The good ship SBC was cruising toward NOLA with excitement – our cruise would be marked by progress in racial reconciliation. Can you remember a year when there was less drama about the presidency when the office was being vacated? Fred Luter will be unopposed, at least by any serious candidate. It will be historic, encouraging, a move in the right direction. We were chugging along with eyes bright and heads high.
Then, suddenly, the good ship SBC hit a rocky shoal when Richard Land decided that it was a good idea for the head of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission to step into the quagmire known as the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Why did he feel like he needed to step in that one? I don’t know. But it seems that much of the goodwill that Luters’ election was bringing has leaked out of the good ship SBC.
I’ve never addressed the killing of Trayvon Martin. There is a good reason for that. I don’t know what happened. And neither do you. And Richard Land does not know what happened. I don’t think he should have ever jumped into the fray on this one – especially not when he is seen as representing all of us.
Dwight McKissic was absolutely right in his last post when he said that there is a tendency for blacks to view this one way (another instance of the lack of justice for black Americans) and for whites to view it another way (men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – and perhaps the president – using this tragedy for political gain.) Of course, these are generalizations, but ones that are not divorced from reality.
I don’t know what happened that fateful night. I hope that the full truth comes out and justice is served – whatever that is.
But here is a fact we must face: as we continue to seek racial progress in the SBC, we are going to face moments like this. Race is anything but a dead issue in our culture. We are not just going to join hands, sing kumbaya, and see hundreds of years of racial injustice melt away.
The SBC has made progress. I’m glad we did. We repented of racism. I was there that year and stood enthusiastically to repudiate the shameful history of our denomination and to ask God’s forgiveness for it. Last year, the EC presented a very good report with recommendations for dealing with race in the SBC. The election of our first black president will make another statement of the intent of this denomination to navigate new waters.
But it is silly to act as if the racial problem was solved by repenting and or by the election of Fred Luter. Those are steps in the process, but they are not the culmination. There are still racists among us. They may be less prominent now and they may have to hide their views, but they are there. And blacks still struggle for inclusion in the higher echelons of SBC leadership. A couple of years ago at the convention, Dwight McKissic pointed out to me that every person on the podium during the entire SBC was white. I’d never even noticed until he told me.
The racial problem in the SBC will be solved when black pastors and people have a sense that they are full partners in our convention and in its leadership. We all hope and pray that such a day will come. That day has not come yet. We’re a little closer. Hopefully, we will be a little closer next year. Southern Baptists turned a blind eye to the evil of slavery, to segregation and discrimination and racism. God is beginning to open our eyes and we must not ever close them again.
We must continue the process until the battle is won, regardless of how long it takes.
It is perhaps arrogant for me to attempt to “set the course” for the SBC in racial matters. I’m a white guy from a predominantly white area (over 95%) who pastors a predominantly white church in Iowa. I hold no office and do not have plans to run for any in the future.
But I am going to give my opinion here and tell you what I think we need to do in the days ahead to continue to process of repudiating our past and forging a future free of racism.
1) White folks, it is OUR job to drive this process.
One of the shameful truths of American history is that blacks had to demand their rights; had to march for them, protest for them and fight for them. Our constitution says that all human beings have been endowed by their Creator with rights that should never be taken away. We took away from black people the rights that God gave them, instead of recognizing their full humanity and equality.
The church cannot take the pattern of the culture. Dwight McKissic has been a voice of conscience for our convention, and I love and appreciate him for it. But Dwight should not have to demand what God has decided. Jesus came to die for people from every tribe and language on earth. “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight.” Black Baptists ought not have to beg for the equality that is already theirs in Christ.
In the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, it was whites who condoned slavery and racism and it is whites who should lead out in correcting the problem. Blacks ought not have to force their way into the symbolic doors of the convention, but whites ought to throw those doors open, invite them in and hug them (symbolically – I’m not much of a hugger) as they step inside. It is our job to root out every last vestige of racism and discrimination from our convention.
Whites did the damage. Whites need to fix the problem!
2) This is a process, not an action.
Repentance was important. Electing Fred Luter is important. There are many who think that the name-change proposal can be an important step in the process (while others disagree). But there is not a single action that solves the problem. There’s not a resolution we can pass, not a motion we can make that will solve the problem.
It is a process of reaching out, of making friends, of breaking down barriers day by day, year by year. It is like a marriage – a commitment that lasts a lifetime.
3) We must take an unequivocal stand against racist churches in the SBC
I saw tweets a couple of weeks ago that blew my mind. A prominent leader announced that he knew of SBC churches where blacks were not welcome and could not become members. I knew that was true 20 or 30 years ago. I pastored in an area of the rural South where racism was rampant and unashamed back in the late 80s and early 90s. I know of a church in Florida that was blatantly racist. But I thought this was a thing of the past.
I don’t want to be in fellowship with churches like that. It makes me mad that racists would pervert the message of the Cross by acting as if the fountain filled with blood is for whites only.
We need to do something about this. I’m not a convention operations expert. But we need to find a way to say to churches that discriminate on the basis of race that they are not welcome among us. Until they repent of their sin, we don’t want them in our fellowship.
Can you be an exclusively white “Great Commission” church? I think not.
4) We need to continue the process the EC articulated last year.
It’s pretty simple. We need to take proactive steps to include blacks and those from other ethnic groups on boards of trustees and in leadership positions around the SBC. We need to keep on opening the door, and welcoming them not only into the fellowship but into the leadership.
5) We have to clean up the Richard Land mess.
Richard Land set the process back with his comments. I do not believe that Richard Land is racist. But his comments were foolish and ill-advised. What can be done? Here are my suggestions.
- A truly repentant apology might be a good start. Land’s apologies were less than convincing to a lot of people, and did not evidence, in my opinion, much repentance.
- Perhaps Land could reach out to Fred Luters and Dwight McKissic and a few other black leaders and talk things through. Face the music. My impression of these men is that they are not vindictive nor do they want to hurt anyone. If he would reach out to them directly, and follow that up with a statement, it might go a long way to cleaning up the mess.
- On the other hand, it may be time for Dr. Richard Land to do what noble warriors have done through the centuries and fall on his own sword. If he is not willing to help clean up the mess he created, maybe he should walk away from it so others can clean it up. He is pretty close to retirement age. That time may have come.
We need to get the good ship SBC back off the shoals and chugging along toward its destination. We need to do what is necessary so that NOLA 2012 will be remembered historically as a turning point in SBC history – for good reasons.
May God grant that!
Great post, Dave. I especially enjoy #3. Making great strides in the public arena, (e.g., electing Fred Luters as president, cleaning up the Land mess, appointing minorities to leadership positions, etc.), is important, but small, local churches are the lifeblood and the local face of the SBC in many communities, and if racist churches are allowed to carry the SBC banner in their communities, then I’m afraid all of the accomplishments in the larger, public arena will be for naught.
May I get myself into more trouble and speak up in favor of racist churches? For the record, I think we all here agree racism is wrong. However:
Many of the churches we pastor were once racist churches. Now they are not. Should they have been kicked out of the convention? We are all immature and sinful. We all need time to learn, grow, mature. There is real hope for those racist churches.
I know of a White SBC church in Houston that had a pro-segregationist meeting at the church in the 1950s. I find it a little humorous that the same church is now a Hispanic Baptist church and has been for years.
Frankly there are some racist African American churches as well as racist White churches. I could give details and racist comments made.
The Apostle Peter was a racist when he preached on the day of Pentecost. God used him greatly in spite of his racism. Later, God dealt with his racism. Should they have not allowed Peter to preach?
White Southern Baptists were wrong in their racial attitudes in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I’ve got news – so was virtually every other white person of whatever denomination and whether they lived in the North or South. The SBC was not unique in this area.
My church is, and has been very open to any and all races. That is becoming true in more churches all along. But some need more time. Give them time.
Also, let’s extend a little more grace toward those who speak on race and don’t get it exactly right. Some are challenged to speak on race, then get hammered when they do. That makes more want to simply avoid the subject.
Southern Baptists are moving in the right direction on race. We will never, however, be perfect. Let’s preach the truth about race. But let us also be loving and patient to those of all races that continue to show wrong behavior and attitudes on these issues, while pushing them in the right direction.
David R. Brumbelow
David:
Might I ask if you meant something like this: “I recognize that the desire to reach for an immediate correction in external behavior borders on being overwhelming, but I also know only God can change the heart and that God is a God of reason. We ought to be prepared to be both vocal in our prophetic challenge against racism and patient in our willingness to wait on God to bring about the change in the heart as that reason is planted and springs forth a harvest of 20, 50, and 100-fold.”
As you already hinted: the parable of the four soils predicts what happens when the seed lands on hard rock, shallow soil or near weeds. Churches that sustain themselves on racism are like those three soils.
David, would you say the same about a church that embraces homosexuality?
Micah, I second that question!
The SBC and its state conventions will jump over-themselves trying to kick out a pro-homosexual church, or a pro-women pastor church. But when it comes to racist churches, there is complete and total silence. A “white only” church is just as sinful and wrong as a “its okay to be homosexual” church. The fact that people are willing to remove one, and not the other, smacks of hypocrisy.
Micah,
Good, tough question. I had even wondered if someone would ask this.
My answer is no. But I don’t have time now to do much defending of my view.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I don’t agree with you, but as always I appreciate the way you defend your position with grace.
Micah, to throw in my two cents, the idea of racism is persecution of someone who has no choice in the matter. You are born with your ethnicity, your family and your place or origin, you have nothing you can do about it. For a homosexual, they have a choice to pursue that tendency, or to even share it. You can’t hide your skin color, but no one really needs to know your sexual orientation. I am sure there are many believers who struggle in the area of sexual sin, be it homosexual or heterosexual, but you don’t have to give into it. That makes it different, there is a choice involved.
Dan,
I think the reason Micah was asking wasn’t dealing with whether racism was equivalent to being against homosexuality, but why churches condone racism would be given “time to self-correct” when the SBC hasn’t done the same with churches who condone homosexuality.
I am simply saying that it’s different, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. One is correcting for a sin of not accepting someone who is unable to do anything about their condition. The second is correcting from allowing someone who made a choice to embrace a lifestyle. I am not saying that we shouldn’t give grace, but I don’t think they are really comparable. Racism is a sin and it hurts someone in a place they have no control over. We shouldn’t hate those who are in a homosexual lifestyle, but we can’t look at it on the same level as ethnicity. I think we have to approach it differently. I am not comfortable saying “we need to toss that church out” but there are Biblical mandates for those who are involved in some sorts of sexual sin without remorse or repentance. Can we partner with a church who is embracing a lifestyle of that kind? I think it’s a different question than can we help and forgive a church that has been guilty of racism.
Dan,
I guess what the question is is:
1) Church A practices racism. (whether through informal actions like asking visitors to go somewhere else or actually having bylaws that enforce such) Church A refuses to repent and take steps to correct this.
2) Church B condones homosexuality (whether informally or in public declarations). Church B refuses to repent and correct this.
Why should we give a pass to Church A while we kick out Church B? (I don’t think either would actually be in friendly cooperation with the SBC based on their stances and actions.) I think the biggest difference there is a) Racism is a little harder to prove and b) Racism is a sin all of us have had to deal with, which makes us more empathetic. I don’t think either of those reasons is enough to treat Church A differently than Church B, when both are unrepentant about condoning sinful behavior.
I am not sure about it either, and I do understand the point. I think we have a more clear cut biblical example from 1 Corinthians when it comes to sexual sin and condoning that sexual sin. The racism is more muddy, but it’s a sin. From there, I am worried that we begin to dis-fellowship over other items. It is hard to be cut and dry, I agree with Dave, it needs to stop, but I do agree with you that it’s hard to define. The church condoning homosexuality is more cut and dry in my mind because of the scriptural commands.
David, I would like to challenge this statement.
“White Southern Baptists were wrong in their racial attitudes in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I’ve got news – so was virtually every other white person of whatever denomination and whether they lived in the North or South. The SBC was not unique in this area.”
The SBC was most certainly unique in its racial history. What other prominent denomination was born in racism? We have a unique history. We were the dominant church in the segregationist states and history reveals way too many SB pastors who went with the flow and even provided biblical justification for that racism.
So, we need to take direct, decisive and unequivocal action – repeatedly.
Dave,
You are wrong on this.
Virtually everyone in America (North and South) in the late 1800s and early 1900s was, by the standards of today, racist in their thoughts and actions. You can even read it in the congressional records.
A biography of Jefferson Davis pointed out he believed in the superiortiy of the white race till the day he died, but then points out virtually everyone else, North and South, did in that day. That even includes the great president Abraham Lincoln.
Most every denomination in America split North and Southin in the 1840s and 1850s over slavery and states rights. Southern Baptists are not unique in this area.
I will not be able to continue for a while; I’ll be away from the computer. I’ll be speaking to a student group later today in which I will be the minority.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I don’t know of any other prominent denomination that has our history.
