Alan blogs at Downshore Drift. He gave me permission to copy this post and bring it to you here at SBC Voices.
SBC 2012 in New Orleans was a good gathering for a denomination that is known for its ugly fights and petty disagreements. It is easy to dismiss the SBC (and other denominations) as simply an unnecessary organization that has little to do with true Christianity. But, I would disagree. While I don’t place my faith in the SBC, it is a group of Christians that are commanded to walk together in unity (as are all Christians). When that happens, it is a good thing. Overall, there was a sense that most desire unity and a focus on Christ and our mission to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. The talk in the convention halls (at least in the conversations that I engaged in) almost exclusively involved mission, unity, and moving forward. Of course, there was talk about controversy and division, but it was primarily couched in the perspective that we hope we can move past this and just get along instead of hoping one side or another “wins.” Maybe the “winner-take-all” language is beginning to wear on Baptists for the time being. I am hopeful.
A few observations about what I found Great, Bad, and Sad. Each of these points could turn into future blog posts, if I am so inclined. Some of these things are particularly related to my own experience at the Convention and would not necessarily be shared by all. There is certainly a lot to reflect on:
The Great
- The unanimous election of Fred Luter as SBC president is the highlight, for sure. It was a holy moment as 170 years of Baptist history as well as the founding of the SBC was practically repudiated by our call for an African-American to lead us. As Russell Moore said, “Jim Crow is dead, Jesus Christ is alive.” Death has been swallowed up in victory and we experienced a bit of that as we see once again that God is reconciling all things to Himself in Christ. This election demonstrated once again that racism as an ideology will be forced to bow before the Cross of Christ. If you understand our history at all, you will know how amazing this is.
- Overall sense of unity. A resolution on unity around the understanding of the Gospel as presented in the Baptist Faith & Message passed almost unanimously. That is a good thing. Even though we have Calvinists and Non-Calvinists in the SBC, we do not wish to divide over soteriology or present one side over another. The SBC has spoken. The tent is large enough for both views and we will not tolerate one view trying to assert itself over another. Can we move on, now?
- Election of Dave Miller for 2nd VP. This one is a bit personal, as I was asked by Dave to give his nomination speech. Dave winning this thing was not supposed to happen. He is a pastor/blogger from Iowa on the same ballot as a strong Traditionalist leader from Mississippi in the home state of his father, the Executive Director of Lousiana who announced weeks ago. Dave’s announcement was Friday night on this blog (and, of course, SBCVoices). It was inconceivable that Dave would win, but I don’t think we know what that word means. Dave got 60% of the vote. I think that Dave is a good candidate who desires to see Baptists work together. He has strong opinions and I hope that he continues to share them as editor at SBCVoices.com. We need leaders who will speak out for the things that Dave believes in, not be quiet now that they are in leadership. I am glad to see a candidate like Dave and I was happy to be a part of electing him to help us work TOGETHER.
- Passing of Resolution 8 on the Gospel and Human Needs Ministry. I wrote this resolution to affirm and encourage all Baptists to see the meeting of human needs through acts of kindness, service, and love as implications of the Gospel. In Christ, false dividing walls come down and we are called to love others sacrificially. The Scripture clearly shows that demonstration of good deeds is to accompany proclamation of the Good News. Many Baptists do this, but I am hoping that this resolution will push forward the idea that this is what we are all supposed to be doing in our life and ministry all the time. Again, more blogging will come on this later.
- LOTS of younger people at the SBC this year. More than I have ever seen, and that can only be a good thing. It seems that we might be turning a corner in this area and repositioning for the future. Also, there was more ethnic diversity than I have ever seen. With the news that over 20% of SBC churches are now majority-minority/ethnic churches, it is good to see minority leadership emerging. The presence of young people and minorities in the SBC, especially moving into leadership, gives me a great deal of hope.
The Bad
- There are still many in the SBC who greatly desire power and think that they are entitled to it. I don’t understand this kind of thinking. It is great to serve and if asked to lead, we should do so humbly while making much of Jesus. I can’t judge hearts and motives, but when I see people become angry because they did not get their way or because they think they lost power or influence in some way, then I know that their focus is on the wrong thing. I know this because I have done it before and had to just let things go and get a grip.
