In the blockbuster Broadway musical Hamilton, Aaron Burr sings about a deal struck between political rivals Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison concerning where the permanent capital of the United States should be located. Burr laments that, “no one else was in the room where it happened.” Of course, Burr harbors some significant political ambitions himself, so before the song ends, he switches to singing, “I’ve gotta be in the room where it happens!” The message is that you have to actually be there to really understand what is going on.
Last week, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution “On the Anti-Gospel of Alt-Right Supremacy.” It was not without some controversy. During its report on Tuesday afternoon, the resolutions committee declined to present the original resolution, which had been submitted by Texas pastor Dwight McKissic. The committee was concerned the original resolution didn’t adequately define the Alt-Right and included some language that was arguably inappropriate; they rejected McKissic’s resolution instead of revising it to make it more acceptable. However, it became clear fairly quickly that the resolutions committee had misjudged the desire of the convention and something needed to be said about the topic. Because the SBC follows Robert’s Rule of Order, parliamentary procedure dictated how the relevant committees, the chair, and ultimately the messengers should move forward. A revised resolution was prepared on Tuesday evening, it was presented to the convention on Wednesday morning, and that afternoon the SBC voted by a 99%+ margin to adopt the resolution.
What I just recounted is a condensed, but accurate account of what happened. I know exactly how it all went down because I was in the room where it happened. I was in the convention hall for all the relevant presentations and votes. I was in conversation with several individuals who were directly involved at every stage of the process. I publicly advocated that the SBC take a stand on the issue prior to the convention and during the meeting I worked to make sure messengers were in the hall at the appropriate times. I was there, and I was engaged. I know what I’m talking about. And so do many, many other people who were also in the room where it happened.
Because I was there, I’ve been disappointed at some of the musings, pontifications, and even insinuations of those who weren’t there, including both secular media and armchair quarterbacks who were offering misinformed assessments. At no point and in no way was the resolutions committee being “soft” on the Alt-Right or other forms of white supremacy. At no point were Southern Baptists debating whether or not we ought to denounce these demonic impulses. At no point did Steve Gaines or anyone else force Southern Baptists to do something they didn’t want to do. At no point were Southern Baptists wringing their hands over how we would look in the media if we didn’t do something. At no point were we trying not to offend Trump voters—or any other voters, for that matter. None of that happened, and folks who suggest it did are either speaking out of ignorance or out of malicious intent, period.
Ed Stetzer is absolutely correct: this issue played out over two days because we are bound to our parliamentary procedure, a necessary component to an efficient business meeting the size of the SBC annual meeting. Yes, the resolutions committee could have revised the original resolution and we could have avoided the controversy. But chairman Barrett Duke admitted as much and publicly apologized for making the wrong call. We should acknowledge and accept his apology. Also, there might well be an honest difference of opinion about whether the original or revised resolution was the best statement. But these sorts of differences are commonplace among Baptists, and they do not detract from the truth that virtually everyone at the convention was of the same opinion about the Alt-Right and white supremacy.
Some have complained that the revised resolution not only speaks against the Alt-Right and white supremacy in general, but also recounts recent advances Southern Baptists have made in speaking out against racism and for racial reconciliation. I would simply respond that every bit of that is true and worth noting. This resolution is consistent with many decisions and initiatives over the past twenty years because our recent track record on these matters is commendable, even as we should also acknowledge we still have a long way to go. If mentioning our recent track record in the resolution offends some readers, I would suggest it might be because they aren’t willing to give Southern Baptists the benefit of the doubt. Again, we no doubt have a long way to go—but we’ve also come a long way. And as Russell Moore so eloquently said at the convention, playing off of a famous quote from Martin Luther King Jr., “the arc of history is toward Jesus.”
This is the bottom line: if you weren’t in the room where it happened, then you really don’t know. You are free to make whatever assumptions you wish, but please admit they are just that: assumptions, rather than informed commentary based on first-hand knowledge. And as you make those assumptions, give us the benefit of the doubt. It’s the Christ-like thing to do.
Nathan A. Finn is dean of the School of Theology and Missions and professor of theological studies at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee.
Thanks for sharing this. It is very helpful.
Well said & totally accurate. I was in the room too.
What you all did was the right thing. Those who don’t think so are going to spin on their own tops until the cows come home.
Just Let them. It’s God we seek to please not men.
Could you comment on the possibility that the entire ordeal could have felt traumatic for people of color? I wasn’t there, but from the various news accounts it seems as though early in the process there may have been an element of unclarity about whether and/or how the convention would pass a resolution condemning the alt-right. It seems like these moments of unclarity could have been painful for people of color to experience, perhaps even reopening old wounds of being silenced, disregarded, or “talked down to.” I know Gaines apologized to McKissic, and that McKissic accepted his apology!, but do… Read more »
So did it become a controversy with the people there because they chose not to revise it, because they thought the committee should have passed 1st version, or a combination of both?
