When the suggestion was made by one of the preaching professors at SWBTS to dress in “gangsta rap garb,” while brandishing a pistol and displaying gang signs—someone on the preaching faculty should have gently pushed back. Immediately and intuitively the inherent pitfalls in that idea should have been recognized by at least one of those Professors. No matter how noble the stated reasons given for such a photo-op might have appeared on the surface, the primary reason for not posing for and publishing the photo should have been obvious: Rationalizing and defending the optics of middle age to older, White—Southern Baptists Professors—dressed in “gangsta rap,” flashing a gun—would have been impossible to defend—even by highly educated men who make a living “word-smithing.”
As is often said in the Black Community when the obvious goes unnoticed…”Ray Charles could have seen that.” So the question must be raised, why could one of these five preaching professors not see this? Why was there no push back from one of the five? If those five professors couldn’t be trusted to exegete the culture correctly, why should students from minority cultures trust the professors to guide them in exegeting a text correctly? After all, we all bring biases, backgrounds, blind spots, cultural insensitivities, etc., to the text…just as we do the culture. We miss the obvious at times, when we view matters through a singular lens. Many seminarians are attracted to schools with diverse faculties, because cultural needs are often more effectively addressed and cultural sensitivities are less offended or violated, because persons are in place that know, appreciate and respect your culture.
The scandal reflected in the SWBTS Preaching Professor “Gangsta” Garb/Image may be the lack of diversity represented in addition to the unwise images depicted. The willingness to demonstrate appreciation for diversity through displaying the symbolism of “gangsta” garb/images; but, the unwillingness to demonstrate the reality of diversity by hiring a diverse faculty is the real scandal represented by this picture. Offering to bring LeCrae to address the matter is like putting a Band-Aid on a cancer. I appreciate him declining such meaningless, window-dressing offer. Offering to hire—if even in an adjunct capacity, Monday-only classes—Dr. Robert Smith, Dr. Ralph West, Dr. Claiborne Lea, Dr. Maurice Watson, Dr. Robert E. Fowler, H.B. Charles, Marcus Jerkins or any number of others, would be the proper response to this matter. Bringing in LeCrae doesn’t resolve anything. Demonstrating fruit worthy of repentance is diversifying your staff, as did the early Church when they faced charges of cultural and racial ethics issues in Acts 6: 1-6.
A Black Preaching Professor would have no doubt persuaded his co-laborers of the single most important reason why this “gangsta rap” photo idea should have been a non-starter. He would have argued it would be impossible for the larger culture to appreciate the optics as being genuine and sincere.
Middle-age and older White Republican Evangelical males, organically, have no history of identifying with or appreciating in the least bit, the “gangsta rap” culture. Therefore, the picture would be viewed as a caricature—which it was—or an insincere attempt to celebrate a culture that you really don’t, nor should, appreciate. The picture is offensive to me in representing contradictory viewpoints to my biblical values. Make no mistake about it; there is nothing conservative, orthodox, fundamental, biblical, kingdom-minded, evangelistic, holy, righteous, or sensible regarding this picture. Who would have ever thought such a picture would have come from a Paige Patterson-led seminary?
No one would take me serious dressed in Confederate garb, waiving a Confederate Flag as a sincere tribute to a departing Paul Pressler. Neither would anyone take that picture seriously as an appeal to the “gangsta rap” culture to come learn to “rap the Word of God”—one of the two stated purposes of the ill-thought picture. The other stated purpose was to pay tribute to a departing faculty member that had a proclivity toward rap, but not “gangsta rap”—which also made it disingenuous.
What is also obviously missing from this picture is a Black Professor.
Maybe Ray Charles couldn’t see the pitfalls in the preaching professors “gangsta” garb/gate proposal, not because Ray Charles was blind, but rather, because, “Ray Charles” is not on the faculty there. Had there been a Ray Charles among the five or in the upper level administration at SWBTS, he would have pointed out again, intuitively and immediately the pitfalls of the infamous SWBTS Preaching Professors twitter picture.
The late Dr. Raymond Spencer was the first Black Professor and only Black Preaching Professor in the history of SWBTS hired by SWBTS former President, Dr. Ken Hemphill. I enrolled in a Preaching class under him in about 2002. The first day of class he made it clear that he believed in women preachers and would allow women who were also enrolled in the class to preach to the class. He expressed his affirmation of the BFM 2000, and explained why his beliefs and practices regarding women in ministry didn’t violate the BFM 2000. He further stated Dr. Hemphill was aware of and supported his viewpoints. If any of the students objected to his views on women in ministry he encouraged them to report him to the Board of Trustees at SWBTS. He indicated he’d welcome an opportunity to have the conversation with them.
I invoked Dr. Spencer’s memory for several reasons: (1) A diverse faculty brings needed diverse viewpoints to the table; (2) A diverse faculty challenges the status quo often where it needs to be challenged; (3) A diverse faculty models ministry for a diverse student body. In some ways Dr. Spencer in respectfully requesting students to report their objections to his views on women preachers to the Trustee Board was modeling the social justice ministry tradition of the Black Church and representing the oppressed; (4) A diverse faculty retains and attracts a diverse student body. The singular reason I was taking that class is because Dr. Spencer was teaching it. And I got what I needed, not only preaching training but insights and modeling related to providing pastoral leadership within a Black Church context. Dr. Hemphill and Dr. Spencer represented soft complementarianism theology, as oppose to the hyper complementarianism theology currently reigning at SWBTS that restrict women’s functionally in ministry beyond the BFM 2000 and the Bible. Dr. Karen Bullock would not be allowed to speak in Chapel at SWBTS today. The women in Dr. Spencer’s Preaching class would not be allowed to attend or preach in those classes today. Dr. Spencer would not be allowed to teach at SWBTS today unless he compromised or changed his convictions. And that’s why we must see the big scandal here as the lack of diversity represented by the picture, not just the obvious insensitivity represented by the photo. “Out of the abundance of twitter, the heart speaketh,” so says a friend of mine. What does this picture say about the heart of the Seminary, in spite their denials. What does the lack of diversity say about their heart?
I had a chance to preach at SEBTS while Dr. Patterson was there. I actually met three-four Black Professors. They were in Chapel and came to lunch with us. The only SBC seminary with a growing Minority population seems to be SEBTS. It seems as if they are intentional in this regard and have more minority professors than other SBC schools. Dr. Patterson is in part responsible for SEBTS’ growing minority population. He laid the foundation; Cast the Vision; Set the mold. I’ve been told Southern has a serious decline in minority student population; and it once was the “go to” school for Black Seminarians. Truett Seminary is now gaining that reputation and traction in the Black Church Community. Only a few years old, I’m told they have at least 50 Black students. Not sure if Southern or SWBTS have as many. All of my info is anecdotal conversation though. I’m sure someone will check out the facts. I hope to be corrected.
Three of my sons in ministry, all serving as Senior Pastor’s in DFW recently enrolled in Truett Seminary. Their attraction to Truett was their diversity is staffing and course offerings. Truett offers courses in Black Preaching and Preaching and Pastoring in the Black Church. They also have 3-4 Black Faculty members including Dr. Ralph West who teaches the course on Preaching and Pastoring in The Black Church. My guys were attracted to the theological diversity, course diversity, and faculty racial diversity represented at Truett.
There are two names in particular I’d recommend SWBTS reach out to—Marcus Jerkins and Robert Fowler. Robert Fowler pastors the largest Black Church in Las Vegas. He holds an MDIV from SWBTS and a DMIN from Tyndall. He is the greatest preacher on the planet in my opinion and needs to be invited to preach in Chapel. He would probably consider flying in to teach a Preaching class on Mondays. Marcus Jerkins is completing a PH.D at Baylor in New Testament and is a teaching assistant for Ralph West at Truett. SWBTS couldn’t go wrong with either gentleman.
I pray that a miracle comes out of this mess. I pray that diversity is birth from this debacle. I pray that God will turn this around and work it for His good.
A young man that I’d recommended to SWBTS and had actually come down from Illinois, stayed with me and visited the campus, tremendously impressed just sent me this text regarding the “gangsta” gate photo scandal: “Racism and insensitivity is so deeply rooted in the SBC and SWBTS that it is fun to them. I believe their orthopraxy fails to line up with their orthodoxy and this is the result.”
Neither Dr. Patterson, nor the five “gangsta” Preaching Professors are flaming racists. They can be, and in this instance were culturally insensitive-borderline racists-clearly out of touch-needed to have apologized-and need to be forgiven. All six have apologized, sincerely and rightfully so. I forgive them. We need to work together to heal this matter constructively and redemptively. Considerable damage to SWBTS’ image has been done by this photo as evidenced by the prospective Illinois student analysis, and the many, many negative responses recorded on social media. However, the damage can be reversed in one felt swoop if the right person is hired as a professor and course offerings that directly address Black Church Issues are offered in the future.
I will say that I completely get why these professors did not see the offense in this picture prior to taking it or posting it on social media. When someone first showed it to me, I wondered what the big deal was. That’s why it’s important for me to listen to Dwight’s perspective. The last thing these professors wanted to do was offend their black brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s the last thing I want to do as well. Listening to Dwight now will help all of us keep from making the same mistake in the future.
I will also say that I am thankful for the way these professors and SWBTS handled the aftermath of this situation. Their apologies were unequivocal. We are not posting this to continue to beat up on these professors, but so that we all can learn.
Keep the discussion focused on that please.
I think people in general have the impulse that, “If it doesn’t offend me, it shouldn’t offend anyone else either.” The next question then becomes, that if we are being intentional on not being offensive, to what degree should we worry about it? On the one extreme, we need to be sensitive to other people’s sensitivities so that we demonstrate our Christian love and concern for them. On the other extreme, we can be so non-offensive that we give up our effectiveness for any kind of ministry and we lose our ability to express ourselves to anyone in any meaningful way. Two questions:
1) At what point to we need to try to not be offensive, and at what point do we need to stop worrying about being offensive? After all, some people are going to be offended no matter what you do (Matthew 11:18-19).