But Southern Baptists and their churches were havens of racism right up until 20 years ago, or so. Yes, the culture has shifted and right now, a racist in the SBC would be ostracized, but such was not so in the recent past.
Yes, I believe that those churches should have been kicked out of the SBC. Actually, I believe that the whole founding of the SBC was a sham and a shame. Our forefathers were not ignorant. They started the SBC over the right of slaveholders to be missionaries and take their slaves with them on the mission field. Can you imagine anything more egregious? It isn’t like they didn’t know it was wrong. Northern Baptists vehemently opposed them and they split over it. 15 years later, we have secession and 600,000 people are killed. What if Baptists would have repented then and worked things out? Could the Civil War have been avoided? Then, we have the theology of the Lost Cause which paved the way for Jim Crow and Southern Baptists were very involved in that.
Jim Crow inspired Hitler and his actions against the Jews resulting in the death of millions. He actually used the racist South as an example for his work in Germany. South Africa followed our lead too.
By the 1960’s, half of Southern whites were Southern Baptists. LBJ made a direct appeal to Southern Baptists in 1964 to back his civil rights legislation saying, “no group of Christians has greater responsibility for civil rights.” It was largely rejected by Baptist leaders, at least in Alabama, as a move toward coercion and enlarging Federal power.
So, we had our chances many times. What if Baptists would have repented in 1960? Would the moral collapse of the 1960’s have happened the way it did? Was it not in part caused by younger Americans seeing the hypocrisy of religion and the establishment in pulling out the fire hoses in Birmingham against children? Would Roe vs. Wade have happened without the sexual revolution?
I don’t know the answers to all of these questions, but I will say that Southern churches slow playing repentance on this issue until the Federal Government forcibly changed the situation and all of society changed is an embarrassment of epic proportions and not something to just overlook.
So, yeah, white Baptists ought to take the lead on this, lay down our lives, go to every black Christian wr can find, and spend the rest of our lives and treasure pursuing reconciliation, unity, and a renewed gospel witness. It is a really big deal.
I think that is my chief point. I love Dwight McKissic, and I don’t think that he is the sit back and wait kind of man. But on this issue, we ought to be doing the heavy lifting.
Did I read you right? Are you saying that the SBC is responsible for Hitler?
Tim, he said that Hitler used the racist (and predominantly SB) South as an example. He did not say that the SBC is responsible for Hitler.
That is an irresponsible misreading of what Alan said.
You can do better.
Brother,
He did not use Hitler as an example. He appears to say that Hitler was a consequence of Jim Crow which was a consequence of baptists which was a consequence of the reconstruction which was a consequence of the civil war, which was a consequence of southern baptists not taking a stand.
This kind of writing makes it appear to folks that do not know us that we are nothing more than a bunch of racist skinheads. I’m not sure how it furthers the kingdom to caricature us in such a way. If I were a lost person reading yours and other posts I wouldn’t dare venture into a sbc church.
Tim, he said, “He actually used the racist South as an example for his work in Germany. South Africa followed our lead too.” Hitler used the South as an example.
You are caricaturing what he said.
Calm down, Tim, stop escalating the discussion into realms it does not need to go, or your future comments will be deleted.
We aren’t going to go where you seem to want to go.
Tim, it is an historic fact that Hitler used the American South as an inspiration for his racist policies. So did South Africa. Whatever role we played in the support of racial divisions in the South had an effect beyond the South. It is not hard to make that case.
A racist is as a racist does. We should get over ourselves and admit what has happened. It would actually be better for us than to keep trying to act like it wasn’t a big deal. For example, Baptists in Mississippi in 1860 were lobbying for a resumption of the slave trade under the guise of it aiding in Evangelism to Africans. These are things that we would denounce now so we should denounce it historically as well.
No, I am not saying that Hitler was a Baptist. But, I am saying that our actions have consequences globally.
Brother,
There is no “we” to it. I didn’t live back then. Are there any resolutions or policies adopted by the convention that are racist? If there are then bring them out and we’ll own up to it. I’m just now aware of racist policies, resolutions etc from any era but if there are then I’d like to know. The convention meets once a year and its agencies are the “we” for any generation. Individual churches are responsible for their sins whether they be baptist, methodist etc. A handful of churches that have a racist member or two aren’t “we.”
Around 6% of the south was Southern Baptist in 1860. The number was around 7% in 1900. That is a small minority. Given the smallness of the SBC in that era I find it a stretch to put Jim Crow, Hitler or Apartheid at the feet of Southern Baptists. If all Christians had changed their attitudes then much might have been avoided. In reality, there were probably no more true believers in the south then than there are today. In my area in the rural south an average of 10% attend church on a given Sunday. So while Christians might have participated in racist attitudes and actions I suspect that Christians were by no means the driving force behind what happened nor did they have the power to stop it any more than we have the power to stop institutional societal evil in our day.
Tim B,
You are right. You did not live back then. I did not live back then. A fearful question might be; What if I had lived back then? What would my position be? I don’t know the answers to those questions and neither do you.
Tim B, you and I live right now. And it is right now that “we” have a real and identifiable problem with racism in the SBC and “we” are the folks who need to deal with it.
Tim B,
I say “we” because those were my ancestors and who I have fallen in line with theologically. So, I am affected by their sin. The church that I grew up in in South Mississippi harbored members of a lynch mob 30 years earlier. Some of them might have still been in the church. The community knew who they were but nothing was ever done. They never faced justice or discipline. That is the church that licensed me to preach. It was a very prominent church of around 1000 members back before that was common.
As for percentages, Baptists made up about 50% of the Southern White population by 1960. So, while we might not have been able to stop the Civil War, we did grow exponentially in the racist South without confronting the issue of segregation/racism. If we were not originators of the policies, we were surely accommodations its who attracted people who had those attitudes. We might not have started it, but we could have surely ended it.
I disagree with you, TIM B.,
this: “There is no “we” to it”
You cannot be a member of the Body of Christ in isolation, without need for the others, or without suffering when they are in some kind of trouble.
So some Christian people did the wrong thing . . . and you want to distance yourself from them. I can understand that. But is that possible? In Christ, ‘we are all members of one body’. . . and in the Body when someone does wrong, everyone suffers.
But then something happens . . . people come and surround the one in trouble, and minister to him so that he is helped. I suppose it might be better if a Christian person could look at other Christians and say ‘thank you Lord that I am not like that sinner’ . . . but it does not please God to do this.
Well David R. Brumbelow,
If you burn today I am going to burn with you. I agree with every word you have stated in comment #2.
Dave Miller,
To a great degree your post is a good post, an excellent post. I believe the purpose (if I understand the purpose) of your post is right, it is good, and it calls for a true justice relating to biblical equality of humans before a just and righteous God.
Yet, David R. Brumbelow’s comment rings with great truth also. His comments have great validity relating to the content of your post Dave.
MIcah Fries,
You know full well that I have great respect for you and think of you as a man of true grit and Christian grace. I remember in a hotel room in TX, you rightly chastised one of my dearest friends for things he had written and rightly so. I admired your willingness to tackle such a guy as you did. I love him greatly, but he was guilty of low-balling some folks and you called his hand. MIcah, your question to David R. Brumbelow was, in my opinion, a low-ball. The inherent issue of homosexuality in the SBC and the issue of racism in the SBC are truly two different issues in nature and in the avenues for solution.
To all,
Dave Miller’s post is a valid post. The issue he has brought to light is a major and historic problem among Southern Baptists particularly and the Christian community as a whole.
Maybe for once, we could discuss such a thing on this blog without our swords and shields, checking egos at the door and be reflections of He who bought us with blood.
Micah’s point was an excellent one.
Forget about homosexuality for a moment.
The SBC has taken a “hardline” position against churches with women pastors. Meanwhile, no action has been taken against churches with racist membership policies, etc. That’s a valid observation.
Dave, curious to know if you were familiar with Bryant Wright’s efforts in 1995? I know I wasn’t. Here’s an interesting story:
http://forums.baptistlife.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9924#p134152
I admire his commitment to this important issue. He deserves more credit.
“Maybe for once, we could discuss such a thing on this blog without our swords and shields, checking egos at the door and be reflections of He who bought us with blood.”
Agreed, CB. I have stated many times that it is easy for those in this generation to denounce racism because it costs us nothing. But, we don’t see the issues happening right in front of us. We are all guilty. You can look at every generation, including our own, and see what they missed and what they wrongly blessed. We will have to answer for our own sins and the consequences of not fully following God. I am so thankful for grace.
At the same time, if what happened in the past happened today, we would all be shocked. If W.A. Criswell were to say today what he said before the South Carolina Legislature in his dirty shirts/infidels comment in 1956, he would be ruined. He did repent by 1970 and said his comments were “unthinkable.” That is good. I agree. But, what changed in 14 years was culture, not the Bible. Basically, I am agreeing with him in 1970 and am glad he repented and know that he found forgiveness.
So, going back and condemning the racism of the past is actually affirming those who repented as being right and their actions as being just. And, addressing those who have not forsaken thise attitudes today as being terribly wrong is also angood thing. There is always grace and mercy because of Jesus. The only one who cannot find it is the one who clings to or minimizes their sin. I am saying all of this because it is not my desire to pile on and run people down, but rather, it is just to affirm that a strong call to repentance and reconciliation on this issue is a good thing. And grace is available to all who will receive it.
Thankfully, God saves us in spite of our sin. If not, who could stand?
I know that you know all this. I am just trying to clarify my position that in bringing up the past it is not to just pile on and condemn people, but it is to inform us for today in ways that we might still cling to wrong attitudes, or even more likely, espouse our own versions of ancient sins in ways we aren’t even aware of.
Alan,
I do not disagree. Notice my response to Tim B. above.
Alan, you and I live in the arena every day. You are in Montgomery, AL. I am in BIrmingham, AL. You know where I am and I know where you are. I know your efforts to fight racism and bigotry (and the religious machine) and you know mine.
The two of us do not have the ease to pontificate about racism and its evil consequences. We live in it. We minister in the arena of racial tension every day. Your church integrated and so did mine. Yet, we both know it was a struggle. And it still goes on.
Agreed, CB. Montgomery is experiencing massive white flight with around 30,000 whites having fled the city in the past 10 years to outlying communities in the north and east. When you talk to them about why they moved, many of them snarl and with the utmost contempt they talk about getting out of the city and away from bad influences. Churches in the city are drying up because they are made up of almost all white senior adults. Home values plummet and neighborhoods decay because as soon as an area begins to be inhabited with blacks, the whites leave and a bad perception emerges. The local junior high, one of the best in the city 12 years ago, is now only sending 50% of its students to high school. The rest are dropping out. Montgomery now stands less than 30% churched.
White Christians are consolidating in megachurches where they will get their needs met or they are leaving town to be with those like them to enhance their way of life. The goal of the Christian life is to have an acre of land and a pond/swimming pool. Now, they are starting churches in these bedroom communities so they can have their attitudes reinforced and blessed by Christian clergy.
Meanwhile, we sit at the intersection of a racial cauldron of white, black, Latino, and Asian. Rich, poor, educated, blue-collar. We have integrated in every respect. But, it is a battle still today. The biggest issue is not “racism,” per se, but rather, it is the defense and promotion of people’s way of life. It does not occur to most Christians that we might have some role in the lives of those 8th graders down the street who are dropping out of high school and are having babies. That would cost us something and mess with our goals and plans and prosperity.
What we are doing now is not too much different from what we went along with back then. The focus stays on us and our stuff and our comfort. But, the Kingdom is different and if the church does not show that and we just act as a chaplain to the culture, then what good are we?
“White Christians are consolidating in megachurches where they will get their needs met or they are leaving town to be with those like them to enhance their way of life.”
OK Alan,
Now you have squarely hit the problem of closet racism in the SBC in the head with an axe and split its rotten body all the way down to the gut.
Also, the pastors of these “White-Flight” churches are heralded as “great evangelical leaders of our day” at conventions and Bible conferences.
Therein lies the putrid gut-rot of the hypocrisy of the contemporary man and woman in the pew and pulpit within the SBC related to racism.
There it is and you have laid it wide open, guts, blood and all.
CB, you said,
“Now you have squarely hit the problem of closet racism in the SBC in the head with an axe and split its rotten body all the way down to the gut.”
This was my intention all along and it is what we don’t want to face. It is easy to denounce racism while we move to our 3,500 square foot house in the bedroom community and attend our nice megachurch separated from the issues that could make our lives uncomfortable. The real truth is that we never changed – we just morphed in the manifestations of our selfishness – and, like 50 years ago, we call our position good and godly.
I would contend that racism was just a manifestation of the deeper drive for safety, security, comfort, and prosperity. As long as those things remain the primary drivers in Baptist life, our communities will continue to decay as we abandon them, baptisms will decline, churches will dry up, and we will be ineffective. As long as we keep celebrating the running of Christians to safer environs in megachurches away from those who are different, then we will continue to suffer and perpetuate the problems of the past, all the while screaming that we are not racists.
No, we are no different from our ancestors. Just a bit more sophisticated in how our acquiescence with the world system plays out.
