Last Monday I posted a letter I received from John V. Rutledge, that was clearly racist and expressed low regard for the intellectual capacities and Christian understanding and commitment to the biblical faith. A common response to the Rutledge letter from some Southern Baptists (SB) was that he was not representative of the SBC, and he has not been active in the SBC for the past 20 years (although he was active for 50 years).
The reason I posted the Rutledge letter was to make people aware that racist attitudes exist among some SB; and I raised the question, “what percentage of the SBC is represented by the mindset conveyed in this letter by John V. Rutledge?” I have no way of quantifying this percentage.
Today, I am publishing a letter written by Dr. Paige Patterson, former president of SWBTS, to Dr. Jimmy Draper, President Emeritus of Lifeway Christian Resources, an SBC entity. Roughly, from 1975 to 2020, Paige Patterson will be viewed by historians as the most influential personality in the SBC and the one who shaped the trajectory and doctrine of the SBC more so than anyone during that time frame.
My point is Paige Patterson is not a peripheral figure in SBC life and he currently is an active participant in SBC life. A copy of this letter is posted below. My sincere question is: what is the difference between the Patterson and the Rutledge letter? For sure Dr. Patterson does not use vile language to describe persons of African descent. But he does express a very similar discomfort with African American leadership and engagement with the SBC based on his perception of their lack of understanding of SBC issues—which is a polite way of referring to SBC African American pastors as ignorant of SBC doctrine.
Furthermore, he acknowledges that the election of a Black man as president caused him “quaking…a bit.” The letter indicates he believed the election of a Black pastor, Dr. Fred Luter, could result in a “slide a long way back” for the Convention. I am struggling to find—other than Patterson’s use of diplomatic and less offensive or alienating language—a difference between the Rutledge letter and the Patterson letter. They are both in agreement that Black leadership is unsettling and unwelcomed in the SBC, due to a perception that Blacks are somehow intellectually and doctrinally deficient.
Finally, you will never convince me that Paige Patterson’s mindset is not a significant current mindset of SBC pastors and congregants, although I want to believe they will be less than 50%. The Conservative Baptist Network organized in 2020, represents the Patterson faction of the SBC. In their inaugural announcement, they made it very clear that they were anti-social justice. The Conservative Baptist Network (CBN) has also come out expressing full support for the Council of Seminary Presidents (CSP) statement that is a total denunciation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), and it is incompatible with the BF&M and the gospel.
The mere fact that the CSP, CBN, and former President Donald Trump are all in agreement on this issue is quite troubling for African Americans in the SBC. I am not sure why people want to paint Rutledge as an outlier when his views are represented in this Paige Patterson letter. The CSP statement is sanctioned by the Patterson-Trump faction of the SC which is a large segment of the SBC. How large? We don’t know. All those SBC leaders who denounced the Rutledge letter should also denounce the Patterson letter. Rod Martin, a current member of the SBC Executive Committee called Ralph West a “Marxist.” Steve Swofford, also a current member of the SBC EC, called Madam Vice President, Kamala Harris, “Jezebel Harris.” Neither has been denounced by the SBC EC board.
Furthermore, there needs to be a walking-back of the CSP statement if there is to be a rebuilding of the trust between African American Southern Baptists and the SBC. I assure you…trust has been broken, and it needs to be restored before we get to Nashville in June 2021. Evidence flies in the face of the SBC, that Rutledge is merely a lunatic and outlier, detached from current SBC mindsets. The current racial posture of the SBC is extremely disturbing.
I want to say 3 things in response to my brother Dwight’s letter.
1. His concern about the existence of racism is well taken. I have received letters and emails from SS teachers, deacons, and even pastors that were clearly racist. We have deleted comments here and blocked commenters who did not just get close to the line, but crossed it. We have posted articles about blatant acts of racism and been shocked at the deluge of comments we have received DEFENDING the racist actions. (The church down south that fired its pastor for inviting black children to VBS was most notable – MANY defended the church!)
2. John Rutledge did not just leave the SBC 20 to 25 years ago, he apostasized from the faith. I have read accounts of people who conversed with him. He is not a lapsed SBCer, but one…
…who went out from us because he was not of is. He denies every doctrine of the faith as well as being an ugly, disgusting racist. He is not one of us. It sounds like, from what I read of him, he never really was a committed follower of Christ, but perhaps a cultural Christian. I don’t know for sure, but right now he hates Southern Baptists as much as he hates People of Color.
