THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SBC REGARDING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG
From “Hearty Support” 1863 to “Discontinue the Display” 2016
BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
At the near beginning of the 21st Century, The Southern Baptist Convention recently made the decision to address a heretofore unaddressed aspect of her history, and that is the SBC’s historic identity and complicity with the Confederacy. A vote was taken to ask Christians to discontinue the public use of the Confederate Flag (CF), in order to show solidarity with other Christians, including African Americans.
Perhaps this was one of the most heart-wrenching and gut-checking decisions ever made by the SBC. Why? Because the SBC and the Confederacy were connected at the hip historically, emotionally, psychologically, philosophically, geographically, politically, and even genetically. This connection is deep, intertwined, and multi-layered. Many in the SBC literally have the blood of Confederate Soldiers running through their veins. That made it a thorny and testy issue. This, inevitably, had to be a tough decision for the SBC to make. It was a seminal moment in the life of our Convention, having taken 253 years to arrive at the point of radically departing from and denouncing, a heretofore proud symbol of Southern heritage.
The emotional response exhibited on the Convention floor, to the passing of the CF resolution, is indicative and evidence of the emotional upheaval some would experience in processing and coming to grips with the decision to renounce the CF.
The greatest influence in the outcome of the vote was the blood of the Charleston Nine. Their pictures and brief bio’s had been presented to the convention earlier that day. Dylann Roof’s intent was to start a race war when he murdered the Charleston Nine. The irony is, his actions have led to a greater unity of the races within the SBC and the Charleston community. Roof’s actions led to the SBC repudiating the Confederate Flag. It was the spirit of the Confederate Flag that demonically drove Dylann Roof to murder nine Kingdom-citizens. What Roof meant for evil, God through the SBC is turning it around and using it for good (Romans 8: 28).
The SBC was not being asked to vote on this resolution to prove that they were not racist. They were being asked to vote on this resolution to identify with the pain of those grieving the murders of the Charleston Nine, to help heal the hurt, and to honor The Charleston Nine, by renouncing the CF. In the process of addressing this issue and making the right decision, the SBC would be cleansing and clearing her own conscience.
- The messengers cast a vote looking futuristically, rather than to affirm seeds of division and White Supremacy sown by their forefathers.
- The messengers’ affirmative vote, in effect, confessed and rebuked the sins of their forefathers.
- The messengers’ courageous vote brought healing, hope, forgiveness, restoration, and wholeness to the Convention.
- The messengers exonerated an ugly stain on the legacy of the SBC. From a legacy and spiritual perspective, they removed the guilty stain, by disavowing The Confederate Flag.
Now, we no longer have to look at our Baptist forefathers with contempt. The vote of the messengers reconnected and reconciled some of us to their significant spiritual heritage and contributions. Their wrongs were philosophically corrected by their descendants.
The messengers voted to cleanse and clear the collective conscience of the SBC by voting to discontinue the display of the Confederate Flag. In one fell swoop, the messengers’ vote reduced the CF from a symbol of pride to a symbol of scorn and shame.
Allegations that the SBC would be moving down a slippery slope by renouncing the CF are totally baseless. The vote to denounce the CF also, by extension, addressed and negated the earlier resolution of support of the Confederacy. This vote also, by extension, renounced and rebuked all Southern Baptist churches and personalities who were complicit with The Confederacy in any manner.
It serves no good purpose to go down the trail of singling out historical figures for rebuke. I read somewhere, “Never pick a fight with a dead man; you’ll lose every time.” The vote, itself, rebuked and philosophically corrected their errors as it relates to support of the Confederacy and slavery.
God be praised! The SBC connection to the Confederacy was officially severed on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, in St. Louis, Mo. at approximately 4pm. The SBC made the statement in that meeting to choose Kingdom over Culture. They chose Hope over Heritage. They chose Righteousness over Race. The SBC and the resolutions committee should be commended for this.
As stated so eloquently by Dr. James Merritt, “All the confederate flags in the world are not worth one soul of any race.” And whenever God’s people seek His Kingdom first, addition of some kind takes place (Matthew 6: 33). I have never in my life been more thrilled to be a part of the SBC as I am today.
The resounding, joyful, and celebratory response to the decision made to affirm the amended version of the resolution was powerful. It indicated the healing of the hearts of the messengers and the hope of a positive racial future. The only other time that I’ve experienced that kind of exuberant joy, clapping, verbal praise, and a strong sense of God’s presence in a SBC gathering was when Dr. Fred Luter was elected President of the SBC in New Orleans.
