Resolution On The Condemnation of the “Alt-Right” Movement and the Roots of White Supremacy
Submitted to the Resolutions Committee for the
SBC Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, June 13-14, 2017
by William Dwight McKissic, Sr.
WHEREAS, Scripture teaches that from one man God made every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation (Acts 17:26); and
WHEREAS, the prophet Isaiah foresaw the day when the Lord would judge between the nations and render decisions for many people (Isaiah 2:4); and
WHEREAS, the Psalmist proclaims the Kingdom is the Lord’s, and He rules over the nations; and
WHEREAS, the promise of heaven includes the eternal blessings of the Tree of Life for God’s people, which includes the healing of the nations that comes from the leaves of that tree; and
WHEREAS, the supreme need of the world is the acceptance of God’s teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love; and
WHEREAS, all Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society, opposing all forms of racism, selfishness, and vice, and bringing government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love; and
WHEREAS, just societies will order themselves as free men and women and organize at various times and for various purposes to establish political order and give consent to legitimate government; and
WHEREAS, the liberty of all nations to authorize such governments will, at times, allow for the rise of political parties and factions whose principles and ends are in irreconcilable conflict with the principles of liberty and justice for all; and
WHEREAS, there has arisen in the United States a growing menace to political order and justice that seeks to reignite social animosities, reverse improvements in race relations, divide our people, and foment hatred, classism, and ethnic cleansing; and
WHEREAS, this toxic menace, self-identified among some of its chief proponents as “White Nationalism” and the “Alt-Right,” must be opposed for the totalitarian impulses, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that infect the minds and actions of its violent disciples; and
WHEREAS, the roots of White Supremacy within a “Christian context” is based on the so-called “curse of Ham” theory once prominently taught by the SBC in the early years—echoing the belief that God through Noah ordained descendants of Africa to be subservient to Anglos—which provided the theological justification for slavery and segregation. The SBC officially renounces the “curse of Ham” theory in this Resolution; now be it therefore
RESOLVED, that the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, AZ, June 13-14, 2017, denounces every form of “nationalism” that violates the biblical teachings with respect to race, justice, and ordered liberty; and be it further
RESOLVED, that we reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so-called “Alt-Right” that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society, and infect our political system; and be finally
RESOLVED, that we earnestly pray, both for those who lead and advocate this movement and those who are thereby deceived, that they may see their error through the light of the Gospel, repent of their perverse nationalism, and come to know the peace and love of Christ through redeemed fellowship in the Kingdom of God, which is established from every nation, tribe, people and tongue.
I’ll take any opportunity I can get to condemn the alt-right and white nationalists. The opportunity to vote on this resolution or one very similar would be welcome.
I think this resolution would be good if you want to create a needless debate on who decides what the “Alt Right is and why who will be the decider on what nationalism entails. Why do we not hear of the Alt Left, which has far more influence than the Alt Right, they have major networks under their influence? Why would the SBC want to open this Pandora Box of left leaning political soundbites? If you support the agenda proposed by the author you have an organization that represents you politically, the Democratic Party. Couple this with the Dr. Moore needless foray into primary Republican and national politics pushing his opinion and you have the beginning of a debate that will need to a bad ending. I believe in enforcing the laws on immigration that Congress has legally enacted and has not repealed, is that Alt Right? I believe America success is based largely on Judeo-Christian western civilization values of our founders, does this make me an insane Godless nationalist? Who is going to decide the politically correct viewpoint on what is acceptable, certainly not our current college age students who would let a traditional sermon be preached on their campus if it identified sin as sin. If you believe social activism and social justice is necessary for salvation that is another debate. What this resolution would do if passed would be to open up the eyes of the 80 percent or more lay SBC members who trust SBC leadership and have no idea where the leadership is taking them.
To borrow an old phrase, you know alt right that veers into white supremacy pretty easily.
And this layperson is getting rather tired of the drumbeat of “if the laypeople only knew what these preachers were up to” claim.
I’d vote for it. But I do not seeing it changing anything. Its kind of like the Conf flag resolution. We are being asked to resolve to oppose what we already oppose…whatever floats your boat.
Allen,
Sometimes it’s simply good to be on record with a clear position. It may or may not change anything; but, if a Southern Baptist were fence straddling ’bout whether or not to join the Alt-Right, the SBC weighing in could influence them not to. It may influence SBC folks currently in, to drop out.
It could discourage the current uptick in racist animosity being hurled toward Blacks, Arabs, Asians, Muslims and Jews to be toned down dramatically. It can make a difference.
How about this for a needed resolution , a resolution that Christians in the middle east countries be protected and given preference in the refugee process as they are unsafe in the UN camps due to the Muslim influence and majority. A resolution that female mutilation is be outlawed and severely prosecuted in the United States. That gang violence and unsafe neighbors be given special attention by law enforcement . That all children have access to good public education in America not Iraq. These are issues that are being neglected for sure. Or we can worry about the Alt Right which is only powerful in the mind of the mainstream press. Supporting our immigration laws, supporting law enforcement, being against globalism, TTP, NAFTA is not Alt Right unless you are Alt Left. If the KKK had major money and tried to get more than 200 people at a true KKK rally in any state they could not because they have no real support, they are the boogey man of the past . Why soon will I not be able to take a laptop on an airplane? is it the Alt Right threat? How about honor killings or mandatory Islam prayer breaks and facilities in the work place, do these issues require a resolution? Do we oppose Sharia law courts in the USA that now operate in England? Free religious and political speech on campus does that need a resolution? No, lets worry about the Alt Right which really is becoming a code word or as CNN likes to say a dog whistle for conservative thought. It seems like the 1995 resolution covered it all unless again you want the pot to boil over the issue.
Eric C,
Are u aware that the alt-right and Richard Spencer unabashedly promote White Supremacy and encouraged the burnings in Virginia recently?
O Brother, this is not well conceived. I guess the author must first
prove that slavery was/is a sin from the only source that can order
that decision. I would think that such an effort will be short-lived.
This sounds much like the DNC chairman who makes clear that a
certain view of abortion is not to be allowed in the Democrat Party.
Further, there appear too many assumptions made here which cannot support, that is with any biblical proof, the load of its superstructure. This is a political plea that appears inappropriate for the SBC to take up. Good Luck with this one!
Dwight and the entire SBC has already agreed that biblical commands render American race-based slavery a sin. That is not in question for Southern Baptists.
I am only aware of Richard Spencer as are most Americans because the mainstream media gave this man with no following of any importance a prominent large spot in the news the past year. I just check checked Twitter and Richard Spencer has 61k followers while another racist Louis Farrakhan has 471k and he is barely active anymore. Do you want the SBC to get into the Liberation Theology that the Catholic Church in Central/South America embraced? This resolution is as needed as a resolution against cancer. Where is this “uptick” of violence against the list you provided happening. What other country, society in the world would have handled 9/11 as peacefully toward Muslims that the USA did? The constant drumbeat of bad race and religious relations is having its desired affect. How many people under 50 have heard of the curse of Ham. We cannot go back and change history but we did change society in a major peaceful way. We are rapidly moving away from Dr. King’s wonderful wish that people be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. We are moving backward on this wish due to dividing ourselves by race, religion and ethnic background most promoted by the liberal agenda.
