The Clarion-Ledger newspaper of Jackson, MS, is running an article today detailing overt racism at a church that is evidently affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, according to the Mississippi Baptist Convention’s church directory and on the SBCnet church search. There is nothing on their website that identifies the church as Southern Baptist (thank God). However, they are listed on both the SBC and MBC websites as part of us and the stain of their racism is on all of us until we do something about it.
I would encourage you to follow the link above and read the story before you go any farther.
The pastor of the church, First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Dr. Stan Weatherford, was planning to perform the marriage of an African-American couple at the church. According to the story, members of his church were upset that a black couple were to be married at the church and complained about it. Dr. Weatherford moved the wedding to another church and performed the wedding.
Weatherford admitted, according to the story, the general truth of the story and that the reason people at his church were upset was that the couple was black. The story quotes Weatherford as follows:
“I didn’t want to have a controversy within the church and I didn’t want a controversy to effect the wedding of Charles and Te’ Andrea. I wanted to make sure their wedding day was a special day.”
When Dwight McKissic told me this Christ-demeaning stuff went on, I didn’t want to believe him (I believed him, I just didn’t WANT to!). Now, the only question is, what will we do?
Will we turn a blind eye to racism, as so often we have in the past? Or will we act to demonstrate as a convention that this will not be tolerated in the SBC anymore?
Of course, the solution here is for First Baptist Church, Crystal Springs to publicly and genuinely repent of this horrific action. My hope and prayer is that they would do this quickly. They should repudiate the racism of some of their members publicly and without equivocation.
If they do not, then the SBC, the MBC, and the Copiah County Baptist Association should pass resolutions condemning this act of racism at their earliest opportunity, should refuse to seat messengers from this church at their meetings, and should take whatever steps are necessary to demonstrate to our black brethren and to the world at large that when we said we would no longer tolerate racism, we meant it!
It is time that we stop turning a blind eye to this kind of thing, and say to churches that perpetrate racism – YOU ARE NOT PART OF US.
(Yes, I’m yelling.)
Dave,
The article I read did not make it clear if this was an SBC church. Do you know?
If it is: I want no part of partnering with this church. Even if they repent–which I don’t think is likely–they should be set aside for at least five years and not be allowed to send messengers of any type to any level of SBC life.
This is absolutely over-the-top.
Please count me in if my vote can help remove this cancer from SBC life.
They are listed in both the SBC directory, and the MBC directory, as I mentioned in the article. You can follow the links above.
Sorry Dave,
I was so mad I didn’t even register the links. Thanks.
It is infuriating, isn’t it?
Totally agree. as a former Mississippian, this disgusts me.
We can all get behind this.
Maybe Once this is resolved we can then turn to other matters that need to be addressed: gluttony, hate-blogging, and the like.
Jim, the gluttony thing, well, that is just uncalled for.
I think I’ll go get some food.
Dave:
Welcome back! I saw this today in the news and was genuinely appalled and grieved. I agree! A stand must be taken on this. The pastor should have done the right thing because it’s the right thing to do. Glad you’ve spoken out, as I believe MANY now will do so. This is NOT who we are as Southern Baptists.
By the way, their Facebook page is taking quite a few hits. I’m sure the pastor’s e-mail is filling rapidly and the church’s answering machine is overloaded.
I saw their facebook page. They are getting hammered. They deserve it!
I could not find an email on their website to contact them, and I doubt anyone is at the church right now. I found an email through the MBC website and left an email with the pastor, offering him an opportunity to respond.
I sympathize with him. But, as one person said on Facebook, it is never good when the shepherd is led by the sheep.
I am afraid that stuff like this happens a lot more often than we Southern Baptists want to admit. Most of the time, it is not as overt as this racism was, and it almost never gets any publicity. But the truth is, racism is alive and well in the SBC. And the ostriches among us are doing more harm than good, thinking that a resolution here, and a SBC president there, will end racism among us. Until we root out and “destroy” every church that is like this one, the SBC will always have this big giant stain called racism.
Smusch, that is why I published this. The days for us to turn our eyes away and pretend not to see are past. We need to show the black community that we are going to do more than pass resolutions, or even apologize after the fact.
We must take stands.
Great Commission Baptist? Maybe I need to reconsider.
Makes me wish the EC had agreed with the suggested McKissic amendment a year or two ago.
This needs a clear rebuke, but will it get one in wider circulation? Probably.
And will the media give the rebuke any coverage? Almost certainly not.
Connected, though, at least here is a church named for it. That allows action to be taken. This is necessary if we are going to address this: names named.
We have few options available to us when something happens. We can rebuke publicly as individuals, of course. That, I’ve done.
Then, we can pass resolution which record our opinions on things.
Then, we can vote to refuse to seat messengers from a particular church, effectively disfellowshipping them. That is a last resort.
The simplest solution is for genuine repentance to take place from this church. I hope they will do that.
Dave,
First, welcome back. Second, while you may be back from vacation, I believe your brain has not completely come back.
Before I begin, let me tell you that I agree with you 100% concerning this situation. I am appalled that a church would do such and I am equally appalled that a pastor would not lay his job on the line and marry this couple in the church. Your yelling about it, though, is not going to do anything but increase the decibels.
Having said that, I would work with others to accomplish something. But your wording is not the same as your yelling. Your yelling calls for us to dis-fellowship from the church. There is a little thing called ‘autonomy’ that you seem to be overlooking. FBC Crystal Springs is an autonomous local church. They give to the SBC through the Mississippi Convention. The proper call would be for the SBC to stop receiving their funds. However that is not going to work. Why? Because we had to pass an amendment to the constitution to get the convention to stop receiving funds from churches that promoted homosexual activity as an acceptable lifestyle.
As 2nd VP you now have a position as an officer of the convention. Your calling on FBC Crystal Springs, Copiah County Baptist Association, and Mississippi Baptist Convention to take action is a gross violation of autonomy. The only thing you can call on is the SBC to take action through a resolution.
Thus, if you want a voice of assistance in calling on the SBC to take action through a resolution, I am with you. However, if you want to say a church “is not part of us” be my guest but you will do it by yourself. The article was clear this was a minority in the church with racial leanings. I am not willing to remove myself from a church just because there is a minority that may be lost.
Polity note – Yes, the church is autonomous.
But so are the local association, the Mississippi convention and the SBC.
Frank,
You are correct to the autonomy of the other Baptist bodies. However, as 2VP Dave has seriously overstepped his status of calling on other autonomous baptist bodies to disfellowship from this church. Dave is 2VP of the SBC. Certainly he, as a duly elected officer, can call on the EC–the group that acts for the convention when we are not in session–to form a resolution and even form a committee to investigate and bring its findings to the next meeting. But that is it. We are not in a hierarchical structure. The convention is run by the churches and the churches voluntarily affiliate with the state convention and the local association. The local association is the only body in baptist life that votes on a church entering her fellowship. The rest of the autonomous bodies do not vote on a church entering the fellowship they just receive their monies.
Thus, Dave has no authority nor right, as 2VP to call on Mississippi Baptists, nor Copiah County Baptists to disfellowship from FBC Crystal Springs. As I said before, if he wants to call on the EC to form a committee to investigate, or put together a resolution that would distance the SBC from the action of the church I am 100% behind him. But, the last time I checked his name was not Apostle Paul, and he has no standing as 2VP to call on other autonomous bodies to withdraw fellowship and I will call attention to my 2VP’s egregious violation of church autonomy and denominational structure to instigate such an action.
As far as I can tell the only person who has mentioned Dave’s position as 2nd VP has been you. In fact, the thought never entered my mind until you wrote it.
In my opinion, Dave’s position in the SBC is secondary to his position as a Christian. As Christians, we should be calling this church to repent and separating ourselves from this corrupt body.
I think you are letting your paranoia over what you and few others view as the emerging of a “hierarchy” in the SBC override your good sense. Why don’t you get down from your high horse and join the rest of us in the our righteous outrage against this unbiblical act, instead of trying to score political points off someone you don’t agree with.
C’mon Tim, you’re better than this.
Ryan, what you said. Being an officer like 2VP does not make one less than a local church member, which is what was suggested.
Dave, I’d put your clarity of thought on this up against the competition any day and my money would be all in on you, brother.
And what Frank Gantz said.
A poker reference? Bravo.
Nothing Dave has written here is any violation of local church autonomy, nor has he done anything in this thread that doesn’t exemplify the highest standards of what I would expect from an SBC officer.