3. I would challenge Dwight’s percentages in this article, though I understand his passion and I realize the force of the attacks he has been under. I believe (by faith, perhaps) that the SBC is slowly but surely rejecting the blatant racist views of John Rutledge (which no doubt once dominated our fellowship) and the subtle but equally ugly racism found in Paige Patterson’s letter.
I agree, my friend.
Patterson’s letter is ugly and there is no other word than racist to describe it. Yes, there is a network that is devoted to preserving his memory and work in the SBC, but I believe they are the minority here and most of us reject racism such as this.
Nashville will be telling. My hope and prayer, Dwight, is that your heart will be convinced as we gather in Nashville, that while racism is not banished from the SBC, we are tired of it, we oppose it, and the VAST majority of it want to see it gone.
The power structure may be afraid to speak. The EC right now, under CBN control, may be seeking to advance the Patterson agenda, but I pray that Nashville will show that most of us want to (as our friend Alan says) “tell a better story!”
If it turns out, judging from actions in Nashville, that racism is AS alive and well as you see it (I am only more hopeful than you are about proportions) then we will ALL be reexamining our participation in the SBC.
My fear in this, brother Dave, is that if COVID gets worse, and Nashville still goes on; the population more likely to vote for the more, rational, unifying candidate is also the population who are more likely to heed medical advice and avoid travel. I hope things continue to improve so we’ll have a good showing of all walks of SBC life.
Thank you for this comparison. I realize you do not need my agreement, but I offer it anyway.
I’ve never been one for the political infighting that takes place in the SBC, but this is one point on which I could be persuaded to throw elbows. Thanks again.
Thank you Dwight. Great insights as usual.
I would argue that these 2 letters are not the same and that Patterson’s is much more dangerous to the SBC. Most racism isn’t as obvious or vulgar as the Rutledge letter. If it was, it would be easier to call out and expose. I’ve seen so much more harm done from innuendo and gas lighting than clear and overt racism.
I am also with you that I want to see a clear and sincere repudiation of the CSP statement before this summer. We represent a growing number of diverse churches that are feeling like there is a witch hunt happening now by CBN. I hope and pray that we don’t continue to shrink the table that is the SBC. We would do so to our own detriment. Surely the kingdom is big enough for all of us.
Before becoming a pastor I was a football coach for 25 years. The last school I coached was heavily racially divided. They also had not won more the two games in a season for six years.
But for the seven years I was there we never had a losing season. Why? We learned to focus on winning instead of skin color.
The letters from Rutledge and Paige are both ungodly and unacceptable. But these retaliatory strikes, as well meaning as they are, are equally divisive. These responses only fuel the fires of division. And the enemy loves it.
We all like and use the old slogan “Do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes”. CRT helps me , a white man, understand to so some degree how the oppressed minority feels and sees the world differently. Pastor McKissic, others here & using the tools of CRT have helped me try to change from being a white conservative Christian just to be a Christian. It is a challenge to me to change as change is hard but the SBC must renounce its past entirely, deconstruct and reconstruct.
More fuel for the fire.
The first year I coached that team three white players and three black players made a choice to get in a fight in the locker room. I benched all six players for that week’s game and we lost by double digits. We, as a team, chose to lose because we were distracted from winning.
CRT is a losing distraction.
A house divided cannot stand.
Tell the CBN.
Absolutely, as much to blame as anybody.
I had two players once, o e black and one white. They got in an argument over who would get the locker closest to the door. It was considered a place of honor. I padlocked the locker and sent them both to the back.
The argument over CRT is like two 17 year olds fighting over a locker. selfish on both sides.
” CRT have helped me try to change from being a white conservative Christian just to be a Christian. ”
That’s what’s wrong with CRT. It makes assumptions that conservative Christianity (and by conservative I mean doctrinally, not politically-two totally separate things) is white.
Conservative Christianity is not white. I have many Black conservative (doctrinally) brothers. My brother, Rob, for example would be greatly offended that you’ve labeled his theology as being white. He’s firmly conservative in his doctrine and he’s Black.
Steve. I’m going to ask you straight forward and on your honor I would like a straightforward answer, reminding you as my brother in Christ, who I assume also takes seriously the command of our God regarding honesty.
This supposed change of heart to embrace CRT. Do you in all honesty claim that it is a true change of heart to embrace it. Or is it a game to play to prove a point, to make people appear foolish, to keep it stirred up to anger the hard anti-CRT crowd for your own purposes. Or for some other reason I have not touched on.
