With our 2019 perspective, we find it absolutely unbelievable that the founders of the SBC could preach the gospel while also owning slaves and regarding people for whom Christ died as sub-human. There are discussions ongoing as to whether the founders – blatant and unrepentant racists – were actually saved. We took action at the Annual Meeting this year that would prevent the founders of our convention and their churches from being a part of our convention today, because of their racism, an action I enthusiastically supported.
- Were the founders of the SBC false believers? Were they truly redeemed?
- Should we reject them entirely and all they believed?
- Is the SBC and its entire life stained because of the shameful racist history of its founders?
I am reluctant to delve into the question of who is truly redeemed and who is not. Some people seem to have paperback copies of the Book of Life and are able to speak with certainty that this person or that is not truly saved. I remember a seminary professor who told us that there would be two big surprises when we reach heaven, “Them that’s there, and them that ain’t.” I believe that the grace of God is much bigger than our human foibles and even the redeemed often fail to live out their redemption.
People who love Jesus and seem to be theologically grounded and spiritually mature in many ways can have blind spots through which a phalanx of enemy troops could drive trucks. Would that every believer demonstrated the love and holiness of Christ in everything he or she did, but that simply is not the case. Blind spots – areas of sin that ought to be obvious but which we ignore – are common among the saints.
We are coming face to face with the fact that racism has been a blind spot in the American church. Every time I hear a Christian brother or sister talk about “restoring” the American church to what it once was, I cringe. This myth, that our nation’s founding fathers were men of God seeking to establish a Christian nation of virtue and holiness, is much easier for white people to maintain than it is for the descendants of the slaves who were dehumanized, the Native Americans who were brutalized, or other ethnic groups who were treated shamefully. Racism has been part and parcel of the American experience for most of our existence. The greatest resistance to racial progress came from churches, from “Christian” people during the years of the Civil Rights movement. The racial history of the American church is not something about which we can boast.
Does that mean that American Christianity has been fake? Were there no real Christian faith among the segregationists? Is it wrong for us to love our country and to think that the American system of government is a good one because of the massive blind spot our forefathers had about race (one that has not been completely eradicated today)? To honor Christ, must we disdain America and view its “Christian” history as an abomination?
This is a difficult issue and as a lily-white Iowan, I am always a little nervous opining on racial issues. I have lived my life as part of the majority and except for my years in Taiwan and my 9 mission trips to Africa, I am inexperienced at being a minority. Those experiences hardly exposed me to systemic racism.
I have waffled on posting this because I realize how easily it could be misinterpreted. I care little about how the anti-social justice crowd twists it – they pretty much twist everything that doesn’t fit their narrative. I am more concerned that someone could think that I am attempting to excuse racism or downplay its serious nature, and that is not my purpose. I do not want to excuse, rationalize, justify, or give any cover to racism in any form. It is sin and runs contrary to the purposes of Christ, who died not only to save people by grace through faith, but as Ephesians 2 goes on to say, to tear down human walls and bind them together as one Body. That is why we say that race is a “gospel issue” – because uniting believers of every tribe and language into one people to worship God eternally is rooted in the purposes of the cross and to divide on the basis of race is contrary to the purpose of the cross.
Having said that, I noticed something as I studied Acts. Racism isn’t original to the American church. In fact, it was a central issue in the first church, the Jerusalem church. This was a great church, filled with people who loved Jesus, suffered for him, and were filled with the Spirit of God. We know they were filled because the Bible says they were filled. Yet, in spite of being Spirit-filled, deeply committed, Jesus-loving believers, they had a blind spot about racism that becomes clear when you look at Acts.
Race and the Early Church
At the beginning of Acts, the church was 100% Jewish and by Acts 28 it had expanded across the Roman Empire and was predominantly Gentile. This transition, from Jewish sect to Gentile church, is a key theme in Acts and was the driving force behind much controversy. There is ample evidence from Acts and from other texts that the church at Jerusalem, a model church in so many ways, never caught on to the heart of God to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth. They were inwardly focused and content to reach Jerusalem, perhaps even Judea and Samaria, as long as the Jewish nature of the church was preserved.
Look at some of the biblical evidence.
- The Jerusalem church made no effort to move the gospel outside of Jerusalem. This can charitably be attributed to “God’s timing,” but there is no evidence of an urgency in the church for the gospel to move beyond the Jews.
- It was only when the church was scattered through persecution (Acts 8) that Philip and others began to carry the gospel to Judea and Samaria.
