Editor’s Statement: Todd and I (Dave) consulted on the construction of this post and I was the one who personally verified the information about the conversation that took place that caused all of the controversy. We would like to clarify that the purpose of this post was to ask the question as to how to address the issue of whether the election of a minority president would actually cause a donor problem. Todd was careful to express his admiration for Dr. Kelley and did not lay the charge of racism at his feet, though some have falsely accused him of such.I was told that the communication came in response to a question about whether a minority should be considered as president. Dr. Kelley was not expressing his personal views but speaking analytically. That was the issue Todd was trying to speak to – would a minority hire cause donor trouble and how that question should be addressed.I spoke to a member of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary community today and he shared some facts with me. He affirmed that Dr. Kelley is not racist in any way. While we did not assert that, some have drawn that conclusion. He shared with me several initiatives that have been going on in recent years at NOBTS to attract and encourage minority involvement at the faculty level. He also told me that he has personal knowledge of some of the major donors to the seminary and says that far from being racist, they have been intentional in funding minority initiatives at the seminary. He did not believe that a minority president would affect donations negatively at New Orleans Seminary.This man is a friend and I believe he is speaking truthfully to me. We do not know the intent of Dr. Kelley’s statement, but we would make it clear that:1. We do not accuse Dr. Kelley of racism – now or in the article.2. We are glad to hear of racial initiatives going on at New Orleans.3. We are pleased to know of major donors at New Orleans with a heart for such initiatives._________________
Original post:
I have always been a defender of pragmatism in ministry in the sense that we need to do things in a way that makes sense. As one of my professors often reminded me that pragmatic means practical and, given the choice between practical and impractical, let’s make the wiser choices to do effective evangelism and contextualize our ministry to the culture around us. Yet, there is a kind of “fierce pragmatism” that can creep in and cause us to compromise our values for the supposed sake of the greater good – an “ends justify the means” kind of pragmatism that highly values the goals of ministry but compromises core values on the way to achieving them.
What we have seen over the past several months is the unveiling of the ill effects of that kind of pragmatism and its costs to the integrity of our witness as Christians and Southern Baptists. Thinking back over the many revelations of our own #metoo/#churchtoo moment, the shocking part of the news stories is more than the fact that abuse has happened in the church, but that fierce pragmatism has placed values such as the reputation of the ministry or the threat of lawsuits above that of dealing righteously on behalf of the abused and bringing abusers to justice and the consequences of their actions. The worst kind of pragmatism reigned in many of our churches and institutions, where leaders deemed it practical to tolerate a lack of justice for the larger supposed goal of protecting the ministry. Even when such actions come to light, other leaders remain reluctant to take action to right past wrongs. Such pragmatism comes at a high cost.
Now we are seeing an opportunity to make the same kind of willful compromise around the issue of race. New accusations appeared yesterday that, if true, demonstrate a temptation toward pragmatism in regard to race in our decision making. The idea now floating out there is that the selection of a minority to lead one of our SBC seminaries would come at the cost of decreased donations and enrollment because of hidden racism. The question to be considered, although minority candidates might be interviewed, is whether the pragmatic, wise decision would be to choose a white president.
As a disclaimer, we have received first-hand corroborating confirmation from trusted sources that the remarks were made concerning donations. Still, I don’t know the motivation behind the remarks, how those remarks were received by all present, or whether or not they had any influence on the search committee. I am merely sharing what I believe are the implications of the issue itself. Also, I am hesitant to comment at all given my deep appreciation for the evangelistic zeal of this leader and his generous and enthusiastic support of our team as we led the SBC Pastor’s Conference. Finally, there is no indication that the trustees on the search team took any such counsel as a factor in their decision and we do not yet know who they will present as the candidate for the position. Still, the issue is out there and to whatever extent anyone would factor the cost of hiring a minority to entity head leadership, that question and its consideration has profound implications. It is those implications that the rest of this article will address.
Jesus does call us to “count the cost” of following him. And there very well may be a cost to hiring a person of color to lead one of our seminaries. It may indeed be true that financial contributions and enrollment would suffer if a minority was selected to lead the institution. Now, that is no small cost. I am quite sure that the current seminary presidents and their trustee boards have had many conversations about financial realities in today’s world. Generational shifts and giving trends are already a concern, and one of the discussions surely concerns the education bubble and the health of organizations going forward even as the education market is changing and contracting. A loss of significant donors is no small thing when seminaries are struggling to keep the doors open in a declining market and there is a very real and present danger that our seminary could suffer. If there is a pervasive hidden racism in the SBC, there may indeed be a cost to selecting a person of color to executive leadership.
