The recent MLK50 Celebration in Memphis was a phenomenal success: Almost 4000 in attendance; over a million have listened online; 25% of the live audience were minorities, predominately African American; incredibly powerful, persuasive prophetic, biblical and redemptive preaching, teaching, panel discussions, fellowship and networking across racial lines. The most diverse gathering in my 40 years of observing SBC Life, with approximately 1000 Blacks in attendance. The Annual Convention of the SBC has nowhere near that kind of Black attendance. Obviously, with a million listeners online, it has generated major positive word of mouth publicity and print journalism publicity for the SBC. A generation of younger Black pastors, who had written the SBC off, is now giving her a second look because of the quality, content and inclusiveness of the MLK50 Celebration.
This event was appreciated and viewed as educational, edifying, inspirational, therapeutic and sparked hope for a “brighter day ahead” on the racial front in the SBC and our nation. Job well done, Dr. Russell Moore, Southern Baptist Convention, and the ERLC!
Yet, there is an underbelly, subterranean, disagreeable, element in SBC life that view the MLK50 as “race-baiting,” “cultural Marxism” advocacy; and a “social justice warriors” convocation. Of course, this element views “social justice” and “social justice warriors” (their terms not mine) as a pejorative, although the Bible addresses justice, repetitively and affirmatively.
Sister Lorine Spratt has emerged, post MLK50, as a spokesperson and face of a subterranean SBC minority, who opposes the MLK50, its message; and strongly oppose Dr. Russell Moore—to the extent, that they want him fired. Rumor has it, that they will make an appeal to the SBC in June in Dallas, to express their dissatisfaction with Dr. Moore, on the floor of the Convention, with the view of influencing the ERLC Board to relieve Dr. Moore of his employment.
Russell Moore’s crime? Bringing the SBC together in an unprecedented fashion, to bring racial healing, hope, and understanding to the SBC and the Nation. For this, they label Dr. Moore, “divisive.” GO FIGURE!!!
It is quite strategic and most unusual to have as a spokesperson for the subterranean group, Sister Lorine Spratt. She describes herself thusly:
“I am a born-again Christian, Conservative, Black attender of a White, Southern Baptist, Evangelical Church in Louisiana. In fact, I not only attend, I also work there and I am very concerned about the narrative that I’m hearing from our ERLC leadership. I am absolutely appalled by the comments perpetuated by Dr. Russell Moore concerning racism within the White Evangelical churches.”
Her twitter feed identifies her as a loyal voter with the conservative, Republican, voting bloc. A popular SBC-related blog (not sanctioned by the SBC) has affirmed Sister Pratt and her statement of opposition toward Russell Moore.
Systemically, culturally and historically, the SBC has not placed a high premium on the voices of women. That is the reason it is most unusual for Sister Spratt to emerge as the de facto leader, spokesperson of the MLK50, Russell Moore opposition. I respect her right to be a spokesperson. I support and celebrate her right to challenge Russell Moore and the MLK50. I am excited to discover, within a certain context, the SBC will embrace a woman spokesperson, to address an issue not directly pertaining to women issues. I love the precedent being set here, irrespective of motive.
Sister Spratt offers the following objections to Dr. Moore:
White churches are not advocating racism but Dr. Moore is. He is fueling racial tensions. I view his comments as divisive and antagonistic. His words do not promote unity!
Interestingly, Sister Spratt does not offer one quote or one example of Dr. Moore advocating “racism.” Sister Spratt provides absolutely zero evidence that Dr. Moore’s comments are “divisive,” “antagonizing” and “do not promote unity!” I regret for her sake, her opinion does not equate to facts. Although, again, I support and celebrate her right and celebrate the subterranean group for affirming a woman and a Black woman in her role. I see this as progress, for which I am thankful.
Sister Spratt further accuses Moore of “wreak[ing] verbal havoc in our churches and assists in causing unrest in our society and it is even sadder if we continue to let him do so.” Again, Sister Spratt provides no documentation for these unfounded and untrue allegations. She tips her hat toward the SBC forcing Dr. Moore out of office.
Sister Spratt does provide a link to quotes of Dr. Moore, cautioning Southern Baptists to weigh the ethics of candidates having a presidential election. She reveals her angst with Dr. Moore for challenging the ethics of presidential candidate Donald Trump. Dr. Moore also cautioned the SBC about supporting Hillary Clinton for ethical reasons. He voted for neither candidate. Sister Spratt expressed her vehement opposition to Dr. Moore for addressing candidate Donald Trump.
