THE SBC AND RACIAL UNITY:
DO FLOYD, MOORE AND LAND REPRESENT A SEA CHANGE?
BY WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
Jesus taught His disciples to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. The apostle John described a picture in heaven of every racial, ethnic, and language group praising God together in unity. If heaven is a picture of racial unity and tranquility, shouldn’t—at least among God’s kingdom citizens on earth—there should be a demonstration of racial unity and peace? The Psalmist said, “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Psalm 133:1).
The Southern Baptist Convention, founded in 1845 in Augusta, GA, is renowned for being the largest protestant denomination and the most impactful and influential evangelistic, missionary, disciple-making ministry and kingdom-driven enterprise in the history of world Christianity. The SBC is also renowned for practicing and even preaching racism throughout the majority of her history. Thankfully, the SBC is making serious progress toward reversing the negative aspect of her legacy.
In a 1951 press release, ”Looking Back: Southern Baptist seminaries desegregated before desegregation,” the SBC proudly announced that the SBC seminaries were opening their doors to “carefully selected Negroes”—not even realizing that that phraseology—“carefully selected Negroes”—reeks with racism. In 1995 the SBC gave a formal apology to America and African Americans for her racist practices and positions. A demonstration of genuine fruit of repentance related to race in the SBC certainly moved in the right direction with the election of Pastor Fred Luter as President in 2012, but a continued all-White executive cabinet level entity heads since 1995, still leaves the question in suspense—has the SBC genuinely turned the corner racially?
There are Southern Baptists who have expressed insensitive and myopic remarks with racial overtones, against the back drop of the Ferguson and Staten Island (Eric Garner) fiascos. Pastor J.D. Hall stated in response to the Ferguson protestors:
“The evangelical message needs to be, ‘We understand you have grievances. We understand you feel you’ve been wronged. Let’s discuss that, but first go home, tuck your kids in, and go to bed early so you can get up in the morning and be a productive citizen. Then, let’s talk.’”
Pastor Randy White stated in response to Professor Matthew Hall of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary statement in support of racial reconciliation being a gospel demand.
“Is racial reconciliation a ‘Gospel demand?’ Certainly not.”
(- See more at: http://www.randywhiteministries.org/2014/11/29/racial-equality-gospel-demand/#sthash.UnLrVJV1.dpuf)
However, recently The Lifeway Research Survey findings confirm that “Racial Reconciliation is mandated by the Gospel,” according to 90% of Protestant pastors surveyed.
Pastor and Professor Kevin Stilley labeled the response to Russell Moore’s expressing anguish and pain over the Eric Garner decision, “An Incendiary Statement”:
“Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Commission tweeted the following comment shortly after a Staten Island grand jury decided not to indict a New York police officer in the death of Eric Garner.
And then the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention issued a press release in which Moore wrote:
“I’m stunned speechless by this news. We hear a lot about the rule of law—and rightly so. But a government that can choke a man to death on video for selling cigarettes is not a government living up to a biblical definition of justice or any recognizable definition of justice. We may not agree in this country on every particular case and situation, but it’s high time we start listening to our African American brothers and sisters in this country when they tell us they are experiencing a problem.”
I thought these communications to be ill advised and tweeted this response,
…There are four reasons why I believe the comments of Russell Moore and the ERLC were inappropriate and incendiary.
1. The comments of Moore were emotionally charged reactions, not well reasoned responses. The ERLC consistently states that it is its desire to show churches how they should respond in the midst of difficult cultural crises. Well, do we really want our churches and pastors out there emoting in the public sphere in a manner inconsistent with James 1:19-20?”
Kevin Stilley violated the unwritten policy of SBC employees to not publicly criticize SBC entities and entity heads. I was publically reprimanded by SWBTS for violating this unwritten policy; but not Professor Stilley? Go Figure! And to label Russell Moore’s response to the Staten Island verdict (Eric Garner) as an “Incendiary,” emotional,” “ill advised,” and not well reasoned” are subjective and judgmental. Furthermore, it completely ignores the fact that Russell Moore would not be sitting in his seat if his history was given to incendiary, ill advised, not-well-reasoned and emotional commentary. If Kevin Stilley had agreed with Russell Moore’s statement, he would not have described Russell Moore’s response with those words. I’ve discovered in SBC life when one cannot refute your arguments with facts they tend to dismiss it as emotional.
The J.D. Hall, Randy White and Kevin Stilley responses—based on history—are responses that one would expect from the SBC.
Then comes the current SBC President Ronnie Floyd, Richard Land (the former President of the SBC ERLC), Russell Moore and Ed Stetzer, all making public statements that, quite frankly, are non-typical of SBC personalities with regard to racial issues.
The Baptist Press reports these comments from President Ronnie Floyd:
“’The time is now for us to rise up together and cry out against the racism that still exists in our nation and our churches, and the subsequent injustices,” Floyd wrote. “We are grieved that racism and injustice still abound in our nation in 2014. All human beings are created by God and in His image. The dignity of each individual needs to be recognized and appreciated by each of us and by all of the 50,000 churches and congregations that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention.’”
“Floyd referenced 1 Corinthians 12:26 in calling for Southern Baptists to understand and work to alleviate the pain of racism and injustice within the body of Christ.”
“’With heavy hearts, we recognize the deep pain and hurt that has come to many of our African American brothers and sisters. The recent events in America have reawakened many of their greatest fears. Their wounds from the past run deep,” Floyd wrote. “Without relationships and conversations, we will never understand one another. Because you hurt, we hurt with you today. We are a part of the same body of Christ, His church, which is to be a picture of the multi-faceted wisdom of God.’”
The first SBC president that I ever heard prophetically and redemptively address a public controversial issue with racial overtones was Dr. Fred Luter when he addressed the Trayvon Martin saga. As I listened to Dr. Luter’s commentary concerning Trayvon Martin, it brought tears to my eyes. That was the first time I ever heard a SBC president address the pain of our reality with a view toward healing. Dr. Ronnie Floyd now becomes the second SBC president that I’ve heard address a controversial issue related to race identifying with our suffering and seeking solutions through the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am deeply encouraged by Dr. Floyd’s commentary, rooted in the biblical language of 1 Corinthians 12:26.
Richard Land stated:
“America’s problem with race goes back to our beginnings. From our first encounters as Europeans with Native-Americans in Virginia and New England, race has been the serpent in the garden. For all of her greatness, America’s treatment of non-whites has been an ongoing tale of prejudice, abuse, and malign neglect.
Unfortunately, the Nobel Laureate William Faulkner was right when he observed, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” There are always the ghosts of the racist past among us, coloring how we perceive the present. Our present is always informed and tinted by our past experiences. Consequently, while most white Americans were dismissive of theories that the police framed O. J. Simpson, many African-Americans, based on their past experiences, found such accusations far too believable.
Once again, in the wake of Ferguson and Staten Island, people default to their past experiences. Like most Anglos, I must confess I have never had a negative experience with a police officer, white, brown, or black. I know few African-Americans, however, who have not had truly bad experiences with the police or know someone well who has.
The only way to truly bridge this divide, heal this rift, and move forward is for Christians, twice-born men and women, to come forward and take the lead in the immediate formation of ethnically diverse coalitions where people can tell each other their stories and begin to exorcise the ghosts of the past together.
Ultimately, we must seek to get out of our comfort zones and strive with intentionality to form truly multi-ethnic, multi-class churches where people of differing ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds worship together and minister to one another as equal members of the local body of Christ. Then we will hear and know each other’s stories, and we will put faces we know on racial and economic injustice. Such churches will truly transform our culture.”
I am really proud of Richard Land; this is the Richard Land we all thought we knew. Truth be told, Richard Land laid the foundation for the SBC ’95 repentance statement and all the positive changes we are beginning to see racially in the SBC. His statement above is perhaps the most powerful and persuasive statement yet made by a SBC personality on this subject.
Russell Moore stated:
“The mood in Ferguson, Missouri, is tense, after a grand jury decided against indicting a police officer for the killing of unarmed African-American teenager Michael Brown. The tension ought to remind us, as the church, that we are living in a time in which racial division is hardly behind us. That reality ought to motivate us as citizens to work for justice, but also as the church to seek to embody the kingdom of Christ.”
The combined statements of Floyd, Land, Moore and Stetzer represent a sea change for Southern Baptists. Their statements are more powerful to me than the ’95 repentance statements or the election of Fred Luter. The ’95 statements and the election of Fred Luter were no-brainers, and simply the right and expedient thing to do. There was absolutely nothing to risk in either decision…only something to gain.
However, the statements made by Floyd, Moore, Land and Stetzer are indicative of courage, character, consistency with the ’95 statement, and respect and sensitivity to people of color within the SBC. I know for certain that there are many in the SBC sorely displeased with the published positions of the aforementioned SBC personalities with regard to acknowledging the pain and legitimacy of the concerns that African Americans have related to Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland and elsewhere.
These brothers represent a sea change in SBC life. They are willing to stand in solidarity with the suffering of African Americans over these issues. I respect their right not to declare guilt or innocence of any of the parties involved in the incidents that have given rise to the controversies. But I deeply appreciate their break with SBC tradition to identify with the pain and suffering and to acknowledge the racial injustices and inequities of the past and present.
May God bless the SBC! May she continue toward this path of racial healing! May she march on toward the inclusion and empowerment of people of color serving at the entity head level! When that occurs, the sea change will be complete.
Dr. Dwight
Well stated state of the situation in our present day. You are a prolific writer and a tremendous analytical thinker. The issue is difficult. Sometime I feel we are making progress and then at other times I am not so sure. I join the ranks of those who are terribly frustrated.
Being a sequential thinker let me be so bold as to make some comments (1) Many tend to do what you have done and what I tend to do i.e. talk about what SBC leaders are saying or doing. While that is relevant Dr. Dwight, the situation is not going to be advanced by SBC leadership writing articles, making speeches, or making resolutions on the floor of the SBC annual meeting. While that may feed our egos it does not advance the cause. Progress will be made as the local churches are involved in healing and restoration. Our emphasis should be on what our churches are doing and what our pastors are saying. If pastors in a given community can unite, take action in their environment then progress can be made. (2) Closely related and pretty much the same we need to remove our focus from the national scene to the local scene. Other that give an opinion, gripe, or type a blog I can do nothing about Ferguson. I can do something about Billing Montana. That needs to be my focus and the focus of each local pastor in turn. (3) The history of the SBC is not an issue. That time has past. We must focus on the here and now and build toward the future. Who was right or wrong 75 plus years ago is no longer the issue. I am responsible for me. I must do something now. That is what is important.
In short if my church does what it needs to do in my town, and you do what you need to do in your town, so on and so forth I have real hope that reconciliation not only will be possible but probable.
“The SBC is also renowned for practicing and even preaching racism throughout the majority of her history.”
I grew up in the South and a Southern Baptist church in the 1950s-1960s when racial tensions were at their peak prior to the civil rights movement. At least in the corner of the South in which I lived, the SBC was not actively practicing/preaching racism in pulpit or pew.
“Pastor J.D. Hall stated in response to the Ferguson protestors …”
Anything this pastor says should not be viewed as part of the SBC mainstream. His remarks on most issues tend to be unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.
I, too, rejoice when any Southern Baptist leader takes a stand on injustice and uses his position to help bring relief to the pain and suffering of others … to whomever and wherever that occurs. I truly believe this attitude is characteristic of the majority of SBC members, not only a few leaders who are speaking forth. If there are still pockets of racism within SBC membership, may God bring judgment on it now.
Max
Amen!
“I grew up in the South and a Southern Baptist church in the 1950s-1960s when racial tensions were at their peak prior to the civil rights movement. At least in the corner of the South in which I lived, the SBC was not actively practicing/preaching racism in pulpit or pew.”
I grew up in the South in SBC churches in the 1980s and 90s and I heard it then. From pulpit and pew. In Mississippi. I can document the virulent racism proclaimed by SBC leaders and prominent pastors in the 1950s until eyes bleed, if you like. It was everywhere and was accepted and celebrated. A really good book to read is by Wayne Flynt entitled Alabama Baptists.
I heard it in Mississippi and Alabama churches in the 21st century. Racism continues to be alive and well, unfortunately.
Chris or anybody
Would anyone be willing to name a racist pastor? Does anyone know how many racist pastors exist in the SBC today? Would anyone be willing to name a well know racist pastor in the SBC today? Does anyone know how many racist SBC pastors exist in Montana today?
And, to piggyback on what DL just said, does anyone know of any racist, SBC Pastors in TN, today? And, if so, please name them.
David
I know some who say some things that make me cringe. Maybe not racist, but horribly insensitive.
Dave
I do not doubt that at all. However the question for me is, it a racist remark or just poor people skills. I have a pastor friend/acquaintance that can make me mad talking about the color of grass. As Grandpa said “some people have just had no fetchings up”.
Alan or anybody with such knowledge
SBC leaders during my time: Porter Ruth, Bennett, Page, Tanner, Cauthan, Parks,Rankin, Elliff, Platt, Rutledge (and those since). Exec Committee CEO, IMB, NAMB
Were any of these opposed to racial reconciliation
Alan and Max could both be right. In Arkansas, if you went to church with Brooks Hays you probably heard something different than you did if you went to church with Benjamin Bogard.
My guess is that in Arkansas (or anywhere else for that matter) one could hear a SB preacher say most anything. Would not the question be how prevalent is it? One racist pastor does not a racist convention make. One racial recon pastor does not a racial recon convention make.
“I can document the virulent racism proclaimed by SBC leaders and prominent pastors in the 1950s until eyes bleed, if you like. It was everywhere and was accepted and celebrated. A really good book to read is by Wayne Flynt entitled Alabama Baptists.”
Lots of PAST TENSE in that statement. Just, sayin’.
I do not think it is the case that those abominations are true today….are there OUTLIERS – you bet – but I refuse to believe without evidence that we are still living in any semblance of the 1950’s or even the 1970’s today with regard to “accepted” racism among southern Baptist leaders and pastors.
No one says we are. People are acting like the SBC has not been overtly racist, however.
It all ended abruptly from national leaders in 1968, by the way. That is when W.A. Criswell repented, opened the doors of FBC Dallas, and said, “never have I been so blind.” The SBC also adopted a pretty substantial resolution on race in 1968 – long before the 1995 resolution. Criswell was elected president, the SBC repented on racism, and everyone tried to move on. 1968. Everyone public and national repented then.
You will not find what you are looking for from national leaders.
But, in 1996, I was a youth minister at an all white rural SBC church in Mississippi. A rep from the State Convention came to visit us about evangelism in our community. He presented demographics and talked to us about reaching people. He gave us the total population, and then said, “Now, I know that you are wondering how many are white and how many are black.” He then removed the black population from his presentation and then trained that church in how to reach white people only with evangelism, thus declaring that the church did not need to reach black people with the gospel. Without the gospel, people go to hell, right? So, in essence, a rep of the Mississippi Baptist Convention said it was okay for black people in the community to go to hell because that church didn’t need to reach them.
I confronted him after his presentation and asked him what he was doing. He smiled condescendingly and said that he knew that we needed to reach everyone, but he also knew that that church would not engage in evangelism to blacks and didn’t want blacks in their church, so he was just trying to get them to do what they would do. He didn’t want to rock the boat. I took my youth group outside and told them that that wasn’t the gospel. I had youth tell me, “Well, we don’t want any N—ers here, anyway.”
1996.
In 1994, I was in California working as a summer missionary and we were doing evangelism in a housing project. There was a huge response to the gospel, many confessed Christ, and they wanted to go to church and be discipled. I went back to the Southern Baptist church that I was working with and they said, “Well, they wouldn’t want to go to church with us. They like a different kind of music than we do.” And, it was left at that. No follow up. No desire to reach them or disciple them. That was it. Because of music styles.
I have been in Montgomery, AL since 2000. We were talking about racial reconciliation here a few years ago and a pastor of a large church said that all of that was fine and good, but if he started talking about that in his church, he would be politely asked to leave and wouldn’t have a job anymore. A large Southern Baptist church.
It now flies under the banner of “worship styles,” and “culture,” and “family values,” and “personal preference,” and “people just like to be with their own kind.”
I have a lot more stories that I can tell as a pastor working for a multiethnic expression of the gospel in the Deep South. Over racism just takes other forms. The result is usually the same – white churches, black churches, and very little in between.
My purpose here was not to say that overt racism is still prominent in SBC life. The thing that lies beneath racism is that we want our lives to be protected and we want to have our own personal preferences met. In the past it looked like racism. Now, that underlying desire that once manifested racially might take other forms, but the result is that we stay racially divided. I do not think that having preferences for certain types of music is a form of racism at all – but when we let those preferences dictate who we worship with, then the same results can occur that we say in the past, which are racial division. When I typed out the previous comment, I was in a hurry and just wrote the surface issue of race without speaking of the underlying issues that take on many different forms. My apologies.
Dr. Dwight
While I am on a roll running my mouth let me give an illustration.
I pastored a church in west central St. Louis a mid city area. It was historically an all white little hamlet. The neighborhood began to change as the Black community became numerically stronger. At that same time as change was occurring the church called a pastor who led the church to adopt an aggressive outreach program, of house to house visitation. This would be the early 70’s. The question of race came up on the planning meetings. The Godly pastor led the church to make the same presentation of the Gospel and an invitation to attend the church regardless of the color of the person answering the door.
When I went to pastor the church I happily adopted the practice. When I left the church in the mid 80’s the community was approx. 25 percent Black and the church attendance was approximately 25 percent Black. I was proud of that fact.
Again my point: community by community.
I’ve been wanting to write a post addressing some of the whining I’ve heard from those who think we don’t need to pursue racial reconciliation and that Moore et al are off base.
Some have complained “how many times do we have to apologize before it’s enough?”
That is, in my opinion, a dodge. It’s not about apologizing again and again for our past sins as a denomination. It’s about recognizing that our past sins as a nation and a denomination have created a place in which there are inequities and in which people are still treated differently because of the color of their skin.
I don’t think we need to continually repent of the past. But we do need to commit ourselves to fixing the situation until every vestige of the damage our forebears did is corrected.
Dave
At face value I agree totally. For me the situation is not “what have we done” but “what are we going to do”. The man without work because of skin color needs a job. He does not need a history lesson on the sins of the SBC. Let’s do those practical things that we can do and get that man a job.
Maybe those of us with paychecks can talk about the past, write a blog, make a speech, or be philosophical because we can feed our families and pay the rent. Not the man out of work. He has a practical problem that needs a practical solution.
Talking about the past is not some luxury of the rich and privileged. We do not live in a vacuum. Context matters. Racial division emanates from the past. The fact that an inordinate amount of Southern Baptists get defensive and feel guilty every time the past is brought up makes no sense to me. Did you do it personally? If not, then why feel guilty?
If we bring up the past so that we can better see the present and the future, then it has value. That is the real purpose of studying history. If we bring it up just to make people feel bad, then it is not as profitable. My study of it is so that I can better understand my ministry context in the Deep South and understand why when a black lady came to our newcomers class at our church a few months ago and heard that we were a Southern Baptist church (we have Baptist in our name, but to her, there are lots of “baptist” groups), she recoiled visibly and said, “I didn’t know that this was a Southern Baptist church.” She then asked about slavery and racism and the past and I had to give an answer that we repudiated all of that and believed it to be sinful. She did not come back for a few weeks because she was struggling with whether or not she could align herself spiritually with a church that belonged to a denomination that began over the promotion of enslaving her ancestors. It was a big deal to her. It is a big deal to a lot of people. It was a bigger deal than her having a job as far as it involved her church affiliation. Thankfully, we were able to work through it.
Any minister in the South who doesn’t want to study/understand this issue has no real desire to engage their culture missionally – either by building bridges with African Americans or by calling white people out of their cultural isolation/segregation – including white Christians. It is still the air that we breathe throughout much of the South.
Alan
Context is important. You need to stay in context with what I said. I never said the past is not important. History is impotent. I majored in History and have advanced studies in History. Alan, no I am not defensive nor do I feel guilty about what my great grandfather did. I am a realist and very practical. We have studied ,made speeches, passed resolutions, apologized, written blogs, held seminars for as long as I can remember and that is a long time. Yet not enough has happened.
My point is simple: IT IS TIME TO DO SOMETHING BESIDE TALK AND WRITE BLOGS AND BOOKS. Lets concentrate on getting jobs, housing, eduction for those who are being discriminating against. All the history etc. has not been enough. Let’s do something else rather than the same ole same ole. Alan people are hurting, they want progress not more history lessons and rhetoric and trying to figure who 50 years ago sinned.
I have joined with others and beat this to death several times in past days on the blog and I doubt that one man got a job or anything else that can help by what I/we have done.