Counting the cost should help you prepare for the consequences of a right decision, but it should not keep you from doing what is right. “How much will it cost?” is a legitimate question, but it is not the only question much less the most important. Ultimately, counting the cost reveals what you value most and what values are negotiable. And here’s the rub of fierce pragmatism and of allowing the cost of doing what is right to deter you from pursuing righteousness: the cost is still high!
What’s the worst thing that could happen? That the seminary might close? Yes, that would be a costly outcome. Counting the cost goes both ways – what is the cost of deliberately NOT hiring a minority? Is it not infinitely more costly for an institution to continue on the premise that racism should be tolerated?!? Would it not be better for the seminary to die than for it to live by “pragmatic racism.”
When Jesus called his would be followers to count the cost, he was making a point: there IS a cost to being a follower of Jesus! There IS a cost of doing what is right. Jesus’ call was ultimately a call to be willing to pay that cost for the overwhelmingly better choice of following him. Jesus calls us to make our choice with eternity in view and trusting him with the outcome when we choose to follow him. Whatever the cost of doing the right thing, what you gain is always better than what you lose.
Readers, the whole point of this piece is to counter an ongoing argument, present in a variety of spheres, that hiring a person of color to lead one of our entities is not practical. In the entire history of civil rights, there have always been two streams of thought among people who are NOT racist and who DO want to see unity among God’s people. The first approach is to wait and let diversity and equality and shared leadership happen over time. To allow these things to happen “naturally” and allow people time to adjust their thinking and incrementally chip away at the racialized system hoping for a future day when race is no longer an issue. This view is based on the idea that because the majority of our hearts are not prejudiced, that change will happen naturally over time and that certain steps are not practical in the present moment. I belong to a second group with a more deliberate approach. This other approach believes that even if hearts are not racist, a system can be racialized to the extent that unless proactive steps are taken, the system will never become diverse/equatable naturally or at least that it will take a loooooong time. This second approach says that we must make deliberate and definite steps toward unity, equality, and sharing of leadership. This approach believes that the pragmatic reasons for delaying, waiting and going slow are antithetical to our call to unity and being one people of God. This approach suggests that we must actively and purposefully pursue unity by actively and purposely pushing for needed steps in advancing our unity. Sharing executive leadership in the SBC is the next step needed in our push for unity. This post is a call to not allow fierce pragmatism to keep us from pursuing that unity.
Look, folks, there are some absolutes in this.
1. The incident referred to in Ben’s story happened. Whatever a person’s feelings about Ben (and his story had a respectful tone), he tends to get his facts in order. And, since I knew this would be an issue, I took the time while Todd was writing this post to independently verify them.
For the record, these comments were made about 4 months ago and have been widely known in SBC circles. They are not a secret.
So, questioning whether a statement was made about donors being turned off by a minority president is simply denying the truth.
2. Todd wrote a respectful piece. He honored Chuck Kelley, though he did not name him. Anyone who accuses Todd of being disrespectful to Chuck Kelley has an agenda.
3. The focus of the piece is simple – do we have a problem at our seminaries or at least at one of them? Would donors be put off by a minority president? (I was assured by an influential member of the NOBTS community that this was not the case, but the fact remains that this was said.) If so, should that deter the committee from hiring a minority to lead the seminary?
Here are the questions that matter to us:
*Is it true that donors would be put off by a minority president?
*Did this threat influence the search team in its selection of a candidate?
We hope the answer to both questions is no.
Todd Benkert,
Did you have opportunity to read the post about NOBTS on the Baptist Blogger? If you did not, you should. Everyone who posts and reads articles here at SBC VOICES should read it.
Yes, that was the impetus for this post. Having corroborated the story ourselves, I wanted to provide commentary to address the key issue behind the remarks.
The proof is in the pudding as they say. If the statements about a drop in support because of the selection of a minority is are true, we will only know when there is a minority in the position. Did support of the SBC drop when there was the first black SBC President? Again, this is the leadership not representing the average SBC pew sitter who just not pay attention to these affairs outside of their local church reach. Again, this is a “charge” by the individual that he actually , like many other SBC leaders, think the SBC is at heart racist , but they are the great unwashed.
Thank you for stating that, Todd Benkert. I have always known you are a stand-up guy. Now, you are taller in my book. BTW, every word of the article in Baptist Blogger is true. Every word.
Yes. Todd is a standup guy.
CB, I don’t know you (but wish I did!). And I have two questions for an elder statesman:
1. If every word in the article is true, then what do you think we (whoever “we” are) ought to ask of the outgoing president? I think he probably owes somebody something, but I can’t figure out exactly what that would look like.
2. Have you seen situations like this before when (a) he may be right in the short-term (donations from the LBC old guard fall) but (b) very very very wrong in the long term (like at SBTS after Mohler)?