- Apart from the constant chatter from the floor about the use of microphones and parlimentary procedure, there was not much else that rates in the “Bad” category.
The Sad
- SBC Leadership on the platform choosing not to allow discussion on Todd Littleton’s motion to agree with the ERLC Trustees and Richard Land that his comments on the Trayvon Martin Affair were wrong. Yesterday morning, I saw Rev. Luter being interviewed by Soledad O’Brien on CNN. She asked him if his election was not a token gesture since Richard Land made comments about Trayvon Martin that some deemed as racist. Rev. Luter had to back up and explain those remarks. The Messengers should have been allowed to AGREE with the ERLC Trustees and Richard Land that his comments were wrong in a motion that would show that the messengers and the SBC as a whole repudiated such remarks. Not giving us that chance was shortsighted and could be construed as caring more about protecting Richard Land than making the right and prophetic statement. We need to think more about long-term consequences than we do.
- Not bringing out Dwight McKissic’s resolution condemning racist language in Mormon Scriptures that have not been repudiated. Rev. McKissic made an impassioned plea for Southern Baptists to speak to these abusive comments, but we refused to do so. Some said that it was because we did not want to condemn just one aspect of Mormonism. Others said that it was because we did not want to get involved in a political debate. When have Baptists ever shied away from condemning anything? When have we ever shied away from politics? It can appear to some as though we are not interested in bringing up or condemning anything that might be perceived to be hurtful towards Mitt Romney and his campaign. But, bringing up the inherent racism in Mormonism and repudiating it now would have helped Mitt Romney in the long run by giving him a chance to repudiate the position of Mormonism in their Scriptures early in the summer. It would have also been the right and prophetic thing to do.
I think that on the previous two issues, Southern Baptists chose to not be prophetic on procedural grounds. But, it appears (on both counts) that Southern Baptist leadership did not want to take positions that might hurt their political candidate or people in the inner circle. We have a long history of thinking primarily about what benefits our perceived interests in situations like this and we are better served to think about long-term implications to the positions that we take on issues related to race and justice.
Summary
Overall, it was a good, historic convention. I am glad that I was a part of it. I am hopeful for the future of the SBC if we continue in this trajectory and I am excited to see the growing youth and diversity present in our largest gathering. Like everything else, however, we are only as strong as our dependence on the Lord. Let us look to Christ alone.
I am very glad that the Land motion died. The man said something wrong. He apologized. This was just an attempt at political moderates/liberals piling on. Accept his apology and drop it. It’s over.
I’m thankful the mormon motion didn’t pass. The statements in mormon books about black people are vile and not true. Scientology is also racist. I don’t notice that having been brought up. If anybody thinks the SBC didn’t speak to this issue because Mitt Romney is running that’s just ignorance talking. Their racist scriptures are the very least of their problems. The fact that they preach a false gospel which will condemn people to hell is a MUCH bigger deal. The way to deal with the spread of a false gospel is not to tell people they’ve got racist statements in their books but rather to preach the gospel.
I agree that we should look to Christ alone. I commend Southern Baptists for refusing to engage in secular politics despite the pious and false accusations that we are not being true to the Kingdom. Hopefully we have learned our lesson from past intemperate forays into secular politics.
Walt,
Do u view racism as equally as offensive as homosexuality?
Dwight
Dwight: Yes. When did Romney come out in favor of racism as Obama did on homosexuality? We need to learn the difference between defense and (giving) offense.
