Joel is a Southern Baptist Pastor and blogs at themelios.
Four miles from the site where the church I serve as pastor gathers for worship each week—just across the Potomac River—is Antietam Creek, Maryland. On that hallowed ground in 1862, Union General George McClellan finally caught up with General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. The first day of that battle—the first battle to take place on Union soil—became the bloodiest single day skirmish in American history. More than 22,000 from both sides gave the last full measure of devotion there. Today, the solemnity of that ground is marked to honor those who fought on both sides of that battle.
This September will mark the 154th anniversary of that battle. If you visit Antietam, or any part of the larger Sharpsburg Maryland area during that time, you will see multiple expressions meant to memorialize the dead—including Confederate dead. You will hear many conversations about the complexities that surrounded what is possibly the most awful chapter in our national history. Most significantly, you will feel a deep sense of loss on both sides—still felt more than a century and a half after the Civil War.
It’s that sense of loss that fuels the heat surrounding any debate over modern expressions of the 19th century southern Confederacy, which is why I was not surprised to see a negative reaction to my friend Dwight McKissic’s proposed resolution on the Confederate Flag. I feel that sense of loss myself. My great-great grandfather fought in the Confederate North Carolina 4th—my wife’s great-great grandfather in the South Carolina 2nd. Neither ancestor owned slaves. Both enlisted voluntarily to defend what they believed was the invasion of a foreign army into their recently declared independent states.
The truth of the Civil War is far less simple than so many make it out to be today. Yes, slavery was the driving wedge issue that propelled us into war. But what gave rise to the conflict between north and south was also heavily fueled by conflict over industrialization, agriculture, taxation, and most importantly, how the federal and state governments should relate to each other. Furthermore, while institutionalized chattel slavery was confined to the south, the larger issue of racism was rampant through the whole country. If you were black in the 19th century, by and large, you only had two choices—live in the south where you would have food and shelter in exchange for being someone else’s property, or live in the north where you would be “free” but largely hated and marginalized. The plague of racism infected our entire nation at that point.
In short, the southern Confederacy was a highly complex social compact. As such, its various flags, now enshrined in history, represent a complex heritage that is neither all good nor all bad.
Yet with all that in view, my hope is that Pastor McKissic’s resolution makes it out of committee, and that our larger Southern Baptist family doesn’t just approve it, but that they embrace it! Why do I feel this way?
The Flag has been corrupted. When Dylan Roof killed nine African American worshippers in Charleston SC last summer, my family and I were vacationing in nearby Mount Pleasant. This tragic, heartbreaking event brought more injury when Roof’s racist motivations were discovered—and captured fully in a picture of him wrapped in a Confederate battle flag.
But Dylan Roof is far from the first to take a symbol that once meant many things to many people, and transform it into a symbol of racial hatred and bigotry. My home state of South Carolina flew the battle flag over her state house for more than forty years, and it wasn’t placed there in the 1950s to promote “southern heritage.” It was ordered to the mast by then South Carolina Governor Earnest Hollings as a means of protesting racial desegregation in our public school systems. Whatever that flag meant to anyone else, it became a symbol of hatred the moment South Carolina’s head of state ordered it up the flagpole. I celebrated when it was finally removed, not because I am ashamed of my southern heritage, but because the reason behind the flag’s placement corrupted my heritage. Similar stories—many of them—could be shared throughout other parts of the country, and not just the south. Currently, the greatest hotbeds of racism exist in southern Pennsylvania—a “union state” where many confederate flags fly to this day.
So when our African American brothers and sisters see the “stars and bars” displayed in these ways, we should not be surprised that they view it as a symbol of hatred, because in most contexts where it is displayed today, that’s precisely what it is. Whatever we make of its past, the Confederate battle flag has been corrupted, and followers of Jesus should have nothing to do with corruption.
The Flag represents a part of our own history we need to lay down permanently. Pastor McKissic isn’t suggesting that we scrub every vestige of the Confederacy from our history. He has mentioned nothing of sandblasting Confederate tombstones or removing historical monuments. In fact, I’m assuming he would agree that to do so would severely compromise our ability to learn from our past mistakes. What he is suggesting is that a single flag—the “battle flag” that has been so corrupted over the past few decades—represents something in our own denomination’s past that hasn’t been fully repented of
The worst kept secret in the Southern Baptist Convention is that our beginnings are rooted in the support of institutionalized chattel slavery. We not only believed it was OK to own another human being created in God’s image. We used the worst forms of eisegesis to suggest such an institution to be supported by God’s Word, and even supported the appointment of slave-owning missionaries!
Fast forward a century and a half, and the grace of God is abundantly evident in our denomination, which now worships Jesus in more than 116 different languages each Sunday. Rather than destroy us in fire, as we would have certainly deserved, God instead gently, and with great patience, brought us to repentance of our former ways. Yet like any individual sinner, a corporate desire to cling to past dysfunction is evident when we are unwilling to separate ourselves from symbols anyone outside our tribe would automatically associate with the genesis of our tribe. When we cling, even at the expense of our fellow African-American Southern Baptists who are stung by our unnecessary offense, we only give more evidence of the fact that we have still not yet arrived. When I preach about addiction or counsel privately with people about sinful habits, I often say that your greatest idol is the last thing you are willing to let go of for the sake of the living God and His glory. I hope for Southern Baptists, we can let this one go for the sake of a greater mission.
The Flag represents a dead kingdom. When the Confederacy was defeated, it substantively redefined the way state and federal governments in our country relate to one another. I don’t have the space here to delve into the details, but as I observe what I believe is massive federal over-reach that continues to grow, I can’t help but trace that trajectory all the way back to 1865. A part of me wonders if, as punishment for the racism and slavery of a century and a half ago, God isn’t directing the trajectory of our nation in a way that we have now enslaved ourselves to our own government. His memory is long, and His anger burns hot when His image is diminished in the way our country insulted it during the 18th and 19th centuries.
I may be right, or I may be wrong. But either way, the Confederacy is dead.
One day, Jesus will return. In that moment, the kingdoms of this world—ALL of them—will become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ. We rightly preach that we should not compromise the coming Kingdom of Christ for a temporary one. How much less room should there be in our hearts for a kingdom that has already long been dead?
For these reasons, I am thankful for Pastor McKissic’s leadership in our Convention and pray we embrace his call to lay down the last symbolic vestige of our collective and historic sins. If demographic trends continue, 50 years from now the “minorities” in our network of churches will be the “majority,” and should be leading us into our collective future. Let’s take an important step in that direction in St. Louis this June by laying down the symbol of a dead Kingdom now used as a Satanic tool of racial discrimination, so that all of us—red, yellow, black and white—can march together into the muti-racial, multi-cultural picture in Revelation 7 we are all destined for.
The resolution is just that a resolution. A resolution does not change the heart or beliefs of people.
Tom Parker,
You are right. “A resolution does not change the heart or beliefs of people.”
However, a resolution that passes gives evidence of the fact that many hearts and beliefs “have already changed” and represents the prayers, hope, and encouragement that additional hearts and beliefs shall change also.
I would love to see the author’s 4th and 5th paragraphs included in the text of the resolution.
Great words. Hope they will be heeded.
Born again Christians are brothers and sisters, citizens of a spiritual and heavenly kingdom. We are to seek first that kingdom — a kingdom not of this world. For any Christian that should take precedence over any earthly kingdom — and especially one that God has both raised up and quickly torn down (Daniel 2:21; 4:17).
I am in favor of this resolution. The flag has become a corrupted symbol, much like the swastika. It may be unfortunate, but that is the reality.
But let me say a word in defense of those who, for reasons that seem right to them, are not in favor of this resolution.
Issues like this are sometimes like those awful altar calls, where the preacher says something like “if you love God and your family, come down front”. It can be seen as a manipulation. I suspect this resolution will either die in committee, or pass overwhelmingly, because who would feel comfortable voting against it?
I have been in the position of refusing to be painted into a corner on racial issues, and wondering if I am painting a big R on my forehead and jeopardizing my career.
Racists will oppose this motion, but let’s take care not to label everyone who opposes it as racist.
How many non-white members are on the resolution committee?
The non-SBC folks will take the SBC more seriously when there are non-whites in the upper-level positions of the SBC.
How many SBC seminary presidents are non-white?
We’ve taken intentional steps and made some strides on the issue, Tom.
Name them please.
Tom, I’m pretty much aware that nothing the SBC does is going to be viewed with anything but hate and disdain by you.
We’ve worked hard – on this blog and elsewhere, to work toward racial reconciliation. You just spew hate, so I’m not inclined to engage you.
Tom, either make a useful contribution to the discussion or go away. If all you are going to do is spew hate, we don’t need it.
Tom Parker,
Here is how you can ask the executive committee yourself.
http://www.sbc.net/ContactUs.asp
I don’t need to ask the committee–I know the answer and you know the answer–ZERO!!