For context, I’m a pastor in Houston who is worried about SWBTS Houston campus. So I have no dog in this fight. I am on record wanting a hispanic candidate for the SWBTS presidency, so that should tell you where I stand about hiring a qualified minority.
Trent Henderson,
You are right. You don’t know me. We are both at a disadvantage of not knowing each other. I know several of the people who manage this blog and they, even though they get some push back, do allow me to post my opinions and most of the time, I am not deleted.
Thusly, I shall give you my opinion on your questions and not necessarily in order.
1). Regarding your context statement; It is my opinion that SWBTS has chosen as the new president a man who will lead with absolute integrity in every area of our faith and with complete biblical fidelity. It is my opinion that your seminary in the Lone Star State is in good hands. For his hire, I personally praise King Jesus.
2). The article is true. I know the man who wrote it. He has not been successfully refuted yet in anything he has written about the SBC. As to the outgoing president, I do not think he should be asked to do anything. That ship has sailed. I do believe the search committee should do its job and function as expected by the SBC to make the best decision possible for a new president of NOBTS for the times in which we live and minister as Southern Baptists. It is my opinion that they have an opportunity to bring forward a candidate from a minority who will honor God in all things and lead the seminary to new horizons in the fulfillment of the mission of the seminary. This one particular hire could do wonderful things to cleanse the filthy underbelly of racism that still plagues the SBC.
3). It is my opinion that if the search committee brings the gentleman of whom I am in reference, the financial woes of NOBTS will be relieved in a magnificent way. My Brother, there is a God in heaven and it is my strong conviction that He who owns the cattle on a thousand hills will supply the seminary’s needs if the trustees step out on faith and make this good hire of a candidate with a proven history as a godly man and academician who can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with anyone in the SBC.
I trust this answers your questions of me.
CB, your response is a gift. Thank you. And I hope our paths do cross one day.
I have seen some of the traffic below about the context of Dr. Kelley’s statements and will gladly let that stand as the statement of his intent and character.
I have great hopes for SWBTS in light of Greenway’s election, even though I was cheering for a hispanic candidate. I still worry about the Houston campus. And I hope NOBTS becomes a powerhouse, unleashing good that is immeasurable through the students it equips.
The ebony ceiling in the SBC has been evident for many, many years. Dr Kelly explained
what had been a mystery to me. It makes sense now. Electing Luter President involved absolutely no risk, in a job with no budget or staff, and where fund raising is not a part of the job. Dr Kelly needs to be held accountable. This is no small matter. If he’s correct he’s identified the donor base of the SBC as being racist,. Disheartening & disappointing. Some of us will have to live with the reality of this pain. But now we know why the SBC does not have, and if pragmatism rules, will never have a Black or minority entity head. If a minority is hired as an entity head, I can’t speak for others, but where I pastor the CP giving will substantially increase. I pray the NOBTS trustees don’t sweep this under the rug, but deal with it swiftly and decisively. We should not have to bring this matter to the floor of the SBC for recokning & accountability. But, if we must, we will.
Just out of curiosity, assuming as Todd does below, that Dr. Kelley’s remarks were analytical of the situation in nature; and assuming the best of your motivations: What does reckoning and accountability in this situation look like?
I believe Dr. Kelley is wrong; and would hope any search committee would reject that reasoning out of hand. I’ve stated for years in multiple churches that our mission is to be faithful to God’s Word and mission and trust Him to be fruitful in building His Kingdom. I would hope NOBTS would follow that paradigm in hiring their next president.
Dr. Dwight…What did CK say that led to your conclusion re. Dr. Luter.? For what should he be held accountable? Again just not in the loop like you guys in the South. I’m playing a lot of catch up here.
My reference to Luter was a response to the gentleman who stated earlier that the election of Luter, didn’t adversely inpact offerrings. That’s true. But, inasmuch as Luter’s job didn’t entail fund raising, nor was he responsible for ths oversight of an entity, that’s comparing apples to oranges. The election of Luter, does not speak to the question of whether or not a minority entity head could hurt fundraising, because, again, Luter was not elected to an entity head position.
Dr. McKissic
Please let me offer a different perspective as someone who has over 40 years of vivid memories and experiences in the SBC, from active childhood participation to adult volunteer. I’ve never been more than a volunteer ministry leader, but I believe my various associations with SBC churches has afforded me enough knowledge to make an extrapolated analysis of this and other situations.
Starting with those things that happened before my time, Our convention seems to have been birthed out of pragmatic associations between our leadership and the slaveowners who funded their efforts. I suspect that, to the degree to which we have done God’s world and representing him well, it is not because of the names on our buildings and the images adorning the I interiors, but because of those who were faithful; some named, but most not.