Walt,
When Romney refuses to repudiate his racist”Bible” he has given tacit approval to racism. On the Tim Russert interview in 2008 he refused to distance himself from his racist Bible, and the racist heritage of the Mormon Church. Romney offends all Blacks when he does not repudiate the racist text in his “Bible.” If you and the SBC view racism as equally as offensive as homosexuality, the Mormon resolution would have passed with flying colors. Be honest: protecting the interest of the Republican party was why this resolution was not approved. I know it; you know it; and the resolutions committee knows this and the majority of the messengers are also aware of this. Any other excuse given is just that; an excuse. Some African Americans found it offensive and racist that the committee would place concerns about how persons in Utah would feel about the Mormon resolution, to be more important than reaching potential Mormon converts–all over the world–with information that would stop Mormon evangelism among dark complexioned people almost dead in it’s tracks. My belief is eight out of every ten persons of color made aware of this information, would not give Mormonism not even the first hearing if they knew the views of the Mormon “Bible.” But in the name of “further research”, protecting Utah, and not attacking the doctrine of another religion( I find that excuse the most difficult to believe), the committee would not bring forth this resolution. But as God would have it, His truth will march on. I am preparing for a tv news interview on this subject coming up about an hour from now, where God is going to use the secular media to get this truth out, while the SBC punted on an opportunity. Perhaps NAMB will take up this challenge, and if they do, I will be eternally grateful, as well as the souls who turn from Mormonism, or never embrace Mormonism–but the true gospel–because of our witness.
Dwight
Dwight: It saddens me when you ascribe less than honorable motives to those with whom you disagree. No, I don’t know “it.” You cause dissension in the SBC ranks by your mean spirited accusations which cannot honor Christ. I just learned that you are a black man. Do you think racism is the greatest Mormon heresy, greater than the teaching that God was merely a man?
Be honest: protecting the interest of the Republican party was why this resolution was not approved. I know it; you know it; and the resolutions committee knows this and the majority of the messengers are also aware of this.
What an asinine, unChristian statement. If that’s true, then you lied last week when you said you didn’t know about the racism in mormonism and your whole purpose in bringing the motion was to try to help your beloved President (who has no right to be in that office–he’s not good enough) and hurt his challenger. I know it; you know it; and the resolutions committee knows this and the majority of the messengers are also aware of this.
Goose/gander
you said you didn’t know about the racism in mormonism until recently
Edit
Dwight I find your accusations and broad brush negative statements both base and baseless
You did not get your way so you revert to blasting the entire SBC
I think you lose much credibility pushing an issue as apologetic not political. If you were unaware of Mormon doctrine and have pastures all these years, I don’t think you have moral authority to condemn the SBC.
I agree with Walt that a bit of introspection could be helpful.
Frank and Joe,
Thanks for your feedback and documenting and demonstrating the stronghold that the Republican party have on the SBC. May God bless our new President to lead us into being more Kingdom minded than Republican minded. The day will come if the Lord grant Dr. Luter success–and I believe he will–when the current right-wing mindsets that are so dominant in our convention–will yield and submit to a biblical mindset. And I will give the two of you the last word because this will quickly become a futile and fruitless conversation.
Dwight
“…The day will come if the Lord grant Dr. Luter success–and I believe he will–when the current right-wing mindsets that are so dominant in our convention–will yield and submit to a biblical mindset…”
So now I don’t have a biblical mindset because I consider your agenda puerile. If Dr. Luter takes your tone he will fail miserably. You need some serious work on distinguishing between honest disagreement and evil motives. Until you understand the difference, you could never be my pastor.
Dwight. Thanks for the last word. I agree any discussion with you on this issue would be purely emotional But let me correct your false accusations.
One. Unlike you I am not a part of the political machine of the SBC. I have never been to a national convention to push any issue as you have.
Second. I am not a Republican. I am grieved to hear you speak with such contentious rhetoric and desire to view the SBC pastors two groups-us versus them
Sent from my auto-miscorrecting iPhone.
Amen!
Amen Dwight, I mean.
Dwight, I didn’t pick up ‘protect the Republican party’ from the SBC or exec. committee. I heard from Bryant Wright “Would you be willing to give us a year to check the factual information regarding your claim?” You said “No,” because you had one piece of paper (evidence) in your hand. The convention was wise to consider your motion, and was (at least to me) seriously willing to consider your motion for next year after researching it. I too think it would have been unwise to make a statement (the resolution) for the entire convention based on ‘1 piece of paper’ you had in your hand. Again, the SBC was willing to consider your resolution upon research. I think if you had waited, you would have gotten your statement next year in Houston. Now, I’m not sure you will have anything. Just my meager 2 cents.
