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 you know of any response from the SBC that acknowledges this unfortunate possibility?
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 good people work very hard to do the very best they can in this task. The Monday-morning quarterbacking of their first decision betrays many failures to accurately judge the inner workings of such Committee processes. In the end, the Committee did well, the SBC did well, and the way of Christ was exalted. Hallelujah!
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 swept under the rug or it might reoccur. 2. Why didn’t the committee revise the resolution to their satisfaction and recommend it the floor for approval? That’s also a major issue that does not need to be overlooked. You are giving the committee and the floor a pass. They literally rejected what was a no brainer twice. The question is why? The SBC African American Fellowship released a statement saying that they agreed with the original wording. Therefore, you essentially have by and large ten persons 8 Anglos, 1 Hispanic, 1 African American, who are making a judgement on what is “appropriate,” “inflammatory,” “extreme,” language for a convention whose demographics are 20% minority. Of the 10, only one woman, if memory serves me correctly. No one it appeared in their 20’s, or early 30’s, it appeared, and heavily stacked with denominational employees. No Black or Hispanic or Asian or woman has ever served as chairperson of the resolutions committee in SBC history. The makeup of the committee is the real scandal here. A different committee would have led to a different outcome, and spared the convention the drama and trauma. You made it a little to simple, and the votes a little to innocent, unless u have answers to those questions that preserve their innocence. The proof that they could have revised the resolution initially is evident by how quickly they finally did. To label my resolution publicly “poorly written” is unprecedented and worthy of a public apology, unless they present evidence that it is/was indeed “poorly written.” The question you didn’t answer, nor them is not this: why was my resolution handled so differently than all the other resolutions that have been presented? Before u pronounce 100% innocence upon them, please, again answer those questions. And the answers may indeed prove they are innocent. I don’t know. But this far, no answers.
Finally, I was fine with them denying the resolution; even voting down the resolution twice. Why? Everyone played by the rules, including me, and that’s how the chips fell. What I wasn’t fine with was hearing public negative, subjective, critique/evaluation(s) of my resolution. I found that disturbing, troubling, unprecedented. Barrett Duke privately apologized for it, if I correctly understood his apology. But he publicly criticized my resolution. I have to accept this. But, it leaves a deep wound and scar.
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 that been the case. I was trying to do four things in my post: (1) give a condensed, but accurate summary of what took place; (2) make clear the SBC wasn’t struggling with whether or not the Alt-Right is good or bad; (3) argue that this resolution is in continuity with our recent track record, though as you point out (and as I noted in the post) we still have a long way to go; (4) to push back on those who have offered what appear to be ideologically driven interpretations that assume the worst, but were not actually present. I cannot answer the final question you ask because I don’t know. I think you are right to ask it. Keep pressing Southern Baptists on these issues.
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 Milo Yiannapolous. The time for a warning on this growing evil is now. Dwight’s resolution was not just about past white supremacy, it is about a new and growing iteration of the old dragon that has awakened again.
We need more awareness, more people from diverse backgrounds at the table, more listening, and more understanding of what people are hearing and experiencing. Every SBC committee, Task Force, and board needs to be ethnically, racially, demographically, and economically diverse. We need voices from big churches and small, from urban, suburban, and rural areas, from wealthy churches and poor churches, from men and women, from clergy and lay people, and from all races and ethnicities – from all that are one body in Christ from many backgrounds. The more the body participates and uses their gifts and varying perspectives, the healthier we become and the more unified we will be because we will have the chance to hear from each other and consider multiple views.
In 2014-15 I brought a motion calling for a study on increasing ethnic diversity in the SBC amongst our entities and boards. The study was completed by the ExComm and adopted by the SBC in 2015 in Columbus. It built off a motion in 2009 by Dr. Paul Kim calling for the same. See the full text of the study here:
https://sbcvoices.com/a-review-of-the-southern-baptist-conventions-progress-on-racial-reconciliation-1995-2015-full-text-sbc15/
We’ve been asking for greater diversity on our committees, trustee boards, and Task Forces for several years now. The SBC has voted on this and approved the recommendations. Over and over again. Thankfully, we have begun to see some progress on this issue over the past few years with record setting diversity in appointments the two previous years. I am praying we build on that and keep going and was very encouraged to see the elected officers reflect growing diversity as well.
If we have more diverse voices in the room – and I mean diversity of all kinds but unity in the gospel and agreement with the BFM2000 – then will we be able to see these concerns at an earlier date? I believe so. I pray we continue to grow in that.