I’m curious which stance the majority were taking if it was a combo?
Very well put, I was in the room also and it was the Spirit of God moving in men’s heart’s to deal with this issue. As one of the preacher’s said during the Pastor’s Conference, “the ground at the foot of the Cross is level for all, regardless of race and ethnicity.” The media and those who were not there apparently don’t understand this or have forgotten. I am proud to say I am a Southern Baptist for many reasons but even more so for the passing of this resolution.
Bravo, and well said, Nathan. At best, the commentary has been both predictable and amusing. At worst, it has been malicious and overtly ignorant of the mechanics of how procedure at the SBC actually works. Some have proposed that we change the procedure(s) and while that may have some merit, the facts of this circumstance are as your describe–following the current procedure. Dr. Duke, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee, was entirely forthcoming with his apology on behalf of the Committee’s reluctance to bring the resolution to the floor of the Convention. I respect him and Committee immensely and rejoice that… Read more »
Nathan, In the main, I agree with your analysis here, and obviously I was also present. But probably not as privileged to certain insider conversations and that’s fine. Grateful for you weighing in and your point of view that needed to be said. Don’t know that anyone else has, and again, this needed to be said, because it’s largely true. My small pushback or questions would be: 1. How did the resolutions committee misread the majority will of the people based on the final vote by 99%. That’s a huge misreading, worthy of an investigation. It doesn’t need to be… Read more »
I would also like to see all of Dwight’s questions answered.
Would also like to know more about the make up of the committee and who initiated the conversation about not rewriting Dwight’s resolution and simply pushed to ignore or reject it.
Obviously that backfired spectacularly. And thankfully so. Glad the will of the messengers prevailed over the poor choices of the committee. And very thankful for the humility displayed by Barrett Duke in his apology to the SBC and to Dwight.
I hope this signals a permanent change in how the Resolution Committee works and is populated.
Hey Dwight. Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your pushback. To be clear, I was in favor of your original resolution coming to the floor, even if revised by the committee. (As you know, most resolutions are revised.) I publicly advocated for it. I also think it is perfectly valid for you to raise the questions you are about the language, why it wasn’t revised, etc., especially since you wrote the initial resolution. I agree that this committee–and all of our committees!–could stand some more diversity, and I think it at least possible the original outcome would’ve been different had… Read more »
There was a prevailing belief that because the SBC dealt with racism over the past several years, that we did not need to deal with it again this year. Dwight’s resolution was not about past racism, however. It was about the current, present, and growing proliferation of the alt-right and white nationalism that is happening now and that many churches are beginning to deal with. The alt-right perspective has been growing among Right-Wing Conservative media and even Christian media personalities like Eric Metaxas have had Alt-Right friendly pundits like Ann Coulter on his show repeatedly, as well as Alt-Right friendly… Read more »
I voted for the resolution on Wednesday morning when it came to the floor of the convention. I abhor discrimination by anyone on the basis of someone else’s skin color. I have a few opinions on some questions raised earlier in the thread. 1. DID THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE MISREAD THE BODY’S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ALT-RIGHT WHEN THEY DECLINED TO PRESENT A RESOLUTION? No, I don’t really think they did. The committee did not reason: “You know what, many in the SBC FAVOR the Alt-Right, so we better not get involved in this controversy.” A group can oppose presenting a resolution… Read more »
No other subject in the SBC is addressed with the attitude of “let’s say it once and for all, and be done with it.” Not sure why that’s Rick’s and many other’s attitude in the SBC about race, especially when the problem is reoccurring, as in the Phil Castillo verdict. BTW, Rick Patrick was the first one to alert me to alt-right elements in the SBC by hosting several on his site-SBC Today-and then banning me(which is fine, labeling me a “race baiter,” also banning one alt-rite person, while letting others continue commenting). That’s when I discovered an alt-right element… Read more »
I roamed around the exhibit hall a good bit. Which was the booth distributing the alt-right lit?