Eric C,
The SBC in her entire history has never, ever denounced White Supremacy. The Alt-Right represents a growing and thriving White Supremacist movement in contemporary America. The SBC tends to speak out on other issues in the public eye that contradicts the Word of God. And u really don’t see the value, relevance and significance of the SBC speaking out against White Supremacy?
White supremacist are not a national political or social force in this country with any significant influence, support or public platforms except when it is given to them by the press and the Democratic Party for political reasons. In the past few months who has killed, intimidated , threatened and harmed black people more, gangs in Chicago or the white supremacist. Starting with the civil war America started the long road to fulfilling the promise set forth in her founding documents which were based on Christian teachings. Again Dr. King’s great speech in D.C. that it was time to cash in the check written in our Declaration and Constitution giving freedom and equality to all. The white supremacist straw man argument has been used to much lately resulted in the white privilege debate on the college campus soon coming to the mainstream community thanks to the liberal forces that control the message. Do you really want the SBC to get into the political landscape because that is where a resolution like this will lead. This is just stirring a pot that is not the pot of the SBC.
Eric C you are making way too much sense. Thank you!
The terms mentioned here, white supremacist… white nationalist… is often put in the same category as those who cry white privilege (not dealt with in this article).
We should always stand against bigotry, racism and all the other ills this topic exposes. I think it is wrong to approach only one side of the problem. There is bigotory, racism and other ills pointed towards whites.
Let’s call all wrong… wrong.
The SBC has gone on record to be against racism and apologize for the historical realities of slavery. Such a resolution, which has some merit, falls short of the full problem.
No I was not aware as are 98% of American who have no idea who Richard Spencer is and they certainly do not support him. I a Richard Spencer tree falls in the forest does it make any noise ? The answer is no unless CNN reports in and gives it 30 minutes of airtime.
Any chance we as a unified convention get the opportunity to condemn white nationalism and white supremacy we need to take it. I will definitely support this resolution. Richard Spencer and his ilk are God-haters whose deepest desire is to see the United States do to non-whites what Hitler did to the Jewish people. I ran into one of Spencer’s lieutenants once in an airport and watched him verbally beret and almost get physical with a very old and quiet Arabic man who was doing nothing other than reading a newspaper in the same vicinity as this guy. Before I had a chance to step in and do something an African-American woman stepped in-between them and said “If you touch this man I will make it so that your own mother doesn’t even recognize you”. While I do not condone the threat I was happy to see someone near by stand up for a fellow American, no matter the color of the skin of the person. I spoke to the woman afterwards and found out she was a member of K. Marshall Williams church in Philly and voted on the Confederate Flag resolution last year in St Louis. Small world. Southern Baptist standing up for the Imago Dei even in airports. Made my heart glad.
James, that’s a cool and encouraging story….thanks for sharing.
Tarheel,
You’re welcome brother. Within the muck and mire of some of these anger filled comments I thought it would be good to have an actual story that showed compassion and someone taking a stand for their fellow persecuted man.
Dwight, I agree with your view of Spencer and the scourge of white nationalism. But the national news media has tried to paint anyone who voted for Trump (I did not) as alt-right. And then this whole thing begs some questions. If I support building a wall at the border to limit illegal immigration, am I a white nationalist or alt-right? If I believe in legal immigration that benefits society as a whole am I alt-right? If I want further vetting for refugees that might be allowed in the country from the Middle East, am I alt right or a white nationalist? If I believe that illegal immigrants need to leave and then petition for re-entry (I tend not to, but some conservatives do) am I alt-right or white nationalist? The wording of the resolution is vague enough that those views, which I do not think are out of mainstream conservatism, could be included by supporters and opponents. The media defines it that way. I wish it were more specific, if possible, so that politically conservative SBC members would support it. It’s vagueness as to definitions, sadly, will cause it to be defeated and make us seem like racists. And if your intention is to call out Spencer and his ilk then I am for it and think most SBC members would be as well. But it may be too vague to illicit majority support.
Randy,
The purpose is to call out Spencer and his supporters; that’s who the Alt-Right is. But there are others who share Spencer’s views who don’t belong to his movement. I didn’t find it necessary to name Spencer. But if the resolutions committee choose to do so that would be fine with me. All of the other political issues that you raised are no where in the resolution and no where intended or implied in the text or spirit of the resolution. Not sure how you arrived at bringing those issues into the discussion . Please explain your thought process with regard to including political matters into a resolution denouncing the alt-right and the roots of White Supremacy. The alt-right believes unashamedly in White Supremacy. Just as the SBC denounces abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and child trafficking….surely they should denounce White Supremacy. Don’t you think so?
In their minds yes you are alt-right, they have no desire to understand what actual people on the alt-right believe. All that they want to do is paint the right as basically the Klan and this is the latest part of that plan. You can spend all day telling them how your not whatever “-ist” or “-phobe” they’re calling you but that wont change their mind in the least.
Approving a resolution condemning the groups they (the national media) are trying to align you with seems to be a pretty good strategy for making it clear you’re not associated with them.
I agree. But my point is how Trump supporters are portrayed in the national media. The national media lumps people who holds those views I mentioned with the alt-right. I didn’t vote for Trump, but know many who did and actively support him. And the national media tends to portray them as alt-right. My point was more to express a concern at how it would be interpreted by SBC members. Trump supporters already feel attacked by the media and political correctness. My concern is they would interpret this resolution as an attack against Trump supporters. I’m all for exposing and condemning white supremacy and white nationalism attributed by Spencer and others who hate and violently attack others. Just want to be sure this is very clear who is being condemned.
Randy,
The resolution has absolutely nothing to do with Trump supporters and everything to do with Spencer’s supporters and Supremacist…..Period. Any introduction of political issues into this resolution would only serve as a distraction an a possible derailment, of a needed resolution to curb the tide against rising unabash White Supremacy.
Dwight
I don’t want to go around and around with this topic. Having talked with, and having watched the comments on social media of Trump supporters, I am concerned that xenophobic tendencies and racial biases may be interpreted by them as an accusation against Teump and his supporters I KNOW that is not your intention. It may be their interpretation.
I oppose white supremacy. It’s disgusting and sinful.
Is this Spencer fella a southern Baptist? If so – instead of this resolution I’d suggest and vote for public disavowel. I’d also think his church (and therefore him) should be dismissed from the SBC.
Tarheel,
The White Supremacy Philosophy espoused by Spencer was sanctioned early on by the curse of ham theory espoused by Southern Baptists. That’s included in this resolution to denounce the roots of White Supremacy taught by the SBC. That’s never been done before.
I, for one, am under 50 and very aware of the curse of Ham teaching. It was taught at baptist elementary and high school.