“During the presidential election, he did the same and I am totally against anyone, especially a leader in our SBC, who sows discord among the brethren.”
She concludes by saying, “This matter deeply concern and disturbs me!”
It is hard to place a percentage number on the number of SBC congregants that share Sister Spratt’s perspective. But I assure you, the vast majority of Southern Baptists of all colors in the pew support Dr. Moore, I would go as far to say Dr. Moore is an iconic figure to many Black SBC pastors. Only, the late Dr. T.B. Matson, Ethics Professor at SWBTS, belongs in the same sentence with Dr. Moore relative to positively moving forward in bringing unity to the races. The large Black attendance at MLK50 is evidence of Black SBC persons’ appreciation and affirmation of Russell Moore.
If there is an effort to embarrass or remove Russell Moore, it will ignite a Civil War in SBC life.
The Spratt faction of the SBC and the Russell Moore faction hold irreconcilable positions relative to addressing racial matters. But my prayer is that we will come together under the cross and learn to live together in harmony, in spite of our differences. I am willing to live with the Spratt faction, without asking her to change. I pray that she will be willing to live with the Moore faction, without asking him/us to change. If so, we can avoid a Civil War. If the Spratt faction and Moore faction do not heal and come together, as MLK said, “We will perish together as fools.”
Yeah, I saw her piece. Note that it was put out by Will Hall and the Louisiana paper. Her words stand on their own but, and maybe this is overthinking the matter, one wonders what connection this has to the anti-Cals?
There is a strident and vocal, sometimes ugly, anti-Russell Moore crowd. That hemorrhages out of the anti-Greear sites regularly.
I agree, William. I noted that she lives and worships in Louisiana, which, as a state convention, does not support Greear, who has vocally spoken in favor of the MLK50 conference. You might say her words were ‘politically’ motivated; I couldn’t possibly comment.
When Will Hall’s name is attached to a piece, it generally speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
Dwight does a great job pointing out the problems with this article. Specifically with the content, there’s no way this letter should have ever been published. It’s assertion without documentation. Not a single quote to demonstrate the “divisive” rhetoric.
Reality is Dr. Moore’s remarks have been fantastic. What he said isn’t the problem – it’s the fact they put on this conference in the first place that has this small group upset.
I also noticed that Spratt’s letter pretty much limits itself to expressing opinions and personal preferences rather than evidence or reasoning to back them up. Russell Moore has some important, challenging things to say that are born out of his deep well of biblical and theological reflection. Maybe some will still not agree with him afterward, but I challenge those in the Anti-Moore crowd to read Moore’s book Onward, or any number of other publications of his (blogs, podcasts, speeches) that can be accessed online, and try to process the things he says through the grid of biblical theology. It would be good to actually discuss the theological meat of what Moore is saying instead of reverting to vague ad hominem insinuations.
You know you have a weak case when you attack an SBC entity head with a non-Southern Baptist. Did anyone catch that Sister Spratt is an attender of an SBC church? Sounds like a pastor or deacon needs to lovingly explain the need for membership in a local body of believers.
An attender has no vote in the church and thus none in the convention. The anti-Moore crowd seem to want non-SBC people to dictate the leadership of our entities. That is a mighty big leap towards anarchy if those outside our convention are given a voice in the SBC.
Louis,
She said she attends and works at a Southern Baptist Church.
I have never self-identified myself as an attender of a church if I was in fact a member. Members vote but attenders and employees do not. Attenders also can not be SBC messengers. Perhaps she is a member but I found it odd that she did not identify as such. If true that she is not a member it is troubling that the anti-Moore folks chose her to front another attack on him. Perhaps next they can find out what Bob Jones has to say on the matter.
Perhaps she is also a member. It would be interesting to know if there was a specific reason for identifying as an attender and employee of the church and not saying anything about membership, though.
Louis: Attender does not necessarily mean non-member, unless it is stated elsewhere and I missed it.
She did state that she was sure she would be welcome at any white evangelical church, and that is naively untrue.
I would guess she is right about 99% of white churches, though….not All but MOST.
Agreed.
This all boils down to two issues, neither of which is racism or racial reconciliation. This is about Calvinism and Donald Trump. As long as anyone in SBC leadership has the taint of Calvinism attached to them, they will have a target on their back. As long as anyone takes an open stand against the man currently infesting the oval office, they will have a target on their back. Race is simply a convenient excuse.