Walt,
The SBC causes dissension in the ranks when they place politics above apologetics. A SBC personality that’s a household SBC name, told me that if I wait ’til next year, my resolution would receive a lot of support and probably pass by a large majority. But at the present time, it would be viewed as helping the Democratic Party, and helping to reelect “the worst President in American history.” Walt those were your initial concerns as well. And the vote proves that this was the majority of the SBC mindset. Thank God there were notable exceptions who viewed this for what it is; a Kingdom issue, not a political issue. Although, I will admit the candidacy of Mitt Romney raises the profile of the Mormon Church. This triggered me to learn more about the Mormon religion and this is one of the things I discovered.
As I stated in a message I preached on the subject, my goal was neither to gain or lose votes for President Obama,nor to gain or lose votes for Mitt Romney. My goal was to advance the Kingdom of God, by contrasting what Mitt Romney’s Bible says about race to the God breathed Bible; and to contrast what President Obama’s view of same-sex marriage is with the God breathed Bible’s view of same-sex marriage. Walt that’s my only goal; nothing more-nothing less.
And the vote proves that this was the majority of the SBC mindset.
1) The majority of the SBC was not there. Not sure if you noticed that or not.
2) Asserting something as true and proving it to be true are two different things. Since you have no way to prove that statement, you might want to add a qualifier like “I think….” or “In my opinionation….”
Dwight: How can you say that your goal is not to gain or lose votes for a candidate when that is the precise effect it would have? I will not follow your example and ascribe false, undeclared motives to you but frankly it does make me wonder. I am also saddened by the fact that the overwhelming rejection of your proposal has not caused you any introspection that just possibly you may be wrong. Yet you now intend to use the secular press, who look for every opportunity to condemn us, to further your agenda. You are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ by so doing.
Joe,
Technically speaking, the SBC as an entity does not exist outside of the annual meeting, so what the majority of messengers vote is, technically speaking, what the majority of the SBC feels. Whether or not it’s what the individual members of the SBC feel is a different issue.
Walt,
Secondary consequences do not necessarily point to primary motives. Whether or not a resolution like this would harm Romney’s chances doesn’t mean it was part of Dwight’s motivation.
As it happens, I did not support this resolution, not because of any election-day connections but because addressing specific problems of other religions would be a never-ending task. Other religions are false, they need to be opposed, that is sufficient. Particular reasons why false religions are false shouldn’t be addressed in SBC resolutions but, as the committee itself stated, should be addressed in our apologetics.
Chris: When the effect of one’s actions are predictable that person is responsible for the results. Stating that that is not one’s motive adds insult to our intelligence as well as injury to the cause of Christ, particularly when a godless secular press is utilized in furtherance of one’s agenda. When godly people overwhelmingly reject my agenda it would give me great pause in considering that I am on the right course. However, this apparently hasn’t phased Dwight. As Barney Frank often said when his “expertise” attained the opposite result he intended, “You’re doing it wrong.”
Walt,
There is a difference between someone’s goal and the consequences of someone’s goal. You seem to argue that Dwight’s goal is to take away votes, though he has repeatedly said that this is not his goal.
As for the majority mindset, that doesn’t sway me much either – after all, I’m a Calvinist in the SBC.
Dwight, my apprehension about this resolution does not have to do with any desire to protect Mitt Romney. (In fact I’m writing in a candidate this fall.) I don’t know enough about the founding documents of Mormonism to vote for a statement claiming that they are racist. It was wise of the Committee not to present this and to let NAMB study the issue.
Scott,
I don’t doubt that was your thought process, regarding feeling as if you didn’t know enough about Mormon source documents. But I can assure you, the mindset of many–as evidenced by Walt’s and others initial comments on previous posts dealing with this issue, and from conversations that I can’t divulge names, but are in a position to know–was strictly concerning the potential harm that this could do to Romney. There was not any inkling of consideration or thought about the potential harm the same-sex marriage resolution could do to President Obama.
Southern Baptists duplicity on Mormonism is disheartening and viewed as hypocritical by many in my community. The Mormon resolution vote feeds into this distrust.
Scott, I am not saying one size fits all. But the Republican interest first shoe fits some of those–and I believe the majority who voted against the resolution. And for those to whom the shoe fits, they need to wear it. Thank God the shoe doesn’t fit you. I have voted Republican since 1984. But I never place the interest of the Republican party above the Kingdom. I also planned to write in a candidate, because neither of the front runners represent to me from the perspective of the things that matters most to me a Kingdom mindset.