Because as Bill pointed out on the other thread, such a rapid turnabout makes it come across as not serious.
And so here is the opportunity to address it now before God and all of us.. give up the game or double down. What is truth, brother?
If the author intends to prove racism is alive and well in the SBC, current examples would be more helpful than these older ones. The first letter writer left the SBC two decades ago. He is not even a Christian. The second letter was penned the year the iPhone 5 released. Almost a decade old, it admittedly expressed some questionable concerns, although these misgivings are couched in language clearly encouraging African American appointments, affirming the election of a Black SBC President, and specifically endorsing the election of Fred Luter. However one calibrates the racism spectrum, the second letter writer wants and expects to see more ethnic minorities in office and supports this at the highest level.
Are you seriously implying that racism has an “expiration date”??????
Not in the least. My point was that if the author’s goal is to prove the existence of rampant racism in the SBC today, we should be provided more current examples.
Has Patterson addressed the content of this letter? Has he apologized? I am not aware of it.
I understand your point, but this is less than a decade ago and I have experienced similar attitudes regularly.
I gave you examples as late as ‘20. Are you denying that the Patterson letter represents racism? Do you denounce the Patterson letter?
Indeed, the Rutledge letter is from 2020. However, he is no longer a Southern Baptist. Recent letters by current Southern Baptists would help your case.
Patterson’s letter questions if minority appointments will grasp the significance of inerrancy and nominate only inerrantists. Does he believe they *cannot* or *do not* grasp it? The *cannot* view would be racist. The *do not* view is not necessarily so. Many groups are not familiar with the SBC inerrancy debate.
Patterson hired a black Dean, affirmed minority appointments, and endorsed a black SBC President. To determine if his motivations are racial, we might ask, “Has he ever questioned the position on inerrancy of any Caucasians?” More than any man alive. This letter appears to be more about inerrancy than race.
I’m kind of with Rick on this. Comparing a former SBC pastor’s letter to a former SBC leader who is losing influence. The only relevance PP has to the current SBC is the fact that the leadership of the Conservative Baptist Network is made up of mostly people in Patterson’s inner circle.
The Patterson letter reminds me of then-Senator Biden’s description of then-Senator Obama: “the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.” (NBC News)
Can’t people be against CRT for theology reasons? There are many theological reasons to not support the Vice President as well (abortion, religious freedom, her encouraging violent rioters to be bailed out of jail, etc.). Labeling up to half the SBC as racist is a bit much. At what point does this become slander?
Reconciliation is hard to accomplish when one side calls the other racist. The Council of Seminary Presidents says CRT is incompatible with SBC doctrine. Are we really suggesting all six of these men are racist? If not, can we acknowledge the solid theological reasons behind their decision to oppose Critical Race Theory?
Dr. Patterson affirmed his happiness that the first African American was elected SBC president. Does this sound like the words of a racist? We should all be concerned if skin color becomes a primary reason for being placed in leadership. In the church there is neither Jew nor Greek. The qualifications for leadership should be the impartial standard of Christ-likeness. Who is reflecting biblical standards, and who is reflecting the popular culture found in Washington D.C.?
It looks like Dr. Patterson said one thing in public and another in private.
Tim,
I’m much in agreement with what you’ve said here. Your points are spot-on.
So, all the blame goes on one side, Tim? Racism doesn’t exist and its nothing but false accusations? All those folks who have felt the sting of racism just need to get over it?
Racism is a very serious charge. Specifics should be given to support such a charge. Patterson’s letter can be understood in a non-racist way. Ephesians 4:29 needs to be applied to our words. James 2:13 is a stern warning. When racism is identified, I’ll stand with you to condemn it with Bible in hand. Yes, racism exist. Racism is sinful.
We need to understand that hurt feelings do not prove a heart is racist. This is especially true in light of our current culture’s adoption of CRT. We need to have a debate between the biblical ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. and the adherents to CRT. MLK argued for individuals to be judged by the content of one’s character. CRT argues that skin color is the key to personal identity. These two visions are incompatible.
Please go watch MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He dreamed of a color blind society. He says “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The vision of Martin Luther King Jr. is in conflict with identity politics. MLK would not support CRT.
White guy speaks for MLK Jr?
William, do you disagree that MLK Jr. wanted a color blind society?