It’s SO OFTEN an abused and messed up concept. Let me try to make it as clear as I can. Unless and until Dave Miller thinks he can foreclose upon FBC Crystal Springs’s church property or thinks he can stroll in Sunday morning and discipline out their racist members or thinks he can unilaterally fire the pastor, then he has done NOTHING to violate that church’s autonomy. Dave doesn’t have a single vote in their business meeting.
He’s wrong on baseball. He’s been wrong on a number of things down through the years. He’s right about this.
Bart,
Here is the problem with your defense.
Dave is a duly elected officer of the SBC. He was duly elected and is the current 2VP. He says;
Whether he was saying that as the blog moderator of SBC Voices and Pastor of a SBC Church in Iowa does not matter, he was elected as 2VP at the convention in NOLA. The situation is you have a 2VP telling a local Congregation they are not part of the SBC. Period. That is a violation of the church’s autonomy.
By the church taking a public racist action of this nature, perhaps Dave is speaking appropriately:
We do not want a church like this to be part of us. Would you rather this church stay and any church that disagrees with racism to exercise their autonomy and leave?
Maybe that’s the solution. Call on every church that despises racism to hold their CP checks for a month to make a point.
He is not forcing the church to do anything. He is expressing very directly that if you want to be a racist, you are not like-minded with us. The church can do what it wills. The SBC will do what it wills (likely nothing).
But if our elected leadership cannot publicly address publicly known sin within a church, why do we have leadership?
Tim,
If you wish to make the case that you think Dave’s remarks were inappropriate for a sitting officer of the SBC, then we’re just talking about difference of opinion. But Dave’s opinion about whether the church belongs in the SBC or does not belong in the SBC cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the autonomy of that local church. It cannot bolster it. It cannot weaken it. The two concepts are entirely unrelated.
If the Second Vice President of the SBC were invested with plenipotentiary powers to exclude local congregations from the convention, and if he were to exercise those powers to kick FBC Crystal Springs out by fiat, then the autonomy of that congregation STILL would not have been violated (although I think the rights of the OTHER congregations in the SBC would have been violated in that case…unless we had voted to grant Dave those powers).
Bart,
Something is amiss. On consecutive issues we agree.
Are you the Key Master? 😉
Todd, if the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man shows up, we’re in trouble.
Why am I not surprised that Tim Rogers would play the “autonomy” card to defend this church against rightfully being disfellowshipped?
The Bible doesn’t even teach local church autonomy.
Both the Bible and the BF&M are against racism, so I would say that is sufficient grounds for disfellowshiping this “church.”
Mr. Rogers:
You said to Dave Miller:”I believe your brain has not completely come back. ”
That is insulting and a total distraction to what Dave Miller is addressing here.
You also said to Dave Miller:”The only thing you can call on is the SBC to take action through a resolution. ”
I am very confident that Dave Miller knows SB polity very well.
Mr. Rogers I think you are misusing the Baptist Autonomy issue IMO.
Tom,
That is your opinion. Thank you for your encouraging words.
Tim,
Your outlook on this is very puzzling. You try to shame someone who is attempting to say with a clear voice, that racism is not a Christian attitude.
There is no abuse of Dave’s position as 2VP. None, and for you to infer otherwise is misguided and unhelpful.
Racism is not welcome at any level of SBC. It needs to be shouted(or “yelled” as you perjoratively put it) from every corner of the SBC, “This is not us, and you are not welcome to be a part of us if you are a racist bigot.”
Let us not mince words, the people of this church who perpetrated this travesty are not welcome in my SBC and I want every agency head, state executive to roundly and firmly condemn this action and if they won’t repent, then they are not welcome until as Dr. York so eloquently put it “their repentance is more notorious than their sin.”
Here is what I think happened: a few influential people in the church put pressure on the pastor and he caved. The article said that most of the church didn’t even know about this because it happened behind the scenes. It was not a church vote. I bet they take care of this themselves. Let’s give them a chance to exercise church discipline and repent before we try to intervene. If they did their heels in and resist, then take action. Who knows? Maybe they will deal with it themselves and change course?
It goes without saying that this action was deplorable. It is also sad that the reason that many thought this was a bad thing was because of how it would make them look and it would not be conducive to their communities success. They should care because it is deplorable.
I thought the same thing – that it was probably influential members.
The best solution here is if the church repents and brings discipline, as you mentioned.
The good news is that we can’t really do anything until Houston, so there is time for them to do the right thing. The MBC probably meets in the fall. Don’t know about their association.
Well said, Alan. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Our intervention makes it easier for them to deal with it within their congregation. Will the “influential members” not became far LESS influential tomorrow morning when the congregation has to face the fact that they are a national pariah in the SBC and that, unless something changes, they’re going to be…shall we say…dishonorably discharged from the denomination?
Bart, by intervention, I meant a formal disfellowshipping. The calls for disfellowship were the first thing that some said, even before, “Let’s go to them and confront.” My point was just to let’s wait and see how the church itself responds to this secretive move. Let’s talk with them, call them out, write about, etc., all in the hope that repentance takes place. If the church refuses to repent and make this right, then disfellowshipping is in order.
I agree with you about confrontation. I don’t mean let it go. I just meant that we should do a few things first before we dismiss them officially.
There is no way to look at this in a positive light. This reflects badly towards this SB Church the SBC along with all Christians. The pastor knew the church history and the depth of his flock of agitators. Discipline was obviously called for in this church before this marriage was scheduled and yet issues were ignored. This is what happens when we ignore. National attention brought against this Church the SBC and Christians everywhere.
The only positive can be a definitive reaction by the SBC to show that we will no longer tolerate this kind of thing – something that our black fellow-Baptists need to see from us.
The greatest wrong would be to hide behind false understandings of autonomy as an excuse for the SBC and other entities not to do what we are able to do (both morally and constitutionally) to demonstrate our disgust for this action.
Dave,
First off, welcome back! Second, I agree that autonomy should not excuse the local association, state convention, and national SBC from doing “what we are able to do (both morally and constitutionally) to demonstrate our disgust for this action. I do not view it as a violation of a local church’s autonomy for individuals (such as you and others) to call them out for what appears to be not only a sinful action, but also an abdication of pastoral leadership (excused given to the contrary notwithstanding).
I do believe that it is imperative that each body that this church associates with should conduct any “discipline” in a way that allows for repentance first (which you have called for above) but which must comport with constitutional guidelines (via process and by-laws). I would hope that the church would repent of their actions. If they do not, then I believe it would be appropriate for some type of disciplinary actions to begin, first at the association and state level and then at the national level. In the meantime, I see no reason why Mississippi Baptists and other Southern Baptists should not write or speak about this issue. And, I would respectfully disagree with Bro. Tim that your calling for action is somehow violating the principle of local church autonomy. Unless you came back from Taiwan with some type of double-secret powers that would allow the SBC 2nd VP to disfellowship this church if they fail to repent of their actions, I think you are on fairly solid ground 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Thank you, Howell.
Howell,
It is ok with me whether you respectfully or disrespectfully disagree. Problem is when you take the position that an Association cannot vote to remove a church because they call a woman pastor, but you agree with Dave that as 2VP he is
callingyelling that the church is not part of us you reveal one of two things. Ignorance because of our lack of understanding SBC Structure or blindness due to your relationship with Dave. I believe it is more of the later.Bro. Tim,
This past Wednesday marked the one year anniversary of Flat Rock BC’s dismissal from Surry Baptist Association. In your response above, I am overwhelmed by your flattery. I’m not sure which is better — to be called ignorant or blind. As I tell folks, you can call me anything you like — just don’t call me late for dinner 😉 Of course, I never wrote or argued that SBA could not disfellowship Flat Rock. I argued that the way that they did it was a “graceless response in Mayberry.” I stand by that, as more and more with each passing day, the gracelessness of all manner of Southern Baptists is on display for all to see.
I think that Dave and others (Bart Barber in a post today) have already called for the SBC and others to act IF this MS does not repent. I see no issue with publicly calling for the repentance of this church. I will respectfully agree to disagree that Dave or Bart or any other SB calling for such somehow violates local church autonomy. Now, if this church were not afforded an opportunity to repent or were not afforded a grace-filled process that comports with the bylaws and guidelines of discipline for the association, state convention, or national SBC, then I would defend their rights to due process just as I did for Flat Rock. How we conduct business — even in a situation that we find highly offensive (such as the MS church or Flat Rock) — says much about our Christian character and witness. That is all. Good to see you in NOLA. God bless,
Howell
Howell:
Amen and Amen to what you said!