Tom Parker, I don’t know the answer. I have no idea. And while I applaud that people of all stripes are or are showing up in all walks of life, including SBC life and other denominations, I’m not really into counting the color of noses in any group. So if you know the answer anyway, why ask for proof. I think (Dave can speak for himself) Dave was talking about general SBC life, not necessarily the resolutions committee. But in any case, to presume that favorable action on this particular resolution can only be achieved by having African Americans on the committee is a huge slam against the current committee and their integrity, assuming there are presently not any African Americans on the committee.
Don’t worry about counting the non-white noses in the upper level positions of the SBC because it would be very easy.
BTW aren’t you of the Presbyterian persuasion?
Tom, I am in the PCA, so yes. I have many interests in SBC life though with close family members being SBC and SBC church partners in my mission work and many close friends in the SBC. I’m also a grad of Mid America Baptist Seminary in Memphis back in the mid 1980s.
So Tom, I think I just pushed all your buttons–I’m Reformed, theologically conservative, and graduated from MABTS, a seminary birthed out of the liberal drift in the 1970s. I was active in SBC life as a pastor until 1992 and was enthusiastically involved in the CR.
Bad, bad, Les.
😉
I will ask you and anyone else here again to name those non-whites who serve in any upper-level positions in the SBC. You and others can say strides are being made in the SBC– but what are the names of these strides being made?
A one time black SBC president who ran unopposed is not making strides in my book.
You will be hard pressed to name more than a handful.
So Tom, you give no quarter for early strides? What about first strides? I have a photo of Fred Luter wiping away tears on the wall of my office. That doesn’t just happen unless there have already been “strides”.
http://images.christianpost.com/full/53946/fred-luter.jpg
Tom: “How many non-white members are on the resolution committee?”
Click HERE for the names of the 10 people who are on the 2016 resolutions committee. I don’t know who all of them are, so I don’t know how many — other than at least two, Kelvin Cochran, member of Elizabeth Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and Rolland Slade, pastor of Meridian Baptist Church in El Cajon, California.
This is a great reflection on a complex matter. I join in the hope that Bro. McKissic’s resolution is passed.
As worded, the resolution would need to be changed to allow for historical and educational public displays. Such would cover the museums and monuments. Dwight said he would leave it to the resolutions committee to nuance the language.
Kevin Cochran, the African-American former fire chief who was fired by the City of Atlanta, is on the resolutions committee.
Politically Correct (PC) – Are you against slavery?
Average Joe (AJ) – Yes.
PC – Are you against segregation?
AJ – Yes.
PC – Are you for judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?
AJ – Yes.
PC – Are you horrified by the senseless racist murder of the black folks in the South Carolina AME church?
AJ – Yes, of course I am.
PC – If the suspected murderer is found guilty, should he get the death penalty?
AJ – Yes.
PC – Are you against anyone flying the Confederate flag?
AJ – I don’t know. I guess it depends on if they are flying it for racist purposes. If they are not, I’m not concerned with it.
PC – YOU RACIST BIGOT!
David R. Brumbelow
Nice straw man argument, though I am not sure exactly how it impacts Joel’s piece, especially since his point is, “So when our African American brothers and sisters see the ‘stars and bars’ displayed in these ways, we should not be surprised that they view it as a symbol of hatred, because in most contexts where it is displayed today, that’s precisely what it is.” His point, with which I fully agree, is about what it has come to mean to African Americans today, and how living out New Testament lives, we should respect their feelings and go out of our way, when necessary, to not offend. That is not some wishy-washy, left-wing “PC” nonsense, it is a direct application of Romans 13: 7-8 and 1 Corinthians 8: 1-13. That not withstanding, can you cite an actual, real world exchange in which this or something very similar to it took place?
Dwight said that private displays of the flag were none of his business.
And here is my point. We are already seeing groups such as the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” make efforts to say what people can do, in public, as it relates to ones faith. In some places, students cannot have voluntary, before school, bible study groups because it is “on public property” and allowing them to hold those meetings constitutes “an endorsement of religion”. It is not just schools, but there are restrictions placed on religious groups (interestingly just Christian groups) any time they “use” public grounds.
Now let us look at the Confederate Flag argument. If the same pattern holds true, soon it will not just be people saying “No Confederate Flags placed by government in public spaces” but no confederate flags, regardless of the flyer, in public spaces. So those guys who are peaceably marching or holding a rally, if it is on public land, they are prohibited from using that flag. What about public housing? Should residents be prevented from placing this flag in their homes?
Or what about Civil War graveyards/memorials? Since it is public land will we place restrictions here? As I have already pointed out in the other thread, there ARE people who are demanding that any and all memorials to Confederate soldiers be removed and taken down if they are on public land. Now we are quickly moving away from removing a controversial “flag”, and getting into the destruction of history, monuments, and memorials.
I find some speech/expressions completely and totally repugnant. With that said, I believe that when we start trying to dictate whose speech/expressions are allowed and which ones should be regulated/restrained, we have turned our backs on the principles of freedom which this country is/was founded on. As the old saying goes, “I don’t like what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it!”
“As the old saying goes, ‘I don’t like what you say,but I will fight for your right to say it.'”
SVMuschany, That statement brings back memories for me.
When I was young, the hard men who raised me used to say about that statement, “That’s what makes America different from all the other %$##&@#$ countries on this %#&*%$# planet. And that’s why America is so %$#@&*% much better than any other &*%%$#@ country on this &*%%$#@ planet!”
Of course, as far as I know, none of those guys ever came to know Jesus as Savior and Lord before they died. But one thing is for sure, they sure loved this country and proved it many times.
David, you will have to point me to the exact place where I have called anyone a racist. Trust me, if I thought I was addressing bona fide racists, my language would have been MUCH stronger.
I’m simply calling attention to the fact that sometimes we aren’t aware of the offense we give others. And in areas where the Gospel isn’t at stake (and that’s hardly the case when it comes to the Confederate flag), we should express deference toward others–especially given our history compared with the context in which we now find ourselves. If that’s PC to you, then Romans 14 itself must read very PC to you.
Rather than hurl ad homenum invective, you might try actually interacting with the piece. Disagreement is welcomed and expected. Sarcasm and name-calling, not so much.
Joel,
My previous statements have been general.
I never said you called anyone a racist for not endorsing the resolution; but some have, both directly and indirectly.
And some have used some rather descriptive language to reprove me.
As has been pointed out, you can disagree with this resolution, and in no way be a racist.
David R. Brumbelow
Yeah, that is a completely fictional argument David just created there that absolutely no one here has made.
Joel,
PLEASE do not use the phrase “stars and bars” for the battle flag. They are completely different flags.
Also note: The “stars and bars” is alive and well as the design for the flag of the State of Georgia.
Exactly right, was going to correct this error when I saw you had already done so.
Well said, Joel. I hope this conversation does not get bogged down like the last one on issues of which Confederate flag is meant (since the “Average Joe” does not have a clue which is which), when the KKK began using it, and a minority of old documents which fail to mention slavery in connection with the founding of the CSA.
John
John,
I apologize if you think that my comment may bog down the discussion. I just happen to be a little obsessive-compulsive about historical accuracy.
I appreciate that, Ken, but I was not really referring to you. A single note about historical accuracy is one thing, and I tend to be a detail person in such matters myself–which my wife hates. In pastor McKissic’s article, some folks went on and on and on (at least that was my impression) about which flag was which, and what each one meant, and so on, what they were based on ad nauseam.
David B: I am simply being honest and giving my view. None of the above answers mean a thing to me and this resolution not be passed. Then it is just words.
It has nothing to do with politically correct, although I am glad it would be politically correct because there was a time when it was not.
John: Do you know what was ad nauseum to me growing up? Watching as blacks were treated in the most horrible way. Showing lynchings in an age that it should not have been. Watching the news as a child of black children being denied entrance in white schools, being horrible talked about by politicians. Watching the news as it showed that Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot. Watching the KKK demonstrate as a child, knowing it was wrong.
Having to stand up to people who questioned why as a child I had black friends and Mexican friends. Me not budging in my friendships and stance. A child. That was ad nauseum.
Some make it sound as though the Confederate flag is flying in churches all across the SBC.
I have never seen the Confederate flag in a SBC church, never.
I have never flown the Confederate flag and don’t intend to.
I still maintain campaigning against the Confederate flag will do nothing to improve racism; instead it will just make some people angry.
It is a “feel-good” resolution.
It is profiling anyone who flies it for non-racist purposes.
Previously civil rights leaders campaigned for things that mattered, like the right of a black man to eat at any restaurant, sleep at any motel, use any public facilities, ride anywhere in a bus.
In short, equal rights. And that matters.
Removing a flag has nothing to do with any of this.
David R. Brumbelow
David: Awesome comment!
David B.,
If the SBC votes to repudiate the Confederate Flag as a racist symbol, in my humble opinion, African-Americans would consider that by far the strongest statement to date that the SBC has changed dramatically on the subject of race. Hiring a Black or other Minority entity head would truly be the apex in “showing fruit worthy of repentance.”