- In Acts 10, it took a vision from God and the direct command of the Holy Spirit to convince Peter to go with the three men sent from Cornelius. He was reluctant to engage a Gentile with the gospel and God had to twist his arm to do so. Clearly, Peter was not chomping at the bit to preach Christ to the Gentiles!
- Word of the Spirit’s outpouring on Gentiles caused turmoil in Jerusalem. We do not know how strong the influence of the “circumcision party” was but Jerusalem Twitter was aflutter over this kerfuffle. They were not rejoicing that Gentiles had received Christ and been filled with the Spirit, but concerned about the Jewishness of the church moving forward.
- When Barnabas and Saul traveled to Galatia and reached many Gentiles, a controversy rose up that required the Church Council of Acts 15. How Jewish did one have to be to become a Christian? Racial issues (interaction between Jews and Gentiles) were a key issue as the church expanded.
- In Galatians 2, Paul tells the story of Cephas (Peter) seeking to please the judgmental Jews rather than following the gospel imperatives that included the Gentiles. He publicly rebukes Peter for his actions. The original Apostles and the Jerusalem church were not quick to idea of Gentile inclusion.
- The key verse in all this is Acts 11:19. When the Jews were scattered from Jerusalem, they began to travel and proclaim Christ, but look what it says. “Now those who had been scattered as a result of the persecution that started because of Stephen made their way as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews.” They would not proclaim Christ to anyone but other Jews. NO ONE EXCEPT JEWS. The Jews of Jerusalem had racial tunnel vision, seeing Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews and little more.
- But God had a solution, the church at Antioch. With diverse leadership, this church took up the task of taking the gospel to a lost world. Acts 11:20-21 says, “But there were some of them, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, proclaiming the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord’s hand was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.” With racially and culturally diverse leadership and a heart for the world, the Antioch church became God’s tool for the spread of the gospel to the world.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this?
Conclusions
1. The heart of God is for the ends of the earth and a Revelation 7:9 gathering of the redeemed – people of every tribe and language worshiping the crucified and risen Christ. But the human heart tends to be inward, focused on “me and mine.” Our natural tendency is contrary to the heart of God (no surprise there). This tendency is nothing new but has been part of the church since the first church in Jerusalem. Racism comes naturally to us. Fighting it is a supernatural work of Christ.
Application: When we confront racism in the American church, we are not saying it is unique in history. Racism, anti-semitism, racial supremacy – these things have plagued the church since Pentecost and have been one of the great impediments to the work of Jesus Christ. Inwardness and a sense that “our people” are more important than “those people” is the way human beings think – natural, flesh-driven thought. We must challenge the church to think biblically and spiritually.
2. When Jerusalem refused to adopt the heart of God, God raised up Antioch. When the Jerusalem church labored inwardly and failed to grasp God’s heart for One Body from every tribe and language on earth uniting in worship (Revelation 7:9), God raised up another church to do his work.
Application: This ought to chill those of us who love our land and want to see the American church and the SBC prosper. If you want to “save America” the last thing you want to do is recommend that we go back to the “good old days” when segregation and discrimination reigned. These things offended God and ran contrary to his purposes for the church. If the American church continues to be racially fractured, to promote nationalism and cultural supremacy, God will find another vehicle through which to work. He has used the American church and the SBC in wonderful ways, in spite of our blind spots, as he did with Jerusalem. But if we fail to follow his heart, he will find an Antioch church to work through, one that reflects his heart for the world. The American church and the SBC are not indispensable to the work of God’s kingdom.
3. God uses imperfect Christians, but that never excuses our imperfections. Jerusalem was a wonderfully imperfect church. The churches I have pastored have been wonderfully imperfect. Ephesus was wonderfully imperfect. God works with churches that are wonderfully imperfect but he also calls them to repentance, renewal, and greater holiness. We can never use the patience of God as an excuse for our own sin.
Application: God has used the wonderfully imperfect American (white evangelical) church. God has used the wonderfully imperfect Southern Baptist convention. He has graciously imparted his Spirit to empower our forebears and even us to proclaim Christ, reach the lost, and send missionaries all around the world. But God’s grace does not excuse our sin nor does it abrogate our responsibility to do better. We must continue to honor Christ, proclaim the gospel, and rid our convention of the trappings of racism and must conform our hearts to the heart of God.
God’s grace should be our motivation for holiness not our excuse for sloppiness.
Racism is rooted in the natural self-centeredness of the human heart. Me and mine matter more than you and yours. It is the work of Christ to turn us away from inwardness to have hearts that beat with Christ’s, to become his agents in building a one worshiping people from every tribe and language on earth. May we be more like the Antioch church!