If it’s true the SBC has never denounced white supremacy, and I have no reason to doubt Dwight, then we should by all means take this chance to do so. Regardless of your opinion of its importance in the moment, we should disavow it’s presence in the past at all.
I think that anytime and in any way that we as Christians promote one race ahead of another we foment disunity and discord in the Body.
Thus the movement and the people that promotes white supremacy is unchristian and ungodly. And we should stand against that openly.
But when prominent Christians refer to the Black Church they also promote disunity. The very idea divides us in an unbiblical way. We have brothers who baptize babies, or speak in tongues and we recognize that doctrinal differences exist. These doctrinal differences exist because we as a whole are imperfect interpreters of the Word. But when non-biblical issues divide us, like the color of our skin, we should condemn such division.
There is only one church. Promoting the White Church or the Black Church or the Chinese Church promotes disunity. We humans, as a whole are frail and prone to fear and pride. We, as a race, tend to discriminate based on whatever differences we can find. The Hutu tribe in Rwanda committed genocide against the Tutsi tribe but not because of a difference in skin color. Hutus and Tutsis have the same language; the same religion; the same culture. They had lived intermingled for centuries on the same land. But due to a little economic differences and varied lifestyle. the Hutus mass killed them.
So when some of us promote un-doctrinal differences we cause many who are weak in the faith and in understanding to allow fear and pride to guide their reactions and engender racism in their minds.
And no, culturally promoting the Black Church isn’t as dangerous as promoting White Supremacy. Not as to the secular culture. Most Christians, though, and on both sides of the racial divide as well, stand against any white supremacy movement. The damage to the Church will be minimal. White Southern Slave ownership has been repudiated. It will never rise again. Not in the Church.
We all should do what we can to meld our congregations together so that we are inclusive of all believers no matter what their color or culture. For the Church is already multi colored and Heaven will certainly be.
Les Prouty,
Read Luke’s comment ’bout being under 50 and having being taught the curse of Ham teaching at a Baptist elementary and high school. Do u still believe Eric C makes way to much sense?
The readiness and urgency by which u and Eric C renounce abortion-and I join the both of u with that urgency-But also noting the hesitancy or refusal to renounce the alt-right, White Supremacy and the curse of Ham teaching is certainly an eye raiser for me.
Dwight, please do not misunderstand. I do denounce the alt right (as I understand it to be based on the definitions available) and white supremacy and racism of all sorts. I just think Eric makes some very good points and I do not get the sense at all that Eric is for the alt right or white supremacy or racism in any form. And if I need to state it, I am not SBC so I don’t have a vote. But I think that while I think your intentions are good, this resolution would not be the route I would choose. I think too many people opposed to the agend of a guy like Spencer would get swept up in the dragnet of this resolution because if the way the media has shaped perceptions about who is part of the alt right.
God bless brother.
Richard Spencer was the first to use the term alternate right to describe an all white society.
Debbie, not sure why you commented that to me. I know what you stated. My concern about people who are not “alt right” getting swept up is talented to things like this from wiki.
“It has been said to include elements of white nationalism, white supremacism, antisemitism, ***right-wing populism,*** nativism, and the neoreactionary movement. Andrew Marantz includes “neo-monarchists, masculinists, conspiracists, belligerent nihilists”. Newsday columnist Cathy Young noted the alt-right’s strong opposition to both legal and ***illegal immigration*** and its ***hard-line stance on the European migrant crisis.*** Robert Tracinski of The Federalist has written that the alt-right opposes miscegenation and advocates collectivism as well as tribalism. Nicole Hemmer stated on NPR that political correctness is seen by the alt-right as “the greatest threat to their liberty”.”
***Commonalities among the loosely-defined alt-right include a disdain for mainstream politics as well as support for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.”***
***. *** has been inserted by me to show how some people could be accused of being alt right because while they would reject the many aweful other things in this definition of the alt right, the things in *** are not necessarily an alt right thing and not necessarily evil. Do you see what I’m trying to say?
And Les I don’t believe everything Wiki has to say. I think it’s just another excuse. But my comment was directed at all naysayers who use this argument on this thread. It did not specifically have your name on it Les. But that is just a bunch of hooey.
It amazes me that you call most news fake and yet read Wiki and take it as fact.
Debbie, you said: “And Les I don’t believe everything Wiki has to say. I think it’s just another excuse.”
Great, neither do I. That’s why I checked the linked citations over at Wiki. It wasn’t just made up.
And what do you mean “just another excuse?” Are you talking about me making another excuse? And and excuse for what?
Debbie and this you said, “It amazes me that you call most news fake and yet read Wiki and take it as fact.”
Debbie seriously, did you fall down and sustain a head injury? Or do you just pull things out of thin air?
I have a lot of problems with this resolution. The first problem is that I just don’t trust McKissick’s motives. He seems to find racism in nearly everything, & seems more intent on self-promotion than social justice.
The second major problem is that of perception. I oppose white supremacy & would support a resolution narrowly defining such. However this overly broad proposed resolution seems too take aim directly at those who disagree with liberal social policies and with those who support governmental limitations on immigration as well as American Exceptionalism..
Maybe my friend Dwight finds racism in things because as s black man he has had experiences you have not?
Perhaps your experience is not the absolute standard abd you can gain something by listening to the experience and opinion if a black man without distrust, disrespect, and dismissal?
Dwight opened my eyes by helping me see the world a little differently than my white eyes tended to.
Phones are impossible with fat fingers
I got into a conversation about the alt-right and white nationalism the other day. What I discovered halfway thru that conversation was that the people defending those positions didn’t know what they meant. They were reading them without context. Once thy understood the context, they were quick to say “Well of course I oppose that.”
Richard Spencer and the alt-right represent a new form of racism we haven’t seen since Jim Crow. They are promoting an agenda that is as opposed to evangelical Christianity as it is to equal rights for those who are not white Europeans in descent. Spencer himself is a vocal atheist and many of the people in this movement are as opposed to Christianity as they are to racial justice.
I would encourage those of you who are opposed to this resolution and/or are questioning Dwight’s motives to do some research on the movement before weighing in.
These people would oppose Les’ work in Haiti. They would oppose Alan Cross’ work with refugees. They would be against the work of missionaries in other countries. They would oppose the sharing of the Gospel to people of different races. They would dispute the Jewishness of Jesus.
Thanks Dwight for proposing this. I hope it gets a hearing.
I did a little reading last night. Spencer calls himself a cultural Christian but an atheist by belief.
It actually comforts me that he does no claim faith.
Mike Rasberry,
The basis for questioning my motives, and for allegations of being more interested in “self promotion than social justice,” has no basis in fact, only your paranoia. Many persons offer resolutions concerning issues that they are passionate about and that they feel merit the weight of the SBC addressing those issues, but are not subjected to allegations of self promotion and questioning of motives. Why me?