William Thornton, you stated:
“White guy speaks for MLK Jr?”
For copyright purposes, please cite whatever CRT pamphlet you quoted that from (since there are so many, you might just pick one). Thanks.
It was a question for TO. No need to trouble yourself over it.
You are a preacher.
A white guy who speaks for a middle eastern semite.
What does the colir of one’s sin have to do with understanding the words he speaks?
I let the middle eastern Jewish guy speak for himself. Reread the comment.
how on earth can you defend Patterson’s letter as non-racist?
I guess I see racism as a much bigger and more present problem than you do.
Why can we not admit that choosing people for leadership positions based primarily on skin color is theologically risky? Patterson gave his entire life to making inerrancy a fundamental SBC doctrine. He is concerned about what standards for appointments will be used. This does not make him a racist. Isn’t Patterson the same guy who gave a scholarship to a non-white Muslim? He applauds and supports Luter’s plan to appoint minorities. (States this in his letter) His concern is that some candidates may not have an SBC background. If that is the case, the nominees needs to fully understand the matter of inerrancy. Without an SBC background, this will be difficult. When a denomination fights a war over one issue, they tend to understand it well. Those who were not in the war might struggle.
Remember that this is a private letter between two men with long SBC histories. During the Conservative Resurgence the SBC became more diverse. Praise God for this! That said, we want to maintain our biblical beliefs as we grow and expand. We do not want to expand at the expense of inerrancy and the BFM. Perhaps an analogy of new members in a church is helpful. We want new members and believers to eventually join leadership, but we want to make sure new faces don’t change our core commitments to Christ as a congregation. This, not racism, is Patterson’s concern. Why jump to accusations of racism when this explanation better fits his life?
Did Patterson express similar concerns about other nominees? Or just Luter? What, in Luter’s past would give anyone reason to quake regarding Luter’s allegiance to the inerrancy of the Bible and his devotion to the SBC? The only thing I noticed in Patterson’s letter that speaks to this is ethnicity. And I can tell you from personal interactions with Luter and all of Franklin Ave Baptist Church, the SBC is blessed to have them and they, and many ethnic minority churches fully understand SBC polity and the theological importance of inerrancy. This letter is a disgrace and an insult hidden by polite words and faux concern. (I have no doubt of Patterson’s concern over inerrancy, this letter reads as though that concern was bested by his concern that a minority wouldn’t have that same desire.)
I’m not sure how connected you are with behind the scenes matters in SBC life, but Patterson had his fingers in everything. So yes, he had concerns about nominations by other SBC presidents. His actions earned him the enmity of many. When he got into hot water, the 11th commandment was disregarded by the other figure heads. Many rejoiced in his downfall. Note in his absence how quickly the SBC has descended into division. Patterson kept problems at bay behind the scenes. Mohler, for all his strengths, is not a leader. He is cautious and holds back when unsure. Patterson was a man of action. When he was removed from leadership, other entity heads felt relief and freedom. This freedom has led the convention to feel disjointed. Every entity head does what is right in their own eyes.
I remain a fan of Patterson. He changed the direction of the SBC, renewed our faith in inerrancy, and restored two seminaries to faithful teaching. Is he perfect? No. Great men often have great flaws. See David’s adultery, Peter’s denials, Paul’s murder, Martin Luther’s poor treatment of his wife, Calvin’s treatment of his theological opponents, etc. Thankfully, God is more merciful than our cancel culture. It’s a miracle He is able to use any sinner. When all is said and done, Paige Patterson will be receiving a far greater eternal reward than those lesser men who snipe at him. . . while ironically parroting the very idea of inerrancy he spent his life fighting to normalize. Patterson made a significant contribution to the Kingdom of God. Let’s recognize his contributions and flaws.
Fine. Please comment on the HERF mess, the state of SWBTS during PP’s tenure, the treatment of abuse victims at two SBC institutions, the DSS. The current attempt at a second CR and PP’s involvement in the same.
This “”we’re all sinners” argument” is often merely a dodge for sober thinking about reality. People, institutions were harmed. Any comment on that?
Total nonsense by a PP acolyte. There are people who got stained glass windows who aren’t as brazen as you.
Lol I’ll give you the stain glass issue. I really don’t want to dig up bones. I agree that there are concerns. That said, I am very grateful for a man who successfully fought for inerrancy. He changed our lives for the better by the stands he made. What he accomplished at Southeastern was amazing. I’m not trying to be pure sunshine and roses, but a little balance in a thread calling him a racist is justified.