What Dwight said.
To us perhaps it’s just a flag. To our African American brothers, it’s a lot more. We should recognize that and act accordingly.
“Last July someone placed four Confederate flags on the campus of the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site and Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in a bell tower under a “Black Lives Matter” poster, an act Pastor Raphael Warnock said was “intended to send a message.””
https://baptistnews.com/2016/04/20/pastor-wants-sbc-to-repudiate-confederate-flag/
And in other news, sinners do stupid things.
Keep downplaying it Les. Maybe you will convince someone, or at the most partially convince someone.
And
https://baptistnews.com/2015/07/30/confederate-flags-left-at-mlk-s-home-church/
Les:
You can push all of my buttons if you want to–have at it. If you can wait just a little bit longer you and your Presbyterian brothers can finish the Calvinistic Takeover of the SBC.
Tom I wasn’t trying to push your buttons. It was just an observation. And there seems to be this myth that the PCA wants to take over the SBC. But it’s just that.
I do not think it is a myth. It is coming closer to a reality everyday.
So. 37 comments. That’s all it took for this whole discussion to go off the rails and somehow become an argument over Calvinism. Methinks some among us are WAY too obsessed over that issue.
Joel, sorry about that. I don’t think it will really go in that direction. Good article also. I agree with you.
I am a loyal tithing member of the SBC. I am also a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. By the blood of my ancestors, and all they fought for, (they did not own slaves) I stand in firm opposition to this resolution.
Okay, Mr. Jones, I’m going to answer this one. I’ve gotten dozens of this sort of comment, most of which I haven’t posted, just because they’ve all made the same point. I have some questions for you.
1. What is the passion of your life – your “Sons of the Confederate Veterans” membership and the “blood of your ancestors” and “all they fought for” or the blood of Jesus Christ and what he died for? Paul said in Philippians 3 that he counted his noble heritage as “refuge” (a word that likely means something akin to dung) to gain Christ and be found in him. What is it that is the passion of your heart – your heritage in Christ or in the Confederacy?
2. You maintain that your ancestors did not own slaves, but do you deny that the culture of the Confederacy and of the South through the years has engaged in systemic oppression of and often brutality toward black people? Is that heritage part of what you are proud of?
3. Are your values as much biblical as they are confederate?
Mr. Jones, As I mention above, I too have ancestors who gave of themselves to the Confederacy. I personally have no issues with the SCV’s original mission statement to preserve our history and heritage.
I do, however, suspect that many (though not all) SCV chapters would consider me anathema because of what I have written above. So be it. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and by God’s grace and JESUS’ blood, will choose Him over any earthly affiliation every single time. When any organization minimizes the darker elements of the culture it claims to represent, it is self-deluding.
As for you being a “loyal, tithing member of the SBC,” that and a dollar will get you a Coke and a ticket straight to hell. I surely hope your eternal assurance is deeper than that.
I thought that Jesus taught us to educate people. Not roll over and submit to anyone that does not agree with us.
Dr. McKissic and Dr. Rainey,
Here is a thought for you.
In Germany, at the site in Dachua, where the death camps were during WWII, there is, as I am sure you both know, a memorial and at the entrance there is a monument.
At the end of the monument the words “Never Again” are written in Yiddish using Hebrew letters, and in French, English, German and Russian.
It is intended to be a sobering reminder that such as what happened there to human beings can never be allowed to happen again.
Maybe if you took a CF with the words NEVER AGAIN superimposed over the flag in bright crimson, like blood, and asked the convention to approve its display for some future years at the SBC, that would get your point across rather than a floor fight about the CF being used on public or private property.
That’s just a thought. It might not be a good one. I don’t know. But one thing is for sure, never should Christian men rest until the evil done by men to other men by any type of slavery in the past or the present is eradicated among us.
I”m open to anything that will help us express deeper regret for our past, and repentance toward a brighter future C.B.
My guess is that RC will edit Dr. McKissic’s draft and the final result will be just as clear, and worded in a way that most Southern Baptists could in good conscience support.
I have been largely silent on this over the last few days – but I have a few things I want to say…
Did not the United States of America (even the North and yes even Abe Lincoln) condone and even support slavery up until the union divided?
Are there not numerous states in the south who endorsed it?
If so – then why not ban the US flag and all the state flags for the same reasons?
(In fact Abe Lincoln supported the idea that once the slaves were freed it would be better for them to go to Mexico or back to Africa rather than invade the north)
My point is that if the standard of whether or not we as the SBC through a resolution is based on support of, advocation of, and/or other discriminatory practices ever took place under the banner or in the actions/words of someone from the past then we got a whole lot of banning to do.
In the context of the south where I was born and raised and have always served (outside of a short stint in the Peoples Socialist Republic of Northern VA) there is much more to be considered than a simple “take down the flag, do away with the symbols and reject the heritage of your ancestors which is and announce themselves a racist for having embraced it (Which despite your noble and in many ways biblical calls is – in their minds, anyway – exactly what you are asking them to do)
Its hard work and takes deep interpersonal relationships, biblical fidelity regarding the call of God to all peoples and nations and tongues to himself, and steadfast teaching that there is no distinction….at that cross.
There is much clamor about the feelings and sensibilities of those who are offended by the “stars and bars” (or whatever) as there should be. Slavery was atrocious. Systemic white on black racism through the 60’s and beyond (possibly still to this day in some localities) was deplorable, its understandable why we as Christians should take extra effort to be loving and kind and sensitive.
However, there seems to nothing of the sort granted those who disagree. Many of us who disagree with the resolutions and some of the mantra being spoken are not racist. We are not arguing for racism or “in your face” propoganda – in fact we are on the same page – we are all arguing (except the few idiots) against racism. We just see the paths to resolution in different ways.
Can there not be grace extended on both sides?
(I know the standard response to this type of post is “white people are not the victims” or something of the sort – let me be clear – I am not trying to make whites out to be victims. I am saying that all of the solutions offered for resolution of these issues cannot and should not rest completely on one side – and it especially should not be that ones disagreement as to the methods proposed by that one side – results in veiled (or sometimes not veiled) accusations of racism.) Such poisons the well to the point that no discussion can actually take place.
“Peoples Socialist Republic of Northern VA”
The esteemed General Robert E. Lee would be appalled. BTW my first horse as a younger person was named Traveller. Out of due respect.
A well named horse. Was he grey?
Having lived there – trust me- it is a completely accurate moniker and that region alone out votes the entire rest of the state just by the sheer numbers of people – almost all of whom are socialists. 😉
I believe you. Just such a shame from the days of Lee.
CB, he was indeed. He had a striking resemblance to Lee’s horse.
The freedom to fly the Confederate flag, or the blood of Jesus?
Why in the world does anyone have to choose between the two?
This is a false dilemma.
The Confederate flag is way, way down the list of importance compared to our Christian faith.
This resolution is simply a stir about something way below the importance of fundamental doctrine. And way below the importance of true racism.
Apparently Martin Luther King, Jr. never spent any time or effort to oppose the Confederate flag.
He had bigger fish to fry.
Dwight,
you may be interested to know I thought there were excellent black candidates for heads of the IMB and the ERLC. But alas, the trustees did not seek my advice.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
Grateful to learn about your advocacy for two Minority SBC entity heads. Not surprised, you are an upstanding person.
The flag issue being an unimportant issue to MLK & others did take 2nd place to fighting in your face racism.
However, in light of Dylan Root, Confederate Flags being left at MLK’s Atlanta Church, & it’s display in Mississippi, and often being worn & captured in photograph by White Supremacy advocates….I do believe King would address this issue if he were alive today.
The SBC needs to sign an official Resolution of Surrender. As we all know the SBC in general was on the loosing side of of the Civil War.
Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender on April 9, 1865
The Army of Northern Virginia surrendered on April 9, 1865
Mosby’s Raiders disbanded on April 21, 1865
General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered on April 26, 1865
The Confederate Departments of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana surrendered on May 4, 1865
Major General Dabney Herndon Maury, surrendered on May 5, 1865
Kirby Smith surrendered on May 26 (officially signed June 2) 1865
The last Confederate surrender occurred on November 6, 1865, when the Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah surrendered at Liverpool, England.
President Andrew Johnson formally declared the end of the war on August 20, 1866.
The SBC needs to sign an official Resolution of Surrender. The following resolutions did not put the issue to rest.
Resolution on Race, 1945
Resolution on Race Relations, 1961
Resolution on the Ku Klux Klan, 1982
Resolution on Racism, 1991
Resolution on Racial Reconciliation on the 150th Anniversary of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1995
Resolution on the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, 2014
Resolution on Racial Reconciliation, 2015
And now Resolution of 2016 on Confederate Flag
The SBC needs to sign an official Article of Surrender and it is time both sides accept it. You cannot change the history during the Civil War of the SBC, it is what it is. We can choose to resolve the issue, or surrender to God.