Addressing “liberal social policies,” “American Exceptionalism,” “limiting government,” …and any other political or cultural issue is not the target of this resolution. The Alt-Right and White Supremacy Philosophy is the target. Why do u and a few others insist on making it more than what it says? And then to call my character and motives into question without offering any factual basis for doing so, is simply un-Christian and unkind. But, I’ll take it. If that’s the price I’ll have to pay to address the National reputation and White Supremacy Philosophy that Eric C admits that the national media has produced for White Supremacy and Richard Spencer. I sound like a broken record. But if you and your ilk, found White Supremacy as abhorrent as you find abortion and gay marriage, why not publicly denounce the Alt-Right, rather than make the conversation about me and my motives. Your attack reminds me of similar baseless attacks leveled at MLK, for similar reasons. And no, I’m not worthy to tie his shoes. But, I got a glimpse of his what he had to suffer and how he felt, when he wrote The Letter From The Birmingham Jail. He was addressing mindsets like yours. That found his advocacy a grater problem than the blatant racism that existed. You find my advocacy a greater problem than White Supremacy. Painful and shameful.
I actually believe that our country is experiencing the greatest outpouring and demonstration of hate that I have seen in my life time. It is coming from many quarters. I don’t know Richard Spencer, and I know very little about the alt-right.
But as I said, hatred is being displayed in many quarters. The alt-right is one of its manifestations. The antifa, which I also don’t know that much about, is another source. The destruction of property, the threats and actual assault on people. At one protest, a well known media personality said she thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
All of these groups, from what I can tell, point to their politics or philosophies to justify their hate.
In a way, I understand that many of these groups really do believe that they are morally right and superior, and that what they have to offer will lead people to happiness, fairness, and ultimate peace. It’s just that in the meantime, we have to break a few eggs to get there.
When we read the NT, the gospels and the epistles, we see very little reference to the existing political movements, their problems etc. Instead, what we see is Jesus and the Apostles addressing root causes and issues.
I believe that given where we are right now that the SBC needs to pass a resolution against hate in all of its forms, whether alt-right, socialistic, racist, classist, … whatever.
I believe a resolution against hate could be drafted in such a way that it would not be “code” for this or that movement, but would be broad enough to cover all movements in this country that are tearing at the peaceful moral fabric of our society.
The hate in men’s hearts is the real problem here, and as I have said, given that we are witnessing it coming from all quarters, it would be good to address the bigger issue, and not pick this movement or that movement that may be popular today but gone tomorrow.
And this hate is not in just America, but other countries as well. This is another reason why I think this resolution must be passed. We as Christians and specifically Southern Baptists must stand strong on this issue as it is not going to be popular, but it does send a strong message even though resolutions are not binding.
As we look to history so will future Southern Baptists, some who will do research on past resolutions and come across this one as well as the anti-slavery and anti-Confederate flag resolutions. It will live down through history.
Debbie,
I agree. ISIS and all the various forms of terror, whether Islamic or otherwise, that exists all over the world, is based on hate.
I don’t believe there is any question where Southern Baptists stand on the issues that the alt-right promotes, as explained in this post and thread.
I think that the resolution will be extremely popular. I don’t know anyone in my circles, or wider SBC circles, who support racial hatred. Racial hatred is not popular in the U.S. Other forms of hatred get a pass, but not racial hatred.
Some folks outside of the South and the SBC are so invested in believing the South and the SBC is so full of racists, I am concerned that this act may be seen by cynical types with those thoughts that the SBC is just trying to make itself look good. That doesn’t affect how I feel, but I suspect that may be the reaction of many – “Bunch of racists trying not to look like racists.” But that will always be there. It’s just sad.
The resolution below was recommended by Richard Land and passed by an estimated 95% of the vote.
Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention
Atlanta, Georgia – 1995
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention
David R. Brumbelow
Dwight,
I think it does apply. For example:
“Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bibles teaching that every human life is sacred, and is of equal and immeasurable worth, made in Gods image, regardless of race or ethnicity (Genesis 1:27), and that, with respect to salvation through Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)”
-portion of Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention, Atlanta, Georgia – 1995
By the way, I was present and voted for this resolution.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
How does that ’95 resolution address the current popularity and increase in hate speech and acts that we are currently experiencing in America–the roots of White Supremacy, the curse of Ham theory–the alt-right organization? It does not, at all. Therefore, not sure why you referenced the ’95 resolution. It simply does not address the issues my proposed resolution addresses. Curious as to why u might think it does?
David: I share Dr. McKissic’s curiosity.
Agreed. It does not specifically denounce a particular movement or sentiment which has clearly been emboldened by the election of Donald Trump with the support and aid of Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon, whose opinions and ties to White Supremacist groups are known.
I think this resolution would just contribute to more divisiveness and accomplish nothing. If we as followers of Jesus Christ don’t stand against these issues of hate already, a resolution isn’t going to change things.
If it divides between the SBC and racists then I’m for it. Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword of division.
As for resolutions “accomplishing” anything, well I contest that very few of the resolutions we approve “accomplish” anything. They are statements for the record, and as I see it, that’s usually all they accomplish.
Dwight,
You mentioned the Curse of Ham. You might be interested in what SWBTS Ethics Professor T. B. Maston said about it way back in a 1959 Broadman Press book.
T. B. Maston on the Curse of Ham
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2017/05/t-b-maston-on-curse-of-ham.html
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
That Resolution does not speak to the current “hate” Louis reference, nor the “curse of Ham teaching” that the SBC convention who has published books in support of, has never repented of–Matson’s work that I am familiar with does not repudiate or repent for all the years of false teaching-nor does it addresses the Alt-Right that’s currently the leading fomenter of racial hatred. The SBC had addressed homosexuality previously. But that was no reason for them not to address the Disney World Homosexuality policies. The Alt-Right and Current White Supremacy needs to be rebuked. Really surprised by the hesitancy of something that should be a no brainer.
Why don’t we just say we are sorry for everything that Dwight tells us to be sorry for. Just one big blanket resolution.
I have read this resolution a couple of times, and I think it would be a good thing to support.
The curse of Ham thing is definitely a part of our not too distant past. I am 46 and remember well preachers who believed that the curse on Ham’s son Caanan was a curse on the entire black race. This should be repudiated as the ridiculous and nonsensical error that it is.
Further, we will never be kingdom focused until we stop believing and preaching that Jesus would be a Republican today. (Btw, I don’t think Jesus would be a Democrat either). Jesus threw His lot in with no political faction of His day. His mission was way bigger than that.
Lastly, Pastor McKissic is doing us all a tremendous favor by offering to us a different perspective. Folks, I for one, want to know how things appear to and impact people who are not 100% like me.
PS: the opportunity to pass a resolution against white supremacy is an easy to knock a homee run for the convention insofar as PR is concerned.
I’ve never heard of the curse of Ham having been applied to black people, but then again I grew up Assemblies of God in California, so I probably wouldn’t have encountered it.
I was present and voted for the 1995 resolution that denounced “racism and bigotry in all its forms.” I thought and still think it was necessary, timely and appropriate at that time.
As to this resolution – I support what I feel is the intent of the resolution (I consider Dwight a friend and a good man) – but feel that unintended consequences may ensue from it.
