You are on a diet. For the past week you’ve been exercising like a professional athlete and eating nothing but rabbit food. Then you walk by a kid selling strawberry pies. You buy three of them hoping to share with your family. You eat all three. But you justify this by saying, “I’ve done so good on my diet that I deserve to cheat a little”.
Sociologists have coined a term for this behavior. It is called moral licensing. And it extends to far more than just eating strawberry pie while on a diet. Studies have found that when we humans do something that we consider a good deed rather than backing that up with more good deeds we tend to go the other way and give ourselves permission to do something less than favorable.
I first learned about this concept listening to Malcom Gladwell’s podcast, Revisionist History. Gladwell weaves together stories of outsiders who broke through a barrier only to have the door closed behind them. Rather than seeing the door remain open what often happens is that accepting one “outsider” serves as justification for the status quo to close the door again. There are exceptions to the rule, like Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in the MLB, but more often than not the door closes after one outsider breaks through.
I’ve been wondering a bit lately about where the SBC will land on this issue. In my mind we face a bit of a crossroads as a denomination. We have seen significant growth over the past decade in terms of racial reconciliation. In 2012 Fred Luter was nominated as the SBC’s first African-American president. Was this opening a door for wider representation by minorities or will this serve as a license to slowly shut that door?
I’m a nobody with only one set of eyes, so take my observations for what they are worth. Yet, I must voice my concern that I see and hear a bit of moral licensing. I hear folks touting voting records on resolutions, raising a ballot for Fred Luter, and the like. What I’m hearing is the ol’, “I have a black friend, so I cannot be racist” schtick. It’s really no more than giving ourselves permission to not look deeper into potential vestiges of racism. It’s blinding our eyes to the pervasive whiteness on our committees and our stages.
In my opinion, a massive part of the problem with the recent dust-up concerning the alt-right resolution was the lack of minority representation on the resolutions committee. Our resolutions committee absolutely misread the situation and the importance of this resolution. I cannot help but think had there been more representation by minorities that the committee would have had a better read on our need to bring this to the floor.
Then we heard the names of those appointed to a personal soul-winning, evangelism task force. Look at the list of names. Notice a trend? The group is mostly comprised of white seminarians and white mega-church pastors. The wise words of Walter Strickland (our newly elected 1VP) are not being heeded, “Superior theological development results from the diverse collection of the church (across ages, genders, races, and cultures) rather than from an individual or believers isolated in their cultural context”. (Removing the Stain, 58)
There is one other thing I’ve noticed in the past few years that has me both encouraged and discouraged. I am happy to see more representation by minorities on our panel discussions. But I’m also discouraged that for the most part the only questions they are asked on these panels are questions related to race. To me this reeks of moral licensing. We are doing the good deed of having at least one minority represented on our panel and then giving ourselves license to not do the greater thing of considering them intellectual equals and asking for their perspective on significant theological issues not related to race.
In order to move forward we must be intentional about representation on our boards. This is not virtue signaling or affirmative action. It is about intentionality. It is about recognizing that unless I’m intentional about not doing this I will look at a pool of people and pick those who look like me and think just like I do.
I’m encouraged that the way forward has already been modeled by the 2017 Pastor’s Conference and hopefully will continue with H.B. Charles at the helm in 2018. We were blessed by hearing from a diverse selection of voices. We need this to continue. I was part of that selection process, and we had to be intentional about pursuing diversity. We had a pool of many qualified men to preach. We could have easily filled it with 12 white guys who were gifted preachers. We could have just as easily filled it with 12 minorities. But we chose to be intentional about hearing from many different voices.
Until a healthier balance is achieved we have to look at every committee and board and make certain that we have a diversity. We cannot let things like the 2017 resolutions committee misreading that alt-right resolution happen again. We cannot pretend that we are going to get the best ideas on personal evangelism and soul-winning when we are mostly leaving out smaller churches and minorities from having a voice. And why not have a panel of nothing but minority Southern Baptists talking to us about something like ecclessiology or pneumatology? Why not intentionally do something like this?
Here’s to praying that the open door of racial reconciliation and minority representation/leadership swings open wide and doesn’t slowly begin to close by way of moral licensing.
“It’s really no more than giving ourselves permission to not look deeper into potential vestiges of racism.”