Stay in context with me Alan, it is time to ACT. We know some things we can do, lets do it. In the 60’s and early 70’s I (an anglo) joined with those in the streets with peaceful awareness building. That action led to some change. There were some thinkers in those days who felt this was a positive action and many of us who were anglo joined in the activity. I am not sure that should be the strategy for today. However, some of you who are analytical thinkers writing books and blogs devise a strategy and lead those of us who are boots on the ground make it happen.
Example: If I were a pastor in Ferguson I would develop an aggressive campaign to get Black folks registered and voting. If a predominately Black community votes, there should be predominately Black leadership.
Now I realize that this will not make some people less racially prejudice, but it would enhance the possibilities.
Actually, DL, there has not been much at all written about what went wrong, comparatively. I know this because before I wrote my book, I spent about a year researching and looking for everything that I could find on the topic. There have been calls for unity and against racism. There have been histories written. But, there was not an investigation from the inside by a white evangelical pastor from the South regarding what actually went wrong. None that I could find recently, anyway. And, I asked several SBC leaders if they knew of anything prominent. No one could think of anything. If there is a slew of scholarship from Southern Baptists out there regarding why we erred the way we did on race that really gets into it written in the past decade, I would love to find it. If it does exist, it has not been very influential. So, there is more than can be said. Yes, we are talking about it more now on blogs. I am glad.
As for trying to DO something, I pastor in Montgomery, AL. We try to “do something” every single day in this area from tutoring to mentoring to working with young people to benevolence to drug counseling and job referrals to education to crime prevention to all sorts of things including continually building a multi-ethnic church.
Every single thing that I write on this issue comes from 15 years of pastoring in the city that is the birthplace of the Civil Rights movement and is located at the heart of Alabama’s Black Belt, which along with the Mississippi Delta was the most intense slave region of the country. The horrid legacy on poverty and education rates continue here, so we are working to address them, albeit slowly.
I do not think that writing/talking is in any way opposed to doing. As a matter of fact, the things that I believe about this comes from the doing and real issues. We should write, talk, pray, do, and keep working.
I do not see a call to be quiet and just work on other issues. I am sure that we will get back to debating Calvinism soon enough. But, for now , I am glad that we are discussing things that involve the mission of our churches in our local communities.
Anyway, I said all of that to say that a lot of people ARE working hard to make things right. We need to keep going, but talking is not he enemy of doing. Not necessarily.
Alan
I do not disagree with you. All I am asking is does the man who has no job because of his race really care what went wrong in the SBC. I think he would rather have a job. I say work to give him one.
Like you I have been at this a long time. I have pastored in three racially mixed neighborhoods in major eastern cities. In the 60’s I have been in the streets with signs etc. No one in the street with me asked me how my convention went wrong. They did ask what I could do to get them a job, better housing, and adequate schools. When I rode the integration school buses in St. Louis, again no one asked me the history they did ask what I was prepared to do. That is all I’ m saying. The world in which we live is not an academic one it is a real world with real issue that need real practical answers.
BTW hopefully more Calvinism is several days away 🙂
My forebears didn’t own slaves and fought on the side of abolition.
Speak for yourself.
To what end, Dave?
Admitting, realizing, repenting, apologizing – all that has been done already – many times – not everyone who disagrees with Moore, Alan Cross or you on the “cultural process of reconciliation” are opposed to the principle. In my view, there comes a time when repeating and beating that drum becomes a self perpetuating and I actually think we are nearing that point.
It’s even getting to the point to where I am tired of talking about it – and for me to get tired of talking is no small feat!
Since when do the big dogs at the entities, or book authors, or blog moderators get to speak, set and enforce the process of race relations as they see fit on the rest of us?
I also think, as another poster said, that using JD Hall as a spokesman for all Southern Baptists is patently ridiculous and unwarranted. He does not even hold leadership in the state or national SBC.
For that matter, did I miss some ex Cathedra pontification by Pope Russell? Did I somehow miss some white smoke coming from the ERLC offices when he was appointed?
I am opposed to thinking that Moore has the final say on all matters of ethics and gets to speak for all of us all of the time. We are all free to agree or disagree with his opines…but we are not free to compel others to align lockstep with his every tweet and word.
Tarheel
Extremely well said, my brother.
Perhaps this is a good time to beat my favorite drum. Racial reconciliation and equality will not be won by the entity heads, popular conference speaker, book writers, blog debates, panels with the “leading” intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, writers etc. It will happen when Pastor Bob, Preacher Charlie, Rev. Smith, and Dr. Jones, each lead their local congregations to embrace the urgency of the situation and doing all they can in their local communities to bring equality…and that is as it should be.
It is time to stop looking to the Convention to do what the local blood bought church has been chartered to do.
When the leadership of EVERY SBC entity is still lily white, when electing a minority to office is a rarity, when blacks and whites are treated differently in the justice system – there is work to do.
lets set quota’s then.
Let’s fire some entity leadership and hire minorities.
Who will be the first “lilly white” convention officer to step down so his job can be filled with a minority ?
That is a typical, unhelpful overreaction.
But, we need to stop pretending we care about racial reconciliation until we include black people and other ethnics in the halls of power in the SBC.
And we have to be will to change our ways to accomodate viewpoints and ways of thinking different than our own.
We can’t tell the black community that they are welcome among us if they adopt our ways, think our thoughts, see thing our way and make no waves. It will take some compromise on all sides, but mostly on our side. We’ve held ALL the power and now we need to make the bulk of the changes.
Tarheel said,
“lets set quota’s then.”
Yes. Let’s.
Southern Baptists are absolutely in love with quotas. Why not have them for racial minorities as well? Seems appropriate, given our past.
Maybe floating that out there and seeing who would is actually a helpful overreaction.
We’ve had 19 years of measured, calm reactions to the 95 statement. 60 years of reaction to Dr. King. 150 years of reaction to the Civil War.
At some point, we are going to have to actually do something, even if it’s irritating to some. Calling for someone in leadership to step aside in place of a not-white guy would be a start. Or trustee board members to do so…or something.
Otherwise, we’ll have the same 9 white guys running things for several more years. How much longer should we ask the minority ethnic participants in the SBC to wait? How long should lily season last?
We can’t decry the facts and then say that calling for the facts to change is an unhelpful overreaction. If you don’t like the reality, what are you supposed to do?
We’ve replaced how many entity heads in the last 19 years? Seen how many board members, vice-presidents, controllers, directors, whatever elected or appointed?
And yet we remain, by your description, “lily-white.” Which is obviously problematic.
But saying “Let’s change it, *right now*” is considered an overreaction.
It’s time to overreact, then. Let’s change it. I know overcorrection can be as bad as inaction, but we’ve been pretty tame for my entire adult life.
“Halls of power”
It is obvious that many of you hold denominational workers in higher esteem than I. It is equally obvious that many of you yield more power to them than I. It is equally obvious that many of you grant them more prestige than I. Except for the salaries and travel benefits I see no big deal in being in one of these jobs. Don’t read too much in this. I am not down on denominational workers in any way. I just do not see what all the “whatever” is about. It seems to me that racial reconciliation is so much more that who gets what Southern Baptist job. I trust that we are not saying if we hire 3 ethnics that we have achieved reconciliation. Those hires would not gain more jobs, better housing etc. for those who need such, and that is what is important. It seems to me that this line of thinking would be nothing more than hiring the token ethnic or token gender..not a lot of help.
Dave miller,
“…And we have to be will to change our ways to accomodate viewpoints and ways of thinking different than our own.”
Sure, that’s noble of you ….Except you don’t mean accommodating ways of thinking that are different than yours, of course.
“Yes. Let’s”
OK – Let’s see if Moore will resign to make room for a black appointee. Or perhaps the SBC should formally promise to appoint a black to the next open entity head spot.
Shame is though…that person (and everyone else) will always know why they got the job – skin color.
Sorry if I don’t see how that’s helpful. In fact it’s discriminatory and racist.
Actually, Dave, that’s the point.
Am I in favor of tolerating racist thought in the SBC? No, of course not. Any more than we ought to tolerate liberalism or any other form of evil.
My point is that we cannot tell black people that they are welcome in the SBC if they fall in line with white American culture – think our way, act our way.
We have to drop a lot of our cultural junk.
That old dodge has completely lost its helpfulness. Any time someone suggests we include black people in leadership, the old tired arguments against affirmative action are brought out.
“If they only got the job because of their skin color, that is racist and discriminatory.”
Is the assumption that there is always a white person more qualified than a black? Do we have to fire a MORE qualified white to DONATE a position to a black man?
Nonsense.
We need to work – slowly (maybe not so slowly) but surely – to include Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, whatever, in the LIFE of the SBC every day and then in the leadership of the SBC.
Bart’s comments below (somewhere in this thing) are very helpful.
That’s the trouble with a colorblind approach. It always ends up looking white. It sounds very logical, but when white people set the criteria, write the job descriptions, conduct the searches and the interviews from a pool of mostly white candidates, and place zero value on the different perspective and experience of someone from a different race what you end up with is white. If an organization is serious about diversity, it has to be deliberate.
Dave
You have a salient point
The operative phrase here is “work to do”. It is time to work, not rehash the same old conversation.
and all God’s people screamed “AMEN”!
So, with all of the capable candidates available for such jobs, why do the entities continue to hire white guys? Sorry, but all the posturing in the world isn’t going to cure an ill while our entities are still bound to cronyism and the good ol’ boy approach. They will only hire those who are well-placed, well-known, and….wait for it……..connected to Louisville.
Tarheel, Quotas are a great idea. You said,
“Shame is though…that person (and everyone else) will always know why they got the job – skin color.”
How is that any different from how almost anyone gets jobs/appointments in SBC leadership? Except for the white guys, it is all about who you know. Please don’t tell me that it is talent or brilliance or expertise. It is about who people know and how well they are connected and their place in the machine, what seminary they are connected with, and, of course, the size of their platform – name recognition. It has been that way for an exceptionally long time and that goes for our churches, state conventions, conference circuits, etc. When I see the same 5-7 names at every major SBC conference hosted by churches/entities, then we know that there is more going on than us just finding the most qualified person. I would like to hear from some other people who are doing different things.
I DO think that we should have some form of a quota system implemented for ethnic minority participation. 82 of the 83 trustees for the EC are white. 82 of 83. Doing this relationally isn’t working. It isn’t going to work.
We have quotas for lay leadership and clergy leadership. 1/3 of our trustees have to be lay people. 1/3 have to be clergy. The middle 1/3 is allowed to float between the two. This rule is so rigid that nominees will be overridden if the 1/3-1/3 agreement is violated. So, Southern Baptists believe in quotas for the things that we care about.
We say we care about including minorities in leadership. Let’s implement quotas. Why not? What difference does it make if someone gets a position based on who they know/whose back they’ve scratched or if some think it is because of their skin color? My guess is that the black/Hispanic/Asian will be FAR more qualified than some of the big preacher’s seminary buddies/brothers-in-law that I have seen appointed over the years.
Yes, we should have quotas. We already do have them, actually, for the things we care about.
Well, at least you’re now honest enough to admit you want quotas. In previous discussions you’ve denied that.
I agree with you on the who you know thing and the rotating speaker circuit…
As for the 1/3 arrangements – thats a qualifications standard not based on race or ethnicity – so it’s completely different – what you’re suggesting is that people be chosen or not chosen based solely on skin color/ethnicity – that’s not only unhelpful – but it’s a repackaged version of what you (and I) so deplore – decisions based on skin color/ethnicity.
Tarheel,
I changed my mind on the issue back in September. I am not a fan of quotas – never have been. So, when I said that I didn’t want that before, I was being honest and sincere. My view changed when I went to the EC Trustee meeting in September in Nashville and I was going over the SBC Bylaws on how trustees were chosen with EC leadership. That is where I first really understood the 1/3-1/3 arrangement in our Bylaws and it occurred to me that if we ALREADY have quotas and if they are such a big deal that we alter nominations from states to adhere to them, then why shouldn’t we have quotas in the area of our historic sin that still leaves us RELATIONALLY separated with 82 of 83 EC trustees white?
So, that was the moment of my epiphany on this subject. I have not been hiding what I think.
Depending on what the EC report on minority participation in February says, a change to our Bylaws might be a good approach here.
And, no, I am NOT suggesting that people be chosen SOLELY on race or ethnicity. Obviously, other qualifications would be needed as well – just as they are when lay/clergy designations are employed to reach the 1/3 quota mark. The Race/Ethnicity would still have to fit within the 1/3 lay/clergy distinction.
But, no, I did not secretly harbor this idea in the past. I can tell you the exact date/time that it occurred to me and I have been thinking through it ever since.
Dale
Exactly! It is not a question of race it is a question of who you are and who you know. It has always been that way. I am white and i will never land “that kind” of job because I am nobody and I know no one.
Nearly every leader of the CR received a high ranking job or elected as Pres of the convention. Now as you say the relationship to Southern is the in thing.
SBC leadership has nothing to do with race and everything to do with….well your word is good..”cronyism”.
Tarheel,
And everybody said AMEN (or should have)… especially that last paragraph.
Tarheel,
Help me to understand. So you support the one-third existing lay-preacher quota system…but you don’t support a racial quota system in order to insure inclusion and empowerment of minorities in the SBC system?
I did not say I supported the 1/3 rules – I said it’s not the same as choosing or not choosing someone because of thier skin color or ethnicity.
Tarheel,
Do u support the one-third rule? And do you recognize that if the SBC finds that acceptable-then, it would be less than consistent and bordering on hypocrisy to deny doing it to achieve the racial equality & balance that they claim that they want.
Well, the 1/3 system is a quota system that is based largely on who knows who and prior relationships formed through previously existing social networks. When those social networks are all white, the system perpetuates itself even if people do not personally agree that 82 of 83 EC trustees (to use one example) should be white. That is an example of how “systems” work to perpetuate the status quo. I am not saying that it is an injustice or anything (as I don’t think that EC trustee membership is a huge deal), but I DO think that the SBC would be much better off if we have broader participation from other voices and groups who ARE in the SBC and are doing good work.
I am ambivalent toward the 1/3 rule.
To me it’s like a church requiring a certain degree for pastoral positions – it’s up to them to set requirements/qualification standards, within the confines of scripture of course, and I don’t care what churches require in that regard.
I would however object to a church or denominational entity choosing or not choosing someone based on skin color/ethnicity.
The 1/3 rule exists for a reason. The SBC believes that it is important to have representation in its governance from lay people so that the concerns of lay people are represented and so that everything is not run only by the preachers. Whether we like it or not, it is there for a reason and that reason has to do with certain groups being represented.
I do not LIKE that we have been historically divided according to race. I do not believe that it is biblical to be so. While I think that ethnicity and cultural diversity is a gift from God and should be celebrated, racial division is NOT from God and is the result of sin. But, the division exists. People have grown in different environments and cultures and have different perspectives. If we can have diverse representation naturally, then we should do so. That would be best, without doubt. But, if it doesn’t happen because people nominate who they know, then what are we supposed to do? Just go along with the status quo?
I do not see racial quotas in the current environment as something artificial, as long as the person is otherwise qualified. I see it as a recognition that we establish quotas for groups that we believe should be represented because we want to hear their voice and we believe that their participation will make us stronger. We already do that for clergy/lay. Why not do it for others.
Alan
Dec 19 12:14 is spot on. Changing that situation will take deliberate and intentional action. I am not sure what that is. I do not favor quotas, but in the need to go forward that might be the only solution. It would be difficult at first but as time goes on and the quotas become the status quo it would be much less negative.
Alan,
“I do not see racial quotas in the current environment as something artificial, as long as the person is otherwise qualified.”
There is the rub. If an artificial quota is set that will ALWAYS be a question. No matter qualifications.
And it taints the qualified with the stink of preference.
Case in point – Clearance Thomas.
Here is what he wrote in his autobiography “My Grandfathers Son” after detailing how so many people with whom he was seeking employment in his years right after college viewed him as “the affirmative action Yale Law School graduate”:
“Now I knew what a law degree from Yale was worth when it bore the taint of racial preference. Not even 15 cents. I was humiliated—and desperate.”
He explained that for many years after – even up to (and including) his nomination to the High Court – the taint of preference remained with him.
Dave, I think you make a good point. The issue really isn’t “past racist whatever.” That is the past, clearly the past, will always be in the past and most of us were not there.
The problem is with the present and the fact that as I read these threads most everyone has an entrenched view and opinion of any present event.
For some if any event involves a black person and a white person either the white or black person is wrong by default. Facts of the matter rarely seem to apply.
I don’t think the facts of the matter really matter much in regard to the N.Y. case or the Ferguson case. Some make up their minds as soon as the words black and/or white appear in the headline.
All I think I can help with is to seek equal opportunity. What some on this blog seem to propose is we seek equal outcomes. I don’t see that as a tenable position. Even the idea of equal opportunity will be plagued with problems. What is “equal opportunity?”
The other problem I think we must deal with is the fact that as long as humans have existed prejudice has existed. I don’t see that ever changing, except one person at a time in one church at a time.
Anecdotal evidence comes up a lot and I don’t see it as particularly helpful: whether from black or white (red or yellow or brown). I am white but I have lived and ministered in the heart of one of the blackest communities in America. So my stories would lend themselves to a skewed perspective of black on white prejudice. Not to mention my white wife went to a large inner-city high school and was the only white person in the senior class.
I don’t think my anecdotal experiences prove that blacks are equally prejudiced against whites, though it could sound that way. I think my anecdotal experience proves that human beings by nature do not treat others who are different in a uniformly kind manner.
Having only a few years of ministry in a Bible Belt church (Arlington, TX) my perspective is in racially diverse communities, many with very significant economic pressures.
So, I think two streams get convoluted that make race issues hard to deal with: personal perspective and economic blight. When these two streams come together as in a place like Ferguson, they flood waters of tension can be overwhelming.
I’ve said too much in adding to your clear perspective. But, I do hope that some real, tangible outcomes from these discussions may be applied to our specific communities in which we minister.
PS–I agree that insensitivity is nearly (pragmatically) as bad as racism.
Dwight,
Racism is wrong. I love you, Brother.
I hope you were not implying that Randy White and Kevin Stilley are racists. Were you?
David
David W.,
My brother from another mother, I used the terms “insensitive,” and “myopic,” to describe Stilley and Randy White. I did not use the term racist. Don’t know either one personally. I hope to schedule coffee with Stilley soon. Recently discovered that we both pastor in Tarrant County Texas. Since I don’t know them, I have no basis by which I could call them racist. Therefore, I won’t. There published writings on this subject are insensitive and myopic, particularly, Randy White’s. Hope I answered your question.
I know both Randy White and Kevin Stilley. I count both as friends. I 100% support the idea that you would pursue that cup of coffee with Kevin.
I also count Russell Moore, Ronnie Floyd, and Richard Land as friends. I support their approach. I disagree with what Randy and Kevin have written. But they are not racists, either of them. I don’t even think they have criticized Moore for the same reasons. Randy, from what I’ve seen and from what I surmise, differs with Russell over some questions of eschatology and the Jewish people and has developed a sense of skepticism about Dr. Moore. Kevin seems to have wanted a more measured statement than that which Dr. Moore presented.
I grew up in Texas (part of the South) and I never heard racism from the pulpit. Never heard anything about race from the pulpit, maybe that was covert racism. I did hear it from ‘Christians.’
But as I said to my small racially diverse church recently*, we have to understand that to many people, they look at each case, trust the process and don’t understand what all the fuss in Ferguson is all about. To others, who have lived all their lives in Ferguson like situations, this is just another example of, if not out and out racism, at least gross insensitivity.
I think this was a well stated post, and I appreciate Bro. Dwight for writing it.
(* In attendance: approx. 95% White, 5% Black. Its hard to calculate percentages with less than 50 in attendance.) 😉
To move this conversation to another dimension part of what we must do is to separate the racial issues from the gay agenda debate. In our area those are being tied together in such a way that if one wants to support equality amongst the races, he is forced to extend that to the gay community. This is going to greatly hinder advancement in racial reconciliation. I realize I am stating the obvious but I thought this should be put on the table.
Good and important point, DL.
Gay “rights” are not civil rights. As Abraham Lincoln once said re: slavery rights “You do not have the right to do wrong.”
Max
I agree and that is the point. Just recently in our town council an action was taken that tied racial considerations to a gay right’s action thus lumping them all together. It was stated such that if one opposed so call “gay rights” he was seen to oppose racial equality. Those who opposed the gender action were call racists because of this lumping together. We got this worked out, but it is a tactic of the gay front to confuse the issue.
Gay pride parades and civil rights marches are two totally different portraits of America.
Max
Absolutely! My concern is that it stays that way. My point is that the left is seeing it as the same.
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, or neither.
