In 1845, when the American Baptist Home Mission Society, refused the nomination of James Reeve (a slaveholder) the seeds were planted for the birth of a new denomination. By May 1845 white delegates from the deep South gathered (293 in all) together and formed a new mission society—The Southern Baptist Convention. Yes, our beloved denomination was founded because our forefathers wanted to own slaves. Al Mohler is even more pointed when he says:
In fact, the SBC was not only founded by slaveholders; it was founded by men who held to an ideology of racial superiority and who bathed that ideology in scandalous theological argument. (Williams & Jones, 3)
We Southern Baptists have a racist past. We cannot get around this fact. In 1995, on the 150th anniversary of the founding of the SBC, the messengers overwhelmingly approved a resolution condemning racism and apologizing for our past. So is that the end of the story? We asked for forgiveness—now is it up to our African American brothers to grant this forgiveness and bury the past in the past? Shouldn’t we just move on at this point and work towards the future?
Certainly it takes two parties to live in full reconciliation. Unless someone asks for forgiveness and the other person grants that forgiveness you cannot live in reconciliation. But this issue is a bit less black and white (pardon the pun). None of those presently living can truly apologize for the sins of our ancestors past. Nor can another group of people accept that apology. Reconciliation will be a bit more complex than simply passing a resolution and burying our past in the past.
But I want to make an argument today that for the glory of God we should not even want to bury our past in the past. And I want to use the words of a former slave ship captain to make this point.
John Newton was haunted by his past. Nothing he could do could remove the stain of racism that was on his life. Even though he passionately fought to end the slave trade in Europe, Newton was still haunted by the screams which came from the slave ships he captained. On one particular occasion Newton was asked in a letter about how folks could have happiness in heaven when we are fully aware of our sins in the past. This is Newton’s response (and keep in mind that his own involvement with slavery is likely on his mind):
I think those are the sweetest moments in this life, when we have the clearest sense of our own sins, provided the sense of our acceptance in the Beloved is proportionally clear, and we feel the consolations of his love, notwithstanding all our transgressions. When we arrive in glory, unbelief and fear will cease forever: our nearness to God, and communion with him, will be unspeakably beyond what we can now conceive. Therefore the remembrance of our sins will be no abatement of our bliss, but rather the contrary. (Read entire letter here)
When the gospel redeems (and is still further redeeming) an issue in our past we do not want to bury it. We tend to want to bury sins which aren’t yet fully repented of or perhaps those sins which still carry the burden of shame. We want to bury what isn’t yet healed. But our racist past is a stain which Christ is in the process of removing. And every time we see racial reconciliation taking place it is fitting for the glory of God for us to be brutally honest about our past. No need to gloss over it and pretend like our ancestors were not engaging in “scandalous theological argument”. The light of Christ shines bright against our darkened past.
We don’t get sick of hearing about our racist past because we are confident in the provision of Christ. We don’t encourage folks to move on because we see our own sinfulness as a door way to savoring Christ even more. We encourage the light to shine upon our racist hearts (yes, racism for folks of any color of skin). We welcome the “clearest sense of our own sins” because we know it will only further glorify the God who can redeem and rescue such wicked hearts. We don’t tire of fighting for racial reconciliation because we love seeing the work of Jesus.
I’ve still much learning to do in this area, but I’m thankful that no matter how deep things like racism have settled into areas of my heart I know that Christ is always deeper and always sweeter. Even though we might be shocked at what we find in our hearts—he never is. And once He has captivated our hearts they belong to him. In that we can rejoice no matter what is dug up from our past. This and this alone is the foundation of our union with one another.
I agree that one good reason to not avoid the reality of our racist past is that remembering our past sins reminds us of God’s great glory.
Another reason is that racism is not just a past issue. There is still racism in our hearts and in our churches. Have we come a long ways? Yes, praise God! Do we have a long ways to go? I think so. We should be thankful for how far the Lord has brought us, but not satisfied. Here is a blog post where I wrote about two relatively recent cases of racism in our churches. One of these cases was in the news, and the other one I was personally involved in:
http://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-church-fires-pastor-who-invited-black.html
There was a news story about one month ago where a Black Pastor and a deep rooted southern white have been working together for a number of years to bring the reconciliation to the south over what your article is talking about.
I don’t remember the names of the two men or the article itself. I wish I did. I’m hoping someone here does. This story goes to the core of what you’re relating.
At the time the white southern met the black minister, the politics was circulating that the whites should resent the blacks for all their advancements they were being given because it was making the whites suffer even more.
The white man heard the black minister give a message one day and realized the real source of the problem. The problem was in his heart. It was his own personal racism. This white man realized that the only way he could personally would deal with the problem was for him to acknowledge that its source was in him.
If anyone knows the story its worth seeing.
One big difference, Newton was talking about his own sins. These are not our sins, but sins of our ancestors. No Southern Baptist living today has ever owned slaves. The SBC of today has repeatedly spoken against slavery and racism.
The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. Yet no one seems to be demanding they continually repent of having supported slavery in the past.
Must the SBC repent of racism and slavery every year from now to eternity?
How many times must we repent of the same sin? The sin of our ancestors?
By the way, in 1845 Southern Baptists were certainly wrong, but by no means the only ones who held racist views.
PS – I was present and voted for the 1995 SBC Resolution repenting of slavery, and denouncing racism.
David R. Brumbelow
David, you bring up some very valid points. It is true that no one alive today owned slaves in the past. It is true that as a convention we have publicly repented of racism. And it is true that there can be too much focus on past sins.
These good points need to balanced with the truth that there is STILL racism in some of our churches and in some of our hearts. I think the most prevalent manifestation of racism in our churches today probably takes two forms, one a more severe expression of the same basic attitude:
1. There are still church members and church leaders who prefer that our churches remain mostly segregated. They do not see how separate churches for whites and blacks falls short of reflecting the truth of the gospel. They are not willing to take risks, make sacrifices, and be uncomfortable to overcome this division. Most of these people welcome blacks if they happen to come, but do not want to take initiative to encourage them to come.
2. The more severe expression of this same sentiment is that there are church members and leaders who will actively oppose any effort by others to reach out to blacks and to try to see our churches become less segregated.
These are CURRENT sins, not sins from 150 years ago. They are hurting our churches, our neighbors, the spread of the gospel, and the Name of Christ.
David,
I think you confuse repent with oppose. It may be that there are those among us in the Anglo majority who have never held racially prejudiced views or have repented of such. There is also likely the case that there are those within the Anglo majority who have not.
That being said, I believe it is incumbent upon us as members of the SBC, not only because of our racist history, but also because we need to speak prophetically to ourselves and our culture, to oppose racism whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. We should do such regarding this issue in the same manner in which we regularly, continually oppose abortion, normalization of homosexuality or adultery, or gambling ( O:-) ), etc.
Scott, thank you. Racism is a sin issue. It’s amazing that everyone who opposes further resolution regarding race are more than supportive to continue promoting and voting for resolutions on other matters of sin. We must be consistently and vocally condemning sin and celebrating the gospel that heals. From race to abortion to homosexuality.