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 without opposing what the resolution actually says. For example, if we passed the exact same resolution the previous year, they might feel exactly the same way, but would decline to present the motion, since we had already spoken to that issue, and quite recently. Rather than feeling the SBC would be AGAINST the motion, I think they probably reasoned the SBC would be overwhelmingly FOR the motion (which turned out to be the case, of course) since we have denounced racism IN ALL OF ITS FORMS, year after year, consistently, and by unanimous or almost unanimous votes. The question is, “Is it really necessary to pass an anti-racism resolution every single year in order to address each new racist wrinkle that might come up?”
2. DID THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE MISREAD THE BODY’S DESIRE TO PASS SOME KIND OF ANTI-ALT-RIGHT MOTION?
Again, I don’t think so. The Messengers affirmed the committee’s recommendation to decline this resolution, and then once more affirmed not bringing it out of committee as well. To reiterate, this was not because the SBC FAVORED the atrocities of skin color supremacy, but because we felt we had clearly and adequately addressed the issue in recent years, and that, yes, we were still against racism in all of its forms, just like we were last year. Regardless of whether the original wording was a bit inflammatory or imprecise, the real issue was that Alt-Right Racism was simply a specific form or type or subset of Racism, and since we were already on record as opposing Racism, the committee (twice) and the body (twice) did not feel it necessary to say the same thing over and over again every single year.
3. WHY DIDN’T THE COMMITTEE REWRITE THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION AND PRESENT SOME TYPE OF ANTI-ALT-RIGHT RESOLUTION TO THE BODY?
As mentioned in Number Two above, I think the committee did not realize there was any confusion about where the SBC stood on racism. We have been very, very consistent on this point for many, many years now. God loves everybody, regardless of the color of their skin, and so do Southern Baptists. It’s as obvious as saying that we care about poor people and hungry people and sick people and lost people.
4. WHY THEN DID THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE INITIATE THEIR OWN REINTRODUCTION OF THE SUBJECT AFTER THE BODY HAD ALREADY CLEARLY VOTED (WITH THEM) NOT TO BRING SUCH A MATTER FORWARD?
Frankly, at this point, in the aftermath of a Resolutions Committee Report that did not include an Anti-Alt-Right Resolution, emotions ran high among three different groups of people: (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, (2) those members of the media who also falsely assumed that failing to denounce the group was the equivalent of endorsing the group, and (3) those members of the Alt-Right community who created a firestorm on social media falsely proclaiming that the absence of a resolution condemning them must be viewed as some kind of victory or endorsement of their group, when this was never remotely the case.
5. DID THE NEAR UNANIMOUS VOTE “PROVE” THAT THE MESSENGERS REALLY DID WANT TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER?
No, I don’t think so. BEFORE the media firestorm, there was very little desire to address it. AFTER the media firestorm, the desire to address it was probably a good deal greater, if only to quash the misunderstanding by the afore-mentioned groups that we FAVORED the Alt-Right, but it was obviously not so much greater that the Body felt led to overrule the committee.
6. SO WHAT DOES THE NEAR UNANIMOUS VOTE PROVE?
It proves that messengers said: “IF WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THE ALT-RIGHT MOVEMENT’S BRAND OF RACISM SPECIFICALLY, then of course we oppose it, just as we have clearly stated in the past that we oppose ALL FORMS OF RACISM GENERALLY, which we understood to apply to each ugly, abbhorent version of skin color discrimination.
7. CAN WE NOT PASS, ONCE AND FOR ALL, A VERY CLEAR AND COMPREHENSIVE RESOLUTION THAT WILL COVER EACH YEAR’S RACIST MANIFESTATION, WHATEVER IT MAY BE?
“Southern Baptists oppose skin color supremacy in all of its forms, by any group of any skin color, against any group of any skin color. Jesus loves people, not pigmentation. He loves souls, not skin. We denounce, clearly and comprehensively, any type of skin color discrimination that has existed in the past or that may exist in the future. We love everybody.”
Anyway, this is how I interpreted the events of the past week. It is a grid that helps explain why the Committee and the Body could vote so consistently AGAINST reporting out a Resolution on this topic, only to turn around once one DID get reported out, and vote by a 99% margin in favor of it.
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 in the SBC, as further documented by their presence at the SBC, and claiming to have a booth in the exhibit hall distributing literature, and James Edwards and others names themselves as members of the SBC and alt-right. Yet, we should take a one vote and be done with approach? Absolutely not. A Black Pastor at the convention told me that he sat on a row where the whole row voted against resolution ten. Rick, there’s yet work to be done. A once and be done approach is taking the attitude of the resolutions committee that got us to this place in the first place.