D.L.,
Brother, I am completely in agreement with you. The liberal mind has confused the sin of homosexuality with the right of the racially oppressed. The left is stretching the boundary on civil rights by moving the tent pegs where they should not be.
Max
Very well stated
That is exactly why we have to be clear and get this straightened out. We have not been clear and we continue to seek to protect our own way of life, even if it is just through making decisions that benefit us.
DL’s comment was on target. It is instructive for the local churches to correct their prejudices in their own pews, and in their own communities,…and work out from there. Frankly, a governmental system like the SBC will always be late to the game, because it is always reactionary anyway.
It is unfortunate that the history of the SBC littered with prejudice in its records, but if you camp there you will not get much done. Prejudice is not owned by the white man,…especially from where I was raised. We had two black families in our city of 5000 in West Texas. It was more of an Alamo experience between the Mexicans and the Anglos. In fact my best friend through grade school was one of the six black kids we had in the whole town, Randall McNeil.
The prejudice ranting was more about “wetbacks”, and even the Mexicans got in on that action.
My advice is to get on with the Gospel, and as D.L. put it….focus with the fruit of the Spirit in the local congregation and then utilize the gifts of the Spirit to see the culture of the church become less prejudiced. Paul gave some good advice about pressing forward, and leaving things behind that need to be left behind.
Maybe some folks don’t like to leave things behind, even after they discover the remedy.
Is racism dead in the SBC?
10 years ago, I interviewed with a Pulpit Committee in the Norfolk, VA area. They were a declining all-white church in a neighborhood that had once been all-white, but was now mostly African-American. We left with mixed feelings; they seemed to want to reach their community, and were proud of working in a pantry with an African-American church, and of having the white half of two or three racially mixed couples, but I did not feel the Spirit’s leadership there. While their offerings were barely paying the bills, someone had left the church enough money to fund a pastor’s salary for about 5 years.
A couple of days later, they called me, and said they wanted to pursue conversation with me. I thanked them, and told them what I felt led they should do: call a part-time retired (white) pastor so as to appeal to the existing congregation. Simultaneously call a part-time local African-American pastor to help them reach the community. There was silence; then, after what seemed an eternity, the chairman sputtered, “We’re not that desperate!” After a few more moments, he continued, “Look, they are building a gated community for our kind of people just a few miles away. THOSE are the people we want to reach!”
Is racism dead in the SBC? You tell me.
“I did not feel the Spirit’s leadership there.”
Your last paragraph confirmed that.
“Is racism dead in the SBC?”
Not in that man’s life. As committee chairman, he must have been a big dog in the church … but small in the eyes of God. He is a spiritually-lifeless man who will realize just how desperate things are come judgment day.
That kind of thing is more common than we want to admit, I’m afraid.
John
I do not like that man’s attitude or what he stands for. I agree with Max he has a surprise on Judgement day.
However that one experience does not mean that racism is alive and well in the SBC.
My experience was the opposite. The church I pastored in St. Louis and then in Florida were both adamant about reaching the Black (and Asian) community. Does that men the racism is dead in the SBC? No. It simply means that churches are different and as pastors it is our responsibility to change bad racial attitudes.
Bottom line a man goes where God leads. That is axiomatic. It could be however a good idea for a man to go to the church that is inclined toward racism and lead them away from such sin.
“Christian racist” is an oxymoron … even considering the morons in our churches.
Dwight,
Thanks so much for acknowledging Richard Land alongside the others. I support Floyd, Moore, and Land. I’m thankful for their leadership on these questions.
Dwight,
I also appreciate the article. I had to read it several times to finally see the final point you make, and If I’m hearing you correctly, the guys and gals that “get it” are the ones that will strive to have color where color is different. What I mean… is that you seem to put a high priority on the effort of inclusion of different color, not only skin, but culture (social and economic).
Even though I think you may have taken a bit of liberty with Mr. White on the “gospel demand” subject, since all he was trying to say is that the gospel is not beholden to any color of skin; all in all, inclusion of all ethnicities into the body of Christ at the local level is a beautiful thing. I think Mr. White might even agree. But, I understand as well, you need real proof that he actually does agree.
Another thing that crossed my mind that could be helpful toward the mission you put forth is to hold this same standard up for not only the SBC, but extend the same type of thinking into the NBC, and to the NAACP, and other organizations. I realize the NAACP is outside of the “church” concept, but focusing on inclusion of all colors and cultures within the leadership of all those organizations may reveal the heart and intentions of the leaders as well.
Maybe you and Mr. White can a cup of coffee as soon as possible and set the example!
1. There are always going to be racists of some stripe
2. That does NOT make racism ok. Paul says in Acts 17, that God made us all of one blood thus we are all in the image of God
3. I have been very concerned for 30 yrs about the “lily whiteness” of SBC leadership. I like most of you am totally floored by it.
4. I do not trust some of the leadership. Yes, I am questioning there motives here
5. Go back to #1. The black/ white experience in America is vastly different.
6. The “black community” needs the Gospel just as much as the “white community”.
7. I am confused what there is to discuss. Racism is pure evil an wicked. See the command of Jesus to “love one another and to serve one another”. What is the SBC leadership trying to do here? Yes, I am questioning their motives.
Grace and peace
Bill
Romans 5:1
Bill, very good points IMHO.
Especially #6, where the gospel of God is needed by both the black and white congregations. It is in the process of being hijacked (again), and all churches need to be made ready to withstand those evil forces. Many churches are duped, many good meaning Pastors are aligning with the those that preach another gospel. Buyer beware.
Bill
Number 7 “what to discuss”….It seems to me the discussion is (1) How to get more ethnic representation on SBC life (2) How to make reconciliation a reality.
No one here is defending racism. It is sin, on that we all agree.
Bill
Re. number 6. I assume that is a generic statement, with which I agree. Every man needs the gospel. However the gospel being preached to the Black community is hardly dependent on the white church or convention. Some of the greatest gospel preachers I have heard are Black. Some of the most evangelistic churches that I know are Black. The Black community of preachers is doing a great job of getting the gospel to the world.
Amen Chris!!
I will never stand with Jesse J and Al Sharpton, but I can, have done so, and will with others who are against racism.
Again, there will always be “racism” and there is nothing that we can do to totally eliminate it, but we are still called to stand against it. If that makes me a “racist” then so be it, but I believe that I can demonstrate otherwise.
BTW, “racism” is found in every culture not just America.
Finally, why is Ronnie and the others so recently concerned about this issue? He and others have been in various leadership roles for approx 30 yrs or so!!
Bill, the reason for “now” is politics. Politics in and of itself is not a bad thing. Some of these political guys enter “now” because they believe “they” might become irrelevant…thats not so good.
But, there is a bigger issue. It is the “what, why and how” that are important! We should be about defining the “what” of the Gospel before the other guys print their marketing material. The fields are white unto harvest…. I’ve been told.
Chris,
Could the “now” be a part of the leading of the Holy Spirit, and the national conversation that’s taking place that the SBC needs to weigh in on? The SBC was either silent or supportive & cooperative with the opponents of the Civil Rights Movement. There are multiple thousands, perhaps millions of Black Baptists & others who recall the SBC silence or complicity with the opponents of segregation. That remains a sore spot & sticking point with many people. Perhaps Floyd & others are speaking out so that the current young adult minority population won’t be able to say the SBC was silent or complicit when an unarmed teen age Black male who was not resisting arrest was simply holding a BB gun that was on display & sale at a Wal Mart Store, and the police comes in and kill him. Why? Someone considered him a threat holding an empty BB gun in the store that selling it. Further North in Ohio in Cleveland a 12 yr old-one block from his home-playing with a toy gun in a community park-is shot and killed within 2 seconds of the police arrival-because someone felt threatened. Similar stories can be repeated in most states & many cities in the US. The people are tired of this. They are rising up. Many Blacks are suprisingly pleased at the large number of Whites throughout the country who are participating in and supporting the protest. Why would the SBC be silent unless they are complicit and supportive of these inexplicable & unjustifiable acts of brutality. Even in the cases where I agree…not resisting arrest would have been the appropriate way to respond… Also, knowing how to deescalate a situation is a skill & practice the police should engage as well.
Dwight, that gun looked real – tge cops had NO WAY of knowing otherwise – the young man removed the Orange plastic indicators of it not being real – he was pointing a gun at people – he reached for it when the police came up and ordered him not to move – cops (no matter thier skin color, nor that of the suspect) should never be expected to take that risk. You think they shoukd wait till they are actually fired upon before dealing with a threat? If that becomes policy – we are gonna have lots and lots of dead cops!
I’m sorry it happened – but the way just portrayed the situation is not in keeping with reality.
Tarheel,
You are really justifying shooting a 12 yr old with a toy gun because of the factors that you mentioned? That was poor judgement, a lack of restraint, and you will never convince me that the trigger would have been pulled within 2 seconds on a 12 yr old White kid.
I agree.
Dr. Dwight
I am not Tarheel, he can speak for himself.
I would never try to convince you of anything that is contrary to what you hold by principle. At the same time I would exercise my option to respectively say I think you are wrong. The reason I jumped in at this point is to say, again respectively, that that type of statement only leads to a counter non defendable statement and on and on and……That does not advance the discussion in a positive way hence a solution if move farther away.
We all probably approach these discussion from our own experience and perspective. From my experience, being a teenager in the early 60’s in the Wellston area of St. Louis was that the police in 5th district did not care what color you were. If you crossed the line you paid a price. I am white, I crossed the line in 5th district, I wished I had not. They did not see color they saw a “punk”.
Dwight,
The root causes for all of these things you bring up have certain origins, and not all are based upon racist intentions. Some may be, and I am involved in getting that type of racism erased in the urban community.
The Holy Spirit helps us understand how to bring glory to God. If that means finally speaking up, that’s a good thing. There is a bigger issue at play here though,….that is recognizing the Gospel,…and the Holy Spirit does make sure we have a clear understanding of that power, for all born again members of those numerous churches around the world. That is where the most effective change will take place!
Bro. Dwight,
The situation with the 12yr old in the park is tragic, and you know I try to empathize with the black community over these situations, but I honestly believe race isn’t at play in that situation. I can say from experience that these guns are made to look exactly like the real thing. Additionally the orange tip that is put there by the manufacturer to distinguish it from a lethal weapon had been removed. If you watch the video before the shooting, the young man was brandishing the weapon in a very threatening manner. When someone reaches for a gun, a police officer only has moments to react. There is simply no way to know that the gun is not lethal. The police have to assume that it is. It doesn’t matter what the race of the young man is. You simply cannot brandish a weapon in a public park in a threatening manner. If the young man had been white or asian or hispanic, I think the outcome would be the same.
I had a pellet pistol that looked just like a real pistol. That’s because it is a real pistol. It’s not a toy. Yes, it is harder to kill people with a pellet pistol, but it can be done. I live in a pretty white area of northern NY. If I reached for that gun in the presence of police, I have no doubt they would shoot me.
Bill Mac,
Headed to an appointment. May not be available for a couple of ours. But, my wife saw an interview with a police who said that policy and protocol was not followed in how that 12 yr old shooting took place. The officer explained in detail how the shooting officer did this wrong. Had he followed procedure & training that kid would still be alive. Plus, the officer involved has an embarrassing record of police complaints. His lack of judgement could have been predicted. He was fired from a nearby police force. Cleveland hired him without doing their due diligence. They are changing their approach to hiring, which indicates that if they could do a do-over, they would not have hired that particular officer. A Black cop would have seen his son or daughter playing in that park & simply would not have been as quick to pull the trigger. I would attempt to defend the Ferguson killing before I would the Cleveland one.
Dwight,
Bill Mac just said exactly what I was trying to say.
Facts matter.
Bluntly put – Brandishing a real looking gun at citizenry – and reaching for it when cops arrive is gonna get you shot – no matter the age or skin color of the officers or the “suspect”.
Dwight: You may be privy to info that I’ve not seen. But policies violated don’t equate to racial motivation. The cop may indeed be a bad cop, but is he a racist cop? I’d want to see some type of evidence that he was. I honestly don’t know if I can agree that if it was black cops who arrived on the scene if it would have played out differently. The only thing that I saw that gave me pause was that they pulled their car right up to the young man, giving them no time to react other than to shoot. Perhaps that’s policy but it did seem strange.
Tarheel,
A grand jury may reason like you & Bill Mac. But, it will likely trigger a round of protests that make Ferguson & Staten Island look pale in comparison. I would certainly join those protest. If u listened to the facts articulated by the policeman as to why proper procedure in dealing with the Cleveland case was not followed, perhaps you will look at this differently.
Tarheel, my friend…what is your justification. For the Wal-Mart Ohio shooting? Shouldn’t a customer be able to pick up a BB gun in the BB gun section & not get killed?
Bill Mac
that was my point. As a kid in St. Louis I knew some bad cops. they were not racial in their approach, they were just bad cops toward Blacks or whites. I know from experience.
I need to hasten to say that the vast vast vast majority of the cops I have known in my lifetime were good men and good cops. I appreciate law enforcement a great deal, they have a hard job in today’s climate.
Bingo again my good friend. It is about perception and legitimacy of themselves.
My fear is today it is racism, tomorrow it is another issue and next year some other issue while the Gospel proper is pushed to the side as in days of yore
Grace again
BM
Exactly, BM.
Bill Mac,
Sitting in podiatrist office waiting to get my callouses worked on. Old age is different. Trying to learn how to be old-:).
Bill Mac, you nailed it!!! Thanks for jogging my memory. On the interview my wife saw she said that the officer stated that you never pull directly to a suspect in the manner that that cop did. He gave 4-5 reasons why they are trained not to do that. His approach had to violate protocol & training according to this officer. So, if they had parked further back, assessed the age of the child, perhaps hollered out-“drop the gun”-etc., called for back ups…in essence… practice restraint. Shooting this kid in 2 seconds is beyond creduiality in my judgement.
An increasing number of black Southern Baptists are matriculating through the SBC’s six seminaries. That’s the key to seeing black entity heads and black SBC presidents. I actively work to recommend black Southern Baptists for leadership positions within the SBC. Every name I’ve given has been someone who graduated from an SBC seminary and serves at a church that is actively engaged in SBC life.
The seminary experience creates relationship networks that carry forward into denominational life.
That is the way to get it done… In another way….I’m cooperating with Ken Weathersby and his team as they plant a church here in our area of Nashville in early 2015. It’s going to be exciting to sit under his preaching and teaching and meet and work more with their congregation, and offer mission work we are involved in to their folks in ministry. At the end of the day, we must be intentional in cooperation.
Bart,
Many Blacks who matriculated at SBC seminaries end up pastoring in NBC churches or have a very casual official….but none engaged relationship with the SBC. Why? Don’t know all the answers but a few of them are: 1. The entity head & elected leadership of the SBC remains all White from their beginning ’till today. Fred Luter being the lone 2 yr exception. SBC trained Blacks recognized that Frank Page’s position in terms of the ability to effect change or facilitate a vision carries a lot more clout than the position Luter held. The IMB or NAMB presidents are more attractive jobs. 2. From my observation many Black churches are more women friendly & gifts friendly than the powers that be in the SBC.
3. I have asked some leading Black pastors who are not engaged with the SBC but, are generally quite compatible, why aren’t they engaged? And they answer: “I/We haven’t been asked to be a member or to become more engaged.”
The largest churches in Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas, Las Vegas, and Louisville are pastored by men from SBC seminaries. But there involvement in the SBC is little to none. That trend continues with the younger generation as well.
Dwight,
I’m ready to work on #1 and #3.
In Christ,
Bart
#2 would and should stop someone of any color from serving as an SBC head.
David
SBC churches should not be friendly to women or spiritual gifts? Really?
That sounds horrible.
Yikes
Alan,
I’m taking that to mean women Pastors. And, the “gifts” being spoken about are “tongue speaking,” or the ecstatic utterance…I am assuming…based on past conversations.
So, yes, I wouldn’t be for any leader of an SBC entity, who affirmed Women Pastors. And, I really wouldn’t be for SBC entity heads, who would teach ecstatic utterance. Now, if someone does this in the privacy of their own home, then fine. But, if they teach that ecstatic utterance is a spiritual gift, in a public way…then, no.
David
Bart & David,
I might add 2 other points that I think hinder more inclusion or the larger Black Churches being more engaged in the SBC. 4. A lack of social justice understanding-commitment-involvement or however you phrase it, in the SBC. However, my guess would be the recent statements by “the powers that be” are positively turning some heads regarding the SBC. I received one call from a high profile NBC pastor overjoyed & elated with Richard Land’s statement in response to Staten Island/Ferguson. I was unaware of Land’s statement ’till I got that call & that’s what prompted my post. 5. The identity of the SBC with the Republican Party is probably by far the biggest turnoff. I don’t know how to overcome that one. But, I know that it is a serious turnoff to the vast majority of Black Baptist. During a season like Ferguson & Staten Island, Blacks are more comfortable with the Democrats. I guess that’s why I am taking a good look at Rand Paul, and so are other Black pastors. He seems to get it.
Bart and Dave W.,
I forgot one. The largest Black Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, OK is pastored by a Midwestern graduate. He also served as President of the Progressive Baptist Convention that was formed in the early ’60’s because the NBC rejected MLK. One of the seldom discussed aspects of MLK’s life particularly by SBC personalities is that he was rejected by the NBC during his lifetime. He managed to gain enough influence from outside of the NBC to succeed, but, because of the enormous influence of Dr. J. H. Jackson-a Reagan Republican by the way-who had serious philosophical & pragmatic differences with Dr. King, the NBC rejected King.Dr. Jackson ruled the NBC for 29 yrs during the onset, duration, and even the end of King’s public life. He was President roughly from 1953-1982.
We studied the birth of the PNBC during Ph.D. seminars at SWBTS.
Dwight,
The most racist years of the SBC were the 135 years (1845-1980) that the convention totally sold out to the Democratic Party. That’s historical fact right there.
Now, I don’t want us to be totally sold out to the Republican Party, either. I’m happy to see the convention become more independent, because I’m not all that happy with where the GOP is headed these days. But I am not willing to see us get even a scintilla more friendly with the Democrats. That is a party of infanticidal monsters. Under the present administration, the party has only grown more extreme. He lied to Bart Stupak. The present posture of the party is to stop saying that abortion ought to be rare.
I care more about the legion of black babies who don’t get to see the light of day—the genocide of black children—than I care about racial reconciliation. That’s not to say that I don’t care about racial reconciliation, but one has to perform triage. One is a matter of life-and-death. The other is not.
Bart: I would say that I as a Southern Baptist individual accept those who are Democrat to be full fledged Christians and Southern Baptists in good standing with both God and the Southern Baptists who should be in leadership.
Only God knows those who are closet Democrats yet are in leadership in the SBC, who are white. I think more than anyone realizes. Democrats and Republicans have always been part of the SBC. Instead of trying to change black ministers or congregations who are Democrat, we need to learn to bend. They are not pro-abortion or a host of other stereotypes. They are simply Christians who are Democrats. Republicans have not done anything to curb the law on abortion. It’s still on the books as legal as it was the day it was made into law.
I know of no African American Southern Baptist who believes abortion ok. I find your statement rather inflammatory.
Republicans have done nothing to lessen the racial divide. If anything they are the ones who have widened it and not just among African Americans. In the church it is the Republicans who have broadened the gap, as seen on this forum and other posts on this subject.
“I care more about the legion of black babies who don’t get to see the light of day—the genocide of black children—than I care about racial reconciliation.”
This is perhaps the most important statement made yet. Life or death is immeasurable more important than any real or perceived need for living people to be reconciled. Amen Bart.
Dwight,
Sometimes, my brother, you’re like the guy selling me a car. When you describe the product, I fall in love with it. When you describe the price, not so much.
The product? Racial integration and racial reconciliation.
The price? Women preachers and alliances with the Democratic party.
I like the product. I just can’t afford it. 🙂
Then again, that doesn’t make me give up on the product. It just makes me want to see whether I can get it for a more reasonable price.
I’m optimistic about that.
Dwight, maybe you can speak to this, but my recollection, from my conversations with you and observations, is that you are not aligned with either the Democrats or Republicans.
Is that correct?
Women preachers may be what’s needed here Bart. We aren’t as dumb as the stereotypes portray us to be. Even in things of scripture. Just pointing that out. 🙂
Debbie, no one is suggesting that male preachers are intelligent. And where I can do so, I’m quite egalitarian. But I will not disobey scripture just for the sake of being in style.
Dave,
I realize that Dwight himself is no Democrat. But we’re not talking about Dwight individually; rather, the conversation centers upon Dwight’s opinion that black Baptists in general would require a political shift within the SBC before they would be willing to participate in SBC life.
Black pastors have overwhelmingly supported Democrats. I’m hopeful that this situation could change. After all, at the beginning of my lifetime you could say that white Southern Baptist pastors overwhelmingly supported Democrats.