As Dr. Floyd stated, “The church can’t call the nation to repent ’till the church repents.” As the SBC continues to flesh out the will of God and obey it, racially, it has the potential of changing the nation. Thanks to Dr. Floyd, the ’95 apology, the election of Fred Luter, and the renouncing of the CF; the SBC is beginning to gain the credibility to address the nation regarding race.
Because of previous commitments and a scheduling conflict, I was not able to attend the meeting; but, I watched some of the events via live stream.
The response to James Merritt’s amendment and commentary will forever be etched in the memory of the SBC. The power of that moment transcended the screen. It could be felt by observers who were live-streaming the Convention. Truly the presence of The Lord was in that place. The impact that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and MLK’s “I Have A Dream” speech had on the nation, James Merritt’s amendment speech had on the outcome of the vote and, consequently, the redemption of the SBC. The SBC is beginning to gain the credibility to address the nation regarding race.
In a way, that vote and the response to it were like a new start, or rebooting of the convention, from a racial perspective. We have to be in unity before we can reach our nation and world. The Lord blessed the SBC with a baptism of unity on June 15, 2016, almost in an unprecedented manner from my observations.
I shed the same tears Russell Moore was shedding for the same reasons as I watched the proceedings on the Convention floor through the live stream. God is healing our Convention and correcting the only previous statement made by the SBC concerning the Confederacy, and that was to proclaim the SBC’s “hearty support.” The SBC entered into that auditorium on Flag Day—and coincidentally, my birthday—officially in support of the Confederacy—and by extension—the CF. But they departed the auditorium, having decided to “discontinue the display” of the CF. What a mighty God we serve!!!
The beauty of the passing of this resolution is that it was not a victory for any one person or group. The major leaders and entity heads in the SBC supported this resolution, even the stronger amended version. The resolutions committee, who obviously had a tough job, brought to the floor a great proposed resolution, although I obviously preferred one much stronger, similar to what The Merritt Amendment proposed. The fact that no one on the resolutions committee opposed the Merritt amendment indicates to me that they too were in favor of a stronger resolution, but, for peace and unity sake, had no doubt crafted a resolution that they’d hoped would please the multitude. I thought the resolution committee performed exceptionally well, especially given the controversial and multifaceted layers to the CF resolution. But this was not a victory for The Resolutions Committee, the entity heads, James Merritt, or certainly not for William Dwight McKissic, Sr. This was not even a victory for the messengers. This was a victory for The Kingdom of God and The SBC’s vision to reflect the Kingdom of God in all aspects.
By voting to renounce the CF, the messengers laid the ax at the root of the tree. I use to think it was necessary for the SBC to formally repent of the “curse of Ham” theory, once prominently taught in the SBC, to provide a biblical/theological covering or rationale for slavery, the Confederacy, segregation, and systemic, institutionalized racism. However, because of the decision to renounce the CF, and by extension the Confederate States of America (CSA), the SBC also denounced in St. Louis the false theology that undergirded the CSA/CF—the formation of the SBC—and the noted leaders in the SBC who were also slaveholders and CSA sympathizers/supporters.
The dialogue between the SBC and NBC is also groundbreaking and incredibly important. The St. Louis decision gives the SBC more credibility. I’m already hearing how respect for the SBC has gone way up in many, many circles. The reality is, everyone on both sides of this resolution is in agreement, we are surprised that the Merritt Amendment passed at all, and with over 90% of the vote. That had to be God.
Finally, it’s important that the construct of the resolution represented a collaborative effort of the Resolutions Committee, Merritt, me, and others who Merritt and I consulted with in preparing our content. Merritt and I had absolutely no discussion with each other about this matter prior to the vote. The Holy Spirit orchestrated all things relative to the passing of this resolution. The beauty of this resolution is that it represents the collaborative efforts of Blacks and Whites working together. No one can legitimately call the outcome pandering to a certain constituency, or to an attempt to be politically correct. This was a move of the Holy Spirit. And to make it anything other than that, may border on blasphemy.