Agreed. I suspect Trump is at the root of much of this debate going on now. Some folks have never forgiven Moore for the Trump comments.
Come on guys! This woman is spot on. Russell Moore is a Cultural Marxist. He and the TGC have fallen off their rocker. They are not combating racism with the the Gospel, they are creating more racism and division by acting as though you are white you have to apologize.
I know you all think this woman is being used by the Louisiana Convention, but I can tell you there are a lot of other Black people outside of Louisiana that feel the same way as this woman.
If Moore was so for black people then why did the ERLC get rid of Dr. Craig Mitchell, who was one of the greatest black ethisist in America? I will tell you why. Dr. CRAIG Mitchell is a conservative black man who doesn’t agree with Moore’s shenanigans. And no, Mitchell isn’t from Louisiana.
Is your “Reformed Baptist” church SBC, Jarrod?
“Cultural Marxist” is a cheap shot phrase du jour. I would expect it to not be allowed again here without definitions and support. Probably is helpful in defining you, though, and thus allowable.
You (a white dude, presumably) speak for a lot of black people outside of LA, do you?
FYI, William, Jarrod mentioned a while back that he “left the SBC”.
Yes he did say he left so why would it matter to him. Hiding behind a anonymous name usually is meant to hide untrue statements. So Jarrod, why are you hiding?
How do you guys known this dude’s name is Jarrod? I cant get a link to work. I know of a Jarrod. Got a last name because I would be curious if it is the same one.
I had to look up the definition of cultural marxist.
“Cultural Marxism” is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.
Pastor J,
You offer even less proof or evidence than Sister Spratt for your outrageous claims. RM a “cultural Marxist”? Please!!! Lots of AA around the country disagree with RM? Please!!!! Where are the published statements to support ur claim? Craig Mitchell? I don’t know the facts there. But, because a Black person was laid off, it could have been due to a whole lot of other issues besides race.
It also appears that accusations of cultural marxism are highly anti-semitic and are basically a nazi propaganda slogan.
It is straight out of the Pulpit and Pen playbook. False accusations are their specialty. Jarrod, either demonstrate that accusation or it will be deleted. There are places where false accusations against men of God are permitted. This is not one of those places.
You may NOT throw around ridiculous lies like without proof.
Dr. Mitchell is still listed as a researcher for the ELC JD, so I have no idea what you are talking about here. But I have no idea what you are talking about 90% of the time.
http://wweb.uta.edu/economics/faculty/m/mitchell.html
This is an important issue for all of God’s people, but an unfortunate choice of words by the original poster. “Underbelly” and “subterranean” are hardly helpful or accurate, Lorine Spratt’s post was most certainly not “subterranean”, nor is the opposing “element” of the SBC. I would say her comments and the “traditional” element are quite out in the open.
“Underbelly”? Such a pejorative is unworthy of Bother McKissic’s history of thoughtful engagement.
It may be that these factions currently hold irreconcilable positions. But it does not follow that reconciliation will not yet take place. Twenty years ago the MLK conference would not have taken place. The Gospel continues to have the power to change unbeliever and believer.
“Underbelly” & “Subterranaen” were used to convey the fact that until Sister Spratt’s letter surfaced & was published in the official Louisana Baptist Newspaper, whatever opposition to MLK 50, among Southern Baptists was under the surface. It was only whispered or addressed on private blogs, with select persons. She came out in the open with it..And because of where she worked & who was publishing her letter, it was apparent that she was representing the anti -Moore faction, where Louisana is ground zero. Those words were not intended to be used as a perjorative. Etymologically, those are not perjorative terms.
I would prefer that the SBC do everything in its power to avoid a “Civil War.” Our unity around the Gospel and our mission are all set forth in the BFM. That is the confessional document that we have all agreed on, and the points in that document should chart our course.
I have never heard of this woman. I note that you say her views about racial issues and the views of Dr. Moore’s supporters are irreconcilable. I cannot really find that here, particularly as it relates to the SBC and its mission and purpose.
I am sure that lots of people have different views on all kinds of subjects, and that’s ok. But I suspect that in the SBC those views are not that divergent, at least on the issues we have agreed Mark the boundaries of our work and fellowship.
If we have a convention this year that focuses solely on the things we agree on, and does not attempt to interject issues that we do not agree on, we will have a peaceful convention.
People who want to disrupt unity by bringing up and pushing matters they know will be disruptive should remain silent. That includes everyone from simple laymen, like me, to people on the platform and agency heads.
This is really not hard to do.