2) At what point do we just need to grow a thick skin? Thick skin is a blessing to people trying to figure out the answer to question (1) regarding us.
Jim,
I may be wrong about this.
But the photo caricaturized gangsta rap.
There are decent rappers, and Christian rappers but gangsta rap is usually pretty offensive to most folks. One web site defined it this way:
“Gangsta rap developed in the late ’80s. Evolving out of hardcore rap, gangsta rap had an edgy, noisy sound. Lyrically, it was just as abrasive, as the rappers spun profane, gritty tales about urban crime. Sometimes the lyrics were an accurate reflection of reality; other times, they were exaggerated comic book stories.”
In other words, not the kind of rap one would use in reading and speaking the Word of God.
We had Shai Linne come to our church to aid us in an outreach to the surrounding neighborhood. here is a verse to one of his songs, C.H.R.I.S.T. from his Genius album:
Christ created all things, right (Yeah)
Lord of lords, King of kings, right (Yeah)
Came through a virgin birth, right (Yeah)
God in the flesh, walked the Earth, right (Yeah)
Jesus lived the perfect life, right (Yeah)
He died as the sacrifice, right (Yeah)
He was raised on the third, right (Yeah)
And we know this from the Word, right (Yeah)
He ascended to His throne, right (Yeah)
He gon’ come and take us home, right (Yeah)
He gon’ judge all the Earth, right (Yeah)
He gon’ show what He’s worth, right (Yeah)
He’ll send the wicked to hell, right (Yeah)
But with His people, He’ll dwell, right (Yeah)
Of course i won’t post gangsta rap lyrics…
I love Shai Linne!
Parsonsmike,
Agreed. How could you and I without the benefit of terminal seminary degrees understand this, but those five professors and the administration couldn’t?
That’s the real tragedy here. And that’s what also documents the need for diversity. Thanks for weighing in.
Jim,
“We” was a common reference in your comment. And if all of us are included in the “we”…then we will have greatly reduced causes of offense. The problem here is that “we” does not represent who it should in SBC life. Therein lies the root of the problem. Had “we” been included in this decision, we would have found far better ways to accomplish the noble & honorable goals of these 5 professors, without being offensive.
I agree that “we” means “all of us.” What it shouldn’t mean is “your group plus my group.” Of course we all know that there are at least two groups that identify one against the other, but it shouldn’t be that way. What does forgiveness for any real or perceived, intended or unintended offenses look like? Should one group always for the rest of time check themselves with the other group in case there is some unintended offense? Should both groups always for the rest of time check themselves with each other in case there is some unintended offense? Or, is there an end game somewhere where we all get to be one group without offense? What does that look like? I’m not proposing an answer because I genuinely don’t know the answer. But there needs to be an answer that is biblical. That’s the one thing I’m not hearing from anyone.
Jim: Southern Baptists and Baptists in general seem to make fun of or caricature other ethnicities and women.. they seem to lack respect at times for both. That is what needs to change. Not all answers are iron clad in scripture as the problems were not problems then or at least different. Common sense and just plain compassion is something that is Biblical. It was the ministry of Christ on this earth that is in scripture and how he treated people who were not treated well, that is what we need to look at and what seems to be avoided.
Debbie, for what it’s worth, I’ve noticed that white Southern Baptists are pretty good at making fun of themselves, at least on a personal level. I guess that’s why they don’t see any problem making fun of someone they are trying to include. That’s probably why the “common sense rule” doesn’t generally work. I guess we just need to not make fun of ourselves anymore so no one is offended. And truly I get it. I’ve been the offended one when someone was just trying to include me by making fun of me. I just had to learn that that’s what they were doing and take it the way it was intended. I guess I should have stayed offended?
Jim: I get frustrated at the racial insensitivity. I have not answered as I have been trying to find a way to say it gently, with love, but I have a hard time with that. It’s as if you don’t want to see or understand, just present another argument to justify racial insensitivity. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you truly may not get it.
We as white people have not been through what the black American has been through. Even today. We have not been lynched for the color of our skin. We have not been stereotyped for the simple color of our skin. We have not been profiled by law enforcement for the color of our skin. We cannot compare the two. We have not been thought of as lesser than other human beings but being more than for many, many years, and to some we still are thought of in this way.
This however is wrong.
This is a big deal I think. I am grateful for those involved in this tweets apology. I do not think it was initially done to be racist or mean. It shows how far we need to go in educating which I am grateful to Dr. McKissic for doing. I hope you learn Jim Pemberton.
I love the book and movie “To Kill A Mockingbird” by Harper Lee. One of the quotes from this book and one of my favorite quotes:
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it” — Atticus Finch
Debbie,
You don’t know what I’ve been through. Why are pretending that you do? How insensitive are you? And what about my heritage? I’m part Cherokee. Ever heard of the Trail of Tears? Now, I’m not saying that I personally went through that. But where does the offense end?
*What does the end game look like where we all get to be one group instead of many?
*What is the balance between the need for sensitivity, which is very real, and the need to not be ridiculously sensitive, which gets in the way of filial intimacy?
*What does forgiveness look like?
These questions must be answered or we will always be aiming at a moving target.
Jim, good thoughts. Agreed.
Jim,
Can we at least agree that inasmuch as gangsta rap celebrates and personifies…misogyny, unbridled profanity, gang banging, drug “slanging,” gun violence, non submission to authority, disrespect for Police, acholism, fornication, adultery, materialism, hedonism, narcissism and just about any and everything else ungodly one could name……then why would SWBTS Professors want to identify with such wreckless and sinful behaviors? At best they are being insincere & hypocritical by identifying with the gangsta rap culture. At worst they are mocking the persons and the race of the persons who originated, popularized, and mostly are identified with gangsta rap. In either scenario it is unjustifiable for the profs to have dressed in celebration of gangsta rap. Brandishing the gun was way over the top. We are trying to take the guns out of young Black men hands. Now it appears that if Southwestern is endorsing this behavior. The one professor who engages in rap music, certainly does not engage in gangsta rap, but Christian rap, of the LeCrae order; different genres of rap. Therefore, the picture is indefensible. And that’s why Dr. Patterson & the professors made no effort to do so. All of your questions ’bout toleration and being thick skinned, and not taking offence, are really irrelevant to this discussion in light of the context being the gangsta gate prof picture issue.
Jim: For me forgiveness will begin when racism ends. It is difficult for me to forgive and I believe God understands that. I am human. Forgiveness begins when things change, which I believe it has begun but good grief it’s 2017. We know better, but don’t want to always change.
Also just because something is talked about or discussed doesn’t mean forgiveness has not already occurred. But we should have this discussion. Not pretend it doesn’t need to be discussed or that discussion means that forgiveness has not happened. You are missing the point of Dr. McKissic’s post. He forgave them. I believe their apology was sincere as I said in my comment. But discussion must continue I think. If nothing else for those such as yourselves to get it.
That should be yourself not yourselves.
I read Paige Patterson’s apology article and thought it well written and sincere. Here is the link to that public apology: https://swbts.edu/news/releases/racism-tragic-sin-statement-president-southwestern-baptist-theological-seminary/
An important paragraph in that apology reads:
“Sometimes, Anglo Americans do not recognize the degree that racism has crept into our lives. Such incidents are tragic but helpful to me in refocusing on the attempt to flush from my own system any remaining nuances of the racist past of our own country. Just as important, my own sensitivity to the corporate and individual hurts of a people group abused by generations of oppressors needs to be constantly challenged.”
I think that is the goal in discussing this. Not acting as if it did not happen.
“Not acting as if it did not happen.”
Who is acting as though it did not happen? And you haven’t answered my questions. If we are discussing something, then what does the end of the discussion look like? We should be concerned about anyone who treats anyone else unfairly, including on the basis of ethnic background. But if we want to erase the differences, then we need to be better than the differences by defining ourselves not on our differences, but on our likenesses – that is, that we are all made in the image of God. If we continue to allow our differences to define us, then no discussion will yield fruit. How do we get to that point in the SBC? That question still hasn’t been answered, because if the answer includes continuing to define our difference contingent groups by our differences, then we haven’t achieved a unifying definition. How do we achieve that unifying definition of who we all are across the board? And I’m going to step out and say that the answer needs to be as biblical as possible. I’m just not hearing a biblical answer from anyone. I’m only hearing admonitions that sound political, and we don’t need political answers with eisegetical support from the Bible. What did Jesus do to reconcile people? That’s what our pattern needs to be.
Jim: I answered your question. You may not have liked the answer. And I am speaking as a child of God.
The end will occur when no more racism is seen. When people care that they offend and not offer excuses or try to minimize.
You bring another point that frankly drives me crazy.
We are different. That is a fact. When I see a person who is black, I see a person who is black. When a person who is Asian stands in front of me, I recognize that person is Asian etc. The question is what feeling or reaction does that recognition produce? Anger? Hate? Love? Acceptance? Sensitivity?
But we are different Jim and that does define whether you admit it or not. And it should I think. After all it is who we are.
The question isn’t whether we are different. The question is whether we are defined by our differences or defined by our likenesses. As long as we are defined by our differences over and against our likenesses, we will be divided.
And, frankly, Debbie, you couldn’t be more offensively condescending to me personally. You should repent.
Jim, you’ve made some excellent points. We should not define ourselves by our differences. That’s worth thinking about some more.
Jim: No apology forthcoming. And if that is what you took away from what I said, I think more work needs to be done.