I grew up in an all white churich in an all white community, with at least one racist deacon and a congregation that would have overwhelmingly agreed that interracial marriage was wrong if polled. Though there were some who took issue when my dad and another man started to pick up a couple of black siblings from town on the church van, there were those who actively loved them and the vast majority rejected the racist attitudes. That deacon’s son and daughter in law along with many who once held a negative view of interracial marriage attended my wedding reception and celebrated my marriage.
There were no visible signs of racism in that congregation when I graduated college and returned home, but a new threat was on the horizon. We had defeated the forces of liberalism in our culture, but I soon began to see that liberalism had been replaced by pragmatism as we hired a new pastor. Our fellowship, ministry, and common activity began to be managed in a benevolent Machiavellian fashion in search of growth. We hired and fired a pedophile without reflection, because we were procedurally sound in the process and we wanted to bring in new families with a vibrant childrens and youth ministry. During this time, our membership and the convention became more politically pragmatic. We became more willing to look the other way when judges and the economy were at stake.
That pragmatism seems to be alive and well in our convention today. From what I can see of Dr. Kelley he seems to be a principled guy without a hint of racism, but so was that benevolent Machiavellian pastor who also came to my wedding reception. Our convention and many member churches are pragmatic constituencies contrived from coalitions. We have monoculture churches with members that have naturally and Spiritually worked out their faith in multicultural environments, but we are led by people who haven’t. I fear that some look at cultural and racial harmony as a pragmatic issue and have become surrogates of pragmatist leaders. I pray that our denominational look more like the multicultural lives that some of us already lead.
Actually, many of the Founders themselves were racists and slaveowners.
Dwight…and what about my second question, for what should CK be held accountable?
Todd, an incredibly well written article. You raised the right questions, and you answered them biblically and compassionately. Framing the discussion in the larger context of pragmatism vs philosophy was quite engaging. Because that battle exists in other areas besides race issues. What you’ve stated needed to be stated. To often, there have been those unwilling to express what’s necessary & obvious. Consequently, racism flourish where there is a willful blindness regarding it. That explains the existence of slavery and Jim Crow. The majority of Southern Baptists chose silence & support over, righteousness and principled protest. Thanks for having the courage and character to stand for what’s right.
Thanks, doc.
Todd,
As I’ve told you in private, your article is well-thought-out and well-written. Thank you for saying what needed to be said.
Isn’t this a “gossip” issue? When are we going to have names of these 2 “witnesses”?
Try not to be ridiculous. I have personally spoken to witness(es) to these comments. They are not in doubt.
Honestly Tim, until you repent for your actions in defense of Ergun Caner, we have little to say to you here.
Yes, Tim, do try not to be ridiculous. Again, you know not of what you speak. Just as with your putrid defense of the Caner brothers. Yet, it is possible, I guess, that you are as are they, a racist.
What did the seminary president say when asked for clarification or confronted about his comments. If their was an attempt by Dr. Kelley to push own agenda under the guise of pragmatism, that is a serious matter indeed. If his agenda was to get a white person elected is even worse. Mr. Kelley has already announced retirement, but if he’s that kind of man, then everyone who knows him has been complicitly silent or negligent. They too must be brought to account. Ethnic, cultural, and racial exclusion are not harmonious with the fruit of the Spirit.
As I say this, it strikes me that leadership and dignity seem to be what’s at stake rather than servantship and humility. In dignity, our leader sacrificed his dignity and told us we must do the same. I wholeheartedly believe that people from different backgrounds, cultures, and race should find harmonious fellowship as part of the body of Christ. We are no different than the world and become involved in worldly battles when we fight for others to have a dignified seat at the table. We are like Christ when we let them have our seat. Reconciliation begins with humility.
I also would like to know if he clarified and how when asked about his comments. Can you share who asked for clarification?
“And there very well may be a cost to hiring a person of color to lead one of our seminaries. It may indeed be true that financial contributions and enrollment would suffer if a minority was selected to lead the institution. ”
It also needs to be said, not that you feel one way or the other, that it might actually be a GREAT thing for our seminaries. Again, I am not accusing you of thinking we shouldn’t, but am offering an addendum that would go a long ways to show support. This idea that it could hurt is foolishness.
I appreciate your article here Todd.
That would be my speculation as well— that any potential loss of donor base would be made up by new donors enthusiastic about the future of the institution and the Convention. Thanks for making that point.
Todd, I completely agree with your article btw. It was very well written & I appreciate you for writing it.
If a reduction in donations actually happens because of a minority hire – I’d add my speculation to Todd’s and hope against hope that if any donors are lost for that reason – others would rise up to replace and surpass the monies lost.