Bart & Dave,
I wrote a very lengthy comment to Bart regarding the issues that I believe seperate Black & White Baptist, and why we should not allow these differences to keep us from doing church planting/development together. However, when I hit the publish/send button, somehow my lengthy & I believe helpful message got garbled up. It would not go through for some odd reason. Maybe the North Koreans intercepted it-:). So, if time permits tomorrow, I will ask The Lord to bring back to my remembrance that brilliant lengthy piece I wrote. And I will submit it as a seperate post. I am grateful that out of the mess that has erupted in Ferguson and Staten Island, it has caused the evangelical church to wake up & view inter-racial churches as not only a biblical mandate, but, an urgent matter. I addressed at length all of the reasons why Black & White Baptist haven’t merged. But, II challenged us to put our differences aside for the sake of the gospel & somehow figure our away to do church together in spite of our differences.
Bart: You mean you won’t disobey your interpretation of scripture, one which I disagree with. I do not want to disobey scripture either, but as with the subject of segregation that some would use scripture to support, saying the same thing concerning “disobedience of scripture”, I would challenge your interpretation, but alas I realize this is not the subject of this post…but I did interject this per your comment.
I should revise my last comment, no one has endorsed segregation. That is a poor statement on my part. My apologies.
Debbie,
It’s not just an interpretation of Scripture. It could not be more clearly spelled out, than it is. There’s really no wiggle room for seeing it otherwise, and still be true to the Scriptures.
David
Doggone North Koreans!!
LOL
“Women preachers may be what’s needed here Bart. We aren’t as dumb as the stereotypes portray us to be. Even in things of scripture. Just pointing that out. :)”
Debbie, Women can be false teachers just as men can be. And no one can stop you from being a woman pastor or preacher in our free country. You just won’t be accepted into some institutionalized clubs. I don’t see that those Body of Christ functions were ever meant to be so institutionalized anyway.
I guess I am wondering why it is so important to be accepted by the “group”. And I say this about both the question of “races” (which I reject) and women functioning in the Body of Christ. Go and do anyway. That is how things actually change.
If men feel they are in sin for listening to a woman preach that is their problem.
Debbie: “The sky is blue”
Lydia: “No, the sky is gray”
Debbie: “It’s raining out”
Lydia: “No, it’s drizzling”
Lydia: In the Southern Baptist realm, one cannot be a leader if he/she is not allowed to be. I am Southern Baptist and because of that I want to see changes made in a “group.” We are not supposed to always be lone rangers. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Sometimes yes, but in this case group change is needed.
You can deny the race problem, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Women also teach the truth as well as men. In this case I believe Southern Baptist doctrine, except for a few issues, to be the truth as taught in scripture. I really don’t know your point other than the above scenario that I have pointed out.
Debbie, who ever persuaded you to believe this? “In the Southern Baptist realm, one cannot be a leader if he/she is not allowed to be.” Leaders lead, even if the followers are few in number. You must be talking about the politics, not the gospel. right?
Chris: Yes. It’s the politics. In fact isn’t that the whole point of all these many discussions? It politics were not the problem or the solution, however one may look at it, we wouldn’t be discussing what we are discussing now.
Chris,
Excited to learn ’bout your partnering with Weathersby in church planting. Land, Moore & anyone else who said it is right. The type churches that you described are the only hope to bridge this racial impasse.
Yes… Ken and I sat with the TBC where we are forming a sort of church incubator off the beaten path. It will be fun, …lots of work to do. He is already getting the choir ready for rehearsal….so, I’ll have to loosen up a little! I think we can have a great relationship and learn from each other…..I’ll be sharing with him what we have been doing for the last 20 years in an urban area of Nashville, and at another location we spun up this year. I think it will make some sense to him.
Ken Weathersby is a great guy. I appreciate his ministry in TN.
Chris, what church do you belong to? I do know Nashville pretty well. I have family, who live in Fairview. And, I have friends, who live all over the Nashville area.
David
Tell them to sell me a big house on the cheap.
Volfan,… Grace Church at Hermitage/Providence. I put the hot link on my name….and a map.
I’m looking forward to working with Ken.
David W.,
Billy Graham ’till this day calls his daughter Anne Graham Lotz the best preacher in the Graham household. Dr. Karen Bullock preached in chapel at SWBTS under the Hemphill administration. Because it has been on his website I feel the liberty to say that annually Fred Luter has had a woman to speak annually on Sunday morning at his church for “Women’s Day” for many-many years. Dorothy Page spoke on a Sunday Morning during the preaching hour at the Concord Baptist Church in Dallas in the ’80’s. The 2000 BFM forbids women Senior Pastors, but not women preachers or staff ministers. Al Mohler admits for years that he embraced women preachers and pastors until later he had a change of heart and mind. A SBTS professor who also pastors have women preachers to preach at his church currently. If the Bible is so clear on this subject as you say, why is it then that all of the above instances take place. Sandy Creek Baptist had women preachers. The past five NBC presidents have all embraced women preachers. Ironically, the most recently elected NBC president does not. But, my point is it is simply not true as you say that this matter is so clear in Scripture. Charles Stanley has endorsed on several occasions women preachers, but not pastors.
If the Bible is as clear as you say it is please explain the above deviations from your crystal clear Bible by persons who hold to inerrancy just as strong as you do?
The BFM speaks to how the plain text of scripture prohibits women pastors (btw – not exclusively “senior pastors” but the office of pastor itself).
It does not speak to women teachers/speakers who are teaching under male Pastoral authority. Lotz is a teacher and is not a pastor.
First, The incident you speak of in chapel at Southwestern so many years ago Took place when liberalism and biblical infidelity was still so prevelant at our seminaries. Second, seminaries aren’t churches – they’re training centers for Christian ministry – well, at least that’s what they’re supposed to be.
As to Luter – she’s a speaker not a pastor.
As to Mohler – I’ve never heard that he supported women pastors would you please elaborate on that statement with supporting evidence?
Tarheel,
Am I to understand that you are saying that if a woman speaks to a coed audience in Sunday Morning worship in the time slot normally allotted for the pastor, that is not in violation of the BFM 2000?
If that’s the case, we are all in agreement. If that’s the case David W’s “crystal clear” remark in crystal clearly wrong. Please clarify what you are saying here? Thanks.
Dwight, because I believe in autonomy – I will say that pastors/churches can “open up” their pulpits to anyone they choose – of course – understanding that they (The pastors/elders are responsible for anything that is taught therein). Whether or not it’s a violation of our confessional document that’s a different question.
The Baptist Faith and message states clearly that the office of pastor is reserved for men. Having a woman speak on Sunday morning a violation? – not necessarily.
A church however would be in violation of the Baptist Faith and message should they have a female holding the office of Pastor – but more importantly they would be in violation of Scripture.
Dr Bullock spoke in chapel while Dr Hemphill was president. SWBTS was never Liberal, and was not during Hemphills years. You can also ask Bart Barber about Dr Bullock, he was one of her students. She is not now, and never was liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
David W.,
I would bet you that if you offered a resolution in the SBC annual session that “Be it resolved that the SBC does not affirm “women preachers” it would not get a majority vote. As a matter of fact, I wish that you would offer such a resolution. The SBC needs to be crystal clear as to where they stand on an issue like this. The SBC needes to be crystal clear as to where they stand on the subject of “praying in tongues in private.” But, they won’t take a definitive stand. Why not? Because they know better than you that these matters are not crystal clear in Scripture, and they are afraid of taking a stand that would be on the wrong side of Scripture. Just as the White supremacy and slavery /segregation issues in SBC life were driven by culture, and the opinions of the SBC powers that be at those times, so is the SBC opposition to women preachers and speaking in tongues in private. How else do you explain a convention that boldly proclaims their beliefs on every other subject imaginiable(sp), will not boldy and definitively, explain their beliefs on women preachers(not pastors) and speaking in tongues in private?
Dwight
My dear brother, women preachers are not even on the radar for SB. This was part of the fire for the CR, some of the liberals/moderates advocated women preachers.
I dare say today that 98% of SB reject tongues as a prayer language or any form. You are correct that this was overlooked by the IMB board in a hire of the CEO in days gone by. However, that act really “sunk up” of us and since that time the position of non advocating tongues pretty well galvanized.
It is true is some areas that it is not a test of fellowship. In other Associations it is. The point remains test of fellowship or not I dare say that 98% of SB reject tongues in any form.
D L,
You could be right, and if so, fine!!! So be it. But, shouldn’t that become official? Why should we be left to guess what the SBC position is on these matters? Or why doesn’t the SBC seek the removal of churches that clearly, openly, and convictionally, embrace the positions that you say are 98% rejected by the SBC? Doesn’t integrity dictate and mandate that churches be informed of this when they enter the SBC?
Dr. Dwight
Definitely not! SB are not a creedal people. We have certain doctrines that are non negotiable and you know what those are. The things you are talking about are left to the individual church to do as God leads. Again local autonomy is precious to SB. And again SB seek to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Dr. Dwight you have beliefs different than mine. I have no desire to kick you out because you exercise autonomy. For the life of me I cannot understand the problem.
D L,
The truth of the matter is churches have been dismissed over the women and tongues question. There is inconsistency of the SBC over these issues.
As much as I would love to see greater inter-racial unity in the SBC, I think that the SBC needs to be totally transparent on these issues so churches will know whether or not they are being tolerated or appreciated. If they are simply going to be tolerated many of them would say, thanks, but, no thanks. People would rather be where they are appreciated, not just tolerated.
I am reading a book that explains why the SBC dismissed Black believers and churches from SBC Black churches in Texas from 1861-1870. The reason was primarily over worship style preferences and the White supremacy practices. Fast forward to today, not much has changed. We still can’t get together for the same reasons. In the meantime Rome is burning. My heart bleeds at the ineffectiveness of the church to address the racial issues plaguing our society. Jesus made it clear that until there is unity in the church there would be no effective evangelism/discipleship to the community(John 17: 21). We have no unity in the churches among the races. Therefore, we cannot effectively address and minister to this current race crisis. How sad.
Dr. Dwight
You must understand Baptist structure. Each entity is autonomous. The State Convention, the Local Association, and the SBC are all autonomous. Each is free to make their decisions independent of each other.
Those who were dismissed were not dismissed by the SBC, they were dismissed by the local Association, again which is autonomous and free do do what they choose. Please understand SB are not creedal we are confessional and there is a big difference. One of those differences is that what the Associations in New York may allow, the Association in Oklahoma may not. That s who we are.
Dr. Dwight
I want to respectfully say that I fail to see what Baptist did in the 1800’s has to do with our conversation.
With that I have already said more than I understand on this subject, so I see no reason to keep running my mouth. Have a great Lord’s day my brother. I Am preaching tomorrow in a very troubled church. If you think about it I would appreciate you prayers tomorrow around 10AM Mountain time.
D L,
I would venture to say that at a minimum one-fourth…or perhaps as many as one-third or more of the predominately African American SBC Churches including the one pastored by a former SBC president allow a woman to speak on a Sunday Morning at a minimum of once a year. Actually, it is probably a much higher percentage than what I’ve stated. Why isn’t the SBC attempting to boot these churches out of the SBC if you are correct?
Dr. Dwight
(1) I am not passing judgement I am simply relating where i think the SBC is.
(2) Women speaking in church is simply not a test of fellowship. I am not a Calvinist but I do not want to make Calvinism a test of fellowship.
(3) I know many pastors who would not have a woman speak in their church. However, that does not say they want to kick you out because you do.
(4) Most SB seek to be inclusive not exclusive is at all possible.
(5) Local autonomy is very precious to SB
D L,
I agree with you. It is not SBC doctrine. It is not crystal clear in Scripture as David W., has falsely alleged. Therfore, you all need to stop representing these positions as SBC positions but, simply your personal opinions.
Dr. Dwight
You are much to hung up on “SBC position”. What is that all about. You are free to practice your beliefs and I will fight for that.
However if you believe that more SB believe the way you do about women in the pulpit and tongues as opposed to the way I do, you are badly mistaken. Again I am not passing judgement. ALL I am saying is that most SB do not advocate speaking in tongues and women pastors. There is no such thing as a “SB position” on this issue, merely those who do and those who don’t. I am not trying to advocate a ‘Baptist position” I am merely seeking to have a conversation with you. Who am I to represent a Baptist position. I am near nobody ministering in Montana. I hardly have any influence. The circles in which you walk are different. If you say something I suspect you will be quoted as stating a definite position because of your influence and position. I do not walk in those circles. No one is waiting to hear what I have to say on a subject. I am happy and content for you, Dr. Mohler et.al. to have that opportunity.
To be honest I admit (if you will 🙂 ) that we both are guessing. I have never stood at the Mike at the SBC, you have. Why don’t you offer a resolution and we will see. The one who is most mistaken will buy lunch 🙂
Dwight – if that resolution stated that the word pastor refers to all who hold the office being male – I would bet it’d pass overwhelmingly – but it’s not necessary because the Baptist Faith and message 2000 already makes that clear. Stating that the office of pastor is reserved to men.
As for tongues – I think you’re on the wrong side of that into most southern Baptist do not support ecstatic utterances.
Here arises one of the issues that no one really wants to discuss – it is clear that one of the reasons there is division between many blacks and the Southern Baptist convention is because there are vast differences in theology held and taught in some “black” churches the theology held within the Southern Baptist convention.
Eternal security is another sticking point – I have a good friend who is an African-American pastor who strongly believes in eternal security and male pastoral leadership – he also is a ceasationist and he’s told me on numerous occasions that his fellow black pastors accuse him of embracing false doctrine.
Doctrinal issues are part of the reasons for “separation” – should we abandon these doctrines so as to be more inclusive?
I hear the word most coming from you and DL Tarheel with no actual proof that is true. I think you would be surprised at the actual result.
Debbie
I think we are all giving opinions here. None of us have proof. You have no proof that I would be surprised. But again no matter, we are simply having a discussion.
Regarding proof however, I pastored 20 years in Oklahoma, I do remember in the very late 70’s or earely 80’s resolutions were passed at the BGCO annual meeting that positioned us to oppose women preachers, and tongues. Of course those are not binding and reflect the views of those present. That may have changed in recent years. Perhaps now Okla Baptist advocates tongues and women preachers, I have been out of touch.
Also in about 92 or so there was great controversy on whether or not Anne Graham Lotz should speak at the convention. She had been invited and there was furor arose and I cannot remember if she was disinvited, not invited or what. But she did not speak. Your pastor has some Oklahoma annuals you might be so kind as to research that for me, because I am speaking from memory. I do know there was great controversy. As I think about this she may have been invited to speak at the Evangelism Conference. Again If you would please investigate that if you can find the time and let me know. thanks much.
As to private speaking in tongues – there needs to be no resolution on that – there needs to be no statement on that in our confessional document – you know why? Because if it’s private – no one will know about it but the person practicing it.
I will say that the question about private tongues should be removed from our documents and questionnaires – I am much more comfortable with those documents and questionnaires inquiring as to the applicants convictions and intentions regarding public use and teaching of Ecstatic utterances. But that’s just me.
Tarheel,
I totally agree with your second paragraph. I think I might even agree with your 1st paragraph. Except for “private” does not mean that I can’t mention it; private means that I will not practice it in your presence.
Tarheel,
Artful dodge. The question was, how would the SBC respond to a resolution declaring that “women preachers”(not pastors) are not affirmed by the SBC. Answer that question please, rather than one that I am not asking.
Who is talking about “estatic utterance”? Why are you bringing that up? I am asking that would the SBC vote approvingly of a resolutuion saying that “the SBC hereby resolve that we do not affirm the belief and practice of some Christians who pray in tongues in private”? It baffles me that if thease are rock solid convictions of the majority of SBC pastors and churches, why won’t they declare it to be so in an annual session? Why not make it official? What do I say to church planters who ask me the question what is the SBC official position on these issues?
When have you ever known me to dodge anything – if anything I’m accused of being too blunt. LOL
I answered your question somewhere in this thread! Lol
Tarheel and D L,
The two of you must have forgotten the Lifeway Poll taken just a few years ago that clearly indicated tha t 51 % of Southern Baptist belived in the biblical validity of prayong in tongues in private. So to represent the majority of SBC personnel as being non-supportive of this notion simply belies the facts.
Dr. Dwight
I an unaware of the poll. Could you direct me to it please?
All
I do know that when I was commissioned 20 years ago by the then HMB, I was asked about a prayer language, it was then a disqualifier. I thought that strange given the then FMB.
Was prayer language a disqualifier for IMB after the controversy surrounding the hiring of Jerry Rankin. Some of you historians help me here. It seems to me that during the tenure of Charles Stanley, tongues, prayer language, and divorce were disqualifier for both mission boards. Again you history guys help me, I have slept a few times since then.
D.L.
This one was done by Lifeway in 2007:
LifeWay releases prayer language study
“should we abandon these doctrines to be more inclusive”
Tarheel, No!!!! The SBC should not abandon any doctrine to be more inclusive. The problem is there is not one doctrine in the ’63 BFM statement, or the 2000 BFM statement that I don’t wholeheartedly believe. And that would be true of a high-high percentage of African American Baptist pastors. The things that we may or may not be in disagreement about are not addressed in the ’63 or 2000 statement. Therein lies the problem. Therefore, don’t abandon your doctrine to include any church. But at least be open and honest and tell us what is your doctrine so we won’t have to guess at it.
Dr. Dwight
If it is not on the BFM it is not “our doctrine” as SB. You are free to believe as you want and I am free to believe as I want. I do not want to kick you out for disagreeing with me, why are you insistent that I make it official. It is already official, you are free to believe and practice as you see fit. If you want to have a woman speak every sunday do it and don’t worry about what I think. If you want to sit up all night and exercise a prayer language DO IT and be blessed my brother.
The BFM purpose is two fold (1) To list those doctrines on which we should all agree (2) To say to you and me that other teachings on which we may disagree are not to be considered test of fellowship.
Dr Dwight
One mire word. You said “your” doctrine, so we don’t have to “guess”. Maybe I am being picky but if you are a SB should that not be “our” doctrine. As far as guessing my brother, if you are this concerned about it, make a motion at the convention.
I hope so.
And, to be honest, I am looking forward to the day when the names that we mention as representing a “sea change” are not white guys who are finally getting it, but rather, leaders from the ethnic groups represented in the SBC who have been chosen by all of us to lead our entities.
That will be the real sea change.
We had a real opportunity to place an Asian man into the Presidency of the IMB. BUt, the powers that be chose otherwise. They went with the White fella.
David
The “powers that be” being the messengers at the annual meeting?
The people behind the scenes.
The people behind the scenes.
That was a sad indictment. It kinda comes off as a PC move, but the SBC MUST become more inclusive
Volfan
Did they go with the “white fella” or with the existentially tuned in, cool “celebrity, mega pastor”. It would help a great deal if SB could get over hero worship. I have done my share. My hero was John Bisango. I would have voted for him for anything over anybody.
I was very glad that he got 41% of the vote, though. That was a good thing. He was largely unknown by most there. And, Dwight did a fantastic job with the nomination speech.
I think that there is a great desire from rank and file SBCers to see change. The block is still in the upper levels where people have positions and want access to those positions for themselves. I do not think that there is a nefarious plot to keep ethnic minorities out of leadership. I think that it simply involves relational connections and a desire for access to leadership for ourselves.
If we created 100 more leadership positions, they would not be filled with ethnic minorities. They would be filled with the next 100 white guys who are standing in line who think they have paid their dues and deserve to be tapped because of who they know and whose water they have carried. That is how every system like ours works – Southern Baptists are not unique in this. It is human nature. It only plays out racially because of history and cultural comfort based on what we know. The gospel is supposed to trump that, but it often doesn’t. And, yes, I am very thankful for Dr. Page. He is confronting this head on and is absolutely right.
Oh, there’s more decisions being made in some back room that what most SB’s will ever know.
David
Page is a good man. I admire him. He’s a good leader. I appreciate his efforts to deal head on with various issues.
However, despite his good intentions and capability – still – the top down approach – will not work.
Dave miller,
Speaking of nonsense and “the point”….you asked –
“Is the assumption that there is always a white person more qualified than a black? Do we have to fire a MORE qualified white to DONATE a position to a black man?”
No! And no one has said that, either.
But I do ask by installing affirmative action Arent we still saying –
“The assumption that there is always a qualified black persons will not exist unless WE create them?”
Affirmative action is, IMO, racism – for many reasons – one being the intimation that whites must give special breaks to blacks for them to attain. The “they can’t make it on thier own” mentality. Another is that choosing someone BECAUSE of skin color is just as ofensive and disgusting as NOT choosing someone because of skin color.