John K: You seem to be trivializing this but in actuality this is just how bad things were in the years you have outlined toward those not white. And many, many years before this. It should be anything but trivialized. It was that horrendous during the years you have mentioned . We should have passed those resolutions and we should pass this one as well.
Debbie,
It certainly was not trivial to General Robert E. Lee when he signed the Article of Surrender at the Appomattox Court House.
Nor would it be trivial for the SBC, if the SBC signed a Article of Surrender today. An Article of Surrender would carry greater weight than anything the SBC has acknowledged to date.
Until your response I doubt the words “Trivial”, and “Article of Surrender” have ever tried to be contextually linked before.
My unlettered, dirt-poor great grandfather is buried in a rural Leake County Cemetery. As a part of the 1st FL, he fought at Chickamauga, Perryville, Stones River, Jackson, MS, Missionary Ridge, and at the various engagements southward as the Confederates eased backward to Atlanta. He finally was wounded in a charge at New Hope Church and returned home with a crippled hip to a fractured family. In my wish to connect my grandchildren to family, I have taken them to Vicksburg, shown them where his regiment was charged defending Jackson, and to Champion Hill not 15 miles from my house. In my fascination for that horrible war, I have also tried to make my granddaughters aware of the sin that was so much a part of boys being blown apart because they thought they should defend their homeland without ever expressing awareness of the evils of slavery they witnessed regularly.
One evening I was showing them some of my grandfather’s bitter belongings, among them a tattered Bible, a worn-out account of those battles, and his discharge paper. One of my granddaughters suddenly looked at me: “But Pop, you talk like you are PROUD of him!”
I walked back some of my explanations, said that it was important to know the part that our family had in history, that we were so connected to an event that should never have happened, and that we should not allow our decisions to be molded by our fierceness to defend a way of life that was inherently wrong. But in the back of my mind were things I heard growing up, that the confederacy was a righteous cause, that slaves were kept so that they could be evangelized, etc., etc.
We are still too close to those feelings. We must do better. Dwight’s resolution is one way.
Out of the mouths of babes…
It is not wrong to oppose tyranny, nor remember (and yes, reminisce and identify as one who will stand against it). Are we left flying the American Flag because we won in our country’s own treason against England? Was taxation without representation and legalist favoritism justification for our taxation with representation and oppression through excessive, over-reaching legislation? What of the Native Americans who were transplanted for expanded possession of land? What of the Atomic bombs dropped on Japan as recompense for attacks on a military instillation? Is that what you think of when you think of the American Flag – I don’t? People both in our country and others reject, stomp, and burn the American flag for what they think it stands for. You are asking us to commit the same ignorant act. I do not identify with sinful acts committed by others, but am yet committed to sharing in the greater cause. I refuse to apologize for America, the South, the Confederacy, or the S.B.C.’s past wrongs; yet, I identify with their honorable intents. Why? I believe in liberty, that is responsible (having never committed a criminal act against my country). I believe in autonomy, that cooperates (having lived on both sides of the Mason-Dixon). I believe in reformation, revival, and revolution, when complacent authorities express oppression as commonplace and casual (having never held possession of someone outside my family; yet, being one ‘Doulos’ of Christ). I believe in conservativism, orthodoxy, and theology proper, when it’s defined by the Bible (having never been divided through a church schism, nor given to liberalism or higher-criticism).
What a waste of time, attention and effort – which is suppose to be a Convention that is immersed in Disciples that make Disciples of Christ. Getting into the political correctness and over-arching institutionalizing agendas should be apparent – hypocrisy and misdirection. I hope that we can move on in our soul liberty, preserve our history, advance in our conviction, perpetuate Biblical authority, and free ourselves from this worldly bureaucracy – lest the whole of the Southern Baptist Convention dies too. Allow individuals in their personal, ‘public, life’ explain why they fly whatever flag. Don’t give in to the empty talk and empty philosophy that is so prevalent today; otherwise, the denomination is moving not just in the wrong direction – but on the wrong path. I do not fly a Confederate flag; I fly a Christian flag. But, I know the history (more than just what is propagated today), and have no problem with it. If someone was offended by it, I would ask why? I would share with them the truth of oppression that it meant to do away with. And, rather than cause a stumbling – I would take it down. But, not because of the falsities they thought; and never by persuasion, fear or force (and certainly not because some organization voted that I do) – for that is why it waves. I pray that this motion is dropped; and if not, that in solidarity and silence (without fights, yelling, or anger) – no one votes at all. I mean really – should we stop talking about Christ because He means to Convict them, and they don’t want that? – Ridiculous
Christopher Neff: In my mind you can not talk about Christ and disciples etc and then in the same breath write what you wrote here.
But Christopher Neff: Both you and Mr. Jones have, I believe, shown why this resolution is sorely needed.
Debbie, I know Christ; and, I know Paul – I don’t know you. I am a Bible-Believing Christian. I make Disciples that follow and obey God’s New Covenant. I pray that you would put on the mind of Christ – instead of resting in your own understanding. That you would be transformed rather than follow in the pattern of this world. However, I am proud that you have singled-out particular people (including myself). This (I believe) identifies the philosophy at the heart of the problem; you are not dealing with issues (and certainly not just a flag) – but rather hurling stones and pointing fingers wherever you can. Do you mean to teach me, or exercise authority? History will change for no one; and who is on the right side of history is determined by the victors context to that history – they write the history books. In the end, Christ wins – end of story! It’s HIStory – His book/Bible. The future of the S.B.C. will be determined by those whose passion, zeal, and drive (either for the advancement of the God of the Bible, through obedience to the Spirit, in love, grace and Truth – conservatism, or advancement of political correctness, higher criticism, an inclusive façade – liberalism) gains successive control through the Presidency. I pray for another Conservative Resurgence. Those in opposition, I’m sure can find a welcome in more ‘progressive’ denomination’s ‘churches’. Should the Convention continue to go the way of the world (not simply in the area of just a flag); I will faithfully, yet with heavy-heart – vacate it myself. But, it should be apparent that this whole issue is one that is unnecessary and destructive. This is contrary to the purpose of the Convention; and, an over-extension of power (through statement – though not binding) – which will only create more division (not reconciliation) in our autonomy.
God help you Christopher.
Debbie, Christopher, the two of you exchanging insults and demeaning each other, especially invoking the pleasure of God to do it, is unhelpful and comes pretty close to violating the command against using the Lord’s name in vain.
Make your point. don’t worry about putting others down.
Dave: I’ll just say I disagree with you strongly and leave it at that. This has nothing to do with invoking the pleasure of God. There is no pleasure from God in any of this only sorrow.
“Debbie, I know Christ; and, I know Paul – I don’t know you.”
That’s kind a humorous there, Christopher Neff.
You’re quoting a demon as the first sentence of your testimony. 😉
Debbie,
I think that Dave’s point was that you made a comment with a demand of God’s action upon another person, only yours was somewhat on the positive side, if you get my drift.
Such statements are imposing our will over God’s sovereignty. That’s why it is considered taking God’s name in vain.
I don’t think Dave was in reference to “pleasure” in the sense you interpreted it.
CB is right.
Doesn’t happen often, but it did here. You were both being condescending to each other.
Then I will continue to “take God’s name in vain” because I do not regret what I wrote. I disagree that “God help you” is at all taking God’s name in vain, it is a cry from deep down in the soul in cases like this however. So I guess we will disagree. Again.
As far as being condescending, probably yes. I don’t think too highly of these views at all. I do think the view and the person pretty low. I don’t apologize for that either.
Christopher, you conveniently forgot the “tyranny” of 19th century chattel slavery, which was embraced by the Confederacy. Yes, the Union sought tyrannical means to achieve its ends (at least, that’s what I believe) but let’s remember all of history, and in doing so, remember the practical outgrowth of our theology of sin–we are all victims, and at one and the same time, we are all perpetrators. That description certainly fits the Confederacy, and you can’t identify with only the “honorable” parts. To do so is to also accept responsibility for the sins.
Otherwise, what you have isn’t “history” but a myth equivalent to WAshington’s “cherry tree” story. If we are to speak of the Confederacy, let’s remember it in total. You can’t do that without also recognizing the damnable cancer that caused God to eventually bring it to a quick end.
Do you identify as an American? Do you believe, that identity is honorable? I have not denied the facts of history. My point is made – even if misunderstood, and/or manipulated. This is a waste of time and misdirection from our Mission. So, what else should be on the ‘no fly’ list? Why stop with flags? What if what we drive or what musical artist we listen to are symbols of crime and hate? What if we befriend Calvinists (espousing elitism)? What about the KJ-only position (supposedly God preserved for ‘English’ speaking people). With your position and education…to state “recognizing the damnable cancer that caused God to eventually bring it to a quick end” – you would have to question why God gave them recognition in the first place. Again, I shall not waste further time on that which is not profitable. I hear half-truths and no grace – landmines.