If there are in fact donors who would attempt to extort one of our seminaries in this way – that certainly is something that we must resist. If Fmr. NOBTS President Kelley, as is being contended, is a party to that in any way he must go.
IN reality, that is not the concern. Dr. Kelley will be gone pretty soon. The search process is in all likelihood nearing completion there and he will give way.
To make sure of clarity…I, as others have said, would be sorely disappointed and shocked if Dr. Kelley is “part” of any sort of racist extortion attempts – to be honest I’d be shocked if there’s actually a basis for a legit fear that donors would dry up if a minority is hired. In other words, even if CK said that lots of donors might go away if a minority is hired – I’m not even sure I believe he’d be correct.
Such that a basis for that belief might exist – it ought to be rebuffed and rebuked publicly and forcefully. Losing those kind of donors, who rather extort than repent, to be completely frank, is ok by me.
Pragmatic or overt preference or denial in hiring based on skin tone and/or ethnicity is racist and therefore sinful.
I agree. I would still like more info on what he said. I think we are treading on dangerous ground here without more info than we have.
The question that has always burned me which was also stated ny BB is what was done to recruit ethnic pastors at all seminaries but esp NOBTS and SWBTS
That is also not meant to minimize tge other 4. Also, is there a Bible College like Boyce at NOBTS? ADIV?
If not why not for at least 3-4 classes per semester?
NOBTS has Leavell College. Based on the number of majors (2) it seems smaller than some of the other seminary undergrad programs.
Actually, Leavell College is the oldest of the undergrad programs established by the seminaries– first one established by the seminaries. Over 1500 students a part of the program including on-campus, extension centers, and online. Fully accredited by SACSCOC. Four majors: Christian Ministry, Biblical Studies, Music, and Psychology/Counseling.
Thanks for the correction. I was aware of the broad extension center reach of NOBTS but not of the size of Leavell College.
Racism, pragmatic or blatant, should not be tolerated among God’s people. That is a given.
I have know Chuck Kelley for a long time, I have had many personal and private conversations with Dr Kelley. I have never witnessed any behavior or language that is remotely racist. He loves Jesus and people, all people.
I do not believe Dr. Kelley insinuated, stated, or believes NOBTS should purposefully avoid hiring monorities. I hope I can keep this belief.
I believe Todd shares the desire to see the best in Dr. Kelley.
The chief concern is dealing with a culture in which it even has to be a question.
I believe Todd’s chose his words carefully. For that I am grateful and agree with his sentiments. I fear that others who prefer scorched earth will not be as careful.
Thanks, Dean. This piece is not at all meant to be an attack, but a call for all of us to do what is right no matter the cost.
Todd…agin let me say i’m playing catch up here. Your post is a very valid post within itself. The only reason I can think of that CK’s name should be attached to it in any way is that this has been discussed on several blogs etc. and is “out there”. Hence could you direct me to other blogs etc. that are discussing this.
Show me the man I will show you the crime.
Thank you, Dean! I have known Chuck Kelley since the 1980s. First, we were students together at New Orleans. Then I knew him when I served as a trustee at New Orleans. For the last number of years I have known him as the President of the seminary. I agree that I have seen nothing in his behavior and I have heard nothing in his speech that struck me as racist. Anybody who knows Chuck knows that he deeply loves Jesus and he will share the Gospel with anyone regardless of their race. I do not believe Dr. Kelley believes New Orleans should avoid hiring minorities. I may be wrong, but I would be shocked and extremely disappointed. Sometimes it’s disheartening and disappointing to see how some of you guys bite and devour others. It comes across as unloving, and there is certainly nothing edifying about it. None of us knows what’s in another man’s heart. None of us are perfect. All of us have messed up. These days I’m careful about throwing stones at other people. I live in a glass house as well.
It seems the remarks were analytical, not malicious. My article is not an attack on Kelley or his character. He will, I hope, respond to the issue at some point. I also stand by the argument of my article concerning whether the supposed cost of hiring a person of color to serve in executive leadership should deter us from doing so. It should not.
Let’s say the remarks were analytical and not malignant. Wouldn’t the outcome or impact of the words be the same?; and that is, potentially result in the non hiring of an African American or minority? I understand nuance. I understand motive & heart & history, must be factored in. Let’s say the statement emanated from a pure heart, a non-racist heart, a what’s best for NOBTS heart, a pragmatic heart, as opposed to a racist one…if the conclusion is, Yes!…Donors may give less because of a minority entity head…then I’m really not seeing any difference in terms of a practical outcome. This suggestion that the statement was driven by analytics & not racism, may be true. But, NOBTS still needs to address this. And it yet leaves the ebony glass ceiling in place…Unsatisfactory!
And hence why I wrote the article.