I agree we should address the boys club – doing that will help with the “Lilly whiteness” as we all agree there are excellently qualified persons, of all skin tones, outside the power group – and given the opportunity it will happen.
We agree minorities are not getting opportunities because they’re not in the boys club – but let’s be honest – tgeres qualified white dudes who won’t get opportunity for the same reason!
maybe term limits for entity heads as well as for high level execs therein, for example?
I should say no one has said SERIOUSLY to fire white guys and give to a minority – I said that feciously to illustrate what I see as the absurdity of racial quotas.
Tarheel, you said,
“Affirmative action is, IMO, racism – for many reasons – one being the intimation that whites must give special breaks to blacks for them to attain. The “they can’t make it on thier own” mentality.”
That might be the case in some situations, like college admissions. But, in the SBC, the reality IS that white pastors/leaders DO get special breaks because of who they know, their relational networks, and their past history. It is a fact. So, any type of intentional plan to bring leadership from the 10,000 SBC churches (20%) that are majority ethnic in constituency/leadership is needed – because it is not happening naturally based on relational connections that already exist.
I am tired.
I am tired of a conversation that I thought was settled at the foot of the cross – where all humanity of any stripe could come and be at peace and be treated with equality by a loving God: “…red and yellow, black and white, we are precious in His sight.”
I at this point of my journey could give a flying leap about who sits in what position where in denominational positions of service. To mine and ours, it really is not that relevant to our calling and ministry. Sure – we give to support missions and desire that our institutions are administered with integrity. If people are called to serve by the Lord, then God blesses that ministry. The only quota I would demand is that the person have a servant’s heart, can lead as a servant to the churches, and have a love and passion for God and His people. What skin color they are is irrelevant = and to call for it to be relevant as a point of discrimination on one hand, or addressing past wrongs on the other leads to the same: advancing a racial distinction which in my view is an affront to God no matter how devious or good intentioned the purpose of it is.
I am not defending the good old boy cronyism that exists – contraire. There is a lot one can say about the status of a convention run by those in influence and power and “who you know” rather than a fear of God. God have mercy on us all. For this reason most churches prefer not to send messengers. Most small SBC churches (if one can play a victim according to race, why not the size of the church, eh?) have given up and are apathetic at what the National and State bodies do and how they benefit them. If you want to know the real corruption of any entity (be it religious or secular) is really simple and profound: follow the money. Certainly Lifeway could give a flying leap about the reality of the small church as they go about catering to the large, prosperous churches of our convention. The Lord Jesus, who is the head of the church, knows all, sees all, and hears all. He is the defender of the powerless, and He hears the cry of His people if they are earnest and pray. He alone is the bearer of miraculous and righteous results = more so than that baseless bit of philosophical porn that says, “God helps those who help themselves.”
You esteemed men can prattle on and on about injustice = while the justice of God marches on against the ungodly (See Romans 1). You can rail against the wrongs of the past but they will not change. You can cast stones against those who say the bit of what you consider “wrong” that do not squeeze through the template of what you consider sensitive enough. I say ENOUGH! Who is on God’s side? Who cries like the Master as they view the totality of our communities as sheep without a shepherd? Who is willing to broach the topic of the equality of man at the foot of the Cross = and then are willing to live it, breathe it, and preach it truly without subterfuge? Again – God have mercy on us all.
Rob
Good points RA.
I am convinced that there is a serious divide in how “black” and “white” pastors perceive the Ministry.
“White” pastors seem to be more engaged in the Gospel proper while “black” pastors see the Ministry through a more socio-economic lens. I believe that this stems from history and the civil rights struggles which were/are embedded in the “black” church.
As for me personally, i do not care about the color of skin, but about the right and wrong of a situation.
We are reaping what we have sown in many respects ie past racism and an almost abandonment of the Gospel by much of the church including the black church.
I would also add that much of todays music does nothing but convolute society and Charles Barkley was right. Why does the black church not protest against places which sell violence against women, drugs, murder, thuggery, and “street cred” which is overall more dangerous and lethal to society and the black populace in general than 8-10 cop killings/yr in the USA. Many of which are proven to be vaild. Both are tragic with one being the end result of the other.
Any parent which would allow their child to knowingly be involved in the glamorization of crime and thuggery -read here almost all hip hop music and video games of killing is not much of a parent in my book.
The real issue at hand is the heart. We should all vocally and prayerfully condemn all acts of hatred and malice against each other. Any pastor Choosing to protest in the streets during emotionally challenging times ie riots over emotionally charged issues is NOT much of a Minister of the Gospel IMHO. He would be much better served by offering prayer, comforting the hurting and speaking publicly to bring about reconciliation and hope during troubling times when given the opportunity.
I am done with this one guys.
Grace and peace to all
Romans 6:23
And one last thing, Jesus could have protested a lot of social injustices during His day as well as the apostles; however, they stuck to their guns and the Ministry of proclaiming Christ as Lord and Saviour to ALL men Jew and Greek
Later homeys
1. Whites have no better or worse handle on the gospel than Blacks. When Blacks preach/share the gospel they often include the message of the gospel’s here & now impact, without neglecting to include the gospel’s impact on the hereafter. In my judgement Whites tend to hone in on the hereafter effect and impact of the gospel while also acknowledging the gospel’s here and now realities and effect. But to claim that Whites preaching the gospel present a more pristine version is simply inaccurate. I have actually gone out witnessing on more than one occasion with Whites, and many times with Blacks. Therefore, I’m talking from experience.
2. Charles Barkley does not regularly attend church, or he shows no evidence of it. If he did, and if u attended Black churches regularly you would understand that the issues that you & Barkley say that are not being addressed in Black churches are addressed on a weekly basis, and there are also street rallies and protest done to address these. They don’t get the publicity that the police shooting rallies get, but they happen. Primarily these issues are addressed in the pulpit & in youth groups at local churches.
If MLK had followed your advice ’bout not protesting & marching we Blacks would still be under Jim Crow laws, and Obama would not be president. Neither would George. Zimmerman been brought to justice, although he escaped.
Rob, we have the luxury, as people who have not suffered from racial discrimination, to act as if it does not matter. It is a luxury a lot of other people in America don’t have.
And since we are supposed to love our neighbor as ourself, we probably ought to be concerned about their experiences and struggles.
Dave,
Where have I ever said, “It did not matter.” It is something that has never left my lips, typed on a keyboard, or entered my heart. That is an evil assumption that many of my brothers in the Lord have = and it is just as evil as racial discrimination. There are a lot of calls for soul searching around here. Let that attitude and thought be one of them that also gets on the block of review.
Have you lived life completely void of injustice? While I have not experienced what others have, I have lived out my own life that is full of circumstances that have been unfair and unjust. Do I have to be a woman to understand that abortion is murder? Do I have to be a minority to say that while discrimination is sin, to harbor resentment, bitterness, anger, animosity, and rage is often worse than the first? I love my neighbor – enough to shout it from the rooftops about Him which will bring them peace. I have seen with my own eyes what rage can do. There is a town in my state that has been ripped apart by it.
The gospel, Brother Dwight, is neither black or white. It is for the hear and now and hereafter, “…for I come that they might have LIFE and have it more ABUNDANTLY.” There is no racial distinction at the Cross. We have each the same DNA – each created in the image of God. If you are talking about cultural perceptions and realities I get you somewhat. But for the life of Him who is Holy, perhaps you can give me this reality and what it means: “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and yet loses his soul?”
Rob
I learned a long time ago not to trust anything that comes out of North Carolina but the Biblical Recorder provided an article celebrating the strides Southern Baptist have made in the area of race. Here is a paragraph from the article,
“In 2012 the convention elected by acclamation Fred Luter of New Orleans as its first black president to a standing ovation.
As of November 2014, at least 24 state Baptist conventions that cooperate with the SBC had elected non-Anglos as their presidents.
More than 10,000 of the SBC’s 50,500 churches and church-type missions are non-Anglo, comprised of a broad diversity of racial and ethnic members. About 15 percent of presidential appointments to committees were from non-Anglo ethnic and racial groups over the past two years, and nearly 100 members of racial and ethnic minority groups have served in SBC leadership positions as elected officers, entity trustees and staff members and seminary faculty, according to data compiled by the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.”
http://www.brnow.org/News/November-2014/Southern-Baptists-racial-healing
Celebration will often motivate more than condemnation those who are honestly attempting to accomplish a goal or task.
Dean,
Who is engaging in “condemnation”?
I see none!
Not sure where that accusation came from, Dean.
condemnation: a statement or expression of very strong and definite criticism or disapproval
Dave, Dwight and DL, can you guys honestly tell me that in the comment stream above there are not statements of definite criticism or disapproval of the SBC on race relations?
I do not have the time or desire to read through them again and pick them out. I remember reading, “racism is alive and well in the SBC.” I remember reading, “we make decisions to protect our way of life and what benefits us.” Alan Cross said we have camouflaged our racism by giving it new names.
Anyway, my point is there are other methods of motivation than criticism. I have read plenty that is wrong with the SBC, especially when it comes to racial matters. I believe a look at the positive might be equally beneficial.
Dean,
As u know there is a difference between condemnation & critique; between condemnation & constructive criticism; condemnation & evaluation; condemnation & observation. A football team, a church, a business, or no other entity can move forward or make progress if they don’t take an honest look at themselves & make necessary changes. The Bible says, “Let a man examine himself.” What you are reading & have read is self examination, not condemnation. No one here is condemning the SBC for racial or any other reason. We are admitting sins, problems & issues of the past & present, so that they might be corrected or made better in the future.
“Let a man examine himself.”
For some odd reason that is troubling me I have not heard much self-examination in the post or the thread. “Others” attitudes and thoughts and opinions are chocked full here – self-examination? Not so much. Just my perception of things.
Rob
Dwight, I don’t see anyone examining himself at all in this comment thread.
I wanted to highlight some good in the SBC but evidently I chose my words poorly and some were offended. I hate that. Maybe criticize would have been better than condemnation. I was channelling my inner Jessie Jackson and had to make it ryhme.
Dean & Rob,
Those of us who have “criticized,” “condemned” “observed,” “evaluated,” or whatever one wishes to call it are insiders. We belong to the SBC. Therefore, we are examining ourselves. When I sat on the trustee board at SWBTS we had to examine or evaluate Paige Patterson. The evaluation was designed for observation not condemnation(get it? That’s my best Jessie Jackson back-to-you imitation).
If I may say so Dwight – your evaluation of personnel and employees at SWBTS was done behind closed doors – “Executive Session” as it was a personnel matter protected by all matter of law and regulation. When you condemn, criticize, and observe with broad brush strokes with inflammatory ways when we cannot even agree on terms = well then.. what do we call this? You want us to be sensitive to your perceptions = but reject ours as being “insensitive” or even latent racism. If we are going to have discussion it really does require “let each examine yourself.” I examine myself and my position – you examine yourself and your position. Then let us concede our weaknesses and meet as the Lord has said we should and must.
Rob
Alan, you have written words that are plain and simple only later to change what they meant. I guess that is fine. No one can pin you down that way. However, you do not get to change the meaning of my words that are plain and simple. I never stated, insinuated or suggested you said every individual in MS in the 50’s and 60’s was racist.
You said racism was accepted and celebrated everywhere in MS. I find that statement ludicrous. I offered three churches and a town asking you to name how they celebrated racism. You replied you didn’t say everyone was racist. I never said you did. I reject your comment on MS because it is patently wrong whether you are speaking of the forest or the trees – everywhere in MS was not racist.
Most Mississippians were guilty of keeping racism alive by voting for segregationist for state and federal office and that is a shame. However, many Mississippians knew little of the civil rights movement except what they read about in papers. It rarely impacted the small towns and hamlets that dot the landscape of MS. The protesters and demonstrators were few in number compared to the population and they were in Greenwood, Jackson, Meridian and other cities. They didn’t exist in Buzzard’s Roost, Piave, Neely or Bunker Hill. Most Mississippians went to work and came home and never witnessed a civil rights protest much less celebrate racism. My hometown overcame integration in an instance during a Friday night high school football game. Our coach, Jack Craft, was threatened not to start the black kids. He started Willie Shelby, a black, at tailback to the chorus of boos and hatred. Willie ran for 225 yards in the first half and was given a standing ovation by the fans as he left the field for the halftime break. Boos and hatred were turned to cheers and love and it remained that way. Racism was never a big problem in my hometown after that night. Racism existed but was never accepted and celebrated.
I believe you paint the old south with a broad brush because it fits your narrative today. I believe that is unfortunate and unfair. While no one can sanitize slavery and the segregated south those individuals still deserve truthful and fair representation.
No, Dean. My point has always been that racism was/is a symptom of a deeper issue, which is that we often try to protect ourselves and our own “way of life.” That deeper issue manifests in many different ways. The end result might be continued racial division, but that end result might not originate with racism, per se. It might just be that we gravitate toward who we know and who we believe will benefit our own position. I do not think that everything is veiled racism. I am saying that the deeper impetus that used to manifest in racism now manifests in other ways, but the result of continued separation remains, even if people don’t necessarily want it to.
No, Alan, here is your quote in its entirety. Heel made the comment that SBC racism was in the past to which you replied,
“No one says we are. People are acting like the SBC has not been overtly racist, however.
It all ended abruptly from national leaders in 1968, by the way. That is when W.A. Criswell repented, opened the doors of FBC Dallas, and said, “never have I been so blind.” The SBC also adopted a pretty substantial resolution on race in 1968 – long before the 1995 resolution. Criswell was elected president, the SBC repented on racism, and everyone tried to move on. 1968. Everyone public and national repented then.
You will not find what you are looking for from national leaders.
But, in 1996, I was a youth minister at an all white rural SBC church in Mississippi. A rep from the State Convention came to visit us about evangelism in our community. He presented demographics and talked to us about reaching people. He gave us the total population, and then said, “Now, I know that you are wondering how many are white and how many are black.” He then removed the black population from his presentation and then trained that church in how to reach white people only with evangelism, thus declaring that the church did not need to reach black people with the gospel. Without the gospel, people go to hell, right? So, in essence, a rep of the Mississippi Baptist Convention said it was okay for black people in the community to go to hell because that church didn’t need to reach them.
I confronted him after his presentation and asked him what he was doing. He smiled condescendingly and said that he knew that we needed to reach everyone, but he also knew that that church would not engage in evangelism to blacks and didn’t want blacks in their church, so he was just trying to get them to do what they would do. He didn’t want to rock the boat. I took my youth group outside and told them that that wasn’t the gospel. I had youth tell me, “Well, we don’t want any N—ers here, anyway.”
1996.
In 1994, I was in California working as a summer missionary and we were doing evangelism in a housing project. There was a huge response to the gospel, many confessed Christ, and they wanted to go to church and be discipled. I went back to the Southern Baptist church that I was working with and they said, “Well, they wouldn’t want to go to church with us. They like a different kind of music than we do.” And, it was left at that. No follow up. No desire to reach them or disciple them. That was it. Because of music styles.
I have been in Montgomery, AL since 2000. We were talking about racial reconciliation here a few years ago and a pastor of a large church said that all of that was fine and good, but if he started talking about that in his church, he would be politely asked to leave and wouldn’t have a job anymore. A large Southern Baptist church.
It now flies under the banner of “worship styles,” and “culture,” and “family values,” and “personal preference,” and “people just like to be with their own kind.”
I have a lot more stories that I can tell as a pastor working for a multiethnic expression of the gospel in the Deep South. Over racism just takes other forms. The result is usually the same – white churches, black churches, and very little in between.”
What you said and meant is clear – today’s racism now flies under worship styles and culture….
Heel’s comment was aimed at a comment you made about our past sins in which you said racism was everywhere, celebrated and accepted – I assume you meant in Mississippi. Such a statement is unfounded, impossible to prove and hurts your credibility. Tell me of the celebration in Piave Baptist Church or Buffaloe Baptist or Red Bluff. What about Pretlington, MS.
I see little difference in racism and stereotyping – they both are used to promotes one’s own cause.
“What you said and meant is clear – today’s racism now flies under worship styles and culture….”
Well, Dean, I am trying to tell you what I really meant and what I really think. I went back and read my comment and I was typing fast on the surface of things. What I said there IS NOT what I really mean. So, allow me to retract that – as I already have twice. I left an explanation after that comment and even an apology for being terribly unclear. I guess that you didn’t see it.
What I was trying to say in the comment that I obviously butchered, was that racism still exists in the hearts/minds of people and I have seen it overtly in my ministry in the past. I shared a couple of stories to illustrate that. ALSO, the underlying issue beneath overt racism (which I believe is protecting one’s own self) also can manifest in other ways such as clinging to worship styles, culture, personal preferences, etc. Those things are not overt racism (I honestly do not think that a desire for a worship style is racism in any way), but they can have the effect of keeping us divided racially as we all cling to what we like best.
I admit that I was not at all clear and I made my point very poorly to the point of saying something that I did not mean. Since we cannot go back and edit, I tried to explain what I meant after the original comment after you brought it to my attention.
When I said in the next to last paragraph, “It now flies under the banner of ‘worship styles’ and ‘culture’ … ” I should have been more clear about what I meant by “It.” I was talking about the way that we still divide based on our own sense of identity and preferences which used to manifest through racism and now manifests others ways.
Again, I do not believe that having a preference for worship music or being a part of a certain culture constitutes racism. I admit that I said it that way, but that was not what I intended. I left an important part out of what I was getting at.
The other thing was where you said,
“Heel’s comment was aimed at a comment you made about our past sins in which you said racism was everywhere, celebrated and accepted – I assume you meant in Mississippi.”
I do not believe that racism is now everywhere and is celebrated and accepted everywhere at the present time. I was talking about in the past and that past had created divisions that persist until the present, even though they manifest along different lines from purely race.
I have maintained for a long time that “race” is not the primary divider, but rather, it is us clinging to what is most familiar to us and to what we think will enhance our own life and our position. Because of past sins, that move often still plays out racially – even in unintended ways. I am actually NOT someone who is labeling everything “racism.” I think that misses the point of what is going on. So, the way that I wrote out that comment – which was done quickly and without going back and reading how it came across – was entirely NOT what I intended to communicate.
If I wanted to stand by what I wrote there, I would do so. But, I do not, so I disavow it as an error and apologize. I did not communicate what I was trying to say.
The racism that I was referring to was in the past, though it still occurs in places – I do not deny that. But, it is not institutional in a forced sense as it was in the past or is showing up in worship music preferences. I shifted to trying to talk about where/how the divisions occur now and did not make the proper jump.
But, alas, I was the one who wrote it and I guess that you can believe me in my explanation and accept my apology for causing confusion as being sincere, or you can think that I am lying and am trying to crawfish out of an awkward statement to cover my tracks. I would ask you to believe the best, but leave that choice up to you. Again, sorry for the confusion.
The comment/clarification that I wrote under the offending comment up top. I wrote it 18 minutes before you quoted the comment in full to show me my error again:
“Alan Cross says
December 19, 2014 at 10:58 pm
My purpose here was not to say that overt racism is still prominent in SBC life. The thing that lies beneath racism is that we want our lives to be protected and we want to have our own personal preferences met. In the past it looked like racism. Now, that underlying desire that once manifested racially might take other forms, but the result is that we stay racially divided. I do not think that having preferences for certain types of music is a form of racism at all – but when we let those preferences dictate who we worship with, then the same results can occur that we say in the past, which are racial division. When I typed out the previous comment, I was in a hurry and just wrote the surface issue of race without speaking of the underlying issues that take on many different forms. My apologies.”
After seeing that you either did not see this comment or it was unsatisfactory, I wrote the previous two comments to try and clarify even more.
I’ll throw this in for what it is worth: I can’t find any New Testament justification for churches to be divided over what kind of music they like.
🙂
Nor can I – and I think that separation is ridiculous too. But, I wouldn’t call it racism.
Alan, I understand you were speaking of the past when you said racism was everywhere, accepted and celebrated.
I say again, that is a poor statement that cannot be substantiated.
I have no way of reading your thoughts but I can read your words and your words say that racism was celebrated and accepted everywhere in MS. To me, that is an unfair, gross generalization. It also simply is not true.
Dean,
When I talk about this, I am talking about the forest and not individual trees. The overall forest was a system of racism and segregation and Southern Baptists were in it neck deep. Yes, you are right – there were individual trees in the forest that were not racist. I have always maintained that as well.
I think that we are talking about different things here. No, I do not know the mind of every single person from the past. I am speaking generally. I grew up in Mississippi and my family lived there for 150 years before my birth. I can trace my Southern heritage back to the mid 1600s in Virginia and my family owned slaves and all that. At the same time, my grandmother never uttered a racist thought and sacrificially loved everyone. She was a true Christian and the love of Christ poured out of her. She was also a Southern Baptist and she is the reason that I first began to know that Jesus is the answer for all of this.