I am not a Trumpeter by any means – I did not vote for him in 2016 and in fact lobbied people to vote for a real conservative candidate…..however, as my good friend Les points out – much of the language in this post is likely to raise the eyebrows once again of fellow Christians and Southern Baptists who voted for Trump…its sure to stoke the remaining embers of the discord surrounding the Graham/Moore debacle. I know that as an avid #NeverTrump (long before there was ever a hashtag) I have had to do my share of apologizing for going to far in addressing my brothers and sisters regarding this.
There is such a public, intentional and concerted effort by the liberals and the media to connect every single Trump voter (and even republicans who did not vote for him) to this alt right movement as well nationalistic tendencies that are based in bigotry. I know You said Dwight that this has nothing to do with Trump and the election – but I humbly ask you to consider how it might be perceived….
I would not have a problem and would strongly support a very narrowly crafted resolution that reaffirms the SBC’s “unwavering denouncement of racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin, etc…” (paraphrased from ’95 resolution) …. but this particular resolution as written is using phrases that are often used in common political and media parlance to (often unfairly) attack – even reluctant Trump voters who happen to be SBCers. Therefore, IMO might be a little much right now.
I end this comment by paraphrasing what our SBCV editor – Dave Miller cited in his comment to a recent article here at voices: The election wounds are still fresh in the SBC and with great care and effort are in the process of healing so we should probably shy away from stoking them…I think despite what I truly believe are good intentions – this might certainly be the case here – especially since the SBC is already on record numerous times (including last years CF vote) denouncing bigotry.
Tarheel,
This is not just a blanket denouncement of bigotry. It targets the alt-right. No connection to the election. This is a red herring. The alt-right is the 21st Century KKK. They foment White Supremacy even on college campuses. For the SBC to pass on an opportunity to address the most visible, vocal White Supremacist group of current times calls into question the depth of sincerity their depth of sincerity to do any and everything to stamp out racism.
I understand where you are coming from – they are disgusting.
I understand what you are trying to do (denouncing racial/ethnic/national supremacist groups) but you truly cannot see how an SBC person who voted for Trump might see this as yet another a stick in the eye against them?
Every night on the news, every day in the papers, during every speech of a democrat in congress…..Trump voters/supporters are called many of the monikers you include in your resolution. I do not think it is your intention to paint them all in that light – you are seeking to be specific to a particular group – but given the freshness of the wounds…..its not beyond the realm of possibility for them to see it as a slight?
Perhaps if you narrowed your resolution a little bit – it might alleviate concerns. (i am not suggesting weakening it – only narrowing it to your intended target.
But it is your resolution so who am I to tell you how to write it….I am just *trying* (and hopefully not failing) to offer some constructive criticism to a friend.
But every time I see Captain Orange is like getting a stick in my eyes.
I was about to say something about your disrespectful comment, Jim, but then I clicked on the link to your twitter feed. Yeah it would be a waste of time.
Dwight attack Mike for questioning his motives but Dwight questions the sincerity of those who don’t vote for his resolution. Wow
Dwight,
Why single out only one side?
Black racism is also a real problem.
Black Lives Matter has shown racist tendencies against Whites.
Black folks have purposely singled out and murdered White police officers.
Blacks kidnapped and tortured a handicapped White man; and they made it plain their motives were racist.
“The worst racism that I have received [as a biracial woman married to white man], and I mean thousands and thousands over the years, is from black people.” -ESPN anchor and NBA reporter, Sage Steele
I oppose racism in all its forms.
But some seem to relish driving wedges between Whites and Blacks.
A final thought; Being conservative, religiously or politically, is not synonymous with racism.
David R. Brumbelow
Did the SBC by resolution specifically denounce Westboro Baptist Church?
Tarheel,
Your criticism is constructive and appreciated dear friend. One thing is for certain: the resolution committee will do with mine or any other resolution whatever they please. They may adjust it, if accepted at all to fit some of the concerns here. But again, from my corner of the world, it’s baffling to me to see any reason for any SBC person to be squeamish about this resolution or fear somehow, it could possibly be misconstrued or conflated with political matters. It’s simply a denouncement of (1) the alt-right (2) White Supremacy (3) the early SBC years prominent officially unrepentant of teaching of the curse of Ham. That’s it. Nothing more. Pure and simple.
BTW, the SBC did name Disneyworld in a Resolution condemning gay rights and called for a boycott. There is a precedence for this. The SBC has named Bill Clinton in a resolution. There has been specificity in the past in certain resolutions. God knows this matter merits it. To not name the Alt-Right and White Supremacy and the curse of Ham roots of White Supremacy is to defang the resolution, rendering it useless.
Thanks, Dwight.
I hope to see you in Phoenix. Last time I spoke with you about it you indicated your schedule might not allow it….I hope you can work it out.
I recently discovered that a Baptist church in my home town was considering an African American man to be there pastor. One member said, “I’m not sure our church is ready for that” (referring to his race)
Racism is alive in well, even in Baptist churches. Any Christian who says otherwise or does not actively fight against it is living in ignorance.
Agreed racism is alive, Tyler.
To share another anecdote – I recently had a discussion with a pastor friend who shared with me that the church he leads was considering a white associate pastor and the same sentiments (and some worse) were espoused when the assoc. pastor candidate was presented to the church. He was voted down simply because of his skin color.
I have not read one person who said we shouldn’t fight against it. Voting no on this resolution does not mean a person is not fighting against racism.
David B.,
I would support any resolution you propose naming the Nation of Islam as racist Clearly they are, as the alt-right are. I’ve publicly condemned the NOI for their racism and anti-Christian bigotry. I even wrote a book about it, and quoted T B Matson to refute their teaching that “The Bible Is A White Man’s Book.”
In another resolution I condemn acts of violence against police officers. I often call out Black on White racism and Black on Black violence. Why don’t you offer a resolution addressing what you consider to be the decencies of mine, and if I agree I will support it to the max. The issue of Black Lives Matter is simply as not as simple as you make it out to be. Appreciate your feedback.
Dwight,
Glad to hear it. I think racism, on all sides, needs to be condemned.
I’ve never been one to offer resolutions. But I’m happy to rest on the one I voted for in 1995.
David R. Brumbelow
Tarheel,
I have worked it out. I plan to be there.
We have a room reserved in your name at the San Carlos.
Dave,
Thanks. Much appreciated. Looking forward to attending every second of the pastors conference. Excited bout the next year’s conference in Dallas as well.
Dwight, I support your resolution and think it needs to be passed at this time because of the recent rise in alt-right influence and recent hate crimes. I hope you are prepared to present it from the floor because I do not think it will make it through the resolution committee, at least not in that form. If I were there, I would speak for it but I have family returning from overseas at that time and need to be there to welcome them.
I knew T.B. Matson slightly. I can’t give a quote about him calling for repentance but he spoke forcefully that Southern Baptist were wrong in their attitudes and actions on race. He and SWBTS suffered vicious attacks from SBC leaders for his courageous stand while they were supporting segregation.