This is how I have “grown” on this issue. If the SBC is going to continually and ever increasingly focus on the issue of the terrible, hateful and indefensible historic racial superiority origins of the SBC in 1845 then the SBC should completely disavow, denounce , vilify and brand the SBC founders and the SBC in a manner such as America has done the KKK and other racist groups. Change the name and disavow any link to the SBC founders and their founding beliefs, it has been proposed before . I am a firm believer in studying history and historical perspective so we can grow and learn. It appears the terrible stain of the foundation of the SBC now is so paramount that too much time and effort is going into denouncing the 1845 SBC. In the South the old refrain on the bumper stickers and Confederate flag seller was Forget Never or Forget Hell No. Now we should know all we can about the Civil War and certainly not forget or rewrite history. However the country moved on and reunified, the past if taught correctly reveals the beauty and promise of America has it had the Civil War to free an enslaved people and continue the promise of our Founders that all men are created equal. It was, is and will be a work in progress but if you dwell only on the sins and injustice of the past you will become a slave to the past. God makes us sinless as he took our sins away and we all know to forgive is to forget in the eyes of God. We on this earth do need to forgive but not forget keeping the sinful inflection in historical and social perspective. When will enough be enough when it comes to trying to atone for the terrible stain of racism the SBC was founded on? It will never be enough so lets take the issue off the table and state the stain of sin was so bad that we just do not want to even be associated with that terrible SBC founded on this secularly unforgivable beliefs. I do think the SBC in recent years has done all it can but I see it will never be enough as you cannot justify or understand 1845 beliefs based on 2017 perspectives. I think a lot of SBC leaders in Nashville think that the average SBC lay person sitting on the pews every Sunday in inherently inclined to be racist that is why they are in the SBC and if they think they are now they are unaware of their racist nature. New name could be World Wide Baptist Jesus Died for All Who Accept Him as Personal Savior Church for All People.
We are the Southern Baptist Convention, and the only reason we are so named is directly related to the support for slavery. Unless and until we are no longer known as the Southern Baptist Convention, our name will always refer to our racist past.
A while back I posted a question about why we wouldn’t actually change our name, and it seemed the biggest objection was the cost and legalities of officially changing the entity name. That unless there is a great movement to do so, coupled with a huge influx of cash, we’re stuck with it.
Therefore, the only thing we can and MUST do, is aggressively pursue relationships with minority people, minority groups, minority churches, etc, until such time as a vast majority understand the hospitality of “Southern”, rather than its division over slavery. Until the children of Blacks have forgotten we ever stood for slavery, we must needs continually acknowledge the past.
How in the world will children of African Americans ever forget if it is brought up over and over at every turn? We will spend so time and effort acknowledging the past that may be where the effort goes. Why not just go to the local Bible believing black church and merge with them to eliminate any stigma of SBC racial superiority past. The minority cannot be racially prejudiced so why not? The fellowship and unity in belief would erase any conflicts that might arise. Let the existing black church maintain its leadership position with former SBC members as loyal supporters until the stigma of SBC racism is erased. Afro Americans do not need to come to our church , we will join theirs.
“Why not just go to the local Bible believing black church and merge with them to eliminate any stigma of SBC racial superiority past.”
Sounds like a great idea. Let me know how it goes.
“The minority cannot be racially prejudiced so why not?”
I never said they could not. Many of them are. But whites have not historically been the ones devalued in our society.
Please refer back to my last paragraph. Aggressively pursuing those relationships is the only thing that will erase the stigma. Pretending there’s not one will not.
Ellen, you are now in moderation. We have a zero tolerance policy here when it comes to racist comments.
I have generally come down on the side of the “racial reconciliation” folks (not that most people here are anti-racial reconciliation, but you know what I mean) in these discussions. But it does seem like it’s being overdone a bit. I didn’t found the SBC, I didn’t own slaves (nor my ancestors, as far as I know). I don’t practice or approve of racism. I call it out when I see it. What more do people want? Sure, if something comes up, let’s react. If we find out one of our churches is practicing racism, let’s act. If something happens in society that is clearly racism, let’s react. I’m not suggesting we forget the past, but I can’t change the past and I’m not responsible for it. The mea culpas are not really helpful anymore. We all know the folks in our churches who constantly talk about how bad they were before they got saved. It’s OK at first, but after awhile, it’s time to move forward. I feel like we are there.
Bill, I think I understand what you’re saying, and I agree with some of it. When you say “I fell like we are there”, I personally feel this is a half-truth.
Are we “there” in terms of having already publicly confessed as a convention that it was wrong to support slavery and other forms of racism in the past? Yes. Thank God! I don’t think we need to keep doing that.
Are we there in terms of any obvious KKK style ugly racism being widely condemned and unacceptable among the SBC churches and members? Yes, at I think so.
But there are other ways in which we are not completely “there”. Here are some examples:
1. There are not any living church members who owned slaves. But there are some who opposed civil rights and school segregation in the 60s and 70s. Some of these have repented. There are probably some who have not repented. They have accepted what they have been forced to accept, which is a far ways from repentance. These people would benefit greatly, and so would their churches in some cases, if they did repent.
2. The biggest negative effect of past racism which I see in our churches is that in many areas (especially, but not exclusively, in rural communities) churches are either almost entirely white or entirely black in their membership. This is not exclusively a SBC problem, but then, we should think first of our identity as churches of Christ Jesus. There is no quick, simple, or easy solution to this problem. Being a white person in a mostly white church or a black person in a mostly black church does not mean you are racist. However, if a person thinks this state of affairs (churches which are segregated in practice) is acceptable, or far worse, if they actually prefer this state of affairs, then they are not thinking or acting in line with the gospel. I believe there are a significant number of people in our churches who do feel, think, and act as if this current situation is acceptable or even preferable.
So, in some ways we are “there”. But in other ways we are “not there”. Let’s keep loving, and sharing the truth. Two especially relevant passages are these:
NIV Galatians 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Peter began to act as if sometimes separate fellowship for different races was ok, he was wrong!)
and
NIV Ephesians 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
(The world should see in the church evidence that dividing walls of hostility have been destroyed by Christ. Sadly, instead they often see dividing walls still standing.)
May God give us all grace, wisdom, and courage.
As a comment here: What is the demographic makeup of these predominantly “rural” communities you have a problem with? Since I work in one, let me tell you. I and my congregation would welcome and invite for participation with Christian fellowship and partnership of anyone, yellow, brown, black, or white. Yet in many of the communities you are seemingly concerned about, the ratio of majority white to about anyone of a minority persuasion is about 99.9% to .01%. In my neck of the woods (taking data from the Census Bureau as well as our state convention) there is not a person of color for about 10 miles – and they live predominantly in the city. Since rural churches usually reach within their own geographical area, they typically become the culture or area where they are planted = and in rural areas they are predominantly white (most of us came from some where so the ancestors of folks in our neck of the woods came from European homelands of Germany, France, and Holland).
So – I don’t believe your swipe at the rural church is fair because of rural demographics. We can only reach those who live around us. If people are here, they will get a visit from me. Unfortunately the only families I have come across that are different than the majority are the Ukrainians (fine people), Hispanic (really great people), and the lone immigrant family from India (a little standoffish but trying to get to know them better).