Well, I’m just explaining what I think happened, Dwight. But since you have brought up many other items, let me address them as well. DO WE TREAT OTHER SUBJECTS LIKE THIS? “No other subject is…” I disagree. I think there are numerous times when Resolutions Committees, through the years, believe we have spoken clearly and fully to an issue, such that we need not address it again. The merits of such an argument can be discussed endlessly, of course, but it is not an unheard of response to various topics. ON NOT TOLERATING RACISM ON THE BLOG Dwight, I am… Read more »
Rick, “1) those Southern Baptists who falsely assumed our leaders must be SYMPATHETIC to the Alt-Right Movement since we did not present a motion on the floor, ” I’m not sure anyone assumed this – at least not a single person I was in conversation with…I felt as did many others that the committee opposed the alt right itself – but simply didn’t want to put forward this particular resolution for reasons we can only speculate. But, as I said I never heard any speculation that it was because they were racist and supported or were sympathetic to the alt… Read more »
William,
Got a screen shot of the alt-right claiming an exhibit at the exhibit hall. Look on the convention app, social media feed. You’ll find it there. In St. Louis, or else I would have my assistant post and or send u the screenshot. Several persons testified that they were passing out literature at the SBC. That’s a crime. And Rick think we shouldn’t have been addressing the alt-right racism? Unfathonable.
I never said that, Dwight. I said that I thought the Body may have considered us to have already covered Alt-Right Racism in previous resolutions condemning ALL racism, due to the fact that Alt-Right racism in particular is a subset of all racism, which has been already been condemned by the SBC. I was explaining what I understood the Body to be doing. I was not advocating any specific approach personally. Do you see the difference between “Rick thinks we should not address this” and “Rick thinks the Body may have believed it was unnecessary to address this, and that… Read more »
Rick, There are many subject matters which need to be brought before the people. Racism is one of them and may be the most important. That can be discussed in another thread. Would you be willing to stop discussing a subject matter close to you? Say… equal representation of differing theological positions? I doubt it (and I am not asking that the discussion to end). Racism is among us. SBC churches look like they are racists by their ethnic make-up. The last time I was state side I visited several churches and the African American church seems to be breaking… Read more »
I think it is possible that they were distributing literature. I never saw it.
I think it is also possible that they claimed to have a booth without having one, claimed to be distributing literature when they were not.
I’m operating under the assumption that, having embraced racism, one would not quibble over a little dishonesty.
Great point, Bart!
I saw none either – but wouldn’t be surprised if they tried (or made a false claim).
Rick, You have amnesia. Those persons indicated that they were Southern Baptists, one in particular stated the name of his church in or near Houston. They freely spoke on your blog. Unless I challenged their racist alt-right rhetoric, u would have allowed them to continue. You only wanted to shut me down, so u thought I’d, better shut one of them down to. And u still allowed one or more, of the alt-right racist rhetoric persons to continue. It was at that point I realized: a) one of them might be an SBC pastor b) one of them might be… Read more »
Yes Rick, Dwight has characterized that thread properly. I am still in shock at the things you allowed said in that thread.
Friends, I do not have amnesia. Here is the sequence of events. 1. FIRST ARTICLE HIJACKED. First, it happened on ARTICLE ONE. I pleaded for the four of you to stop hijacking the thread. Eventually, I removed the entire article—the nuclear option, unfair to the author of the post and every legitimate commenter, because the four hijackers, in unprecedented fashion, would not honor my moderation request for them to quit talking about that garbage. Debbie, I was not ALLOWING things to be said WITHOUT CHALLENGE. I was trying to stop the thread without having to remove the entire post. It… Read more »
The discussion concerning the comment stream at another site that is now happening in the comment stream of this site is now over. Any further comments related to this issue will be deleted.
But, adam – I was just popping the popcorn. 🙂
Nobody seems to think we only need to speak once about the evils of abortion and be done with it. This year there was a resolution against Planned Parenthood. One could say that our stance on abortion is clear in the past, so why make another statement? We made a new statement because this year a particular new form of evil arose from PP so we spoke against it. So too with the rise of this white nationalism that wasn’t prominent the last time we spoke on it. We must continue to speak against new forms of evil when they… Read more »
I want to offer a few speculative thoughts about why the Committee on Resolutions may have made the decisions that it did. Q: Why did the committee, in its second report, bring out a resolution significantly different from Dwight’s resolution? A. Barry McCarty answered this from the platform, but you had to have your Roberts-Rules-Of-Order ears on to catch it. The parliamentary justification for bringing back the same resolution for reconsideration in the same annual meeting was that it had changed enough to become substantially a different question. If it had been the same resolution, proposing it would have been… Read more »
I agree with your analysis Bart as it relates to all three of the questions you “answered”.
I think you’re spot on regarding all three.
I did hear McCarty say that about it being a “different resolution.” I always have my Roberts Rules ears on!
It’s a very good point you make about single authors. I have never made a resolution, but do pay attention whenever ones get rejected. If I can find some time I might try and research that a bit.
Bart,
Dukes offered all of his negative commentary after the vote not to bring my resolution to the floor. You are incorrect. I never asked on the floor of the convention why didn’t they bring it out; I asked them to bring it out. Once it was voted down I thought that was the end of the discussion. Again, his negative commentary followed the 1st denial vote & I repeat, it was not in response to any question that I asked on the floor of the convention. Please correct the record. Thanks.