This article which is making the rounds on Facebook best says what is wrong with your kind of thinking. I post it as it is in sink with a thought I have always had.
https://medium.com/@danieloritsejemineamotsuka/the-ugly-truth-our-praise-for-heinekens-new-ad-reveals-about-us-5497327ae5c3
The premise straight from the article is this using words from the article:
“Oppressed groups?—?people of color, refugees , LGBTQ community, immigrants, muslims are all actively pitted against a more powerful majority whose views and positions currently hold sway. The truth is we’re not bringing opposite ends of a spectrum together, as this would require some level of equal footing, equal stakes to be at play here. We’re actually inviting the abuser and the abused into the same room, and somehow asking the abused to make a case to the abuser and vice versa. The Oppressed are not responsible for explaining their oppression to the oppressor. This a fool’s errand and an inhumane expectation to have.”
Another quote from the article(man I think this article so good and so perfectly addresses what you have said Jim)
“It affirms that as these major socio-political issues of our time play out, it is mostly a spectator sport. That the unaffected get to watch the abused and the abuser go at it and that rooting for the abused from the sidelines somehow qualifies us as being on the right side.
This is the very reason so many oppressive systems and narratives still exist. Because all the unaffected but supposedly “good people” genuinely believe that if it doesn’t directly affect them, it’s not their fight. The truth is, it is indeed all our fight. We’re all collectively responsible for the societies in which we live. I’ll risk being cliche and quote a line from Martin Luther King Jr.?—?“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends”. This truth is applicable for just about any social conflict there is.”
I do think you mean well Jim. And I think you are sincere in your comments. But I don’t think it’s the answer as there are clear differences that will always get in the way of the like mindness that is shared. It may take time or it may be quick but those differences which make us who we are should not be hidden, but be allowed to be and be accepted and loved. That is what I think scripture teaches. I think it’s what Christ lived and taught.
Never criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. And then it’s OK because you’re a mile away and he’s got no shoes!
So here’s what I advocate. I’m going to state a positive case since everyone seems to want to pigeonhole me into a preconceived set of beliefs.
A) What the staff of SWBTS did was silly and stupid. Many white people don’t distinguish between gangsta rap and other kinds of R&B very well and I’m sure that they didn’t mean to glorify a reprehensible portion of our culture. I don’t think their intention was to be racist, but it seems that what they intended doesn’t count here. They should have known better and if I understand this article and all of Debbie’s going-ons above, that makes their intentions VERY racist whether or not that was their intentions at all.
B) Even if they were intentionally racist and their purpose was to harm people of color in some way, they were called on it very quickly, publicly by a lot of people and an apology for their crime was issued very quickly. If their public actions certainly indicated some reprehensible part of their character, then their public repentance should stand as a certain indication of their repentant hearts.
C) My pattern for forgiveness is Jesus Christ who, as he hung on the cross, prayed for his executioners, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Steven also practiced this who prayed to God as he was being stoned to death not to hold their sins against them. We are a people who demand our rights, but Paul didn’t seek his own rights. Instead, he willingly gave up his rights so that he could receive the reward of preaching the Gospel free of charge. This is the kind of attitude that I admonish all of us to exhibit. Forgiveness comes at a price and we need to be better than the world at this. But we are not good at this and it continues to divide us. That is the way that I have vied to treat the people who sin against me or offend me. And that is what I do for you, Debbie, since you are truly offensively condescending. You pretend to know my heart, but you have no idea. You condemn me without truly knowing my life and my heart and have no idea how to give me the benefit of the doubt. You have falsely maligned my character and I ask God to forgive you for your libel against me because you do not know what you are doing.
This is my position on this. They were wrong, but we need to forgive them after the pattern of Christ. That’s the core of my thinking. That’s my heart. Is that wrong?
Bill: Hahaha!
Jim,
There is no winning the argument. For us… just being a “white male” is an offense. And to date, there is nothing I have found that is going to change that. Not even my good behavior — which offends many.
We must live by a different set of rules than others just because we are “WM”.
I learned this on MSNBC…I think that is where it was.
Stupid silly things are no longer allowed.
Also, I think, as a “WM”, we are not allowed to be offended.
Please, those who disagree with me don’t be offended. Just reflecting the MSM these days.
Jon, good point up to a point and a good starting point and so what is my point? The point is we have completely gotten away from Dr. King’s dream of each person being judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. For example these 5 guys who made such a silly decision especially given their positions do not represent “white” men, Bible professors, etc. they represent themselves. Tarheel makes a point we should forgive them and move on which I do not disagree with however are we forgiving five individuals who acted silly or the group they represent? The answer is the 5 individuals so why do we get into “us” and “them”, black/white, educated/uneducated and all the other ways we band people as a group when their actions were individual. These individuals teach and are employed at a place where racism is not promoted or taught , if they offended so many, they not all the people associated with the college be held accountable. It is funny, if someone left that was German would they have dressed up as Nazi’s or Russian as communist, of course not. So hold the 5 who did the deed accountable, not the “white ” people who are just upset as anyone. As a white person when someone like these guys do things like this, all white people have to answer just like black people have to answer for the gangster image portrayed in the media. I am a conservative in so many ways but without a doubt Dr. King’s I Have a Dream speech is such a clear call to common sense and based so deep in his faith in God that it should be taught from first grade on up . It is a good action plan to live as a nation.
Eric – My comment was based upon the cultural need to be offended. When does it end? It would not be hard to watch the news and hear how I offend others just for being white.
The I have a Dream has a great lesson for all of us. One is not to be offended at the ridiculous ways different people behave. Some things which are bringing an offense (IMPO) should not be.
So many who are offended could care less if what they do is offensive to me. Gosh, I am offended that some people are offended at this ridiculous attempt at humor and good-bye to a colleague from a group of Christian white professors who seemed to not know better.
I am tired of seeing so many people bowing at the feet of the snowflakes. Yet, this is the direction we are heading.
What if everyone here had to apologize to the other person here who is offended by a statement they make because they were offended? Yeah, yeah, yeah… Some will say the behavior from those 5 Professors is different. Who gets to draw the line to where offense begins? Can I? Or do we simply stop expressing our selves in something other than robotic just to not offend. Then again, someone might get offended that we are to robotic and not personal enough.
Received word that over the past 5 years there has been a turn around in Black enrollment at SBTS. It is now over 200. Excited to hear that. It was ’bout 7-9 yrs ago when a prof at Southern told me that Black enrollment was in serious decline and Southern was no longer the go to Black seminary. MLK spoke their in the ’60’s. Visited there in the late’70’s. Professors highly recommended it to college students when I was graduating in the late ’70’s. Hosted a Black Church Conference with 25 Black Theologians in ’78, I attended. Don’t know enrollment numbers but knew it was highly respected & talked about as the place to go from the ’60’s -’90’s. That’s why I was surprised to learn it had greatly declined up ’till five yrs ago. I’ve also observed that reformed theology is gaining in popularity with Black preachers under 40. Therefore, it’s not surprising enrollment there has increased the past 5 yrs.
^ LIKE ^
I appreciate and affirm Brother Dwight’s post. Given the USA’s changing demographics, our SBC seminary faculties need to be more diverse. SEBTS has set a good example by establishing its diversity program, which is producing good results. I would point out that diversity should also include Hispanic and Asian professors, as well as African-American professors. I would like to tip my hat to my friend, Dr. Vaughn Walker, who recently retired at SBTS. He served there for many years as the Professor of Black Church studies.
Dwight,
I appreciate much of what you’ve said here – but I feel I must push back on something you appear to be advocating.
Are you suggesting that among other things diversity requires the SBC go back to the days of professors (regardless of skin tone) openly teaching agenda contrary to the Baptist Faith and message like women pastors – (and seminary Presidents who allow it)?
If this is in fact what you are suggesting… I must say that I am against that.
I certainly favor gathering from every tribe and nation the best and the brightest seminary presidents, professors, and students who are profoundly committed to rally around, teach and pass on what we as Southern Baptists have defined as our confessional statement of faith and practice – the BFM2000.
But I do not favor, nor do I think God is calling us to the watering down or abandoning of our doctrinal confession for the sake of diversity or anything else.
Tarheel,
I will be glad to answer your question when you place in quotes or just paraphrase what I wrote that led you to ask am I “advocating” an agenda of teaching “contrary” to the BFM 2000, “and message like women pastors”? I’m totally baffled as to the basis or foundation for your question. Would u please explain?
The paragraph starting with: “The late Dr. Raymond Spencer…..”
Through the end of the next paragraph.
It seems pretty clear that you are advocating, as part of diversity, for the teaching of the acceptability of female Pastoral leadership within our seminaries.
I want this to be on the record here. Dr. Patterson has apologized for the foolishness of those faculty members. It is my strong conviction that he did not know about this before it happened. I am certain that he dealt with them “without any mixture of error” when he was apprised of the situation.
Lastly, Dr. Patterson is not a racist.
I agree, CB.
The apologies have been nothing but sincere.
I also assume, and know if no evidence to the contrary, that none of the profs in the pic are racist either.
Tarheel,
I’ve stated absolutely nothing–nor did Dr. Raymond Spencer, or Dr. Hemphill-in support of “the acceptability of female pastoral leadership.” I’ve been waiting all day for you to document from my words where I’ve said anything even close to suggesting that. Let me be crystal clear, I do not advocate female senior pastoral leadership. To do so would violate the BFM 2000. A lady enrolling and preaching in a preaching class is not advocating a lady serving in a senior pastoral leadership role. A lady speaking in chapel at SWBTS is not advocating a lady serving in a senior pastoral leadership role. Not sure how you extrapolated such a conclusion from my remarks but u did. Would u please explain your rationale, based on direct quotes for doing so? Thanks.
You mentioned you’ve been waiting all day… I Referenced above what you said which covered two paragraphs in your article. I’m on my phone and did not want to retype every word.