1. I reject racism and the racist views expressed in both letters.
2. I also reject the idea that the many SB’s who are dead-set against the Dems (due primarily to abortion and the LTGBQX revolution, secondarily to their economics) must be racist Trump-supporters.
3. It seems to me to be a trend in SBC controversies, that if there’s an opposing group standing on valid principles, just paint them as followers of an immoral leader and then you’ll be relieved of the hard work of refuting those principles.
4. I support CBN for just such a set of principles, and I’m not a fan or follower of Patterson. He’s not listed in the leadership. If it is true, as some claim, that his associates are in the leadership, then–BASED ON THEIR PUBLISHED PRINCIPLES–their cause is worth joining. I don’t see any of their letters being held up as racist. If someone would start such an organization, but with leaders that are somehow acceptable to all, I’d be glad to join that one. Until then, I’ll support CBN, because I reject racism of all kinds–including CRT/I in both its hard-line and its softer compromised ease-it-through-the-door forms.
Scripture is supreme above all . CRT is just a tool to help us understand race relations that affect culture and society, The SBC was founded on racism and it is in its DNA. Younger leaders may be liberal and do not think they are racist but the SBC culture they grew up in was racist at its core, they do not know they are racist, they throw the oppressed a bone of inclusion in the SBC leadership.. I strongly supported Trump until I realized he was a divider based on policy as much as his immoral behavior, that he did not think immoral. I thought I was voting for Trump on political issues but I was condoning his personal behavior and immoral world view. No person is “illegal” & the term illegal alien is offensive, now I see it. This was/is a hard change for me to examine myself.
All this reminds me of CS Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters.” The demon, Screwtape, told Wormwood one of the best ways to defeat the enemy (Christ) was to divide His followers over political and social issues.
Never really thought of Lewis as a prophet.
“You see the riff? Let them believe, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.”–Screwtape
I just did a lot of reading. Admittedly, until the last hour I knew little of CRT, but am now slightly more informed. Bro. Dwight, racism does still exist in the SBC, and I’m afraid there will always be a remnant, but it doesn’t mean that the majority of messengers feel that way. That being said, I for one stand in agreement that CRT, as a whole, is incompatible with both the BFM as well as the Gospel. However, I did agree with Rev. Williams: “We shared our beliefs and perspectives on CRT. We really pressed into our differences on the usefulness of some aspects of CRT as a tool to help us identify and uncover systemic racism in our society. We differed on that, but what we did not differ on is that systemic racism exists.”
But I cannot get behind CRT as a whole. First, it has emerged from a postmodernism reality. Quoting Alistair Begg: “Postmodernism is idiocy!” Any philosophy that denies absolute truth is incompatible with Christianity, and part of CRT is the belief in naming one’s own reality. This is too similar to “your truth isn’t my truth.”
However, aspects of CRT, independent of CRT as a whole, are not only valid, but absolutely worth teaching and using to bridge the dialogue on racism in America: past, present, and prayerfully, without a future!
Joseph, That is why Resolution 9 was/is so important. As a tool it will help leaders in SBC to use it to grow and understand racism. Racism will only be totally eliminated when the oppressor can no longer use their history and positions to oppress. Like moving the birth of American history from 1776 to 1619, it brings in a new perspective not base on a white understanding. Oppressor truth in America is different than the oppressed persons truth. A white northern Christian in 1845 had a different history/understanding that the white southern Christians of the South. Why was the SBC established, on the truth as the 1845 southern whites believed.
Hey Steve! I know my question to you might have gone overlooked since it’s buried up top so this is just a friendly notification of its existence since you seemed to have not seen it. Have a great day!
Kimberly Koonts,I did not c your earlier good question. I will answer this way. Can a person change quickly? Was CRT passed by the SBC convention to use as a tool not to replace Scripture but to help us understand others? I am trying to change as urged by those here and in my life who could not understand my support of immoral Trump. I am learning about CRT and its application to our culture and how we personally perceive events. Either CRT is a useful tool as per Resolution 9 or it is not. I did not vote for him but if Biden was pegged to be of better moral character than Trump, so I am with our new President. I have made other post since your question. Did the southern slave owners have a different version of truth and their understanding of the Bible than the slaves, who became (pt.1)
Kim K, Part 2 -Christians. I am truly trying to learn & be guided by a new outlook of secular politics and to see Bible teachings though the lens of those who are not in my privilege position as a majority white male. I do not question the motives of those who made CRT a resolution. I believe they wanted us to use it as a tool. I am growing and changing and my comments are sincere but they are also questions to those here who profess to want racial inclusion and racial healing. I think, at this time, CRT is of help. Am I comfortable with my new journey of learning, not completely. So a avid Trump supporter and a white very conservative Christian is on a journey of change, it is a journey, my other journey took 72 years this has been since Jan 7 2020.