Dwight
Chris: Your statement is akin to the man who kills his parents and then complains that he is an orphan. One is completely responsible for the natural, predictable consequences of his actions and denying same causes him to lose credibility. Were I to be like Dwight and ascribe motives I could easily say that he is taking this action to help the first man of his race to remain in office and that his motive is entirely political. However, it would be arrogant and presumptuous of me to do so as I cannot read men’s hearts.
Re comment 16: Barney FIFE, not Frank.
Alan,
Good post. I concur with what you have said…
Allow me one or two incidental greats:
1. Beignets at Cafe Du Monde! Met great people there, too. Even some guy drifting down shore.
2. Learning more of the history of the SBC CR. Very interesting.
“… When have Baptists ever shied away from condemning anything? …”
Has it occurred to you that this may well be the reason our membership is declining?
In an ideal scenario, President Romney would repudiate the erroneous Mormon teaching when he gets to office, set the record straight, and could hopefully show where it’d been done prior to now. Or else he’d be affirming what Dwight McKissic said from the floor (and incidentally, his heart showed as no one else’s in my memory has), that it hadn’t.
If the SBC were to take a stand on that, right now, Mitt Romney might never become President Romney, we’d take a slap at the Mormons now, which would likely have no effect on the LDS, and our nation would probably go down the drain within another 4 years.
why doesn’t someone from the SBC go to Romney and tell him of the concerns ?
at least give the man a chance to think about what troubles people so that he has an opportunity to respond to those specific concerns
In our country, a man’s religion should never put him in office or keep him out of office . . . we are better than that in this country
But he needs to clearly understand that so far, he has not addressed the issue under discussion clearly enough to put minds at rest among some people of faith . . .
give him a chance, folks
(I speak as an American, here, not a Republican or a Democrat.)
Bob:
Enjoyed meeting you at the convention.
Call me crazy but I don’t see what was wrong with what Richard Land said. In fact it is right, al sharpton and obama are trying to use the trayvon martin case to create racial tensions. They are the real racists. There is nothing racist or wrong in point that out.
well, a seventeen-year old, unarmed, is dead . . .
stalked and shot in an American neighborhood . . .
If it was YOUR son, would you feel differently?
The proper way for the Convention to address this matter is solely from a biblical perspective and not a political one.
Trayvon is dead because of sin. Not the sins of Zimmerman, but because the sin of Adam.
That would really freak the media out. But….so little is made now of the effects of the fall…..I don’t know.
Hi ANTHONY . . .
although I get the ‘gist’ of your comment, I don’t think total responsibility for all sin can simply be laid at the feet of Adam . . .
not when we have consciences to guide us, and not when we possess the free will of creatures made in God’s image . . . No, I cannot fully agree with you, there.
it’s strange that today, when a disturbed young person goes into his school armed with his parents’ guns and kills his classmates, his parents are not charged with the crime . . .
there has to come a point when we as a society start to examine just where to lay the responsibility for gun deaths properly. Somehow your comment made me think of that need.
That is my point, Walt. We get into politics and condemn things all the time. Just certain things. I think the Resolutions Committee did a fine job. I just wish we could have found a way to address those two issues. I am very conservative politically, but I think we miss opportunities to make statements that could actually alter the debate for good because we are afraid it will affect “our guy.” People listen when we speak to what is perceived to be “our side.” It then gives us credence when we speak to what is perceived to be the “other side.” We ARE being political when we regularly call out one side and not the ones that we are more likely to vote for.
But, apart from all that, it would have been the right thing to do and addressing both issues along with the election of Luter would have gone a long way to give Luter the tools he needs to help move us forward.
But, apart from all that (and even with that, I understand that there are differing views here and that is fine by me), it was a good convention that had a hopeful tone. I am encouraged.
When have we ever addressed the beliefs of another religion by way of resolution?
Todd,
Is there a good reason not to do so by way of resolution?
Good meeting you in NOLA!!!
Dwight
I have no feelings either way, I was just showing that we are not being inconsistent here by not doing so.