Arguably, the strongest statement ever made by a SBC personality on the subject of race, was made by Dr. Ronnie Floyd:
“I believe the issue of racism is from Satan and his demonic forces of hell. Why do I believe this? Racism is an assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the essence of the Gospel is spiritual adoption that releases us from our prior state, anything contradicting that must be a lie about Christ and subversive of His finished work on the cross. Racism is completely opposite of the message of Christ. Racism is completely opposite of the message of love. Racism is completely opposite of the message of reconciliation. While our nation is being divided across racial lines, uniting His people across racial lines best reveals God’s heart for all the nations.
In this desperate time in our nation when the racial tension is building rapidly, our Southern Baptists churches must rise together as one and decry this atrocity and lead through it in the gospel way. Southern Baptists, silent denominations die and their message dies with them. Let’s be clear and not be silent.
We are not black churches. We are not white churches. We are not Latino churches. We are not Asian churches. We are the Church of Jesus Christ. We are members of the same body. The hope for all racism to end in America is in Jesus Christ and in His triumphant church. This is why we are having in this morning’s session, A National Conversation on Racial Unity in America. Let the church rise. The stakes couldn’t be higher!” (Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ronnie-floyd-2016-presidential-address-sbc-southern-baptist-annual-meeting-165260/#mxK3LvMuvmEFTuJf.99)
These are exciting times that the quest for racial inclusion and empowerment is being championed by White leaders. God can’t help but to bless that! May our land, our churches, our families, and each of us experience revival! And may the Lord use the SBC as a catalyst! Our hearts and hands are now clean. God is preparing us for something special. I’m glad I’m on board the ship for this ride.
Time shall tell.
Great analysis. Proud of you, friend!
Oops, should have written it has taken 153 yrs for the SBC to address her relationship to the Confederacy. I stated “253 years”. Sorry. Never was good in math.?
Also got date of the vote wrong. It took place on Tuesday, June 14. I stated, June 15, which is my birthday.
Happy birthday!
I enjoyed the Racial Reconciliation Panel. It was good. I’d like to hear Dr. Jerry Young preach. I believe he could shuck the corn.
David
Just wondering about whether the panel considered some blacks who don’t fit your stereotypical view of being offended by the Confederate flag. I saw this image on CNN today which linked to the below PBS image and I actually know some blacks who fit into this category, though they may be few in number. Perhaps they are afraid to speak out because the will be castigated from within their own community. Not sure what to think here.
Tiffany: 1. The resolution passed so no more discussion is really needed. The Convention strongly spoke and 2. Stereotypical? You do realize Dr. McKissic is a Black man and speaks for and to many black Americans do you not?
Dr. Young is an excellent preacher.
David W, am I reading the mood of the gathered convention & aftermath correctly? It appears to me that the resolution became a unifier, as opposed to a divider. The amended resolution really blessed & resonated with people that I’ve talked to, much more than the resolution presented by the committee.
Dwight,
I believe that most of the people in the SBC want better race relations, and many are trying to do better. Some people are learning. For that, I am grateful.
David
Dwight, the action of the convention in passing this resolution was admirable and emotional. Dr Merritt provided real leadership.
While our convention gathered in St Louis was unified on this issue the real bravery that will be displayed in our convention on this issue will come from the 100’s of pastors of churches that dot the landscape of the Deep South that now have to answer the questions and calm the emotions of their church members. Many pastors now find themselves caught between a resolution of the SBC and their church families.
I would encourage everyone concerned and over this issue to offer a prayer on their behalf.
Dean,
Read an editorial by the editor of the Christian Index-believe his name is Gerald Harris-that would help tremendously any pastor who may have to address this issue back home. Hope pastors will google & find it. Well worth the time.
Glad to hear that the unity was genuine and across the board(not meaning an official board.)?
Thank you for the resource. I hope you understood I meant Dr Merritt joined you in providing leadership on this issue. Apologies for not relaying that earlier.
Dean,
I fully understood what u said & meant. No apology necessary.
I could not have addressed this issue as did Meritt. Neither of my grand or great-grandfathers were CSA soldiers. Had I attempted to address the resolution it would have appeared self serving, agenda driven, who knows what else. I believe that The Lord assigned Merritt to do what he did, and say what he said. God simply used me to tee up the ball. The resolutions commitee, Merritt & others took it from there. Again, the beauty of it lies in the fact that it was a collaborative effort orchestrated by the Holy Spirit.