Jesus was much different, it seems. He gave His life instead of fighting to save it and calls us to do the same.
Now Alan,
We are once again on the same page.
You stated, “… we call our position good and godly.”
Some actually dress it up in piety and religious ceremonialism and say, “We were led to plant this church here in the midst of so-and-so and look how God has blessed our faithfulness, A-Men”
You have heard that and I have heard that. Speakers at conventions are introduced in a similar manner.
“You have heard that and I have heard that. Speakers at conventions are introduced in a similar manner.”
And they will be again in New Orleans as we elect Fred Luter as president and call people to more missions, more evangelism, and more support of the CP, while we simultaneously undercut our ability to accomplish these things by fostering and celebrating the attitudes that keep us from true discipleship and mission. We cut off our nose to spite our face and blame the knife in our hand.
CB & David,
I can assure you no “low blow” was intended. In my mind both homosexual behavior and racism are graphic sins which, when embraced on a corporate level, should engender the same response from the SBC. I think churches should be disfellowshipped that practice either/or. I was just curious if David agreed with me, I wasnt trying to stir up a fight.
You don’t agree that they are equal, and I affirm your right to be wrong. 😉
CB, you’ve already established that you have problems choosing the right college to root for, so I’m used to you being wrong. 😉
I have to say that I am wholeheartedly with Micah on this one.
Although he also roots for the wrong college football team.
Micah and Matt,
We will just have to disagree. Maybe we see this as we do because of where we minister. Nonetheless, I have always appreciated even the honorable way you guys disagree with me–without bloodshed. I think that is the only way we as Southern Baptists will ever make progress related to racism in our ranks.
And I do have a pathos and pity for you both every Fall when the leaves turn and the B-B-Q pits light up the evening and the sound of ROLL TIDE ROLL!! is heard throughout the Southland, causing fear to grip the hearts of all other FOOTBALL NATIONS in the FOOTBALL UNIVERSE.
Micah,
Yes and Amen!!!!
Dwight
David B.,
“May I get myself into more trouble and speak in favor of racist churches?” […”speak in favor of racist churches?” Say it ain’t so, Joe?]
“For the record, I think we all here agree racism is wrong.” [Thank God.]
Dwight
Dwight M.,
You referred to my comment and then your short statement,
[…”speak in favor of racist churches?” Say it ain’t so, Joe?]
“Speak in favor of racist churches,” standing alone sounds way out of line.
But taken in context with the rest of my statement (comment #2), I stand by it.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
Not only is their an admission of racist churches–according to CB in much larger numbers than we care to admit–but now we have SBC pastors who are willing to openly defend racist churches. These actions make the ’95 apology a joke, and make the SBC very unappealing to churches who are interested in combining forces with a Kingdom-driven denomination to partner in missions. I can appreciate your honesty. But it is quite disheartening to know that such pastors and churches currently exists in the SBC.
How can we expect others to take us seriously regarding the Great Commission–that instructs to evangelize and disciple every ethnic group–when we defend and accommodate racist churches. The Land racial remarks have exposed the fact that the SBC has some serious race issues and attitudes that need to be repented of if we are going to see a change for God and good in the SBC and her churches. The defense of racist churches, the existence of racist churches–as admitted by Russell Moore, Alan Cross, Nathan Finn, Tim Rogers, CB and others–and the Land racial remarks, have validated a suspicion that many Black Baptists have–an have experienced in the SBC. May God bring repentence and revival to our convention, or else we perish.
Dwight
I can understand your feeling in this matter, Dwight. But I would say two things:
1) The number of racist churches is much smaller than it once was.
2) The number of people willing to put up with that kind of thing is much smaller than it once was.
The battle may not be won, but the tide of battle seems to be in the direction of intolerance of racism in the SBC.
Dwight McKissic,
First, I do not believe what I’ve said makes the 1995 apology a joke. I voted for it and was sincere when I did. By the way, an apology pushed by Richard Land and the ERLC.
The way you interpret an issue does not necessarily mean that is the way it is. There are all kinds of reasons not to go root out and bully a small backcountry church somewhere and beat them over the head about our perception of their racism. They may not have progressed to where they ought to be, but that may be true of us in other areas. I’m pretty confident you and I have a few blind-spots of our own.
We are not defending racism. Racists are feeling lonely in the SBC. But how many new items on the list do we have to have to kick a church out of the convention? Jesus took people where they were on this issue, then began to move them to where they ought to be. Racism comes in degrees. Some may feel you have made some comments on race that are a little out of line. Can we at times simply disagree without being a racist or it being a racial issue?
Sometimes African Americans are generally wrong on an issue. Sometimes Anglos are generally wrong on an issue. The same with Asians, Hispanics, etc. Sometimes it may be acceptable to just say, “We’re going to disagree on this issue,” without it being perceived as denigrating one race or the other. Sometimes we’re too sensitive and just need to lighten up and laugh at ourselves.
Someone could offer a motion or resolution against cross-dressing. If we refuse to deal with that resolution, that does not mean we condone cross-dressing. It may just mean we don’t necessarily want to deal with it the way it was presented.
Southern Baptists are, and have been, moving in the right direction on race. I could give incredible stories along these lines. My dad stood up on this issue when to do so wasn’t popular. My book about him, “The Wit and Wisdom of Pastor Joe Brumbelow,” (that you graciously purchased back in 2005) tells a little of that. There have been times I’ve done the same. I’ve often been in and lived in situations where I’m the minority.
As you know, my Southern Baptists of Texas Convention has an African American president. Fred Luter, an African American, is SBC First Vice-President and pastor of the largest SBC church in Louisiana. He has previously preached the SBC Convention Sermon. In little over a month he will be SBC President. More such things will be happening. Part of my view is why push the negatives, when there is so much positive going on right now? Push some issues too much and it tends to increase rather than decrease racism.
David R. Brumbelow
PS – I just read a very good discussion of the “Curse of Hamm” written by Dr. T. B. Maston of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1959 (The Bible and Race, Broadman, 1959; republished by SWBTS in 2008).
I am probably an absolute fool for entering this thread again, but I did state to David R. Burmbelow, that if he burned on this issue, I would burn with him. So here I am. If I am a fool, then so be it and the devil can take the hindmost parts with the rest of it.
Dwight,
It is my contention that David R. Brumbelow made the original statement in question here in hopes for righteous men to have an opportunity to go into some of these churches in the SBC which currently hold unrighteous positions of racial discrimination and lead them to change.
David R. Brumbelow has stated that the church of which he serves is now integrated and has an open door policy as to race. The same is the case with the church to which I serve and that of which Alan Cross serves.
I stated that I would stand with David R. Brumbelow because I believe that is what he meant in his original comment. Surely that is what he meant or I am a fool for another reason.
Now, let me pontificate for a moment gentlemen, if I may?………..Thank you.
I met David R. Brumbelow’s brother Steve walking across a field from our hotel toward the convention hall of the St. Louis SBC in 1987. Upon that meeting, I knew immediately I was in the presence of a real man and one who loved Jesus, the Bible and orthodox Christianity. The time we had together was short, but sometimes it does not take long to read a book, especially if the book is open and honestly written.
As the years have passed and I met other folks who knew the Brumbelow brothers and their daddy, I had my opinion confirmed. The Brumbelows are the real deal. They are real men who love Jesus and will not back down on the evident truth as revealed in Scripture. Alan Cross is of the very same nature. He is a grit and steel follower of Christ and will not back down from the evident truths of Scripture.
Now, here is my point. It is going to take some real men of God to go into some of these churches in the SBC and stand up on their hind legs and say, “Boys, there is a new sheriff in town and the days of this place being a “White Only Club” are over right now!”
The major problem of racial problems in the SBC rests squarely in the pulpit–too many sissies and not enough men. Any boy can lead a fraternity or a social club, but it takes a man (a real one) to truly serve as pastor of a local Southern Baptist church and preach the Gospel and the whole counsel of God, calling for true righteousness and biblical holiness. (This is especially true in this Postmodern culture.)
Now, you can talk all the trash you want to here fellows, but the problem of racism (and all the problems, for that matter) in the SBC stands in the pulpit and will only be solved from the pulpit. To change anything in the SBC must be first changed in local Southern Baptist churches. And in order for that to happen, pastors must have some Holy Ghost righteousness in their hearts and some grit and steel in their guts.
And like Barry Goldwater said in ’64, “You know in your hearts I am right!”
David B.,
If we are going too accommodate and defend “racist churches”–your words. not mine–what then was the objective of the apology?
Your arguments for accommodation and toleration sound eerily familiar to arguments given by the SBC during the civil rights movement. Dr. King found them unacceptable then, he would also find them unacceptable now; and so do I.
I read Dr. Matson’s book in the late ’80’s. Great read. I referenced it in a book I wrote also during that time entitled: “BEYOND ROOTS: IN SEARCH OF BLACKS IN THE BIBLE”.
You can have the last word if you like. BTW, I do remember reading your book about your dad; another great read. Thanks for reminding me. I’ll try and review Matson’s book and yours again soon.
Dwight
C. B. Scott,
Thanks for the kind words and for not leaving me hanging.
David R. Brumbelow
Dwight McKissic,
You said, “If we are going to accommodate and defend ‘racist churches’ – your words. not mine – what then was the objective of the apology?”
Maybe that the majority apologized, while pulling the others behind them.
And frankly, not everyone who voted against the apology would qualify as a racist. Some sincerely believed since they had in no way aided and abetted slavery and segregation, they had no reason to apologize. I disagree with them, but neither do I call them racists.
I admit some of my words and actions seem contradictory. I am proud of my past as a Texan and a Southerner. I am proud of the SBC heritage, even though they and most all folks in the 1800s and early 1900s had views that would be considered racist today. (I’m proud of a bunch of beer drinking Pilgrims, even though I strongly oppose beverage alcohol.) I’m also proud of men like T. B. Maston that stood for the truth about race, when it was mighty lonely. I think we can be proud of both Stone Mountain and the Martin Luther King Monument. I love racists of all colors, and believe there’s hope for them. I find that when a couple of men with different skin colors find themselves alone and with no outside influences, they often get along fine.
Some would see a big contradiction in those who stand strongly against abortion, yet voted for a very pro-abortion president. We are all men of contradictions. I once heard only one Man was entirely consistent.
Sometimes accommodation is the appropriate course of action. On the other hand, sometimes the appropriate course of action is a 2X4 upside the head. Sometimes its hard to know which is best.
Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King would find some of my views unacceptable. But then, I would find some of his views unacceptable as well :-). I would add, however, he had a profound influence for good in America.
I have great admiration for the black men who endured during the days of segregation. I think with my hard head, if I had been in their place, I likely would have gotten myself killed. I can’t imagine how demeaning that must have been. But I think today we need patience, understanding, grace on both sides. And we have made great progress.
I just ordered two copies of “Beyond Roots: In Search of Blacks in the Bible.” I expect you to sign a copy for me at New Orleans. I also expect we will continue to disagree on some issues.
David R. Brumbelow
Now those were the words of a man of God, a real one.
Thank you David R. Brumbelow.
Oh, lest I be misunderstood….again. I consider Dwight McKissic to be of the same nature. That is why I like him.
It will take men, real men like these two I noted here in this comment to rid the SBC of the ghost of racism. May God increase their tribes among us: Red, Yellow, Black, and White.
I have had a few discussions with some of my fellow young African Americans ,under the age of 40, over the past weeks. We have had many encourage us to leave for other conventions that are making racial harmony a priority for the sake of the gospel to show that Christ really has broken down the dividing wall of hostility. We no longer want to just assimilate, but to celebrate the diversity of our various God-given cultures. One person asked,”why should I stay when I feel as if l’m putting new wine into old leaking wine skins”?
For almost all of my life, my dad – a full-time professor/administrator – has done supply preaching and interim pastorates in Indiana/Kentucky (3), West Virginia (3), Georgia (14 years), and Texas (7 years). He retired from doing interims a couple of years ago when he was exhausted from bladder cancer treatments. He’s now a Sunday School teacher.
I’ve grown up hearing many stories (and experiencing first-hand) about the types of churches that Nathan Finn, Russell Moore and Alan Cross and others have described. I’ve visited many of those churches. Some didn’t invite my dad back after he preached one of his many sermons invoking Dr. King. Other churches liked my dad so much personally that they “stomached” his sermons that made them uncomfortable.
There are more than a few of these churches. Most are rural churches. I’ve got a friend who was pastoring a rural church outside of Waco. The son of a Southern Baptist missionary who grew up in African, he couldn’t bear the hostility toward African-Americans that the church exhibited. He left to plant an interracial church in a poor neighborhood in Waco.
I guess I don’t see the value of accommodating these churches. These churches should be called to repentance by the local associations and/or state conventions. If they refuse to change their membership policies, welcome people of all colors, then they should be shown the door. A racist church is an oxymoron. Baptists should not accommodate their existence.