There is always a right and a wrong way to deal with difficult items and we should try even harder to do the right thing when we call ourselves Christians.
I just read the article in the Clarion-Ledger, along with the comment stream, and then looked up FBC Crystal Springs’ Facebook site. There are already a lot of people “piling on” at both places. It must be really embarrassing by now for the members there. I bet if the pastor had it to do all over, he would handle this situation differently.
I did notice in the Clarion-Ledger article that he said that part of his motivation in moving the wedding to another site was to not ruin the day for the couple being married. Perhaps he was sincere. It would be interesting to hear the perspective of the couple on this point.
In any case, it is tragic and reprehensible that anyone would be denied the opportunity to be married at the church they are attending due to their skin color. Hopefully those behind this decision will recognize they were wrong and publicly repent. According to the gospel, there is forgiveness and restoration for those guilty of any sin, even the sin of racism. In the meantime, no matter what else happens, this church’s testimony for the implications of the gospel has been severely damaged.
I think most thinking people realize that the vast majority of Southern Baptists (aka Great Commission Baptists) do not in any way approve of this. If they refuse to repent, though, it does indeed seem that some official statement to this end ought to be given by the various SBC-related entities they are affiliated with (association, state convention, SBC).
Yeah, they are really getting beat up on Facebook.
I have been part of a church (back from 87 to 91) in which influential members were racist – some proudly so. There was a situation that came up that I could have taken a stronger stand against racism, but I backed off in the name of peace and unity at the church.
Of course, it was nearly 25 years ago, so I can plead my youth as an excuse. I wish I had stood up at that point, even if it meant I got fired from the church (which I likely would have).
So, I have some sympathy for the pastor here. And I agree with Alan Cross that within a few days, this thing will probably be resolved by the church.
It sounds like many of the folks in the church knew nothing about it and are upset.
Dave,
Deplorable act all the way around. I feel sure appropriate action will be taken as soon as possible.
And welcome back. Prayed for you and your trip.
Les
We had a great time. Thanks for your prayers. The ministry seemed to be significant.
I certainly believe that the church should either repent publicly or be disfellowshipped from the convention and respective associations. I have to disagree with Tim because this does not violate church autonomy because an association has a right to have certain expectations of the churches that it associates with.
It is important for individuals and bodies in the SBC to express the notion now that the FBC Crystal Springs repent now and not wait until the convention. Otherwise, there will be those at the convention who suggest that the convention must start by calling for repentance, not taking a stronger action.
Calls for reptentance now, stronger action by the MBC and SBC later. There is local association who may also be able to weigh in on the matter.
The notion that because you are the second vice president that you can only act or speak in an official capacity as an official of the convention does not pass the snicker test.
The Facebook page is down, I guess.
I figured it would be. It was getting hit pretty hard.
This is one of the problems with our (SBC) non-confessional status. Certain churches outside of our doctrinal expression (2000BFM) are still nominally attached to the SBC and their sinful practices bring shame upon the churches that truly make up our convention. Forcing them into action by disciplining individual members or threatening to take away their property would be a violation of autonomy, but refusing to receive funds and withholding fellowship from a non-repentant church who is obviously in violation of our confession of faith and the Scriptures is a must if we wish to maintain a faithful witness. Hopefully their local association and state convention will act, it is a long time until Houston.
Amen and amen! I just said as much on my own blog.
I am an attorney and from time to time I help churches through various trials that have legal ramifications. However, one of the things I always tell churches undergoing trial is that you can rely upon the law or you can rely upon God. By that I mean that the church can remain within and maneuver inside the structure of law and civic authority or you can take a stab at doing what God would want to happen. In my experience the two outcomes are not always the same.
I say this because we Southern Baptists have a sort of “civic authority” that I will call “autonomous cooperation”. It is an integral part of our congregational association and it works quite well in fostering education, missions, social welfare ministries, and the other ministries we do collectively. However, our framework of association does not lend itself to the type of discipline and instruction we sometimes need. We can express disapproval (or, as here, disgust); make a plea for repentance; or call on local, state, and national cooperative bodies to act, but we, as individual Southern Baptists and autonomous churches, can really do nothing short of perhaps offering some resolution at the state or national level expressing our disapproval.
I also think one of the principal reasons everyone is upset is because this church has done something we sought to repudiate (in the strongest possible terms) but which will, by simple association, paint us with the same brush of racism and thereby affect the witness of all of our churches and those in them. The action of this single church associated with all other Southern Baptist churches now renders suspect our act of electing Brother Fred Luter in the eyes of the world and all we are trying to do to tear ourselves away from the past.
So, what are we to do? We can try to grapple with some sort of internal, associational, civic mechanism to publicly declare that this church does not speak to us (which, like Dr. Land’s admonition, can be helpful) but what do you think God would have us do? What would God have wanted that pastor to do? Or the church if the pressure on the pastor had been known? What hardness of heart would have made those influential members seek the exclusion of this wedding? Why can’t we seem to do the right thing for God when the right thing is so obvious?
Sounds like a great sermon series to me. Or perhaps some great Sunday School lessons. Maybe a statement saying more than we repudiate the actions of this church; a statement actually going to the heart of the sin done and love required to remove this sickness from our hearts and from our churches.
Let me say it this way. I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s. My father was in the Army so I typically went to Army schools so I always was around ethnically and culturally diverse students. Lots and lots of different cultures, colors, and accents. However, we had family who lived in the Deep South and we would visit them from time to time. I would go out with my cousins who would delight in tricking me into drinking from the “Colored Only” drinking fountain, or going into the “Colored Only” rest room. I was gullible because I did not think like them. When I caught on, I would still drink from the wrong fountains because I saw something they did not: the “Colored Only” fountains were always dirtier and more decrepit and no one ever seemed to clean the “Colored Only” rest rooms. Even before I was a Christian I thought it was wrong. When I became a Christian, I understood why: love cannot allow it.
My point: you do not eradicate this kind of sin by simply repudiating it or even resolution-izing it to death; you kill it by love. And I mean the kind of love that looks at things precisely like God sees them, without any human impediments or organizational artifices. This kind of love has to be infused in our churches. It is there but it needs, like all things of God, nurturing and instruction. So, if our leaders speak of the kind of love found in heaven, who have the courage to act out that kind of love in all circumstances, we perhaps can not only learn of it but make it our own.
+1
Having served for the past 15 years in small-town Georgia I know that progress in the area of racial unity comes slowly. The ideas are so deeply ingrained that it becomes a spiritual blind spot, even for some that are honestly seeking to grow in their Christian lives. I have confronted it in our body; others have, as well. Yet it persists in various forms. I have seen the church I currently serve (for 6 1/2 years now) take significant strides, but it still is an undercurrent that affects the health of our assembly. My anger at the few people at the church in Mississippi who pressured the pastor to make the decision he did is tempered by the belief that similar things could happen in many churches, despite our resolutions and recent actions in the SBC. I’m not excusing their attitudes, but trying to suggest that even godly people make serious blunders. I remember that Paul had to confront Peter over his prejudice (Galatians). He was likely pretty blunt, but also approached it in love for his brother in Christ.
Jim,
Thank you for commenting on what any of us, as individuals or otherwise, can learn from this most unfortunate incident. That is that “you do not eradicate this kind of sin by simply repudiating it or even resolution-izing it to death; you kill it by love.”
I’m sure many of the gentlemen above your comment know this; likely, they thought it so obvious that it was unnecessary to mention (?), but I’m glad you did. We must all keep Love in mind.
We really need to be praying for FBC Crystal Springs tomorrow morning during our worship times. This is a church that has been catapulted headlong into controversy. We all know that there will be confrontation. It probably has already happened.
I honestly pray for the witness and integrity of this church fellowship. I pray for this pastor and any staff members. I pray for the leadership of this church. I pray that those responsible will repent and beg forgiveness from those who have suffered the consequences of such prejudice.
FBC Crystal Springs has a tough row to hoe in the coming days. I have a feeling that those who forced this issue into the public eye by their own bigotry and lack of godly character will be on the outside looking in to a fellowship that will do the right thing.
Prayer for them is the most important thing. But they need to know that people are in prayer on their behalf, that they will be able to do what is right as a Christian community.
Agreed.
I decided to write a little more about this from a personal perspective. I won’t post it here or anything. If you’re interested, just click on my name above.
Good article.
Thanks, Dave.