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 not at all sure where those people came from. I do not know if they are Southern Baptists. When you and they took over several unrelated blogposts, I deleted three entire posts and, initially, four persons, one at a time. Later, I allowed one woman to return to the blog. I sought to clear the entire stream of this ugliness, which was not only inappropriate, but completely off-topic. It would be a mistake to conclude that those people represented the SBC or that they represent the readership of our blog. All of that was wiped clean. Rather than indicating the PRESENCE of the Alt-Right, they indicate the LACK OF TOLERANCE for the Alt-Right, in all of its forms, in every corner of the SBC blogosphere, and certainly at any blog with which I am associated.
INTERPRETING RESOLUTION TEN NO VOTES
Again, I voted FOR the resolution. But those who voted AGAINST still might not have done so out of a desire to AFFIRM white supremacy. They may have been concerned that, in their view, Robert’s Rules were not followed. They may have been concerned that, in their view, the resolution was still unbalanced or unnecessary. In other words, voting against your resolution did not equal racism, at least in their minds, even if it did in yours.
ON THE MERITS OF COMPREHENSIVENESS
Yes, I can see where talking about each year’s new manifestation of the problem will keep the issue fresh and up-to-date. On the other hand, if we pass one EVERY SINGLE YEAR, it can be like doing communion every Sunday and Wednesday. After a while, it becomes quite perfunctory, obvious, and a bit routine.
I suspect that, after this year’s debacle, you could get one passed every single year. To clarify, my intent in sharing this interpretation was not necessarily to argue the merits of the arguments discussed, but rather simply to explain the seeming contradiction between a Body that, on the one hand, voted several times not to discuss something, and then, on the other hand, voted overwhelmingly to adopt it once the consideration issue was resolved affirmatively.
Dear brother, if anything I have said or done has given you the impression that I am remotely defensive of these heinous folks and their terrible attitude toward skin color, allow me to disabuse you of such nonsense. I affirm nothing of the kind. In fact, just the opposite. I rather assume that all, or nearly all, Southern Baptists view skin color supremacy, in all of its ugly forms, as sinful behavior, worthy of condemnation every five years, every three years, and possibly even every single year.
If we want to do that, fine. I was simply trying to explain what I believe may have taken place during the regrettable confusion of the past week.
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 right – I would think that suggestion regarding members of the resolution committee to be absolutely scandalous if true.
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 would explain all the confusing and seemingly contradictory votes?”
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 down the ethnic barrier much better than the white churches. Of course, it is sad that we use the previous terms to identify the churches.
Let the conversation continue until racism ends or the convention demonstrates their heart towards others of different ethnicity in the manner of Christ.
Matthew 5:43-48 speaks clearly of how our love is to be towards others. The SBC can learn much from these few verses. To often we look more like the tax collectors mentioned in the verses than like Christ.
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 serving on an SBC board c) one of them might be on the platform preaching at the SBC d) one of your alt-right commentators might be on an SBC committee. Obviously, they felt welcome on the SBC Today Blog. They must also feel welcome in the SBC. 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. Grateful that you voted to join us. I do view your blocking me from the SBC blog as a racist act, not provoked by race baiting, but provoked by challenging racism that u were accommodating until I challenged it.
I regret that Dukes ever publicly spoke negatively about my resolution. Until then, I was prepared to lay it to rest. His public commentary fanned the flames. I’m continually being asked to respond. I believe interracial churches are the answers to our dilemma. Easier said than done, though.
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 did not work because the four people persisted. I shut down article one.
2. SECOND ARTICLE HIJACKED.
While I thought that would be the end of it, because in my experience I had rarely if ever pulled an entire article, I noticed the next day that the same four people were CONTINUING to post in this fashion. They had simply slipped to the comment stream of an entirely different article and were proceeding to “USE” the comment stream of our blog for their own arguing space. I shut the second article down as well. For a bit more context, if memory serves, I was visiting with family members on a trip and thus moderating somewhat lightly as I was on a laptop, and only checking it sporadically.
3. THIRD ARTICLE HIJACKED
When the “fight,” which was totally off-topic, finally pushed its way to a THIRD article, late in the second day or perhaps the third day, I had finally had enough. I was no longer interested in moderating (a) comment streams, or (b) posts, but felt I now had to address (c) personalities.
4. TRYING TO “TAKE THE FIGHT OUTSIDE”
At this point, I attempted to create an email group with all four participants so they would be able to continue their discussion without *using* the SBC Today Comment Stream as their battleground. At no point was I comfortable with this fight or the topic. At no point did I encourage this fight or this topic on our site. I reasoned, falsely, that if they could not stop fighting, I would at least kick them out and let them fight elsewhere. This turned out to be a mistake, for some of the participants did not want their email addresses to be known. Apparently, they wanted the freedom to fight, on our blog, in anonymity, without observing the rules set by the moderator. In the future, if this sort of thing ever arises again, which I consider unlikely, since it never happened before or since, I will no longer go to the trouble of creating the email group. I will just block, block, block the minute someone takes another story and uses it to push a discussion of racism.