It’s 2012. The time for hand-holding was the 1970s and maybe the 1980s. I understand that some churches have a hard time adjusting and recognizing their own racism. But, sheesh, it’s 2012. These churches aren’t just slow to change. These churches are willfully refusing to change BECAUSE of their sin of racism and prejudice.
There should be no place for racism in Baptist life or in Christianity in general.
You can’t have racial reconciliation without repentance. I recognize that some felt “weird” about repenting for the sins of their fathers. I get that. But some still haven’t repented for their own ongoing sins.
Again, from my experience, this is a problem primarily in rural areas where the train tracks still divide “white neighborhoods” from “black neighborhoods.”
Big Daddy,
Did you read my comment in #46 or are you really that bigoted toward me in your profile of me that you cannot acknowledge one thing in which I agree with you or you with me?
Sima,
May I ask to which other “convention” you would go?
May I also state; Now is not the time to go. Now is the time to stand.
Um, CB, I was responding to the exchange between Dwight and David B.
There is nothing that I wrote which would indicate that my reply had anything to do with your comments.
My comment wasn’t about you.
The Artful Dodger you are Big Daddy.
OK, interact with the comment then if you will? Also, I left a response to you in comment #99 a couple of nights ago.
OK,
I don’t disagree with what you wrote in #46.
I do agree that it takes leadership from within a church to change that church. If the pastor, deacons and congregation are resistant to change, pressure from outsiders is pointless.
BUT, local associations and state conventions have a responsibility too. They have a responsibility to hold their affiliated churches accountable to – at the minimum – basic core values.
I would say that a racist church is not really a church. It’s – to use your words – a “social club.”
We aren’t talking about rooting out closet racists. We are talking about correcting churches that are officially racist. I can’t understand the soft response on this, as if racism is this piddly little sin that people will just grow out of in time. But we’re ready to dive into people’s bedrooms and root out sexual sin wherever it may be found.
CB,
In response to comment #46, I somewhat agree: because for the most part Anglo believers and pastors function and socialize in different worlds from African American pastors, the major problem we have in conversations like these are communication and trust. I remember reading David B’s book several years ago, but quite frankly I don’t remember him. I’ve been meaning to order his book on alcohol, but haven’t as of yet; or if I did I haven’t read it. I am impressed with reviews of his alcohol book. I also believe that a biblical argument can be made for total abstinence.
Back to the subject: David B. used a poor choice of words. When you start with the premise that you are going to “defend racist churches”, that is a non-starter for most African Americans. Whatever follows is totally discredited after that. However, that is really probably not what he meant. His goal was to say, let’s try and love and nurture the “racist churches” out of their current attitudes and actions and extend to them grace in the meantime. Although I disagree with that posture as well, that would have been a far better way to express that viewpoint, and I would have appreciated him wanting to redeem the racist churches rather than “defend” them, which I find indefensible and detestable.
I’ve been told by Anglo SBC brothers that my way of communicating sometimes offends and alienates Anglo brothers and sisters. Perhaps we need to educate each other as to how to communicate across racial lines without offending. Because I know and trust you CB, I’m willing to give David B. the benefit of the doubt and trust that his heart is right on this issue, but again his choice of words simply demonstrated an inability to properly communicate across racial lines without being offensive. I’m also guilty of the same thing.
Finally, therefore, I ask David B. and you to forgive me if I was to strident in arguing and defending my position. I accept your explanation of David B’s words. And if that’s truly what he meant, it would have communicated a lot better had he himself expressed that way. If he will forgive me, all is forgiven and when I see him in New Orleans Ill look forward to purchasing an autographed copy of his alcohol book. And if it is as good as the reviews I’ll look forward to recommending it to my congregation. I just pray that he’ll stop “defending racist” churches :-). That would not go over so well with them :-).
Dwight
David R. Brumbelow,
Wherever you are out there tonight, I believe Dwight has well placed the ball in your hands and is giving you the shot. I think his comment is fair. Therefore, I ask you, with whatever humbleness I can scrape up, please be willing to review the sentence to which Dwight is in reference and make a modification that will solidify your heart’s position on the matter giving no room for misinterpretation. I really believe that if men will step up, good can come and the SBC can deal with its ghost of racism that continues to haunt us even in 2012 as Big Daddy stated earlier in this thread.
Big Daddy,
You stated, “BUT, local associations and state conventions have a responsibility too. They have a responsibility to hold their affiliated churches accountable to – at the minimum – basic core values.”
OK, for the sake of a valid dialogue, let’s agree that your declaration is correct.
Now, I ask you, as I did Smuschany and maybe one or tow others in this thread; How do associations and state conventions hold affiliated churches accountable? What do we do, in an orderly fashion, to bring about this accountability?
Bill Mac,
No one has stated it is a “piddly little sin.” Who has made that statement on this thread?
The question is; how do we do what is right relating to the problem?
How about request a meeting with the church to discuss the problems, urge the church to change/repent, continue to meet with the church. And after a period of time, if the church has no plans to change its evil ways, then disfellowship.
Big Daddy,
That may be what needs to be done. It is kindred to the Matt. 18 principle. Of course, that will have to be fleshed out, so to speak. Then it will take some Lech Walesa style solidarity among the affiliated churches to pursue the consequences for a continuance of a local church in the sinful position that brought about the rebuke and call for repentance.
Local Baptist pastors will have to become fully committed to change and then cowboy-up for the hard road that will come with such an action. Nonetheless, it will be worth the cost and more.
CB: “Piddly little sin” was my own phrase to make the point that it seems like people are willing to be soft on racists and ready to bring the hammer of God’s wrath down on homoesexuals. As if racism is technically a sin, but one that need not be confronted strongly, but will just go away if we wait long enough.
Nobody wants a witchhunt. We shouldn’t be “witchhunting” for any sins. We shouldn’t be looking for reasons to throw churches out of the SBC.
But if a church that forbids non-white members rightly belongs in the SBC, then Luter, the apology, all of it are just whitewash on the tomb.
David, I think it is time to tell racist SBC churches to fish or cut bait. If they want to continue to discriminate on the basis of race, we cannot stop them. But I think it is time to tell them that if they want to do that, they are not going to have a voice in the SBC.
I don’t think they have a voice on this issue in the SBC.
Today on this issue, a racist church is obviously out of the mainstream.
David R. Brumbelow
that term ‘racist Church’
seems like an oxymoron . . .
Thanks Dave,
If we do not do follow your suggestion, than the statement issued by the ERLC in response to Dr. Land’s commentary is false: The SBC is harboring racists.
Meant to write “If we do not follow…”
When do we stop dealing with the race issue? Is the problem only with Caucasians and African-Americans? After all, the Native Americans are kept on reservations and I do not see anything being done about reconciling with these people groups nor do I see any resolutions to reconcile with them. What about the Mexican-Americans? Sure we have Hispanic initiatives because of an influx of people coming across the borders. (Incidentally, my grandfather swam across the Rio Grande in 1915) However, they used to have all of Texas before their land was taken from them. And what about the Irish-Americans or the Italian-Americans? When they were migrating to the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s people really treated them badly – in fact, they were racist against those folks, too!
Here’s a couple of points that I think need to be made:
1. Land made a mistake.
2. Land is remorseful for the mistake and apologized.
3. McKissic wrote (in my opinion) a scathing blog about the situation and really did not show any kind of grace toward Land. (Did he actually say that he forgave Land just as Christ has forgiven him?)
4. We are now praising McKissic for what he said about Land, but we do not chide him for things that he has said. For instance: “Dwight McKissic pointed out to me that every person on the podium during the entire SBC was white.” What about the Mexicans? What about the Asians? What about (you fill in the blank with whatever race you claim)? He does not seem to speak for everyone which appears to be racist because he simply wants his race to be represented. Again, it simply appears this way.
My point is simply this: “For we do not commend ourselves again to you, but give you opportunity to boast on our behalf, that you may have an answer for those who boast in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:12-21, NKJV)
Actually, Southern Baptists have done quite a bit in this area. I do not agree with your assessment of either Dr. Land’s apologies or of Dwight McKissic’s blog posts, but I do agree that the solution is the transformation that Christ brings.
Here is the difference. The SBC has a unique history. We did not thrive in a racist system, we started because of it! We were born in racism, in the oppression of black people – it is part of our denominational DNA. Therefore, we have to focus on correcting it.
When I say “racial reconciliation” I am primarily focusing on the black-white issue. But certainly there are other places where progress needs to be made.
I appreciate your opinion, Dave. However, just because Land made a mistake does not mean that he ought to be fired or lose his position or whatever some may think. If this is the case, then ought not all of us be fired or lose our positions? What about all of the other leaders in our SBC? Should they all be canned simply because they have said or done some things that were offensive? After all, we have all made mistakes and had to eat some crow.
I also understand your point about the issue that this “is part of our denominational DNA.” However, it is not necessarily right for us to continue to drum up what happened in the past. “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11)
Granted, there are still racists in the SBC, but not all of us are racists. Not all of us have the “DNA” that our SBC was founded upon.
I think that if Land loses his job, it will be over the issue of plagiarism, which is a serious ethical breach.
I think his racial comments were unwise and destructive. I do not believe he needs to lose his job over them, if he would take either of the steps I mentioned – a true apology (which I still maintain his was not) or reaching out directly to some black SBC leaders to correct things.
That is what is needed.
I am not trying to drum up the past. If you look at the SBC today, it still does not represent its community. It’s not like we are reaching into centuries past to reopen old wounds. These wounds are pretty fresh.
I appreciate your opinion, Dave. My prayer is that our SBC will do the right thing. Dr. Land has done the right thing in my opinion as I cannot read his heart any more than anyone else can and know whether or not he meant his apology.
I am not sure if getting a few “black leaders of the SBC” would solve the problem. It continues to fuel the problem because if you do not have the “right” leaders present, then there will be someone who will inevitably say that they were not asked to be a part of the meeting. In addition, who determines if the apology is good enough with the leadership that would meet? What happens if a small group does not accept the apology? Would that in turn look like racism toward the one who did not apologize to their liking or thinking?
I do agree with the ethical situation concerning plagiarism. Thanks for the discussion, Dave. It is helping me to think through all of this.
I enjoyed the discussion as well.
Dave,
I take exception to your comment that “We were born in racism”…
The SBC was not founded to further the cause of “Racism”, and those who even suggest this are either ignorant of our history or intentionally slandering our forefathers for political gain within the SBC today.
No Sir… “The SBC was not born in Racism… It was born in Missions!”
The whole issue was over Southern Baptist desire to send Missionaries (a noble desire) and the Northern Baptist refusal to appoint them because of their views on slavery. The issue of slavery or racism was not a motivating factor in the formation of the SBC.
So, it is absolutely slanderous to say that “the SBC was born in racism.”… As if all we wanted to do was dress in our white hoods and gather to burn crosses… That is simply not true!
Greg Alford,
OK. Let’s say we as a body were not born in racism philosophically.
Yet, would you not agree that we were born into a racist culture that greatly affected our birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and continues to haunt us in our latter years?
Whether born into racism or not, Southern Baptists played a significant role in shaping southern culture since its inception and throughout much of the 20th century. It’s hard to deny the role of Southern Baptists to in perpetuating the racist status-quo.
The issue wasn’t just their “views of slavery.” The issue was whether one could be a missionary and also be a slaveholder. A little bit of difference between “views” and “actions.”
Mine was a reply to Greg Alford. I’m in agreement with CB here.
BDW,
Southern Baptist played a role in shaping southern culture… Yes, and so did the Methodist, Presbyterians, and Joe’s Bar.
Southern Baptists played a great role than did the Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. etc.
That’s the point.
CB,
Yes, I would agree with that…
BDW,
How are the Southern Baptist more responsible/guilty than the Methodist, Presbyterians, and Joe’s Bar. Can you give me some evidence of this, or is this just something that feels good to say?
Southern Baptists were the most dominant and influential religious group in the south. Southern Baptists dominated the halls of state legislatures throughout the South.
I’m not making this up to “feel good” or something. There’s more than a few southern historians who have reached this conclusion, conservative and liberal alike.
Is it possible that we can agree that the Christian bodies mentioned here all had their problems?
Is it also possible that we who are Southern Baptists need to look more toward our own house in this specific dialogue than the homes of our neighbors in the Christian community?
BDW,
I know you are not making this up 🙂
But what I am saying is that I think we often like to exaggerate our own feelings of importance and actual influence in society.
Many of these state legislatures throughout the South may have been Southern Baptist, (occasionally attending a SBC Church) but can you quantify for me how much their opinions were molded by the official positions and teaching of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Yes, there has been racism in the south…
Yes, Southern Baptist have been guilty of racism…
But, no one can prove to me that this racism was due to them being Southern Baptist.
Greg, many will say “Lord, Lord,” but Jesus will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” I cannot give assurance to anyone of their salvation – I can only affirm their confession of faith in Christ as being sound. But, Jesus also said that we are to judge a tree by its fruit. Of the fruit is rotten, what does that say of the tree?