I was a young pastor, in the late 70s, of a small country church in southeast Georgia. One Sunday I made mention of the ethnic ministries of my home church in Riverdale. I, unknowingly, committed the unpardonable sin when I shared that my home church had allowed black believers to join and worship with them. I was met at the door by one of the meanest deacon I had ever had the displeasure of knowing. I had referred to him as the “Bull” to my wife. The reason was that right before he was about to say some unkind or unspiritual word to you he would scrunch his face in such a way that his eyebrows would curl up and looked like horns. This was a warning that he was about to stick it to you. He loudly and boldly stated, “Preacher, we can’t have that kind of preaching around here.” I told him that I did not know what he meant by that. He said that they would not have preaching that reference blacks and whites worshipping together. He further stated that “God was against it.” I asked him to point out the Scripture that supported his view. You will not believe his response. “Preacher, the Bible states that Jesus did and said so much that all of it could not be recorded, and the Lord’s teaching against black and whites worshipping together was part of that. My pastor had taught me that if I was not willing to preach with my Bible in one hand and my suitcase in the other, that I was not fit for pastoral leadership. For over a month I addressed their sin. This is when I found out that most of the men in my church were members of the Klu Klux Klan. The local Grand Wizard was the County Probate Clerk and a deacon of my church. We receive threaten phone calls; I had to hold my wife at night because of her fear for our young children and for us. I would have to soon resign over my stand and preaching. Miraculously, God provided for us and within two weeks there were two churches extending us a call.
I would have to redress the same sin a few years later at my next church. I was heavily involved with local Baptist Student Union (I believe it is now called Baptist Collegiate Ministries). I led a Bible study most Tuesday evenings for them at Middle Georgia College. I invited their “Impact Team” to minister to my church; a few of them were black. That evening one of my older members called me to the side and said “Preacher, did you noticed that some of the students were black?” I could not help my self and looked her in the eyes and said “nooooo.” A week later, during our regular monthly deacon’s meeting, this woman’s husband address the issue by stating that the Constitution and By-laws state that black were not allowed in the church. To be honest, I could not find such a statement. I responded that if this was so then we needed to change the Constitution and By-laws immediately. Ever deacon sided with me accept the old guy.
I say this because I am sick and tired that when ever some immature, unspiritual person make any statement against blacks or any other ethnic that there are some body, who may be well meaning, who can’t wait to make statement like prejudice is ramped in the SBC. My response to such irresponsible statements is the Greek word choiros nipto (hog wash). These irresponsible statements only provide ammunition to our distracters. It is one thing to admit that there are a small amount of churches that practice this sin; it is another to claim that a large amount of churches are involved. Any organization with 14 – 16 million members will have a few fruit cakes. I have been in the Gospel ministry for over 40 years and can positively state that things have changed.
It is also premature to quickly disfellowship a church over anything that is not directly specified in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, or any previous qualification found in the By-laws of the Convention or association. Our association has added to the By-laws that any church that ordains a woman in any ministry position or allows a homosexual to serve in any leadership capacity will be automatic be disfellowship. The proper way is to change the By-laws, this provides a dialogue and puts the churches on notice. If a church fails to abide with the updated By-laws the Convention or association will have every right to disfellowship the church. Note; we did not add anything about prejudice in our By-laws. In our area of Southeast Georgia things have changed dramatically concerning prejudice. Yes, we still have a very few older folks and some ignorant rednecks (not all redneck are ignorant) who still act as though they are still living in the 50s and 60s. But their attitudes do not affect their church.
Joe,
Quite a story. By the way, as a Hillbilly from West Virginia I appreciate the qualifying remark about “ignorant rednecks” — I’s got schoolin’.
Dave: I am glad you spoke out as you have. I say this as a Christian, a Southern Baptists, and a white woman. It’s good to see men and pastors with a backbone that will speak out strongly against things like this. I’m glad Bart has publicly spoken out on this. I agree with your posts.
It’s hard for me to believe that in 2012 this is still happening. If no one takes a strong stand, the apology we made in 1991 means nothing. The election of Fred Luter means nothing.
I hope the members of Crystal Springs church yell out, not just speak out. I am for disfellowshipping on issues like this.
There is a video of the couple telling what happened and it’s worth seeing.
If there was no congregational vote, and most of the congregation did not know about this as has been claimed, the pastor of this church should have spoken out. What peace was he then trying to preserve?
Being a young pastor from Mississippi, I am very upset by this. This reflects poorly upon Mississippi and poorly upon Southern Baptists (especially in this state). I am saddened though, by a series of errors in judgment that led to this.
1) Errors in leadership. We need to recognize that we do not know the circumstances that led to this decision. Obviously some in the church did not approve of this marriage taking place in the church (how many or how influential they were we do not know). It this that we must disapprove of. Obviously the pastor thought it best to move the services. We do not know why. Perhaps he was right, in that as a pastor I might to a couple that there will be issues here and I don’t want to ruin this day for you. Perhaps he was wrong, in that he was simply unwilling to stand up to those with racist attitudes. Regardless, he should have spoken prophetically when it came up, both to those with the problem and the church at large.
2) There is no reason this should be playing out in the media. Granted a grievous sin was committed. However, whoever leaked this story to the media was just as wrong in bringing shame to the body of Christ. I am not saying that we hide our sins, but Paul tells us, “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he ake it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” (1 Corinthians 6:1, NIV). He goes on to say that this should have been brought before the leaders in the church. Before this was taken to the media, whoever had issue with this, as well they should have issue with it, should have brought it to the pastors, deacons, leaders, and the church at large (note in the article that many in the church said they were unaware of this). Should the church have difficulty in addressing this, they could have turned to the association, or asked someone from Miss. Bapt. for advice. They even have sought counsel from Fred Luter or another SBC leader, whom I’m sure would be glad to help the church handle it rightly. Instead they turned it over to the media, bringing shame to us all.
3) I am disappointed by our responses in the blog world. This is the time to repudiate sin. This is the time to say, we do not agree with this. It most certainly the time to call for repentance. But now is not the time to be calling for removal of fellowship. It is certainly not the time to yell, “YOU ARE NOT A PART OF US.” As much as I respect you Dave, this was inappropriate. Let’s give the church time to repent, and address this appropriately. If they choose not to, then we can follow the course of discipline and call for removal of fellowship.
William, my frustration is often that people react to what they think I said, not what I said. I did not say that we should say to this church “You are not part of us.”
I said that we should say to any church that persists in perpetrating racism, “You are not part of us.”
We would not allow a church that blessed homosexual unions remain a part of our fellowship. We should not allow churches that persist in racism to remain a part of us.
I still believe that my point in clear from my comment above.
And, I specifically called for giving them time to repent.
I stand corrected, and apologize for misconstruing your words. I will stand by the rest of #3 in my comments, though, as others are calling for some sort of immediate action. My point is simply let’s not overreact and respond in an equally un-Christlike manner.
Granted, brothers and sisters, that the instinct to break out a ten-foot pole and refrain from touching that church with it is a strong one. But we should not be people of mere instinct.
There are wounded people here. The newlyweds who have been subjected to this nonsense, the members of the local church who wouldn’t have given this particular wedding a second thought, the pastor who made a poor (but arguably well-intentioned) choice, and the church members who need to decide whether race or obedience to God is more important to them are all injured by this fiasco.
Let’s not shoot any of them. Dr. Weatherford would be right in standing behind his pulpit and calling those who have given place to bigotry to repentance. And, in addressing the problems in the choices he’s made. Disfellowshipping this and banning that serves no one–except our reflexes and our instincts. To coin a phrase, all I am saying is “Give repentance a chance.”
Mike,
It has already been too long. An immediate repudiation of the racism withing the church by the pastor two days ago might have been soon enough. Yet, he took the road more travelled–the easy road.
It’s not like the facts are in dispute. It’s not like this is not a major spiritual fault. Any discussion that includes any kind of accomodations only make the matter worse–much worse.
You don’t wait a week or a month to discipline a child for an error. The longer we wait, the more stupid stuff “religious people” are going to stay and the cancer of racism continues to grow.
I can guarantee you that the world is not going to wait a “few days” to make up their minds about Southern Baptists–all Southern Baptists.
I respectfully disagree and believe we should have done something yesterday.
PS–I am giving repentence a chance, but repentence starts with a “rebuke” (2Tim. 4:2). The word for rebuke implies quick, strong action many times (usually) associated with shame.
No one is advocating what you accuse.
If you read my post and the comments, everyone hopes for the best solution – repentance on behalf of the church. As I said previously, we have until next June to await action from this church. Hopefully, they will act much sooner.
Dave, I would suggest that at least one participant in the discussion is suggesting just that–dropping the hammer on that church “yesterday.”