I have several Confederate soldiers in my family tree. Some of them will have Confederate flags flown on their grave stones on “Decoration day.” One of my ancestors was written about in an old Time Life article because he was one of about 1/2 dozen of the last surviving Confederate veterans.
I am also a soldier of Christ, most of all. If a flag offends anyone that I should be in fellowship with as a Believer, or causes my witness to be tainted, I will gladly vote this resolution.
Steve Young
If you are defending the Confederate Flag you are not honoring Jesus. Stop it. It’s time to be done with the banner of slavery and racist oppression (except in historical contexts to warn us “never again”). That there are people in the SBC who are defending it now is heart-breaking and this shows why a resolution such as the one proposed by Pastor McKissic is needed and urgent.
I am not defending the Confederate Flag because of it’s history and use. I am defending the concepts of Freedom of Speech and of Expression. I am resisting attempts to legislate morality through guilt and emotion. The fact is people are corrupt sinful beings. And if we start dictating what speech, what forms of expression are allowed, then we loose any functional ability to respond when (Lord forbid) another group comes and says that OUR speech and/or outward forms of expression, are morally corrupt and must be restricted.
Look at the LGBT movement and recognized that the these groups are winning in the realm of public appeal. In many jobs simply expressing your private believes that homosexuality is a sin is grounds for dismissal. Private business owners are no longer allowed to run their businesses based on their personal beliefs. We are even beginning to see early rumblings of actions taken against Pastors if they are not willing to perform homosexual marriages (i.e. their churches would lose tax exempt status, they would be prohibited from officiating ANY marriage, ect). Public opinion is quickly “falling in line” with this. How soon before THIS speech, before THIS type of expression is “outlawed”? And what will we do then? Stop talking about homosexuality to avoid causing another to stumble?
As an individual, yes you have the right (maybe even duty as a Christian) to avoid flying the Confederate flag. But, when we start trying to dictate its complete removal from the public square, when we start demonizing those who fly it regardless of their individual reasons, we become tyrants, woefully ignorant of how the tides will soon turn against us.
Good points about the danger of political correctness, but the resolution is not a denial of freedom of speech (people can still fly the Confederate Flag, argue about it on blogs, and make speeches about it for the matter). The resolution about the SBC taking a stand against what has become an ungodly symbol of racism. The convention calling for the official removal of this flag from government endorsement is a demonstration of freedom of speech on our part. We are not calling for individuals and businesses to be forced not to fly the flag by the government (though I think they should fly it out of a sense of decency and kindness). We are calling for the removal of government endorsement of the Confederate Flag in this way (except in historical contexts). And by the way, political correctness isn’t always wrong (though it often is); I’m glad it’s “politically incorrect” to call someone the “n” word, for example.
Correction: …they should NOT fly it our of decency and kindness…
From 1 Corinthians 8 (slightly abridged): 13 Therefore, if the Confederate battle flag causes my brother to stumble, I will never display the flag again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
Makes sense to me. And I live in as Southen a place as you can imagine.
Okay, so you used the Bible, but . . . Well there is no “but.” In my hometown the High School I attended was the “Southside Rebels.” Last year the school board voted to change the name. Though I did not feel racist when I played “Dixie” as our fight song, I supported the change based on that Scripture.
Steve
In a former thread someone mentioned the book Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Redemption. Sounded interesting. I ordered it. The following excerpt comes from “that (now redeemed) devil Forrest” speaking in 1875 to a black group called the Pole-Bearers Association (according to the author, this was a forerunner of the NAACP) and others at a Fourth of July celebration. I thought this excerpt, especially my bolded part about the flag, might be apropos to the discussion.
Forrest: “I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none. I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going…I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.”
The full text of the speech was printed in the Memphis Daily Appeal, July 06, 1875, page 1.
Robert Vaughn,
Thank you for posting this information here. You are right. It does give food for thought about the subject of Dwight’s post.
More importantly, in my opinion, it testifies to the wondrous, sufficiency of God’s grace to save sinners.
And, even though Forrest got saved, and became an advocate and friend to the Black people, after his Civil War Days, still the PC police wanted to tear down his statue in Forrest Park in Memphis, and dig up the graves of General Forrest and his wife, and move them to a cemetery, somewhere.
Forrest got saved in a Gospel preaching Presbyterian Church in Memphis. Here’s the story…”Forrest’s heart was crushed and his spiritual eyes were opened. After the service he pulled Rev. Stainback aside and as Rev. Stainback later recounted: “Forrest suddenly leaned against the wall and his eyes filled with tears. ‘Sir, your sermon has removed the last prop from under me,’ he said, ‘I am the fool that built on the sand; I am a poor miserable sinner.”
And then, “The next night, Rev. Stainback went by to visit with Forrest, and they fell to their knees and prayed together. Forrest said that he had put his trust in the Redeemer, and that his heart was finally at peace. The final two years of his life seemed to bear out the truth of his confession. Nathan Bedford Forrest the fierce fighter, gambler, racist, and sinner….was a changed man.”
And, after his conversion, he did many things to help race relations in the Memphis area and beyond.
“When Forrest died in 1877 it is noteworthy that his funeral in Memphis was attended not only by a throng of thousands of whites but by hundreds of blacks as well. The funeral procession was over two miles long and was attended by over 10,000 area residents, including 3000 black citizens paying their respects.”
Praise Jesus!
I am in favor of the resolution.
Resolutions are just words. That’s true of all resolutions.
Words have meanings, and convey important things.
This resolution will convey how the SBC feels about the use of the Confederate flag in someplace other than a museum or in a place of historical significance.
There are sincere people who feel differently, and I respect that. I know of no bigots or racists on this blog.
There are people who hate the SBC and will use any opportunity to trash the SBC. One of their typical points of rhetoric is whatever the SBC is doing is never enough. That’s a pretty lame charge, but it’s made all the time.
I hope the SBC can make this statement about the Confederate flag. That is another step in the right direction.
We cannot be responsible for the circumstances of our birth or the failures of our ancestors (however noble they may be on other accounts), but we can steps in the right direction.
This resolution is another step in the right direction.
“We cannot be responsible for the circumstances of our birth or the failures of our ancestors (however noble they may be on other accounts), but we can steps in the right direction.”
Louis,
Well said, Sir. Well said.
My point is that we cannot (as a Convention) legislate morality; and, in this case, define a symbol in our history (in opposition to tyranny) – as un-Christian. By that same standard we would have to reject the American flag because we are to ‘honor the king’; and we separated for England. If you believe it is a symbol of hate, how will you know who the ‘haters’ are once you’ve removed their symbols. Now hear me, I believe Christians should not fly a Confederate flag – it was inaugurated with strong racial discrimination; which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture. But, we have to allow the individual to come to that understanding through Bible teaching: submissiveness to Christ, love for all – God created, and the truths contained in the Word of God. We have to battle racism in like manner. We cannot force people to lay down their idols without denying their worship. The last thing we need is to reignite a dying tendency; otherwise, we will create a hate that exists in secrecy, fueled by what this resolution means to define. If people gather to set a precedence in attempting to atone for sins they did not commit and resolve to identify with political correctness – the SBC is spinning it’s wheels. Are ‘non-whites’ really not coming to our denomination? And, is it because of a flag? Will this resolution resolve anything other than simply upsetting whole families – due to coercion? If you continue with such nonsense, you have to dissolve the SBC as a whole – reject it’s past. Which I believe is the deceivers intent; for with it is also the loss of a number of Biblical Convictions unique to us. There has to be personal conviction, and individual choice for anything to matter. This ‘resolution’ facilitates neither. We are not episcopal. We are not given to societal trends. We are local congregations that cooperate for spreading the Gospel. This Business is closing.
Chris,
“we cannot legislate morality”
All of the votes taken at the convention that addresses the culture(and they are many) have sought to legislate morality, certainly to influence/impact morality from a biblical/kingdom perspective. If the CF originated & continues as a flag strongly identified with White Supremacy & slavery accuracy, why wouldn’t the SBC repudiate especially the current racist use of the CF. it is still not uncommon in rural, small town areas in the south to see old pick-up trucks with a CF sprawled across the back window. I aling with 3 other Black preachers were called racist names by White persons riding in such a truck. Again, why wouldn’t the church of Jesus Christ speak to this moral evil? Your attempt to obfuscate this issue is disheartening.
“accuracy” should have been advocacy
Chris,
One more thing. It was arguments like yours to wait & let them be convicted that allowed slavery to continue hear for 200 yrs. You want to make the same mistake with the CF.
Dwight,
I did not live 200 yrs. ago. I did live as the minority in areas (in the South) where I was persecuted (as a child – name called, beat-up, isolated) simply for the acts of those who share the same color of my skin (I knew nothing of racism) – I learned it through hate towards me (for nothing I had ever done). However, to turn attention to the past does not lay it down, it only drudges it up. But yet again, we see the identified issue: let’s kill racism by passing a resolution on a symbol – which is not identified as S.B. I will watch out for pick-up trucks. Most southern states are populated by non-whites as a majority today. Racism is burned-up and you mean to resurrect it. The latest information states that whites will be extinct – it will be a non-issue in a very short time. But, I understand you don’t believe anything ever ceases to be. We can put the attention on the color of skin (or a flag), or on the character of Christ. I recognize no one according to the flesh, I don’t need to; the content of their character is expression enough.