This line really struck me as I read. It occurred to me that’s part of the reason our finally-adopted resolution on the alt-right didn’t sit all that well with me when I read it — and I think was one of the discouraging aspects for many of us who wanted to see Dwight McKissic’s resolution brought forward. We’re quick to highlight past progress but seem hesitant to examine the current reality.
The Christian message of repentance means we should always be quick to look inward and deeper to see if there are lingering vestiges of sin — and that goes both personally and corporately. To borrow a concept, we should be quick to repent and slow to defend. And Mike here is calling us out that we need to quit running back to past actions, actions that are good and right, as a deflection strategy when someone brings up further steps we need to take.
[In my opinion, a massive part of the problem with the recent dust-up concerning the alt-right resolution was the lack of minority representation on the resolutions committee.]
Maybe you could be more specific as to what would be appropriate, but from what I read, the representation was racially fair considering the demographics.
[It’s blinding our eyes to the pervasive whiteness on our committees and our stages.]
This is yet another form of white friendly fire that I don’t understand the need for. For those who want to make a big deal about the skin color of SBC committees, let’s ask ourselves if God sees sin there. If not, then why are we making an issue of it? Let’s instead focus on what God has actually commanded us to do in Scripture and let Him take care of the hearts of men.
Does God see sin in excluding and marginalizing certain groups from holding meaningful leadership positions? I’d say yeah.
Do you just assume sinful intent simply because certain leadership positions aren’t filled by people with certain skin color? If so, it would be helpful to know who you think is responsible and leading sinfully. Otherwise, it appears that you’re trying to create more problems than trying to solve.
Brent wrote: Does God see sin in excluding and marginalizing certain groups from holding meaningful leadership positions? I’d say yeah.
Brother, would you include Al Mohler’s only hiring Calvinists will willingly taking non-Calvinists money for his seminary?
Dan, Paul didn’t assume “sinful intent” in his criticism of the Corinthians’ exclusion or division during the Lord’s supper. The very fact that it was happening was the problem.
Mike wrote:In order to move forward we must be intentional about representation on our boards. This is not virtue signaling or affirmative action. It is about intentionality. It is about recognizing that unless I’m intentional about not doing this I will look at a pool of people and pick those who look like me and think just like I do.
Did the people running the Gospel Project follow this advice? And why are Traditionalists condemned as wanting affirmative-action when they want the same above principals followed in regards to the over representation and exclusivist behavior of Calvinists in Southern Baptist leadership? Or is the SBC like liberal academia where diversity is praised except in the area of ideas, even under the parameters of the BFM 2000?
If Southern seminary treated racial minorities in their hiring practices like they treat Traditionalists would it be OK? Even if this discrimination was in accord with one of their founding documents?
Different topic, different place Paul. Take your Calvinism food fight elsewhere.
Mike wrote: Different topic, different place Paul. Take your Calvinism food fight elsewhere.
So your defense of discrimination against racial minorities is your moral licensing for excusing Calvinists, including your school’s discrimination. It’s the same topic. What would you say to someone who dismissed racial discrimination with the pejorative “food fight”?
Right now a member of any racial minority group has a better chance of being hired at Southern seminary than a Traditionalist. Like conservatives complain about left wing academia, diversity except in the area of ideas. And like the political hard left you answered my arguments and questions with a dismissive insult.
The topic is race. Not Calvinism. And a person’s theology is different than their race.
So do you agree with the point of the article? Or are you trying to play gotcha. If you agree and think you can make a case for Calvinist doing something similar then write the article. But I don’t care for our topic of discussion to get derailed.
Your article, it makes some good points but some that I found questionable. I like learning from different cultures since we’re all made in God’s image and it’s fun and instructive to see how the wise of different cultures approach the same topic. I like the idea that the wise of all times and culture are a brotherhood across time and space. So I would be interested in what people from different cultures in America, which are sometimes different races, have to say on the same important topics like evangelism. But I’m more interested that they are very skilled in evangelism than they are different, or my own, race or culture. For this weekend I’m prepping to do evangelism with a group that is led by a man from Egypt and except for me so far is entirely Hispanic. I’m doing this not because of their race or culture or denominational affiliation but because they are spiritual Christian brothers who are significantly more skilled in the type of evangelism they do than I am. And most importantly, they actually go out and evangelize a lot and have a heart for the lost. As Solomon says, “He who would be wise let him walk with the wise.”