I read several blogs including the one “not sanctioned by the SBC.” I assume that is not to imply that there are some blogs that are sanctioned. It does seem to be a rhetorical dig that is not helpful for the conversation if we are going to watch our rhetoric.
This is something I find interesting.
It doesn’t matter how many Black leaders speak out on an issue, when one Black person speaks against the racial reconciliation/unity/diversity side, the more extreme right-wingers take that person’s view as gospel truth.
When the racist church fired their pastor for inviting blacks to VBS, there was voice after voice who shared the facts, then ONE person from the church said, “that’s not what happened” and people jumped on that and took that person’s word as if it were unassailable gospel truth.
We had the facts from a variety of authoritative sources, but ONE person inside the racist church spoke and people were demanding that we publicly apologize.
People hear what they want to hear.
People do not want to hear the voices calling racial progress, racial inclusion, racial reconciliation, so when ONE LONE Black woman speaks against those voices, they take her word as if it is authoritative and universal.
The woman has the right to her opinion, but people, for every Lorine Spratt out there, there are 100 Black Christians who strongly disagree.
Sound like climate change. {ducks}
David M,
You just spoke the whole truth.
I am a member of an SBC church that is probably 95% black. My family has attended there since we moved to the area 6 years ago. Throughout our time there we have always felt welcome in spite of our white skin. Although we have a variety of backgrounds and experiences, we have enjoyed a spirit of unity…until recently.
We are now experiencing division-not between us and the black majority of the church but the division is between the majority of black members and a small minority of other black members who have suddenly become “woke”. Many of the older black members, without mentioning RM or even knowing who he is, have expressed the same concerns at Sister Spratt. They speak of the overt and systematized racism that they experienced back in the 50s and 60s but they want no part of discussions about relitigating the past, microagreessions, cultural appropriation, vague references to systematic racism or generalized statements about white people, or white evangelicalism. At the same time there are several younger blacks (in their 20s and 30s) in our church that are calling for me and all white people to repent for past sins. They want to hear more from the pulpit about social justice. They are emboldened by statements like Dwight’s claim that Lottie Moon was a slave owner or Thatbiti’s call for all white people to confess our parent’s and grandparents complicity in MLK’s death. We used to be a church united by the Gospel and our affection for God’s glory but now there is division. By the way, it has nothing to do with politics or soteriology.
In his MLK50 talk, Chandler encouraged white people to pursue relationships with blacks, especially blacks who disagree with you. I think that is wise counsel but then he said that blacks who agree with you are probably only doing so in order to gain approval or position. I found that statement to be incredibly patronizing to black people. To dismiss Sister Spratt or those in my church who would disagree with much of what was said at MLK50 because they so desperately want the approval of whites is to say that they have sold themselves out for my approval or that there is something I have that they need.
To Dwight, what do you make of blacks who have a different perspective than what was described at the MLK50 conference? Would you agree with Chandler?
I am disheartened by what is taking place in our convention as both sides continue to use labels, hyperbole and anecdotes to make their case. Having said that, I am more concerned about my local family of faith. I love everyone involved. I have been in their homes and they have been in mine. We have prayed and encouraged one another. For our convention but more for my church, I pray that in our pursuit of reconciliation that we don’t find ourselves in this looming civil war.
After 400 years of the kind of treatment Blacks have received in America, it is not likely that unity is going to be achieved in a day.
Lee, thanks for such a thoughtful post & biographical insights that makes ur perspective very unique. Would love to chat with u at some point, to process church from two worlds: the Black church & White church’s world. Time will not permit me to give u the lengthy response I desire & ur post deserves. I simply want to respond to the mindset of those who grew up in the ‘50’s & ‘60’s. It would be helpful to know if we are talking about Middle America, heart of the South, Urban America or mid-size town, blue Collar Church…etc. Believe it or not, those kinds of regional, economic,/education levels, age, and current & past pastoral teachings on the subject all influence the mindset the congregation has about race.
Basically & generally though, there are two mindsets that exists among older Blacks. 1. Much progress has been made, let’s not stir the pot, anymore. Let’s be thankful(although things aren’t still where they ought to be) & move on. That mindset you’ll find in larger #’s, in smaller-mud-size towns, in the South, and certainly among the lesser educated. 2. Until Blacks are fully empowered & equality & Justice in every sphere has obviously reached parity or fairness stage…let’s keep fighting. In my judgement the vast majority of younger, urban, educated & high income Blacks ascribe to mindset #2. Do I agree with Chandler? Yes & No. Yes…that is the motivation for some to acquiesce to a majority culture mindset in order to get along easier, advance, to please what you see as the power base etc.No, there are those who have certain convictions that are based on their value system or perception of right & wrong, who adopt positions out of that vortex, without an agenda to appease anybody for personal gain.