Now, as a qualifier, I will also say that God has mitch grace for us. It seems possible for sin in one area to not be all encompassing of the whole person. In other words, people can cling to Christ and be racists at the same time because their sanctification has not affected that area yet. I get that. I am just saying that I am not capable of passing judgment – although it is likely that there were some who were not true believers, just as that is likely today in our situation.
Greg,
Please explain this further because if you see it differently, I really would like to understand. Baptists in the South wanted to appoint a slaveholder who wanted to take his slaves with him onto the mission field to minister to Native Americans. Northern Baptists did not want to appoint this man, not because they disagreed with missions, but because they did hit think a slaveholder should take his slaves with him on the mission field. Upset about this encroachment, Baptists in the South split from Baptists in the North and went ahead and appointed slaveholding missionaries.
Both Baotists in the North and South agreed over missions – we should should be involved.
They disagreed over who could serve as a missionary based on whether or not one owned slaves and wanted to take the slaves with them to the mission field. It seems to me that the dividing issue had to do with slavery, not missions. What am I missing here?
Alan,
What is the SBC? Is the SBC not in essence a “Missions Organization”… If the SBC was actually the NADCP (National Association for the Denigration of Colored People) I would agree with you that we were born in Racism. But it is not.
Are you actually saying that all slaveholders were morally bankrupt and incapable of actually being called of God for Missionary work? I mean if you are going to disqualify someone from Missionary work you had better have a very good (and dare I say Biblical) Reason…
Alan, let me go one step further… If these men were unfit to be used of God as Missionaries it stands to question if they were even Christians in the first place? Is that where you are going?
Greg Alford,
Are you purposely ignoring my question? It is a valid question.
CB,
Just answered it above…
Yes, I would agree with that…
Greg,
Yes, I would say that we should disqualify from missionary service the man who wants to bring his slaves along with him. I will go out on a limb and say that.
As for whether or not they are Christians, I cannot say definitively. But, I will say that if you hate your brother, then the love of God is not in you. 1 John speaks along those lines. I cannot say that every slaveholder hated his slaves, but to own another human being as your own property for life – and to own his/children and to divide with other Christians over your “right” to own another human being and drag the along with you on your “missionary” endeavors as your proclaim Jesus, the Suffering Servant, is an egregious error worthy of discipline, in my view. Perhaps they are Christians in theological moral error, but it is error nonetheless and not one that we should condone or divide over with other believers attempting to correct us.
All,
I guess what bothers me “more than a little” about what many of you have written here is that you appear willing to judge, and call into question, the motives and hearts of the men of God who formed the SBC. That you are willing to assign unto them “impure motives” and to do so from a distance of 150 years of social and cultural change; I find quite disturbing.
And again for the record… I find Racism of any and all sorts absolutely unacceptable, so don’t even go there.
Alan,
“As for whether or not they are Christians, I cannot say definitively.”
All I can say is… WOW!
Regarding the SBC’s founding on the issue, by the way, the SBC started in 1845 over the right of slaveholders who claimed to be missionaries have their slaves accompany them on the mission field. 1845. In 1846, Muslim Tunisia outlaws slavery. That is how wrong we were. Muslims were getting it and we weren’t. And, this continued on. So, it is still a big deal and continues to play out, just in different ways.
ALAN . . . in a way your comment is an answer to prayer, as it shows a deeper understanding of something many have missed. God bless.
here is part of a comment I wrote on Dwight McKissic’s blog
“The way ahead needs Christian leadership that is not afraid of the continuing pain that is born from a past of discrimination, but understands it and embraces it in our citizens who live with it,
instead of pretending that this pain does not still exist,
or worse, has no meaning in the life of this country. “
Alan,
Muslims may have outlawed slavery in 1846 Tunisia, but hey are greatly “backslidden” today, would you not agree?
What happened in Tunisia in 1846 and why it happened and what happened among Baptists in 1845 and why it happened are not really comparable.
Sure, I agree CB, even in the issue of slavery. They are definitely a mess. My point was just that Southern Baptists in the affirmation of slavery in 1845 were not just ignorant of any other opinions on the subject. The rest of the world was piecemeal abolishing slavery nation by nation, even back then. For us to go against that shows that we were decidedly captive to our more immediate culture which was dependent upon slavery for economic prosperity. But, the rest of the world was changing.
I am just setting our decisions in their historical context and am attempting to show that our attitudes on race were not inevitable or were merely a product of our times. Rather, they were a conscious decision on our part based on how we have reinterpreted Scripture to fit the spirit of the age in the South.
We are doing that again, by the way, just in other areas. We seem to keep making the same mistake over and over again.
Alan,
I know you are a pragmatic thinker. You do that well. That is why I like to talk to you and I admire you.
Yet, I think maybe, due to the consistent ignitible nature of this particular issue of racial discrimination in the SBC we should restrict our examples and illustration to less ignitable forms.
My brother, Hitler and Islamic nationalists may not be good comparisons here if you get my point.
The issue at hand is ignitable enough.
I wish Big Daddy would see this also. He seems to always have a gas can handy, especially when things might revolve around Richard Land.
BTW Big Daddy,
Have you anything to state about the Matthew Owens case as it played out in Mobile, AL recently?
I see what you are saying, CB. Point taken. It actually helps me to see the consequences of ideas so that I can lift them out of the rationalizations that we all create to justify ourselves and our actions. But, it is not my goal to ignite anything unnecessarily. My point was that if Hitler used the Jim Crow South as a model (the very South that my grandparents were living and working in), then that is a big deal. If Muslim Tunisia could see what we could not in 1846, then that is informative as to the level of our deception in the past.
My point is not to compare us to Hitler (although, some aspects of the Klan could be) but rather it is to say that we have had massive blind spots on this issue historically because to really face up to it costs us something. The real comparison is probably to the church in Germany that silently abdicated it’s prophetic role.
But, I see what you are saying and it is not my intent to saddle anyone in 2012 with actions committed in 1860 in any direct way.
That cheap, CB. I happened to catch something and blog about it (as bloggers do) and it turned into a Big JoeBiden Deal.
I did read about that tragedy recently. Lots of people doing evil things in this world.
Big Daddy,
You must admit, you are no Land fan. Nor am I, I do confess. Yet, if you feel that was a cheap shot, I apologize.
Also, you are correct–“lots of people doing evil things in this world.”
But what happened to Matthew Owens was evil perpetrated by the racial malice and bigotry by Black men.
You seem to be willing to identify racial evil by White people any time, any place. Yet, when it is reversed, committed by Black people, you play it down as mere human evil. You responded in a similar fashion when I questioned you about the Coons boy being set on fire by two Black boys because he was a White kid.
Big Daddy, my point is that racism is racism no matter what skin it wears. I fear you sometimes avoid that reality.
So, your point is that we shouldn’t discuss Trayvon Martin unless we’re willing to discuss every other racial evil AT THE SAME TIME?
I’m really not sure what your point is.
There’s a history and context behind racism towards African-Americans in this country. Do you not agree?
I recognize that racism cuts every way. Non-whites can be and have been guilty of racism too. Who denies that?
I discussed Trayvon Martin because that tragedy was on the front-page of every newspaper.
Big Daddy,
This may be my last comment here today. I shortly have to referee a girl spend-the-night that is multicultural. Multicultural will not be the problem. The problem is that they are 10 year old, fourth grade girls. I have come to realize that girls that age and grade are problematic no matter ethnic background. As I have stated in the past, during my short tenure as a parent to little girls, they are far more of a challenge than boys of any age. Count yourself lucky, Big Daddy. Just goofing as I am sure your realize.
Back to the subject at hand:
Big Daddy,
You know good and well that my “point” is NOT “that we shouldn’t discuss Trayvon Martin unless we’re willing to discuss every other racial evil AT THE SAME TIME.”
My particular point with you is that we should be honest. Evil resides in all men, all humanity, without preference to race, creed or national origin.
Racial evil is manifested among all races. There are many racists wearing Black skin. Many of them do evil things to people of other races simply based on race and nothing else.
My point is; Where is the rage over the Coons kid from such public figures as Sharpton and Jackson? Where is the rage over Black-on-Black crime? This past year we had more Black-on-Black murders in Birmingham than of any other “ethnic blend” when a criminal act resulting in death occurred. If I am correct in memory 20 of those deaths never resulted in an arrest.
So there is my point, Big Daddy. I think we, who are followers of Christ, should be honest. We should be truthful. Racism in America is a double-edged sword.
How do we know that black churches don’t speak out against Black-on-Black crime?
Ask Dwight McKissic if his colleagues in the metroplex ignore that subject. I’m sure he’ll say NO.
I heard Michael Bell – first African-American president of the BGCT – speak at a prayer vigil for Trayvon Martin a few weeks back. He did indeed bring up the pressing problem of “fratricide”
Sharpton has addressed the subject many times as well.
When Black churches – many Baptist – partner with local police and hold events to collect handguns in exchange for money, they do so with the recognition that the guns that are collected (primarily from African-Americans) are often used by African-Americans against fellow African-Americans. Those kind of efforts take talk about the problem of black-on-black crime and move that talk into the realm of action.
This is just another talking point. It’s of course not true. But it makes for a nice talking point and generally talking points are not firmly rooted in reality.
We who are white often do not know about the happenings in black neighborhoods and communities because we long ago moved away to the suburbs. See Alan’s comments above.
If it’s not fair to judge the career of Richard Land on the basis of this particular incident, then it’s equally unfair to certain Black leaders like Sharpton on the basis of some past comments and incidents. Many African-Americans including many Black Baptists believe that Sharpton has done quite a bit of good just as many evangelicals and Southern Baptists continue to hold Richard Land in high regard despite his own problems and past apologies.
Last comment for sure tonight.
Big Daddy,
we could go back and forth about some of this forever and maybe someday we will……but,
This post is about how to deal with the SBC house and the racism in the front door. What say ye about that?
I say ye ought to take a harder line against “racist” churches than you do with churches that call a woman to be senior pastor…
You know Big Daddy,
Sometimes I think you feel you have an accurate profile of me. (Are you a profiler Big Daddy?) 🙂
Here’s the truth about cb and women pastors. One three separate occasions, I have voted against dismissing a church from a local association over a female pastor. I know the Bible does not give credibility to such, but that is no hill on which I have chosen to die.
You need to revise your profile.
I can’t believe there is even a question of whether devaluing people because of their race is a lesser sin than someone’s sexual preference. What are we waiting for, all the racists to die off?
Let me be more clear. People who may have some racial views that are less than perfect, may also live their lives without exhibiting racism. Why? Because despite how they feel, they know it’s wrong. And we have the ability to combat our sinfulness, especially in light of the indwelling Spirit.
So by all means let us show grace to all sinners, including racists. We are all truly a work in progress. But that does not mean we should tolerate racist churches. There is <b<NO excuse for racist policies in the SBC or SBC churches, and we should speak and act against racism with at least the same zeal that we oppose homosexuality.
Is the drinking of a glass of wine worse than being a racist? If you look at SBC history, it would appear so.
But, the primary issue is not even about race. It is about protecting your way of life against those you see as a threat and using God to do it. That is what led to racism and that is why it still exists. Also, we keep manifesting that attitude in many different ways, so even if you are not a racist but you are primarily concerned with your way of life, power, and prosperity to the exclusion of others who you fear would be a threat to all of that, you are fundamentally behaving in the same way that racists did, even if your behavior is more socially acceptable.
Our sin is pretty overwhelming.
I have never thought of myself as a racist. But I have never really seen racism as the evil that it is. I think our sin now may be to fail to realize the hurt and harm caused by racism and to downplay its wickedness.
“I think our sin now may be to fail to realize the hurt and harm caused by racism and to downplay its wickedness.”
Well put.
Yesterday, I was speaking to a group of students at a large, metropolitan private Christian school on the topic of historical institutional racism in the South. After fielding their questions, the thing that struck me the most was how little the students realized about the continued existence of racism, (or, at the very least, the harm caused by racism), in the modern age.
I don’t say that to place blame on the students—they were only middle schoolers—or their teachers; rather, I was simply stuck by how much the out-of-sight-out-of-mind culture in the South had numbed them to some of the harsher realities of the modern world. For most of the students, racism seemed to be something that existed only in their history or literature books.
Often, it can be extremely difficult to realize that the damage may linger long after the cause of the damage has been addressed.
Zack,
What exactly is the “cause” of racism? I’d suggest that the cause is “sin” and its effects will linger until Jesus comes.
We can do much to take the legs out from under institutionalized racism (eg. Civil Rights Legislation) but it will remain as much a problem as say, “adultery,” which I’d say has the same cause.
Dave,
I appreciate your post. I agree that much must be and continue to be done.
I respectfully and carefully take slight issues with #1 in your original post.
First, what I agree with… I agree that we Southern Baptists have this unfortunate blight on our history. And bless the Lord for the rightness in our repentance.