Oh, and Frank, while I appreciate your reference to 2 Timothy 4:2, I encourage you to remember that words in Scripture do not exist in a vacuum. The verse you reference reminds us to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.” We should all be mindful to do all three of those actions–reproving, rebuking, and exhorting–with patience and sound doctrine. It’s not that we are to pick one action from a list, but to engage in all those actions simultaneously.
People, I am deleting several comments. This post is about racism in the SBC, and comments which try to diffuse this situation by tying it to other situations will be deleted.
David,
I’m not sure I agree that this is about “racism in the SBC.” This is about racism in this church. I think it would be much more advisable not to spread this wider than it is.
You may feel the same way and your wording simply is to be taken more generally, so I’m not disagreeing in principle. I just don’t want this to be about a “concept” but about a concrete, repulsive action by an specific church.
Frank, there were several comments that were about another issue in the SBC, not this one. I took them down, as I will future comments that attempt to do the same.
Dave,
I think that is wise. This is such a glaring, repulsive (I know I’ve used that word too many times) issue that it must be isolated. That’s what I meant by my comment.
Yep. The presence of other planks does not keep us from isolating a bigger plank and taking it on. It is in our own eye, the eye of the SBC, and we need to address it.
I’ll try this again, without reference to any other specific situation, and without any attempt at diffusion, but only an effort to consider our own response to the sin of racism. Should we treat racism in a radically different manner than any other sin? Should we show compassion and support for the racist on his or her journey from a lifestyle of prejudice to one of acceptance? Can we agree this is a process? Are we willing to patiently restore?
There is this, though, Rick: on many other sins there is no doubt that the SBC is strongly opposed to them. Yet if someone wanted to ask whether or not we approved of racism, it would be fair to say that the jury is still out.
We as a group have a distance to go to show that we do not approve of racism either in theory or in practice. We might be overzealous about it for a little while, but we need to be clear.
And when there is evidence that the racist is on the journey you speak of, certainly I would hope that we are adamant in seeing grace given. When there is a public testimony of “Yes, I committed this sin and yes, I repent” then we should be quick here at the ole’ Voices blog to enthusiastically encourage the willingness of our brethren and sistren to do so.
Until then, though, it is part of our job to keep the light on and the salt pouring, is it not?
What would we have to do for the jury no longer to be out? Will the jury not always be out? Every single person, including me, agrees the pastor should have stood up to those influential members and allowed the ceremony. We all agree it was sin. It’s unanimous.
I believe the congregation, and the pastor, will address the matter and issue some sort of apology. It is, after all, a local church matter. There is sin in all of our churches that needs to be addressed.
I’m all about light and salt, by the way. But I’m also about being consistent in the way we approach publicly confessed sins. And I’m not sure we are treating racism like all the others.
There is sin in all of our churches, and individually in our lives. The question here is, “will there be repentance?”
Rick,
“What will we have to do for the jury to no longer be out?” Intentionally fill the next entity head vacancy with an African American or other minority. Electing Dr. Luter was a significant, substantive, and symbolic step in the right direction, but it will not be fully satisfying until an African American entity head is named. That almost proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have seriously turned the corner on racism when we trust a minority to manage a substantial budget and personnel. Until then, from my vantage point–and most African Americans in the SBC that I’ve talked to–the jury is still out. The case in question along with a few others that I could mention underscores this point.
How long will the jury be out? Those of us who have not historically been on the receiving end of racial hatred are ill-equipped to answer the question. Possibly we should seek the counsel of our brothers and sisters who have lived with it all of their lives. Considering Dr. Luter’s election, now is obviously the time.
The consistent way of ‘dealing with sin’ in the Church is
through the great power of the Holy Spirit.
What is transformational in the Church is not man’s doing
. . . and those who understand this will seek, in community,
to call on the power of the Holy Spirit to turn those in trouble towards Christ.
It is through Our Lord,
in Him, with Him, and through Him, that a change of ‘heart’ is achieved.
The Christian community of faith relies totally on the power of God . . . the community may stand together as Christ’s WITNESSES to those in trouble, but even in their witnessing, they must keep the focus where it belongs and point to Our Lord.
That is the consistent way of the Church in ‘dealing with sin’.
A question for my brother Dwight:
It certainly is a privilege to speak to you! I have followed your ministry and have been in agreement with most of your sentiments.
I do have a question though about your sentiment desiring , “Intentionally fill the next entity head vacancy with an African American or other minority. ” While I do understand that placing a minority in such a position would go a long way beyond mere symbolism, I personally would shudder at such an appointment made with only the one characteristic being the primary qualifying one – the fact that they were a minority. Would this type of accommodation be acceptable in Christ’s church where “we are all one in Christ Jesus?” Whatever happened to allowing those who are the best gifted at what they do, with God’s calling on their ministries being elevated to positions they are called to perform and to serve well despite what ethnic origins they hail from? Was this not the vision of MLK – the content of one’s character versus the color of their skin?
If you are saying that otherwise highly qualified minorities were denied positions within the SBC because of their ethnicity was an abomination I wholeheartedly agree with you. If I was in a position of responsibility of hiring such an agency head, I can assure you I would hire the best person for the job and not look at their ethnicity. It seems to me that to merely hire a person because they are black or Latino is just as harmful as not hiring them because they are so – and is antithetical to how we believe God would act in any case. Why would we then to do it your way?
Grace and Peace,
Rob
Rob,
Great question. Integration and equality in the SBC will not happen without intentionality. We can achieve this goal without sacrificing quality. Heretofore, the reason only Anglos were selected as entity heads is because consciously or subconsciously, responsible hiring parties, only found acceptable or looked at one color. In order for our convention entity heads to reflect the diversity of the SBC congregations, we need to continue the practice we have used up to this point, but simply now look for qualified minorities to fill future vacancies. If that does not happen it calls into question the sincerity of the Luter election as a signal of change as it relates to inclusion and empowerment. I hope I answered your question.
The answer to this question, “Should we treat racism in a radically different manner than any other sin?” is…
Yes. Indeed, there are certain plenty of sins, in which cause unfortunate public exposure at this level, that require plenty of radically different approaches to them.
All of them should be rebuked strongly, disciplined appropriately, etc.
There should be “some” time for repentance. There should always be the aim of healing, forgiveness, restoration, etc. Yes, we should patiently restore.
But repentance must come first. Without that, there is no process at all.
Seriously, here are some examples. How long is “patient enough” for bigots in the body of Christ to repent? How long should we wait on a believer to come around and repent of murder? Or a cheating pastor?
If people who know better do fall into those kinds of sins, it should not take them long to repent at all. How long would you want to discuss, debate, and argue with a Baptist pastor that it really was wrong to for him to cheat on his wife and he really should repent, when all he does is serve up excuses to you?
It is a process, but one that doesn’t even begin until there is repentance.
Back to this specific case. It was public, so the repentance should be public. Have we seen this yet?
How long should people wait before raising the rhetoric up against them even more?
I simply have to disagree that this is just a local church matter.
That is what it should have been. Too late for that now though. Perhaps God will bless this even so that other churches will use this example to get their houses in order.
This article clearly exposed the real problem… In too many churches our leadership – in this case the Pastor – are more concerned with keeping the status quo in tact, than they are with speaking and preaching truth. Truth lost because the Pastor didn’t want to rock the boat (risk his own security).
Dwight,
I had never considered that the SBC President does not manage a budget or personnel. You raise a very good point. Paging Midwestern Seminary Trustees….
Rick:
How many African American’s are in higher up positions in the SBC?
Seminary Presidents, State Baptist Convention, Entity heads, etc.
Hi Tom,
I don’t know that there are any. To be clear, I was pretty much conceding Dwight’s point. It sounds like, before we can declare that the jury is no longer out on SBC racism, we need to fill the position with a minority. Hence my suggestion to the Midwestern trustees in light of their current vacancy.
Rick:
How can it be in 2012 that there are none?
Midwestern would be a good start but there has to be to be many more hired or nominated into these higher positions for us as SB to be taken serious as having open positions for all people.
Tom,
Your answer differs slightly from Dwight’s. He seems to think that for one entity head to be a minority would “almost prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that we had turned a corner.
You seem to think it would require more than one entity head. Let’s assume there are 50 or so such positions in the SBC. If one out of sixteen Southern Baptists is a minority, we should expect about four of these entity heads to be minorities. If that were to happen, would you be comfortable saying the jury was no longer out, but that Southern Baptists were serious about racial equality?