5. IDENTITY OF THE COMMENTERS
The two men were not regular commenters on our site. I really didn’t know them. For that matter, Dwight, you are not a regular commenter, but an occasional one. The female commenter was a regular. It seemed to me that you were all trying to organize some kind of conference or debate. Again, I did not read all that closely, as I was attempting to enjoy some family time, but it was an absolute mess. Granted, it took me by surprise. Debbie, if it took me too long to cut everybody off, after totally removing not one, not two, but three entire posts, along with the comment streams, and after trying to move the fight to an email group, I finally removed ALL FOUR. (Dwight keeps saying that I allowed one to continue, but that’s not quite accurate.) I removed Dwight, the two men, and the one woman, although not at the same time. It was a process. Then, after a few days, the woman, who was a regular, and whose comments were not nearly as inflammatory, was allowed to return.
6. TOTALLY A CHEAP SHOT TO CALL ME “ACCOMMODATING” THIS GARBAGE
Dwight, I imagine you have moderated blogs before. These were moments of EXTREME TENSION for me, again, during a family holiday time. To label this as “accommodating” in any way is just totally absurd. I was going nuts trying to get you all to stop. I was thinking, “For crying out loud, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Get off our comment stream with all this racist garbage.” Taking a few moments here and there throughout the day, I discovered FOUR people who were talking about something THAT WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF ANY OF THE THREE POSTS. They basically, and very aggressively, TOOK OVER the blog, until I finally had to block them. The time that it took me to do so was not the result of “racist accommodation” but patience and an attempt to ask people reasonably to stop. When all four failed to do so, I blocked all four. You have termed this a “racist” act, so let me say this to you brother. When I stand before Jesus, I will do so with a clear conscience, knowing that my motive in blocking you had NOTHING to do with the color of your skin, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you and your three FRENEMIES had stolen our blog’s comment stream, and there was nothing I could do to stop it but remove all of you. God is my witness. God is my Judge.
7. MORE RESEARCH ON THE TWO PRIMARY COMMENTERS IN QUESTION
Dwight, according to additional research I have done online just today, one of the commenters was educated at a Southern Baptist seminary. He does not appear to be serving as a Pastor, but living in the Houston area and working a secular job. On March 26th at 7:17 AM, he indicated membership in a Houston area church. The other commenter posted a video in which an African-American girl used the N word. I immediately removed the video. I scanned his comments diligently, but never got a clue about his true identity, location or profession. I have since discovered that both of these commenters had been banned at this site. Within a few days, after several warnings were to no avail, I banned them from our blog as well. I still do not know if this second person is a Southern Baptist or not. It is true that the third person, a female and a regular contributor at SBC Today, was allowed to return to the site and continue posting. She has not been involved in any hijacks since that time. She is generally a good commenter and not a troublemaker in the least. I consider that ugly episode over. It was unfortunate and unnecessary. It was alarming and unpleasant. I hated every minute of that moderating exchange. It had never happened before, and it has not happened since.
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 arise. Much has been said about the character of this committee, and I have no reason to doubt it. I just wonder why we had to go through this whole mess, why no one could see this coming. I too saw the row that voted against the resolution Wed afternoon. There is still work to be done.
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 out of order.
Q: Why didn’t the committee bring out Dwight’s resolution, or some form of it, in their initial report?
A: As someone who has lost many a resolution down the black hole of the Committee on Resolutions (including as recently as last year), it is my observation that the committee tends toward the automatic rejection of all controversial resolutions authored by single authors. My present theory is that you should, if you want a resolution to come to the floor, either build a diverse coalition to sponsor/author the resolution or contact the committee privately in advance and work with them to let the committee author your resolution without attempting to gain authorial credit.
Q: Why did Barrett Duke say things critical of Dwight’s original resolution?
A: Because you asked? Any time I go to the floor in front of the whole world to say, “Hey, why didn’t you bring out MY resolution?” then I think I’m under some obligation not to take personal umbrage at their response. They didn’t want to say rude things about my resolution, but I put them into a corner.
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 from outside the committee could have.
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 of privilege. Consistent humility and seeking diversity that will be evidenced in the Kingdom is what we must work towards.
“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 reasons at that time.