My apologies, Dwight. So much was said that day that perhaps you and I are thinking of different comments from Barrett Duke.
Bart,
Apology accepted. Thanks.
I think Duke went into defense mode – which is somewhat understandable – and felt as if he needed to explain the committees decision to not bring out the resolution – it’s always easier to say “I/we didn’t do X because it/he….” than it is to say something that assumes more responsibility.
We humans often tend to cast blame rather than accept it.
Social media isn’t a replacement for basic politics. There are other lessons to be learned, too, but I wish a few more of us had written the Committee before the Convention, instead of retweeting or liking. The Committee should, on its own, more explicitly ask for feedback before the Convention on properly submitted resolutions. And those of us who care about the Convention should submit feedback before the Convention, even when we think it’s obvious. I don’t know that more committee diversity of any particular type would have changed the outcome. But I get the feeling a little direct communication… Read more »
While I agree with the premise of this article…I do feel as though he is being a little bit too sensitive. We would be good to live out verses like: 1 Peter 2:23- “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” Also, We need to understand that we do have a shady past as a convention. Simply saying we are sorry later doesn’t mean that it is going to fix itself overnight. The part we have played as a convention is that… Read more »
“While I agree with the premise of this article…I do feel as though he is being a little bit too sensitive. We would be good to live out verses like:”
Jamie: How terribly wrong you are. And just throwing out a Bible verse to cover that statement doesn’t help. Until you have been treated like Dr. McKissic and other Blacks have been treated, I don’t think you can say this and have any meaningful conversation.
First let me say we owe a debt of gratitude to Dwight McKissic for bringing this issue before our convention and to those who worked to not let it be passed over and forgotten. I was not at the convention and was only able to watch on line so I realize I do not have the feel for what happened that some of you have who were there. When Dwight first brought the resolution to this board, I said it would not be passed out of the resolution committee to the convention. Dwight asked me why and I gave my… Read more »
For those interested, here is the link to the initial Committee on Resolutions report:
http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/SBC17_ONDEMAND/select/media/IHYFUOTxBCuI?t=1944
You can then work from that point and find the third report from the Order of Business Committee in Tuesday evening section 1; the final OBC vote in Tuesday evening section 5; the final resolution of the resolution here, from Wednesday afternoon:http://player.theplatform.com/p/IfSiAC/SBC17_ONDEMAND/select/media/Yl_unuxua_7H?t=3
None of these provide access to any small group meetings or discussions, but these represent the complete record of the public debate and discussion during the business sessions of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Dwight said, “Later, I studied the Alt-Right after u identified the persons on your blog as such…I was horrified to discover what they believed. It was at that point I decided to develop a resolution to make sure the SBC renounced this element among us.” This is what I was worried about and am worried about with a majority of SBC leaders regarding the 1st resolution and apparent consensus that it would’ve been better if it had passed (I think the 2nd was much better). Where did you study it and from whom? I ask because your resolution demonstrated not… Read more »
I wasn’t there and have never been there. That said, I can only give people the benefit of the doubt. If anyone knows of wrongdoing for sure (not just in speculative suspicions), then that person needs to raise the red flag.
I voted for the resolution condemning the Alt-Right Movement on Wednesday morning when it came to the floor of the convention. I hate and condemn bigotry by anyone on the basis of the color of someone else’s skin color. If the SBC is going to pass a resolution condemning the Alt-Right Movement, then should we not also pass a resolution condemning the BLM Movement? If the SBC is going to pass a resolution condemning one manifestation of racism, then should we not also pass a resolution another manifestation that is equally racist?
Jesse,
You are free to offer a resolution that says whatever you desire. And if I agree with the contents, I’ll vote for it. I’ll await to see the content of your resolution before I respond though.
Having watched the proceedings on livestream I feel Barrett Duke is getting unfair representation. Dwight was allowed to speak to his motion asking the resolutions committee for a vote on bringing the resolution to the floor of the convention. Such a motion must be voted on and if passed would require the resolutions committee to bring to the floor Dwight’s resolution. Barrett spoke against the motion to bring the resolution to the floor by giving a brief synopsis of what was wrong with the resolution. The vote failed and the resolution was dead. Later a messenger from VA asked that… Read more »
Let the record show that I was not even in the convention hall when the events Dean speaks of took place. I was at the Hotel San Carlos eating pizza and trying on Dave Miller’s lime green suit.
The Alt-Right is calling for ethnic cleansing Dean. I think some research is in order here. I posted an interview with Richard Spencer which you can hear and see him calling for ethnic cleansing. He said specifically in that interview, America should be white, Africa all black, India pure etc.