Question, I am not aware of any well known or not so well known Black pastor,going on record opposing RM.If aa many Blacks as u say, oppose RM, where is the evidence of that?
I would appreciate the opportunity to visit with you beyond this blog. Our church is an urban church inside the DC beltway with most of the people-both the young and old-being educated. I have a call scheduled with one of the younger guys this evening. This follows up a lengthy lunch we had several weeks ago. It is an unfortunate situation because there is now dissension between brothers. Again the dissension is not between me and either side but between black brothers and sisters.
I am not saying that there is a huge number of blacks or black pastors who have a problem with RM. I am saying that, at least in the church that I attend, there is a significant number of blacks who would agree with Sister Spratt-not about RM specifically but about what the problem is and how it is being addressed. It has nothing to do with RM because most if not all of them don’t know who he is. I also don’t think it has anything to do with them trying to profit in some way from the white minority in our church.
Thanks for your response. I would enjoy the opportunity to visit with you beyond the comment section of a blog.
Lee: While I appreciate your desire to talk off these blogs, since you wrote what you wrote I too would like to read some answers of evidence. Taking it off the blog just leaves those of us who have read what you wrote in the dark. That is frustrating. If you have some evidence putting that evidence publically gives more credibility to what you are saying and gives us much needed information that I know I did not know.
Debbie,
I am not sure what evidence you are looking for. I have just been talking about what is going on in my local church. If there is something that I have said that demands evidence then let me know and I will either provide evidence or retract my statement.
Lee,
At ur convenience, please call or email my assistant. We’ll exchange info & hopefully talk soon.
Glorian Ford
Exective Assistant
Cornerstone Baptist Church
817-468-0083(ext 205)
gford@cbcarlington.org
Thanks Dwight. I will reach out to Glorian. Looking forward to it.
Thank you Lee for sharing your experience! I am so sorry that you are experiencing pressure to apologize for something you had nothing to do with!
Please be on the look out for my second letter that I am sending out today!
Racism Alleged as Part of Pastor’s Termination
http://www.bpnews.net/47325/racism-alleged-as-part-of-pastors-termination
David R. Brumbelow
Hard to know what was worse – the racist actions of that church or the fact that so many jumped to their defense
Any idea what percentage of the traditionalist faction is white?
I am guessing it isn’t 100%. But it in the August in Iowa temps.
Dwight,
Sadly and obviously, the effort by the radical traditionalist agenda arm of the Louisiana Baptists (again, imagine that) to attack Russell Moore knows no boundaries.
This whole thing, imo, as at least as much about always attacking and seeking to vilify RM as it is about the conference and such.
There’s a post a few days back for T4G at which Thabiti is advertised as one of the headline speakers.
I totally understand where you are coming from, I do, really I do. And everybody has opinions, we all try to walk in all the light that we have. But there is a difference between how we apply scripture to our on individual lives, and just looking at the original text, and doing biblical exegesis. That is all I am saying, not trying to stifle anyone’s views but let’s keep personal interpretations and true biblical exegesis separate, and not conflate the two, when they are seemingly different.
Thank you for you kind response Debbie…..
My pleasure Benny.
Benny,
Thanks.
I think it is prudent to listen what each side says in their words before arriving at a decision.
I noticed a little talking past each other in their exchange.
For me to judge fairly, as best I can anyhow, I am going to wait until I have read more from each which includes what has been reported as 6 posts by Dr, Anyabwile on the subject of race.
Just recently I have reada short note that encourages us Christians not to confuse the Great Commandment [to love God with all and to love one another as self] with the Great Commision [to go and proclaim the Gospel and make disciples]. The Great Commandment is for all people everywhere but the Great Commission is for the church alone. The point being that social justice falls under the Great Commandment. Reconciliation as brotehrs and sisters in Christ is through the Gospel, not by works of the flesh -though such works are necessary in order to love one another. But we love one another BECAUSE we are reconciled in Christ, and being so reconciled in the Spirit we then love one another through word and deeds.