I’m not Tom, but I would say that such a “quota” would be indicative of “equity.” “Equality” will only be achieved when people are elevated to such positions based on their credentials alone, not the color of their skin. I look forward to that day.
Let me clarify that I’m not supporting the idea of a quota of any kind, nor am I suggesting such.
Midwestern might be a good place to start.
Applying a quota won’t really change hearts. That is the solution.
To be clear, although I suggested what appeared to be an equitable quota, I was mostly trying to define what “jury no longer out” might look like, so we’ll know it when we see it. How can we achieve the goal of racial equality if we never define it?
That, of course, is the challenge. I don’t have the answer.
No amount of tokenism could prove that there is no longer racisism within the SBC – there is obviously still plenty of racisism in the SBC judging from the stories shared on this blog. The only answer is time, education, and grace. Quick pretend fixes like electing a member of a racial minority to this or that position is simply window dressing over a problem that runs far deeper. That is not to say that having a diverse leadership is not a good thing, however. I’m all for it – just don’t do it and declare that everything is fixed.
RicK:
Excellent question! Please let me be clear I do not have a quota or percentage in mind. I’m just saying that none shows we are not even close to turning the corner.
Allow me to be a contrarian voice here. I am sorry, but as a black man, I have gotten so frustrated and angry at the race issue being hi-jacked and used to promote things like homosexuality and abortion. So whenever something like this happens, I want to step back, clear my head of negative emotions and things like that and put things into context.
Consider this: I am from the rural deep south, but attended a mostly black university where I interacted with blacks from all over the country (both at my school and those attending similar colleges) and from overseas. They all universally agreed that racism was just as bad in other areas of the country as it is in the south, and that it was as bad or worse in other countries as it is in America. I will never forget asking a visiting student from oh so progressive England whether it was better for blacks in America than in her country. While she was polite in her response, the dumbfounded “well if it was I wouldn’t have come here in the first place” look on her face was priceless.
So, out of all the terrible, horrible things that happen in this country, why is the national media making a public example of a Southern Baptist church in Mississippi? Do you think that they have God-honoring intentions in doing so? Another thing: compare the attention that this issue is receiving as compared to an inner city Miami Southern Baptist church plant led by a black man that is being threatened with being kicked out of the public school that they are using as a meeting place because he is preaching the truth about homosexuality. Why are we following the mainstream media, the secular culture, in being so quick to condemn one and ignore/fail to properly support the other? We can stand up to support a secular company (Chik-Fil-A) but when it comes to one of our own churches we turn on each other with shark teeth and rattlesnake venom? And as for the calls to repent … can we hear their side of the story first before demanding that they repent? The national mainstream media has already tried and convinced them because they are Mississippi white people in a conservative evangelical church. (By the way … the idea that the liberal mainstream churches are any better on race is a myth. Go look at the racial demographics of those mainline denominations … they’re whiter than a Republican Party Convention, to borrow the famous quote from Bryant Gumbel about the Winter Olympics. Remember the controversy over Jeremiah Wright’s church … one of the ironies is that his church is one of the few black churches in that entire denomination, where the SBC now has a ton of black and multi-racial churches.) But we are supposed to be different and better than the world concerning our brothers and sisters.
That is why I have to disagree with Dave Miller when he says “YOU ARE NOT PART OF US.” Yes they are. They are part of the confessing body of Jesus Christ, and in Christ Jesus just like you. Bearing their faults on this and other issues is more important than showing the world how progressive you are on race. What is a bigger evil? What this church did? Or the fact that judges in Mississippi are blatantly flouting the law in order to keep that state’s only abortion clinic open? Do you know where Mississippi’s only abortion clinic is located? Jackson. The same city that has the state’s largest black population, and contains the state’s largest black university. Can you take a guess at the demographics of the people that are murdered at that clinic? Isn’t that racist? Not according to the media. Were those wicked judges finally forced to obey the law and allow that clinic to shut down, the national media would claim that it was a racist Mississippi decision to take away the right of black women to choose. How long before the media is going to talk about “racist” Southern Baptist churches in Mississippi refusing to marry black homosexuals?
Do not mistake what I am saying. What this church did was wrong. But all Christians sin and all churches sin. What I am objecting to is the elevating this sin of this particular church over and above the sins of all churches just because the media has chosen to make racism into a hot button social issue. I am far more concerned with this Mississippi church’s teachings on the Holy Trinity, inerrancy, cessationism, complementarianism, many paths to heaven etc. than their making one sin and error in judgment. If this church repents and issues an apology, then this issue could be over as soon as tomorrow. But if they are advancing some of the questionable doctrines that some SBC churches and leaders are countenancing, it will be an issue for a lot longer than tomorrow. That is why I am so glad that when Fred Luter was elected SBC president, he talked a lot more about the SBC’s commitment to orthodoxy than this civil rights business.
One last thing: this couple wasn’t members of this church, and don’t appear to be members of any church. After this church and its pastor apologizes to them, a most excellent response on their part would be to join the congregation as husband and wife. That would be an excellent way to show the world that 1 John 1:7-10 and James 5:16 applies to all Christians, including white folks in Mississippi. And that would give them the opportunity to reply with John 8:7 to both the national media, and to any SBC official who is a lot quicker to say “YOU ARE NOT PART OF US” over this than over a great many other issues affecting congregations in the SBC.
I understand what you are saying.
But, I think you assume that because there are all types of sis in all types of churches means that certain teachings of Scripture are therefore mitigated.
This can not be the case. When public profaning of Yahweh’s name and reputation like this occur, there is only one Biblical option here. This does not mean we ignore all other sins in all other churches. Those are dealt with appropriately, and this is dealt with appropriately.
When churches lose their grip on accountability and discipline, and then publicly step in it big time like this, there is a Biblical mandate to rebuke, exhort, call to repentance, etc.
It needs to be this way, as God may be teaching OTHER churches by this example, so we call out things like this so that others will fear as well. (1 Tim. 5:20)
Johnathan Pritchett:
I am not saying that this church should get a pass. Quite the contrary. Instead, I am merely saying that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. Out of all the things that are going on with SBC churches, this has been elevated into a major issue because the media has chosen to manipulate the race issue in just about every wicked, ungodly way possible. There are things that go on at other churches that are just as bad as or worse than this highly regretful incident, but it never gets talked about because the media can’t use it as another reason why we all have to go out and vote for Barack Obama. And we are here on this blog talking about it now not because of its level of importance in doctrine and practice or its relevance to the SBC on a macro scale, but because the media chose to make this an issue.
And that is why I made the comparison (in my admittedly rambling, incoherent comment) to that pastor in Miami, who is being threatened with losing his meeting place over his preaching the gospel. The media makes the folks in Mississippi front page news while covering up the government anti-religious bigotry in Miami. So, we follow the media in being so hasty and vehement to condemn a few private citizens in Mississippi who apparently don’t even represent the majority opinion in that church while ignoring the selective actions of government officials in Miami (they aren’t trying to terminate the contracts of all the churches that use public schools over separation of church and state issues, just that one over the homosexuality issue)? Where is letting the media pick and choose our battles for us going to get us?
Here is the reality. Racism? It is going to exist. It is not going to go away. It is a sin that the church is going to have to deal with. Just like gluttony. Just like lying. Just like gossiping. Just like coveting and jealousy. Just like theft. Just like sexual immorality. Just like false doctrines. If the pastor had merely looted the church treasury and run off to Tahiti with the deacon’s wife, it would have barely caused a ripple. If the pastor had started teaching theistic evolution, the new perspective on Paul and announced that the congregation was going to start partnering with Roman Catholic churches on missions, again move along, nothing to see here. But because this is the race issue we come down on them like a ton of bricks. And we do so not because of the imperatives of scripture, but because we are letting the world define for us what we should be outraged by and what our response should be.
What you are saying about rebuke, exhort, call to repentance, 1 Timothy 5:20, that applies to the whole counsel of God, not just what the media defines as a hot button social issue. Our ignoring that is why we are showing disproportionate attention to this one sin.
Well, if every child in VBS would just eat their spinach, they would all grow up to be as strong as Popeye.
Look, this side of heaven there will not be idealistic churches who are free from all sin. That is a given.
And?
I can’t help it that I heard about this, being a state away, through the media.
Simply hearing about this through the media means my response should somehow be different? That if someone condemns this strongly, therefore that person is soft on other sins in other churches or whatever?
I see no reason why this is the case at all. None. It is a non-sequitur.
I understand there are sins in all our churches, but not all churches are making the noise of a Corinth or Galatia that requires a letter.