So no. I do not think it was every single person in Mississippi. I am thinking of overall.
Isn’t the “Gospel command” so called differences overblown?
Can anyone be saved regardless of color? For Certain.
Can a racist be saved? Again, For certain.
Here comes the command part.
Can a racist person be saved and continue in his racist attitudes and behaviors? Certainly not. There is no one with a clear understanding of the Gospel that should have racist attitudes or behaviors. In that sense, it is a Gospel demand.
I don’t see how anyone should disagree with this.
Don, you wrote
“Can a racist person be saved and continue in his racist attitudes and behaviors? Certainly not. There is no one with a clear understanding of the Gospel that should have racist attitudes or behaviors. In that sense, it is a Gospel demand.”
The answer to your question is yes. There are a lot of “saved” people who walk in the flesh and continue to sin in extraordinary ways. This doesn’t make it right but it is the reality. Our work ( and I am assuming you’re a pastor) is to apply Scripture to life and challenge all of us to confess and repent of all sin, racism included.
wilbur
If someone I pastor claims to be a follower of Christ and is unrepentant and continuing in racist attitudes or behavior, I see no way that that I could encourage them that they are in Christ.
I would not allow that person to be treated as part of the fellowship. I would teach them the Gospel.
The sin of Racism is cause for a person to be denied fellowship in a local church and a reason for that person to be removed from the church.
Even on our best day, we sin greatly
I cannot see how a quota system or an affirmative action strategy would solve anything within the SBC because there is no evidence that it has changed anything in any other institutional sector. In my opinion all people should be treated equally regardless of race. I think that Martin Luther King would agree, people should be affirmed by their character not the color of their skin. I advocate a color blind approach to life. Perhaps this sounds simplistic but it is the only viable option. Treating people with courtesy and respect is what God would have us do.
wilbur
“I advocate a color blind approach to life.”
All Christians should, Wilbur. Southern Baptists should not be continuing to have this conversation 170 years after SBC formation … nearly two centuries, Wilbur.
“I advocate a color blind approach to life.”
This is said a lot and there is a problem with this approach. We are not color blind. We see white skin, we see black skin, etc. and it registers in our mind. I say we should not have a “color blind” approach because that is still denying the problem. We should however have the “all people are created equal” approach and all are made in the image of God approach.
At the risk of getting hammered the “color blind” approach is racist without meaning to be, putting on rose colored glasses approach, and ignorant, bypassing the reality of the situation as if it does not exist, yet this approach magnifies it even more.
Amen!!!
“At the risk of getting hammered the “color blind” approach is racist without meaning to be, putting on rose colored glasses approach, and ignorant, bypassing the reality of the situation as if it does not exist, yet this approach magnifies it even more.”
Whatever happened to the content of character instead of color of skin? I think someone who is not white actually said that in a speech at one time. :o)
This is why I cannot stand the collective approach. People cannot be “individuals”. They have to be “groups”. And that only perpetuates the us/them mentality.
Booker T Washington suggested the color of green as in making a superior product or delivering a superior service would eventually take care of the color problems.
I think this is both/and concept, as in a color blind culture is to be expected, is ideal, yet you cannot simply flip a switch after a century or two of restrictive economic opportunity and expect that ideal to work.
Another thing to consider: Are we talking past each other conflating racism with systemic poverty? The pathologies of systemic poverty (regardless of race) are the real challenge to overcome.
I would be surprised if anyone here advocated for racial superiority or racial privilege. I think it is sloppy to use the racism card when that card means something specifically horrific.
What I see most (reasonable) advocates for change saying it that race has played a part (yes, predominantly in the past) in the creation of systemic poverty for a sizable portion of the minority community. This poverty has played a part in the mistrust of authority, and in destructive behavior that invites more attention from legal authorities.
Yes, personal responsibility is still required and expected to overcome this system, but this system has a strong current to overcome.
I have the potential to be the next start-up billionaire, but that potential is closely tied to access to educational and financial resources. If my family had been restricted from those resources for over 100 years, my potential only becomes reality if someone in my family tree overcame those restrictions. I can’t go from abject poverty to high tech billionaire in one generation, regardless of the content of my character.
So, how do we tackle the poverty (and economic opportunity disparity) that (I think) is the true root cause of much of our problems?
Mike
You pose a very thought provoking issue. Wish I had some answers.
It is one thing to feel oppressed. It is quite another to feel oppressed and be hungry and cold. If I were full and warm I could handle oppression easier I believe. Having said that, there i obviously something wrong if one must make that choice. The environment that mandates that choir is borne our of environment full of sin.
I don’t think colorblind is racist, it’s just naive.
It is not “naive”. It is the ideal. While we may not approach it this side of glory, it is the goal. To wish for it, encourage it, and practice it is not racist or naive. To those who reject it or flippantly call those who call for it “racist” – well they are not acting with the Spirit of Christ. You see “color blind” is what He is and it is practiced where He is. If He lives inside of you, that is who you are and should be.
Rob
Agreed, Rob. Amen.
Bill Mac,
Sir, what is “naive” about the power of the Gospel to transform a person?
wilbur
Bill did not say “the power of the gospel to transform a person” was naive, Wilbur.
He said the “colorblind” thing is naive.
Please refrain from twisting people’s words.
Rob
You are correct
Yes, of course and absolutely we should confront racism when it appears – but attributing matter to it exclusively that are not so in reality is counterproductive. It makes true issues of racism harder to attack as the term has been devalued to the point that it has not power anymore.
If R-card is so frequently and continually pulled, even amid evidence to the contrary as it has so many times on this forum, then there comes a time that the R word will mean nothing. If the past is bonked over heads incessantly as if nothing has changed in the last 50 years…That is not a good thing.
Like I posted above. You may have missed it.
I agree that lots of qualified, capable and ready minorities are looked over for entity head positions as well as high level execs within the convention…we agree there…where we disagree is that you seem to think it a “racial issue” while I think it is a boys club issue. Skin color is not the cause of the lack of non whites in the positions.
I contend that there are also a large number of qualified, capable and ready white dudes who will also not get opportunities because they are not in the “club”.
Let’s come together on term limits for entitiy heads…instead of lifetime appointments. We could do the same with execs.
The trustee issue is a more complex one as it is really done by the nominations committee – who seem to lean heavily on the state convention leaders to submit names – so again – boys clubs on that level too.
Lets talk about how to deal with that…I think many of us can find agreement there.
Having positions come open more often and consistently might produce the outcome you want without the ridiculousness of quotas.
Sorry, no. I’m not about to ignore anything about a person that helps define who they are. I had a long conversation with a young black student when President Obama was first elected. I wanted to get his take on it, because he has a different perspective than mine. I don’t get to do that if I’m “colorblind”. I was at an Operation Christmas Child conference last year. Lots of people who look like me, lots of people who don’t. I spent a lot of time seeking out and talking to the ones who don’t, because while we are alike in many ways we are very different in others. We have very different stories. I don’t get to do that if I’m colorblind. The cross makes us equal, it doesn’t homogenize us.
Sorry, no. I won’t agree with you that skin color “defines who someone is.”
Tarheel
You are absolutely correct re. the “club”. Historically if one was not in the “club” or one of the “faired haired boys” you were not in line for anything, regardless of one’s education, experience, and yes even race.
While I was totally supportive of the CR was there any leader of that movement that was not rewarded in some way for his involvement, either a job or Pres of the SBC. Granted this was not the same as the club, but the principle is the same.
Tarheel: I said helps define. There are probably hundreds of things that help define who we are. Why wouldn’t skin color be one of them? Skin color denotes a certain ethnicity or ancestry. How is that not a part of what defines us? I’m not very tall. I don’t think people should discriminate against me because I’m not tall (except during pickup basketball games), but being short is a small part of what defines me. My faith helps define me, so does my gender, so does being a father. My white skin also helps define me. It shows that I am of European ancestry.
NO. Skin color and height describe you – your character defines you.
Debbie,
Racism does exist, it is real and tangible. The solution is the Gospel of Christ, it is that simple. When a person is born again by the Holy Spirit they become a new creation and love others. It works because it is based on truth. Millions of people have experienced it.
wilbur
Right on, Wilbur!
What does that mean? Does that mean that we shouldn’t talk about racism and confront it? That we should only do evangelism and ignore the problem?
It sounds really great to say, “the solution is the gospel” and we would ALL agree to that. Amen. But what does that mean in reality? What does that mean for the life of the SBC?
Should we deal with the issue? Or should we ignore it? What does “the solution is the gospel” mean in real terms? Can you elaborate, Wilbur?
Dave
I am not Wilbur but I would like to respond.
You have framed the question and situation very well. For me it means this. We should continue to work without a doubt. I believe it was Adrian Rogers or perhaps Tal Bonham that said “God will not do my miracle, what he expects us to do by obedience”. I believe that to be true.
Having said that to me the phrase means that I have little hope of accomplishing racial reconciliation. We have been at it for nearly 2 centuries and we are not there. I see nothing on the horizon that tells me the next 25 years will be different. Hence the gospel is the ONLY solution that I see.
Max,
I wonder if the SBC desires a dialogue or a monologue on this matter.
wilbur
Max
I totally agree. The problem is how do we stop? Perhaps we could say “I will if you will”. Two factors about the conversation that bother me. (1) We rehash the same old tired arguments (2) Without conversation how do we move ahead?
Your point is very salient. After 170 or so years, one would think we would have moved passed the issue. That raises the most frightful question, “will we EVER get passed racism”?
Another question that plagues me is, which is first. (1) Do we seek racial reconciliation first then let justice follow as a natural result? (2) Do we seek justice first and then strive for reconciliation?
I don’t want to be a defeatist, but I think the first order of business is justice. That is taking action that will mandate jobs, housing, adequate schools, work training programs etc. Perhaps we will never have reconciliation but we can increase our efforts to make sure people of all color have the ability to work, feed their families, and enjoy some of the “perks” in life.
Am I way off base? Does this make any sense? I am open because I am frustrated about how to move forward. The status quo must change.
Folks, I think Wilbur was saying in his “color blind” comment that Christian love looks beyond the outer man to the inner man. He is not tossing the color of one’s skin aside as being unimportant, but he chooses to embrace all of mankind under a banner of love. When we see a man, the color of his skin might register in our mind … but love enables us to really “see” him in our heart. Color-blindness of this sort is not racist, but anti-racist in the purest sense. If Wilbur’s belief is that “Treating people with courtesy and respect is what God would have us do”, then we shouldn’t try to change his mind.
Well said, Max – Well said indeed.
Max,
Bingo, everyone who puts their faith in Christ is a Child of God and is accepted into the family of God.
wilbur
Max: I don’t disagree with any of that, but I don’t think that’s the definition everyone has in mind when they use the term.
I’ll say this again. Inclusion based on skin color alone is ridiculous, and people advocating a “colorblind” society (ie: white people) are looking at it in those clinical terms. I maintain that race (skin color, if you like) can be proxy for an entirely different (non-white) set of experiences and perspectives. Those could be seen as qualifications. For example, Asians are generally more collectivistic, relationship oriented, and patient than Americans. Can no one imagine a scenario where an Asian immigrant’s race (and thus those qualities I have mentioned) might factor into a hiring decision? Never? Not one? I’m not advocating for diversity for its own sake, but because racial differences are a real thing and can be a good thing.
Bill Mac,
“For example, Asians are generally more collectivistic, relationship oriented, and patient than Americans. Can no one imagine a scenario where an Asian immigrant’s race (and thus those qualities I have mentioned) might factor into a hiring decision?”
Oh my, you are conflating matters here. Characteristics like you describe are not connected to skin color (often errantly called race). Are all Asians as you describe? If not – then those characteristics cannot be about skin color it has to be about something else? No?
A abject racist could make similar statements to the one you just made – but exchange slights and negative stereotypes in place of the more positive ones you used, no?
*An abject racist….
Also, said racist could then NOT hire the person because of those “reasons” when the truth of the matter he/she has rejected them BECAUSE of skin color.
See my point? In my way of thinking it is just as wrong and reprehensible to hire someone because of their skin color than it is to not hire someone because of their skin color. (I know, I know, such thinking is condemned in these parts by self appointed reconciliation police – but hey, such trivialities have not stopped me before.) 😉
Tarheel,
I don’t think you’re hearing me, but let’s try this another way. Let’s forget skin color. Can you possibly envision a scenario by which you might consider a person’s cultural background as a qualifying factor for a position?
For the record, cultural characteristics are well documented in social science literature. See the work of Geert Hofstede. I have traveled all over Asia. The characteristics I mentioned are born out in the academic literature, my own observation, and the Asian people we have interacted with themselves, whom we ask point blank about their perspective on the differences between Asian and Western culture.
Of course – personality and character traits are part of any hiring process. Both good and bad ones.
I’m just saying that those traits aren’t connected to skin tone – but rather environment, upbringing, and culture. It’s the old nature vs. nurture.
What you’re saying is like saying “hire a green eyed person because they all …..” Or “don’t hire one because they all….”
Of course cultural characteristics aren’t connected to skin tone, but there can be a strong correlation between skin tone and cultural. It’s not a perfect proxy but can be a reasonable one, especially if it considered only as part of a person’s qualifications. African American, or Asian, or Native American cultures are real things. Can a white person be raised in these cultures, or black, yellow, or red skin toned people be raised in white culture? Sure, but as I say, a person’s cultural background is only part of the picture.
People are the sum of many things. I am not just my gender, or my race, or my education, or my experience, or my age, or my politics, or my virtues or my vices. I am a combination of all of those things.
Yes, I’m an individual, and I’m qualified to do certain things. But if you build an organization that looks just like me, if you build an organization that basically matches all my characteristics, I don’t think you end up with as good an organization as if you fill it with people who don’t look like me quite so much, and don’t look like each other quite so much, as long as they are still qualified. So perhaps when the 10th qualified person who comes along who looks just like me, perhaps take a breath and see if you can’t bring in someone a little different.
I take groups of students on study abroad trips to Asia. I’ve taken hundreds of students over the past decade or so. I’ve taken lily white groups and racially diverse groups. Without exception, the diverse groups are better. Collectively they ask better questions, and are much more enjoyable. I will absolutely look at gender and race when forming the group, without apology.
Dave,
Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate. At the local church level I would recommend beyond evangelism a strong pastoral emphasis on discipleship. This is the Scriptural model. The pastor leads the congregation in the tone he sets in the pulpit and in his personal relationships with others. Personally I have a life history of friendships with people of all backgrounds so the congregation knows where I stand. My commitment to treating others with respect and courtesy speaks for itself.
I don’t think the SBC is racist. Baptist polity prohibits a bureaucratic, hierarchy to make proclamations which ostracize autonomous congregations. In other words racism is something that each congregation needs to address in it’s local context. Besides I don’t think there is any measurable evidence that a top down legislative approach has ever worked anywhere and would not work in the SBC.
It would appear that some want to make their personal opinions about racism a litmus test for fellowship. This reminds me of the Calvinist versus Arminian debate. This is not where we want to go. It is fine for people to state their opinions but as Baptists we believe in freedom of the conscience. Racism is sin and needs to be treated as such from a Scriptural standpoint. Confession and repentance is the only remedy for sin.
wilbur
Thank you, Wilbur – that is a very good explanation.
I agree with you.
Dogmatic top down approaches to major issues like this have never truly worked in any situation. I defy anyone to demonstrate where it has.
For example lets consider a situation that we all might be able to identify with – at least from the perspective of the pastorate:
Let’s is a problem with racism in a local church would (should) a pastor announce to the church:
“Because there is a history of strong racism in this church, in fact the church and the SBC itself was founded upon a rejection of abolitionism – THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE NOW – The deacons and I have discussed this and here is the plan! I have brought 5 of my black friends from the black church down the road…they are going to join our church today and they are our new door greeters and ushers. Its the right thing to do and given our history this is the only way integration of this church is going to happen! Like it? Great, you are on the side of the angels! Don’t like it? You are wrong and need to shut up and go with it.”
How do people think that work out for that pastor? Is that the right approach?
Might it work better if the pastor lovingly, as a good, faithful pastor biblically address it, emphatically condemn it, personally model the godly way and appropriately church discipline those members who obviously and rebelliously refuses to live godly?
See I think the latter is happening all over the country in our SBC churches. Has that been the route of the past – no. But it is the approach happening now. Most pastors I know personally, as well as most who post on here are doing just that!
I would hate to see the former (forced quota and dogmatism) happen in a local church – it won’t work- it will make matters worse. I also would hate to see in the denominational structure for the same reason!
I am not sure what this has to do with the price of eggs in China, but I discovered something. It may or may not be relevant.
One church I pastored was heavily military. Many officers, fighter pilots etc. These folks were the most accepting of various ethnics than any church I pastored except for one. They had traveled the world. They had participated in many different cultures on a daily basis. They lived with and associated with people of all races etc. Perhaps there is a connection here. Perhaps this was true because they had the opportunity to get to know people of various cultures and realized the they were……well…. just people.
“Perhaps there is a connection here.”
D.L.,
There is no doubt that well-traveled folks have a greater appreciation and acceptance for cultural/racial differences. However, the “connection” for Christians – whether they be world travelers or stuck in the mud in small town America – is a Scripture that says it all: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” For those in the Body of Christ who don’t believe that, they need to spend some serious time in prayer and repentance.
P.S. the price of eggs in China is currently $2.51/dozen (large)
If it is true that there is no racism in the SBC, if it is true that no steps need to be taken to diversify the SBC and its entities, then it must also be true that the most qualified people to lead the SBC were, are, and will continue to be white.
“If it is true that there is no racism in the SBC”
I’ve not read where anyone is saying that.
” if it is true that no steps need to be taken to diversify the SBC and its entities”
Not read Tgat either.
“then it must also be true that the most qualified people to lead the SBC were, are, and will continue to be white.”
See above.
Can we not agree (as I’ve stated many times) on the lack of diversity – but disagree as to the current basis for it and the solution to it?
It seems that you. Dwight, Alan, and miller etc. Are saying “here’s the problem, here’s our solution, and if you disagree – well you’re not only wrong but you’re “naive”, “unhelpful”, “whiney”, “insensitive”, , etc.”
Then there’s the intimations of racism – including the indefensible “latent” variety.
I’ve lost track of all the perjoratives thrown at those of us who see things differently than y’all.
Tarheel,
I don’t recall seeing solutions offered. But with a myriad of related posts perhaps I’ve missed them. The impression I’ve gotten is that the solution offered by those who don’t think there’s much of a problem is that it will all just work out in the end.
I’ve suggested a few several times –
– term limits for our entity heads, that way it’s not 15 20 30 years before we get a chance to put anyone new in a position. We’ve got one person who has been a president of the Convention twice, and a president of two different seminaries for double-digit years.
We appointed two-term president to the executive committee – another lifetime appointment.
of our entity/seminary presidents only Patterson and (maybe) Kelley and Hawkins are near traditional retirement.
Having our positions become vacant more frequently would give us more opportunity to fill them with those that are not in the boys club – as I’ve stated another comments I think the problem is more connected to a boys club mentality than it is racially motivated – I think if we break up the boys club – this problem will be solved.
As for trustees – end possibility of consecutive four-year terms and replace it with six-year terms – lifetime maximum of two terms they cannot be served consecutively – One third of the board rotates off every two years.
I would even go a step further that one can only serve on two different boards over thier lifetime.
Again we got a bust up the boys club.
It’s not just minorities who will never “have a chance” to hold these positions it’s anyone who’s not in the boys club that will always be on the outside looking in.
But most importantly – and most effectively – as I’ve also posted In other comments – if our membership Has an issue with the rotating boys club and care – and I think they should – we can try to break up the boys club by establishing rules on the national level – but the real problem will not be solved until enough actual local churches *not just individual pastors on a blog* but local churches lead by faithful pastors start sending delegates and changing the way things are done at the convention otherwise ultimately we’re going to keep getting.
Tarheel
Re. Dec 20 4:26 comment, you are spot on. This is how change can occur. The problem is that many younger pastor don’t give a rip who does what in the SBC. They have withdrawn and are doing their own thing, developing their own non SBC heroes. There are a few of us who still get concerned about that, but we are mostly the middle age or older guys.
I remember the time when having the “honor” of sitting on a board or committee or whatever was seen as a status symbol or a feather in our cap. It was a symbol of success. That mentality was used to “keep us in line” and “on the team” If one rocked the boat one did not get recognized in that way. So very few rocked the boat. Today’s young pastor says “who cares”?
Perhaps in 10 years this whole discussion will be moot.
I guess 40 is middle-aged. My state convention sent me an invitation to a young pastor summit and the age cut off is 40 – it had in parenthesis give or take a few years – LOL!