Ron,
Appreciate you weighing in. You mind being specific in sharing why you think it won’t make it out of the resolutions committee? Honestly don’t see any part that would not be palatable to a fair, reasonable, and biblically centered Southern Baptists.
Dwight just in the sense that they would be reluctant to pass a resolution that would be perceived as too political even if they agree with the intent. You and I know this is not an attack on any particular office holder or political party but as others in the string have mentioned it could make others think so.
In 1990 while serving in Taiwan as a missionary I submitted a resolution criticizing the Republican Administration for threatening Taiwan and a few other Asian countries with economic sanctions if they did allow the import of American cigarettes. It was embarrassing to me as an American and it brought back memories of the opium wars to the Chinese. Even though members of the resolution committee said they agreed with me they would not bring it to the floor because they did not want to be seen as critical the Republican administration.
Whither nuance indeed. I can hardly read any of the comments threads on this site any more, because someone’s always got some semantics game to play. It just gets so tiresome.
Because nearly everything seems politicized and divisive anger is so readily stirred up, may I suggest a slightly different approach. How about a simple resolution that calls for Southern Baptists to positively seek to be agents of racial reconciliation in our communities, churches, and nation. It could say that any form of racial supremacy,prejudice or bigotry is contrary to biblical teaching and completely out of place in the hearts and lives of Christians. We should seek with humble and repentant hearts to actively encourage racial healing and true justice between people of all races because of the love of our Savior, who calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves. It should avoid politically charged references and focus on the essential issue.
Steve,
“…politically charged references…”
Inasmuch as there was no attempt to reference politically charged references, not sure what you consider a politically charged reference. Would u lift a specific line or quote from my post as an example of a “politically charged reference”? Thanks.
As I’ve stated earlier though, a generic statement would have little to no impact or meaning. At the current time it’s the alt-right who is trumpeting the message of White Supremacy. Why would we want to generalize rather than specificy?
Dwight,
I wholeheartedly condemn the alt-right and I condemn Richard Spencer, specifically. I condemn all racial supremacy, including ideas of white supremacy.
However, I would offer some caveats to these condemnations. Such as the idea of “white privilege” is divisive, unfair, not based in fact. It is used as a hammer to unfairly bludgeon white people into a sense of collective guilt. I oppose the concept of it as strongly as I oppose the idea white supremacy.
Pushback you are receiving is because the Left in this nation seeks to connect any conservative position such as border control and matters of illegal immigration as emanating from “white supremacist” ideals, and then, they will often immediately go to Richard Spencer. One doesn’t need to be a brain surgeon to see how they are attempting to “connect the dots” in these matters.
Media Effort goes like this….
1. Believe in controlling borders and preventing illegal immigration?
2. Richard Spencer and the “Alt-Right” believe in controlling borders and preventing illegal immigration.
3. Donald Trump believes in controlling borders and preventing illegal immigration.
4. Trump supporter who believe in controlling borders and illegal immigration AGREE WITH RICHARD SPENCER.
5. Trump supporters are obviously all members of the “Alt-Right” and are fans of Richard Spencer, and therefore, white supremacists themselves.
^To not recognize this reasoning in the media and among most Leftists, especially now that I’ve pointed it our to you, is to be willfully blind to it.
So, to borrow your comment about “Black Lives Matter” where you stated something to the effect of “Its far more complicated than that….”
I propose that you propose a Resolution condemning BOTH IN THE SAME RESOLUTION:
1. Richard Spencer, “Alt-Right,” and White Nationalism and…
2. “Black Lives Matter,” Nation of Islam, and all Antifa groups.
That’s the balance that’s needed in this matter.
I would support that WHOLE-HEARTEDLY.
Well-said, Dan. Completely agree.
Dan McGee: You say in your comment you condemn all racial supremacy.
Just in the United States alone, where in history or today has there been a claim of racial supremacy except among the white race?
There seems to be a prevalent sentiment in the comments that I’m reading, let me try and express it fairly: We are against the alt-right but we can’t say that unequivocally because some Trump supporters might think we’re talking about them.
Let me set out a description of the situation that I hope all can agree on as well: Most Trump supporters are not alt-right, but the alt-right are (nearly?) universally Trump supporters.
Many people are concerned about the lines being blurred between these two kinds of Trump supporters – above it’s been said over and over again that it’s the media and left that wants to smear all Trump supporters as having alt-right ties. There’s a lot of truth there, no doubt the left will take any opportunity to discredit their political opponents they can get (yeah the right does the same thing when they have a chance).
But that’s not the only reason the lines are blurred. There are some Trump supporters who are not alt-right but they sympathize with the alt-right. There are others who find them distasteful but useful, and so won’t speak out against them (my impression is this is where Trump himself is) because they are political allies.
If you want the lines to be clear, the easiest way to do that is to have Trump supporters clearly and unequivocally denounce the alt-right — which is the purpose of this resolution. If you want to help continue blurring the lines, then let people continue to resist speaking out against the alt-right.
While I would vote for this resolution as stated, I think it would actually be stronger if it was divided into two resolutions. One against white supremacy and curse of Ham theory, and then a separate one that specifically defines and strongly condemns the Alt-Right movement.
I believe there is precedent for this. We have resolutions against racism and abortion in general, and then we have separate resolutions condemning the KKK and Planned Parenthood specifically.
I think part of the issue is that this resolution sacrifices some clarity by trying to address three different topics at once. What do you think?
I think Dwight would be open to some clarifying adjustments to the resolution. That’s one good aspect to the process. Dwight sends his version to the committee and, should they decide to take it up, they’ll do some editing as they see fit. Its ultimately the committee that presents the resolution to the convention, except for the rare occasion when one is brought from the floor.
Jim’s idea is a good one, IMO.
Dan,
I make no mention of “white privelege” not even once. It’s unfair to reject my resolution based on verbiage that’s not discussed in my resolution.
Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right openly declare their rejection of diversity and their belief and practice in White Supremacy. The SBC and other White evangelical groups provided the “theological grounds” and “conscience cover” for the notion of White Supremacy by teaching that the Bible sanctioned such an idea. They labeled this teaching “The Curse Of Ham.” The SBC has never repented for using the Bible to foment a racist agenda. Are u opposed to the SBC repenting for their complicity to the Alt-Right movement by their years of teaching “The Curse Of Ham”?
My post doesn’t mention “illegal immigrantion.” You must admit that xenophobia, an unwelcoming or resistance to “strangers” being your neighbors or workmates or roommates or classmates etc., existed long before the illegal immigration debate in America begin. My use of the word xenophobia in my post, is based on the alt-rights race based rejection of strangers. It has nothing to do with legitimate political disagreements with immigration policies offered by either party. My youngest daughter 32 yrs old is adamantly opposed to illegal immigration. She would share President’s Trump’s immigration policies 100%. She harbors no racial animus toward people of Hispanic heritage though, or any other race. My point is, my post would indict my own daughter, if it meant what you and others interpret it to mean, or fear the media to interpret it to mean.