Second, two statement I disagree with…
1) “One of the shameful truths of American history is that blacks had to demand their rights; had to march for them, protest for them and fight for them.” There obviously are shameful truths in our national history, but blacks were not alone in there demand their rights. Yes they valiantly, and patiently fought for them, but there were many others from both America and Europe who risked their lives too. Our history does show this.
2) “Whites did the damage. Whites need to fix the problem!” I’m not opposed to this in the context of your post, but there is theological danger in stating that ‘whites did the damage.’ No doubt there is responsibility upon the sinful actions. I know you are only addressing American history in relationship to these issues, but world history shows this as mankind doing the damage. All. Not just one ethnic group, but all. And then a second issue in this final statement is that ‘Whites need to fix the problem’. Again, I find your argument as a whole correct and helpful. I don’t know that one ethnic group is can fix the problem. I think the biblical evidence puts a lot of responsibility of reconciliation upon the shoulders of the offended party. That’s the beauty of grace isn’t it? The offended party reaching out to help the offenders to be reconciled.
I’m thankful for your bold post. I think it is without a doubt a helpful examination and an examining document that can help many of us aim at reconciliation. All points, even #1, are strong statements. I’m in agreement.
* please forgive my blunders with the kings English in my misuse of there and their by submitting my reply without catching those embarrassing misses… (insert smile face with red cheeks.)
and missing (‘) and all other such offenses to the King.
(insert squiggly face with hands covering the face)
“I respectfully and carefully take slight issues with #1 in your original post.”
What? How dare you? HERETIC!
On each of these points, I’m trying to make a point that I think is valid, and I think my illustrations are valid, if not perfect.
The Civil Rights movement was blacks demanding what should have already been theirs under the constitution.
Certainly, not all whites are or have been racists – some stood on the right side on this one. But the perpetration of racism in America was largely a white problem and the fix ought to be driven by us.
The clarification of the “Civil Rights movement” is helpful in my reading and strengthens your point. As a fellow ambassadors of reconciliation I agree with you. (while nodding my head with the vigor of a bobble-head on the dash of a 1974 Ford Pinto on a gravel road.)
Here’s a spoken word video “Diversity’s Symphony” with a prayer that the SBC can play a part in God’s glorious symphony.
http://youtu.be/XRYmm2G1rhY
“If what we call racial reconciliation is not transforming individuals, families, churches, and communities, then it is merely sociology with a little Jesus sprinkled on top”- Tony Evans “Oneness Embraced’
My question in all this is so what will have to be the result in order to deem the SBC “not racist” anymore? Is it not until there are just as many black as white in total membership? Or is it not until all ethnic groups are equally represented? And what does this mean for individual churches? Are we in sin if no other ethnic group is in attendance?
Also, I find it confusing that no one but Dr. Land is speaking out against “ministers” such as Sharpton and Jackson. Certainly he could have phrased things better but are we saying we are in support of their actions??
Trey,
From the very beginning I have challenged Dwight McKissic about defending the likes of Sharpton and Jackson. You can find our long debate at Tim Roger’s blog.
CB,
Thanks for reply.
Any others out there?
And CB, what message is transmitted by Dwight if he refuses to do so, seeing as how it is his articles that seem to be pushing this?
” . . . so what will have to be the result in order to deem the SBC “not racist” anymore? ”
is that really the question you should be asking, Trey ?
Christiane,
Is there something wrong with the question ?
I don’t want to speak for Trey, but it seems a perfectly legitimate question.
For example: we know that a public apology for our denominations thinking in regard to slavery was insufficient.
We know that the fact a black will be elected to the highest office is insufficient.
It seems Trey’s question points out what has been said a number of times: racism is here as long as people are.
I don’t see anything sinister in Trey’s question as you suggest, Christianne.
Trey,
Your question is the question we need to answer. And I wish I had the answer.
L’s is often an antagonist against conservative Christians. Don’t let it get under your skin.
Curious to know what African-American Black civil rights voices you (CB or Trey) appreciate? If Sharpton is this bad guy, what leaders get your stamp of approval?
Big Daddy,
Are you going to say Sharpton is a good guy? Are you going to say Jackson is a good guy?
The late Martin Luther King Jr’s family might disagree with you.
Let me say, I considered the late Ralph Abernathy to be the real deal. He was a man of character. I believe that had he and King lived longer they would speak differently than the Sharptons and the Jacksons do.
Big Daddy, frankly our nation is lacking in true Statesmen of any ethnic background at the present time it seems to me.
Big Daddy, don’t try to pull that dog out of the kennel on me. He will not hunt.
One more thing, then I have to face the music of being late to the party.
Recently, I made the comment that Dr. Mitchell, Ethics professor at SWBTS would make a great head of the ERLC in my opinion. Oc course, I don’t think you would appreciate his political views very much. 😉
CB,
Ralph Abernathy is dead. What living leader gets your stamp of approval? Why didn’t Richard Land and other nationally known SBC leaders, offer the support that Sharpton and Jackson offered? Why didn’t the SBC bring a Kingdom perspective to this discussion as did John Piper and Jack Hayford? I’m grateful for Dave Miller, Alan Cross, Todd Littleton, Marty Duren, Eric Redmond, Fred Luter, Bart Barber, George Nelson, Maxie Miller, and others who I don’t recall now, who at least were willing to express some level of support for justice for Trayvon’s family, due process for Zimmerman and his family, and some measure of disagreement with Dr. Land.
Dwight
Dwight,
You didn’t include me in your list of those seeking justice for Trayvon.
It is quite possible it is because I’m a nobody and easily forgotten. I can except that. Every night I go to bed realizing that nearly 7 billion people in the world don’t even know I exist.
However, if you meant to imply that those who don’t share your point of view, like in regard to Jackson and Sharpton, are not “Kingdom minded” and do not want justice for all, then I would object strongly.
I regard to why Jackson and Sharpton “reached out” to the family and no SBC leaders did, I think says more about Jackson and Sharpton than it does about SBC leaders.
At least, I have no proof that your implications about the “good” motivations of Jackson/Sharpton and “bad” motivations of SBC leaders is accurate.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I certainly am a “justice for all” person. When I risked my life to defend our nation, I took an oath to defend the whole nation.
PS–I’d be open to suggestions about alternative leaders who have a different take on matters than Jackson and Sharpton. I’ve heard such black leaders from time to time, but their names escape me. Or, you can OK CB’s list he gives and I’ll ditto it.
Dwight,
If you have not read the comments on this thread and yet you come in an accusing manner toward me today, you are being hypocritical and exhibiting the persona of a racial profiler yourself with your comment.
I count you as a friend, but I will not tolerate such rude behavior, even from friends. I have done as much or more to fight racism that most White guys you know and that certainly includes those you have placed on your merit list.
You cowboy up and be honest or quit calling for others to do so.
CB,
I apologize for offending you; that certainly was not my intent. Forgive me for sounding accusatory and for sounding like a profiler. I thought BDW asked a good question. You gave a good answer. I met Ralph Abernathy and hosted him as a guest speaker when I led a student organization in college. I remain curious: please don’t be offended by what I consider a intellectually honest sincere question–and that is the same question that BDW asked you that didn’t offend you; what alive leader do you appreciate that would have been acceptable to you to minister to the Martin family? I hope you will forgive me and know that I love and appreciate you.
Dwight
Dwight,
You are not Big Daddy Weave. You know me personally, he does not. Therefore, I cut him a lot of slack and also, probably, actually, most definitely, because he reminds me so very much of one of my sons in his philosophy of life and his theological positions. (They both are graduates from liberal universities and reflect such an education.) You did offend me. I accept your apology.
Now, read my comments on this thread. Upon reading them, you might come up with a better question to ask me.
I am not the enemy Dwight, and you know that. But I do live in the real world and I intend to be an honest man. History proves I seek to be such and you, of all people on this thread, know that to be a fact.
In truth, if you think about, among Christian people there is very little room for ‘being offended by others’ . . . not when we have sought forgiveness of our own sins made possible through the terrible sufferings of Christ for our sake.
‘Being offended by someone’ no longer has much meaning in our lives when we think on the grace we ourselves have received.
“Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous, love is never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does not take offense, and is not resentful. . . . ” – (from 1 Corinthians 13), ESV
I thought my question was a fair one, CB. Answering with Abernathy is not much different than answering with Dr. King. Neither have been with us for a long time now. Abernathy died in 1990.
I was curious to see if you might answer with the name of my former boss, John Lewis.
Again, Sharpton and Jackson are far from perfect. But I think many outspoken African-American leaders in the civil rights community make many uncomfortable. A prophetic message is not always easy to digest.
Brothers,
You lost me when you suggest above that the megachurch is a manifestation of racism. You know good and well it is more complex than that.
Tim B,
We are not suggesting that all megachurches are manifestations of racism. Yet, it cannot be denied that many are.
CB,
I’m not clear: are you saying that “many” of the large black churches are racist? That is a very bold claim, don’t you think.
Could it be possible that the word, “racist,” is so poorly defined and gratuitously bantered about that it has lost all economy in a normal conversation?
If a church is “racist” as you claim many are, I would suggest it is a causal fallacy to link the sociological position with size. I’m not great fan of the megachurch movement, but them being inherently racist is not one of my reasons.
Frank L,
I live in Birmingham, AL. The word “racist” is not poorly defined here. It is well defined and lived out among several ethnic groups.
CB,
As we say in theology, context is everything.
I did not know you were in the Deep South. That does in fact make a difference in how you relate to racism and racial stuff in general.
I’m in the West and racism has a different shade here. Also, I do have some appreciation of racial issues. My wife is the third generation from Oakland, CA. (at the time about 60% black, but at the time we lived in downtown, it was higher).
But, would you agree that I am at least partially correct in stating that racism and racial issues have different expressions depending on where one lives?
Though we are in the same war, I don’t think we are fighting the same battles here in the West as you may be in the South.
Therefore, it makes it hard to come up with a “national” (Conventional) strategy for dealing with it. I did not say, “impossible,” just difficult.
PS–To help me better understand you, CB, I have some good ole’ Southern Gospel blaring in my ears.
Tim,
You said,
“You lost me when you suggest above that the megachurch is a manifestation of racism. You know good and well it is more complex than that.”
What I am saying is that the megachurch is often a refuge of safety, security, comfort, and options for the Christian who wants a satisfying religious experience. I am not saying that people go to megachurches because the are racists. Not at all. I am saying that the same issues that drove racism now drive us in other ways – we want to protect and enhance our way of life (for many, not all, megachurches provide this). If consumerism is the 21st century equivalent of racist separation (have the economic power to create my life as I see fit apart from having to deal with people/things that detract from my way of life) and if megachurches are the greatest manifestation of spiritual consumerism (go to the church where I get my needs met and satisfied), then we have something of a match.
But, just like I was not saying that Hitler was a Southern Baptist, I am also not saying that megachurches are inherently racist. I am saying that they tap I into the same appeal and desire that racism did, which is as old as the sin of Adam and Eve and Cain – live life on my own terms as I see fit even if it rejects God and hurts others. Why would we think that this generation would be immune?
Alan,
I think your statement about megachurches and racism was WAY off base and your explanation is not much better.
I don’t think there is any study I know of, and certainly have never read, that suggests that megachurches, “tap I [sic] into the same appeal and desire that racism did. ”
That is a strong statement to make–and a dangerous one–unless you have some evidence to support it. Evidence would be a sociological study of some kind, not just an extended explanation.
Do you have such evidence? Or, are you suggesting that the statement is so self-evident that it would not be reasonable for someone to challenge it?
Frank L,
Alan can, as can I, name churches which were intentionally moved or planted because of White-Flight. Surely you will understand that wisdom would prohibit our naming those churches on this comment thread.
Frank L.,
You aren’t following what I am saying at all. I am not saying that megachurches are directly racist. I am saying that people often end up in them because they want to be protected, have safety and security, enhance their way of life, and have lots of choices to get their needs met. They often want to be with people just like themselves. Are you familiar with the use of the Homogenous Unit Principle among seeker sensitive megachurches in the Sun Belt and suburbia?
Once racism was largely renounced the impulse that it represented did not just disappear. What I am saying is that the impulse that led to racism showed up in the megachurch phenomenon, largely unnoticed.
Do I need to provide sociological evidence for white flight, individualism, consumerism, and the continued separation of the races based on personal preference if not any longer on a racist perspective? These truths are self-evident. The megachurch is primarily a sociological phenomenon that developed at the end of modernity as a refuge for a hyper-mobile society trying to find a place to land spiritually and relationally while still maintaining personal control.