Todd, I’m not sure anyone is arguing with your position on hiring. Again help me to understand why CK’s name is attached.
You’ll note that CK’s name was NOT attached in the original draft of the post, but he and the incident were alluded to generally without using his name. His name now appears in the editor’s comments for clarification by request of our friends at NOBTS. For what you are requesting concerning the original breaking of the story, see the very first comment on this post.
Todd yes I noted that, but why was CK talked about in the editor’s piece. The fact that Cole asked for clarification based on nameless witnesses is not enough. The post you wrote is excellent because racism is ugly and not to be tolerated. Such a piece should not get lost in a secondary discussion. The issue is too important. Blessings my Brother.
At this point, Darwin, I’m not sure what you’re asking. When you say the editor’s piece, to whom/what are you referring? I have no connection to Ben Cole or have any input on what he says or does or writes. We at voices made a deliberate decision not to break the story, and only offered commentary after someone else did.
Todd by editors piece I mean the intro to the post. As far as “breaking” the “story” what evidence is there that a story exist. Unnamed sources are not enough. The first post from CB referenced Cole’s post. You affirmed that was the catalyst for your piece. What am I asking? Plain and simple…where is the evidence that CH should be even mentioned in the story? Sorry Todd the BB’s witnesses are simply not enough. Todd you are better than this.
Read the editor’s comment (by Dave). First, CK is mentioned in that section in consultation with our friends at NOBTS who wanted us to clarify our position on CK and they are satisfied with our remarks here. Our only relation to BB is that he broke the story and so we chose to add our own commentary. We did our OWN research and knew about this story separately from BB and before BB posted. BB is not our source for any information nor are we relying on BB’s research and sources. We have not commented on BB only to say (in the comment you mention) that my article came as a commentary on the practical issue behind what BB had previously posted. The story is out there. People are talking about it. We are talking about it. No one that I have seen has denied the story. And the issue of pragmatism in regard to race is a real issue that ought to be discussed, especially now as we continue to have entity leadership vacancies for which people of color are being considered. And, had I written this piece without any context for making the appeal that I am, I would be equally criticized by some for making up a false issue. It’s not false, it’s real, and I felt compelled to speak to it and I believe I did it in such a way to not attack CK’s character. You are free to disagree.
How one can say that accusing a man of the crime or sin of the century isn’t attacking a mans character is parsing words.
Dean i think you have a valid observation. Is it possible that context here is important. Could it be he was saying if hiring a minority “would” lead to a reduction in giving then “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead”…my words of course not his.
Bottom line…any donors which would be lost should be lost. God is more than able to make up the difference…and then some!
Oh, and thank you CB & Dave…while TimR never fails to disappoint, it’s nice to see his trolling tripe so forthrightly addressed.
Pragmatic Racism? Anathema. Visionary Unity. Full stop.
And thanks for this post, Todd.
Living in the far reaches of civilization, leaves me uninformed at times. I gather that CK said something suspect. Where can I find the comments?
The alleged comments are not accessible to John and Susie Baptist (as they were allegedly stated in some sort of higher up committee meeting) and to my knowledge, CK, nor anyone else with first hand knowledge, has offered public explanation/context/clarification.
Tarheel…who is asking for clarification?
Bro. Darwin – I’m probably out of the loop more so than you and not the best person to answer your question. That said, among the early posts in this thread is one by CB Scott. It refers to an article by Baptist Blogger (Ben Cole). There he requests for clarification from Dr. Kelley. Hope this helps.
Randy thanks for the info. I did understand that the BB was the piece of reference. I just wanted to be informed as to whether other people are posting on this. IMO the clarification which Cole sought based on a “witness” with no name is without merit and should be ignored. Racism is ugly. Any vague reference by an entity head that would hint at this issue is totally unacceptable. If the “witness” or a “source” has any information, he/she needs to cowboy up put their name on it and own it. I suspect I have too much Montana blood in me…I don’t cotton to any person making accusations or innuendo yet wanting to remain in the shadows. Transparency at all levels of SBC folks is absolutely essential.
Darwin: You have lots of information and the gotcha questions you asked over and over and over again, which were rightfully ignored got answered. If you would bother to read the post, you would have read that the comments have been verified. IOW the quote was said. Ben is usually not wrong. That has always been in your hide, but again it is true.
Montana is pretty civilized, and I am pretty sure you are well informed. Where was your “transparency at all levels….” a few years ago? It’s not Ben who should be ignored Darwin.
Debbie obviously you have not understood what I said. Please don’t respond again until you read my comments. Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. Show me proof that CK said anything inappropriate. “Witnesses” with no name and “Ben said so”…sorry thats pretty lame. You are smarter than this.