It is my understanding that at the time of the conventions founding, Race separation and superiority/inferiority were Biblical standards of fundamental believers. I believe it is always unwise to hold history accountable to todays standards. We certainly have no right to delare anyone we never knew unsaved. Only.God knows tat.
Gotta disagree here. Right and wrong are not defined by culture. Racism was popular but that does not excuse it. Sexual promiscuity and perversion are accepted today. Are we to mold to culture?
Brother Pastor, I was referring to the interpretations of scripture that were taught in our churches in those times. Looking at it now, we know it was serious error, but Southern Baptists of that period thought and were taught in these ways
Jack: Then maybe they should have read their Bibles more. That is no excuse they were taught. If they were taught to murder anyone for no reason, would you excuse that. Racism is just as serious as murder
While I would agree that we have the benefit of being separated by more than 150 years from a time when slavery and race separation were considered “Biblical standards,” or a better way of expressing it, were justified by the Bible which was written in a completely different cultural context, there were Christian groups in America opposed to slavery and racial separation going back to the colonial days, including many Baptists. At the time the Southern Baptist Convention was formed, there were even some churches in some denominations in the north that were integrated.
To answer the questions posed in this article, were the founders of the SBC believers? Only God knows that, but the fact of the matter is that there is not a list of correct doctrine that one must accept before turning to Christ in true repentance and receiving grace that comes from the sacrifice he made on the cross. It’s pretty simply explained in 1 John 4:1-3. It is possible to acknowledge Christ and then it takes a lifetime to develop a Christian life. But I don’t believe salvation by grace can ever be undone by wrong belief because then salvation wouldn’t be grace, it would be works. Should we reject them and all they believed? No, but there is still a long way to go and the SBC needs to keep going there. Many of its churches and segments of the denomination are still segregationist and exclusive and not willing to part with old provincial backwardness to make forward progress.
Deliberate steps have to be taken to curb racist and segregationist practices or all the words that have been said about it are nothing more than wasted breath. It is meaningless to say “we’re not racist anymore” but then not do anything deliberate to include people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in denominational leadership. The status quo has prevailed. The argument that people selected for leadership shouldn’t be chosen just because of their race, but because of their overall “fit” for the position is in and of itself a racist perspective because it is resistance to the only kind of action that will change things, a submission to the old status quo.
All well said Dave Miller. I am glad that I was born well beyond those moments in our stained history, for I might find the desire not to be persecuted by whites revealing of my own character as a professing Christian. We expect that followers and the pew could have truck-sized blind spots, but I deduce the leaders to have been complicit with outright bigotry and carnal superiority complexes. As the people’s leaders, they made more followers after their own kind than not.
Dave – I admit to a little self promotion but great minds???
https://mysterysolvedwithmessiahjesus.wordpress.com/2019/07/16/is-it-1954-again-racism-in-america/
And
https://mysterysolvedwithmessiahjesus.wordpress.com/2019/07/10/best-friends-of-israel-really/
This problem is not only unique to th US, but also in Romania. There, because of the terrible 40 years of the Communist regime, is a dislike and distrust between ethnic Romanians and ethnic Hungarians. This even permeates the Hungarian Baptists, and the Romanian Baptists. It even involved copies of God’s Word. There was a sneer when it was recognized as a Romanian language Bible.
Racial and ethnic dislike and hate. Ephesians 2 is necessary not only here, but there also. We all must repent.
Fascinating
Some great insights here.
I think it’s ok to pine for the good of previous times, but not unreservedly.
America’s founding, the first modern democracy, has been a catalyst for making the emancipation of millions across the globe possible. The Founders were not consistent to the principles for which they established, but because they established those principles, that set the stage for expanding the franchise of freedom to others.
The church in the West, not just the South, not just the SBC, was not immune to the development that made the mixing of people from different continents possible. How to handle that morally and ethically took years, but I, too, am glad for all the progress.
We also have seen some interesting racial issues here in our city. A Syrian convert recently expressed deep skepticism about meeting with and accepting the friendship and brotherhood of a Kurdish believer. I mean the concern was at a high level.
It seems that all of our experiences are affected by our own histories and the histories of our nation.
Why does this issue linger on and on with no real solution as the solution is in the individual heart and mind of the individual. We have beat the horse to death , at least in this lay person’s eyes.
1. Was the SBC founded on defending slavery and the economics of the slavery system. The answer is yes. Does anyone disagree?