Rob
Rob Ayers wrote:
**** beginning of quote from Rob ******
As a comment here: What is the demographic makeup of these predominantly “rural” communities you have a problem with? Since I work in one, let me tell you. I and my congregation would welcome and invite for participation with Christian fellowship and partnership of anyone, yellow, brown, black, or white. Yet in many of the communities you are seemingly concerned about, the ratio of majority white to about anyone of a minority persuasion is about 99.9% to .01%. In my neck of the woods (taking data from the Census Bureau as well as our state convention) there is not a person of color for about 10 miles – and they live predominantly in the city.
*****end of quote from Rob (for the rest of his comment, see above)****
Rob, you bring up a fair and legitimate point. Some rural communities are nearly all white, and in THOSE communities (like yours), of course there is nothing wrong with a church being nearly all white.
I live in a rural area which is roughly 50/50 white and black. Specifically, the county where I live is now 59% black and 39% white. The county where I served previously, and where I ran into painful conflict with church members who preferred the church remain white, was similar with 62% black and 35% white. In these counties, and surrounding counties, most of the churches are 100% black, 100% white, or very nearly so. I personally know of one exception, and it’s not a SBC church. But there may be some exceptions I’m not aware of.
So, I acknowledge that my concern does not apply to all rural churches, including those where you live. But my concern is a very real one in other areas. There are no simple solutions here. My point is that it is wrong to think this situation is good, and it is even more wrong to actually prefer and defend the status quo. Many members of SBC churches in our area are truly, sincerely, glad to see their church welcome black members and reach out to everyone of any race. However, I can tell you from personal experience that was very costly to me and my family that there are others who are willing to fight in ugly ways to keep their church mostly white.
Grace and Peace, Mark
Rob Ayers, good point, this is not an atypical stereotypical broad based assumption that was made about “rural” churches. As MSNBC/CNN has taught me, this has become a “dog whistle” description that implies rural means backward, clannish, latent racist, non inviting etc. etc. instead of accepting reality and the demographics of the country. I travel quite a bit and when we go out west, Idaho, Mt., Wy., N. Dakota and S. Dakota I do not see many minorities , the vast majority of people including tourist are white. So if a church in many places in Nebraska has any minority members I would be surprised out of the big cities. The funny part is the areas that have few minorities are the most welcoming and truly inviting to all as they do welcome a diversity that they are not use to. The historic demographics of America show how legal immigration was used up till 1923 to provide a population that benefitted America, not a social justice agenda, hence that is why are the German, Norwegians and Western European populated the Midwest, farmer and dairy people. As this discussion shows the SBC will never get over the topic of race especially with an incoming wave of social justice warriors who see everything though the prism of their own views. If a church is mostly white, black or Hispanic they must be inherently , truly racist because why else would that be?, there can be no other answer. Trump voter equal racist, rural equal backward and not jumping on the bandwagon of non SBC organizations have great influence in the SBC just manifest ignorance of the benefits of progress or as the old rural people would say, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Mark,
I grieve with you in the fact that you have had to fight the fight of truth and it has cost you and your family. I on the other hand have not fought your fight (though I have fought other fights that hurt my family as result). Godspeed to you.
I would be interested in your counties demographic makeup. In my experience, wide open country seems to attract mainly white farmers with a leaven of people of color. Most people of color seem to congregate mainly in small towns and cities. Your designation of “rural” then may include these small town churches. My definition are the countryside “truly rural” church. For example, a Google map satellite look at my church will find a corn field on one side and a soybean field in another.
The issue I have with your position is that you have based it on your experience – thus your experience is “norm.” Which is normal! You have extrapolated your fight and you have laid down a fairly determined position that the problem with most rural churches is that they can be insulated and racist. I don’t share your experience, and would argue that your problem may not be as wide spread as your experience dictates to you. I concede that with any group of people bought by the blood of Jesus yet are being continually changed that the sin nature will rear up it’s ugly head and manifest itself in all sorts of ways, racism included. Racism itself is a sin in any people group be it white, black, yellow, or brown. It is a sin that Jesus died for and seeks to redeem people from. There is no justification for sin – the devil did not make me do it, nor do the circumstances of my ancestors or my own experiences justify the sin I commit. God does not look down and say, “well friend that latent racism you had in your heart I overlooked because that’s just the way you grew up” or “since you were discriminated against because of the color of your skin, shucks that anger in your heart against other people not your skin color I overlooked”.
Like Dave Miller said, we can never let people forget what sin is. I just wish however in these talks that consideration would be taken over the here and now rather than the dead past. The dead have been already judged and their deeds are known. There is no need to drag their bodies out of graves and flagellate their bones for the world. Let them rest in whatever peace God has granted them. We can remind people of a sinful past and yet the promise of the future is that God has forgiven our past forever, “as far as the east is from the west.” I point out racism as a sin, as well as with a multitude of others (though I will admit the majority of my “fights” have to do with the issue of sexual proclivities, including adultery, incest, and teenage indiscretions).
Grace and Peace indeed.
Rob
*** quote from Rob Ayers***
I would be interested in your counties demographic makeup. In my experience, wide open country seems to attract mainly white farmers with a leaven of people of color. Most people of color seem to congregate mainly in small towns and cities. Your designation of “rural” then may include these small town churches. My definition are the countryside “truly rural” church. For example, a Google map satellite look at my church will find a corn field on one side and a soybean field in another.
***end quote (see rest of his comment above***
Thanks for your kind reply Rob. I think we mostly agree.
I did not mean to paint all rural churches with a broad brush , but I can see how my comment could be read that way. I recognize that some rural areas are different from mine. You asked about demographics. I mentioned the demographics of the two counties I have served in (both in the same association) above, but it’s no problem to repeat them here:
The county where I live now is 59% black and 39% white. The county where I served previously, and where I ran into painful conflict with church members who preferred the church remain white, was similar with 62% black and 35% white. Blacks and whites live as neighbors in both the small towns and the farm areas between towns here. The fact that the churches here are nearly 100% black or 100% white is NOT based on geography at all. Honestly, I’m sure geography is not the issue. Nor is this issue related to just a few churches in our area. I’ve attended many association meetings with attendees from churches across our three county association, and I honestly do not remember ever seeing one black person at an association meeting. I’m not claiming a black person who is a member of one of the 60 or so churches in our association has never attended an association meeting I’ve been at, I’m just saying I don’t remember seeing them. However, our association has had joint community outreaches where large numbers of both blacks and whites were involved, and I’m thankful for that.
This is not a problem that was created by the current generation. The churches have been this way for generations. It would be unfair to blame the current members. However, it is one thing to honestly say that current members did not create the situation. The problem comes when some current members (not at the church I’m at now, but at my previous church) actually prefer this situation and will even fight to maintain it.