But the article also came across as a mainstream politically correct approach which I haven’t found to be helpful. This approach seems most interested in what is popular and easy at the time, not that which might actually help. So to clarify, I checked to see if you were really opposed to discrimination even when it wasn’t cool to be opposed to discrimination, that is discrimination against Traditionalists, particularly at places like Southern. It seems that you don’t care about that cool discrimination so it looks like you probably won’t be willing to do the things that might be hard or really countercultural to actually deal with racial tensions or abuses. And personally, I am not interested in hearing what someone has to say about discrimination who supports discrimination against me; so the questions about Calvinist discrimination were very on topic for me.
Marginalizing certain groups. Yes I would say that would not be helpful. It seems to me that legacy small churches 150 in attendance (or better yet below 80 in attendance) are way disproportionately underrepresented in SBC life, far far more that ethnicity. At least Fred Luter (a fine man, God’s man) a mega-church Pastor served as President of the Convention. Where is the rest of that representation among the committees and boards of the SBC beyond tokenism and allowing some folks from small churches to hold meaningful leadership positions? If we are going to have a party for the marginalized, lets invite everybody huh?
Rob
Except the convention isn’t constantly talking about how well we involve small church pastors, so the issues are hardly comparable in the context of the article Mike has written. In fact, your comment pretty well illustrates what Mike is warning against: “At least Fred Luter served…” I love Fred Luter. I’m thrilled he served too. However, as Mike pointed out, that’s merely deflection from the issue at hand. The question now ought to be, “so who follows Fred Luter?”
We still have a lot of work to do on racial inclusion. BUT small churches… BUT Fred Luter… BUT this or that… none of these buts are heard by our minority members as anything other than excuses for why we fail to do the right thing.
“Except the convention isn’t constantly talking about how well we involve small church pastors”
My point exactly. It is not. It should. Not only small Church Pastors, but small church laypeople. Men and women. And oh by the way – do you think there may be some legacy churches out there who are majority “other”? You see, not only are they being discriminated because they are an ethnic congregation, but also due to the fact they are small. Double whammy.
My comment was made to illustrate a point – a point you missed. I am glad Fred Luter served. It was not deflection at all. I desire racial inclusion and racial harmony. I desire that all marginalized groups (small churches and the diversity of ethnic groups) be included in all facets of SBC governance and polity. Otherwise your argument of “but” sounds hollow, and it sounds like mere excuses to the majority of small churches out their for why the convention fails to do the right thing on their behalf. If you are going to take on the banner of making wrongs right, then use the bully pulpit for all wrongs not just one. Otherwise, get off the train.
Rob
Rob, I think the folks here who are part of the Voices For a New Baptist Future have exhibited our desire to not only see minorities well represented but also smaller churches. Exhibit A…the Pastor’s Conference.
And even in this particular article, though the focus is upon ethnic minorities, I think a similar article COULD be written about smaller churches. I believe you have valid points here, Rob. But I also agree with Brent that we need to be sure that “but smaller churches” doesn’t turn our eyes away from pushing for ethnic minorities to be better represented. It’s both/and but we have to be careful that we don’t end up neglecting one for the other.
Mike I believe your sentiments. The leaven however of articles advancing the small church issue though has been fairly lacking lately. No resolutions produced on the behalf of Small Churches and the noted disparity of representation. Agreed? Did the Pastor’s Conference have a legacy church Pastor whose average attendance is under 100? If there was, I kind of missed that, but that could be on me.
Touche. I think the issue here is minority disparity and lack of representation within the polity of the SBC. ALL MARGINALIZED GROUPS. It is both. My protest here is that one group has been neglected over the other lately in these pages. When was the last article that did both, or even focused on the Small Church issue? Tony Kummer did a couple of articles on the Small Churchin 2007 highlighting the work of Les Puryear seaking further representation of the Small Church in SBC Work. 2007.
So = do both.
Rob
To me it’s more about accurately reflecting the kingdom of God. I’m not one to assume that I know motives or the intention of the heart of those who pick people on committees. So I’m not willing to say that somebody is actively sinning. But at the same time, “the one who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
The right thing to do is to follow Jesus in breaking down racial barriers. The right thing to do is fight with minorities to have a voice. There will be people from every tribe around the throne…the more accurately we reflect this the better we are as a denomination. And the better we display the beauty of the gospel which unites diverse people.