I have no problem condemning Black Hate Groups. The NOI is clearly one. Black Lives Matter is not one in my opinion, no where close to it. Just as the SBC is not a hate group, but Rick Pierce admits that there is a “bit” of the Alt-Right in the SBC. Yes, there is a “bit” of hate in Black Lives Matter, but they are not a hate group.
The Alt-Right is a growing force that Black People obviously cannot stop. We need your help. Please don’t let us down. When or if there is a Black violent response to the Alt-Right some of you will be the first to criticize. Yet, you seem to be willing to pass over an opportunity to condemn it and curse it at its root. Please stop this racist behometh from growing. If left unabated they will trigger a race war in this country, while the SBC sits by silent.
Why confess sins that you are not guilty of? Mr. McKissic, could you reply to my questions below?
Those of you who are opposed to Brother McKissic’s resolution, or at least have so stated or implied here:
Can you explain to me why a condemnation of racism in any form is a bad thing? Why must a condemnation of racism have to be so vague and thorough as to cover all racism without getting specific about any one form? Why are you so worried about why “someone” might misinterpret the point of a resolution? After all, some people will misinterpret things per their own bias, no matter what is actually said. As ministers, we know that from every sermon! But should that deter us from speaking the truth?
As mentioned several times here the 1995 resolution covers this issue fully. To get specific and give the Alt Right much more credit, power and influence than they demand or deserve serves no SBC purpose. This moves the issue into a more political sphere than a religious sphere. Why not a resolution to condemn the Alt Left denial of free speech and opposition to religious freedom when it comes to federal funding of abortion? Why not specify left leaning Godless Socialist and Communist who have far more influence ? It is not needed as it is clear where the SBC stands on these issues. Most Americans and certainly SBC members are unaware of the Alt Right unless they really follow events and it is a sad show. Resolution to call for removal of MS 13 gang members and any other illegal immigration threats to Americans would be benign or perhaps seen as unnecessary and creating dissent as we have laws against it already. If the crazy man who stabbed the 3 men in Portland Or. recently had been in any way a conservative, Trump supporter or if there was any way to connect him to the “Alt Right” it would still be on the news as an example of the “uptick” in extreme right hate activity. It would still be a staple of liberal talking points. As the man voted for Jill Stein, liked Bernie and disavowed Trump this terrible hate crime act is barely reported and disappeared off the national news pretty quick. I. So lets not open the Pandora box just in case some of the 80% of members who voted for Trump read the resolution and misunderstood the intent. The liberal slant the “uptick” alt right came with the advent of Trump, that is the narrative and the story of the mainstream establishment who are Never Trump.
I hope I am responding to the author of the resolution to condemn. I guess the first reason for all this ink being used over this issue is that I don’t believe you have yet
determined if you are biblically authorized to condemn all this “hatred”.
Does Scripture authorize your volley of “condemnations”? Look at 1 Corinthians
5:9-13 “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 5:10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian13 who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive,14 or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 5:12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 5:13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you” It appears to me that you are going beyond what Scripture authorizes by this massive “condemnation”.
Please don’t tell me all you folk have the “gift of condemning”. I believe you are
opposing the word of God in this rush to do good. Secondly, does not the Bible
also say that you should “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse. 12:15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 12:16 Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly.10 Do not be conceited.11 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people.12 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people.13 12:19 Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath,14 for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,”15 says the Lord. 12:20 Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.16 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12.
I would ask this question of Mr. Mckissic: did you condemn Martin Luther King when he was seeking all that “social justice” and doing gross immoral acts? Of, course you are a young man and had not the opportunity, right? But now do you revere this man, honor him and even love his memory?
Mr. Mckissic, my notion is that you hate the alt right person, you’re clearly enraged by those who have established it along with white supremacy. If this is so, and you
have not complied with the biblical injunctive to bless rather than curse, you are as guilty of sin as the atheist person, who is not in the church and does not claim to be as MLK did. If you are inconsistent in your Jeremiads, you should not continue on in this one. I think you have as much vitriol and hatred as the outsiders, unless you are consistent in your cursing. Please, my brother, consider the word of God and the Holy Spirit’s direction for you. Why don’t you and others who support this cursing, being to pray for this hated man? Try to contact him and bring the clear gospel to him. Give him an opportunity to be cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, instead of cursing him and all these others to hell.
Well, I’m just an old man, it is your church, do as you please after praying, confessing, seeking the best for others, and asking God to search your soul, Ps. 139:
23, 24. Don’t keep fighting this hazy hatred in racism, see John 15:18 ff. You act surprised and incensed at this world’s hatred. Don’t respond in kind to it.
May the Spirit bless. amen
I’m not following you prescription. You seem to be saying on one hand that the SBC should have NOTHING to say about the world around them, only to those literally in the church. In that case you could not support any resolution denouncing civil same sex marriage. Those in support should only be prayed for and witnessed. I will say it’s a consistent position for which I have some sympathy.
But then on the other hand you suggest that MLK must be denounced as a whore-monger to be consistent. You in essence use the “judgement begins in the house of the Lord” argument for him.
Isn’t that the point of the resolution? To call out those who claim the name of of Christ (a JEW!) yet want to hang on to white supremacy?
To be consistent with your argument, they must a) be called out for this systemic practice of sin if they are in Christ, or b) regarded as utterly lost and witnessed to, even while they are attending church. Let’s hope they are not already pastors and deacons!
I wish I could give you the benefit of the doubt here, I truly do, but your specific notation of MLK gives me pause. If you had just said that we should be more introspective as an association of churches before we point out the sins of culture around us, I may have simply said “Amen”.
But that isn’t what you said.
https://www.facebook.com/unstrippedvoice/videos/1366288390129199/?hc_ref=SEARCH
This interview with Richard Spencer shows why the 1995 resolution does not cover this and why we need to vote this proposed resolution a resounding yes.
It also leaves no doubt that Richard Spencer coined the phrase “alternate right” and the definition is exactly as Dr. McKissic has noted in his resolution. This is a recent interview.
Brothers and sisters: You all seem so young but are firmly set in concrete over
your condemnations. Are you so absolutely right that you carry out such a
purpose without biblical authority? Perhaps the SBC is a four major body of religion that is authorized to speak as Moses did. Don’t strike the rock, speak to it. Don’t let your anger send the wrong portrait of God’s intent to others. None of us can save or curse with any power. Just carry the message as God has sent us in Christ to others.
Allow for God’s vengeance, not yours. amen
Jim,
Maybe you misunderstand the role of the resolution.
But as servants of God we are to be salt and light in the world.
Listen to the Word of the Lord, Ephesians 5:
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them…
We are to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness. For His Word tells us soon after the above:
“But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light”
Thus, brothe,r we are to shine the light of truth into the darkness and expose it and one purpose is also soon told us in that same passage:
“Awake, sleeper,
And arise from the dead,
And Christ will shine on you.”
Perchance then by our faithful action we might be graciously used by the Lord to aid in awakening them from their deadness and be an instrument forGod in delivering them from the realm of darkness and translating them into the Kingdom of the Dear Son.