2. Were the first leaders of the SBC defenders of slavery and preached slavery was upheld by scripture. The answer is yes. Does anyone disagree.
3. Did the SBC move fast enough and sincerely enough to correct the teachings and beliefs that supported slavery? The answer is no.
4. Did the culture and society of the times influence their understanding of the Bible? Yes. Was it influenced by tradition, economics and secular needs? Yes
5. Was it a mistake in the period after the Civil War to keep the SBC name and teaching institutions? Looking bad , it was not a good idea but that horse is out of the barn.
6. Should the founders of the SBC still be honored and given recognition for what they did both good and bad? I say yes , we cannot change history but we can try to understand and learn from it.
7. Do a lot of current SBC leaders believe that a majority of average pew sitter , average , laypeople SBC members are inherently latent or overt racist, my own personal opinion is that they do.
8. Do I as a 71 year old person who has been in SBC churches since age 22 believe SBC members are inherently latent or overt racist? Absolutely not, but they are not obsessed or greatly concerned with the issue. Are minorities welcome in almost all SBC churches with open arms? Absolutely , just as anyone else seeking the Lord is. Are there individuals who are racist in these churches ? Of course, just like the world.
9. Is the goal of the SBC to get people to accept Christ or to get our racial quota correct. The historic , vibrant , good and needed black churches in the USA are in the same dire straights as most denominations. We need to ally and blend with the black churches, not co opt them . Am I welcome at a predominate black church? I am sure I am if I am there truly seeking the Lord.
10. It is time to be ever mindful of the past and the terrible record of the SBC but it is also time to move on. It is not that hard unless we have other motives. This is just a minor version of the struggle in the whole USA. We have to live with our history, the good , bad and ugly and learn and move on. Are we can just emote forever.
Might we be equally guilty of endorsing behavior that God believes is sinful and wrong as the result of our own blindness, greed or cultural accommodation? Might we be judged one day as harshly as we now judge the slaveholders by a court of infinitely greater authority and righteousness?
One would be foolish not to acknowledge that possibility. Our slave holding forbearers were sincere in their beliefs but sincerely is not enough. They were wrong. We can be too.
The nuance of race relations is far more complex than branding all Baptists in the past as brazen racists. Before the civil war most Baptist churches in my association (an association in the deep south) had “colored” members and in many cases had more “colored” members than white. In one or two cases they had “colored” pastors. While in most of those churches blacks could not vote they drank from the same cup during the Lord’s supper. After the war the association formed a committee to determine the status of “colored” members in the churches. Here is what they declared…. “that they must now be recognized and treated as freedmen”, “socially their status remains the same as during slavery.” And “Ecclesiastically their ‘status’ and church relations are unaffected. We have heretofore regarded them as brethren; so we regard them now. Hitherto such privileges have been accorded to them as they were deemed capable of exercising; to the same they are still entitled-no more.” Later in the resolution they declared that “in the fear of God, be most promotive of their interest and prosperity, and the honor and glory of our master.” They also recommended that “colored brethren” be allowed to unite with churches by baptism or letter. That if they so desired to dissolve the connection between themselves and white members to start their own churches that letters would be granted. They also recommended to the association that all assistance be afforded them in organization, facilities and training. Blacks left the existing churches and did start their own with the help of what had not been exclusively but suddenly now “white” churches. The association also helped the black churches form their own association and joined with them in the meeting where the association was formally constituted in celebrating its beginning. After the separation many of the new houses of worship were close to the mother churches and 40 years later it was reported that relations between the churches remained cordial and strong.
In a report from 1878 at the association meeting a report was given that included the words, “Nothing can be accomplished towards improving the spiritual condition of these people, except by dealing with them as Christian men and brethren with the same hopes, aims and destination as ourselves. We are superior to them in both wealth, education and experience, and the obligation is upon us to give the benefit of this superiority.”
In all likelihood these positions would not have been popular with the cultural winds of the day in the south. At that time Baptists would not have been among the cultural elites of the day . To call the “colored’ “brethren”, drink from the same cup, education them and help them build buildings and organize churches was likely radically counter cultural in that day. I doubt that if most of us lived in that time we would have done any better.
That is why I argued for a long time for changing the convention’s name from Southern Baptist. Unfortunately, after the “GCB” thing flopped, we learned that isn’t practical. Better to simply do God’s work better.
I was with you on that one.