God uses public failures of churches to teach others lessons. Many New Testament Epistles certainly evidence itself for that. So it goes today.
To speak strongly against one thing is not to ignore other things.
Guys, I’m going to say it one more time. Please read what I SAID, not what people are assuming I said. I did NOT say that FBC Crystal Springs is not part of us.
I said that churches that “perpetrate racism” are not part of us. Every church has sin present. But if a church says, “It’s no big deal” or they make peace with the racism that exists, then they ought not be part of us.
I am responsible for what I said. I stand by it.
I am not responsible for what people misinterpreted me to say.
Rebuking this strongly from every aspect of SBC life sooner rather than later is the only course of action. I also see nothing wrong with state conventions and local associations denouncing and disfellowshipping local congregations if necessary.
Crystal Springs First Baptist Church needs to reflect on doctrines of accountability, church discipline, and reflect on 1 Cor. 5:6 as well.
God holds churches accountable when the church publicly profanes His name and reputation. This is not merely an internal matter within this church anymore. It is public, and it encompasses the whole congregation.
The whole congregation needs to repent. If for nothing else, for either not knowing this racism was festering long before this event, or not caring that racism was festering in this congregation long before this event. Ignorance is no excuse for this.
The cowardly pastor needs to retract those bogus “damage control” comments in the news interview, and own up to his poor compromising decision. So wanted to avoid controversy by capitulation to bigots? Uh, how did that go?
Oops…
The pastor not only needs to be held to account for his actions, but also his words. Why is there a small minority of bigots in a rather large church that has the power to call off a wedding event? Why did the pastor fear for his job from this tiny minority if Charles Wilson is correct in his statements regarding his conversation with the pastor?
Why did the congregation willfully ignore this issue in their membership for years? Why this “we didn’t do it” outrage from the other members after the fact? Why such a lacking of understanding in this supposed outraged majority that Scripture teaches us that whole churches are held accountable for the actions of a few within, which is why church discipline and accountability are important doctrines in Scripture in the first place? Why did the church not know racist bigots secretly had this much power?
Perhaps we’ll never know all these answers. What we do know is that they are poor excuses, and that from the pastor, to the bigots, to the whole congregation, they all are to blame and are all to be rebuked, and are all to repent.
Let us dispense with misguided compassion that would tempt us to go easy and soft when it isn’t necessary nor appropriate, and let us embrace the Biblical teaching that outrage and rebuke can coexist with being brokenhearted and being charitable. These things do not cancel each other out.
When they ALL as a church from the pulpit to the pews repent in humility, then we rejoice, forgive, and embrace them and put it behind us.
There has been no official statement yet, but I read some articles about the Crystal Springs church, and they seem to be attempting to make the right moves here.
They seem to be trying to make the best of a bad situation.
The pastor seems like a man with a good heart, who let being a peacemaker get in the way of taking a prophetic stand. We should pray for him. According to reports, he is not sleeping since this hit the news and he is devastated about what happened.
He tried to create a “win-win” and it became a lose-lose.
That should be instructive for us. When sin (like racism) is at the heart of something, there is no such thing as a win-win. Sin has to lose for righteousness to win.
Well, I’m not seeing much by way of encouragement. The Deacons Statement on this was downright awful. The pastor seems to merely restate his bad reasoning. Every time he’s had a camera, he’s failed to repent or apologize, unless it was intentionally edited out, which he certainly would have already made public were that the case.
Can you link to some of those sources you mention?
Check out my blog. It contains plenty of links and of course, my commentary. 🙂
Dave,
The couple would have done more for the cause of eliminating racism by not going public and continuing to go to the church. Displaying humility and a Christlike walk will heap coals of fire upon your enemy’s head. Keep in mind, there were only a few that felt that way. You do not eliminate sin by bringing the world into the churches affairs or publicizing it. They were not members, he had only attended for a month and it was obvious that he wanted to disgrace the whole church at the hands of a few with a public outcry. That is not how Christians handle their differences even if it is a skin issue. I suggest contacting the church to get the real story if it is that important. I do not believe the media has the churches best interest in mind when reporting on these kind of issues.
Here’s some questions we should be asking for the sake of the church and the couple before marrying them:
1. What is the churches policy for use of the building for marriage?
2. How well did the couple serve in the church?
3. Why were they not members?
These questions do not address skin color. More questions can be added, and should. Once you have policy in place you eliminate the race issue and focus on the Christ issue.
Even if this was a white couple I would not marry them based upon certain conditions that I can see. I would encourage them to continue to attend and serve in the church as members. I would meet with them to get to know them better. I would want to see how well they got along with other members of the church. I would even go as far as meeting with the people who had a problem with race to counsel them about their feelings with the color of a person’s skin. What a great opportunity to work through the issues on a personal level in lieu of doing it from the pulpit. Too often we want to skip the time it takes to work through a problem. That is the true test and it reveals the heart of the issue and either exposes the sin or exposes the love.
Bruce H,
You offer many good points which I also have considered. I have taken note of each of the responses the pastor and church members have offered, hoping at least one of the points you have offered would surface. The problem is that none have. The pastor and the church members have all admitted that the problem here is racism. Although they personally have not expressed racist thoughts, it is very obvious that the reason the couple was not allowed to have their wedding in that sanctuary is that they are black. It is a sinful situation for which there must be repentance.
Agreed. I do not attend this church, however, it should be autonomous and have it’s own set of standards set up for the use of the building for activities as sacred as marriage. I do not think it is written anywhere in the church constitution or bylaws that blacks cannot use the sanctuary. It was a small few.
Yes, there should be repentance among and between only those involved: The pastor, the couple and the racist. Why church issues were publicized is what burns my toast. The pastor should openly confess to the church for making this a scandal, the couple should confess that they should have been patient and allowed time to work through the racist and the racist should be addressed privately and, if necessary, publicly. It would be a work in progress.
Remove the color of the skin and replace it with brown, yellow, red or white or mixed and the answer I would have would be either no or wait until the church gets to know you and visa versa. We have had this problem locally because the church building is usually “Free” to use, and it should be by the members who invest their life into the church body. There is nothing about a building, however, allowing it to be dishonored due to our neglect or unwise choices has its affect/effect. Not knowing this couple has been damaging. We often give in because we want them (anyone) to be encouraged to be active, see our love and even join the church. We don’t want them (anyone) to feel alienated or think we are racist (or discriminatory) . Liberals think that way. We can set the standard in love and see how they respond. They needed to know that up front.
It is pretty astounding that you would call on this couple to repent. I think that obfuscates the issue badly. The issue is the church’s racism. The couple had their wedding moved on them. To cast the blame on them is, to me, beyond belief.
Dave. I can’t believe I actually read that.
Dave,
Removing “racism” and inserting any other sin into this story may help you see what I am talking about. When we sin against a brother there has to be a response. How the act was committed is one thing, and I agree with you, How the one sinned against is another. I do not see the confusion my comment has made for some here. Jesus became the racist and the victim of racism on the cross. He became both and has instructed both on how they should respond in this matter. That is how this is to balance out in kingdom living.
Clarification:
Not: “How the one sinned against is another.”
But: “The response of the one sinned against is another.”
Bruce H:
You said:”They were not members, he had only attended for a month and it was obvious that he wanted to disgrace the whole church at the hands of a few with a public outcry.”
How do you know that he wanted to disgrace the whole church?
By his actions. That is what he accomplished whether you think it was his intent. Someone had to contact the media. He was the one interviewed and pointed out the racism. If he was sinned against, and he was, he should have gone to the offender first with a humble heart and seek restoration. His actions were not of a Christian, just like the prejudice church member(s).
I would have never married them or anyone who had not proven their life within the body. They were not members either. I do not take lightly the membership Baptist have set up. That represents accountability to each other. BTW, if he only attended for a month, how long were they engaged? Where did he come from? Was he a Christian? (unequally yoked?)
Do you have a marriage policy for your church?
Bruce:
I am sorry, but I just think you are getting way away from the main story of what happened here.
Sorry, Tom.
This issue just gets my goat on both sides. We need to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. The media never needs to get into these situations and the Judas that leaks it should be dealt with.
To act as if this is one of those “both sides have done wrong” is shocking to me.
Dave,
At the end of the news video the commentator stated that the Wilsons have been talking to their attorney and are awaiting their next move. If it was any sin among Christians the next move would be in anticipation of forgiveness and reconciliation, not a lawsuit. There is a response on both sides here. It is already established that the racist sinned and the pastor was wrong by being indecisive. That is obvious and has been talked to death. I am pointing out the wrong response of the couple, too. If the pastor was voted out for having the wedding he already committed to in the church it would be just as wrong for him and his attorney to go to the media and tell his story after he was ousted. Christian don’t do that.