Kim K. Part 3, are the SBC leaders and members who have professed to want racial equity and inclusion been and are sincere over the past 20 years as little real progress has been made or is it just lip service? They post and print articles about how what should happen but it does not happen. Why? Do they really mean it or do you have doubts about them like me. I think this is why Pastor McKissic and others are questioning The comments and facts are here for all to personally evaluate, reject all, reject some of the issues are raised for the merit of the issue .
Alright Steve, I will take you at your word.
Now do I have doubts about some of the SBC leaders like I had doubts about you? No and yes. I have doubts, yes, absolutely. But not for the same reason. The reason I had doubts about you was because of how quick and drastic the change was.
So I would commend you for looking into these issues about race in the SBC and in general. I would recommend taking a period of learning though and finding some good mentors to help weed betw the good and bad out there, because there is A LOT out there lately.
It would be a great opportunity to find a trusted leader who is knowledgeable in this area to disciple you. And maybe this would help bring you some measure of comfort in your journey.
Kimberly, thank you for your concern and good advice. Baptist of all people should have an understanding of quick changes of heart. I have no discomfort in my present position except I am at times in confusing new territory. Those here and else who think Trump unfit convinced me, I hope they were sincere. Those who think CRT is a valid tool , I took them at their word. Nothing is more zealous than an ex anything in their belief system to the belief system they left.. I believe Jesus is my Savior, paid for my sins and have eternal life with him. God keeps his word and promises. That is for sure not changed with me.
Kim, thanks.I understand. I thought I was going though a period of learning and consider sites such as this an aide. My Pastor does not know enough or is interested in CRT. As it is tied to politics also I just avoid the issue on a personal level. CRT is either valid as a tool or it is not, just like CT. Again I am in no discomfort in my journey just bewilderment at times. I guess I should have doled out my change of perspective in small easy to take sincere doses , like the SBC historic position on racism. Sudden drastic conversion seems to be suspect. However, I get it, old white guys seldom change their minds or position.
Hey Steve. I think I understand. It was just surprising is all. You can say your perspective all you want, and if it’s drastically different than it was, that is your opinion and you’re entitled to it.
Some people do that sort of thing to “troll” others and stir up trouble and it seems that is not the case here then. That was why I was asking what I asked.
Have a good night, brother.
kim, I get it, I am of the age where I am not internet social aware. Like any other idea or thought presented my “perspective” is mine and the worth of it in the marketplace of ideas is what the reader thinks it is. So here is my perspective of life on an internet site from again my perspective.
Kim Part 2.
SBC Convention – Resolution 9 passed , use as a tool to change your perspective on race.
Me- Jan 7, 2021 = Ok, I will use it and try to change. It will not replace Bible teachings but a tool.
Me.- Hard to swallow but CRT does offer a viewpoint I never considered.
SBC Voices- Why are you using CRT- do you really believe in it
Me- I am learning and trying to use it as a tool but Scripture remains the everlasting truth.
SBC Voices- You take CRT seriously? Are you sincere?
Me- Yes, I am trying to use CRT as a tool as per SBC urging.
SBC Voices- Really are you sincere because you changed quickly
Me- ?
Kim Part 3, now I am just playing around a little, as we all have to determine what is worthwhile to consider. I think u sincere and have honest concerns, I get it. If I am being pretending to change then it is on me, but you and others can agree or disagree with my comments and take them for what they are worth. SBC Resolution 9 says CRT a tool but if you use it how will we know you are not fooling us? Catch 22. Again now , I am just free balling in my thoughts. So again I sense your honest concern in your comments.
Hi Steve. Since you are newly interested in thinking about things from others perspectives, do you want to try to see this from outside of your perspective how it might look?
Kim, sure that is why I was here when I was pro Trump and very traditional , conservative in my value system. That is why I am here now. I came here as a conservative to get others perspective that I did not agree with. Perhaps I do not understand your comment. I am very open to new ideas that have substance.