I don’t know how wide spread this specific issue is, but I suspect it is fairly widespread throughout the rural south/southeast. If you have not lived here, it may be hard to understand how deeply rooted this type of problem is. I’m NOT saying most SBC members in the south are racist. I AM saying there are still serious pockets and manifestations of racism in some of our churches and serious lingering effects of past racism which have not been healed or overcome. It may be a minor issue where you live. It’s not a minor issue here.
I might point out Mark that church segregation is a wide spread problem – both urban and rural churches often share that distinction. Racism is a problem with all people – not just the majority ethnicity that is found wherever one lives.
If the goal is “zero” sin (as racism here is the example) then that my friend is a worthy goal, something that we should all strive for and fight for, but in the end this side of heaven is a fantasy. I can pine and strive for a time that sexual sin will not be found among God’s people. I can talk about it, remind people of the dangers, pitfalls, and snares, and encourage folks that purity and holiness demands adherence to God’s will for one man and one woman in a marriage covenant, and within in that covenant people will be blessed. Odds are that after I give such a message, I will have another couple meet me on Monday and confess their marital issues where one has had a nasty affair. Sadly it is the way of the world and the depraved nature of us all. Racism has the same type of perniciousness.
What I fear however is an hypocrisy. Look up and down this comment stream and in other streams found on this topic. You will find writers who wax with spit and spittle about how some folks are legalistic in their sermons such as topics of homosexuality, sexuality, drug addiction and the like who prefer that we speak only loving, positive thoughts about the issues of destructive culture – that we be more tolerant of people (I have never had a problem with being tolerant and loving toward people – I have always had a concern about destructive sinful behavior that will lead to death) – and yet the sin of Racism is such that demands the thundering echos of Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” with no tolerance towards the people who in those who are judging such hold to such views (if the accused hold latent racism or not is another matter). To me sin is sin = one no more or less hurtful that demands justice which Jesus took upon Himself on the Cross. If I can look an adulterer in the eye and say, “God loves you friend but has a better way” I can certainly do the same with those who are showing less than loving attitudes toward fellow travelers based upon their skin color or ethnicity.
Grace,
Rob
Bill Mac: Do you say this because you(a white man) are tired of hearing it? It should never be forgotten and the one who speaks of how bad he/she was before Christ is simply remembering what Christ has done for them. Something that should never be forgotten but yet people do forget. That is when the spiritual problems begin.
We have not spoken of race like this for the history of the Convention. It has been denied to the total devastation of the Black community. We were not just mean, we were inhuman and horrible in those days, adding to the Black communities torture by the white community. That needs to be discussed. Wounds are festered, infected and deep. We as Christians owe it to the Black community to keep talking and not forget the past or we will end up back there again.
We are so far from where we should be as Christians and as a denomination that we need to do whatever it takes, even if one gets tired of it.
Please don’t throw my skin color at me as if you are somehow an oppressed minority. White or not, I’m unlikely to forget slavery or racism in this country. But I’m not responsible for it and I can’t undo it. What I’ve determined to do is simply not be racist. I’m far more interested in what people are doing about race relations than what they are saying about it. Spend your time talking if that’s what you like.
“White or not, I’m unlikely to forget slavery or racism in this country. But I’m not responsible for it and I can’t undo it. What I’ve determined to do is simply not be racist.”
^^^ Yes.
I’d add for me that I have also determined to teach those under my shepherding to not be racist.
Bill: Wow! Just Wow!
This bothers me more than “throwing a statement” at you, which is exactly what I was doing. Our whiteness gives us special privileges and that has always bothered me. It is not in the past. Not by a long shot. I see it everyday and I have seen it for over 50 years. I am tired that it is happening not that we still talk about it and fight it.
We are responsible for now are we not?
Here is a article on the 16 most segregated cities. It’s pretty sobering especially since it’s 2017.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/16-most-segregated-cities-in-america/ss-AAozfco?ocid=spartandhp
Debbie,
Be careful, lest this happen to you.
http://babylonbee.com/news/social-justice-warrior-dislocates-shoulder-trying-pat-self-back/
At least I am trying to make a difference in the area of injustices and inhuman treatment Tarheel. I feel the same way about refugees. Anyone who is not given the right to be a human being in our country.
Bill: I find it interesting that you accuse me of not acting and Tarheel accuses me of patting myself on the back. That is so far from the truth. I have been an activist against racism since Kindergarten. And I am now 61.
But it needs to be talked about as well as acted on. Resolutions are important because we as a corporate denomination of Christians are standing against the most vile of acts and thought. It is a fact that the world is watching, putting our convention in the news around the world. It is detrimental that we keep talking out loud. Talk is not cheap in this case.
I didn’t accuse you of not acting. Although I would be interested in your kindergarten racial activism. I think we may have different definitions of the word. If you are bothered by the privileges being white affords you, then give them up. Relinquish them. Nothing is stopping you. Whatever you have gotten unfairly because you are white, give it back.
By all means we should keep talking if there is something that needs to be said that hasn’t been said. If anyone has a hitherto unrevealed strategy for improving race relations in this country, let’s hear it. But if the message is simply racism exists, racism is bad, don’t be racist, then I think we’ve all gotten the point. And we agree.
Maybe we should wait to talk about moving on until every trace of racism is gone from our convention. When a pastor is fired for inviting black children to VBS, when i have to delete some of the comments i have to delete from self-identified SBC members, SS teachers, and deacons, there is still a problem. Maybe we can move on when the past is in the past.
Maybe we can move on when we have moved past tokenism in the appointment of trustees, committees, and task forces.
Maybe we can move on when minorities are included in every aspect of SBC life.
Until we have proven to our minority brethren that we have truly put the past in the past, talk of moving on may be premature.
Agreed, BillMac.
Dave Miller,
I don’t think Bill is suggesting moving on – nor do I – if it means pretending racism doesn’t exist or ignoring the issue all together… But what is being suggested is that we probably should find a balance between what overdoing it and ignoring it.
I guess what I’m trying to say is… If something, even a good and biblical thing, becomes too much of a hobbyhorse Godly efforts and messages can soon become counterproductive as it can be tuned out or rebelled against.
Again, I am not suggesting ignoring the realities of the issues.
I am only cautioning that all things need to be done with appropriate conviction, gentleness and moderation.
Balance or overdoing it? I am sorry but my mouth drops at this. Dave is right in that it is still occurring within the SBC. When I see no desire to correct this or to “move on” it is something that I as a Christian cannot understand why you think it’s ok.
And I am sorry but I do not believe gentleness is necessarily the answer. This needs to be aggressively stood against and fought with anger that I think should be there at the reading of Dave’s scenario. You certainly have not been passive on subjects that get your ire up Tarheel. It seems like an excuse to do nothing and live in a comfort zone designed for white people to me.
I’m not passive on this either.
You must not be reading what I’m saying – if you think I am.
Not walking in lockstep with the solutions you favor (for a problem we all recognize and desire remedy) does not equal a dispassionate/passivity regarding the issue being discussed.
My comment was not in response to Bill.