If we have to publicize every sin through the media, especially the sin of racism, in order to change the mindset of the church we have not appealed to the conscience but have created a legalization to meet a biblical requirement. Forcing someone to do right does not change the heart. It is a discipline issue for the racist here. If they don’t repent the church would need to remove them and apologize to the couple. Regardless, they need to apologize to the couple.
Assuming that everyone in this story are Christian, everyone has sinned. God tests our faith. When we are squeezed, what is inside comes out. The pastor, the racist and the couple have not displayed a humble Christlike response as of this posting. I usually watch for a person’s full response to any tribulation they experience. That tells me more about the person than anything they will ever say.
Our churches today are not equipped to deal with the big sin issue. This is a small example of a much larger problem within our own SBC. We don’t need to focus on correcting the racist sin as much as we need to focus on Christ and our own filling of the Spirit. Jesus truly is the Answer.
I hope you continue to follow this and keep us updated as to how all of these Christians work this out.
I think you belittle the horrid sin of racism by comparing to the couple’s actions as a result of racism.
I find it sad, Bruce. And incomprehensible.
Never mind, Dave. (spoken in a soft monotone voice) I could say nothing more than what has already been said here about the Pastor or the racist. You said enough and so has everyone else. I am not as learned as most of you pastors and my input would only be repeating most of what you all already know and believe about this sin and my usage of the English language falls short of how ya’ll can say things. With that, no one has said anything about Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson going public. Like that is alright. Christians do not do that and say what they have said without confronting the one’s who offended them. Going public will force an apology but will not a change a heart. That is what I am getting at. Please read the last comment on this stream. 138 at this time. I truly do not understand how this is incomprehensible.
Tom,
Here is an updated stream of comments Mr. Wilson has been quoted to say:
“Because of the fact that we were black, some of the members of the congregation had got upset and decided that no black couple would ever be married at that church,” Charles Wilson told CNN on Sunday night.
“All we wanted to do in the eyes of God was to be man and wife in a church that we thought we felt loved. What was wrong with that?”
“I had dreams of having my wedding the way I wanted it, and I also dreamed of having it at the church and unfortunately, it didn’t happen,” Te’Andrea Wilson told CNN.
Her husband said if there was a time to “step up and be Christ-like,” it was before their wedding. Hindsight is 20/20.
“If it was such a minority of people, why didn’t the majority stand up and say, ‘In God’s house we don’t do this?'” said Charles Wilson.
BTW, I have not read an article that mentioned the church knew about this wedding until 2 days before the event. How does that happen if you have been attending for a year and planning as long as they had been planning it? It takes a while to print the invitations, rent the tux and buy the wedding dress. Something isn’t right here and we may be using the blinders of racism to block it out. I hate racism beyond what some may think, but I smell a grey rat here. If you find an article that says the whole church knew about it please let me know. I just couldn’t find it. I’ll keep looking.
As I see it, the motives of the media, and of the couple for publicizing their case to the media, are somewhat irrelevant. If, as has been publicly admitted, the underlying cause of the decision to move the wedding was racial discrimination, it is an issue which should not be swept under the carpet in the interest of avoiding conflict. I believe we have a fairly clear biblical precedent in such a case with the incident where Paul “withstood [Peter] to the face” due to something very similar. See Galatians 2:11–14.
That was my thought, David. Before I published this article, I checked to ascertain whether this was a church in fellowship and cooperation with Southern Baptists. Since this church was one of us, I think we had the responsibility to stand against what it has done, once it became public.
Dave,
This may be a somewhat technical and arcane point, but one that I think may ultimately be significant. Taken within the context of my comment on Doug Hibbard’s post on “Local Church Autonomy,” I believe we need to distinguish between “fellowship” and “cooperation” with regard to matters like this. As Southern Baptists, we have a special interest with regard to “cooperation,” but as Christians in general, we have an interest with regard to “fellowship.” So, while I would agree there is a special way in which as fellow Southern Baptists we have a responsibility to not remain silent on this, I would not agree that non-Southern Baptists ought to remain aloof on this just because they are not of the same denominational affiliation.
To My Brother Dwight,
I am sorry I am way down here, because there is no way to continue nesting it seems.
I do want to respond to you about the concept of intentionality. You said this in #90, “Integration and equality in the SBC will not happen without intentionality.” While I am a firm believer in absolutes, you will forgive me if I view this one skeptically. Integration can only happen within the Convention unless we intentionally fill an agency head with an minority? That is the only way? It seems to me that the problem of sin is a heart problem – and that heart problem starts at the individual, and then seeps into the individual in his/her local church. The only one who can move a heart problem intentionally is God – and the only way we can help is through prayer as well as confronting sin and encouraging believers given the mantle of authority not to sin, and holding them accountable for their sinful choices. If biblical history is any indication, we know that Abraham and Sarah “intentionally” tried to help God out by providing an alternative route to God’s promise – through Hagar and Ishmael – with questionable results. I don’t believe your answer of “intentionality” will work toward the benefits you seek at all – it will merely put a band-aid on a wound which needs air rather than to be covered up for next time. Racism is a terrible blight on our work together that needs a God fix – not our feeble attempts to cover the wound when the surgeon needs to do surgery that would save us . That is my only concern with your intentionality.
I am praying for God’s healing on our churches as well as our nation – that He would work so grand among us that the world would know that Jesus is among us. I am praying for you that now God’s grace and power would be so apparent that you would not, could not stand to behold it.
Grace and Peace,
Rob
I’ve followed this issue from the beginning having monitored the posts on SBC Voices and in various papers closely. As a Southern Baptist Adult Sunday School teacher I brought this issue to our class last Sunday and we talked about it in some detail. Make no mistake about it, this issue is a big deal at the pew level. Of concern as of today—–I have read in the on-line version of the Clarion Ledger (the paper that originally broke he story) about prayer marches in the local community and other related activities but where is the formal public apology from the church suggesting any level of repentance?
I’m not seeing repentence. I’m seeing some community-relations and clarification, plus some defenses “we are not really racist.” But I’ve heard nothing coming from them that says, “We did wrong.”
What scripture did the members of Crystal Springs MS use to not perform
The wedding ceremony? Did not Christ gives us two commandments to
Practice before he gave the many others? “Love your neighbor as your
Self” Mark 12:13.. Was this not practiced? The pastor of the church had
The Bible to stand on the Bible says in 1 Peter ” to be afraid of the God
Who can throw you into Hell.” Really? And he was afraid? That church
And many others need to read the Bible and practice what it really says.
I will leave you with more scripture in Matthew 25:31-46. Michelle Davis
Michelle, I am not sure you have the facts in order here. The decision to move the wedding was made by the pastor. The members of the church never voted on this.
Obviously, they did not show love as they should have and I don’t think anyone is disputing that.
I read a few articles about this on the web. One thing I found interesting, no one in the church knew about this wedding until after the rehearsal two (2) days before the wedding. Some people didn’t find out about this until after the wedding took place. Why didn’t Te’Andrea tell her friends at the church she had been attending for a year? Why didn’t she invite the church or place an announcement in the bulletin? Why was she not a member? She must not of sent any invitations to the church members. Sounds like the preacher and Te’Andrea were keeping secrets. They may have known that there were a small few in the congregation that were racist and were trying to sneak around them and got caught. If this is the case, the pastor should admit what he did. I am not downplaying the racist here, however, if this is true, it needs to be exposed as well. That is not how you address or confront racism, especially in the church.
Hi Dave, I did hear the Pastor moved the wedding that was only because
He could not perform the wedding at his church. He still had the Bible
To guide him. He should ask those members who disapproved if they
Can’t get along down here do they possibly think God will allow them
To act this way in heaven?
Michelle
Here’s the latest post on the Wartburg Watch on this story:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/08/01/wedding-banned-at-a-southern-baptist-church-in-mississippi/
Racism among true believers is a horrible sin. To say there are Christian racist is an oxymoron. There should be a continual outcry to this pastor to address this issue with those who are racist in his church. There should be an outcry to the church body to find those racist within and confront them.
Once they resolve the racist issue a series of sermons from James 2 would be a good start for a year long focus on how we must relate to others. It would also be good if the pastor invited a mix of pastors to speak on the subject. Not just Black pastors, but Mexican, Oriental, White and many others to make the point and drive it home. This issue will not go away without doing something like this on the racism.