Anyone saying that reconciliation can not happen because supposedly my parents or grandparents sinned in some racial way misses the truth. Rather we are to forgive sins of those who trespass against us because our sins have been forgiven. Forgiveness does indeed precede reconciliation in our reconciliation with God, and thus should precede our reconcilation with our brothers and sisters. Being truly forgiven by God WILL lead us to truly forgive others. Likewise our demand for atonement from others before forgiving then indicates strongly that we have not yet understood the reconciliation wrought for us at the cross.
we read from Romans 5:
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Not sure which comment of Bill’s Benny’s original comment is responding to, but I have a few observations with regard to the White-Anyabwile dialogue. I have read the various articles by both White and Anyabwile and have also listened to White’s further elaboration on his podcast.
Observation #1. I think Mike White’s observation about colorblindness is on point. That does indeed seem to be the crux of the matter. It seems, however, that James White’s exegesis of the matter is mostly limited to Colossians. I believe there are various other passages that are relevant to this discussion.
Observation #2. I think Rev 7:9–10 is among these passages. Here are a few thoughts of mine related to Rev 7:9–10 and what it teaches us about gospel unity and colorblindness:
The fully realized multi-ethnic, multi-cultural unity in diversity envisioned in the Bible is well depicted in Rev. 7:9–10: “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’”
Notice the things that unite them: They are all standing together before the throne and before the Lamb. They are all clothed in white robes. They all have palm branches in their hands. They all cry out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
But notice also that in the midst of this unity it is still possible to distinguish the national, tribal, ethnic, and linguistic idiosyncrasies of each individual. Rev. 21:24–26 and 22:2 confirm this interpretation, as in the New Jerusalem the nations of the earth have not ceased to exist or faded into a distant memory.
The ideal unity presented in the Bible is not that of a vegetable purée, in which all the elements are blended together in such a way as to be indistinguishable from each other, but rather that of an elaborate tossed salad, in which the unique flavors of all the different ingredients are still perceptible to the palate. It is not colorblind. It is unity in diversity rather than unity through uniformity.
Observation #3: Practical colorblindness in the church is a much easier proposition for those coming from the traditionally powerful majority, assuming an assimilationist vis-a-vis a truly integrationist approach to racial unity—i.e. everyone is welcome, provided you don’t rock the boat and pretty much conform to business as usual around here.
Observation #4: There is good reason to infer that the apostles and the Jerusalem church were not colorblind—or at least not culturally blind—when they appointed seven men to oversee the distribution of food and serve tables in the wake of the complaints of the Hellenist widows who each had Greek names, indicating they likely deferred intentionally to those of Hellenist background rather than choosing on a more culturally blind basis (Acts 6:1–6).
David two good post,
Only point I was making is Colossians exegesis.
I am fully aware of my prejudices, presupistions, and how I try to be more like Christ today than how I failed at it miserably yesterday.
I’m not really sure the angst to m previous post, we can all do better at reconciliation.
David Rogers,
Good points.
#4 In order to meet basic human needs, they appointed men “of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” to meet those needs. And i agree that those name indicate a more Hellenistic background for those men. They did not choose in a culturally blind basis [which translates to todays skin color basis] to meet basic human needs. And why? Because they wanted t be seen as fair and inclusive topeople of all cultures. If the SBC appoints minorities to various positions including impoertant ones, they shoud do so on that basis: that they want to show that any and every people no matter what culture are part of the brotherhood of Christ. But not because they want toright past injustice. That cant be done. Period. But the signal sent couldhelpavert more injustice: racial discrimination, bias, and disharmony.
#3 I agree with you here. But, the goal is prsctical colorblindness. The Convention voted agaisnt racism. The people are against it. yes, there are racist in our midst. But they hide behind letters to the editor, probably without their real names attached. A last gasp stand by the darkness as the light brightens. But it does not seem that those that do not come from the traditionally powerful majority want that as a goal. Is it their goal? I don’t know.
We can pray for society at large but our track record of combatting sin in open society is pretty bad: abortion and gay marriage for example. Our black skinned brothers and sisterswill still feel discriminated against. Will the people in the pews think differently just because there are entity heads and board members that are skin colored like them?
When the goal is stated that whites must aplogize for the sins of their ancestors, and continues from that to harping on white privilege, and on to reparations, color blindness seems to be something to overcome not something to end up with. Our hope, and by that I mean your hope, my hope, and every Christiands hope no matter the color of their skin is 100% NOT in this world.