Racism alleged as part of pastor’s termination
http://www.bpnews.net/47325/racism-alleged-as-part-of-pastors-termination
David R. Brumbelow
There is always going to be at least a trace of racism in the church but I don’t think that means we need to continue to dwell on the racist past of the SBC. The reality is that racism is going to be around until Christ comes back to receive His bride. As the church, we do need to continue to confront it every time it rears its ugly head–just like we should continue to confront the sins of pride, lust and idolatry, etc. Having said that, I do think we should move on from talking or dwelling on our racist past.
I don’t think that it is helpful to repeatedly try to atone for the sins of previous generations. I have enough of my own sins to deal with that I don’t need to constantly be apologizing for the sins of those who came before me. Yes, there are consequences for their sin that we struggle with today but there is no guilt from previous generations that I must atone for. We have addressed the issue as a convention in a number of ways. To expect the apologies to go on forever is to deny the transforming power of grace.
I do think that we need to move on—we need to move on from talk and resolutions and token acts. Those are hollow because they are easy. I think the whole resolution “circus” that our convention goes through each year is self-serving in that it makes us feel good while not costing us much. It is easy to vote on a resolution condemning the alt-right, it is much harder to attend a church where you are the minority. It is easy to vote on a resolution condemning abortion, it is much harder to adopt a minority sibling group in need of a family.
I do think we need to move on from “macro-solutions.” I am a former pastor and IMB missionary who now works on Capitol Hill. I spend my day debating many macro-solutions that are both inefficient and ineffective. Many of these issues would be solved if large numbers of people started pursuing “micro-solutions” in our homes, schools and neighborhoods.
I think the same issue is true for our convention. Macro-solutions like resolutions condemning the alt-right do little to actually change things. Lofty speeches by denominational leaders or celebrity pastors are not nearly as effective in healing racial wounds in our community as sharing meals with people of all different colors and backgrounds. Constantly apologizing for the sins of previous generations and rehashing our racist roots may be cathartic for some but it says less about us than if we are willing to send our children to schools where most of the other kids don’t look like them. I think we should move on from shallow, simplistic and sound-bite ready solutions and we should focus on the hard work of confronting racism and a host of other sins that continue to wreak havoc on our neighborhoods, schools and churches.
I don’t think that Satan has a problem with us dwelling on our racist past (or continuing to pass resolutions that accomplish little). I think that what would concern him is if we are able to start telling thousands of new stories about how we as individuals and as the church are working in small and everyday ways to confront racism and other sins in our schools, churches and neighborhoods.
This is my first post on here and it is mainly because I am curious about the ways in which this online community is moving beyond simply talking about the evil of racism and its history in our convention. With all the passion that is evident concerning this issue, I am sure that there are many who are doing some great things to combat racism in their churches and communities in a micro-way and I would like to hear about it. For the sake of my own edification, I am hoping that those who read this might reply and share the ways in which they are engaging people who don’t look like them. Blessings.
Lee, I find a number of things about your comment to have merit, but a few problems make me unable to agree with what you’ve said here.
1. I think your comment treats racism as something that’s MOSTLY in the past, that there’s very little present reality. I think it’s much more complex than that – with the most obvious and pressing issue we face being the way many of our minority members feel like outsiders and marginalized in convention decision-making and leadership.
2. It’s a false dichotomy to say we should stop working on macro- level items and pursue micro- level solutions. I’m in favor of both and don’t see anything that commends leaving convention-wide matters behind.
However, your question about what individual churches are doing in this area is something I’ve considered writing about and would be a worthy topic. I’d like to interact on that at some point soon and I’m sure some other contributors would be happy to as well.
Brent,
I am not denying that racism continues to exist. If I gave that impression, I apologize. In my original post/reply I affirmed that racism continues to be a present reality. I have seen it up close–three of my five children are adopted and two of them are black.
I recognize that racism continues to be an ugly reality both in our world and in the church. It is because of its continued existence that I think that we must go beyond talking about the past as we continue to press on in doing the hard work of racial reconciliation. I just think that resolutions and blog posts about our racist roots do very little in actually addressing the problem. That is why I would love to hear what others are actually doing to address the issue.
I agree that macro/micro-solutions don’t have to be a binary choice. There is a time and a place for both. Having said that, based on most of the coverage of the issue it seems like many think that we are accomplishing something great when we vote on a resolution–as though that in and of itself solves the problem. The blog post asked if we should move on from talking about our racist past and my response is yes. Yes, we should move on from talking lest we become like the one James describes who is content to only say “God bless you” to the one in need. No we don’t need to ignore racial issues at the convention level but we also need to not be fooled into thinking that passing certain resolutions or seeing certain people on a stage alone is going to solve the issue.
My hope is that every pastor who votes for anti-alt-right resolutions or blogs about racial reconciliation also has stories about how they are getting their hands dirty as they do the hard work of personally pursuing racial reconciliation in their neighborhood, school and church.
I hope that you do write something. If we are going to talk about anything, it should be about the amazing things that God is doing as we actively pursue unity with those who are different from us. I think that a lot of good could come out of us talking more about those stories and less about our past.
Thanks for the engagement in a productive way. There are several points that are worth addressing but I’ll limit it to this one…
it seems like many think that we are accomplishing something great when we vote on a resolution
Most people involved in SBC life know the limitations of a resolution, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant. When Dwight McKissic took the time to write and promote his original alt-right resolution, he obviously believed it was worth the time and effort. Why not take his perspective into account in your formulation of how much the resolution did or didn’t accomplish? To Dwight and many others, that resolution was an important step for us to take. We ought to consider the perspective offered by Dwight and consider it willingly and even eagerly.
I agree that it is important to consider other perspectives. I don’t want to be dismissive of Dwight’s experience or the concerns he has that motivated him to author the resolution. I appreciate his passion and perspective. I am just very curious about what was actually accomplished in passing the resolution. I know that it is probably too soon to tell but do you know if Dwight (or anyone else who supported the resolution) has talked or written about the good things they think the resolution accomplished? At least in the immediate aftermath, it seems like it caused more turmoil than reconciliation.
Someone also thought that it was important for us to adopt a resolution in the nineties condemning Disney. But twenty years later, I wonder what good came from that resolution.
If we want to keep passing resolutions as a convention then that is fine. I just think that we need to be more focused on personally doing the work of reconciliation than voting for it or talking about it.
Again, I hope that you will write something that will give people the opportunity to talk about the ways they are actually addressing racial reconciliation beyond votes and tweets because I am sure that it is happening. I think that would do more to deal with the racism in our pews. I also think that it would be more encouraging to our minority brothers who feel marginalized than constantly rehashing and apologizing for our racist roots. If we don’t actually have those stories then we need to repent before we worry about blogging about or voting for another resolution that concerns our racist roots.
I know that we both have actual jobs and work to do but I am curious about the other “points that are worth addressing.” Thanks for the discussion.
Brent: “However, your question about what individual churches are doing in this area is something I’ve considered writing about and would be a worthy topic.” This would be an interesting and worthwhile topic. I look forward to it.
John Barry said ” If the SBC is going to continually and ever increasingly focus on the issue of the terrible, hateful and indefensible historic racial superiority origins of the SBC in 1845 then the SBC should completely disavow, denounce , vilify and brand the SBC founders and the SBC in a manner such as America has done the KKK and other racist groups. Change the name and disavow any link to the SBC founders and their founding beliefs, it has been proposed before.”