That’s what I’m hoping for and fighting for.
“White friendly fire”? What does that even mean?
Think about it.
Rob
Okay I did. Now what…
Mike, “white friendly fire” means that you as a white person have unnecessarily attacked a fellow white (or in this case, a group of whites with your “pervasive whiteness” description of SBC committees). Opinions/comments such as those that are rooted in white guilt are generally not healthy or constructive.
I would still like to know what minority representation you think would be fair on the resolutions committee since you had such a strong statement against this year’s group.
I suppose I just don’t understand the friendly fire comment. Like we have a “white team” vs. a “minority team” and I’m crossing lines because the color of my skin is white but I’m pushing for more on the “minority team” to be represented. I just don’t get this.
As far as picking a number…goodness…I’m not sure. More than 1 or 2, how about that? As I said in the article we are at a point where we simply need to be intentional about making sure that every voice is heard and represented. We might even need to swing the pendulum a little bit in the other direction. Would it be terrible if for a few years we had a majority of minorities?
[Like we have a “white team” vs. a “minority team” and I’m crossing lines because the color of my skin is white but I’m pushing for more on the “minority team” to be represented.]
The context of your article features racial “teams”. And as part of that, you are attacking “whiteness”. I just don’t see the need.
[Would it be terrible if for a few years we had a majority of minorities?]
Why intentionally over-represent a particular demographic? Just so there’d be a majority to rubber stamp any and all McKissic resolutions? The intent behind this effort (as well as its effects) don’t seem to be very unifying for the SBC.
Nothing in my article is attacking whiteness. I’m simply saying that we white folk have a certain perspective. (Not that there is one particular “white view” or one particular “black view”). But there is a unique experience and vantage point that minorities have that we need. Diversity that is grounded in the Cross is a very good thing.
I’m not viewing this in terms of teams. What I’m saying is that we are all on the same team and we seem to have a wealth of outfielders but we are missing a couple pieces in our infield. Perhaps we should trade away one of those outfielders to shore up the infield. Same team. Different roles, different perspectives. We’re better the more well-rounded we are.
Secondly, your comment about the result of intentionally over-representing minorities is telling. You assume that rather than think on their own they will simply rubber stamp resolutions presented by Dwight. To me that communicates that you believe minorities are unified in thought and unable to think on their own.
Maybe we intentionally over-represent a particular demographic because for years we either intentionally or most-likely under-represented that same demographic. It’s not about playing a game or trying to make up to “them”. It’s about saying we have painfully neglected multiple perspectives and we’ve suffered for it. Because we want to grow in this area–and grow quickly–we want to heighten our experience of these voices.
But, wasn’t the committee make up actually representative of the actual membership of the convention?
Enough will never be enough in the view of many who view all things though the race issue. How much time has been devoted and comments made on race since the SBC annual convention. If the SBC is so tainted with the stain of its racist origins than it must be disbanded and rebranded probably into two entities , one conservative , one liberal in social viewpoint. That is where we are headed. If this site is being mentioned as even remotely racist in its viewpoint than the gulf if indeed insurmountable. I personally still think that many of the progressive leaders of the SBC do think that the average SBC member, especially a Trump voter is inherently racist even if they do not know they are racist otherwise the churches would be full of minorities who are just not welcome now. I do not know what more the SBC can do other than urge its churches to merge with the local black church and give them full leadership in all areas. Other wise we will be having this discussion as often as we have since the convention. The resolutions are seen by many as the apology that goes “if I offended anyone with my actions I am sorry, not my intent” by many. To many the apology is not needed as it has been apologized and atoned for so it is just being redundant to quell an issue that causes dissention. I told a friend of mine in the Tea Party, that the Tea Party should change their name due to the inaccurate and bad contention the name has with many. He disagreed saying that is not what the Tea Party really is . I will ask some of you what do you think of the Tea Party when you hear the name and would a name change help them promote their agenda? To many Tea Party is negative whether deserved or not. I am getting that way with the SBC label, just tired of going over the same territory.
Yes, some voices out there (like the Religion Dispatches article Dave posted about yesterday) will never be satisfied. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that there are many minority voices addressing this issue in good faith who have legitimate critiques that we need to hear. The solution is to work together with those in the SBC who are helping raise awareness. Elevate positive, productive voices and engage with a willingness to listen.