Quoting your point #8, ” Do I as a 71 year old person who has been in SBC churches since age 22 believe SBC members are inherently latent or overt racist? Absolutely not, but they are not obsessed or greatly concerned with the issue. Are minorities welcome in almost all SBC churches with open arms? Absolutely , just as anyone else seeking the Lord is. Are there individuals who are racist in these churches ? Of course, just like the world.”
Similar circumstances, I am 61 and have been in SBC churches from infancy up until 9 years ago. I’ve met church members who were overtly racist and I’ve also seen examples of latent racist behavior. It’s there. I’ve seen it expressed in a church where the deacons wouldn’t allow the bus ministry to venture into a predominantly African American neighborhood to pick up kids for Sunday School, citing “safety concerns.” And I have been in an SBC church where several of the church leaders were members of the local KKK chapter. I’ve seen it. That’s not an indictment of all Southern Baptists. But until the SBC takes deliberate steps to increase the presence of ethnic and racial minorities among its denominational leadership and until individual churches begin deliberately integrating their congregations it is exhibiting benign status quo racism. There are those who object to taking deliberate steps to make sure people of ethnic and racial minorities are hired for jobs or included in leadership but it will never happen if those steps are not taken and that’s “latent racism” at work.
Dave, as an approximate percentage, how widespread do you believe racism to be in the SBC?
RC – That is a good question? I am unsure if it can be measured by what people say, as I think many churchgoers won’t admit it in word but the make-up of their church says a lot.
I think it was WA Criswell who said… people like to worship with their own kind (the exact quote may be off a bit but I believe it is close). If I am wrong, please correct me (anyone).
Back to the first part of my comment. I do not know any pastor who would say that today and not get a backlash of comments but the picture of who sits in the pews and who is being invited says a lot.
So for me to answer your question I would say… In my experience, it is much more widespread than we are willing to admit.
How many white churches are sitting in non-white neighborhoods and not reaching their neighbors? I ask why? I think it could be silent racism.
47.3987%
Approximately.
I realize – hope – that is snark.
As otherwise it’d mean you think almost half if SBCers are racist.
Do people really think its that high? God help us if people who think that are correct.
When you see some of the anti-justice crowd denying that systemic racism exists, praising the works of these founders as if they were to be held in esteem and nothing was wrong with them, when you hear people say things like “God chose to advance sound doctrine through white Europeans” – yeah, I think racism, or racialism, or whatever you want to call it is still a great challenge today. I’ve actually read a man saying that God ordained the races as they are and if we attempt to rectify racialism we are interfering with God’s pre-ordained plan for humanity. Yeah, racism still exists.
A friend was fired from a church for inviting Black children to VBS. When we confronted that, people attacked US! SBC pastors and others attacked us for exposing a Baptist church that fired its pastor for inviting Black children to VBS. They weren’t as upset with the church as they were with us for exposing it.
I learned new words here on Voices the year the SBC voted against the Confederate flag. I was called a word I had to look up. I thought they were misspelling “cluck” or something. These messages came from people who identified themselves as Baptist deacons and Sunday School teachers and they loved the Confederate flag and Southern Culture a lot more than they loved the Great Commission.
So, yeah, racism is still a problem.
We just had 5 openings for entity heads and only on the 5th one, after we caterwauled for months, did minorities even GET AN INTERVIEW!
So, yes, I think racism is still a problem.
You agree with the anti-social justice crowd that employs name-calling to ridicule us as “woke” and SJWs that we’ve solved racism?
I think we’ve made progress, but we have a long way to go.
I do not believe the the racist who challenged you in such ways are representative of the SBC as a whole – i certainly believe your statements that you were attacked – but whether that is a representative sampling or not is a different question.
Never said they were representative, just present.
Cool. 🙂
I thought that was what you meant.
The anti-SJ bunch has been saying that systemic racism doesn’t exist and that we should ignore the issue. Claiming we’ve cured racism and should just move on is not accurate to reality.
I believe that Racism nor any other product of depravity will be “cured” or solved until the restoration of all things. I certainly would not assert that racism has been eradicated.
I personally am Pro-Sanctification/Discipleship which I believe brings believers progressively in line with Christ and his teachings even while we live in this body and world of death. Godliness is a lifelong Spirit led discipline.
I’ve missed out on anyone asserting racism is cured or justice is irrelevant to the Gospel and the Church.
It’s hard to find someone willing to discuss this issue without it getting blown to oblivion with either a straw man or ad hominem barrage.
If you have any concerns you’re “anti-justice” or “racist.” If you make criticism of white political control or in the interest of the welfare of others, you’re a “socialist” or pandering to the culture.