I would add this provision : liquidate all assets and turn money over to individual churches or founding churches based on length of time in convention. I believe if this was seriously considered perhaps the issue would go away.
Have any of you seen Lawrence Ware’s editorial in the NY Times entitled “Why I am Leaving the SBC?”
Yep. That last couple of lines are concerning. If someone said, “I love the church, but I love white people more” they’d be roasted. This is not an accurate vision of the way Scripture speaks of race and it’s relationship to the church. The biblical picture of reconciliation is “I love my nationality but I love the church more”. Ware has flipped that and it’s not helpful.
I think Ware has some valid concerns. I’m working on a piece about moral licensing that I think addresses and even partially agrees with some of his concerns. I agree with him that this isn’t a periphery issue and the more we make it that way the more we are going to miss opportunities to see the gospel break down barriers. But at the end of the day I don’t find his article helpful.
About Lawrence Ware and his article, Why I’m Leaving the SBC.
He seems to equate anyone who supports Trump as alt-right and racist. For that matter, he is probably one who equates anyone who happens to be conservative with the alt-right and racists.
He condemns the SBC for any of them supporting Trump.
He condemns the SBC for not agreeing that the homosexual lifestyle is right, biblical, moral.
He completely justifies Black Lives Matter and implies those who don’t are racist. In contrast, many have charged, with strong evidence, Black Lives Matter with racism.
He throws around “white supremacy” a little too loosely.
He uses every opportunity to unfairly stereotype and run down the SBC.
In short, Lawrence Ware is a liberal. The SBC will be more conservative, and better off, without him.
The SBC, however, will continue to welcome Blacks and people of all races who will join with us in proclaiming and believing God’s Word.
Ware’s article is here:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/opinion/why-im-leaving-the-southern-baptist-convention.html?emc=edit_th_20170717&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57641063&_r=0&referer=
David R. Brumbelow
Lawerence Ware also stated in his article that he was ordained by the Southern Baptist Convention, but we all know the SBC does not ordain people. Only local churches ordain men to the diaconate and pastorate. He claims to be a minister in an SBC church, but I’m quite positive after doing some checking that they are not in friendly cooperation with the SBC. The church he is a part of is Prospect Missionary Baptist Church in OKC. I believe Rick Patrick has done some checking on this too. This article just seems like one gigantic smear campaign to diminish the work that Southern Baptist have accomplished in racial reconciliation over the years.
I believe the Prospect Missionary Baptist Church is “affiliated ” with the SBC, which means what exactly? This is become common as our Nashville leaders huddle with non SBC groups and recruit high level staff executives from these groups. Now a Pastor who just summed up his case with his last statement in his article. When the New York Times or any other mainstream media site gives someone from a religious group coverage you know it is not going to be positive. I made a couple comments about enough will never be enough for people like Pastor Ware when it comes to SBC history. It is strictly politically and has mostly to do with the SBC members supporting Trump in large numbers and not supporting the Black Lives Matter agenda Hip Hop Wired headline on the issue was Minster Caps Southern Baptist for Supporting Cheeto and White Supreme. This is a result of the not needed Alt Right resolution that was really about Trump support in the SBC because it is well known that the average SBC member in racist by their very nature and attendance to a traditional SBC church. Like I stated before disband the SBC as even its leaders cannot or will defend itself against the never ending charges of your average member is just inbred with racism and it is in the DNA. Enough will never be enough. I am sure the average NYT reader is heavily connected and concerned to what is happening in the SBC so that is why this article by Pastor Ware merited their attention and promotion.
That’s the most uncharitable and misquoting of an article as I have seen in a long time.
I don’t have the time to refute, with quotes, your accusations point by point. But thanks for including the link so people can go and read the article for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Let me at least say that there is in no way ANY approval of homosexual practice in this article. None.
Reactions like this one are most likely one really good reason why Pastor Ware is leaving the SBC. We are poorer for his departure.
Ryan,
Just read the article.
In what way is the SBC homophobic?
How is the SBC not treating LBGTQ people fairly?
Since Ware did not tell us, you tell us.
Thanks,
Ryan,
here’s what I think:
I think that the SBC stands against gay marriage and against sexual sin outside of true marriage of one man/one women and thus we stand against the desires of the LBGTQ community. We also stand against open sin and refuse to accept unrepentant sinners as members. Thus we ‘discriminate’ against them.
And I think that David’s reading of the article was correct, unless you can show how we are otherwise homophobic and mistreating those LBGTQ people.
I just read the article. I understand his frustration over the resolution debacle, and no one should be surprised that I think SBC support for Donald Trump is a stain on our witness, but I think he sounds like a man looking for a reason to leave, and casting his experiences in the most negative light possible. And honestly, I have no idea what he means when he says we have failed our LGBT community.
From what exactly has he departed? His church is officially a Southern Baptist Church. Are they leaving the SBC? If so, he leaves with them. If not, and he remains a member of the church, he is still a Southern Baptist.
In the NYT he claimed to renounce his Southern Baptist Convention Ordination, but the SBC does not ordain anyone. Neither does it defrock anyone. All he could do is renounce the specific church’s ordination.
It’s like in “The Office” when Michael Scott shouts, “I declare bankruptcy!” Oscar has to tell him it just doesn’t work like that. That wasn’t anything.
Mike,
Honest answer to your question. His reference was to the removal of the LGBT people who were at the SBC to engage. Not the SBC as a whole, or at least that’s how I read it.
Let’s use the word homophobic correctly. It means a fear of gay people. I think many in the SBC act like they are afraid of gay people. How many sermons have you heard about gay people brainwashing children, being pedophiles, wanting to take over churches, etc. That type of fearmongering takes place more than we want to admit.
Maybe I am reading him more charitably than I should, but I see nothing that makes me think he’s advocating for homosexual behavior, just for conversation and civility.
Also, you didn’t address his issues with racism in the SBC, which was the bulk of the article. Do you disagree with him there as well?
I stand by my original post, but I do see how you would come to your conclusions. David B not so much.
Ryan,
Thanks for your answer.
As to your questions.
I have been in the SBC about 6 years all at the same church and the only SBC sermons I have heard, besides the ones preached there were on specific topics of interest and homosexuality was not one of them. So FWIW, I have heard zero sermons against gays although I have heard at least one about the wrongness of gay sex which in my opinion is for the betterment of gays. Or was on Romans 1.
And as far as I can tell my church is not homophobic. That label is usually used to denote anyone who does not whole heartedly support Lbgtq agenda.
As to my church which is in Ohio, we have a few families that are of ethnicity that is non white and a few that are mixed. Again as far as I can tell we as a whole are not racist.
Certainly there are racists in the Sbc. There is also sin in our lives but we seek to eradicate it. Should my wife leave me because I still sin?
Finally Dr. Ware said that he loved blacks more than the church. I never hear someone saying they love whites more than the church. The church is the body of Christ while skin color is a temporal earthly thing.
Thus the points that David has made, in my opinion, are valid.