The media knows exactly who the Alt-Right is, shouldn’t those who are in power in the SBC? Yes, Yes, Yes.
Dean, Richard Spencer says that the alt-right calls for “ethnic cleansing.” The Southern Poverty Law Center quotes him saying such. Dukes could have responded to the Virginia guy’s question without trashing my resolution. And his opinion expressed, is on record as being rejected by the Southern Baptist African American Fellowship and many, many others. Point being, his opinion is subjective, therefore unfair. Again, don’t ever recall them publicly, negatively critiquing anybody else’s resolutions in the past; not even in response to a question. I was on The NPR network this morning and they opened the show with a quote from… Read more »
Dwight, Barret was called to the mic by the president to give an explanation of how denying your resolution should not necessarily be seen as the SBC failing to stand against the alt-right. Barrett did what he was asked by pointing out the problems the committee had with your resolution and stating our opposition to the alt-right. I am afraid you are not attempting to see the committee’s point of view. There are some who claim Trump supporters are racist, xenophobes, therefore alt-right. There are some who say America first guys are alt-right. There are some who say the daughters… Read more »
Dwight,
Subjectivity in decision making does not necessarily equal unfairness.
I think Duke came across badly – but he reportedly apologized to you personally and certainly did apologize to the messengers – this seems to be a personal issue that I’m hoping you and he can reconcile – It’d be good for everyone involved and glorify Christ for that to happen.
I’m sincerely praying to that end.
Tarheel,
Public negative statements that were unnecessary and uncalled for due equal unfairness. All Dukes had to say was my resolution along with several others were denied in the collective judgement of the committee. To publicly declare “poorly written” is a) untrue or needed to be proven by example and b) was in bad taste. Who wants their work to be publicly declared that way unnecessarily? Furthermore, his opinion is shared by no one I know in the Black Community, except 2 or 3 who are Trump voters and buy the false argument that my resolution is a political document.
I was not present when all of the furor occurred. I went on a wonderful 2 hour trail run on South Mountain – the mountain you can see with all the antennae on it just outside of Phoenix. I voted for the resolution on Wednesday morning. I did not hear all of the exchange between the Committee, Dwight, or others, so I am not trying to get in the middle of that and unwind all of it. Anyone who believes that some people at that Convention were open or closeted racists has things wrong. A resolution not making it out… Read more »
Louis, “Anyone who believes that some people at that Convention were open or closeted racists has things wrong.” I would love to believe this is true. My question is, how do you know? Is it possible to say that with authority? Even Steve Gaines stumbled on this a bit in the Tuesday evening session. Pastor Garrett Kell raised the question from the floor, “Can we please get a point of clarification from the President of the Southern Baptist Convention whether we condemn, as a convention, racism?” Steve Gaines replied, “I’ll speak for myself. I don’t know that I can speak… Read more »
Monica – his disclaimer is because he was functioning as moderator… And cannot – by parliamentary procedure – Make an official statement of the convention without an official vote of the convention. In fact it may technically have been out of order for him to speak to an issue on the floor while providing as moderator… I think that was behind his – as you called it – “disclaimer”. I’ll also add that calling ( what is your did intimating) *everyone* a closeted or open racist with the reckless abandon you’re doing so here is counterproductive to the cause of… Read more »
Trying that last paragraph again… LOL
I’ll also add that calling ( or as you did intimating) *everyone* a closeted or open racist with the reckless abandon you’re doing so here is counterproductive to the cause of racial reconciliation and productive discussion.
Oh, btw, I am VERY interested in the statement that there was a booth or literature in the Exhibit Hall where alt right literature was being handed out.
That should be reported immediately to Dr. Page and the Executive Committee. That is serious.
I did not see it, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. But I want to know about that.
Louis: I must confess that I am reading your post and scratching my head as to what in the world you are talking about and where your friend got their information. I think he is the one who is very wrong and either made up the information or is badly misinformed. Wow. Why is it none of you who have computers can’t or won’t do a simple search. It’s so easy and not time consuming at all. Ignorance on the alt-right is bliss? I don’t understand why you and others don’t want the truth of who the Alt-Right is. That… Read more »
Debbie,
How would you personally define/describe the Alt-Right? Who do you consider to be the leaders of the movement. Thanks for any help you can give.
Debbie,
That is really unkind.
Debbie, please refrain from such comments. Engage in conversation or don’t. But pronouncements of disdain for others are neither helpful nor Christian.
Well…I don’t think beating around the bush or avoiding the elephant in the room is Christian. So we disagree Dave. Pronouncements of disdain on information that is obviously wrong is Christian if it fits the situation. Admittedly I am full of disdain at the handling of this subject.
You are free to have as much disdain as you’d like. But if you want to engage her it will be with resoect.