Anyway – The BFM affirms the scriptural teaching that “the office of pastor is reserved for men”.
It does not say “senior pastor” – it says “pastor”.
I see now you’re equivocating/nuancing by adding the word “senior” – we’ve had this discussion before – we are not going to agree on that – as you insist on adding qualification that does not exist in the baptist faith and message.
I don’t think that “pastor” was intended to mean every staff pastor. I don’t see it that way. Good topic for discussion.
I understand that is your opinion, William – as it is for Dwight….but the wording in the BFM2000 does not say that. One must make assumptions as to meaning in order to allow for female pastors.
i would say that if the intent had been only the senior pastor – that word (or delineation) would have been easy enough to add. Remember this version of the BFM was penned, updated and twice affirmed upon by messengers very recently…certainly within the modern era of egalitarianism…..so if the intent was to only speak to lead or senior pastors – they could have just said that. I expect they did not because the text of scripture is clear (both in specific wording and practice in the NT) about the office of pastor being designated exclusively to males.
Question: Do any of the pastoral members of the BFM2000 task force have women on their pastoral staffs? How about the seminary Presidents – What are their on the record statements about female pastors? That might be instructive as to practice and intent.
A pastor is a pastor is a pastor. If one is treated and viewed as a pastor by the church membership and more importantly they meet the qualifications outlined in scripture for pastors – then they are – guess what – – – pastors.
If ladies or men for that matter are lay leaders/ministers working under the authority and leadership of a Biblical qualified pastor (one requirement being male) – then they are not a pastor and should not be identified as one.
Tarheel, way too much to discuss here but the concept of staff, sub-senior “pastors” is fuzzy. Same for ordination. I may approach the subject in a subsequent article in a witty, insightful, and deeply profound manner.
Hope you’re having a splendid Lord’s Day.
William, I would expect any article submitted by you to be nothing less than “witty, insightful, and deeply profound.”
😉
Tarheel,
“the acceptability of female pastoral leadership within our seminaries”
Please quote verbatim…place in quotes exactly what I stated that would support this conclusion that you are alleging that I’m advocating. Thanks.
Tarheel,
You missed the point. I say absolutely nothing about a woman serving as a pastor, let alone a Senior pastor. You are isogeting my comments. You keep alleging something I’ve never said. Now will you walk it back & stop obfuscating please. Thanks my friend.
Certainly these professors are tone deaf and have no clear of the prevailing culture climate. The photo is silly not funny, white guys doing their version of being gangsta when they are trying to be cool instead of an authority figure that maintains a respectful distance and public persona. They are so oblivious that they did not see how it would be perceived by the ever sensitive and politically correct society we live in. There are cultural and social differences in American and the Church. I eat grits, I love grits , when my northern born and bred friends in church do not understand the greatness of grits I get it. We were raised different and were from a different background. I do not think I can understand or emulate a different cultural outlook so common sense tells me stay away from society/cultural/political issues , we are in the family of God. This is what happens when our leaders let the culture influence them instead of them influencing the culture. We are too lax in our upholding of decorum and how leaders/authority figures should relate to those they teach and lead. They are not “one of the boys”, they job is not to be cool, show their reliability but to teach and show proper respect and conduct. Were these guys being racist, no, just so out of touch with the real world they might as well gave the guy a watermelon when he left, they would do that but due their insulated bubble they did not know the stereotype they pretreated . This is what happens as you try to be culturally relevant.
I meant they would “not” due that in the above comment as it would clearly be insensitive.
Good thoughts here, Eric. I’m not sure if these guys were being racist or not; they may be, they may not be. But, I think just as importantly, they set the absolute worst example for the young men and women they have been given charge over. This seems like a textbook case of the Body of Christ allowing the world to influence its actions. I think we can safely assume this picture will not be used in the Yearbook or as a recruiting mechanism.
Jim,
you asked for a biblical answer.
The actual answer is easy to give.
The living out of it isn’t so .
The answer is in Galatians 3;26-28:
…for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
As long as we see ourselves as something else FIRST [as opposed to being one in Christ first] and are not willing to give up that something else [that is not willing to be offended] there will always be schisms and racism IN the church, and by that, i mean in the Body of Christ.
The Son was willing to give up His identity as we read in another place:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
We are the children of God, being conformed to the Son, and thus we should imitate Him. S o instead of demanding rights or equalities we should rather be willing to be offended. Now what i am saying is hard to take from a white man, but I am not the judge of those who are being discriminated against, such as women and minorities, and I seek to do what ever I can in my limited capacity to end such hatred. The Lord looks kindly upon the oppressed, the downtrodden, the abused, the homeless, the orphans, and all those the world steps on as it seeks to uplift itself in its own eyes.
But the truth is clear, the path to wholeness is one of humility and a willingness to live with offense, EVEN as our Lord, who is our God, who is the Creator of all, and who is King of all Kings, humbled Himself for our sakes, we then are called to humble ourselves for His Kingdom’s sake.
And we also know this: that whatever we loss we have, that we will not only reap a greater harvest in the word to come, but we even now will draw closer to the Lord and be more like Him, which is the greatest desire of our spirit.
Why is context not important in the case of this photo? They were sending off a professor who raps by dressing up like rappers. Is rap only something to be enjoyed by black people? Are there not many white rappers? If a bunch of black professors dressed up in cowboy outfits would they be denigrating white culture? Why can white men not dress like rappers? I don’t know why, but it makes me angry that we can’t joke and be a little lively here. “You must be a stuffy white professor. White professors look like this, and can’t go out of those parameters, not even for a joke.”
I guess they learned their lesson to not post anything like this online.
Rose,
It wasn’t just simply rappers. It was GANGSTA rappers.
As I said earlier:
There are decent rappers, and Christian rappers but gangsta rap is usually pretty offensive to most folks. One web site defined it this way:
“Gangsta rap developed in the late ’80s. Evolving out of hardcore rap, gangsta rap had an edgy, noisy sound. Lyrically, it was just as abrasive, as the rappers spun profane, gritty tales about urban crime. Sometimes the lyrics were an accurate reflection of reality; other times, they were exaggerated comic book stories.”
In other words, not the kind of rap one would use in reading and speaking the Word of God.
Rose,
Context is important in this case. Three quick points ’bout context:
1. Dr. Allen said context wasn’t important regarding this matter. Bizarre statement for a homiletics professor to make almost in any context
2. One of the professors tweeted as a photo caption to come to Southwestern and learn how to rap the Word of God against the backdrop of wall graffiti that said notorious school of preaching…which is rap lingo. Think about it….guns in hand…hats to the side…gold chains around their necks….bandannas to boot….contextually this affirms the drug, gang, misogyny, rebellious, anti-submission to police authority, profanity laced-and on and on culture—that’s associated with and inevitably accompanies gangsta rap. Why do you think it just clean fun or in good taste to identify with such a culture? Interestingly, Bill Clinton in speaking against Sis Souljah, Al Sharpton, and scores of Black pastors-that many here would call liberal have spoken out against the evils and ills of gangsta rap. But, SWBTS embraces it? Staggering.
3. Parsonsmike makes the distinction argument between gangsta rap & clean rap quite well here. So, yea, you are right: context here is important & does not need to be overlooked. And that’s why some of us are appalled by the twitter picture.
Bro. Mckissic,
You wrote in point #1 above: “Dr. Allen said context wasn’t important regarding this matter. Bizarre statement for a homiletics professor to make almost in any context”
I take it this was in response to David Allen’s tweet on 4/25/17:
“I apologize for a recent image I posted which was offensive. Context is immaterial. @swbts stance on race is clear as mine”
To be clear, I think his point was that no context is justification for the offense.
Bro. Mckissic,
You appear to be held in high regard on this site so I’m curious as to why you understood the photo to “affirm” and “embrace” the gangsta rap culture?
Specifically, you wrote: “. . . contextually this affirms the drug, gang, . . . culture—that’s associated with and inevitably accompanies gangsta rap” and later ask: “But, SWBTS embraces it?”
I don’t think the photo is affirming or embracing that culture; if anything, it is mocking that culture. So why was it seen as affirming/embracing it?
Bill Mac,
I was thinking a somewhat similar thought.
But since i am neither a woman nor of a minority, I doubt that the few minuscule times I have been discriminated against can prepare me for walking in their shoes.
But Paul the apostle knew both sides of discrimination, both as a persecutor of Christians and as a persecuted Christian. And what he wrote as inspired by the Spirit, can give us an understanding of truth.
Jim,
Not every criticism one receives is valid.
Neither is every criticism Biblical.
Many times if one doesn’t tow a certain line others wish you would walk, they will criticize you, and sometimes do it condescendingly.
There are many who wish to celebrate our differences AT THE EXPENSE of truth and unity. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that we are different. But when such differences are promoted above truth and unity, well, then it is wrong.
You said:
“The question isn’t whether we are different. The question is whether we are defined by our differences or defined by our likenesses. As long as we are defined by our differences over and against our likenesses, we will be divided.”
As Christians we are first and foremost defined by our unity in Christ. It is through Christ that we have our most basic identity. We share humanity with unbelievers, and we share patriotism and nationalism with many Americans. You share some identity with Native Americans. Dwight shares identity with African Americans. Dwight, and you, and myself share identity with males, while Debbie, for example, shares an identity with females. But all of those identities are of this world. And as the flowers fade, and the grass withers, those identities will someday be gone. But even as the Word of the Lord endures forever, our shared identity in Christ will also endure forever: it is our only PERMANENT shared identity.
So to answer your question: YES, as we redefine ourselves by our differences and promote those differences we will remain divided. It is only when we are willing to submit the various worldly identities to our permanent identity in Christ, even if that means enduring shame from the world and loss of our own self driven esteem, that we will experience unity across those differences, growth in that area of our life, and a ruler experience of the divine as we become conformed to the true and permanent identity that one day will be ours in perfection, that is to the fullness of the stature of the Lord.