This article in no way shape or form said we were homophobic and of all the things written in this article I shouldn’t be shocked that this would be what you all would focus on, but I am. When I read it what he said was that the Convention ho hummed around and ditched Dr. McKissic’s resolution (which they did) and then after a lot of push and outcry adopted a reworded version(which they did), yet immediately with no hesitation rid themselves of activists for the LGBQ.
In other words compared to the horrific alt-right, the gay issue took precedence and was important while the alt-right didn’t seem to bother them at all. That is a huge slap to the black community.
The first paragraph got my attention, yet none of you said a word about this. Again, it shouldn’t be surprising but it is.
I too am glad the link was posted so that it can be read in the context in which it was written.
In my eyes the perfect church or Convention would be to have your love and commitment to the validity of scripture, yet the heart of the liberal toward some social issues, such as for refugees and minorities, which I wonder about the word minority, are they really smaller in number, or do we as the white community try and make them feel that way.
“As your fathers did, so do you.” — Acts 7:51
When the early church proclaimed the gospel to the Jews, they called them to remember the sins of their ancestors so that they would not make the similar mistake of rejecting God’s work in their time. I think it’s appropriate for us as Southern Baptists as well.
The examples Dave gives are great examples of where we should not move on. I am not exposed to those type of events, but when they go on, we should speak out.
One of the other matters brought up by a commenter has to do with the racial makeup of churches. That is a really multifaceted issue. We should try to do what we can in our churches to make them welcoming to all people, but there are many factors affecting that issue.
As an aside, I have wondered about whether it’s wise for churches to be founded on an ethnic or language basis in the U.S.
I am not sure what the current missiological (sp?) thinking is on this question.
This has gone on for years in the U.S. There are German Lutheran churches and Swedish Baptist churches in the Midwest. They were formed decades ago, and still go along, I suppose. I would not be a candidate for those churches.
We still see Korean churches of every denomination being founded in our city. And in the instances of which I am aware, most of the Koreans also speak English in these churches. They prefer to worship in the Korean language etc.
If there is a language need, I clearly see the need for a church based around that language. But should the goal be to make that a permanent, separated church? I don’t think so.
But on the other hand I feel strongly that people of Korean descent, if they so choose, should be entitled to build a church around the Korean language and culture.
The same thing exists with regard to Spanish speaking churches, but my experience there is that the language needs are usually acute. Is the ultimate goal to get Spanish speakers to speak English so that the churches will have a mix of cultures, or is the goal to have language or culturally based churches?
Does anyone know what SBC or State Convention policy is on this? Again, if there is a language based need, I totally get that. But is the goal to help move the first generation to the point where they will be part of existing non-language based SBC churches in the future? Or do people see these churches as permanent fixtures for the decades to come? Is this healthy?
What do you guys think?
Louis, you bring up an excellent point about different languages. I was blessed to live and serve in an intensely multilingual environment (Indonesia, the island we lived on had over 100 distinct native languages). I strongly support language based churches so that each person can worship in their heart language, the language they know best. In most cases the children of immigrants to the US will grow up fully fluent in English, and may not even be fully fluent in the language of their parents. The situation is complex for sure, but there is an important role for language based churches. You ask a lot of good questions, which these churches and those who partner with them will need to constantly seek God’s wisdom and guidance to answer. I doubt there is a one-size fits all answer for many of the insightful issues you raised.
I feel that separate churches for different languages is a far different issue than separate churches for whites and blacks. You probably feel the same way.
Thanks, Mark.
I basically come down, as in most things, on the side of freedom.
If a group of people want to form a language based church, there usually is a need, and that is 100% fine and right.
If the group wants to keep that going after there is really no longer a language barrier (e.g. a German Lutheran church in Nebraska founded in 1900 – probably they all speak English by now), my first instinct is to affirm that desire because it’s their choice.
But I do have the desire to see people of all backgrounds and from all places worshipping together. That will happen in heaven. I think it is the ideal here. Should we fund and press for the ideal? (Of course, while still acknowledging the need for language based churches – where needed).
There is a different history in the West with regard to Black/White. I certainly do not advocate separate churches.
Let me clarify. The title of the article asks: Is it time to move on from talking about our racist past? The answer is yes. Acknowledged and repented of corporately. The SBC, as an organization, is not racist. It surely contains racists as does any organization of any size. When they are identified, they need to be called to repentance and/or shown the door. Ditto for churches that are deliberately racist. Otherwise the best thing we can do about racism is live everyday not being racist.
If we are concerned about the convention’s racist past, then should we be concerned that Southern Seminary has a college and a library named after a man who said “And I have been, and am, an ultra pro-slavery man” –James P Boyce ?
To the best of my knowledge, none of the founding fathers who held slaves made statements like this. I am against hiding our history but again if our racist past is a problem, then is it OK what’s going on at Southern?
There maybe other cases of Southern (or other Southern Baptist) Seminary’s honoring self described “ultra pro-slavery men” ( which seems to go beyond being a man of his time) but this is what I found in a few minutes of a Google search.
Philippian 3:13
Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
&
1 John 1:7
“If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all sin.”
That says quite a lot for both an individual and for a Community.
God will honor anyone who goes in His direction toward His Goals.
That will help all God’s People have the clear conscience Paul is talking about:
Acts 24:16 I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
If, after dealing with wrong and not having the ‘goal’ corrected, it will be running in circles with a conscience not at peace.
Here’s some food for thought from an african american blogger on this very topic.
https://theothoughts.com/2017/07/18/some-questions-im-asking-while-off-to-my-white-evangelical-church/
Tim B: I read this article and disagree with it. Totally.
It is hard for me to see how so much credibility is given to Lawrence Ware’s opinion in The New York Times and is causing such as a basis for a discussion over racism and the SBC. Here are some facts that are not given much prominence in this blog post.
1. Lawrence Ware self identifies as a liberal – he is also a member of the Progressive National Baptist Convention which he himself describes as a “liberal black Baptist organization founded in 1961 by Martin Luther King, Jr.
2. Ware is grieved that Brandan Robertson leader of Faith in America (FIA) was asked to leave the SBC Annual Meeting. FIA’s agenda is described as a “progressive organization dedicated to moving the needle forward on LGBT equality in the pews and in our legislation.” Robertson self identifies as a “bisexual cisgender man and former SBC youth leader. If Robertson were to say that he is celibate and is struggling with same sex attraction that would be a completely different matter. Instead he is pushing gay marriage and full recognition of practicing homosexuals.
3. Ware really acknowledges his greatest grievance is that polling companies have shown that the majority of white Southern Baptists supported Donald Trump and he equates those voters as being supporters of the alt right movement and white nationalism.
4. He also sets up a bogey man when he says “Many of the churches are hostile to the Black Lives Matter movement..” Essentially, he is saying that if churches did not enthusiastically support BLM, then they therefore must be a bunch of closet racists. He also calls SBC churches homophobic.