I do not think the committee was fully aware of what the alt-right represents. Someone said above there were no young adults on the committee and most probably do not follow the social media propaganda put out by these groups. It is also probable that some feared it might be interpreted as a slight against President Trump because several of his supporters and advisors such as Steve Bannon have been associated with the alt-right.
It was not until Steve Gaines called for the ballot vote on bringing the resolutions committee back on this and they saw that even though they did not get 2/3 votes vote but 58% of those voting wanted it to be revisited that they realized they had a problem. They also saw from the passion shown by the young man from Capitol Hill Baptist Church and others that we need to make a statement on this issue at this time. If they had gone on and not brought forth an anti alt-resolution, this convention would have been remembered for one thing only. It would be their unwillingness to condemn the alt-right.
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 only a familiarity with white nationalist ideology but also paired with, which the MSM also does, mainstream media and commentator “acceptable opinion” on nationalism more generally and also a downplaying of violence and totalitarianism of the left.
That language glaringly stuck out because I know of mainstream institutions where leftists have engaged in violent totalitarianism and segregation, but I know of none where the alt-right has.
I’m concerned if the younger leaders are just going along with mainstream thought on these broader issues because that’s the impression I’ve gotten so far.
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 the convention clarify its position on the alt-right voicing concern as to the perception the SBC didn’t oppose the alt-right. Steve Gaines then asked the resolutions committee to speak to this concern. Barrett Duke clarified the SBC was opposed to the alt-right but the resolution was too open-ended about who the alt-right is and contained language that was inflammatory. An example was given, the resolution said the alt-right called for ethnic cleansing. With an open-ended understanding of who the alt-right is the SBC could not put her name on such an accusation/resolution.
Barrett Duke was asked to clarify what had happen to Dwight’s resolution to show the SBC is opposed to the alt-right. He did so and anyone who is fair would have had to say at that moment the SBC is opposed to the alt-right but not in favor of Dwight’s resolution. Knowing this would not satisfy the media reporting on the SBC the convention took great steps to make sure we are on record opposing the alt-right. I have no idea why the committee didn’t completely rewrite the resolution to begin with but no one went back to the mic to attack Dwight’s resolution. They were invited back to the mic to address a concern from a brother from Va. This highlights the troublemakers who serve as pastors in VA – Adam.
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 Spencer ’bout the alt-right espousing ethnic cleansing. Duke was wrong. He simply misrepresented me. No excuse for that. I was the one misrepresented.
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 of the confederacy are the alt-right. There are some who say if you oppose the resettlement of refugees in America you are alt-right. There are some who say if you oppose Black Lives Matter movement you are alt-right. No one disputes the alt-right desires ethnic cleansing but the issue is you didn’t define who you believe the SBC sees as the alt-right.
I commend you for bringing your resolution, one thing is certain today, the SBC knows more about the alt-right than we did a week ago and we are better for it.
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 of committee doesn’t tell the entire story.
I read Dwight’s original motion. I am not surprised that the Committee didn’t want to take on trying to rewrite that. It’s hard to know what would have occurred if they had done that in the first instance. The work product might not have been satisfying, and we might have spent a lot of time amending, putting things back in etc.
I have read the TGC article about the alt-right, but my knowledge is really limited.
A young millennial friend of mine who finished a degree in Philosophy at an Ivy League University a couple of years ago who is working on an advanced degree, and who is not at all sympathetic to the alt-right, sent me a text after the SBC voted. He is not at all SBC. 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. He mentioned that the leading voice of the alt right is not a white racist, but a Native American. He had also seen Dwight’s original post and said that the alt right is not Christian and doesn’t believe the Bible, let alone unusual interpretations regarding the Curse of Ham etc.
Perhaps there are people in the alt right who do believe that now. It appears that the alt right is such a large basket that it might include lots of groups etc. If the basket is so big, we might be more careful. I would vote to condemn the KKK, David Duke, etc., but not Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon etc. That’s why I liked the “anti-Gospel” “racists” alt right were good descriptors for me.
I was enthusiastic voting for the resolution inasmuch as I don’t want to see the SBC portrayed as something that it is not – i.e. I would have voted for anything frankly to avoid that impression. And I am not in favor of racists. So voting for the resolution was a no-brainer.
But if I had been on the Resolutions Committee, I might have asked for more information so that I understood what I was doing. And I, too, might have been uncomfortable doing a lot of re-write of the entire resolution.
I am fine with SBC condemning racism. Any time. Anywhere. That was done, so I am not upset.
I am very glad that we avoiding looking like we were racists.
But going forward, it’s pretty apparent that we are not being well served by our polity.
We should not get in situations where in a group of people who are not the slightest bit racists but we can come away looking that way.