Pastor Moose,
Does the picture embrace or is it “mocking” the gangsta culture, as you suggest? Therein lies the problem: the picture is open to multiple interpretations which means it was not a good idea to publish it.
Agreed, it could go either way. But the reason I said they were embracing the culture is because they (1) stated that they wall graffiti used as a prop in their photo was an adaptation of the “notorious biggie small” Gangsta Rap name. (2) Biggie Small was a Gangsta Rapper associated with drugs, violence, misogyny, alcoholism, “bling-bling”(materialism), “The Benjamins”(money) anti-establishment, anti-police….on & on. The Professor that they were honoring didn’t participate in Gangsta Rap, but Christian Rap. So, not quite sure how Gangsta Rap & gang signs was a befitting tribute to him.
If you are correct about the mocking-and you might be-that’s problematic as well. Since by your own admission the Black Rapper Biggie Small contextually inspired the graffiti prop and Black Gangsta Rap, is associated with him, them if you are mocking his genre of Black Gangsta Rap that my friend is an even worse indictment. The question then becomes why are seminary professors mocking Gangsta Rappers? Either of these scenarios are horrible.
Mike: In the church however it is those very differences that keep raising it’s head. We should be defined by this now. Not later. Yet it’s those differences that caused those professors to be insensitive to the black community and we should learn from that. It is my being female that is keeping me from being able to teach mixed groups of men and women or from preaching. So it is our differences that need to be addressed. It is our differences that need to be accepted etc. as I said in my above statements.
It’s a nice speech you gave that needs to happen now, not in the future. For now this earth is our home. And most of us will be here for a very long time, so for minorities, we need to know there differences in culture, in skin color and not look past it, but look at it and know that they are human too and they do not need to spend all their time educating us to insensitivities that we should already know ourselves or at least should educate ourselves on.
Debbie,
You score zero points for reading comprehension.
I never said ONCE, contra your accusation, that our differences should not be discussed now.
I said that what makes us different should not now or ever be elevated above what makes us united, namely our union in Christ, through the Spirit.
Thus our whiteness or our blackness, our maleness or our femaleness, or richness or our poorness, and whatever else that identify with that is part of this world should always be subjugated to our oneness in Christ.
For any who may think the SBC and SWBTS do not care about all races:
A total of 21 ethnic faculty members serve at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, including African Americans, Native Americans, Koreans, Hispanics and Asians. The ethnic student population increased 14 percent between the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years, climbing to 1,477.
Approximately half of North American Mission Board church plants are predominantly non-Anglo.
LifeWay Christian Resources is the “largest commercial publisher of Spanish Bibles in the world.”
For more than 20 years, the student body at Gateway Seminary (formerly Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary) has been about 60 percent non-Anglo.
Non-Anglo churches make up about 20% of SBC churches.
David R. Brumbelow
Very good analysis.
Thanks for
Researching it. Sharing it. Speaks volumes.
Some are too sensitive about race.
If you are looking for offense, you are sure to find it.
Dressing up like gangsters as a joke (and, it was simply a joke), is not racism.
Are there no White gangsters?
Are there no Hispanic gangsters?
Are there no White rappers?
Are there no White criminals?
Why is the gangster way of dressing “owned” by Blacks?
Some people are nervous about being around African-Americans for the very reason that some Blacks seem to be so easily offended. They are constantly afraid, that without meaning to, they are going to hurt someone’s feelings.
Blind people could take offense at what Dwight said about Ray Charles. But most would just laugh, enjoy the joke, and not look for something to get offended about.
Why not just lighten up and enjoy life?
David R. Brumbelow
David,
I wan’t offended. But I was appalled
Gangsta Rapper’s influence isn’t part of my sphere of life although it could be a part of some of my neighbor’s lives that I have yet to come to know well.
Would it be okay if they dressed up like rapists and made fun of that?
How about terrorists? and made fun of that?
How about adulterers, or pornographers, or I don’t know David, pick whatever sinful lifestyle you want.
They made fun of a culture that they, and just as obvious you as well, do not understand, although it is hard for me to grasp how any of you could have failed so badly to know what GANGSTA RAP is all about.
How can they prepare their students to engage the culture with the Gospel when they are so isolated from it? and ignorant of it?
David,
They dressed up as “gangsta rappers,” not just as gangsters. To dress up as gangsters they could have worn Confederate Soldier Uniforms & waved the CF. And had they dressed up in Confederate Soldier Uniforms waving Confederate Flags to symbolize thuggery and the gangster lifestyle-which is exactly what Confederate Soldiers were–then I’m sure you, Paul Pressler, Doug Wilson, and a hosts of others would have been upset.
To you it was just parody or a gangster joke. To me & multiple thousands of others it was making light of a serious matter plaguing our community. That picture celebrated and glorified “bling-bling”-gold jewelry chains hung around their necks—violence–a gun brandished across one’s chest—anti-establishment rebellious attitudes–hats to the side–gang signs–represent anti-God, anti-family, anti-police, slanging, banging, attitudes & disposition. That picture represents much more than a joke. I do agree though, it was only intended as a joke or parody. However, for those viewing it, they see all I’ve stated & more.
Not to beat & dead horse, but you are aware that most Black Americans view Confederate Soldiers as treasonous & Supremacist. Therefore, but Paul Pressler & Barry Cook, both I consider friends, view Confederate soldiers in a positive light, merely fighting for state rights. So if the preaching professors wanted to celebrate thuggery & criminality & materiality(bling-bling)–inasmuch as the Confederate Soldiers were fighting for what they considered their states rights to economically exploit people of African descent–then why not dress in Confederate garb & wave Confederate flags? They wouldn’t dare do such a thing because it would have disrespected White people-although their White Confederate ancestors were thugs, rapists, murders, and gangstas–they wouldn’t under any circumstances make mockery of their ancestors like that. That’s how the majority of Black people feel about the professors–although be it unintentional they did to the Black community by mocking the gangsta rappers what they would not have done to their own community. Hopefully this helps u to understand why the uproar.
Dwight,
While I agree with you about the professor’s photo being ignorant and blind to cultural problems, I have to push back on what you are saying about Confederate soldiers. While those who supported the American system of slavery were incredibly wrong in a way that it is even hard to understand how they could have been so wrong, that does not make them thugs, rapists, murders, and gangstas. Stonewall Jackson was not a thug, nor was Robert E. Lee. Both were sinfully mistaken in their support of slavery, but that doesn’t make them rapists and gangstas. I’m not saying they didn’t exist in the confederacy, but to say that is what they all were is an unnecessary slander. Nor would people have reacted to such a photo they way you are saying. Most would have looked at it and said, “See, they are still a bunch of confederate supporting racists.” I doubt many would have taken it as mocking confederate soldiers. Perhaps a closer example would have been if they had all dressed up like a bunch of frat boys holding beers. But then the big outrage would have been holding the beers, not dressing like frat boys.
MAYBE THEY WERE DRESSED AS KID ROCK , EMENIM AND VANILLA ICE.
Greg,
Black Gangsta Rap preceded all the names you’ve mentioned.
I think we actually all agree on a lot here:
I think we can all agree that the pic was intended to be a good natured, jovial parody and funny.
I think we can all agree that the posting of the pic was unwise and demonstrated a lapse in judgment.
I think we all agree that these men are good and respected men who did something unwise and have each (along with their boss) profusely and sincerely apologized for their unwise behavior and twitter post.
We all agree, I think, that gamgsta rap is a blight on all of civilized society and should not be in any way “glorified” – which, in hindsight, that should have been foresight, these men inadvertently did.
I’m convinced these men have acknowledged their error and learned their lesson.
I’m convinced all of us posting here have done and said things that in hindsight was unwise and/or was received by others in a way that we did not intend. I’m also convinced that when we have found ourselves in such situations we longed and hoped for grace and forgiveness…
I hope we can agree that It’s time to move on and not continue to beat up some of our own brothers who have expressed what seems to be genuine contrition.
Dwight,
For some reason, you think I would be offended if you dressed up as a Confederate soldier. I would not. Feel free to do so and post it here, or wherever. I would be no more offended than I was by White men, as a joke, dressing up as gangsters. Again, I do not believe African-Americans “own” a certain way of dressing.
I’ve seen plenty of White and Black people dressed the way they were. And plenty own guns (the gun did not offend me either). I’m all for good people of any race owning guns.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2016/07/before-rosa-parks-there-was-ida-b-wells.html
David R. Brumbelow
David,
You missed the point. If I put on a Confederate Uniform and waved the Confederate Flag to symbolize thuggery, Gangstas, and murderers, then you and others would likely be upset….you disapproved of the SBC condemning the CF, as I recall. No, me simply wearing the uniform wouldn’t upset you, but if I wore it for the stated purpose of symbolizing or dramatizing negative, racists, ignorant, gangsta, behaviors, you then would likely be upset, or most CF lovers would be.
BTW, I am only aware of one Black music professor at SWBTS and zero Black theology professors. Can u give me the number of Black theology professors or the number of Black students enrolled in Masters Programs? Thanks.
You should know that the seminary does have a black preaching professor who happens to also be a Vice President and a friend of mine. His name is Anthony Moore. As someone who has been enrolled at SWBTS since Dr Patterson came, I can tell you that diversity among the faculty is much more evident now than in 2003.
For years a number of White youth ministers have dressed and acted like this photo!
David R. Brumbelow
We find no one at SWBTS defending the photo; everyone at SWBTS wishing we had more African-American professors on faculty who affirm the BF&M, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Danvers Statement; and everyone involved at SWBTS apologizing for the whole thing. This is the least controverted controversy I can remember.