If colrblindness is the goal, and by that I mean that if we see our multiculturalness and our various skin tones and yet we marvel at our love for one another, then the question is, how can we live future reality out here [they will know you are my disciples by your love for one another]? Such love must first begin between individuals and grow into smaller groups before it can blossom out to large groups. Appointments are but a bandaid over a splinter. The real work must be done in our churches or at least in our local conventions by putting the people of God together working together for the Kingdom.
continued.
I guess my response to#3 ran over into #2. But nore what you noted: they were all standing TOGETHER. And they are standing together in two ways uniformily. One they are before the throne which means their eyes on the Lord not on each other. Second they are all wearing white robes which signofy they have been washed clean and forgiven by the blood of the Lamb.
Colorblindness is not how we look or act as individuals as if it means uniformity but rather how we traet each other despite our differences. We dont separate from each other because we are different [which is the way of the world] but we celebrate our differences despite of them because of our unity together through the Spirit.
Thus you are correct when you say we have unity through diversity, but that isnt opposed to color blindness, rather it encapsulates it. We should also have monetary blindness, gender blindness, social status blindness, and so forth.
Bottom line: Bandaids dont heal splinters. Putting more minorities in positions is a step but real togetherness is possible only when our congregations, our people, as individuals and as corporate worshippers stand and worlk together for the Kingdom. It is NOT a top down solution kind of problem.
Good comments, Mike. I think that our underlying motivation behind all we do with regard to these things is key. 1. We are our brother’s keeper. 2. We are to love (agape) our neighbor as our self. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates the Lord’s special concern that this love be expressed transracially (or transethnically, if you prefer). 3. We are to work toward healing and reconciliation where historically we have been wounded and divided. One of the most beautiful passages I know of is Rev 22:2 where it says the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations (or ethnic groups).
Benny continually attempted to turn this post into an anti-Calvinist rant and posted comments that were not about what the post was about. I deleted his comments and those that responde to him.
Ranting was not my intent…
I apologize to one and all…
Since the great David Rogers brought up the Revelation passage, I am going to ask a question or two that do not relate to the “racial reconciliation” discussion.
I have wondered about that passage – a great multitude from every tribe and tongue etc. I believe that in eternity God has his people that will come from all over the globe.
When asked what kind of bodies we will have in heaven, Paul said that we should not speculate. Race has no genetic marker. Two of us could have our DNA tested, and it would not indicate our race.
There’s no way to know what kind of bodies we will have in heaven. In age. In gender. In race.
I personally do not believe we will be male and female in heaven. There will be no need for gender differences.
I personally do not believe that we will have a race in heaven. I believe John’s vision of heaven was what God allowed John to see so that John could perceive and understand.
I don’t know how tall I’ll be in heaven. I don’t know my age.
It is unusual how we take some passages about heaven and treat them so literally. That used to be done with the “streets of gold” passages, but that is not done now.
But the passage about race seems to be seen very literally.
The promise that is true is that there will be people there from every tribe and tongue. That is true. The NT could not be more clear in example to take the Gospel to all the world. The example of the Apostles shows they did that. No one is to be treated differently on the basis of race.
Also, I do not see the Revelation passage as a real basis for us to try and force interracial worship because it will be that way in heaven, and if we don’t have that now, there must be a problem.
There has been a problem in the US, however, so it is good that we work to make all of our churches open. But I don’t think that we need to legalize this and put people under guilt. Much depends on where a church is located, its history, its resources etc.
Louis, Not sure about the “great” part, but I will take a stab at answering (at least some of) your questions.
1. The point about race and genetics is well taken. Race is basically a modern construct that was not within the purview of the Bible—though it does mention skin color on various occasions (“Can the Ethiopian change his skin…?, “Simeon who was called Niger,” etc.).
2. An underlying question is, In what ways does God deal with humans as members of collectives vs. as individuals? It seems clear that at least ethnic Israel (and the people who belonged to Israel) had a special relationship with God, at least from an OT perspective (without getting into the Covenant Theology-Dispensationalism debates). It also seems clear that God (mostly in the OT prophets) pronounced special curses or blessings over certain collectives, whether they are defined primarily by ethnic, cultural, linguistic, genealogical, geographical, or political markers.
3. In many cases, the lines dividing between various collectives of humans are blurry. Nations come and nations go. People of different ethnic backgrounds intermarry. My thesis is that, as God is building His NT Church, He puts a premium on diversity, which is expressed in many different ways, including skin color, ethnicity, gender, language, culture, etc. I see this principle, for example, in Eph 3:8-10 (especially if you translate ethne as ‘nations’ or ‘ethnic groups,’ and polypoikilos as ‘multi-colored’). I find no reason that these markers of diversity disappear in the Age to Come—whether in heaven, the millennium, or the New Jerusalem, depending on your take on the details of eschatology.