I do believe we have had this discussion before, about intentionality and that doesn’t mean its wrong to revisit it.
But as far as i can tell, those who post here don’t appoint board or committee members, and maybe don’t have the ears of those that do.
Even as God appoints and despises kings and such, He also appoints and desposes of committee and board members, so it seems to me that we can pray and ask Him to aid us in our diversification. For we want to be inclusive and loving to all of our family, and what a great witness ofGod’s love for us if we are intentionally diversified.
Great article Mike…..I do have one little push-back – I do not know that it is even that…
You say that the bulk of the problem (which you admitted is based on your opinion) is that there was minority underrepresented on the resolutions committee.
But, the way I remember it – I do not have my SBC stuff in front of me….but as I remember….the representation was actually in line for minorities on the committee given the actual skin color makeup of the convention….we hear all the time that white people and congregations make up 80-85% of our membership and males make up the majority of our committees and trustees…
Well given that…three members of the committee (from memory, I think I am right though) minorities…. an African American, an Hispanic and a woman. So given that and the call for fairness in representation – it looks like the committee was actually doing better than the actual membership 70/30.
This is part of my bone of contention with this stuff, Mike. I am a strong personal and pastoral supporter of what is commonly referred to as “racial reconciliation”. I hate bigotry and discrimination. it utterly disgusts me – and pastoring in the south I see it rear its ugly head far too often in both subtle and overt ways….
But here is what I think about often: when we start actively counting noses and making appointments based on skin color (even positively) – I am not sure that we aren’t actually doing what we hate…..discriminating. Hear me out…
I will share another bone of contention. HB CHarles is awesome! He, IMO, is one of the very best expositors in our convention. He is well liked and respected. He is appreciated for his visible and serious work for the gospel. He was a shoe in for PC President no matter who ran against him. He needed no help. He did not need the way cleared for him. But…….
A group of men who wanted to make sure the first African American PC President met and called the guy who was announced before Dr. Charles and low and behold he “decided on his own to back out”. To believe that is how the story played out just seems to require the intentional and willing suspension of all disbelief. Maybe I am too skeptical, but somehow I do not think so….
Then Charles was elected unopposed (which I am convinced he would have been elected anyway) and people got all happy and excited over the first black PC president……why??? What was really accomplished? I say nothing – defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory because the “way was cleared”. To use a term that is popular today….of course he won – it was rigged.
African Americans, Hispanics, whathaveya do not “need” white people to help them or step aside for them….no….they are intrinsically valuable on their own and when we feel that we have to “give them passes” – then aren’t we really – at that point – flirting with what we hate….an idea of superiority that manifests itself in pity and help…because after all – they can’t achieve themselves.
I pray we do not become a slightly different version of what we rightly hate.
I truly hope people understand my points and my heart here….
Preach!
In my opinion, your concerns are totally valid. There is a pretty fine line between “giving them passes” and being intentional.
You are correct that given the makeup of our convention the Res. Comm is a fair representation. But the question is whether or not that is what we want. Do we accurately reflect the culture and community with which God has placed us? Do we accurately reflect the diverse makeup of the kingdom of God? If not, perhaps we need to have our leadership reflect what we want to become instead of where we are at present.
I’d also say that I’m not suggesting we pursue only ethnic diversity. But instead that we pursue a gospel-centered racial reconciliation. As Jarvis Williams has said,
“Gospel-centered racial reconciliation is the pursuit of love for the ‘other’ that flows from the Spirit-empowered obedience of those who repent, believe in the cross and resurrection of Jesus by faith, and are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah. To define racial reconciliation as simply diversity is misleading. Ambiguity about the gospel’s horizontal dimension inevitably leads to nebulosity when one promotes racial reconciliation. And this nebulosity makes some Southern Baptists who support gospel-centered racial reconciliation vulnerable to criticism that their proposals sound like a spiritualized version of affirmative action, which is not the same as gospel-centered reconciliation.”
Wise words. And I think similar to what you are saying here.
Thanks, Mike.
No, it’s not what we (should) want.
We (should) want gospel centered racial reconciliation which will lead to ethnic diversity.
I happen to contend though that real change and reconciliation must start and be successful in our local churches – and when that happens – the trustee boards, convention committees will follow.