I’ve been guilty of these behaviors. We have to quit setting it up so that discussion is impossible.
I think Voices is ideally suited to help facilitate this, if the will exists to do so. It’s not limited to so few characters that you can’t be charitable.
To that end, Pastor Miller, Debbie Kaufman, Bart Barber, Alan Cross, and so many more can help this discussion along. I see promise. And racism. Experienced it recently – ugly. But God is too strong for His church to succumb and has cleansed too much that was regarded as dirty or common for it to be mired in this.
Thanks for the willingness to keep talking.
I agree. Small in number but loud in resolutions and voice making them seem more than they are. Then you have non Southern Baptists joining in with them, but since they can’t vote at conventions don’t count, but seem to make them even more than they are.
Amen Dave Miller.
If we would have been raised in their time and culture would we hold a different belief on this subject than they did?
In 250 years, what will the Pastors be saying about how wrong we were on some belief we hold dear? Or, do we have it all figured out now so it won’t happen to us?
“If we would have been raised in their time and culture would we hold a different belief on this subject than they did?” is a good question!
It’s no secret that the *vast* majority of people accept the basic values of whatever society they’re born into.
So anyone born as a white Southerner would most likely fall somewhere along the pro-slavery spectrum (anyone born *black* in the South would probably take a different view; as the saying has it, where you stand depends on where you sit).
But what about the folks who *reject* those widely shared values, and try to call their fellow citizens to something better? There are always a few, right? There *were* white Southern abolitionists (though many were driven out of the South in the decades before the Civil War).
Studying what drove them to take such a bold, dangerous, and counter-cultural stance seems, to me at least, like it’d be *immensely* valuable and character-forming — from my POV there’s no problem at all saying “Wow, those people got it right, and I admire their courage and judgment *way* more than I admire the folks who got it wrong.”
We do have blind spots….such as condemnation of nations that openly practice slavery today. Our focus rests in attempts to apologize about the past….which no one alive today is responsible for nor accountable to God for its injustices. The silence about today’s slave trade and injustices is deafening. Stop the noise about the past and do something about today’s problem. That requires an honest approach to condemning the problem we can and should be focused on resolving.
Yep.
Dave, I’m thankful that you refused to fall into the intersectional trap that your self-described “lily-white Iowan” existence silences you to attempting to speak forth truth and opinion about issues like racism. By speaking out, you demonstrate well that truth has no skin color or ethnicity. Red and yellow, black and white can speak about the racial plight.
There are indeed blindspots in every generation, yours and mine included. Thankfully it is the gospel itself and the gospel alone that saves us, and not specific outworkings of sanctification that receiving the gospel begins in us.
For that reason, I am resistant to use the language you espouse when you say that “race is a ‘gospel issue.'” It’s really trendy to say that, but I would like to give you a little brotherly pushback. You go on to say why you believe that “race is a ‘gospel issue,'” explaining “because uniting believers of every tribe and language into one people to worship God eternally is rooted in the purposes of the cross and to divide on the basis of race is contrary to the purpose of the cross.”
Here you rightly point to the glorious, God-planned results of the gospel. That is an awesome future that I long for myself! However, I would argue that that’s not a gospel issue. That’s a sanctification issue where God begins through the gospel to conform sinners into the beautiful bride of Christ.
When we say things like, “race is a ‘gospel issue,'” we muddy the water as to what the gospel is by adding something to the gospel. Although we might communicate the gospel a bit differently, the gospel is:
1. God created you and wants to have a relationship with you.
2. Your sin has separated you from God and rightly earned death in Hell.
3. Jesus came to live, die, and rise again to save you from your sin.
4. If you will repent and believe on Jesus, you will be restored to God and saved from your sin forevermore.
But when we say things like “race is a ‘gospel issue,'” we seemingly add a 5th element to the gospel, something like “If you see ‘race’ righteously and free yourself from racism, you will be saved.” I know that you don’t believe that that’s a fifth element to the actual gospel, but the language you espouse confuses the gospel and implies the addition.
You will probably say, that’s not true! But, the proof is in the fact that in your opening you point to the reality that perhaps you, but certainly others who say that “race is a ‘gospel issue'” struggle with determining in their mind if those who formed the SBC were false believers or truly redeemed. Some might say the same thing about Martin Luther due to issues of anti-Semitism or Jonathan Edwards as a slave owner. The reason is that a certain view on “race” and a certain level of the removal of racism in a person’s life has been moved into the gospel itself from this perspective, thus adding to the gospel.
