where cultures are celebrated, not assimilated to show the reconciling power of God, bought with His blood.
This path to unity will be hard, but it comes from the hand of God.
So what do we do when this path becomes a road too hard to trod, when Jesus’ call to “oneness “seems
a far off thought?
We count each other as better than ourselves. And just as God has given me grace, I extend it to you.
Thank you for sharing that with us, Sima.
Sima , Good work . Keep on keeping on !