But if we wanted to have a more controverted discussion, we could ask this: Ought we to adopt some sort of a threshold of offense below which it is poor etiquette to unleash the hounds of Twitter and run through the gauntlet of worldwide scorn human beings made in the image of God? Is it time for some young, budding Augustine to adapt a Just War Theory to the practice of utter annihilation by social media? When no white flag big enough can be raised high enough to bring about a cessation of hostilities by means of tweets, status updates, posts, and memes, can we claim that we have any kinship with the Lord of Mercy?
Bart,
Can I come at this from a slightly different direction? I’m not a fan of the dress in the photo, but I am more disturbed by the gun Barry McCarty is flashing. First because it is a violation of seminary code of conduct Second, and more inortabtky, it is a tone deaf display considering the killing of young African American men like Tamir Rice, for brandishing a toy gun, much less a real gun which Barry was obviously carrying regularly since the photo wasn’t planned, but spontaneous.
What is the seminary going to do about that? And further, is it a good thing to have someone who is so cavalier about brandishing a weapon in such a high profile position in SBC life?
McCarty is not violating the seminary code of conduct. The display of the gun in the photograph has been decried by all involved. Apart from the photograph, his possessing the weapon? I have no problem with that.
Bart,
I would beg to differ based on the policy listed here:
http://catalog.swbts.edu/student-life/ethical-conduct/
Unless you are telling us that faculty members are being given permission to carry by Dr. Patterson. And if they are, my follow up question would be, is this a known exception? Are there others? How many SWBTS faculty are walking around armed, and is campus security also aware?
Further, I am glad to hear that the display of the gun has been decried. I have seen apologies about the photo, but not anything about the gun specifically. That does ease my mind a bit. Thanks for the info.
He has been given permission by Dr. Patterson. Campus security is aware. Many faculty members carry, as do all of the deans and VPs.
Bart,
Does the policy on carrying only apply to students? May a student receive a presidential exception to the written policy?
Stuart, I think any fair reading of the policy as written would suggest that the exceptions clause applies to the entire phrase. We have SWBTS students, for example, who are law enforcement officers. I presume that the President is able to grant them permission to carry. At least, I hope that is the case.
I can cut to the chase a bit here and tell all of you that this is Texas. I have grandmothers in their 70s in every worship service who are concealed-carrying in their purses. I led a revision of our church’s policies to remove a restriction prohibiting the carrying of firearms into our worship services (which we would have been violating the law to enforce, anyway). I’m involved in 4H Shooting Sports with my son. The percentage of discomfort I feel over Barry McCarty’s possession of a firearm on campus approaches zero.
And, in fact, forbidding licensed students from carrying on campus would run somewhat contrary to the spirit of Texas law.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/new-texas-law-allows-students-to-carry-guns-on-campus/
I should clarify, lest anyone should misunderstand, that SWBTS exercised its option as a private institution to opt out of the law cited above. That’s why I employed the important words “the spirit of.” A blanket prohibition preventing any licensed SWBTS student from carrying would run contrary to the sentiments of this state and the spirit of state law. The Texas law grants campus carry privileges to ALL licensed carriers. SWBTS handles this its own way.
Come on, Ryan, Oklahoma is just like Texas in this respect. Can you honestly say that you are either alarmed or surprised by the existence of concealed weapons on campus? In Oklahoma, many administrators in public high schools are armed on campus.
John,
There may be. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And yes, I’m in Oklahoma. I also know it’s not ok for someone to brandish a weapon on the street or in my church. Guys who have CCLs in my church have commented that that is the aspect of the photo they are most disturbed about. There is a certain level of maturity that goes with carrying a weapon. That was not on display. And that’s their opinion and words. Not mine. I don’t conceal or open carry.
I was asking for clarification from Bart and I appreciate his explanation. My concern with shootings of people like Tamir Rice is well documented on this and other sites. It happened again is weekend with Jordan Edwards. And he wasn’t armed. I seriously dislike the double standard. I think it’s sinful and the worst part about the image.
I once again appreciate the apology and hope and pray we learn from this incident.
Oh I agree with you about the pistol in the photo. I was just addressing the concealed weapons on campus.
The problem with the gun in the photo was the optics and symbolism of it, not campus safety. The gun in the photo was, as I understand it, a prop, not an actual loaded firearm.
Bart is exactly right. The way one of the regulars here at Voices was treated on Twitter for simply asking questions in an effort to understand the offense was shameful.
Amen to that!
Adam and Bart: I find it hard to believe that one would not know the offense. And if you can’t understand the anger from the black community I have a hard time understanding that as well.
The black community is tired, more than tired of being depicted this way. It’s frustrating and shows a lack of ……..(I don’t even know what word to put in this space). I really don’t think that it’s shameful(and I didn’t read the tweets because there is no link to it to judge by), but to many this is how SWBTS and white Christians or America view black people. That is what is shameful in my opinion.
What was also shameful were those white men who requested (demanded) the pic be put back up.
Debbie, neither Adam nor I were denying the offensiveness of the picture. Furthermore, I can understand ongoing argumentation or even perhaps shaming of the recalcitrant. I’m just wondering what justifies the orgiastic pillorying of those who are demonstrably penitent.
William T…there are several words in Bart’s post up there ^^^^ that should make this weeks “outstanding use of vocabulary” article! (do you take nominations?)
Bart, excellent points!
Saw ’em. “Orgiastic” caused me to raise one eyebrow. “Recalcitrant” is just a synonym for any SBC blogger. Both are sunshine in a thread that should have ended 50 comments ago.
Bart, I don’t know what half of those words mean, but I feel confident saying that you speak for me as well.
One of the above posters wrote: “I find it hard to believe that one would not know the offense.” Since I’m the only one on here that doesn’t know (and I’ve perused almost the entire thread) , will someone give me a succinct statement on the what the offense was?
To me (and obviously I’m missing something), this is nothing other than what has been done by comedians of all stripes for the longest, taking something to an extreme in order to poke fun at someone – in this case the outgoing professor. IOW, it’s parody and caricature. It would seem the only two parties who can lay claim to “offense” would be the outgoing professor and those who identify with culture of the photo. It’s not an endorsement of that culture; rather, it’s a mockery of it.
It bugs me when Christians are so enraged and so bent upon venting their rage that they won’t take yes for an answer. That’s the mindset some of the folks on Twitter were in about this.
I think we all know that perspectives differ within Christendom among all ethnicities. Blacks, whites, Asians, etc. are not homogeneous in their perspectives. In order to further dialogue – actual dialogue – it seems important to share varying positions as we objectively (I hope) consider how we reply and think about various controversies that arise. Below is a post from a FB friend that I share with his permission.
The brother in Christ’s name who wrote the above is Mark Robinson. He is a black Christian in case you were curious.
Mark,
And Blacks fought with the Confederate Soldiers. They were Blacks who didn’t want slavery to end. Not sure if I get your point in pointing out this man’s race. Blacks aren’t monolithic in thinking. Does Mark Robinson represent your point of view on the twitter gangsta photograph controversy?
Dwight, I’m not sure why you don’t get my point in mentioning that Mark Robinson is black. To borrow a phrase from you – Ray Charles could see it. I only added Mr. Robinson’s race at the end of the comment “in case you were curious.” In case readers were curious because you and others have made the silly, parody picture about race.
And I have been dismissed two or more times in dialogues about this picture simply because of my skin color. Also note, Mr. Robinson’s view is one rarely, if ever, heard when this issue was reported on giving the impression that black Christians are homogeneous in their thinking on this issue.
Ironically, the parody song from several years ago “Baby Got Bible” never got an uproar and that was a take off of Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” by a white guy. “Baby Got Back,” while somewhat lyrically humorous, was really a song degrading women with sexual undertones all focused on women’s butts. I digress.
I agree that SWBTS needs more diversity as does the whole of SBC. I am thankful you said this picture “may be the lack of diversity represented in addition to the unwise images depicted.” May is the key word because such a picture is not explicit proof with the globalization and commercialization of rap music. Hip-hop is everywhere and mostly purchased by white youth (likely because of their purchasing power). Of course, we would then have the whole duty of proofing the cause/effect and correlation/causation of the lack of diversity and how it relates to the picture.
In case you haven’t noticed, there are many white rappers and they also pose like gangstas. Even the non-gangsta rappers pose like gangsters. The gangsta rap movement was started by non-gangsters; two of the most prominent being Ice Cube and Dr. Dre. There are lots of fake gangsta rappers – just google it.
How many gangsta rappers were offended and thought the pic dissed their culture? Gangsta rap is a sub-category of rap. All gangsta rappers are rappers but not all rappers are gangsta rappers. Which rappers who are Christian think gangsta rap is a positive for society? For rap in general? Interestingly enough, today you can’t fit rap culture solely within a sub-category of black culture given the amount of white rappers and white youth who mimic hip-hop culture. So why the offense of a parody picture?
Furthermore, I have heard from more than one of my black friends that equating black culture with gangsta rap (or rap in general) culture is insulting. People seem to forget today that Islam is not a race and neither is hip-hop culture a race. Plus, hip-hop culture has shifted immensely from the time is began in the 70’s. The Beastie Boys (white rappers) in the 80’s helped hip-hop break cultural and ethnic lines.
Russell Simmons (black) and Rick Rubin (white) brought rap into mainstream America slowly changing the culture over the last 30 years. Hip-hop doesn’t belong to one race. Based on hip-hops current diversity, I’d say your comparison to a black man dressing up as a Confederate does not hold. (Personally, I am far from a fan of the Confederacy and believe the war was over slavery.)
The big question is: What sin did the SWBTS professors commit? What sin could Ray Charles see that was not noted in your post?