We need to make adjustments to how resolutions are done, and to limit situations that get us in debates over things we basically agree on.
Also, we are going to have disagreements about how to handle this issue or that issue. I am hoping that everyone can do the I Corinthians 13 thing – “believes all things, hopes all things etc.” and believe the best about others.
I sense that in most people.
Btw, some of the resolutions are like, “Is the Pope a Catholic” kind of “Duh.”
Like gambling.
If we had done ones on drinking and dancing, we would have hit the trifecta and fit the stereotype perfectly.
I would like to see a convention one day when we don’t issue any resolutions on the sins of others.
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 for everyone in this room. But I believe that God loves everyone, I believe that there is only one race and that is the human race, I believe that Jesus died for everyone.”
This disclaimer was admittedly shocking. And telling.
My question is this:
If the president of the SBC knows he can’t speak for everyone in that room on racism, how can you?
When Jesus told the Pharisees, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick… For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners,” he wasn’t saying the Pharisees were actually righteous.
He was saying that he can only heal people who know they are sick. (Jer. 17:9)
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 racial reconciliation and productive discussion.
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 says more about you than a no vote of the resolution or even a yes vote.
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 the Republican candidates during the primaries, then be as offensive and off-putting and bumbling as he could during the campaign, to try and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. He’s always been a supporter of hers, he’s always been a Northeastern Liberal, he’s always hob-knobbed with the Hollywood elitist class.
I believe he was a plant from the beginning, and even he never thought he would have won. How else does one explain decision after decision where we said, “is he trying to lose the election?” Yes. Yes he was. Appealing to the Alt-Right was part of that. It’s his advisors that wanted to win, to be a part of this gravy train, and Bannon’s strategy won, especially in the Iron Belt states, capitalizing on the fear of jobs leaving for foreign countries. No one ever counted on these blue-collar blue states swinging Republican. Especially Wisconsin and Michigan.
I don’t think he’s a racist, but he empowered racists with his victory thanks in part to their fervor.
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 ridiculous. However, if the SBC spoke out against the racism of the political left they would be labeled as racists.
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 reference, but I just deleted them and sent them to the trash.
I don’t know of racist SBC pastors – though there are a few who seem to live in constant denial that this has ever been or is now a problem. But there are most definitely racists still in the SBC and we need to stand strong against them.
Does your church have a lot of BLM advocates? Mine doesn’t. There may be people sympathetic with the less offensive goals of BLM, but I know of no one who supports their radical agenda.
Did we need a whole bunch of resolutions condemning the molestation scandal in the Catholic church a few years ago? Or did we need to address structures and procedures in the SBC that allow the problem to fester?
Let’s deal with racism until these alt-right folks have either repented or run back to their hidey-holes. Once we have our house in order, then maybe it is time to address left-wing racialism.
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 are altruistic and concerned with actual justice, rather than their actual stated goals–the rise of a Socalist Marxist state and a reactionary racist policy toward White people. Sadly most people don’t even know the despicable positions of this group.
So I would advise a sincere effort toward absolute clarity when writing or talking about these things out in the world. People need to know what the group stands for, and that they and the hashtag movement are not one and the same.
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.
They could have thought we need more time to consider the issue, and vote about it next year.
The resolution passed overwhelmingly, yet some are still not satisfied.
I would also like to see an investigation of the allegation there was an alt-right booth at the SBC. I don’t believe it; but if so, I’d love to see the evidence.
David R. Brumbelow
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 by a vendor without the knowledge of the ExComm.
There is one other option I know is NOT true – that is that alt-right type material (white supremacist, white nationalist, etc) literature was handed out with the blessing of the SBC structure. That did not and would not happen.
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 he did, it was not racism.
I’ve not seen anyone accusing him of that, but I just wanted to express my opinions – I am finally home and in the office again.
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 “poorly written.” They did what they wanted to do.
It took a public outcry to change their mind.
2) “At no point were Southern Baptists debating whether or not we ought to denounce these demonic impulses.”
Incorrect. That’s exactly what they were debating.
3) “At no point were Southern Baptists wringing their hands over how we would look in the media if we didn’t do something.”
Incorrect. Are you sure you were in the room? Maybe you missed some of it? The young pastor at “mic 7a” specifically addressed how we would look in the media if we didn’t do something.
I know, because my husband and I were on our feet cheering for him.
Also, were you not on Twitter? Tons of hand-wringing by SBC’ers over that very thing.
4) “At no point were we trying not to offend Trump voters—or any other voters, for that matter.”
Dr. Duke specifically spoke to the committee’s concern that “Alt-right” might be construed to include some innocent conservatives. This was telling.