You should read “The Big Sort” by Bill Bishop. He handles the sociological evidence quite well. He also has a whole chapter on the megachurch as a symptom of the larger problem. Please note that I am not talking about EVERY megachurch. I am talking about the larger phenomenon. http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded/dp/0547237723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335498625&sr=8-1
“Searching for Whiteopia” by Rich Benjamin is another treatise on the new form of separation and segregation that is taking place among the races. The megachurch movement has absolutely played into this situation. http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Whitopia-Improbable-Journey-America/dp/1401322689/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335498782&sr=1-1
“Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010” by Charles Murray makes the case that the new separation is not about race but is rather about class and affinity, again something that the megachurch movement has played into through the HUP. http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Whitopia-Improbable-Journey-America/dp/1401322689/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335498782&sr=1-1
“Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church” by Paul Louis Metzger. It makes the case that the consumer church, which can be manifested in the megachurch for obvious reasons, is often based on the divisions of race and economics and affinity groups. http://www.amazon.com/Consuming-Jesus-Beyond-Divisions-Consumer/dp/0802830684/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335499565&sr=1-1
“Divided by Race: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America” by Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith is probably the seminal sociological work on the subject. It does not make direct ties to the megachurch, but rather, it shows how racialization has affected all aspects of life in America and how evangelicals have been blind to its effects structurally. Understanding the sociological conditions that led to the rise of the megachurch in this environment gives you your link. http://www.amazon.com/Divided-Faith-Evangelical-Religion-Problem/dp/0195147073/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335499889&sr=1-1
These are just a few of the resources that you might find helpful. I have also done a pretty thorough study over the past 12 years of the shift of churches as they left cities and moved out to the suburbs and bedroom communities. Their theological positions did not challenge the white flight perspective, but rather reinforced it and supported it.
All of this research is part of a book that I have been working on the past several years that I hope to finish by this summer. So, yes, I am fairly well versed in the subject.
Again, I am not saying that megachurches are overtly racist. I am looking at the underlying factors.
Alan,
Of course I do not have time nor interest in reading through all your references.
I feel what I did read makes a case based upon what I consider a causal fallacy.
To make the argument that people fled to suburbia to avoid other races, is a bit of a stretch for me. To indicate that megachurches are a form of “escapism” is also a bit of a stretch for me, knowing a couple of megachurches.
These same arguments arose in the 70’s in regard to the homogeneous unit principle. The problem then, as I see it now, is that similarity in expression does not equate to similarity in origin. That would be a causal fallacy.
You references do make your argument clearer, but I do not think (and again I have not tried to make this case for 12 years) it makes it stronger.
Also, if you are going to lay any charge–even a qualified one–at the feet of megachurches then you have another mountain to climb it seems to me.
Megachurches only account for less than 2% of SBC life. I do not think they have enough statistical significance (or general significance) to be a factor in the sociological thinking of the SBC.
But, I do see you point more clearly and I better understand what you are saying. I can accept some of your observations though I may not side with you so strongly on your conclusions. I can see how your conclusions could be dangerous and mislay the blame of racism at the feet of megachurches.
I understand that is not your intent at that this charge is a “possibility” arising out of your statements not a proposition you are making directly.
Tim, I have to admit I’m losing patience with your misrepresentations of what others are saying.
Good conversation requires listening to what the other side is saying, and you are not doing that.
Start.
Frank L.,
You asked for evidence and I provided a mountain of it. There are mountains more. Many studies have been done on this issue, but I too have neither the time nor the interest to put forth any more effort. I respect your opinion and your right to disagree with me. I am thankful that you are able to see that I am decidedly NOT saying that megachurches are overtly racist in origin or practice. What I am actually saying is that they are a symptom and result of of our desire to gather with people like us, have our needs met, secure our own safety/security, have options to develop the life we always wanted, and to be protected against forces that might harm us. That is the sociological impetus behind the mega-movement. It is not racism. But, my point is that racism is a symptom/manifestation of those same desires. We are not racists anymore, but we have taken those same fears/desires to other things, like consumerism, individualism, and in the religious expression, consumer Christianity. Bishop does make the link with the megachurches and it is pretty interesting. The HUP was a good theory in India, but has been a disaster here, in my opinion, as a missiological/sociological construct.
My thesis is that Richard Land is not a racist. Calling him one misses the point. He is a protectionist of the way of life that he holds dear and that Baptists holds dear. That looks like racism to many people outside of our camp and we can’t figure out why. So, they upset by calling us what we know we are not. But, in our defensive stance, we end up looking like racists, even though we are not.
The Kingdom advances forcefully. We struggle to make disciples, in my opinion, because we keep trying to protect what we have – our culture, our prosperity, our heritage, our rights, etc. But, until we lay our lives down and suffer so that others can experience God’s love, we are going to keep experiencing these “Land-Wars” and we won’t understand why people keep getting upset with us.
“””that they are a symptom and result of of our desire to gather with people like us””””
Even the cursory glance at your “mountain” of evidence does not prove this statement to be a matter of fact.
You are assuming, by tying your statement to racism, that desiring to gather with “people like us” means, “people of the same skin color and anthropological set.”
As much as you believe your evidence proves that, my experience does not. I do not concur your “mountain of evidence” (and I did not read it all I will admit) proves your thesis.
It is the same kind of “sweeping statement as you conclude with”
“””But, until we lay our lives down and suffer so that others can experience God’s love, we are going to keep experiencing these “Land-Wars” and we won’t understand why people keep getting upset with us.”””
I see these types of statements about Southern Baptists made on blogs all the time. The same causal fallacy pops up: people hate us because we are bad examples of Christ.
They hated Christ because He was Christ. On our best days, people (society at large) will despise us. I don’t see ministry as a popularity contest.
“We” (and I use this because you did) “struggle to make disciples” because we simply don’t follow God’s plan or have Christ’s passion. I don’t think the struggle has anything to do with the fact that the world doesn’t like us.
As I said, I think I can appreciate some of the points you are making until you make giant leaps in the conclusions. We obviously come at this thing from different perspectives.
So, I don’t want to make the divide any deeper. I think you make some valid points. I think you overstate some conclusions. I thank you for taking the time to converse with me. I do think you make some very valid points.
Frank,
Thank you. I do appreciate the dialogue and the questions. I am working on a thesis and appreciate being able to test it in this discussion. You saying that I am making sweeping generalizations is something that I am taking to heart and do not at all take offense to. It helps sharpen me.
I do want to clarify that my concern is not that people like us. I agree with you that that should not be our goal. However, as we stay with people like who are like us and cling to comfort and a sense of control, we lose spiritual power and zeal. We do not enter into the lives of others because it is hard and it requires sacrifice. So, the desire to “protect our way of life” which still exists, and which I believe is what motivated Richard Land, is actually a great impediment to us begin both followers and ambassadors of Christ. Let me put it this way:
Evangelicals (and Baptists) in 2012 – Surface Problem: Consumerism/individualism/personal preference. Underlying Problem: Fighting to protect their way of life.
Evangelicals (and Baptists) in 1950 – Surface Problem: Racism. Underlying Problem: Fighting to protect their way of life.
We have not stopped fighting for ourselves and our success and comfort and pursuit of happiness. We just do it in some different ways now. Those who would renounce racism (and rightfully so), have no problem with some other things that we do that end up running over others so we can have a better way of life. We don’t even think abut it.
Until we deal with the root issue, it will just keep manifesting in different ways. I don’t think we’ve addressed it very well.
Alan,
Excellent summary.
I must call attention to one thing. You stated: ” We are not racists anymore…” I think I understand that in context. Yet, it must be stated; There are yet many true racists in the SBC, some are openly so while many more are of the closet verity.
In addition, I must declare they are not all in the Southland, nor are they all White.
CB, this is true. I agree. I am trying to be charitable and not paint the SBC with a racist brush in 2012. Most try very hard to deal with that issue – at least the ones I know in Montgomery.
But, yes, there are many prejudiced people still among us, unfortunately.
Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts . . . the Church is a pilgrim Church on a journey through a strange land towards our final home. Christ goes ever before us.
We can’t get afraid or hung-up in this strange land where there is no water.
Our Lord will care for our brokenness, and He will heal our wounds, and quench our thirst.
No, the journey is not over yet. But the world is not so dark as it once was, and the Church is moving in the right direction, sometimes painfully, but not abandoned . . . we must follow the Risen Lord with some kindness and compassion towards one another, in His Name.
L’s,
There is plenty of “water” if you are a born-again follower of Christ.
C.B.
you didn’t read my comment ?
C.B.
there is an ancient Gaelic blessing:
“”May God give you to drink from the Well of the Trinity”
You may know that in the Holy Land, there is an ancient well surrounded with masonry with 24 steps leading down into the cool darkness to where the pure water gushes out of a rock, clean and cold.
This image suggests the ‘well of the Trinity’ and ‘the call within’,
that St Ignatius of Antioch likely had in mind when he spoke of
“a murmur of living water that whispers within me
‘Come, come to the Father'”
Ignatius knew that in the Gospel of St. John, there was a verse where Jesus told about the inner well at the source of our being:
“The water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up with eternal life”
(St. John 4)
C.B, I won’t say ‘you’re preaching to the choir’
which is sounds so dismissive of your concern, which I know to be kindly meant.
Instead, especially for you, I wish the ancient blessing:
“May God give you to drink from the Well of the Trinity”
L’s,
I have read of Ignatius. I have read of many others. Most importantly, I have read the Scripture. I personally know the Author. I have also read hundreds and hundreds of your comments. You do not know the Scripture. Basically, that is because you do not know the Author.
We are discussing racism and to a degree, slavery. You are still a slave. You don’t have to be one. Repent and embrace the biblical gospel. By being born-again, you will be set free.
Question for all…
If someone believes that the “Institution of Slavery” within any given society, such as those found in both the O.T. And the N.T., is morally acceptable… “Is That Person a Raceist?”
Greg Alford,
That is a philosophical question that can take us many places. That question could bring us to a debate about whether biblical characters were racists or not.
I think we have enough one our hands with the SBC and the churches of which it reflects.
I think the issue is; Do we have a problem with racism as Southern Baptists? The answer is; Yes. Our need is to seek an end to the problem or to make as much positive change as possible in our lifetimes or till Jesus returns.
CB,
Thanks for playing… Actually with so many on here “EQUATING” slavery with Raceism, I thought it might help tone down some of the SBC Founders bashing if we actually brought up the fact that no where in scripture is slavery equated with Raceism.
Southern Christians did not purchase slaves because they hatted them… As anyone who has any knowledge of Christianity in the South during this period knows full well.
Anyway, I,ll sign off now… Before I ware out my welcome like Tim B. Obviously has.
Greg Alford,
You are a good man. You have always exhibited grit and steel in your convictions and frankly, such men are going to be the only kind who can bring any resolution to this ghost that has haunted us for so long as Southern Baptists.
Good night brother. I have to go back to my watch of this bunch of little girls spending the night in my home to make sure they don’t tear it down or cook and eat my Bulldog.
Greg,
“”””Southern Christians did not purchase slaves because they hatted them… “”””
I think it would be equally wrong to suggest that Southern Christians were purchasing slaves because they were seeking to follow the teachings of Christ in the Bible.
I will agree that the “slavery” issue in the Bible, or the lack of a clear teaching against it, is a thorny issue.
Racism is not hatred of other races. It is the belief that one’s race is superior to others. Slave owners had black slaves because they considered blacks to be less than human. That’s pretty racist. We didn’t take British slaves did we, after the revolutionary war?
But on the whole, I think you have a point about slavery. Slavery and racism are not the same thing. People have, and unfortunately still do make slaves of their own race. But racism certainly explains much of the history of slavery.
I’m not sure where you are going with this. But I am nervous whenever we try to in any way mitigate the seriousness of the sins that have been committed against blacks in America.
Dave,
Your post here reflects my difficulty in understanding the motive behind all of this. From your wording, it seems that you believe sins are still being committed against blacks in America?? Please correct me here, but 1)as believers, regardless of color, we are the same in Christ; 2)As I understand Scripture, we do not take it to say that I should pay for the sins of my father, or in this case maybe great grandfather or earlier; 3) how have we limited anyone in the SBC as a convention in say the past 20-30 years?? My fear is that on the whole, not saying of you, this is more about being politically correct than true conviction which is a road i don’t want to walk down.
I’m still not tracking why we would take a different line on overt and official racism in SBC churches than churches with women pastors. Surely racism is a greater sin than egalitarianism (if sin that is). I’ve seen people (seem to) say that they are different, but not why they are different. To deny someone fellowship in the local body of Christ because of their color is beyond fiendish. It is evil.
Bill, I may be wrong on this, but I think that only associations and state conventions have disfellowshiped churches over female pastors. I do not think the SBC has taken that action yet.
If someone can factually correct that, I’m listening.
Well, female pastors or homosexuality then. If we do not take decisive action against overt racism, then it shows the world that we are happy to take a stand against some sin but not others.
A church with race based membership policies should be disfellowshipped. I can’t believe that this is even controversial. This is a no brainer.
A church with race based membership policies should be disfellowshipped
I disagree. I think they should be mocked openly for their ignorant, unbiblical position then disfellowshipped. In a case like that, public humiliation is more than warranted. 🙂
Fully agreed! And members of such a church should not be allowed “letters of transfer” without a open and public apology for attending such a church.
Dave,
You are right. The SBC has not disfellowshipped a church for having a female pastor.
I wonder if any state or local conventions have disfellowshipped any churches because of racism?