Thanks for your response Mike:
Perhaps I do misunderstand the purpose of the resolution, that is according to your interpretation of Ephesians 5, which is to be an expose of sorts of all evil.
However, those agreeing and commenting on this resolution appear to go far beyond mere exposure when they use terms “condemnation” so frequently in their posts. Even so, many of these posts appear to contain a great deal of malice therein.
I take two approaches to the resolution: one toward the resolution’s author itself; and one toward the hostility of those commenting on it.
My objection to the author is that if he has remained silent over gross immoralities by celebrities “Christians” such as Martin Luther King who spent a good deal of time promoting “social justice” and who called himself a Christian but was publicly guilty of gross indecencies but now wants to call out an atheist and clearly one who is not a believer, is there hypocrisy here. Did and does Mr. Kessic remain silent about MLK’s moral failures but hotly denounce one who is clearly a heathen, is that not a chink in one’s behavior? MLK does not deserve a pass, but to many, he is revered and honored as a saint above many. Might this not be viewed as special pleading for a black person white castigating a white one?
If there is as much vitriol in the heart of the one condemning this “hate” and racism as the one practicing the racism, is this not sin also?
Is the one not as contrary to Christ’s teaching as the other? Should not believers concentrate on their own lives, that is, to bring them into accord with the word of God as much as is possible? Is not the quaint saying, ” It is never right to do a wrong to do a right” still valid? Judging unbelievers according to 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 is still valid, is it not. Mr. McKissic appears very vehement in his “condemnation” of the author of Alt Right and other white supremacists. According to some specific verses and the tenor of the N.T. , it seems he goes far beyond mere exposure.
Therefore, there may be two problems with Mr. McKissic’s resolution– judging beyond his authority and harboring the same hatred as the evil person. I also wondered if Mr. McKissic has prayed over the man he despises? Has he tried to contact him and share the precious gospel with him. Or, does he have no duty to do so? What is the responsibility of Pastor McKissic, if any, to those who oppose God in Christ and hate others?
Now, to Ephesians 5. This pericope cited does not appear to be on point as to outsiders, that is, unbelievers outside the Christian assembly. I understand the apostle Paul to be speaking of the behavior of believers in the church, 5: 3,5. not to behavior of unbelievers. Paul is warning believers to expose any lifestyle that is contrary to his teaching. It is about ungodliness within the assembly that should be exposed, not the world at large, 5:11. But you may see this differently, but I think it is warning for believers to steer clear of worldliness that would mirror their evil behavior. So, I take this selectively to believers only and the exposures of behavior that would corrupt them. Our need is to be holy and growing therein.
Now, we know that Scripture (that is truth) cannot contradict other Scripture (other truth). If it could, one could make the work of God say anything one wanted.
And if this is so, Ephesians 5 cannot be contrary to 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 as you suggest is the purpose of resolutions.
I don’t know Mr. McKissic other than through his website and other sites that report on his actions but I do pose some questions for him, especially so due to the strong desire he holds and exerts to bring about his resolution: Has he opposed sin, regardless of the actor? Does he see more sin in racism than in the immoralities of many black folk and especially MLK. I assume he holds MLK in high regard, almost as a spiritual hero, greater than many before him, but does his good in social justice outweigh any or all of his public and personal sins? In my experience, as limited as it is, I have come to acknowledge that many black pastors appear blind to the sins in the environment around them except for those connected to racism, inequity, and injustice as they see them. I would hope that Mr. McKessic would condemn all sin, not just the ones he doesn’t like, or those that offend him. He seems surprised that the world hates him, John 15:1ff. It hates us all. Praise God. amen
Les, eric c, and others – you all must live in some bizarre dream world, where FoxNews plays 24-7 and Rush Limbaugh plays nonstop. White supremacy, ethno-nationalism, and the ‘Alt-Right’ are growing. They have been affirmed by Trump’s own in-action, winks, and acceptance.
I live in rural Arkansas – in my first church we lost four families because we invited a black family to a fish fry. I was told, “We won’t go to church with nig%$$S.”
Ethno-nationalism is growing. The lust after the preservation of ‘white culture’ is growing. There is this gross talk about losing our ‘culture’ – whatever that is.
Dwight – thank you for being a prophetic voice and for living in the real world.
If there were truly four racist in your church filled with such hatred I have to assume they were in the great minority. I assume these people left your church and what church did the four racist go to and is it a growing church? How much power and influence does the “Alt Right” have on the college campuses of America compared to the “Alt Left”. I am informed and try to keep ups with current events and history, the old refrain of you watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh is not an argument but a lazy stereotype of people who have a different point of view than you. I have written several comments on this blog that to me at least have some value, I do not agree with Pastor McKissic on this issue but his views and why he has this opinion is well documented , he presents his viewpoint well and respectfully. How prejudiced and wrong would it be if I wrote this person got his viewpoint from BET and OWN or that you only listen to CNN and MSNBC. You go back , read my comments and refute them with fact and logic. Arkansas has better race relations than Boston and the schools are more integrated. So stereotype rural Ark. instead of refuting valid points you disagree with.
Dear Eric Moffett:
May I point out something to you, Eric. Your anecdote from rural Arkansas is not worldwide as you suggest. I assume you were the pastor of that church. If not, whether pastor or not, did you not go to the families and help them understand the biblical teaching on all men are alike as sinners and encourage them in spiritual growth? Perhaps they did not understand what mankind is like, or the minor differences of skin color. You have used them as a token of the evil of some families. I have had many experiences that were quite the opposite–do they cancel out these four families? Probably nothing can in your view. There’s is a sin of commission, but yours may be of omission. I guess one can condemn these people, but would it not be worthy to meet with them and help them get a better understanding? Did you try? How guilty then are you? Condemnation only is a poor report to the Lord, or, I wrote a book about it. How about changing others by our involvement with them: human relationships are very messy and risky, too.
Jim Sullivan: I am going to be blunt here. If you have had experiences the opposite way, I honestly don’t blame the black community for feeling as they do. We are the ones who wronged them, not the other way around. There is way more incidents that the black community is still being wronged than white. And even with racism against whites it will not affect your livelihood, or really anything other than your pride. Not the same in the black community and incidents like Arkansas are widespread which is why the Alt Right is growing. It may not be said out loud, but the same sentiments are there and very widespread.
Steve Banyon is part of that Alternate Right and is right here in our government. He may not be as loud now due to outcry, but he was. And the recent debacle of those not white who were stopped from returning to our country is just a part of what this racism looks like.
I can’t hardly read your comments without cringing they are so wrong. Of course we must stand against this and yes it is Biblical. It’s all over the Bible. From Genesis to Revelation. And even if it were not, it’s just the humane thing to do.
Eric C said it well Eric Moffett. Yours was a lazy and uninformed comment. Though I’m more conservative than Rush, I listen to him seldom and watch MSNBC way more than anything else and when I listen to the radio, its usually NPR. So swing and a miss for ya brother. Try again.