Dwight,
For the record, I am not the Scott who has objected to you here. I stand by you, my brother. I wish we would have taken a more definitive stance on the issue of Mormons and racism, irrespective of partisan politics or presidential candidates.
I enjoyed speaking with you, especially our conversation in Cafe du Monde. If you’re ever in Kansas City, Missouri, please give my family and me a call.
Scott Gordon
Alan: My objection was not that condemning Mormonism would hurt Romney but that it would hurt our witness and influence because, due to the timing, it would be perceived as a crass, arrogant foray into secular politics by both friend and foe. Our people showed great wisdom in great numbers by declining to do this. I am so proud if their discernment.
“””The presence of young people and minorities in the SBC, especially moving into leadership, gives me a great deal of hope.””””
These folks are the future of the SBC if the SBC is to have a future!
Great post, Alan.
That is a fine perspective, Walt, although I don’t know that that was the rationale for not addressing those issues. My thing is, when you get a chance to denounce a wrong or evil, you do so. Re: the Land situation, we would have simply been agreeing with Land himself and the ERLC. Re: Mormons and Racism, it is pertinent because of who is running for president. It actually helps Romney because it gives him a chance to denounce it himself.
But, here is an idea: if it is wrong to speak to these kinds of things, let’s make a rule and never do so again. I get weary of hearing that we should not talk about things like this on the one hand (when it comes to racism) and then, next year, pass a resolution against some other social or structural sin that we decide it IS okay to denounce under the auspices of being prophetic. Let’s be consistent.
Alan,
Amen to your post. And Amen to everyone of your comments–particularly comment # 12. Thanks.
Dwight
Alan: I would never agree to a resolution containing the words “always” or “never.” As Emerson noted, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
I come back to what I and others (notably Joe Blackmon) have stated many times in many places. There is no disagreement that the Mormon scripture’s view of blacks is undeniably and abhorrently racist. Period. But why on God’s green earth is that what we would focus on in regard to Mormonism? If you know one whit about Mormonism (I’m assuming most of the readers of this blog do), you know that the basis of their whole religion is lunacy and blasphemy. Why, if we are going to make a statement on Mormonism, would we attack one sub-doctrine of their “scriptures”? Why when in our 167 year history we’ve never made a resolution concerning Mormonism would we start here? It makes absolutely no sense. Which is more offensive — that Mormons think being black was a curse from God or that Mormons think Jesus was a brother to Lucifer before coming to earth? Or that God was once a man like us? Or that there is an infinite number of Gods and universes? Or that they can/will be gods themselves someday? Or that you can earn your eternity? Again, which is worse – blasphemy about every aspect of god or thinking that racism was OK?
The issue is that Mormonism is a false religion! If we want to make the case that Mormonism is a false religion simply because they started with the wrong view of race, we might as well pack up the SBC and go home because we are guilty of the same sin. Sure, we repented of it, but I don’t think folks know how ugly it was. Read Richard Furman’s letter to Gov. Wilson (http://eweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmn1.htm) of South Carolina which became the SBC theological basis for support of slavery and racism for nearly 150 years. Read what Basil Manly, Sr., James P. Boyce or William Bullein Johnson had to say. If ever being racist is a disqualifier of a faith, our faith is disqualified as well.
If we make race the only issue with Mormonism, we completely miss the mark and misrepresent our bigger concerns UNLESS our only concern really is with race. We give the appearance that if they correct their issue on race, then we’re OK with their beliefs. Sure, repudiating racism is a good thing – but it is not the PRIMARY thing. What happens if the Mormon church does come out and clarify and say clearly that they no longer support racism? Then we apparently no longer have an issue with their faith based on this resolution.
If we want to take on Mormonism, we need to focus on it’s heart. A Christian’s problems with Mormonism should be much bigger than race.
Again, this makes no sense. Why are we so focused on Mormonism’s offenses to man when Mormonism is at its core blasphemous to our God and Savior?
Dwight: Taken from your website: “…Every Black, Bible-believing Christian should read this before November’s election…:
You said herein, “…Thank God there were notable exceptions who viewed this for what it is; a Kingdom issue, not a political issue…”
The above two statements are hopelessly contradictory. In which of the two did you mislead us?