Bill Mac,
Surely, in our lifetime, had a state convention disfellowshipped a church for reasons of racial discrimination, we would have read or heard of it. The activities of local associations are not so well known, but I seriously doubt any local association affiliated with the SBC has ever disfellowshipped a local affiliated member church over issues of racial discrimination.
The problem in the SBC is not the minority who still hold true racist views and lead their church. The problem is the majority of SBC folk who say “I’m not racist, the churches I personally know are not racist, therefore there is no racism in the SBC.” THAT my friends is the height of arrogance and presumption. Yet that is basically what I see here on these boards. “I’m not racist! How dare you say there is a racism problem in the SBC!!” I will refrain from saying what I trully think about these types of people as it likely will get me banned from this board. So let me move on.
People say that true racists in the SBC are very rare. Churches that practice direct or implied racism, and prevent those other than “whites” from joining their church, are also very rare according to them. So why do anything? I would also add that churches that endorse and support pro-homosexual views are also very rare in the SBC. Yet many here have said they would support kicking out a church that supports homosexuality, but not one that practices direct racism. This sickens me. But I will also refrain from saying what I really think about these folk as again it might get me removed from here. At least those who say “I would not vote to remove a church that had racism just as i would not vote to remove a church that promotes homosexuality, even though I view both as wrong” are intellectually consistent.
People, just because YOU and YOUR church, and even the churches AROUND you are not racist, does NOT mean racist churches do not exist in the SBC. I would argue that even if 1 in a 1000 churches/individuals are racist, that is 1 too many! And I guess I will say it, in disregard to my future on these boards. But if the SBC will not remove that 1 in 1000 churches that promote racism, after setting the president of removing the 1 in 1000 (likely a lot less than this in reality) churches that are pro-homosexual, that only proves that the SBC has a bigger problem with race, than 1 in 1000.
Smuuschany,
A few thoughts-maybe questions if I may?
1). I think you make a valid point here:
“The problem in the SBC is not the minority who still hold true racist views and lead their church. The problem is the majority of SBC folk who say “I’m not racist, the churches I personally know are not racist, therefore there is no racism in the SBC.”
2). A question here: Who on this thread has made this statement?
“I’m not racist! How dare you say there is a racism problem in the SBC!!”
3). I think it would be helpful to this discussion if you more definitely articulated what you mean by this partial statement:
“Churches that practice direct or implied racism, and prevent those other than “whites” from joining their church…”
Naturally, you are not obligated to engage me here, but I would like to know what your are thinking more fully based on your comment.
CB,
Thank you for saving me the time.
No problem Frank L. That is why Dave Miller and Tony Kummer send me a check every month. Oh, I forgot. That was supposed to be a secret. Oh well, it was good while it lasted! 🙂
CB
My problem is with anyone who gets offended by the use of the words “we” in regards to the SBC and racism. If I say that WE in the SBC have not done enough in combating the racism that is still in our convention; and someone gets offended that I said “WE”, that is someone I have a big problem with. That they get more upset by the use of “WE” than they do that there are still churches (and in a larger number than i think anyone chooses to recognize) that practice institutional (either overt or subvert) racism; THAT I have a MAJOR problem with. CB to answer one of your questions, as several prominent SBC members discussed a few weeks ago, prior to this Land issues, there are churches where it is in their constitution and bylaws that you have to be “white” to join their church. There are other churches, that while not in their constitution and bylaws, practice that requirement. Sure some may not be KKK style hate, but they use language like “Wouldn’t you be more comfortable at that “other” church across town?” These churches, which again I think are more numerous than we would like to admit, are ungodly havens of hate and racism. They are a cancer that needs to be removed from the SBC unless they repent in every way possible.
I will say it again, and hopefully with more clarity. IF you are supportive of kicking out churches that have a pro-homosexuality stance, out of the state and national conventions, BUT are AGAINST doing so for churches that either overtly or subvertly practice racism, then I declare that such a person is the problem with this convention, just as much, if not more so than the actual racists. I would even go so far as say that that itself is a shade of racism. I say such because we have the mistaken opinion that racism is only sheet wearing terrorist killing and attacking blacks. Or that racists are only those who oppose those “black folk” from attending their church. A racist can be someone personally has “black” friends, but does not think their plight is as serious as other sinful actions such as homosexuality. I have no doubt that some will be greatly offended by what I just said, but I frankly dont care. How anyone can be opposed to kicking out “whites only” churches in this convention, and be FOR kicking out pro-gay churches is beyond me. These are the people that are a problem with this convention.
It’s interesting to me you put these two ideas together:
“””f I say that WE in the SBC have not done enough in combating the racism that is still in our convention; and someone gets offended that I said “WE”, that is someone I have a big problem with. “””
and
“”that they get more upset by the use of “WE” than they do that there are still churches (and in a larger number than i think anyone chooses to recognize) that practice institutional (either overt or subvert) racism; THAT I have a MAJOR problem with”””
Why do you feel there must be a connection between statements one and two above?
Personally, when someone uses “we” they indicate they have knowledge of at least “most” of those included in the “we.” My problem with your use of “we” is that I don’t think you have enough breath of knowledge to use “we.” It is a careless way of starting “problems” with people that really don’t have a “problem” with you. It simply seems to be overstating the case when you speak for the SBC–that includes me.
It is shallow on your part to assign motives of those in the second statement to those in the first statement.
Personally, and I can only speak for myself: I support disfellowshipping any church that takes an openly racist position as an organization (as opposed to having a member who may be racist).
That has never come up in any context that I have ministered.
I’ll support that resolution. I second your motion!
Brother,
Apparently God has given you a burden. I don’t know any churches wth racist policies. You must know a lot of them. Have you taken action? I have a problem with churches with racist poilicies but I have a bigger problem with folks who know of churches with racist policies and don’t take action. They are making all of us look bad. I am weary of being guilty by association. Please do something about the racist churches that you know. I’ll support you.
Several people on this board and else where have suggested that motions be made at association, state, and national levels that would remove racist churches from fellowship with the convention. Yet this suggestion is ridiculed and rejected by an unfortunately large number of people. And yes, I do plan on making such a motion this year at my states convention if I am able to attend. As I still am a “kid” in most people’s eyes, and as I am a member, not pastor of my church, I doubt it will carry much weight. You are right, I have not done anything yet. But seeing as I just graduate seminary, that I am a full time graduate student following my primary vocational tract, and that I dont plan on being a full time minister, I really have not had the chance or opportunity to take action. I will tell you that prior to deciding that I needed to be mentored by a pastor while I continue my education, when I was applying to churches, the first question I did ask when interviewing with a church is what they thought about “racism” and non-whites attending their church. While I did not get the position, thankfully they were very clear they had no problems with “race”. Give me a chance, and I will show you I am more than talk. Give me a chance and I will enact change when it comes to racism in our convention!
I don’t think anyone has said, on this thread, that the SBC is not racist. But we have heard before that despite our infamous beginnings, the SBC is, on the whole, no longer racist (without claiming that there are absolutely no racists). I hope that is true.
But I think SM’s point is like mine. If we are going to claim that we are not racist, how can we even think of treating overtly racist churches differently than pro-homosexual churches?
I wish David B would come back on and explain why he said this (or seemed to say it). If someone agrees with him, perhaps they can explain the rationale. Please.
Another great resource is an e-book by Mark DeYmaz,
” Should Pastors Accept or Reject the Homogeneous Unit Principle? : straight talk about what it is, what it’s not, and how it applies biblically to the local church”. Available @ http://www.mosaix.info
Smuschany,
So can we agree that no on on this ‘specific’ thread has openly stated, ““I’m not racist! How dare you say there is a racism problem in the SBC!!”
Can we also agree that the problem of racial discrimination is more widespread that many are willing to admit as Alan Cross and cb have pointed out in several comments along with others on this specific thread and as Dave Miller’s post summits in its content?
That brings us to the third issue:
How do we as a religious body (The SBC) properly and within our parameters of cooperation, relate to, identify, warn, chastise, and/or remove churches who have racist policies openly stated within their articles of incorporation, constitutions and/or by-laws?
Smuschany, to do such a thing as you and others here have suggested (even mandated) there has to be a proper, systematic, and orderly manner to do it. Such an action by the convention would demand solid guidelines. Otherwise, the possibility of confusion, witch-hunts, and utter chaos would no doubt be ever present from the first time a church was removed for such until the Lord returns.
You/we can’t just rear up on our hind-legs and yell “Throw Then Out” and solve the problem.
CB,
I have to jump off your wagon here a bit: I think that having racist policies memorialized in your documents is a pretty clear way to “properly, systematically, and orderly” throw them out.
Here’s the thing: I’m afraid we might be shocked how many and who might oppose such and action. If racism is as much a problem as you suggest it could be–and I’m not disagreeing–then such a policy might just shine enough light to get the cockroaches running for cover.
Frank is right. I think the problem is far too many SBC folk are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. We want to think institutional racism is a thing of the past in our denomination, and many are fearful of taking a look because it might show we are not as “clean” as we have thought. We have many friends whom we stubbornly refuse to believe are racist, but when we trully examine their actions (and maybe even our own) we realize that there is indeed racism in their (and our) lives. Many associate racism with only KKK styled hate, but it goes beyond that. Sure we tell ourselves that, but do we truly believe? So when we see a “black” couple come into our “all white” church, and dont give them the same level of attention as we would a new “white” couple, we associate that with anything but racism. But in the end, it was racist stigma and racist stereotypes that stopped us from offering that hand of friendship.
Why can our local missions teams do a great job at going to the areas of the city where immigrant families live, but not to the areas where “black” americans live? The fact is, you can be racist towards “black” americans and yet minister to “black” Africans new to this country. Just because you do the latter, does not mean you are not racist on some level to the former.
Smush,
Your post makes no sense at all.
Who said anything about ministering to “black Africans new to this country” as opposed to “immigrant families?”
You lost me.
My seminary regularly had missions teams going to the areas of the KC area where immigrants lived. Mostly Kenyan. The only time they seemed to send teams to areas of “American black” was when they were helping an individual church asking for help with its outreach.
I am not saying one over the other is necessarily wrong. I was trying to throw a similarity between now, and the founding of the SBC when men were upset that they were told they cannot take their SLAVES on a missions trip. You see these men saw nothing wrong with ministering over seas to “people of other colors” yet when those people come here to the states, they are “worth less” (ie slaves). Again, I am not saying that this is what is happening now. What I am saying is that many baptists pass over people here in our own country for ministry, for reasons other than practicality.
Frank L.,
Yes and Amen!!!!
Dwight
Frank L.,
The “Yes and Amen!!!” was meant to be placed here.
Dwight
CB,
The Evangelical Free Church and Evangelical Covenant Chuch each have a robust and visible policy on ethnic diversity. You stated “Now, is the time to stand”, but my knees are weak, and my brethren are letting me fall.
Thabiti Anyabwile has an excellent post: “Principled Cooperation”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2012/04/25/principled-cooperation/
Please read it. It so adequately articulates what many of us have been trying to say.
Just one quote of many
“Inter-racial, multi-ethnic, and diverse relationships are not the end but one of the necessary by-products of taking seriously our common identity in Christ and the death of trans-ethnic hostility. I’m not looking for folks who have to say, “Some of my best friends are _____.” I’m looking for folks who can say with deep affection, “This is my brother/sister” and not be strained or surprised to learn that said brother/sister represents the diversity that’s around the throne of glory.”- Thabiti Anyabwile
Sima,
Southern Baptists have problems, I agree. Yet, no group of people on the earth understand and articulate the Gospel any better than do Southern Baptists. I think a new day will come with the passing of my generation regarding the equality of all men. If people of your generation and younger do not dilute the story of redemption and the doctrines of the faith there is a possibility of a better day in the SBC for all regardless of ethnic background.
Now is the time to stand. Now is the time to be counted.
Yet, no group of people on the earth understand and articulate the Gospel any better than do Southern Baptists
I disagree with this statement for a variety of reasons, but our system of doing missions is the best. But none of this means a thing until we as a denomination live what we preach and teach. In my opinion we haven’t done that for years. We pretend to be great, but we are not. Far from it. This being just one of many areas.
Dwight McKissic and C. B. Scott,
Sorry I’m so late getting back.
I sometimes use words meant to get a little attention; maybe this time they got a little too much. I apologize for a poor choice of words. My intention is not to legitimize or condone a racist church or racism, but to say they can be moved to where they ought to be.
I love stories like:
http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23764
http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=15196
Dwight,
I didn’t really think you owed me an apology. We just butted heads a little and disagreed a little. But I do accept it and I appreciate and respect your outstanding ministry.
Hopefully we can trade book autographs at the SBC, New Orleans. I appreciate what you’ve said about both books. When you get a chance to read it, I’d love to hear what you think of “Ancient Wine and the Bible.”
By the way, the reason I ordered two of your books is that I wanted one for our church library. That is another small way we can combat racism and educate on the race issue. We also have T. B. Maston’s book and others.
David R. Brumbelow