Let’s keep the gospel the gospel.
Ben Simpson , well stated.
Intersectionalism? Really? You didn’t manage to get critical race theory into your comment!
I made it clear what I meant when I said it was a “gospel issue.” I think your issue is with Ephesians 2, not with me.
Paul tells us that Jesus died to tear down the wall and make the two one. He died to bring unity where earthly division exists. Revelation 7:9 is ultimate purpose of the work of Christ on the cross – to create one worshiping Body from every tribe and language on earth.
If Paul said that Jesus died to make the two one, and we say that making the two one is NOT part of why Jesus died, we are not honoring the gospel, but dishonoring it.
NO ONE (that I know) is saying that salvation requires proper racial attitudes. Christ died to save sinners. I argued against that idea in the piece. But the purpose of the gospel REQUIRES that we stand against racism in the Body of Christ.
I am not adding to the gospel. You are subtracting.
Ephesians 2:13-18 says,
Both verses 15 and 16 tell us that Jesus died “so that…” So that he might create one new man. So that he might reconcile both to God in one body.
These verses express the PURPOSE of the work of Christ in his death. He died to save individuals, as you mentioned. But he also died to bring those individuals together in one body and to remove human walls of hostility. Call it whatever you want.
It seems to me that refusing to call it a gospel issue cheapens the offense of racism against the work of Christ. Why do we always resist calling racism what it is?
Dave Miller, I always thought Ephesians in this context was to settle the issue of the Gentiles being able to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior without the requirement to become a Jew first, circumcision of the heart. Does it apply that all people are able to accept the give of salvation though Jesus Christ, certainly. Would you turn away a person who stated that they wanted to accept Christ if in your opinion they were racist? Or would the 1845 SBC founders reject the professed salvation of a northern Baptist who opposed slavery? Not suggesting we should not confront racism but the battle is being won and soon the war will be over as demographics and time will change the SBC as it does the entire country.
It does seem today that almost every thing can be called racist and I do not know of anyone in the SBC at any level resist calling racism out but it seems that almost everything is based on race, That is why we need CRT as we are unknow even to ourselves we are racist. How about patriarchy ? Is that need to be addressed as strongly as racism and what is the working definition of that? Women’s rights, a Gospel issue. As a simple layman everything falls under the prevue of the Gospel if we so believe.
What exactly is the Good News?, solving every cultural and social problem?
Thank you for addressing this very difficult and complicated issue.
Dave Miller,
Pardon my ramblings here – but I think (hope) its all connected and relevant.
I’d assert that the purpose of the atonement was to secure a people unto God and a result/fruit of the atonement is what you are calling the tearing down of the walls of racial hostility….therefore I would deny that within this new body we should prop up those walls by viewing brothers and sisters in distinct sub groups of the church, if you will, based on skin tone/ethnicity (the black church, the white church, the asian church, etc….). We, the saved, are *the church* and as the church, we are made up people of all cultures, tribes and nations – *into one* body of Christ – as there is now *no distinction* (slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc…).
When Paul spoke of “out of the many we have become one” … He was referring to giftedness with in the body… Not skin tone. I don’t think there is a place in NT scripture where people are chosen for service in the church based on skin tone or ethnicity – in fact the NT authors seem to be arguing against that very thing… Telling the believing Jews, Greeks, samaritans, barbarians, etc. to come together as one – united in Christ and stop separating themselves and embrace each other as being many members of one body. To become color/culture blind in the sense of not letting these distinctions continue seperate.
This is not to assert that there are no differences among cultures Or that skin tone isn’t a real thing. I am certainly not suggesting that racism never existed or doesn’t still exist. Racism is discrimination based on skin color its disgusting and I truly and deeply long for the day when its completely eradicated.
Color blindness, as I mean it, doesn’t mean ignoring or not seeing/observing/appreciating the differences manifested in our skin tones and cultures – but means that all human beings are understood only two seperate groups of tge singular race of human beings – those who are saved and those who are not. Those who are part of the one body, and those who aren’t.
This is why I am much more comfortable referring to racism/racial reconciliation as a discipleship issue than a gospel issue. Its not to be contrarian – but an effort to keep “categories” separate as best I understand them.
Racial reconciliation flows from the truth and reality of the gospel… It’s a fruit… It’s a result… the embracing of it is a Spirit led work in progress in the life of the church – believers – (sanctification) and will, like all falleness, be completed at the restoration of all things.