Since the last presidential election, I think we clearly saw that the country as a whole was not as advanced on racial issues as we thought. Obviously not all Trump supporters are racist and Trump may not even be racist himself, but there is no question that he pandered to racists, was supported by racists, and I believe that his election emboldened closet racists to “come out”. That’s why we have to keep talking about it.
Bill Mac,
There can be no doubt that a nationalist message will appeal to some racists, how is the president to blame for that? If I and a racist both like chocolate ice cream does that make me a racist or chocolate ice cream inherently evil?
John: As I said, I’m not convinced that the president is a racist. However I am completely convinced that he actively sought the racist vote by some of his rhetoric. So while I don’t think Trump has necessarily created any more racists than we already had, I think his election has emboldened them to be more visible and active. Trump may not want to be “their guy” (now that he’s elected), they think he’s “their guy”. Sure that makes it a bit tough on Trump’s non-racist supporters but I think it is a reasonable explanation.
Steve Bannon was the chief campaign advisor to Trump. Breitbart is a haven for those in the Alt-Right movement, and it was clearly strategic to appeal to the anger of the right, to all ends. Trump was given the opportunity to distance himself from David Duke’s endorsement specifically during the campaign, and refused to do so. I do not think Trump is a racist, he loves anyone who sings his praises. But he took whatever help he could get. Understand, I don’t believe Trump ever wanted to be President. I believe it was his intention all along to tear apart… Read more »
Bill, Don’t you think Hillary’s campaign caused just as many racists to come out and vote for her? Racists in the sense of those wanting “safe places” (places others can’t go), just to name one racist idea. The aftermath of both Hillary’s and Bernie’s campaigns have shown racists tendencies: anti-free speech movements on campuses, violence against conservative speakers, again just to name a couple. In other words, if you want to find racists, you will them attached to every political portion of our country. Not that you implied this, but to think the Political Left is void of racism is… Read more »
But Southern Baptists have never been a haven for Black Lives Matter radicals or liberal activists. We have been in our history too tolerant of racism and segregation and prejudice. The SBC condemning BLM is meaningless. The SBC taking a stand against racism is crucial because of who we have been – and who still exists. Last year, after the Confederate flag vote, I received some of the most vicious and racist comments here – many coming from people who claimed to be members in good standing, even leaders, in their SBC churches. I probably should have saved these for… Read more »
Nate: I’m not sure I would characterize people who advocate for safe spaces racists per se, although I think the idea is ludicrous. I think certain segments of BLM have racist tendencies. Actually, I think Trump’s election has done more to expose left wing racism than anything Obama or Clinton may have done. Perhaps that’s a good thing. (the exposing, not the racism)
I don’t disagree Dave, my only point to Bill was that there are racists in every political party. And there are racists in every Denomination, including black denominations. If we don’t think so, we deceive ourselves. And yes, we should probably pass a resolution every year condemning any aspect of racism that even gains a hint of entrance into the SBC.
My point is simply that we need to remove the log from our own eyes first. Let’s deal with our own tendencies first, before we condemn “them.”
Does that make sense?
I agree Dave. I’m condemning all racism. What I won’t agree with is that only the Right Wing of politics or religion has racists. The Left Wing of politics and religion also has racists. So does everywhere in between. It’s good that we (SBC) declared we don’t want a part of Right Wing racism. And I think we have declared we don’t want to be part of any racism.
A point of clarification, please. The Social Media movement with the hashtag #blacklivesmatter was an attempt to draw attention to systemic racial inequality in the application of justice. The political action group “Black Lives Matter” is an entirely different thing altogether, which has co-opted the hashtag movement for their own ends. So we have been caught in a Catch-22, and of course it was intentional. Well-meaning people who agree with the sentiment of the hashtag are not necessarily in agreement with the goals of the organization. These same well-meaning people are often caught in the ASSUMPTION that the organization’s goals… Read more »
Debbie:
There is nothing dishonest in my post.
My doing “research” as you demand is not going to address the issues I mentioned.
You are also a smart person, but your demands that I do this or that or say this or that are not helpful toward advancing conversation and understanding.
I really don’t think we disagree here. But I think you are so invested in a particular narrative and the way the subject is discussed that you berate people who don’t do and say exactly as you desire.
The concept of nationalism brought up in many of the comments here goes very to the core of much of the problems discussed.
Southern Baptist are so rooted in this nation, particularly the Baptists before the civil war in the founding of this nation and then after the civil war. Many Baptist, yes, and many Baptist Leaders, have a real struggle of separating their Baptist cultural identity with this Nation and their faith identity with God through Jesus.
This touches on real Biblical understandings or misunderstandings of God’s purposes and goals.