At no point have we at SBC Voices relied on Ben as our source. BB stands on his own merits and you can choose to find him a credible journalist or not, though I would agree with Debbie that, whatever his motivation, “Ben is usually not wrong.” There is no validity to your assertions that we are relying on BB as our source of information. If I have not been clear on this, I’m sorry. I hope I have been clear now.
You did say above, Todd that the BB article was the impetus for your article. Perhaps that’s where the confusion comes in.
Since then y’all have said you had other reliable sources – which is fine – please understand though that there are many (most) have no real ability to assess the validity of an anonymously sourced story – even if one we trust (you) is reporting it lots of people are going to be suspect.
I personally am automatically skeptical of news stories/opinion pieces that rely exclusively on sources who wish to remain in the shadows… meaning anonymous to the reader. I am sure DL and I are not alone in that.
I don’t blame you or Voices – you are wanting to spur discussion on important issues and need info any way you can ethically get it – I respect that – and am not saying you guys are doing anything wrong… I guess as I told you in private but my issue is with the “inside source“ who is remaining anonymous.
The notion of “publicly” Standing for Convictional issues by calling out people one spends time with (the Committee leaker or whomever the source is) and remaining anonymous at the same time seems a bit counter intuitive to me.
That would have merit Dave C, if the comments would not have been verified. But they have, those witnesses have been talked to personally by the SBC Voice staff, so I don’t get the objection other than to take away from the larger issue at hand. It’s a rabbit trial.
Debbie… You missed my point… I’m not going to state it again.
You seem to miss the point that this article is a commentary on an issue not the reporting of a story. The story is the backdrop and not the subject of the article itself. The subject of the article is whether we should approach decisions concerning race and leadership from a pragmatic point of view. No, we should not. I’m not responding to any more questions or issues concerning the story – I believe I have sufficently addressed any concerns and have nothing further to add. This side discussion is a distraction from the very real issue that is present in our Convention. If you’d like to engage on pragmatism or our racialized system on the SBC, I am happy to engage in further discussion.
Yes Todd it is a distraction. That is why you should have killed the distraction on the second comment (your comment) on this thread. The first comment was by CB which alluded to “the Story”. You should have killed it there.You let the distraction stand. Many of us have been in this racial fight since the early days. It has been ugly and brutal. The main concern has been lost in distractions for decades. That is why I am so passionate. If we refuse to let ourselves get distracted by lesser issues and stay with the real issue maybe progress can be made. You had a chance at the very beginning to “kill” any distraction. I’m saddened you chose not to do so. Again i’m not attacking you, your honesty, or integrity. IMO you made a bad decision on the most important issue facing the SBC.
Todd Benkert,
Ben’s “motivation” is to tell the truth. It is as simple as that. I realize that has become something rare in SBC life and often becomes hard to believe that would be a person’s only motivation. However, in this case, it is.
CB…I do not doubt Ben’s motivation for “truth” and yes it is rare in SBC life. However, I pastored for 10 years before the CR when “truth” was held by a very select group of leaders. The time for that junk is over. Let’s have transparency. Let’s have openness. If Cole or the “sources” have any information they have an obligation to own it by name and bring it into the sunlight. The rank and file of us who are not in any loop deserve this. If anyone has any information that any entity head says or does anything racist the SBC needs to know. and they need to be held accountable.
Darwin Payton,
Actually, they have no obligation to us about this whatsoever. None. You, nor do I, deserve anything from them.
Now, if those of whom Ben wrote in that article and countless other articles could have refuted him, they would have done so. However, they know they can’t. They know what he has written is true.
In addition, the context of which make your comment about “truth” being held by a select group of leaders is not in any manner what I meant by my use of the word “truth.” When I stated that Ben’s motivation is to tell the “truth,” I meant exactly that. His motivation was to and still will be to tell the truth without regard to any “group of leaders.”
Again, the article which Ben posted on Baptist Blogger is factual. It happened. Other people, Todd and Dave, verified its validity prior to posting their post. You have the right to read it, believe it or not believe it. No one owes you anything and if you have actually been involved as long in the SBC as you stated in your comments here, you know that.
Todd
When I read the read the sub-debate replies between Debbie and Darwin last night, I wanted to understand what it was that made the tone of that conversation so strained. What is it that truly divides them and how can that be removed? There are many different opaque lines of legitimate discussion here; many of which intersect in to approximate the shape of the reality that is and the reality that should be. Unfortunately, most of us cone to the discussion with with a black permanent marker and draw the shapes that we’ve been conditioned and trained to draw.
When I reread the article this morning, I saw that pragmatic racism has been removed from the title and that Dave has inserted additional information. As we begin to understand Christ, we often realize that our best reply is “that isn’t what I meant to say”.