4. I am not sure of your biblical basis for positing that ethnic, gender, etc. distinctions disappear in heaven. Jesus did say we will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels, but I do not believe this necessarily infers we will lose our gender. Angels who appeared on earth are often referred to in the Bible as males.
I don’t hold the view firmly that I will not be a male or white.
But I equally cannot say for certain that I hold firmly that I will be a male or white through all eternity.
We have no idea what our bodies will be like in heaven. I believe it is of such another dimension that we cannot know and God did not share that with us.
Anyway, also, on the ethnicity thing, in my last foray through the OT, I was shocked to see how much intermarrying there was outside the nation – very early on. There are individual instances, and collective instances, too.
By the time of the captivities of Israel and Judah, the ethnicity of the “Jewish” people was already substantially compromised. It’s not significant, really, but is interesting to observe.
And of course, there is no ethnicity connected to the people of God.
Will you be in Dallas at the Convention?
Good comments, Louis. My work schedule doesn’t allow for me to attend conventions, for the most part, as of late. I wish I could. But I’m thankful for my job.
Rats! Wish you could be there. I have seen Dave there. Not sure about many others.
Louis,
I dont know what we will look like in Heaven.
But maybe the point of the passage was to show that we will be a people from all types of people groups.
Besides the racial problem we also have some who are worried the white race will be no more. Their hope is not in Heaven but on earth. They want separation. But separation based on any worldly or fleshly attribute is antithetical to our unity in Christ.
And we are a people from all types of people groups except the unreached. It is why my church is SBC, to support missions, NAMB and IMB, so that the Gospel will go to all people groups. Although I dont speak officially for my church or the congregation I am a memeber of, I am pretty sure we dont care what color of skin the entity heads, or board members or whoever are but that they be men “of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, “whom we put in charge of whatever task.
I think most church folks abhor racism and have the same attitude.
Though one poster said we should merge with a black denomination, I agree with those who think that unworkable.
But what could be workable is that white churches have close fellowship with black churches. And that black churches have sister white churches and sub other minorities in there as well. Service projects, revivals, youth gatherings, witnessing forays and so forth could be done together. Switching Sunday School teachers once a month or preaching at the other’s pulpit occasionally. Fixing potluck dinners at alternating churches.
What we want is a Christian culture that by its inclusion of various ethnicities is cross cultural and thus counter cultural. Such activities will help those who need help overcoming their fear and mistrust of the unfamiliar because they will find familiarity in each other’s love for Christ.
Ed Stetzer has an interesting article in CT which deals with David Platt’s sermon on Racism at the T4G and the backlash he received for that sermon.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/april/preaching-on-racism-platt.html
Debbie – no big deal but to clarify, the linked article is attributed to John C. Richards, Jr. and Daniel Yang.
Yes. And I should have said Ed Stetzer linked instead of has an interesting article and it’s ok to point that out Randy. I am glad you did.
I went to T4G 2010 and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I met Christians from many other denominations and affiliations and ethnicities. It was a great experience. But I have resisted becoming a fanboy of the speakers at T4G. Since T4G is more than the SBC that someone takes issue with the message of the president of SBC’s IMB might mean there are legitimate concerns and differences of opinion that need to be considered. I have not heard Platt’s sermon but I am inclined to believe that people can disagree on some things.
I read the article, though I have not heard Platt’s sermon, so I’m not sure how accurately I am responding…
But, it seemed part of the sermon was a call to repentance, and I think part of what makes it frustrating for many is that they do not know exactly what they are supposed to repent from, or what types of actions would demonstrate repentance, when the issues are corporate, or societal.
I know for me personally, if hear a sermon on worry, or self-centeredness, or lust…I recognize those sins in myself, and can identify areas of needed repentance and change. If I hear a sermon saying that I need to repent of having an all-white church, then it becomes more ambiguous, and leaves more room for the preacher and the listener to have different ideas about what the sin actually is, if there is sin to be addressed, and what needs to be done. AND, because of this, it makes it more of a danger for the preacher if he takes his specific view of the issue and states it as “thus saith the Lord.”.
Should we really be preaching “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and “Thou shalt not attend an all-white church.”, with the same forcefulness?
She is a member and the executive administrative assistant to the pastor of one of Louisiana’s largest churches.
And I believe her pastor supports J.D. so go figure.