I’d like to see this information. The data I’ve been able to find indicates that whites are the majority in every state except Hawaii. How exactly will whites go extinct?
Bill Mac, that is far from the truth. In California, non-Hispanic whites are only 39% of the population and declining. Likewise, in Texas, non-Hispanic whites are 45% of the population and in Georgia, while non-Hispanic whites are 55% of the population in the 2010 Census, this is fast changing as over 58% of children under age 1 are minorities.
These demographic realities are the reason that the Democratic Party is so confident that they can win the Electoral College in every Presidential election because of the overwhelming support of minority voters who are rapidly increasing in this country while the number of non-Hispanic whites is stagnant.
The state of California is the poster child of this reality as the Republican Party has no chance of winning at the statewide level because of the loyalty of the minority voters, (who comprise a strong majority) to vote a straight Democratic ticket.
David: Even if I grant your numbers, that’s far cry from “most southern states” or any indication that whites will be extinct in a very short time. It may be that whites who worry about whites going extinct are the only whites who are going extinct.
Bill Mac,
I wasn’t saying that I am worrying about whites going extinct. My reply was to your specific statement that whites are a majority in 49 states which is not true as Wikipedia clearly states.
I don’t think that whites will go extinct, however, I do think that if current trends continue and there is increased immigration as many are pushing for (particularly the Democratic Party), the whole country will have the same demographics as California. They used to say “As California goes, so goes the country.” This is definitely true.
When I travel out to the Golden state, I can definitely see the changes that have occurred as result of immigration. At the present time, one out of every three welfare recipients in the U.S. resides in CA. Fifty years ago, California was the wealthiest state in the country, with the best public schools to boot. Now the situation is completely different and immigration seems to be the most significant cause. The state continues to run deficits with huge unfunded pension liabilities.
Southern states aren’t in that much better shape either with about 70% of kids in public schools on the free and reduced lunch program. How much longer can this country go on with so much poverty, yet our leaders want to bring in more immigrants. At some point, there is going to be a day of reckoning when retirees aren’t able to receive their pensions or Social Security and that day is not going to be pretty.
Why should it matter if “whites” go extinct? I can trace my “ethnic” roots to several different groups that at one time or another in history tried to kill each other (Germans, Scottish, English, [a tiny bit of] Italian). Never mind these people groups are all mangled mixes of many different people groups themselves (Angelos, Saxons, Celts, Goths, Franks, ect). When you say, “white people” to whom are you refering?
Further please advise me, I am unmarried, should I only be looking for a wife who is “white”? Would it be wrong if I marry a nice Japanese girl? Or Hispanic? Or *gasp* black? I believe in strong conservative values and principles. These values and principles transcend ethnicity and skin color. And I will pass those values down to my children whoever they are (biological/adopted/ect), what ever color they are (white, black, brown, or purple with yellow polkadots).
SVMuschany,
I realize you have high hopes and anticipations of married life, but even if you do marry a “nice” non-white young lady, it is highly doubtful that you will have enough offspring to eliminate “white” as a choice on the drivers license application in the United States.
However, I must admit, I do admire you for planning on being the father of a Great Nation! 😉
I don’t comment here often. In fact it snows in Florida more than what I comment. I appreciate Joel’s piece here. I also appreciate my old friend Dwight. I stopped waving the flag years ago when I realized my top priority was the gospel. It wasn’t Southern heritage or a flag. I also realized how offensive the flag was to many of my Africa American brothers and sisters. For them, they did not see anything noble about it concerning courage or Southern heritage. They saw hate, murder, discrimination, racism, rape, lynchings, and many other kinds of evil propagated upon a race of people made in the image of God. I will not be in St. Louis, but if I was, I would vote for Dwight’s resolution. Now is the time for this resolution to pass unanimously. But I would also hope that a vast majority of time would be spent on how the SBC could support the local church in implementing effective strategies in reaching our communities for the Glory of Christ.
Thank you Dwight and Joel.
Thanks Robin. I hope you are well.
Robin,
Can’t speak for Joel, but thanks for your comment here. On point. Great testimony.
I must acknowledge that within the SBC this is not the most pressing issue. But, according to David M the # of “racist” responses to my resolution from SBC persons indicate that there is some racial healing that yet needs to take place. This resolution mainly is designed to influence the culture outside of the SBC, to be guarded and sensitive in their display of the CF, for all of the aforestated reasons. I’d really like to see all persons come to the point where u testify to being with regard to the flag. Hopefully this resolution will help us toward that goal.
We also wanted to commend Oklahoma Baptist University & the state of South Carolina for reaching the conclusion that display of the flag is not in the best interest of race relations.
Finally, we wanted to memorialize the Charleston Nine who were murdered by a man who is often pictured draped in a CF. To repudiate the CF is a great memorial to the Charleston Nine.
Again, grateful for your comment here.
Dave, Joel, Dwight, Debbie:
I apologize to all who believe my voice on here was condescending – I did not mean it as such. I meant to enlighten people through another perspective. We are called to love the Brotherhood. I value all input, as it assists me in understanding where others are coming from. I shall not engage again. Be blessed and a blessing in doing the Lord’s Work!
I agree with Dwight’s resolution. Yet as I read all the back and forth it occurred to me that sometimes God’s grace shows up in fascinating ways. Our SBC forefathers had some terrible views when it came to race, yet the SBC maintained a conservative theology and missionary zeal that helped it grow despite this stain on its past (and in part on its later history). While many northern Baptist groups succumbed to liberalism, the SBC still preaches the gospel (however imperfectly). We see in our nation how God used Martin Luther King to speak to the conscience of our nation on race. He had his flaws to be sure, but God used him. It would be wrong to focus on his failures and to diminish his achievement as a significant American. That’s not to excuse anything in him but to marvel at the grace of God. In another way, it is wrong to see the SBC primarily through the prism of its failures and so diminish how God has blessed and used the group of believers called Southern Baptists. That’s not at all an excuse for sin that needs to be repented of, but a recognition of the amazing ways of God’s grace. For all the differences we may have about the Confederate Flag and minority representation on boards and in leadership, we need to rejoice at what God has done and continues to do among us (and sometimes despite us). To paraphrase John Newton: we are not yet what we should be, and we are not yet what we will be; but thank God we are not what we once were.
Good and encouraging post, Steve in Birmingham.
Thought you folks might like to know that a racist named Larry threatened physical violence at the convention if this is passed – all in the spirit of Christian love, I’m sure.
Racism and gate live in Larry and in the SBC.
Thought you folks might like to know that a racist named Larry threatened physical violence at the convention if this is passed – all in the spirit of Christian love, I’m sure.
Racism and hate live in Larry and in the SBC.
Report the filth to the police! Get his ISP address, and report it to the authorities, and then we get to see the coward for what he truly is.
FBI Tips Form
Again, report him (if you haven’t already, forgive me if you have). There is a guy who is making terroristic threats at/to a large gathering of people, rooted in racism. Given that you Dave (as moderator) are in Iowa, the convention will be in Ohio, and the scumbag Larry is likely in another state (other than those two), that would give the FBI more than enough jurisdiction to use the ISP information, locate him, and pay him a little visit.
I oppose the resolution for reasons other than racism. But when a racist little cockroach comes out and threatens violence because of this resolution? I say squish him!
Opps..Convention in STL…Republican convention is in Ohio…Tells you what is on my brain today.
That’s crazy, Dave. But now I want to go to see it pass.
“Larry” may have just united the entire Convention on this one. But yeah, track his IP and run him to ground.
Just a recent development that I believe demonstrates my point quite nicely.
Kentucky Confederate Monument to be Removed after 120 years
There is one particular quote I find interesting.
“I can’t tell you how happy I am,” Jones said after the announcement Friday. “I think this statue being on the campus is somewhat akin to flying the Confederate flag over the (university’s) administration building.”
So it is not just the flag. It is in fact any depiction of the Confederacy that some people want to get rid of. And in my opinion, that is not only a dangerous encroachment on the freedoms of speech and expression, but also a dangerous attempt to rewrite history.
“We used the worst forms of eisegesis to suggest such an institution to be supported by God’s Word, and even supported the appointment of slave-owning missionaries!”
This is probably not the time for rigorous Biblical discussion as this issue is being driven by much emotion. But generally when I see the charge of eisegesis on this issue it is accompanies only by references to a few examples of theological “low hanging fruit”.
I would love to see an honest interaction with the best of Robert L. Dabney’s argument as presented in “A Defense of Virginia”. Dabney is certainly no eisegete.