Yes, the professors caused offense. Yes, they apologized. But folks didn’t move on. Love, per the Bible, assumes the best of others and doesn’t assign ill motives. We have freedom in Christ to disagree and sometimes do things other Christians’ consciences won’t let them do – and we’re not sinning. Sometimes in our freedom we offend others inadvertently. It happens to all of us and if it doesn’t your likely a hermit who never interacts with other people. Still, we have freedom.
We have Christian freedom – so much so that we (per Apostle Paul) may eat meat sacrificed to false gods. Paul ate meat sacrificed to idols – idols he detested, hated, had no business relating with – yet he ate. We, too, are free to eat and I’d say we are free to parody and use satire from the world. If gangsta rap is off limits then every single secular usage from pop-culture is off limits for the church. Yet, when our Christian freedom offends, we apologize/repent. The mature offended party accepts and lets it go – because love keeps no records of wrong doings.
Good post, Mark.
Dwight – “Blacks aren’t monolithic in thinking.”
I think most Followers of Christ would agree with you on this.
I also believe most, if not all followers of Christ, think blacks are monolithic in behavior. So why do so many attempt to say that this incident paints a picture that white people see all blacks as gangstas?
Dwight,
No, you missed my point. If you dress up in a Confederate uniform for any reason, it will not bother me at all. Feel free to do so.
For any who may have missed it, however, SWBTS has sincerely apologized. They never intended to offend anyone.
http://www.bpnews.net/48753/swbts-apologizes-for-twitter-photo
David R. Brumbelow
David,
So you see no problem with the twitter gangsta photo?
Jon Estes,
My objection to the picture is that it is a poor representation of the Kingdom of God and biblical values. Why is the Kingdom doing a parody of the ungodly world? If it was primarily meant as a tribute to a departming professor why are professors identifying with & affirming such un-Christlike behaviors?
The racial implications come into play with the interpretation(s) of the picture, which will obviously be done by each viewer. We tend to interpret things based on our worldview and cultural backgrounds. That picture lended itself to multiple interpretations and misinterpretations, some of which interface with racial stereotypes. Thus the uproar & controversy. Because Gangsta Rap originated with and was popularized by Blacks, and the dress styles, gang signs, bandanas, gold chains, gun brandishing in gang pictures and gangsta rap pictures are commonly associated with Gangsta Black Rap; the prop in the background-graffiti on wall, with the words: “Notorious S OP” is Black Gang lingo….then that’s why the picture easily lended itself to an interpretation of mocking Black gangsta rap. Again, that was not my contention, nor argument in my post. My objections had to do with the misrepresentation of God’s Kingdom reflected by the imagery & the wrong signals it could be sending out as to what’s the seminary may view as acceptable behavior. I hope this answered your question.
A little about the ethnic diversity of SWBTS and the SBC:
A total of 21 ethnic faculty members serve at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, including African Americans, Native Americans, Koreans, Hispanics and Asians. The ethnic student population increased 14 percent between the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years, climbing to 1,477.
Approximately half of North American Mission Board church plants are predominantly non-Anglo.
LifeWay Christian Resources is the “largest commercial publisher of Spanish Bibles in the world.”
Non-Anglo churches make up about 20% of SBC churches.
https://brnow.org/News/March-2017/SBC-s-ethnic-diversity-leaves-EC-grateful-to-God
David R. Brumbelow
David?
How many Black professors are in the theology department at SWBTS?
“How many Black professors are in the theology department at SWBTS?”
These type of questions have always bothered me. I want to ask in return…
How many should there be?
Should there be a certain ratio?
If we could agree upon a specific ratio, who do we let go so we can get the ratio to our standard?
Have we been racist because we did not consider a ratio previously?
Does meeting a ratio mean there is no racism?
Should we support the school to hire the best it can or to meet a ratio?
When I was with you in your church some years ago you had an Anglo executive pastor (I think that was his title). I was only there less than a week but was impressed that your church brought this man on staff. I know nothing of this man, I do not even remember his name but I was proud of you and your church for this man being in leadership.
Bro. Jon,
With all due respect, you are missing Pastor McKissic’s point almost entirely. First, he isn’t asking for a ratio of any sort, he is asking if there is even a single theology professor who is black at Southwestern. Second, and most crucial to what Pastor McKissic has been advocating for, is that perhaps a greater diversity of professors in the theology department might have averted this mess altogether.
John,
Maybe I am… Maybe I am not. The previous poster mentioned the increase in racial diversity at SWBTS. I thank God for such increase and pray for more. His questioned that followed…
“How many Black professors are in the theology department at SWBTS?”
… is why I read it the way I did.
I pastor a multi-ethnic church where maybe 10% are Anglo. I am glad the largest ethnic group in the church did not push their ethnicity on the church when they were searching for a pastor. If they would have, I would not be here.
No ratios considered in our membership or leadership.
Jon, David W and to whom it may concern: I do not believe that you or any other non-black as a right to dictate what should and should not be an issue for the one who is being oppressed.
I also do not believe you can say what is racist and what is not racist to those who are being oppressed.
Debbie,
That’s fine. Please let us know who gets to make the decision on what is racist and what is not. Please let us know who gets to change it. When it is changed do we find out when we do something that last week was not racist but this week it is.
It is going to be hard to not do something which will be deemed racist if the goal poss keep getting moved.
Some people think I am racist just because I am white. Should that be the line in the sand not to cross. If so, I do not know how to change it. Some people think all cops are racists. Do they get to draw the line on what is and what is not? If racism is going to be defined in a way where we can know so we do not offend, please tell me who is making the line.
Jon: The one being oppressed. That is who.
Debbie, who was being oppressed by the dumb picture?
Debbie,
There is a logical problem with that. Anyone can claim to be oppressed just to get their way and everyone else has to bow to their claims because only the one who claims to be oppressed gets to define their oppression. Wouldn’t it be better to have an authoritative standard for oppression so that we could evaluate whether someone is really being oppressed or not? It’s a slap in the face to those who are truly oppressed if people who aren’t really being oppressed are abusing the notion of subjective oppression for their own nefarious purposes.
It also makes a problem for people who are unable to express their oppression. For example, unborn babies can’t tell people they are being oppressed where so many of them are being slaughtered before they are even born. It’s an external authoritative principle that we use to evaluate their oppression. Maybe it’s because many pro-abortionists are subjective that they can’t recognize the oppression of the unborn and instead think that the abortive mothers get to claim that their unborn babies are oppressing them.
What would have happened in the days of slavery in the US if the slave owners would have claimed that slavery was necessary because the South was being economically oppressed by the North? And that has actually been claimed by some. But we have an external standard by which we can say that one oppression doesn’t justify another. And slaves were given no voice of their own to claim oppression in any significant sense, so they needed an advocate who had an external standard by which to evaluate their oppression.
Just a thought.
JimP: Diverting away from the issue is the problem as you have just done. Listening to those who are of color and minorities would be a good thing and quit trying to dismiss it. I think you are intelligent enough to sort those who you have named out. And it was slaves who sought change and got it. Women changed things, even children have and do change things. Dr. McKissic is changing things.
Listening instead of dismissing.
Debbie,
I’m not dismissing or diverting at all. It’s odd that you would think that; you are antipathetic toward me for some reason. I make some reasonable argument and assume all kinds of evil intent on my part. All I’m doing is simply pointing out that there is logical problem with completely subjectivizing the issue. It would go a long way if some discernible absolute principle were appealed to, especially if it were biblical.
Jim: Because your argument is bologna. You allude to abortion, but pro-life is just that, quality of all the lifetime. Not just the unborn. You bring children into the world, as Christians we should be concerned that all that life has quality of life and the basic human rights afforded to us as white people in America.
You minimized and dismissed it by totally avoiding the subject at hand which was the picture at SWBTS and how it affected those of color. So if you find me antipathetic toward you, it’s because you continually do it in every discussion. If you don’t like it, stay on subject and come with reasonable arguments not rabbit trails that change the subject to whatever you want it to change to.
And it is a fact, and we could use the unborn for an example, authoritative standard does not always work does it. In fact most times it does not until change occurs in that authoritative thinking. Listening to those who are oppressed and changing our behavior toward those who are oppressed is the answer.
In fact, I wish that in Paige Patterson’s apology he would have given a little outline of how he or they at SWBTS will cause change to occur in the subject of race and race relations. I think that would have even been more powerful.
As far as being Biblical, good grief Jim. The whole of Christianity is about compassion, although Zealots have tried to change that message over the years which is why we are in the state we are in. But compassion is who we are in Christ. Not wanting any human being to suffer injustice and wrongs. Christ’s ministry on this earth and how he treated people that others oppressed and shunned should be the greatest example.
Excuse me…..
Debbie,
Jim is one of the (if not *the* most) reasonable and reasoned commenters on this forum. Whether I find myself agreeing or disagreeing with him I always desire his perspective.
I truly do not get your angst against him. You disagree with him, that much is obvious – but come on – speaking negatively of Jim P – really?? Give him a chance and stop trying to shut him down.
Debbie,
I don’t think this is a tenable position you’re advocating.
If I claim Debbie is oppressing me, who’s to say otherwise? As the oppressor, not you. In fact, you are not even permitted to deny such. As the oppressed, I get to dictate all the terms no matter what your (the oppressor) claims may be. Oppressors have no voice.
This is what Bros. Estes and Pemberton were pointing out. It has major problems when taken from the lab into real life.
So, am I to understand that those soldiers who waved the Confederate flag were thugs, murderers and rapists? I may have misunderstood, but if that is true what was said , it is wrong, outlandish and just plain ignorant. Such a statement, if true, requires a swift apology. It is offensive to me.