Steve, thank you for your example of repentance. This is the normal Christian life, declared by Luther in the first of his 95 Theses. You need to be discipling people.
Bro. Newhouse, with all due respect unless you know each president’s heart (and you don’t) you have absolutely no clue as to which one is more moral than the other. To say one is more moral than another is disgusting.
E. Rivers,I voted for President Trump twice. I do not know his heart only his actions in public. Many people made the case that in his public persona Biden projected and practiced a morality that Trump did not. I certainly am not judging either mans heart. I still think that on policy and viewpoint President Trump was correct but his personal morality had to be considered. Personally I voted for Trump but today I would not have voted at all. Let us hope that all the Biden supporters are right and he will do what is right, so far his main claim is that he is not Trump.
Thank you brother for your response. May God Bless you and America.
I would agree with numerous writers who point out the fallacy of using the letter of a 20 year SBC apostate as indicative of the SBC today. Does the past remarks of our current president about race and individuals mark him as a racist.
A few thoughts. The Rutledge letter is reprehensible and was soundly rebuked.
The Jezebel comment was very un-Christlike. From what I have seen, it too was widely rebuked. That should have been part of the Yonot Shimron story. “Southern Baptists Widely Rebuke Pastors for Jezebel Comparison” would have been an accurate headline.
Regarding the Patterson letter, I admit to being uncomfortable with a couple of lines, but there is some needed context. First is the context of his life. I was a student of Patterson’s for my MDIV in the late 1990’s. He regularly challenged us to be ready to lose everything in the fight against racism in our churches. It is just a historical fact that as SEBTS president, he fought hard against the racism of these Dixie churches. I myself led my first church to
integrate for the first time in its 118-year history. I still remember the threats I received and telling my chairman of deacons, “I fear God more than unemployment.” The courage to do so came, in part, from Dr. Patterson’s influence.
Second is the context of this letter. I am curious to know if Dr. Patterson was referring to the rising number of churches dually aligned with another denomination which – let’s be honest – does not hold to a high view of Scripture. Obviously, if any church (regardless of ethnicity) dually aligns with us, also belonging to another denomination holding to a low view of Scripture, it is important to make sure that this church understands the differences between the two. I have a feeling that’s what Dr. Patterson meant. But since we do not know the context,
Christian charity should lead us to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Personally, I am undecided on CRT. But I would bet my church is more diverse than anyone else’s on here. I am Anglo. Seventy-five percent of my deacons are minorities (soon to be eighty percent). We have services in English, Spanish, and Creole. Our staff is also diverse. Does my proven record of fighting racism and promoting diversity and inclusion get thrown out the window if I say I have reservations about CRT? I fear that’s where this is headed. “Let’s not look at a man’s life. Let’s judge him on one widely disputed position, or on a letter written years ago, the interpretation of which depends on the context which we do not know.”
Howard: I don’t think anyone objects to someone NOT using CRT. What they object to is saying no one can use it.
How is the Jezebel comment un-Christlike when the Lord Jesus used it himself to describe a false teacher in Revelation chapter 2.
I do not personally believe that is a license to use the term to denigrate a woman one simply doesn’t like. That particular term has a history of abuse. Jesus, obviously, used it accurately.
Well, perhaps her name was Jezebel.
Part 1 – The only comment I have to make is based on personal experience of having been very close to the leaders of the CR, as it was going on. I am still friends with them, and believe they did one of the most significant things in Christian history.
The statements in the Patterson letter are not racist, if you know and are willing to acknowledge what was driving them.
The goal was to elect conservatives to the Presidency, but not just any conservatives. Conservatives who were willing and knowledgeable to use their powers of appointment wisely. Winfred Moore, Richard Jackson, and Dan Vestal were all conservative but they would have appointed moderates to key positions which would have undone or threatened the victories that had been achieved.
Part 2 – Jim Henry is conservative. He was elected but he made some terrible appointments.
Long hours of discussion were had over each appointment and whether that person had the background and knowledge of the key players in their state and other states so as to not get caught making a bad appointment because the appointee, or those recommending him, were personally conservative and pleasant.
I can here these very words of concern in Patterson’s letter coming out of the mouths of Pressler, Patterson, Rogers, Smith, Draper, Stanley, Vines, Young, Chapman, and others, all of whom I knew and was around at the time of the CR.
These words were applied to lots of people, not just Fred Luter.