Dwight: Another contradictory statement to the one where you asked black voters to remember the Mormon bible in the November election: “…As I stated in a message I preached on the subject, my goal was neither to gain or lose votes for President Obama,nor to gain or lose votes for Mitt Romney…”
It is clear that your motivation is to cost Romney votes which is crassly, hypocritically political.
Walt,
In my blog post that you reference (at my website), “A Must Read For Every Black Kingdom-Minded Voter,” it is recommending readers of my blog to read Pastor Eric Redmond’s article published at Baptist Press entitled, “Obama, Gay-Marriage and the Black Church Vote.” This article directly tells President Obama that he is subject to lose the Black Church vote with his support of same-sex marriage. There is no reference in my blog post or Redmond’s article to Mitt Romney.
I have pointed out on blog post and in oral presentations my discomfort with Mitt Romney’s “Bible(s),” while equally pointing out my discomfort with President Obama’s views of same-sex marriage. No one could read or hear the whole of what I’ve said on this subject and objectively conclude that I am trying to gain or lose votes for either candidate, especially since I’ve stated many times I don’t plan to vote for either.
You have totally, absolutely, and unequivocally, misrepresented and misled readers here concerning my position. I’ve never asked “black voters to remember the Mormon Bible in the November election.” Again, you are fabricating, misrepresenting, and misleading the readers regarding what I’ve said. Furthermore, I don’t want to further hijack Alan’s post. It you want to continue this conversation-move it over to my site. However my time for commenting this evening will be very limited.
“especially since I’ve stated many times I don’t plan to vote for either.”
Are you joining my campaign to write-in Dave Miller for president?
Chris,
LOL. It worked in NOLA. Maybe it will work in November. I’ll vote for Dave. Sure.
Dwight
Chris (and Dwight),
That is a monumentally bad idea.
Dwight: Taken from your website: “…Every Black, Bible-believing Christian should read this before November’s election…”: That is purely and simply a political statement. You were referring to the racial heresy in the Mormon bible. It is an entailment (a necessary inference) that you were recommending a vote against the man “who has refused to repudiate it,” if I understand anything about the English language. I believe that I have fairly summarized your statements.
Walt,
“Every Black, Bible-believing Christian should read this before November’s election…” is clearly a reference to Pastor Redmond’s Baptist Press Obama article against gay-marriage and President Obama. It is impossible to construe that to refer to “the racial heresy in the Mormon bible.” Please stop trying to. Neither is this a political statement against Obama; but rather an attempt by a pastor to inform his people regarding theological positions held by both men contrary to the Word of God, so that they can make an informed decision. Please apologize and stop trying to defend or explain the indefensible.
Dwight
When one says to “remember this before the November election” he is making a political statement and denying that is disingenuous.
Walt, maybe I’m a little defensive here, but if you insult Dwight McKissic here, that might not be be a good strategy.
Dave: No insult intended.
Alan:
Great comments.
All who came in our group noticed the youth of the crowd.
I went to the 9 Marks meeting on Tuesday night. That was an awesome gathering and a great discussion.
I also enjoyed networking this year. My pastor and another elder and I met with two African American pastors and a DOM (former IMB regional leader) to discuss discipling men. That was a great time.
Brother Dwight, I am a white Christian in a small SBC church in West TN. I agree 100% with what you say…..we have co-opted our Lord and Savior out to the Republican Party. To most including my “former pastor” and our local asociations “DIRECTOR OF MISSIONS”, they say that Mitt Romneys values are “closer” to theirs than President Obamas. How can a former missionary and Bishop of a cults values be in line with a SBC director of missions…..we are to contend for the Truth! Mormons go into the same mission fields we do and spread a FALSE message. Folks you need to get off the politics and PRAY for the church to get away from the world and get back to God. Political engagement detroys are mission field. But the powers that be in the SBC dont care as long as they can rub elbows with some GOP politician at some country club it quenches their thirst for power…………………………………………………………..” Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
2 Timothy 2-4 NIV…………………………….I think many itching ears in our Churches want to hear politics and many are more than happy to provide it, I can not understand why people do not understand how dangerous this is.