5) “None of that happened, and folks who suggest it did are either speaking out of ignorance or out of malicious intent, period.”
Harsh words, and demonstrably incorrect. Also, this would appear to include Dwight McKissic. Are you calling him ignorant and malicious?
My husband and I were grieved at the initial action of the committee. When Dr. Duke responded to Dwight McKissic the first time, we were shocked at the dismissive and condescending attitude he took. It was unexpected. It was jaw-dropping. It was arrogant.
It was a white man silencing a black man on racism. It was wrong.
The disrespect towards Pastor McKissic was obvious to many who were there. If you didn’t see it, Mr. Finn, consider the possibility that you and the committee have a blind spot. Condemning the character of those who did see it is inappropriate.
I’m originally from Southern Missouri. If you don’t think there’s crossover between Martin Luther King Jr. haters and Southern Baptists, you’re in a bubble. If you don’t know that most Christian racists say, “I’m not a racist. I have a black friend! Let’s just move on,” you’re speaking in ignorance.
This wasn’t for the same purpose as, say, denouncing same-sex marriage. That’s outside SBC walls.
This was for the purpose of letting Alt-Right people IN the convention know their beliefs are unwelcome. It was necessary.
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 unfairly characterized Dr. Finn’s comments while ACCURATELY characterizing what was going on out in the convention hall. Two different things.
Dr. Finn, if you are still around, I may be misinterpreting things.
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 obvious to me that at least some of what he insists never happened simply did— and that his condemning statement leaves no room for reconciliation.
I always leave room for reconciliation. And I thank you for your response.
I did try to distinguish between the points which were subjective and those that are a matter of record. But I certainly welcome any correction of the facts.
Dave, I understand what you’re saying about the meaning of “in the room”, because that was my first thought – maybe Nathan was on the committee, or very close to those who are. Maybe that’s “the room” he was referring to. (I am perhaps a bit smarter than I look.)
So before I responded, I read it again. He was talking about both.
He said, “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.”
Nathan makes statements about the committee, and about Southern Baptists in general. (When he said “At no point were we trying not to offend Trump voters,” I took “we” to mean the committee.)
I addressed five of Nathan’s points. Point 1 was probably from the perspective of the committee, but still subjective. I wanted to point out why it looked different from the perspective of others, because in this case what the other side thinks does affect efforts of reconciliation.
In points 2 & 3 Nathan makes statements about Southern Baptists in general.
Point 2 is one I suppose could be argued if you want to redefine the word “debating”, but taken at face value it appears to contradict the facts. At any rate, SBC messengers were certainly debating that very thing on Twitter.
Point 3 can be refuted by watching the Tuesday evening session at minute marker 19:34.
The trouble with blind spots is that you can’t see them. And all of us have them. I’m happy to listen, Dave. I appreciate your conversation.
Mr. Finn, if you disagree with some of what I said, I understand. But I hope you’ll consider that my assessment resonated with at least some of our black brothers and sisters. You can’t extend the hand of reconciliation without listening to the other side. Disagreement does not equal ignorance and malicious intent. Consider that they have wisdom too.
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 have similarly been more effective. Even McKissic himself would have been more effective if he had submitted the resolution earlier and asked for the committees help. None of that excuses the committees initial lack of foresight on this issue, but it might have been avoided with a little more leg work in the beginning. Cheering for chaos seems counter productive.
4) If you lump all Trump voters into the alt-right, then you have validated the committee’s concerns.
5) Take the log out of your own eye.
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 what they actually believe. I only know the Alt-Right from Glenn Beck, who has worked to expose the thinking of people like Richard Spencer and Steve Bannon. Rush Limbaugh is the ultimate politics junkie, and even he barely speaks about the Alt-Right seemingly at all, at least by name. He hardly ever addresses the dark side of this nationalistic/racist sentiment because he also has a blind spot. He won’t expose, or will excuse, anything that helps the GOP win elections.
So consider that A) most of the committee are likely not big political junkies and might be more concerned with their churches and the work of such and B) if they get any politics at all they are probably Conservative and listen to those voices that don’t work actively to expose the Alt-Right, at the very least because they are blind to the actual threat that they pose.
Never doubt the tendency of human beings toward profound ignorance, and this also speaks to point #4. Being unaware of exactly what the Alt-Right is means they were likely unaware of its influence on the election of Trump, and would not have logically connected those two things together.
However, in that ignorance, by believing that ‘Right’ connotes Conservative / means Republican / implies Evangelical / includes most Southern Baptists, one can understand why Dr. Duke and the committee tried to be as careful as they could NOT to lump everyone into the same boat.