Messengers could have voted against the alt-right resolution for various legitimate reasons. They could have believed since the SBC has already passed several resolutions against racism, we don’t need another one this year. They could have agreed with most of the resolution, but disagreed with perhaps one point in the statement. They may have thought we should not get to the point that we have to prove we are not racist at every annual SBC meeting. They may not have liked being put in the position of having only two choices: Vote for the resolution or be accused of racism.… Read more »
I think the proper response to a resolution that the messenger feels like is a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of situation, is to abstain rather than to vote against. I wasn’t at the annual meeting but I would not voted in favor of the “moral integrity” resolution, but who in their right mind votes against moral integrity? I would have abstained.
Nathan, Thanks for the article. I was in the room when it happened and it happened just as you said. I am grateful to have been able to vote for this resolution that has been a long time coming.
As to the literature issue, I did not see that. I do know that the EC warned us about people who would try to pass out lit at the Pastors’ Conference. Unauthorized distribution of literature is a constant problem. I do know this, if there was inappropriate material being distributed at a booth, Bill Townes and the others at the Executive Committee would have responded rapidly to a complaint. They would be on that with haste. They do not play around with stuff like that. There are two options: 1. Unauthorized material. It is a constant problem. 2. Material distributed… Read more »
There is one other thing I know. I cannot say that I am best buddies with Barrett Duke, but I have had conversations with him, have talked to others who worked extensively with him, and am, I believe, able to render some opinion on this. If he made a mistake in the handling of this, and he might have, it did not come from a desire to protect or promote the alt-right. His work at the ERLC before he went West makes it clear that he is a champion of efforts at racial reconcilation. Whatever motivated him to do as… Read more »
Nathan, my husband and I attended the entirety of every session online— more than most messengers. Not only do I disagree with your conclusions, your facts are off. 1) “At no point and in no way was the resolutions committee being “soft” on the Alt-Right or other forms of white supremacy.” Subjective. Also high-handed, as many people who were there disagree– including bros & sisters of color. Truth: the committee could have revised the resolution. SBC polity makes room for leadership to do what’s right. The initial action of the committee was to silence the resolution, and criticize it as… Read more »
Monica, I believe that Dr Finn is saying he was in the room where the discussions were being held about what to do about the situation. I think you misunderstood his references at just about every point. When he says, “At no point were we trying not to offend Trump voters—or any other voters, for that matter.” – I don’t think he was talking about the people in the seats in the conference hall (which seems to be how you are taking it) but speaking about the discussions that we going on behind the scenes. So, I think you have… Read more »
Specifically, Dwight McKissic was not “in the room” that Nathan was talking about.
You are talking about one room (the convention hall) and Dr. Finn is speaking of another (the discussions behind the scenes about what to do).
You are making accusations based on a misunderstanding of Dr. Finn’s points. You might have a blind spot that is causing you to read some things into Dr. Finn’s post.
Dave, Thanks for your response. My purpose is not to accuse, but to counter Mr. Finn’s overly harsh accusation. “None of that happened, and folks who suggest it did are either speaking out of ignorance or out of malicious intent, period.” That’s a sweeping accusation that is simply untrue. More, it’s an unnecessary offense towards those you are trying to reconcile with, those the SBC has harmed in the past— our brothers and sisters of color. I don’t believe that was obvious to Mr. Finn, as he clearly supported what the resolution was trying to do. But it was glaringly… Read more »
1) Your own understanding of the situation is subjective. Putting the word “Fact” in it does not change that. 2) Incorrect. A bold faced flat out lie. You are lying. It is shameful, especially as the facts of the votes and minutes of the proceedings are public record. 3) The young man on mic 7a would have been more effective if he had understood the Rules of Order. How can you be from a church in Washington DC and not know anything about parliamentary procedure? For that matter, all the speakers in favor of releasing / revising the report would… Read more »
As far as timing of submitting the resolution, there is a deadline and that deadline was met. Further, any resolution is subject to the committee’s desire to edit or adjust it.
On that single point, Bro. McKissic did exactly as the parliamentary procedures of the SBC expect. His next option was exactly what he did: move that the messengers pull the resolution out of the committee.