Mike,
“There is a pretty fine line between “giving them passes” and being intentional.”
Strongly Agreed.
Not erring on either side of that line is among the hardest parts of this….because intentionality is a must – as is guarding against giving passes.
Erring either way (not being intentional enough or giving passes) will NOT lead to the gospel centered reconciliation we seek.
Tarheel,
One out of ten committee members being an African American is not, I repeat, is not reflective of the African American proportionate representation in our convention, nor reflective of the fact that African Americans Churches are united with the SBC at a higher pace than Anglo Baptist Churches. There should have been a minimum of two and preferably theee African Americans on the resolutions committee. Only one is an insult and window dressing. It’s called tokenism and symbolism, checking a box. One can hardly affect change, even if they desire to. Clearly, this decision was out of sync with the National African American Fellowship of the SBC. Had three of them been on the committee, they would have had the courage to make the same argument at the committee level, as was made on the press release in support of the original resolution. If the SBC brass, is satisfied with the demographic make up of that committee, I fully understand why Professor Larry Ware has departed the SBC in such a loud manner. The SBC will never change, if the majority of the SBC thinks that’s how committee’s in the SBC should look. Tarheel, the EC had only one Black on that committee until ’17, with over a 100 EC committee members. Were u satisfied with that ratio as well?
Dwight,
I think you’ve misunderstood me.
Did you not understand that I was arguing *against* nose counting and attempting to make the point that IF (and I think we shouldn’t) we are going to go by “representation” – essentially quotas – then 8 out of 10 white members of a committee was about in line with actual statistics of the convention – remember black brothers and sisters aren’t the only minority in the SBC.
I don’t think nose counting is a good strategy because It, as you said, can and often does lead to, at least appearances of, tokenism, etc…
Nose counting (quotas) is also not practical. Let’s look at how statistical “representation” would play out in. The SBC – NOTE: I am not arguing this should be the case I’m simply stating that if we’re going to go this route consider this:
10 member committee.
(How would it be made up using a nose counting strategy?)
2 to 3 members should be black.
1 to 2 members should be Hispanic
1 to 2 members should be Asian (don’t forget the variances there)
1 to 2 should be Native American (Shall we recount the mistreatment of this group of individuals?)
4 to 5 should be women (they also were systematically mistreated in American culture and the SBC for many years and statistically make up about half the SBC)
4 to 5 should be men.
7-8 should be white. (Largest demographic by far)
In my haste I’ve probably forgotten a group that needs to be represented.
You see my point?
Unless we are talking about reconciling ONLY ONE group with this representation strategy it gets really hairy….and shouldn’t the other minorities and non minorities get statistical representation in any nose counting scheme?
Even if you were able to mix women and skin tone/nationality …. there is still no way to accurately represent all of the groups by nose counting in the SBC on a 10 member committee.
Also, you aren’t suggesting group think on the part of black committee members by assuming had there been three members they’d all have thought a certain way and “had the courage” to do as you think they should have done??
We already know that the one member of the committee who was actually there didn’t act as many thought he should have with regard to the initial resolution.
I hope you read and considered my other comments… Since you just focused on that one analogy I used.
How did Professor Ware “depart” the SBC? He claimed to renounce his ordination, but the SBC does not ordain or defrock. The local church does. He can renounce the local church ordination, but he likely departed that local church years ago.
Is Prospect Missionary Baptist Church in Oklahoma City still in the SBC? Is Professor Ware still their Education Minister? If the answer to both questions is “yes” then he has not departed from the SBC. And his ordination by a local church remains valid.
I am fine with Ware expressing his concerns and all. I do it all the time. But this idea of renouncing one’s SBC ordination is technically impossible.
One cannot renounce that which does not exist.
And if Ware wishes to “depart from the SBC” then I think there are only two options available to him: (1) his church must leave the SBC, or (2) he must leave his church.
I am not advocating either option. I’m just saying, to borrow a phrase, “It’s tricky to leave the SBC.”
This whole thing about finding “accurate representation” on our committees is a misnomer. If we want to take a step toward actual race reconciliation, our committees should be over-weighted toward people of color first. Platitudes about reconciliation and token POC’s on committees does nothing. Only at least half (or more if you ask me) POC representation on committees will ensure POC views are adequately represented and heard. This isn’t about numbers or percentages. This isn’t political representation (or at least it shouldn’t be). If we want to heal the rift with POC then we need to allow THEM to steer the ship!