John,
“thugs, muderers, and rapists”
thugs are considered to be persons of low moral character who disregard laws, disrespect authority, commit crimes, engage in bushwhackings etc era, gang banging….u name it, The Confedracy was the largest and best organized gang in the history of the US. They came close to overthrowing the US government. They committed all types of crimes including treason, murder, bushwhackings, burning & pillaging & yes it was very common for the slave masters who were the leaders of the confederacy to rape their male and female slaves. Not sure why u would be offended. All of what I stated is history 101. I’m sure u are aware of this. Help me to understand your point(s) of disagreement? Be glad to apologize if u can show me where anything I’ve stated is factually untrue. I did generalize; not every soldier or slave master raped or murdered, but many or most did. They all were fighting to enslave people made in God’s image against their will. That by definition makes them thugs. Please explain your objections.
Dwight,
This is a different Jon, the one who addressed you a few posts up. My objection to what you are saying is simply that the definition of gangsta does not fit the Confederacy. Treasonous maybe, but not gangsta. There is a difference between the officially recognized government of a state, which has been elected by the people, seceding from the union, and a group of people who just take it upon themselves to disobey every authority, rob and kill as they please, and pay no attention to the laws of the society they are in. Especially when the ability of a state to remove itself from the union was not as settled as it is now. This isn’t to say that there weren’t evil people in the Confederacy or evil motives behind the war. But there were also people who were otherwise upstanding, and yet sinfully blind on the subject of slavery. There is no excuse for that, but at the same time there is no reason to pile on extra sins they didn’t commit. Being a thief doesn’t make me a murderer. By your definition, the USA would also be one of the biggest gangs in history, as we did to England exactly what the Confederacy tried to do to the USA.
Thank you for your response. What I found offensive was what I felt was your brushing with such a broad stroke, the entire Confederacy. That would be like me saying, blacks are thugs, murderers and rapist. That would be wrong and a deplorable racist statement. There are atrocities to war which are most unfortunate and the union army were not exactly noble in their rape and destruction of life and property in their desecration of my hometown of Atlanta. Now, I certainly abhor the idea of enslaving men. My dad used to call it, “man’s inhumanity to man.” I agree with Dr. Peter Marshall Jr. that the Civil War was God’s judgment on America for slavery. I refuse to believe that all Confederates were of immoral character and conduct even if they were misguided in their mission. In 2010, CNN did a panel on slavery. “Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that “Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by [President Abraham] Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north. The same is not true of Union soldiers.” Thanks for letting me share my opinion.
Was Abraham a thug ?
Was Philemon a thug ?
Was U.S Grant a thug ?
” The Confedracy was the largest and best organized gang in the history of the US.”
Dwight, that statement is just simply not true.
Can we go from the year of being offended to the year of sharing the good news?
C B,
Based on the characteristics of a gang and how a gang is usually defined, that statement is without a doubt true. They even called themselves “rebels” which is a synonymous with rebelling against authority. Gangs have gang leaders; wear common colors; commit crimes; engage in violence; engage in misogyny; pillage; are destructive to society; brandish weapons; alcohol abuse. Explain why weren’t they a gang?
Dwight,
I have to disagree. You seem to be superimposing the definition of “gang” as recognized in contemporary American culture over on a past American culture.
It is just not that simple. The cause/causes of the Civil War have a vast complexity. The reasons men fought in that war on both sides are complex and are deep in sociological, philosophical, and psychological rudiments.
To simply say the Confederacy was “the largest gang in US history” is just too simplistic.
Dwight, I love you greatly. You stood up for me when others ran to cover, lied like yellow dogs, and sought only to preserve their positions of favor or to gain one. But, in this I must protest your assumption that the Confederacy was a “gang.” It was not. To say that is just too simple a definition of those who lived through or died in that man-made hell that leaves our nation to continue to bleed in its aftermath.
C B,
I tend to be a simplistic fellow. Enjoy life better that way. Don’t always succeed but I try to be consistent as well. There are cases where chronological, contextual, cultural and historical differences and distances in time and skew a definition to a point where cross transference of definitions are inaccurate and inappropriate. In this instance though, I don’t see a factor that would make cross-transference of terms(“gang”) here inaccurate or inappropriate. One commentator said a state voting to secede was the distinctive factor that made the Confederacy legitimate as opposed to being a gang. When you consider that the reason why they voted to secede that even more so document that they were a gang, or it deligimatimizes the state, which then makes the state a “rogue state” and a gang; consequently making the rogue states army a gang. Would love to know your definition of a gang, and how somehow the the Confederacy would not fit into the criteria of that definition.
C B, you and I both are principled men with strong convictions. The shock or surprise for me would be if you didn’t. speak your mind, regardless to our history. No harm done. If our friendship couldn’t withstand our difference of opinion here, it was a very fickled and hollow friendship to begin with. Thanks for the pushback. To bad you weren’t on the Preaching Faculty at SWBTS-:).
” If our friendship couldn’t withstand our difference of opinion here, it was a very fickled and hollow friendship to begin with.”
You are right as the rain, Dwight. Thank you for saying that.
BTW, I have made a lot of foolish and stupid mistakes, far worse than those professors. Nonetheless, I would have never allowed myself to be part of that picture for several reasons.
I love seeing guys come together on common ground despite disagreement. You gentlemen have demonstrated grace. Thank you.
How far off the topic can this get? Five people who should have known better took a picture that was silly and just uncalled for trying to show they are “hip” as their generation would say. Authority figures trying to be “one of the guys” not even thinking and unaware of how out of touch they are culturally. They rightly apologized and do feel foolish I am sure. Case closed , why make this a 2 amendment issue or Texas law issue. This is the bubble that the people who teach at upper education live in. They should be ashamed of their lack of gravitas and understanding of what they are doing. They have lost credibility in my opinion, where is something called common sense and common courtesy. By the way , nothing to do with the Civil War. Five guys thinking they are “cool” being the fool. No need to beat this to death.
Following the tenor of Pastor McKissic’s article, what is being proposed is that a more diverse faculty might have averted this whole mess in the first place. This is a premise that I agree with. It’s not simply a matter of the fact that the professors messed up and apologized, the article offers a common sense solution.
Why were some of you, who are so enraged at a hilarious picture of SWBTS Profs trying to look cool and bad, when the rap video made by Greear and friends was put out there? If I remember right, a lot of you, who think this picture is so terrible, were actually laughing and applauding the rap video “It’s Tricky.” Where was the condemnation then? Where were the concerns? Where were the cries of “Unwise! Terrible! Racists! Insensitive!” and all the other things that are being said about the Southwestern Profs?
David
Volfan, Friend….
What on earth are you talking about?
You’re comparing things here that I absolutely have no comparison.
1. Who is angry… I see people agreeing with Dr. Patterson and each of the participants of the picture and stating that it was unwise… And giving the benefit of the doubt as to intent.
2. Do you not know the difference between “hip-hop” and “gangsta rap?”
3. It was Dr. Patterson – and honestly the professors in the picture – that identified the Twitter post as containing racial overtones… Yet to see where anyone has called any of these people racist. Dwight didn’t even suggest that – nor did most posters here ( except maybe Debbie…)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! I did not say they were racist because I don’t believe that. I also believe their apology to be sincere.
Now do I think David W and Jon Estes wrong in their comments? Yes.
I don’t see the problem with the pic. And, I guess if I see anyone dressing like a hillbilly, or making fun of being fat in anyway, or making fun of the way we talk in the South will now be considered unwise, not PC, and insensitive….who should apologize to all of us fat, Southern hillibillies. We’re just getting way too sensitive and PC, in our day.
Hey, maybe the Profs were trying to look like Eminem? or KJV 316, or whatever that White Christian rapper’s name is?
I think we should all submit our future Halloween costumes, costume party costumes, or any picture we take acting silly to a PC firm, and make sure that NO ONE is going to be offended in any way, before we wear such costumes.
Hey, if anyone wants to dress up like a hillbilly, and hold a shotgun, to take a funny picture. I wouldn’t care, one lick. In fact, I’d laugh with them.
David
I stopped watching Hee Haw because of their offensiveness.
Jon,
I hope you’re joking.
David
David… Totally joking.
Just making the point to many people get offended at the dumbest of things.
Maybe the offense with the professors should be on their ignorance of the decision not the picture itself. Isn’t that the real root of the reason the picture was made?
My problem with this is the accusation of racism against some fine men of God who have no history with racism. Does anyone really think these men are racists?
Making “gangsta” the focus misses the underlying issue. Someone’s ignorant choice does not equate to racism.
we should have moved on a long time ago but it seems some need to make a personal offense a faux crisis.
“I think we should all submit our future Halloween costumes, costume party costumes, or any picture we take acting silly to a PC firm, and make sure that NO ONE is going to be offended in any way, before we wear such costumes.” I believe you speak in jest, Brother David, but this really isn’t a bad idea — considering that every stupid thing we post online will be with us for as long as there are computers and internet. It can become a “never-ending story.” The lasting legacy of stupid stuff we obtrude online is one of the memorable messages we should obtain at this occasion.
Jesus addresses 800 years worth of racism in less than 24 hours. When we conform to his method and stop with the artificial divides (like “white church”, “black church”, “white/black Christian” – we can too. – paraphrased from this Tony Evans sermon.
http://erlc.com/resource-library/erlc-podcast-episodes/oneness-embraced-racial-reconciliation-the-kingdom-and-justice
The responses of so many in this comment section show why our seminaries and our convention are losing minorities. We must look deep in our hearts and acknowledge rascism and the fact that it’s alive in us. To think that maybe the professors were depicting “Eminem” is ridiculous.
I’m not sure it’s statistically true that “our seminaries and convention are losing minorities” – it seems stats are showing, and it’s a good thing, that there are actually growing numbers of non-Anglos within our convention and seminaries As of late.
But, you’re right the whole “Eminem” deflection was/is ridiculous – even for a deflection.