If the president of an educational institution belonging to any other denomination had written letters which stepped way out of the bounds of their authority addressing an issue like that in that way, they would not have been the president of the institution the next day, and they would have been disfellowshipped from their congregation at its next business session.
Not so. Patterson did not give up his opinions on the CR. He had fought for 20+ years to see it to fruition.
These kind of conversations go on today. I assume you recognize that.
The only other denomination with which I was involved would have seen an agency head as a denominational employee and therefore, having any kind of influence in selecting denominational committee or trustee leadership would have been viewed as a conflict of interest. Letting the executives who work for the denomination and are supervised by trustees have the ability to stack their own trustee boards is a problem waiting to happen and is the main reason Southwestern Seminary is in the shape that it is. In that denomination, the head of an educational institution criticizing African American pastors and the possibilities that their beliefs might be detrimental to someones perspective would have been dismissed the next day without a golden parachute to exit. They had ethical standards.
I don’t disagree with you on the influence of agency executives selecting or deselecting actual trustees.
Not bothered about Patterson voicing general concerns about who would be Pres of the SBC.
And as demonstrated by the letter itself, racism was not an issue. Patterson expresses pleasure re the election of the SBC’s first black Pres.
Yes, he does, but that was sort of obligatory at that point. Luter himself did not adhere strictly to Patterson’s narrow interpretations of his “conservative resurgence” doctrine, his church being more like Dr.McKissic’s congregation than, say, First Baptist Church of Dallas. But Luter was outside the inner circle of the old conservative resurgence leadership and was a popular choice not requiring the endorsement of the Pressler-Patterson caucus.
Jack, that’s exactly the point. Because Luter was not active in the CR leadership, Patterson was concerned if Luter had the knowledge and knew the issues and personalities to avoid making bad decisions.
And as I said, I heard this language used by the CR leaders I knew with respect to lots of folks.
Btw, were you around and active in the CR from 1979 to 1995, when things were really active?
I don’t think Luter was Pres until 2012 or so.
But I don’t believe Luter’s appointments were any different than Rogers’, Stanley’s, or any of the early guys.
I wasn’t old enough to be an active member of a church or to be elected as a messenger until the 1992 convention which was also close enough to home for me to attend. I attended random convention meetings up until 2002, when I moved and joined a church that wasn’t even Baptist, much less SBC. I’m kept up with what happens because of parents and a sibling who still attend the church where I grew up, though it is on the verge of changing affiliations.
Patterson and his oligarchy had Dr. Russell Dilday, President of Southwestern Seminary, dismissed for doing exactly what he did here–writing a letter that expressed a perspective on denominational politics when he did not have the authority to do so while serving as an entity head. So where’s his hand slap?
Agency heads are EXREMELY involved in the selection of committees and the eventual selection of trustees.
They feel they have more at stake than anyone.
Part 3 – Given that Patterson says in this letter that he’s pleased about Luter’s election, as a black man, and the prospects of the appointment of minorities, and that his only expressed concern is their knowledge of the issues, it is not a fair reading of the letter to suggest there is racism here.
Patterson’s expression here is no different than our own when we choose SBC Presidents, or vote on nominees, today.
Even today, we may acknowledge that a person is conservative and a good person, but we may have reservations about them leading in the SBC, or making appoitments, if they don’t have a demonstrated capacity or experience with the particular issues facing us today.
That is my opinion about the proper interpretation of the language in Patterson’s letter.
He particularly singled out those in “ethnic groups” as ones who didn’t understand “the issues”. It’s a little difficult to put a positive spin on that.
Unfortunately, we see this time and time again. A man says or does something egregious, and his followers will spin it. We see it with Patterson, we saw it with Caner, we saw it with Driscoll, we saw it with Trump.
Bill,
That’s true.
But it’s a two sided coin.
Many times people will make it out to be worse than it is.
What’s the difference between spin and nuance?
The presumption that Patterson’s letter, motivations, and opinions were and are racist is just that – presumption. And, as in so many other instances involving issues such as this, that presumption is sinful and should be rejected.
I do not know Patterson. I’ve never even heard a sermon by him! How about that! I don’t know McKissic either.
But I have always thought Patterson’s beef with McKissic is about his Charismatic tendencies, not his skin color. I think Patterson is speaking about a concern over tongues and prophecy. That is what he means by biblical authority and inerrancy issues.
That is my opinion from what I have read.