What is actually ‘telling’ is that once the Committee realized the degree to which the messengers wished to address this topic, they took steps to resolve it, apologized publicly and privately (Dr. Duke to Dr. McKissic), and then allowed Dr. Moore to re-write it *precisely because* of their own ignorance, and he is a trusted authority in this area.
As to point #3, there was nothing out of order with either Dr. Moore or Mic 7a speaking in support of the resolution. Also, Dr. McKissic submitted the resolution in as timely a fashion as other resolutions.
To point #5, we all need to be expressing ourselves in love, gang, and throwing accusations at each other, or ascribing motive to something we were not present for, or accusing the other of hypocrisy for having an opinion is not in love. It is not ‘believing the best’. Let’s rise above, shall we?
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 lack thereof, and the two votes taken, that mounted to less than enough to override the denial decision, are driving this question. The answer I’m giving is, I choose to stay in order to attempt to change the convention from the inside. How would u answer that question? Thanks for your comment here. It was weighty, indeed.
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 another forum. Though I know there isn’t a man on this blog who could win a public debate with me on 1 Timothy 2:12 (Prestonwood couldn’t, lol), I don’t want to explode this feed with comments on that issue. I know what I believe. I know what they believe. I know that’s not why we’re here.
I’m here as someone who cares enough about my SBC brothers and sisters to attend every session of the annual meeting, including every sermon of the Pastor’s Conference.
I’m here to support every right thing they do.
And I’m here to stand up for my brothers and sisters of color, and gently point out that for all of the talk, they are the ones who walked away in pain. 1 Cor 13, brothers. This is a spiritual issue, not semantics. And it’s a no brainer.
So who’s listening? Who has ears to hear that pain?
I know one thing. Jesus does.
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 anyone….who frequently comments on this blog. She would probably tell you that you are wise to be discerning as to what conversations to engage in here, or on any other SBC blog, because sometimes at the drop of a hat, they can turn brutal. I have some scrapes and scars to proce it, and of course, I’ve probably thrown a few punches. Debbi will probably also tell u, when it comes to being brutal on blogs, Southern Baptists are definitely egalitarian, perhaps even a bit more brutal on females in some instances, particularly on certain subjects. Hope to hear from you. Your perspectives and fresh voice here was refreshing and powerful. Thanks again. May your tribe increase.
dmckissic@cbcarlington.org
Cornerstone Baptist Church
5415 Matlock Road
Arlington, TX 76018
817-468-0083(205)
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 L.
It get it to the hearts of those right in the center of the struggle.
Both of you continue to ‘fight the good fight.’
Peace Nahum 1:7
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 and serious concerns, they also espouse a liberal agenda and some associated with the group have called for violence against police. Would the decision not to bring such a resolution to the floor be a considered a racist decision? Would there not be people who eagerly voted for Pastor McKissic’s resolution who would oppose a resolution in favor of BLM? Would those same people then be racists? I don’t think so, because the issues are complicated by politics, assumptions and personal experiences. Could it be that aspects of the Alt-right issue (especially if it isn’t carefully defined) are similarly complicated for some people without their motive being racist? Can we avoid assuming the worst interpretation of the motives of one another and instead rejoice in the good that was accomplished?
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 of ignorance or out of malicious intent.” Is that not showing disdain? Both Monica and Dwight gave a reasoned and well thought out response to his statements. It should be up to Nathan to respond and counter their arguments.
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 long discourse about disputes in the Corinthian church.
Baptists in particular have a reputation for being very bellicose.
Just look at the comments in this blog post.
Here is an issue where all Baptists on this blog agree. We are opposed to racism.
And yet, we end up fighting about just how and when we are going to say that.
That’s my point.
How a large deliberative body expresses itself can be challenging depending on many complexities.
We can certainly disagree about that.
But it seems we are really quick to throw down on one another.
I
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 in our imagination. I did not say you agreed with your friend but I do wonder why quoting him added to the conversation on this post. I think Debbie was entirely justified in saying he was wrong and misinformed. I would hope you would agree with her. In fact, most of the commenters on this post seem to be disagreeing with his opinion of the SBC and what we voted on in Phoenix.
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 does not.
In reading all of these comments, including my friend’s, there is disagreement.
That is one of the complexities of this discussion, I suspect.
Some suggest ‘research’ will clear my head. Well, if it hasn’t cleared up the disagreements in this blog, or other evangelical believers such as my friend, I suspect the benefits of that endeavor would be limited.
I return again to my main point. We have agreed to take a point on which we all agree, and have spent some energy and goodwill arguing on the fringes. For not much in return it would seem.
Agreed.