Donald, while Dabney is no eisegete, I may read his systematic theology before I die, he is a racist. I have the annotated edition of “A Defense of Virginia.” Darby’s mastery of and my ignorance of Latin make Roper’s annotated version more friendly to me. He makes some statements about the black race that are indefensible.
While I do agree with Darby the South has been excoriated for her sins while North has skated I do not agree with his conclusion that Virginia was a victim during slavery.
A good, well done book review of “A Defense of Virginia” would lead to a comment thread of at least a 1,000 comments on Voices.
I have no idea how Dabney was changed to Darby. Both references to Darby should be Dabney.
Dean Stewart,
It was just a little “Dab” of a slip, that’s all.
Donald, are you recommendin Dabney, or identifying with his views?
Dave,
I recommend anyone earnestly engaging in the current subject to read Dabney before punting to “the worst forms of eisegesis”. Perhaps we should not simply seek the most expedient way to dismiss the earnest opinions of God-fearing men. Confederate slavery is probably not the worst evil ever perpetrated by Christians.
Perhaps there is benefit in interacting with the more substantial thoughts that carried the day back in the day.
Dabney cannot be easily dismissed (which is not the same as saying he was right). I do think that emotion is carrying the day today, when there should be more thoughtful reflection on the past before simply declaring every dissenting voice an eisegete.
There may also be much benefit in reading Butterfield before reading Dabney.
Gotta say I get nervous when someone starts speaking highly of the exegetical prowess of racists and those who biblically defended racial subjugation of blacks.
Raises a few hairs.
Dave, Dabney has much good to say. Every theologian, including Southern Baptists who preceded you, has points where they missed it. Same with every preacher who reads and writes here. I dare say that if we could all see in each others’ hearts, we’d all be appalled at some of the things we think.
Dr. Sean Lucas wrote on Dabney in a book titled “Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life.” It is reviewed here for a flavor of the book.
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/robert-lewis-dabney-a-southern-presbyterian-life.php
Dr. Lucas is pastor of FPC Hattiesburg, MS and formerly professor of church history at Covenant Seminary and now also same prof at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS. He’s no slouch.
Dave then when will you draw the line? Do you throw out and condemn ALL of Luther’s writings because of what he said about Jews? Indeed, if we are to judge all writers/theologians by today’s standards, than we will end up with very few historical figures to read.
I’ll admit to ignorance of Dabney. I also understand that many have blind spots.
It just makes me very uncomfortable
SV, you could throw Boyce, Broadus, Manly and Whitefield into that group with Luther too.
This is the problem. Broadus and Manley for example. Venerated a bit are they not? Isn’t is the Broad Man Hymnal?
Men made mistakes in the past. What will we be judged for some day? Like, “how could they have believed that?
Some of our fathers in the faith, in their social context and given the passages about slaves in the bible and many other factors, held beliefs that we find horrid and unbelievable. We are all so much more enlightened, you know. Really, if we had been born in SC or VA in the early 1800s into a plantation context, would we have not even thought of thinking the way these men did? Makes me wonder if I’m honest.
“Confederate slavery is probably not the worst evil perpetrated by Christians.”
Donald,
If not, please name what was worse?
Your commentary on Dabney providing an intellectual defense and rationale for slavery that would not be eisegetical is impossible, since no accurate exegesis would lend itself to a defense of slavery. Dabney’s views on race contradicts everything the Bible says about race(Malachi 2: 10). To hold him up as a worthy apologist for the confederacy & her flag is sickening & appaling. It’s people like Dabney, that produces the racist “Larry’s” of this world…who would threaten violence if the resolution is voted affirmatively, and feel intellectually & morally justified in doing so.
I simply don’t understand your upholding Dabney as a legitimate bona-fide defendant of the confederacy…unless you buy into Dabney’s racial views.
Dwight, you were addressing Donald. But if I may, I said earlier with an auto correct, “Danny [Dabney] espoused some awful views on race. He was a master theologically in so many ways.”
His views on race were indeed awful. But he had very, very much to ofer the church in his theological writings.
As to what could be worse, as bad as slavery was, many, many lives have actually been lost at the hand of Christians. We really have no idea, for instance, how many baby lives have been snuffed out by Christians via abortion. As bad as enslavement was/is, dying is worse. And Christians have murdered many, many times throughout history, beginning in Genesis.
Dean, truly. This is why I suggested an interaction with “the best” of Dabney.
Danny espoused some awful views on race. He was a master theologically in so many ways.
Les,
If Dabney had been a practicing & vocal homosexual you’d have no appreciation for any of his other theological views, because he’d have no credibility in your judgement. Yet, you are willing to compartmentlize his racial views from his other theological views. I find that interesting.
Dwight, nowhere in scripture can any thinking person, and Dabney intellectually towered over most of us today, come even close to finding approval of homosexual relations. Slavery, on the other hand, can at least be construed since the scriptures provide guidelines to conduct slavery. Not so with homosexuality.
Les,
No. Your misrepresentation & misapplication of the Scripture is the same as the slave masters. The Scripture is clear that God created all men equal & we should relate to each other as such(Acts 10:34; Galatians 3: 27, 28; Malachi 2: 10; Revelation 5: 8,9; 7:9). Slavery is an ancient practice. But the intentional use of Scripture to justify was intentional isogesis. Furthermore, there was a huge difference between chattel slavery as practiced in America, and the slavery practiced in the Bible, which was more kindred to an employee/employer relationship. Abortion was no less evil than slavery. It is an insult to the descendants of the slaves & the slaves themselves to suggest otherwise.
Dwight,
I am not misrepresenting the scripture. Please read again what I said. Yes chattel slavery as the south practiced was sinful. I have said so. But there are in the scriptures provision for slaves and owners, and how to conduct those relationships in a Christian manner. That is not by and large what happened in the south.
As for abortion and chattel slavery, in any context both are awful and sinful. One leads to death. Always. The other is mistreatment. Awful mistreatment. But not death. Mistreatment and living thru it is not as bad for the person as the sissors puncturing the brain of a person and sucking said brains out.
Domestic Slavery Considered As A Scriptural Institution is a good primary source for opposing Baptist views from the period leading up to the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. A series of letters on the topic between Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland were carried in the Christian Reflector newspaper from 1844 to 1845, and are reprinted in this book.
Dabney:
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=134:robert-lewis-dabney-sees-african-americans-as-a-sordid-alien-taintq-and-is-against-their-education&catid=38:reconstruction-and-fusion
And here is Dabney, exactly right on secular education and seemingly prophetic in his predictions of the future:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moajrnl/acf4325.3-01.004/381:18?rgn=full+text;view=image
Neither of these make him either right or wrong on his arguments in Defense of Virginia.
The sentiments expressed in that essay are abominable. This doesn’t come from a good man, genuinely mistaken about slavery, but from a white supremacist, whose ideas ought to be anathema in any age.
You feel that way about all the SBC offenders in her history? Basil Manly for example was a slave owner and reported whipped his slaves? Wasn’t Broadus a slave holder?
I don’t know anything about Manly or Broadus, but I have no problem denouncing white supremacy, no matter who espoused it.
Bill Mac, I said earlier, “Really, if we had been born in SC or VA in the early 1800s into a plantation context, would we have not even thought of thinking the way these men did?”
You’re pretty confident that that you would have seen what most in the south, including some pretty astute theologians who knew there bibles, could not see? Did you grow up in the south BTW?
Les: Wrong is wrong in any age. If I had been born into a Klan family, I may well have become a white supremacist. That doesn’t excuse white supremacy. “This is how I grew up” is about the same as “I was only following orders”.
If virtually everyone in the US was OK with slavery, you might have a point, but some saw it for the evil it was, even then.
No, I did not grow up in the South.
And I am not excusing slavery. So now we are on the same page. But I did grow up in the deep south. Those of you who didn’t may have a hard time understanding what the culture was like as late as the 60s and 70s in the south and how the way your family raised you affected your views. Thankfully my upbringing was not one where mistreatment of or superiority over African Americans was tolerated. My dad taught me to love and respect all colors. I did and I do.
Les: If you look at any young child, you don’t have to teach them to like a child of another color. It’s automatic for them to not notice color. They either like a child or they do not. Hate is taught to children. But even they know that owning another human being is wrong. You don’t have to teach them, they know. So I find your reasoning troubling.
When anyone owns another human being it is for horrible and selfish reasons. Racists know they are wrong on the morality scale, they just don’t care. It’s not out of ignorance or upbringing Les. Good grief.
Debbie,
What exactly what was it like for you growing up in the heart of dixie?
Debbie, have you seen the movie or read the book “The Help?” Jackson, MS, circa 1963. That was an accurate representation of my hometown, the one novelized by Nelle Harper Lee. Maybe it was different for you, but I saw with my own eyes how children were taught and led to view African Americans as less than civilized human beings. It worked. And the culture perpetuated itself. Otherwise godly people promoted this view. Now I know you and otherwise stop listening after the “otherwise godly people” part and dismiss it all as “well probably weren’t Christians anyway.” But that would be quite foolish to go that route.