As he changes our heart and we realize our imperfect motivation for using the permanent marker, we Sometimes the only witness we are compelled to say “I was wrong” about the shape of things or “I’m sorry” when we become obtuse or acute in our disposition. Thank you for modeling Christlike humility and realizing the pitfalls of your own humanity. I do miss the word pragmatism in the title, but that’s probably because I often too often use a Sharpie when I draw the line of pragmatism in discussion.
Let me draw or redraw on more opaque line based on my my hard line belief that God’s defining characteristick is love and his heart is reconciliation. I’ve been a part of meetings where people intentionally and unintentionally revealed the darkest propensities of their heart with a fellowship far larger than that of this committee meeting. I’ve wept with them and prayed for them as I consider the propensities of my own heart. I’ve agonized over what to do when I’ve seen things that others didn’t see or saw and did nothing. I’ve counted the cost and paid the price of standing alone. I have been both wrong and beligerently right. I have personally been guilty of gossip, but I have been impressed by the tendency of fairly large groups peopleto maintain confidentiality even when the group was too large to be pivate or for communication to be considered confidential
I recently heard a discussion about how Bonhoefer must have agonized about right and wrong as he plotted to kill Hitler. How he must have agonized as he considered the potential good verses the danger of drawing opaque lines in fundamental areas. I can’t say that his decision regarding Hitler was right, but I can say that the agony will come as we begin to hunger and thirst for righteousness. If we pair that agony with the dispute resolution principles from the Bible, we might see that a hidden thing has been revealed before meaning and motive were clarified and addressed by those present. We’re all ready to fight for just resolutions, but we may be beat shaped into the image of Christ as we agonize.
I do not believe I was wrong to include the words “pragmatic racism” in the title or the article, but I removed them as I realize the the word “racism” is a trigger for some who have difficulty delineating how we can call an act or statement to be a form of racism without saying that the person is a racist or holds any form of prejudice. The edits were made for clarity since people could not distinguish between an action being a pragmatic form of racism and a person being a racist.
Using the suffix ism without an identified ist in regard to to race threatens to the ized condition to an ized situation. It also threatens to distort the nature of sin in the racist heart. Most of us have chosen ized existences to some degree and none of us are free from the tendency toward ism. The key is to look at the used structure of our own lives and and make sure we’re not an ist with our own ism. Or, leave your used life behind and move to New Orleans where almost any ism will be immediately revealed.
Todd in the culture in which we live unnamed sources just do not fly. We cannot call for transparency in one area and have secret sources in another. That is not credible “journalism”. Have a good day.
Your opinion is noted. Thanks.
The source is not unnamed. I know his name. You don’t. You do not need to know. You will not know.
Dave I am sure you trust your source. I am sure the source told you what you say he told you. I do not doubt your integrity. I do doubt the wisdom of dealing with such an important issue under a cloud of shadows. The issue to which I refer is any reference (stated, implied, or whatever) that brought CK into the conversation based on a “source”. Todd’s post as a stand alone is spot on. If giving goes down because of an entity hire let it. God is faithful. Racism is ugly. Dave there is a bottom line here for many of us not in any loop. I have respect for you and Todd. I have respect for CK. I think those of us not in a loop, who have been faithful to the CP for decades deserve the light of day to be shone on this issue. If CK even hinted at this he needs to be held accountable, As it stands simply to much “trust me”. Too much at stake on this issue. Todd mentioned the word “journalist” in reference to Cole. I think good journalism here would lead you and Todd to simply say it was a mistake to involve CK in this discussion in any way shape or form…just my opinion of course. Have a good day.
I read every one of the comments Darwin. How could I endure the reading of the same question over and over and over if I hadn’t.
I’ll make one last comment. My sole concern was that CK, in any manner was a part of this because of a “source”. Racism is ugly. It is a stain on our country and convention, It cannot be tolerated. it must be eradicated. I have been in this fight since the sixties. Some of us had to start by advocating for Blacks to be able to eat in certain restaurants. Racism is a sin against God and negates the purpose of the cross. It is the DUTY of anyone, who has even a hint that an entity head suggested a person of color would reduce giving, to put their name on it and come out of the shadows. Anonymity is not our friend. The issue is too important.
BTW Debbie, I have been asking these same question over and over and over since the mid 60’s. I will continue to do so until I die or get satisfactory answers. In this care a “source” is not a satisfactory answer. This issue s much to important. Lesser issues a source may hack it, but not this issue. Have a good weekend.
Again, your opinion is noted. I disagree with your objection. That’s why we have a comment section.
Disagreements are certainly not foreign to SB lol…thanks for the opportunity to comment and dialogue
You trust my source
Dave is that a question, comment or directive?