Also, again – I point out that no one has said there is nothing to be concerned about – it’s just we disagree as to process.
Tarheel: Fair enough. I think those ideas are fine. I’m not sure they’ll get the job done but breaking up the all-white boys club would be no bad thing. Personally I have no problem giving preference to a minority candidate for a leadership position assuming he/she (sorry, just he) is qualified. I don’t think we should hire anyone who is unqualified. That, in my opinion, is the problem with being “colorblind”. You cannot say we need more diversity and at the same time say we should be colorblind.
I think we need diversity in general – it’s not just non white skin tones who are locked out – and we’re not gonna get diversity with the boys club in tact.
Agreed.
Bill Mac,
I’ve never met you, but I love you. You just made one of the most profound, insightful, and “bottom line” comments that has ever been made on the subject of racial inclusion & empowerment in the SBC. There is nothing else to be said after that comment. My only regret is that I didn’t think to say it first-:). Dean, Tarheel, Rob, Bill Mercer, Debbie, Alan, Dave W., Dave Miller, Bart…even Louis the lawyer who has not commented on this post or stream….needs to read your comment here. It is most profound. As a matter of fact, I am going to steal it, & use it in a post that I am working on concerning inter-racial churches. Thanks for this world class worthy comment.
Dwight: I read Bill’s comment and as I read it felt as you do about it. I thought, yes that’s it in very astute words. I was also sad as I read it, because that’s it in a nutshell with very astute words.
Dwight,
I love you too brother. But here is the issue. You read and see what you want, and dismiss the rest. What Bill said is not what anybody is stating – and after countless posts and words you have not read or understood much of what anyone has said. That my brother is the most disappointing thing of all = and it is a clear detriment to dialogue that you purport to want.
God bless you brother. May God’s Spirit shine upon you as you share His gospel this Sunday.
Rob
“If it is true that there is no racism in the SBC, if it is true that no steps need to be taken to diversify the SBC and its entities, then it must also be true that the most qualified people to lead the SBC were, are, and will continue to be white.”
What about Fred Luter? Was he qualified or was he elected because of the color of his skin to send a message? Could Fred Luter represent “white” SBC folks? I think he did it well.
See where this thinking leads? That is what concerns me the most. We must see individuals, not groups.
Bill Mac, in his comment at 9:54am, really get to the bottom line.
Roger
should be “. . . . really GETS . . . “
How incredibly sad…..I wonder if the news media and the race baiters will keep stirring up the fires of racial hatred?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/20/us/new-york-police-officers-shot/index.html
Vol this is sadly probably only the beginning of what we are going to see. The race baiting agitators are responsible for this.
Les,
Doesn’t conservative thinking & NRA thinking maintain the one who pulled the trigger is responsible for this? This is a tragedy. The church must pray. The blame could just as easily be blamed on the lack of unity among God’s people, and the failure of the church to obey/fulfill John 17: 21.
Dwight it is indeed tragic. And the shooter pulled the trigger for sure. I don’t blame the gun. That’s what we NRA people reject..,that guns are the problem.
In this case it looks like he was seeking revenge against the police for what he believed were wrongs by the police in the Garner and Brown cases. His social media says that. I would think he listened to agitators blaming cops for “murdering” those men (which was not the case) and sought revenge.
Now Dwight, you want to place all the “blame” on suspect? Interesting.
You’ve staunchly resisted any possibility whatsoever of any suspect culpability in Ferguson, Cleveland, and Staten Island.
I hope The chants that have been part of these protests in recent days aren’t coming to fruition….
“what do we want? Cops Dead! When do we want it? Now!”
The blame game – either way – is pretty unfortunate and unproductive.
Dave,
You are correct. I should not have gone down the trail of the blame game.
Police lives matter!!! America does not need to have a war between her citizens & the police. This needless destruction of human life must end from all parties involved. My congregation will be tested tomorrow. We will have a prayer of protection for all police persons & law enforcement officers. POLICE LIVES MATTER.
Dwight, on that we agree. I wish I’d seen that comment before I posted the one above.
The irony and tragedy of this, beyond the obvious, is that there have been calls for more minority representation in the police (which I think is a good idea), and now because of this lunatic, there are two fewer.
Yes, a lunatic who was created, stoked and fostered by an environment of cop hating and rebellious rhetoric by “leaders” from the mayor of NYC to the false reverends.
It absolutely amazes me that DeBlasio and Sharpton can now try too act as if they are surprised and appalled when over the last two weeks they have been talking incessantly about how ‘evil’ and ‘bad’ the cops are.
There was no condemnation of the chants of wanting cops dead BEFORE someone tried to make it so…nope – not a single peep from the mayor of the false reverends, or essentially anyone else (except some of the commentators on that ole evil FOXnews, who were the only ones talking about it). Now, Now?? they are trying to appear magnanimous and caring one iota about cops??? Self righteously announcing at pressers and written statements that “attacks on police are an attack on our whole society”? Really? These are the same people who have been verbally castigating cops for months! Please! I, for one, ain’t buying the stuff they are shoveling – it stinks too bad.
I will also add that none of these now “concerned and compassionate” agitators released statements or had pressers when two police lieutenants were attacked in Brooklyn during a rally. Nothing. Silence. That silence speaks volumes. It it obvious they are only pretending to care now that the metaphorical excrement is about to hit the fan.
“Debbie: “The sky is blue”
Lydia: “No, the sky is gray”
Debbie: “It’s raining out”
Lydia: “No, it’s drizzling””
LOL! So you think when I disagree with you I am simply being contrarian?
Well ain’t cha? 😉
Merry Christmas, Lydia, to you and all of yours.
“Well ain’t cha? ;-)”
Well “no”, because I am a contrarian. :o)
Merry Christmas back to you and yours!
I don’t think I left much room for doubt on what my message is. 🙂
But in all honesty, I find it hard to agree with you on anything, because of the same personal feelings. 🙂
I just find your arguments puzzling and far reaching.
“I don’t think I left much room for doubt on what my message is. :)”
Yes, that we are all racists because we are white and do not join into your platitudinal efforts that are not that well informed, btw. There can be no disagreement with Debbie. I get that.
I will continue to strive to see people as “individuals” and not “groups”. It works. It is called “relationship”. I cannot have relationships with a “black community”.
Yeah I know. That’s the problem
You are right on one thing Lydia. There can be no disagreement with me concerning race relations or speech. None. I am zero tolerant.
Debbie
There is zero tolerance on both sides. That is why we have a problem. Zero tolerance on either side drives the wedge a little deeper. Zero tolerance is tantamount to saying don’t’ talk to me I won’t listen.
To be an opponent of racism, Debbie, you don’t have to paint everyone else as racist.
“To be an opponent of racism, Debbie, you don’t have to paint everyone else as racist.”
Seeking someplace to engrave that powerful and important truth.
I agree Dave. Not everyone is racist. But in reading the comments here I have no problem using the word. Repeatedly.
“You are right on one thing Lydia. There can be no disagreement with me concerning race relations or speech. None. I am zero tolerant.”
But intolerant of what, exactly? Speech that does not line up with your vague, broad brushed platitudes? How are problems solved without discussion?
It is one thing to be intolerant of dark deeds of racism but to broad brush any words as racist simply because they do not parrot you is a bit much. That is what you have done here. Very Orwellian. There are some Despots who would heartily agree with you.
On the other hand speech that is considered “intolerant” tends to change and vary over history. Dangerous ground upon which to stand.
“Yeah I know. That’s the problem”
Actually, the problem has been that society thinks there can be a relationship with a community, not individuals. All that does is keep power in the hands of leaders who have an agenda. The people within the “group” have been taught to look to leaders to have the relationships for them and be their spokesmen.
A better way is personal relationships with individuals within what everyone has decided is a group (not individuals).
If there is one thing I have learned from my black colleagues over the course of my career is that many of them resented being pegged as part of a group and it was expected they always think the same way as the “group”. It was downright Marxist in the way it was expected of them not to wander too far from the black community party line so they kept their mouths shut.
“Lydia: In the Southern Baptist realm, one cannot be a leader if he/she is not allowed to be.”
I just don’t agree with the thinking behind this. It would be akin to waiting your whole life for others (the group) to decide what you can or cannot do. This is the biggest problem for those who buy into the concept of a “black community”. The infrastructure has been in place for years (grants, government programs, hiring practices) for those who want to go that route. Many women took advantage of the hiring practices of the 1980’s and proved themselves in the process. It is not the easy road, however.
” I am Southern Baptist and because of that I want to see changes made in a “group.” ”
Your position has been that it is because they are racists so why are you in a racist group? When you find the secret that changes the groupthink that does not include propaganda or control, please let me know. Obviously you do not think the Gospel has been enough. So I would like to hear what tactics you have in mind for this change. I do not think your way is working all that well.
“We are not supposed to always be lone rangers. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Sometimes yes, but in this case group change is needed”
As far as I can tell I won’t be standing before the throne in a “group” giving a group account.
Because their Gospel theology is Biblically sound. And I believe it can be changed. Unfortunately many whites are racist or have racist tendencies, but I believe by educating and speaking out that can change too.
“Unfortunately many whites are racist or have racist tendencies, but I believe by educating and speaking out that can change too.”
But according to your doctrine they won’t be judged for being racists. So if they are elect racists what difference does it make?
“Unfortunately many whites are racist or have racist tendencies,”
Granted. And many non-whites as well.
Because of the grace of God, no Christian will be standing before the throne in a group or otherwise giving account. Christ took all that at the cross. No rewards, no giving account.
Now the lost that is a different story.
“Because of the grace of God, no Christian will be standing before the throne in a group or otherwise giving account. Christ took all that at the cross. No rewards, no giving account. ”
I believe differently as far as an account for how we lived as believers while here. Is there room in your SBC for doctrinal differences? (wink)
Yes Lydia. As a matter of fact there is. 🙂
Debbie
The judgement seat of Chris… The Bema seat????
I don’t have a judgment seat.
????
Oh Chris, like everyone; you have already been judged… righteously. Will you receive so great a salvation…is the only question.
“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”
Its easy to be flippant about life when there is no helper near. I continue to pray that God is merciful to you beyond your unbelief!
D.L.,
You said “the judgment seat of Chris”. It’s sort of the inverse of my once and former days as a seminary student where I would sometimes sign my name as “Christ Roberts” since I was so used to typing “Christ” for papers and such.
Chris,
I’m not sure if you missed the nature of my joke or what… While I am confident in the fact that no judgment rests upon me, that has nothing to do with my comment.
I’m also a bit amused that I cannot say anything on this blog without it either becoming an occasion for people to comment on my spiritual condition or using it to post weird, random evangelistic soundbites that I’ve heard – and perhaps used myself – a million times before. I really do typically try to stay on topic, but some of you fine folks like to try and get me into trouble with The Powers That Be. It’s almost like you don’t like to hear dissenting opinions in these hallowed halls…
Chris
Don’t lump us all together my friend. If you look back through the threads you will find that you and I have not interacted very much, if at all. I simply did not get the statement. My thought was that it was humor of some sort, just did not get it. Thanks for the explanation.
Have a great Christmas
D.L.,
Understood, and I had Chris’s comment more in mind – along with a few others scattered throughout the comment threads recently.
Well, I don’t know if you have a seat, but you do make judgements 🙂 …. and yes, I do take any opportunity to share distinctive characteristics of the faith that Christ gives. And, I really do care for you! I hope all goes well this Christmas season and New Years… be safe!
The judgment seat is for those without Christ DL. We did not earn salvation. Christ paid for our sins at the cross. We get no rewards for doing good and we are not judged. We do however get to enjoy heaven and Christ forever.
I think it’s interesting that we do not earn salvation, next to a Holy God we will never be good enough, yet people think that we get rewarded for good and get judged for not doing good. Think about it. It might change how you read the Bible, which points to Christ not us.
You cannot be right about this one Debbie. Paul said that we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
Rom 14:10-12 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; (11) for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” (12) So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Debbie
Sorry Debbie. This one is not even debatable. The judgment seat of Christ i.e. the Bema Seat if for the saved who will be judge not for salvation but for their rewards. The Great White Throne Judgement in Rev is for the unsaved.
Debbie
Don’t avoid us today because you were wrong. Come and take your medicine like a big girl 🙂
Debbie
Sorry, I can stay serious just so long. 🙂
If you do not come back and admit your mistake in the next day or so, have a great and Blessed Christmas. (The first half of the sentence is intended to be humor, the last half is a serious wish, my sister.
Granted, the Bible is not always enough to convince Bible believers. In my last church, I had a man who was adamant that no Christian would stand before the judgment seat. He didn’t have an answer for Romans 14:10-12, etc, but was sure it didn’t mean what I said it meant. But such a mindset is not unusual among those being taught by the Holy Spirit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCVIJBB7o4&list=PL91551B1E5C365A3A&index=16
I’ll explain more after Christmas. I have not responded as I had dental appointments today, I had major oral surgery last week and stitches taken out today. I also had to work. Not afraid. Just busy.
I will give an explanation of the passages you have given as I understand them. This is off topic, but yet it isn’t. It does have to do with why we do what we do, even in racial harmony.
Merry Christmas.
I will say this for now, when I get to heaven, the first question I will ask is “Why me”?
I am up early due to getting ready for Christmas Eve and family to come over tonight. I am excited, so I am up early.
I want to ask a question to ponder for a few days. Don’t be quick to answer, I would ask you to think on this. If you believe your interpretation of the passages you have given is correct, explain why would Christ go through all that He did to redeem us, the virgin birth, ministry on earth, death on the cross, resurrection, ascension to heaven, and doing it all because we were never good enough even at our best, why then would he punish us for not being good enough and rewarding us with rewards that we could never use in heaven, for good that God is responsible for, scripture teaches.
IOW why would we be punished for not doing good all the time, and rewarded for doing good, when that is the very reason Christ died and rose again? So we wouldn’t have to do anything but have faith in him? I hope my question is clear.
Debbie,
No one said anything about being punished at the Bema seat. The scriptures are clear that we must all give an account to God. Further, the scriptures are clear that there will be rewards given to believers based on their faithfulness in this life.
Debbie
(1) I never for a minute thought you were “afraid” to answer the question. As stated, just trying to be humorous.
(2) The short answer to your question is that the Scripture must be interpreted by exegesis, not by ones rationale and logic.
(3) It is Christmas eve, so I doubt I will be back on voices for two or three days. Hence I do wish you and your loved ones a very blessed Christmas. If you are traveling, be safe.
On the contrary DL. Experiences for the Christian are also a gift from God. They allow the Bible to live. Our experiences solidify scriptures. God is not inactive in our lives. He is teaching us the very words he wrote.
Debbie
Oh My. One cannot interpreter scripture according to their experience. That is axiomatic and non debatable to the believer who takes scripture seriously. I must say again, one interprets scripture by exegesis, not by ones experience. Remember the old adage: The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.
BTWm Don Carson has a good piece on this with these headings:
Five Steps for Racial Reconciliation
Step 1: Know the History of the Problem
Step 2: Recognize Our Mutual Culpability
Step 3: Consider Your Church’s Neighborhood
Step 4: Consider the Real Gospel Tensions
Step 5: Think Biblically & Theologically
http://9marks.org/article/five-steps-racial-reconciliation-sunday-11-am/
Les, your post from Carson — because it is about “11 am Sunday morning — led me back to some things I was thinking about this morning. I thought about how on one hand we decry segregation in the churches, yet on the other create new ways that we can segregate them (e.g. teenagers vs. keenagers, contemporary vs. traditional).
I also thought about what might be legitimate reasons to have separate churches. The three I came up with are distance, doctrine and language [sorry, I tried hard to alliterate this, but “diction” seemed a little too forced 😉 ]. In some ways the last two can be alleviated. The second, by us endeavoring to come to the unity of the faith. (But I don’t mean giving up doctrinal distinctives to pretend to have unity.) The third, if we want to meet together badly enough, could be alleviated somewhat by exchanging who preached in what language and who translated into the second language. So that leaves the first — distance — imo, as the main reason to have distinct and separate churches. I believe there are biblical reasons and examples for local churches in local areas where believers are.
Do others of you see any other legitimate reasons for separating/segregating our churches?
Robert,
Good thoughts. I agree that distance (or rather proximity) is a legitimate reason and may be the main one (among congregations of similar doctrine). Neighborhood churches seem appropriate for sure.
I’m part of a Presbyterian (PCA) congregation and would genuinely like to see more interaction (joint services) with evangelical churches like the E Free and Journey (SBC) and a few non denominational churches nearby. But alas, never happens.
If we expect to see greater diversity in SBC entities, then I think it is reasonable to expect to see diversity in the leadership of the churches, especially the bigger churches (membership in the hundreds or more). It isn’t hard to look at the leadership teams of churches with web sites and see pretty much a sea of white faces.
Policemen are told to be on high alert due to the fear that other people will try to kill cops, like the man in NYC did. Threats are being made to police departments, now. The news media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the protesters, and some people on social media(blogs, Twitter, Facebook) have stirred up racial anger and hatred to the point that cops have to fear for their lives. What do these people think is going to happen when they talk on and on and on about the “bad” cops shooting unarmed, “innocent” people? It just makes people madder and madder. And then, some people act on that anger and hatred. Sad.
“…and some people on social media(blogs, Twitter, Facebook) have stirred up racial anger and hatred to the point that cops have to fear for their lives.”
I completely gave up checking Twitter after Ferguson. I could not believe it. Those involved were tried and convicted before any information came forth. The group think is incredibly scary to me because it shows how easily swayed people are. No one can discuss facts or even begin to problem solve in this sort of environment.
That does not bode well for our country as a whole.
Agreed, Lydia.
Lydia, what is your twitter?
Hi Joe, Don’t have one anymore. As you well know I am not adept at expressing myself in sound bites so it was not a good fit anyway. :o)
Volfan
You are so right. What scares me is that the Jacksons and Sharptons are smart enough to realize that they are only adding fuel to the fire yet they keep on. How long before we see complete anarchy in some quarters of our cities?
How long before the police do not confront the man holding up a liquor store because they fear a possible action that will lead to dire consequences? In turn how long before the store owner uses a weapon to protect himself? Far fetched? Perhaps. However I am seeing things now I thought I would never see.
To All
I trust that each of you will have a very wonderful Christmas. I pray that your musicals, singing trees, candlelight services, Christmas programs, etc. will bring glory to our blessed Savior, and that many will be born into God’s Kingdom.
Perhaps the new year will bring “peace on earth, good will to men”.
Please be praying for me today. I am preaching the funeral of one of deacons at 2pm. He probably has had a greater influence on me than any other man in my life. Although he was 92, I was not ready to see him go. Please pray that I can put my personal grief aside and minister to the family and the church.
John Wylie:
I encourage you to allow your grief to be seen. Express it. Let it show. Be willing to embrace your sorrow as you minister comfort through God’s Word to family and friends. It’s one of the best things you can do at such times.
Isn’t it great to have good and godly people who touch our lives like this? Praying for you as you grieve and speak comfort to all today.
Thank you Dale for the advice, prayers and encouragement. I will heed your advice brother.
John
I will be praying at 2 pm. I think you are in Okla so that will be 1 pm for me.
Dale expressed good thoughts, I cannot improve on that.
Thank you so much brother.
John – I’ll be praying for you. I echo those who have encourage you to let your emotions show – don’t hide it.
At 2 o’clock Saturday I will be performing the funeral of my cousin with whom I was very close – it’s gonna be tough.
I’ve shown emotion in funerals before and it’s turned out ok….but I’m praying this one is not overwhelming.
Back to your comment – we have got several deacons at our church that I absolutely dread the day of performing their funerals – these are men of great integrity and godliness who have had profound impacts on my life.
Tough times for a lot my “Voices ” friends. Tarheel/John..What a precious thing to experience when a pastor has deacons of the type. That is a signal that they had a good pastor, my brothers.
Thank you Tarheel and DL.
You think the news media, protesters, and people on social media haven’t stirred up racial anger and hatred? I wonder why the young man pointed his gun at the cop? And then, the looters hit some stores, and protesters started attacking cops….
http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer-missouri-shot-killed-man-pulled-gun-084531706.html
I’m not sure what your link is intended to portray, a fairly straightforward account of what sounds like a justified shooting.
But speaking of the news media skewing reporting in order to paint a particular picture of protestors:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-wbff-edit-protest-kill-a-cop
I’ve been watching MSNBC and CNN, and a local station out of Missouri. They are reporting that the man pointed a gun at the cop, and the cop shot and killed him. Then, the looters hit stores, and the protesters started throwing bricks at the police, and attacking the cops in other ways.
This is extremely sad, and there’s people, out there, who really need to think about their role in throwing fuel on the fire.
David
The looters/protesters threw explosives at gas tanks too!