Les,
Are u aware that thousands of slaves were murdered, lynched, hung, shot, beaten to death etc? Do u realize that thousands died at sea or in the process of being captured & transported to America? Abortion is evil, no doubt about it. But to make abortion a greater evil is to devalue the life of the slaves
No Dwight. I was comparing slavery to murder. You now are comparing murder to murder. Many thousands of slaves did not die as well.
Look, I am not here to defend slavery. 19th century slavery in the US was awful and sinful. But to throw out all theologians who were sympathetic to the confederate cause, well not many left and it’s myopic. A man can be wrong on some things and right on others. Just like you…and me.
Les,
The slaves considered slavery worse than murder as evidenced by a song they sang during slavery entitled “Oh Freedom”.
The last line in the song says, “And before I’d be a slave, I’d be buried in my grave, and go home to my Lord and be free.” Now, there’s proof positive that the slaves considered slavery worse than abortion.
Or rather, they considered abortion preferable to slavery.
Yes they did Dwight.
Ok Dwight. Thanks for the conversation. God bless you brother.
That seems pretty dismissive Les. Wow!
Debbi,
You’ll never know how much I appreciate you.
Thanks for you being you; a wonderful, smart , articulate, kind, reasonable, transparent, Christlike, courageous, and filled with integrity kind of person. May the Lord continue to bless you, real good.
Debbie, seems is the operative word. It wasn’t. I just saw no reason to keep going back and forth. Dismissive would not end with “God bless you brother.”
Les,
Personally, I did not read your last comment on the subject as dismissive. But, I was disheartened to realize that you couldn’t or wouldn’t accept the fact that the slave would view his plight at least as equal to the aborted child. And many slaves, because of the torture, rape, & brutality that often accompanied slavery, would see slavery as more aggrigeious(sp) than abortion because of the equally brutal, and furthermore, the extended nature of the slaves plight; as opposed to the abrupt death of the aborted person.
Thank you Dwight. I should have at least acknowledged that. I can only imagine that the slave did see it that way. I can imagine that some would even see death as a better way. So I do get that. Trying to look at it objectively, though, in my view it seems to me that death is a harsher end than mistreatment for a human. But I do get your point.
As I said, I wasn’t intending to be dismissive and was only just willing to let it go at that point since we didn’t seem to be getting anywhere.
God bless.
Les,
I get your point too. This is the second time that you’ve referred to slavery as “mistreatment.” That word makes slavery seen as only marginally & minimally a horrible matter. Slavery was more analogous to muder, maiming, molestation, rape, etc., than mistreatment. No one would refer to a woman raped as mere “mistreatment”.
Your point is since their lives did not always abruptly & brutally end, then they were better off than aborted babies. I get that. But, the slaves expressed a desire for their murder over the long burdensome & brutal institution of slavery.
Dwight,
I do not mean to minimize the awful way slaves were often treated. Really. I was using the word mistreatment in contradistinction to death. That is all. The brutality many suffered was just awful. Terrible. No excuse really. Rape is horrible. And with rape, I cannot imagine how a woman who has suffered such an injustice must feel. I’ve read accounts where they wish they had just died instead of surviving. My only point was/is that surviving to live another day in the grans scheme if things seems better than dying. But I by no means intend to minimize the awful treatment saves endured. Words fail me to describe that brutality.
Gotta turn in. After midnight in mid America.
I read the whole Dwight/Les exchange and both men made excellent points. I have respect for both men. I found myself agreeing and disagreeing (mainly on minor wording – not what I think is intent) with both men.
I think it’s essential that we all keep in mind a few things –
Fundamentally, I think most of us are not that far apart – more likely not at all apart -,when it comes to slavery.
1. Slavery was bad – real bad. The Abuse of fellow human beings that sprang from a sinfully depraved sense of superiority leading to the treating of people as property was absolutely disgusting.
2. hindsight is always – clearer. Often 20/20. It’s easy to sit in judgment now on the “ills and warts” of people in the past.
3. Believers over the course of thier lives make good and right and sound decisions as well as awful, disgusting, sinful and depraved ones during the same lifetime.
MLK is a great example. He held some unorthodox theology – was a serial philanderer – yet was, I believe, used by God to lead an entire nation to right some serious wrongs. He was both a “hero” and a “sinner”. Discounting, rejecting or trivializing his life’s work because of his sinfulness would be stupid. (Same with the theological and denominational leaders mentioned in this thread – “sinners and saints” all.
“Grace, grace – Gods grace – grace that is greater than all our sin.”
We’d all do well to extend grace like we’ve received to believers and leaders in the past who sinned.
Tarheel,
This is only the 2nd or 3rd time that I ever recall basically agreeing with you on all you say in your comment here, regarding my conversation with Les.
The MLK reference/illustration here was even appropriate. Here is why I “basically” agree & not totally agree with you Mr. Cline.
Because of the two questionable or problematic issues regarding MLK u mentioned, MLK’s commentary on those two subjects would be viewed with a jaundiced eye. If memory serves me correctly it is because someone named Donald introduced Dabney to this conversation as a scholar that we needed to read/hear in order to better understand the confederacy & confederate flag issue. Because the confederacy & confederate flag issue are intertwined with race, Dabney is simply disqualified to address this issue within the context of the pending resolution because of his well documented racist views.
What do you say, my friend?
“and not totally agree,” should have been, but not totally agree.
Dwight
Don’t know much about Dabney – But I’ll say based on some of the comments of people have read here about him – He may be similar to Luther in that he was a brilliant and orthodox theologian while at the same time being an abject sinner ? I know that Luther wrote and said and thought some horriblly sinful things about Jews – yet he is clearly and commonly is one of the most influential theologians of the Protestant Reformation. In other words he was right about many, many things – and also was dead wrong about some very important things at the same time – all within the same individual.
I think the point that I am making is that it is completely possible to repudiate (Clearly identify as sinful) some beliefs – or stances –of people from the past and at the same time embrace other of their stances. People are more complex then the simple caricatures we often try to make them through the lens of history.
*Clearly and commonly accepted as One of the most influential…
Tarheel,
I agree with u again, concerning the mixture of truth & error that comes with fallible writers. My question to u though is; where they clearly are in error-as Dabney is on race-wouldn’t that disqualify him from being a credible contributor to a 21st century discussion on the proper or improper use of the Confederare Flag in today’s society? If MLK’s indiscretions would disqualify him from addressing certain topics-and they would-wouldn’t Dabney’s indiscretion also disqualify him?
Yes, I would think he would be disqualified…. but I am not sure Dabney has commented on your resolution….LOL (couldn’t resist that one, haha)
Seriously, your point is well taken.
I am also glad that you see my point regarding the complexities involved in making absolute historical judgments as to people being “all good” or “all bad”.
One day my friend – people just might be talking about the highlights and low-lights of great and significant persons like you, Dave, Adam, Joel, Todd and Les as well as other voices contributors of high renown (Thankfully I am well below appropriate status to have my name included in those conversations) – I am sure that when that happens it will be difficult for them just as it is for us when talking about people from the past.
Dwight. Good morning. Again, if I may. I do think Dabney would not be one to look at regarding how people should treat other people re slavery. His views on the African American race were abhorrent.
As to citing him on the display of the CF, that may be a little more complicated, at least in my view. 1. I think as to whether an individual should or shouldn’t display the flag, I don’t think Dabney is one we should look to for advice. I thunk his views on race disqualify him for that. But 2. And this is really not the point of the resolution, as to whether the fed government should ban the display of the flag by individuals or I think Dabney may be a good source. Perhaps reading his views on state powers may be helpful.
But again, on something like this resolution, I don’t see how he can be helpful.
Les,
Thanks for answering the question. Appreciated the dialogue.
May I say that virtually everyone in the 19th Century would be considered racist by todays standards…even the abolitionists themselves. Mr Lincoln said that the white race must have the higher position (loose paraphrase). The nation of Liberia was developed as a place to send former slaves in an effort to rid the nation of the black population. I’m all for racial reconciliation, Lord knows its needed, but banning an historic American flag is just jumping on the bandwagon. I despise that a confused young man took the lives of our brothers and sisters in Charleston. And I especially despise that he misappropriated the flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is a soldiers flag, it was bravely carried into battle by regular men, most of whom owned not a single slave. Great revivals took place in the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Thousands of men were converted to Christ and they returned home and became active in their churches, trained for ministry and made a huge impact for the Gospel…to the point that the South became known as the Bible Belt! Listen, I can understand why lots of folks, especially black folks view the flag at best with suspicion, no doubt the flag has been misused, but I’m not in favour of any resolution banning or condemning the flag. There is a proper time and place for displaying and using the Confederate battle Flag (at memorials, reenactments, private display, graves, etc.) I’m all for engaging in conversation. Thanks for letting me share my view.