A point of clarification on point #2. I think you’re both wrong. I don’t think Monica is lying, nor do I believe messengers were debating “whether or not we ought to denounce these demonic impulses.” The SBC has already denounced racism in all forms in prior resolutions. That’s fact number one, not in dispute. This resolution was against a *specific* type of political orientation *by name*, and yes, there was ignorance on the part of some as to what, exactly, that meant. Unless you are a political analysis junkie, you really don’t know exactly who the Alt-Right actually is, or… Read more »
Monica, Great observations. Like a football coach in an upstairs booth, you and your husband had a view of the field that some of us were to close to see. I hope Nathan responds to you. Thanks for writing this. Interesting and a perspective I’ve heard from almost every person of color. We weee all in the same room, but yet filtered what we saw & heard through the prism of our own experiences. Therefore we drew different conclusions and saw and heard differently things. I’m repeatedly being asked the question, why remain in the SBC? The committee’s action or… Read more »
Pastor McKissic, thank you. I don’t have the luxury of participating in an SBC church, as it requires me to disobey the Great Commission and Christ’s command to confess His name before men. I’ve (apparently) baptized more people than the average SBC church. I’ve preached the Gospel to people in every country in the world, and many of them have turned to Christ as a result. Letting them go to hell just because I’m a woman is not an option. So I am not welcome. As for the question, “Why remain in the SBC?”, I’d be happy to answer in… Read more »
Monica, You sound like a Jesus kind of woman, and a “Junia” or “Phoebe.” I applaud and appreciate you. Better yet, you are a Kingdom woman. Would love to dialogue further. Time this weekend is quite limited. But here’s my email address and office #. Would love to learn more about your ministry. Your perspectives are missing from the SBC and in part may explain why we are in the shape we are in. There’s a precious, articulate, intelligent, affable, theologically astute, and spiritual lady, named Debbi Kaufman…who like you, can stand on her own ground on this blog with… Read more »
Monica and Dwight, You’re right Dwight, Monica sounds like someone whose aim is that Great Judgment day when we will all stand before the Lord to be judged. She want it favorably as we all should. I mentioned this book here but I’d like to mention it to you two. Anyone who reads it can’t help to be edified and understand the real nature of this struggle. The book is: Seven Black Preachers Tell What Jesus Means to Me1971 by McCall, Emmanuel Lemuel; Wilson, Robert H.; Carter, Percy A.; Smith, Nelson H.; Boddie, Charles E.; Hill, Edward V.; Scott, Manuel… Read more »
If I had the privilege of attending the convention this year, I would have gladly voted for either of Pastor McKissic’s resolutions. But I think we should be very careful interpreting the motives and attitudes of one another in a uncharitable way (on either side). Let’s suppose as a thought experiment what would have happened if instead of addressing the Alt-right issue, a black SBC pastor proposed a resolution in support of the Black Lives Matter Group. And let’s suppose the resolution committee didn’t bring it to the floor. Perhaps they reasoned that while the BLM group addresses some legitimate… Read more »
Steve in Birmingham:
I agree with you statement. We all come to the table with different experiences. Or maybe we are like a “blank slate” in some areas. Some people, myself included, had never even heard of the “Alt Right” until last week when this whole thing blew up in Phoenix. I don’t think you should confuse “ignorance” with “bad motives”.
Roger
The term Alt-Right is also a much larger subset of people than a specific group in the name of Black Lives Matter. To speak directly to one political organization would be, I think, counterintuitive to what we as a denomination wish to do. Calling out Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, is in regard to specific evidence of specific malfeasance in their practices to the detriment of society as a whole.
Dave, Louis posted the remark of his friend that, “the SBC did not seem to know what it was talking about with respect to the alt-right, and that the SBC voted against something that largely exists in their imagination.” Is that not showing disdain? I don’t know if Louis posted this because he agreed or just wanted to offer another opinion but Debbie was certainly within the bounds of propriety to say he was wrong and badly misinformed both about the alt-right and about the SBC. Nathan Finn stated those who disagree with his interpretation of events were, “speaking out… Read more »
Ron, No. That is not showing disdain. If you think so, disdain for whom. I voted enthusiastically for the resolution. I was not in the hall for the tense part of the session. I have not opined on that. I wasn’t there and haven’t gone back to watch. My post was a collection of observations about Resolutions and the need for a change in our polity. I also made a bit of fun about the SBC addressing gambling. The thing that concerns me most that I mentioned is the spirit of I Corinthians 13. Paul wrote those words after a… Read more »
Louis, if you will read my post again, I was talking about your friend whom you quoted as follows, “He said that the SBC did not seem to know what it was talking about with respect to the alt-right, and that the SBC voted against something that largely exists in their imagination.” Do you not think that is showing disdain for those of us such as Dwight McKissic who spoke against the alt-right and all those who supported the resolution? He said we did not know what we were talking about and that the alt-right was something that largely exists… Read more »
Ron: Thanks for the clarification. My friend, who is a believer and as far away from alt-right and racist as one can be, obviously does not believe the original or re-worded resolution were well worded. I have no problem at all with people taking issue with that quote. The quote is pointed at me, too, as I voted for the resolution. I shared the quote for the reasons stated in my original comment. It illustrates the different beliefs by different people about who is in the alt-right and who is not, and what the alt-right stands for and what it… Read more »
Agreed.