There’s even been incendiary allegations against the police and asked to the police chief about why didn’t the officer use a Taser or pepper spray – that is just patently ridiculous when someone points a weapon at the officer.
Agreed. If the guy pointed a gun at the officer, a lethal response is more than justified.
Vol,
Another tragedy. This time, though, it was captured on video. From the mayor’s statements and other reports, the young man had allegedly just shoplifted and when confronted he pulled a 9mm and pointed it at the officer who did the expected thing.
One local radio commentator said a few minutes ago something like, lessons here are 1) don’t commit robberies and 2) don’t assault officers (with a gun or not).
He’s right. We should pray for the officer involved and for the family of the young man.
From what the article says, the video wasn’t all that clear and the officer wasn’t wearing a body cam (the article almost seemed to imply that he had one but wasn’t wearing it, which strikes me as odd).
But in particular, the difference here is that (1) the guy was armed; (2) he wasn’t a child; (3) it was a real gun; (4) he was pointing it at the officer. These are pretty clear distinctions from other cases in the news, from Michael Brown to Eric Garner to Tamir Rice.
Tamir Rice had a real gun!
If you want to compare his air pistol to a gun shooting bullets driven by explosives, then I cannot help you.
The pics of the “toy” sure look like a “real gun” to me – remember he had removed the Orangetip intentionally so as to make people think it was a real gun – not to mention there is video evidence of him Menacingly pointing it at people. It did not look like a toy – plus – any gun fires metal projectiles or hard plastic projectiles is not a toy -,it can seriously hurt people.
I know you’re talking point doesn’t allow for what the officer reasonably thought when he came up on the scene and the young man had a weapon of any sort – but it specially one that looked like One that shot “metal projectiles using explosives” but put your talking points aside for second and try to imagine what an officer would think when seeing this.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVu5zJpxUuVgA.uVEDN04;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw–?_adv_prop=image&fr=yhsm-goodsearch-mobile&sz=all&va=gun+tamir+rice&hspart=goodsearch&hsimp=yhsm-mobile
From what I know now this seems to be very obvious. It was crime and and policeman’s response to crime. Nothing more. You are correct, our role is to pray for all involved. God help us.
“IOW why would we be punished for not doing good all the time, and rewarded for doing good, when that is the very reason Christ died and rose again? So we wouldn’t have to do anything but have faith in him? I hope my question is clear.”
Because, according to your doctrinal logic all a rampaging murderer or consistent pedophile has to do is “have faith” that Jesus is Lord.
I’ll bite. What other than having faith in Jesus Christ will lead to salvation? Repentance is more of a commitment than an actuality prior to what most of us think of as “crossing the line”. And I’ve known hundreds if not thousands of believers and think I can fairly claim they all still sin.
If it really is still sin, then there certainly is the issue of matter of degree: perhaps there is a magic line God drew that if human beings are sufficiently scandalized by your sin, then Jesus’ blood does nothing. But it doesn’t account for the purpose of the Scandalon: to confront those who think they are wise.
I would much rather know that every single person who commits himself or herself to Jesus Christ offering an understanding–as they are able–of sin and a commitment to repentance and an acceptance of the Lamb’s Sacrifice for their sin receives scandalous amounts of grace than to believe that the Nazarenes and other Arminians are correct and there is zero assurance of salvation short of at the moment we die we have zero unconfessed sin.
Now I didn’t read Debbie’s comments that thoroughly, so I might have missed an important point you were highlighting. But I think it is foolish to not acknowledge the efficacy of God’s mercy and grace. It IS sufficient for ALL sin. God might punish those who willfully sin once accepting salvation and Hebrews provides strong warnings against that as well as Paul warning us against sinning so that grace may abound. But that in no way, shape, nor form changes the dependence of salvation on faith and faith alone.
BUT: faith includes obedience as James points out. Which I suspect is the point you’re actually making.
Greg
This discussion started when I referenced the Judgement seat of Christ that Christians will stand before. That was denied by a comment that said the Judgement seat is for the lost not the saved to which rationale regarding whatever issues. From there points were made that were not relevant to the original discussion. I said that to say I am not sure what anyone’s point is anymore.
That’s what scripture says Lydia. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” That means more than just being able to go to heaven. Christians have struggles and sin but it’s not through our strength that we do any good. In fact the Bible says that our good works are filthy rags next to a Holy God. Mother Theresa’s works were filth next to a Holy God.
We had to be given grace and justified. Look at the thief on the cross. It’s Christ who saves us and gives us any good works we do. We give nothing. Not a thing. Nor could we ever give anything that God could approve other than Christ. When he sees Christ he sees us. Christ is all that we cannot be.
Debbie
you are changing the discussion and avoiding my original question. Do you now agree that Christians will stand before Christ at the judgement?
Yes or No!
Debbie
Hpw do you understand Romans 14:10 and I Cor. 3:10-15 (v.14)
When your theology of grace allows you to throw out massive portions of Scripture like the judgment seat, calls to holiness, the fear of the Lord and the importance of biblical admonitions to obedience, it is not biblical grace you are advocating
Debbie,
On the one hand it seems you are accusing the church of racism, and on the other hand saying that sins of the believer will not be judged in any way. That is the way it seems toe what you are doing.
Consider this idea: as eternal children of the Father’s family, our place in that family is secure due to the work and love of Jesus, but we still have responsibilities given to us by our Father, that we can fulfill or disobey. And when we stand before the King, we are held accountable for our choices — not accountable as one is to the Law where justice demands death for those found in disobedience, but as children called on the carpet by a loving father.
-mike
Mike
You presented a very good argument by way of analogy. It is spot on. However, if one, in this case Debbie, is not convinced by the clear teaching of Scripture, I doubt that a rational argument will be accepted.
DL: Let’s get straight on one thing. I don’t disagree with scripture. I do disagree with your interpretation of scripture.
And you disagree with mine. I would never think or accuse you of not believing scripture as I know that would be an untrue argument. Just sayin.
Lydia: This would be the bottom line. Christ said the greatest commandment is this, love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind and the second is this, love your neighbor as your self.
Love for Christ produces love for our neighbor, African Americans, Muslims, Mexicans etc. are our neighbors. I obey not because I am in fear of God or judgment or for rewards. I do it because I love Jesus Christ fully. I fail however in this department and others. I do sin. I do confess my sins, but some I may not do to oversight or frankly it would take days to confess them all. I am still not in fear of judgment because I am free. Christ took that at the cross and sealed my pardon. It’s there in the Bible over and over again. Unfortunately it is not taught or read or it is misinterpreted by using a verse here and a verse there.
Debbie,
What you said at 12/25 9:40 is true.
But saying that white Christians are all racists is not. It is in fact bearing false testimony against the brethren.
And saying that the changes are not fast enough for you is prideful, as if you know the speed they can and should be done in.
And when you speak in sinful ways like that, you get pushback from those you offend.
in Christ,
mike
Mike: First of all, I said most. Second if you will read back, most of those do not know any better. They do not know they are racist. Just talk to African Americans to get a more realistic view. Much of what has been said here and in other discussions is racist. It is not meant to be racist as it is said by a white person from a white culture. Yet it is a racist statement. There were many made just on this post.
I’m not into hiding what is obvious yet denied Mike. Most in the Southern Baptist realm who are white have a distorted view of the problem of racism because they are unwittingly the problem.
I have not said one thing about God judging them. I am judging and pointing it out. That’s the facts Mike. I believe what I have said. I love being a Christian. Southern Baptist? Not always so much.
Mike: You called me anti-Christ in speech, I did not call you anti-Christ in speech.
Let’s also get one thing clear Mike. You throw around the words sinful and abusive, yet I would throw those words at you. I have spoken the truth as I see it, yours is not only untrue(nothing I have said is sin, I am just fine thank you for your “concern”.) I stand by everything I have posted. You can reject it or not. That I cannot control.
I would retract one thing, I would not use the word sinful I would use the word abusive, although they do not phase me other than get my blood pressure up. 🙂
I’m glad it offends, it should offend. I don’t feel bad nor do I apologize for that. Pushback? I expected it. That’s what they do.
Debbie
I did not say you did not believe scripture. You know me better than that I would never say that. I am saying you do not understand the clear teaching of the passages I cited.
Debbie
I am still waiting for your interpretation of the scriptures I cited. What say ye?
Debbie,
“Mike: First of all, I said most.”
My apology for missing that.
But you do not know most so you are bearing false witness against the many you erroringly indict. That you don’t seem to recognize your own limitation in this area supports the claim that you are proud and not humble.
Now I do to talk to Blacks, some which are from Africa. I go to church with them, and I work with them. We fellowship together and we take breaks together. And at work, that would include Christians and non-Christians working together and breaking together. The Christians also get together once a month for breakfast.
Now is every white person or every white Christian NOT a racist? Of course not. But in your limited experience, you spread a wide blanket over a vast group that you can not possibly know. That you see your own life as a norm for all life is myopic and in this case sinful.
And of course, you can not seem to help yourself because you continue to slander your brothers and sisters:
“Most in the Southern Baptist realm who are white have a distorted view of the problem of racism because they are unwittingly the problem.”
Pride > pride > and more pride!
“Most”?
Learn how to speak [write] with the idea of truth without error.
Since you can not know if “most” is true, you sin when you defame SB’s.
Rather, you can truthfully say “many”, for 1 is too many.
“I have not said one thing about God judging them. I am judging and pointing it out. That’s the facts Mike. I believe what I have said.”
Muslims believe in Allah but that does not make them right. Instead it makes them blasphemous when they praise him.
The fact is that you believe it, but the truth is beyond you since you have no way of knowing if “most” SB’s are part of the problem.
And the other problem is that you fail to see that if God does not judge them as doing wrong, you have no right to do so either. As His witness, you are to represent Him, not your own opinions. Sin, Debbie, plain sinful.
And do you understand what the word hypocrite means?
It means to do what you have condemned in others.
Now you are free to condemn “MOST” SB’ers for racist sin if you choose, and you have done that repeatedly, without proof, but, you fail to see your own sin and pridefully reject rebuke. You don’t want called out for your sin, but don’t mind calling out whole groups of people you don’t even know for a sin you purport they have.
May the Lord open your eyes so that you will see,
-mike
Words fittly spoken, Mike.
“On the one hand it seems you are accusing the church of racism, and on the other hand saying that sins of the believer will not be judged in any way. That is the way it seems toe what you are doing.”
This is close to the point I was trying to make. Why bother with the problem of racism or anything else if the person claims Christ? According to Debbie, their sins after that don’t seem to matter.
Since I am not a determinist and do not believe in imputed guilt or predetermined atonement, I believe justification is for anyone who believes. It is a done deal and we either choose to believe it or not. (I believe God does woo us in many ways)
When it comes to judging believers it is more about sanctification, in my view. Growing in Holiness, maturing in Christ. The book of 1 John says sin as “lawlessness” and says we can stop it. The Pharisees are described as “lawless” which is often ironic to many.
I believe all who profess Christ and are able mentally are also responsible and will be accountable for how they lived out the kingdom of God while here.
To me, the cross and resurrection cannot be separated. The resurrection is about new life. And that starts here for those who confess and believe. Of course, I believe that new life is synergistic. Jesus Christ is not obeying for me all my future sins. But yes, I believe we will be judged for how we lived out our beliefs here. It is not a judgment of salvation in my view. That is a free gift. What we do with that free gift is another issue altogether.
If I believed what Debbie is teaching, then I would have to believe the “Christian” pedophile and Mother Theresa are the same sinners in God’s view. That is a moral equivalency argument I cannot accept.
The moral equivalency argument says, “You, professing believer, yelled at your husband so you are just as big of sinner as the professing believer pedophile”.
I don’t buy into moral equivalency arguments. I am certainly glad our secular justice system does not, either! So it boggles my mind that anyone would see God as that unjust.
Lydia,
“Since I am not a determinist and do not believe in imputed guilt or predetermined atonement, I believe justification is for anyone who believes.”
Not sure why you said this, but the truth is one can believe justification is for anyone who believes AND believe that God has elected certain people from before the foundation of the world.
The word ‘determinist’ is fraught with secular meanings that fail to recognize a supreme Creator with a plan who can both know the future and fulfill His own plans and do so without infringing on the creature’s free will.
The real divide, I believe, is in understanding how God loves those He has condemned to Hell, and that end up in the Lake of Fire. Knowing at creation their doom, and creating them anyway, and then failing to save them really questions that He ever loved them as He loves those He does save.
Food for thought, but off topic. Email me at bygrace4012@yahoo.com anyone who wants to discuss further.
-mike
Thanks Parsonmike for your explanation. Of course I disagree with most parts of it– but so what? That is ok, too.
I just do not believe Yahweh (The One True God) is that arbitrary and random. And, I do think humans have accountability and responsibility to Him. And yes, I see that theme of all through Scriptures. His “rescue”.
If He gives His creation no choice in the matter at all– why are they condemned? If it is to show “His glory”, then God is really no different from most pagan gods including Allah– who is exactly the same way.
Mike
Are you saying that if I don’t believe I was elected before the foundation of the world I cannot be justified?
DL,
I said I believed those things.
I didn’t say one had to believe them to be saved.
And I didn’t say I or anyone was justified from before the foundation of the world. I said they were elected then.
Justification happens when the a person believes on the Lord Jesus. Anyone who believes will be justified.
Blessings,
mike
Lydia,
“Thanks Parsonmike for your explanation. Of course I disagree with most parts of it– but so what? That is ok, too.”
It sure is.
“I just do not believe Yahweh (The One True God) is that arbitrary and random. And, I do think humans have accountability and responsibility to Him. And yes, I see that theme of all through Scriptures. His “rescue”.”
I think you assume the randomness. And as to the arbitrariness, just because you and I are not privy to His reasoning does not mean His choices are arbitrary.
I likewise see that humans have a responsibility and an accountability unto God, as spelled out by the Law, and as witnessed to by all of Scripture and creation.
But maybe, maybe unlike you, I do not see that responsibility extending to a person’s own salvation. I see salvation as 100% of grace, mercy and love, and none of man.
“If He gives His creation no choice in the matter at all– why are they condemned? If it is to show “His glory”, then God is really no different from most pagan gods including Allah– who is exactly the same way.”
Creation?
Humans have a choice -to sin or to obey.
Do they choose to obey or sin?
Those that choose to sin stand condemned by their choice.
Can they do no other? Do I have to lie? No.
Do I have to mistreat others? No.
And to prove this, does everyone always lie? No.
Does one person always lie? No.
Thus by our free wills, we choose to do what we know is wrong.
But Allah [so his believers think] does give people a chance by their own wills to attain to eternal life by their proper choices and obediences. In fact, every pagan god does the same. That is because man in his fallenness wants the power of eternal life in his own hands.
May His Spirit work in you Mightily,
mike
A good article to read, that goes even further into this subject:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/12/gods-love-in-jesus-is-our-strength-to.html
Mike
I think I have you straight now. The word “truth” is in reference to you not the statement that follows, i.e. the “truth” is that is what you believe…Right?
DL,
Just to make sure, let me repeat the statement:
“Not sure why you said this, but the truth is one can believe justification is for anyone who believes AND believe that God has elected certain people from before the foundation of the world.”
The word ‘truth’ refers to the FACT that one can believe both points in that [a] one can believe that justification is for everyone that believes AND [b] one can believe that God elects individuals from before the foundation of the world.
Even as I do believe that both points are truth.
They do not have to be viewed as mutually exclusive.
I hope this clarifies what I am saying.
-mike
Mike
I understand. Thanks for your patience and clarification
I’d use the word stubborn or still do not see where the remarks are construed as racist Tarheel, not stupid.
DL: Reread my statement. –
Mike: Good clarifications on questions. You are a very good communicator in theology.
Debbie
“re-read my statement” You lost me here.
I am asking your interpretation on the passages I cited re. rewards, Judgement seat etc.
I am not in the “racist” part of the conversation
DL: The focus of the Bema seat for the Christian is not judgment, but eternal life. For the unbeliever however that will not be the case.
Romans 8:1 says there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
If you look at the whole passage of the verses you gave, Paul says praise will come from our mouths to God during this time. No whippings given to us, but eternal life is given. That is a gift, not a reward. We do nothing to earn it.
The greatest consequence when we fail as Christians is that we disappoint Christ, the One we love. At the same time, Christ understands our humanness. He is our mediator, our lawyer if you will. When God sees us, he sees his Son. That is why it is called the Gospel, Good news, it is the best news.
A good article to read that goes further into this subject is:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/12/gods-love-in-jesus-is-our-strength-to.html
I would also direct you to this passage from scripture, which is a promise from God.
“I thank my God…for your fellowship in the gospel…being confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6).
This passage of scripture mentioned by Wade is in Ephesians and one of my favorite passages in the Bible. I pray this prayer substituting a person’s name for the word “you.” Someone prayed this passage for me at one time, and it took years, but after a lot of study I finally got it. I now pray this prayer for others. I pray it for you and others on this forum now.
For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. 16 I pray that out of his glorious riches He may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. 20 Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, 21 to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Ephesians 3:14-21)
I believe the purpose of the Bema seat is going to be vindication. It could be that we see what we have done in this life where we failed, but because we are in Christ Jesus we are now vindicated. Sins forgiven because of Christ’s work on the cross, his resurrection. It will focus on Christ not us, good or bad, that I am sure of.
That part of course, no one knows for sure how it will work, we have no way of knowing until heaven. But either way scripture says praise to God will flow out from us.
Debbie
Thank you for the response. thank you also for the discussion, I have enjoyed it. When one reaches my age (71) it is important to keep one’s mind functioning, and discussions like this aid in that endeavor.
I guess we will just have to be content to disagree on this issue, but that is OK. Bottom line; we will both rejoice around he throne of God with all of God’s redeemed people.
Looking forward to our next “argument” 🙂
The verses offered make it clear that we will stand before God and give some kind of account. But the bible also makes it clear that our sins are forgiven and forgotten by God, so whatever that account means, it will not be an account of our sins.
DL: Always a pleasure with you.
Good Bill. I can get on board that.
The obeisance you give your pastor is noble, but I still think your interpretation of this passage is fundamentally flawed. I hope you’ll take a further look.
It is clear from 1 Corinthians 3, and Romans 14, and elsewhere, that we will give account to God for the lives we live as Christians. It is unclear exactly what that entails (I suspect it has to do mostly with our impact on the lives of others in Christ’s name) and what exactly comprises the rewards and loss of rewards.
It is clear that we want to live so as to receive these rewards that seem to NOT be given to all believers or equally to all believers (or why the review?) and it is most definite that we, like Paul, do not want to suffer the loss of reward.
Paul makes it clear that eternal life is not at stake, but simply rewards. There is also much talk of crowns. This may be the same thing.
There is also a passage in Revelation in which all crowns are taken and placed at the Savior’s feet – giving credit where credit is due.
A theology that does not recognize that the christian life must be lived carefully, that we must choose obedience, that we must sacrifice, that we must constantly repent, renew, seek God and strive for spiritual gain is defective.
I’d encourage you to search the Scriptures further on this one.
This has been going around in circles for a few days now. Let’s move on, folks.
However: the tail of Romans 7 and especially Romans 8:1 indicate there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. For better or for worse every effort to externally impose righteousness on believers IS legalism. Only if the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in conforming us to Christ Jesus produces works of righteousness is it truly righteous. Everything else is counterfeit.
With that said: obedience and trust are central elements of faith. In fact, I would almost compare trust to the bread in the Lord’s Supper and obedience to the wine. For precisely symbolic and literal reasons.
Greg,
True.
The way I see it, to externally impose righteousness on a group could tend to mask the true righteousness that can only come by faith. For many will obey to be righteous instead of obeying because they are righteous [in Christ].
-mike
Debbie,
If we’re racist and we “don’t know it”, or are “unwittingly the problem” – how exactly is that defended against?
You’ve declared us guilty with no recourse as we’re too stupid to know we need to change.
I guess we should rejoice though that we have you And others on this blog to teach us imbeciles how it is that we should be reconciled to the “races”.
I do find it interestingly convenient that you qualify your statements that white Christians are racist with the word “most” – this most certainly allows you to be on the outside of that group – as others have said before it’s always so interesting that when people start decrying others racism – they always impose the “except me” escape hatch.
Tarheel
Well said
“Thanks Parsonmike for your explanation. Of course I disagree with most parts of it– but so what? That is ok, too.”
It sure is. ”
Parsonmike, I am so glad to hear that. The “marginalization” of those who are disagree suggested in the recent past by an entity leader is hopefully past us and that sort of thinking is no longer being accepted by the rank and file. I am cheered to hear it.
It is when we get into the daily practical application of our beliefs that I think certain Reformed doctrines become impractical and even murky. I don’t think it is that way for those who make a living from it or have position within it.