Jim,
That’s a really good summary of what should be happening. When I think about resolutions, I think about them in the context of what we are trying to say to the world around us, since they are non-binding. It would make a lot of sense for the resolution committee to be more representative of the population at large, not the SBC. Which means more women, more POC, and fewer white men.
That’s a move that I could get on board with.
I understand your point – but you do realize your suggesting intentionally discriminating for and against demographic based *solely* on skin color (and now gender) – in order to achieve the sought after diversity – that’s wrong too is it not?
Like I said before, I pray that we do not become a slightly different version of what we rightly hate…
What you’re saying seems to be discrimination is needed and good depending…
( I’m sure that back in the day many people felt and argued convincingly that discrimination was necessary…)
Tarheel: What do you think we are doing now, admitting it or not. We are discriminating based on color. Period.
So – do we solve discrimination by practicing a more “desirable” version of discrimination?
Is gospel centered reconciliation more or less likely when we focus more on external skin color or less on it?
Is the scriptural call to abandon favoritism achieved by doing less of it or by designing a “newer and better” version of it?
Is the biblical truth of the tearing down of the dividing wall and uniting all believers into one by body through Christ achieved by exacerbating and focusing on the worldly driven dividing walls of skin color/ethnicity or by focusing on the spiritual unity in the body of Christ?
Maybe some of the pastors here could give us some examples of how their churches are moving toward racial reconciliation? Success in one area sometimes leads to success in another.
Ron –
Good question. Each church is different in their make-up and personality… as are my children. I had to deal with them accordingly and in a way that would make sense, get the point across and point hem in the right direction.
I wish there were a cookie cutter answer.
From my personal file… Pastors better be ready and willing to weather the storm (in most cases). Many churches have become proficient in throwing pastors tot he curb because of things we might deem less intrusive on their club than tearing down the walls of racism (built by the family some generations ago).
Without the tenacity of a pit bull refusing to let go, the pastor will probably be looking for a new placed to serve, only to face the battle again… and again.
I pastor a multi-racial church (I am international so that makes a huge difference). My members do not understand the place of racism in the body of Christ. Don’t get me wrong, it is not completely absent from this area of the world but it is so removed that it is easy to spot and confront. You also won’t be outnumbered when confronting racism here.
Two of my four USA white families relocated back to the states last month so the color gap changed again.
My upcoming chairman of deacons is from Nigeria. My Deacon secretary is from the Philippines, our church treasurer is from India, our worship team changes each week (as we have so many involved) and they make up about 9 different nations.
Not in America anymore and praying God will grant me the joy of retiring here. If He does, I have no idea what church I will attend upon returning home. It will have to be a multi-cultural church.
Ron –
I meant to add the Jeremiah 1:10 verse as a place that might need to be followed.
I’m a little surprised that no one has any examples of how their church is moving toward racial reconciliation. I’d like to share one thing my church is doing. We have partnered with an African American church and members from both churches have donated money to purchase back packs and school supplies for children whose families cannot afford them. Volunteers from both churches will be distributing these back packs together. Our church’s medical dental van will be providing services to the people who come during the distribution time as well. Hopefully, this will lead to developing better relationships and understanding of one another.
Writing blogs and resolutions have their purpose toward an end but actions speak far more fervently. I encourage those, especially pastors on this blog who voice support for racial reconciliation, to lead their churches in this important ministry and to share their experiences with others.
Good stuff, Ron…thanks for sharing.
Ron,
Wonderful words. This brings to mind that old saying “I’d rather see a sermon than to hear one any day.” I’m glad your church is stepping up and doing something that could make a difference.
Jess,
Phrases like:
“I’d rather see a sermon than to hear one any day.”
and
“be active in evangelism and if necessary use words”
They annoy me for at least two reasons:
1) What does “see a sermon” even mean? I mean really? A sermon is by definition a speech – how do you see a speech unless you are reading a transcript of it or something??
2) because you cannot preach a sermon or be active in evangelism without words….it is impossible. Words are completely necessary for both endeavors.
Tarheel,
Please go back to what Ron said just before me. I pray you will understand.
Yeah I knew what you meant …
I was just talking about the phrase itself.