Pastor Lawrence Ware has a liberal theology and a liberal political philosophy. For these two reasons, The New York Times was more than enthusiastic to post his views on their editorial page as it totally confirms their negative views about the SBC (and evangelicals in general). Ware would probably not have significant criticism that the Democratic National Committee changed their own policy and now believe in tax payer funded abortions. Hillary Clinton enthusiastically supported this position and if Trump had not won, this would be a significant issue of national policy. Some of the Never Trumpers were willing to live with this reality. In fact, Erick Erickson (founder of Redstate and currently The Resurgent blogs) said in The Washington Post he would prefer the consequences of up to 8 years of liberal court appointments (and decisions) as a result of Hillary Clinton’s election than to see Donald Trump elected because of the consequences a Trump victory would have on the evangelical church. I strongly disagree with Erickson.
My question is why should there be handwringing about Ware’s opinions and the fact that he is now choosing to leave the SBC? It seems that he already had significant theological disagreements with the SBC and is using Trump’s election and the reaction to alt right resolution as a rationale for leaving.
David, excellent points. When the New York Times gives you space you know you are dinging conservatives, religion or traditional American values. If a noted black person decided to join the SBC would the NYT run a story on it?
Wouldn’t it be nice if racism were a light switch we could just turn off — remove the switch so it could not be turned back on? Hopefully we all could say yes to this but know that such is not the case.
From my perspective, racism is not as prevalent now as it was when i was a kid. To that I am grateful. I no longer hear the words which are clearly racist used among church going people in the 60’s. For me, the last time I a racial slur was stated was in the late 80’s…from an elderly deacon who used a few other colorful words way too often. Let me add to that. I did have a deacon while I was serving in El Paso that he did not want to see the church become Hispanic. I left shortly after that.
Will another resolution or discussion halt the racism which does exist any quicker? I personally do not think so. Will one day strong segregated churches be the norm instead of the minority or subject of discourse to prove racism exists end? I doubt it.
To be blunt and from my perspective two things are going to have to happen. A change of heart towards racism and a lot of funerals.
Will the SBC be stronger with segregated churches? I am not convinced it will. For me, when we make the importance of our church depend upon the color of people in the pews, we diminish the gospel. Shouldn’t our goal be to be a Christo-centric church, Bible believing church, soul winning church, nation reaching church and let the make-up of our church be what God sends us.
Let’s make our conversation about reaching the nations instead of reaching a specific group. When we do it God’s way, I believe we are more apt to leave the results up to Him.
Rick Patrick,
Lawrence Ware reminds me of Jimmy Carter. Carter has “left” the SBC several times. Each time the liberal media gives him big publicity.
This is done, apparently, in an attempt to make the conservatives and the SBC Conservative Resurgence look bad. But to sum it up, the problem is that Carter is liberal and the SBC is conservative.
Yet, last I heard, Carter is still a member of a SBC church, which makes him still a Southern Baptist.
David R. Brumbelow
One of the first things that popped into my mind when thinking about this post, is the conversation between Talkative and Faithful in Pilgrim’s Progress (one of the books I would make sure I had with me on a desert island). Talking is fine, but what are we doing? For the vast majority of us, what we are doing is simply living day by day, not being racist. Some of us have the opportunity to be deliberately inclusive of all races in various situations. I think it’s a good strategy. Talking and doing are not mutually exclusive, but I think we’ve got the talking part pretty well covered.
I re-read Ware’s NYT article. I could not find the name of his church in it. It appears that his work is in the philosophy department of Oklahoma State.
In addition to the other mistakes about ordination etc. in the article, Ware lists 5 unnamed African American pastor friends who are also leaving the SBC, and he quotes their thinking. This is why hearsay is not allowed in court. Maybe he has 5 such friends. Maybe he doesn’t. Who knows?
I went to check on whether his church is listed in the SBC website church search, but because I don’t have the name of the church he attends (or pastors?), I could not search to see if it is an SBC church.
By the way, I did look up Jimmy Carter’s church, Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, GA. It IS a Southern Baptist Church, as David has already pointed out.
One another topic, Ware complains about a sexuality activist being asked to leave the SBC annual meeting. I heard some protesters from that group were going to be there.
I never saw them. I never saw this guy that Ware mentions.
Regardless, the SBC meets to accomplish specific, important business, such as approve an annual budget, appoint committees and trustees for our institutions, and hear reports from the President of our institutions.
The SBC is not a public meeting where anyone can waltz in and attend, or seek to address. We can’t have a bunch of gadflies attending our annual meetings trying to “engage” and make their points etc.
I was in Phoenix, and have been to over 20 SBC annual meetings. The venues are not super strict, but you are supposed to wear your badges, and the meeting is for SBC messengers and their guests.
I am glad that there is some, however minimal, security at these meetings. And I am glad there is order, that we have an agenda etc.
I do not regret for one minute that we don’t let people like this activist attend our meetings.
I have met various protesters at the SBC over the years – the Westboro folks, various gay friendly groups, people who want us to maintain a registry of sex offenders at the SBC offices in Nashville. They are always outside with signs. I have engaged them on occasion, but most of the time I am busy. Their protests are usually small and essentially ignored. I think that protesting the SBC meeting is really not that effective for them, as they don’t seem to get much press, and there is no way from them to really affect anything.
So – we don’t feed them, and they usually stay away.
You guys keep commenting as to why we shouldn’t still talk about this(and we should keep talking and voting see Dave Miller’s post as to why) and I will keep shaking my head thinking we still have a long way to go even in 2017.
Brent said, “Most people involved in SBC life know the limitations of a resolution, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant.”
My guess is that most highly involved people in SBC life know the limitations but that most secular reporters and almost all SBCers at large do not. Merely mishandling a resolution, even when taking the right stance and arriving at the proper ending with near unanimity, turns a positive into a negative. The SBC, seems to me, is a net loser over the alt-right resolution.
It will never happen but we would be better off by having the executive committee pass resolutions and let the SBC in session eliminate them.
More about Lawrence Ware “leaving” the Southern Baptist Convention:
http://www.bpnews.net/49279/ny-times-oped-spurs-discussion-of-race-and-the-sbc
Apparently, like Jimmy Carter, he did not really leave the SBC after all. For, he is still a member of a SBC church.
David R. Brumbelow
…and another view: “Why I’m staying in the SBC”
http://www.bpnews.net/49280/why-im-staying-in-the-southern-baptist-convention
This is an outastanding article.
It’s all really good – but In my view the most compelling part begins with these words and continues to the end of the article:
“Once upon a time, I knew nothing about the Southern Baptist Convention except that it was founded in 1845 by white men who didn’t want much to do with anyone who looked like me. That’s all I knew, and it was enough for me to stay away. In my mind, no good could come from being a part of such an organization.
But then, one by one and person by person, God brought people into my life who began to change my heart.”
Then he goes on to explain how people – in his life – in his community – in fellow SBCers near him showed the little the of Christ and joined with him in kingdom ministry.
( I couldn’t help but notice he didn’t mention countless resolutions and he mentioned how a quota would make him feel (and it wasn’t positive)..
*fellow SBCers near him showed the love of Christ….
David B: If true that should make us rejoice should it not. He could be an asset in changing things concerning race issues from the inside. If he left, we would be poorer for it.