Christians Who struggle with the sin of racism have the hope that one day that sin will no more plaque them…and hope in this life by means of sanctification/discipleship – the work of the Spirit in their lives and to them through others who are walking in the Spirit – believers have the blessings and sufferings of growth toward Christlikeness in
this area.
Dave C: When one says “no color etc.” what that means is view all as white. What else could it mean because if you don’t view color then it’s either white(which is a color) or transparent clear.
Reality check: You do see color unless physically blind, your brain registers that there is a person of color. Why? Because there IS a person of color. Acknowledge and accept that color otherwise it’s an insult and slap to the person of color.
That’s like saying I don’t view her as a woman, I don’t see gender, I view her as I would a man. No. I am a woman, I would like to be respected AS A Woman, and for any abilities I have.
And yet, based on their racist attitudes, you have the gall to question whether SBC founders were true believers! Be careful of pride, brother, and don’t forget the warnings about judging others.
This touches on doctrinal issues surrounding the ‘hope of the Gospel’ and should be made clear in the Church everywhere.
Eph. 2:12 refers to Gentiles in this way,
“that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the common wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”
There is much to think about there but the main point Paul is making about the ethnic divide between Israel and the Gentile world is that of ‘hope.’ Jews had ‘a hope’ that non-Jews, Gentiles, (regardless of race or ethnicity) did not have.
God’s work in the world was through Israel. Jesus said to the Samaritan women, ‘salvation is of the Jews,’ salvation is through God’s work though Israel.
Yes, race, nationality, ethnicity did have a role but how that role played out in the emergence of the gospel should be considered.
Peace
Dave,
Sandy Creek Baptists in South Carolina voted in 1835 to condemn the practice of slavery as inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel of Christ and their Association voted to exclude members who would not abandon the practice of slavery.
The wealthy Baptists of the Charleston Baptist Association became the defenders of slavery.
So ….
The poor Baptist farmer/preachers chose to condemn slavery 25 years before the Civil War.
The plantation owning Charleston Baptists helped lead the South into a war that recent computer estimates up to 850,000 were killed.
The Sandy Creekers proved they were not “men of their times.”
It is easy for us today to look at the founders of the SBC and see their sins in accepting slavery, however, what will people living 100 years from now(If the 2nd Coming doesn’t happen) say about our times where we have people worth billions and thousands of homeless living in the streets? I’m all for capitalism, don’t get me wrong, but I can see that question being asked given the political sentiments of some, they may say, “How could they call themselves Christians and be content with that?”
If we question the salvation of the SBC founders, couldn’t they also question ours where no one even blinks anymore at divorce and remarriage and if what Barna studies say are true, the majority of single Christian adults are sexually active outside of marriage. In the same way that their culture (of the 1800’s) affected their beliefs and actions, our culture has done the same today.
My question is what does the focus on the founders of the SBC contribute to the present moment? Logically, if you’re questioning whether or not the founders of the SBC were saved, why would you continue to be a part of the SBC if you think it was formed by a bunch of heretics? The good thing is that after the Civil War, many southerners acknowledged the evil of slavery and as Tim has referenced in his post, there were white members of SBC churches who helped build new church buildings for the former slaves who wanted their own churches. I know for a fact that some of my ancestors owned slaves and one even voted for his state to succeed from the Union. I wish that weren’t the case – More than that I wish the first slave ship had not landed at Jamestown, but I can’t change history. Guilt about the past can be a short term motivator for action, but I instead choose to focus on how I’ve been blessed as a motivator for actions and for me that is more effective.
One of the frustrating things about blogging is reading comments that seem to either demonstrate no interest in what I said in my post or no desire to deal with it.
Since you didn’t really interact with what I wrote I cannot see the point of interaction with your comment.
Did you have any observation about what I wrote?
The SBC has had in the past a working relationship with the National Baptist Convention, mainly centered on support for their seminary in Nashville. That’s the best place to start. Why not a merger? Sit down, put a committee together, develop a sense of understanding for how each denomination serves its churches and come up with a way to merge into one Baptist denomination. Equitably share leadership. It would require building a new denominational structure, making sure entities were included and supported and where possible, like the mission boards, merged together. There are several ways to approach it, but ultimately, it would create a new denomination. It would require individuals in both groups giving up their “turf”, their networks of personal power, prominence and influence, kingmaker status and all of that mess that goes along with the inner core of denominational structure. It might take a while to get it accomplished but it would make a major statement about Baptist unity and it would blow away all the lingering funk of the SBC’s racist past.