What is the viewpoint on the salvation of a poor, uneducated, non slave holding southern man who died fighting for the Confederacy, who thought he was dong the right thing as he was taught? He followed the teachings of his church at that time , certainly a Southern Baptist Church. Does the political and social attitude/structure of the time period affect your salvation. Southerners were taught in church by their leaders that they were following the teachings of the Bible and in was done so in good faith. If the confederate states were doing the work of Satan how could the church teach that. If a Southern Baptist member votes for Donald Trump is he following his Christian beliefs? Were Southern Baptist who fought the plains Indian nations under the flag of the USA in the same category as the CSA soldiers? Since we got into this as a SBC organization why not just abandon our horrible beginnings based on slavery, renounce our very roots and evolve into a new entity that can in no way be associated with any tint of the Confederate States, treat the foundation of the SBC like Nazi history in Germany. Abandon, condemn and do not dwell on the dark reason for the foundation of the SBC. I do think there is way too much self praise and posturing on this issue that is a feel good issue for SBC leadership, if the SBC did this in anytime period between 1865 to 1990 it might be a courageous resolution showing a moral backbone. Now in multicultural, progressive, permissive , non religious America this resolution is as relevant and courageous as renouncing wife beating. In truth most Southern Baptist do not know the true beginnings of their church but perhaps now they will know as this resolution needs to be heralded and pronounced to the membership at large. Will the SBC annual convention 100 years from now apologize for the SBC stance on homosexuality? as the culture and general acceptance change? Social mores, teachings, secular beliefs change with the political and social tide. John 3.16 never changes. The poor uneducated southerner who died fighting for a terrible cause but accepted Christ as his savior is as saved as the Union soldier who accepted Christ as his savior, both of their sins were washed away, that is what we need to dwell on. There are many secular resolutions raised and many demands that the Cross be banned due that it is a symbol of , racist, anti homosexual, anti woman , anti Muslim, anti Jewish and anti secular individual liberty teachings. Where does this end? Will the Cross be abandoned someday as it offends? Good thing Dylan Roof did not pose with a Cross.
Steve,
You asked a lot of great questions that I’m unsure whether or not u meant them to be rhetorical. To answer all your questions would require a book or dissertation. Therefore, I won’t try and answer all questions, but rather give a general response.
One Southern Baptist pastor, a contemporary of the Confederacy blazed a different trail–J M Pendleton was his name if my memory serves me correctly. Pendleton opposed the war because he said it lacked biblical justification, as did the institution of chattel slavery as practiced in the USA at the time. He often quoted a verse I believe from Proverbs(not sure though) that essentially said, that one man should not “steal” another man. Pendleton wouldn’t even look at the Confederate Flag. He considered the USA Flag to be his flag. You can google him, or read a article regarding Pendleton & the CF, over at “Canon and Culture.”
My point is, all Southern Baptists didn’t fight for the Confederacy. Neither did all Southernors. A movie is debuting this very weekend that illustrates that point. I believe it’s called the “Free State of Jones.” My ancestors were Baptist, but they fought for the Union Army in Phillips County, Arkansas. Some Black soldiers did fight for the Confederacy, but they were promised freedom if the Confederacy win the war. Of course, Blacks who did not join the Confederate Army would remain as slaves.
Finally, could u have been a Confederate soldier and have been a Christian? Yes!!! Just like you can be guilty of a whole lot of other sins & be a Christian. The issue is, when God gave them space to repent( as He did Jezabel, in Revelation 2 or 3, did they? It could have been a stronghold that gripped them, after they were saved. Dr. Floyd makes it clear that racism is demonically driven. God is the final judge as to whether any ot Confederate soldiers or Union soldiers were Christians.
Dwight,
I am going to see that movie on Friday night. I am a civil war buff, and I just find it interesting that a county in Mississippi basically seceded from the Confederacy, raised the Union flag at the courthouse and actively fought against Confederate troops. I’m looking forward to seeing it.
“A movie is debuting this very weekend that illustrates that point. I believe it’s called the ‘Free State of Jones.'”
Please bear in mind that Hollywood history is not history.
Newt Knight and his gang of deserters murdered a Baptist preacher by the name of Carlisle. I doubt that will be in the movie.
Tom,
First is this Tom Parker? Second of all, you do know that your source for that “murder” is one of Carlisle’s descendants and it is dated 4/27/00, right? I mean you must have known since you copy and pasted the exact phrase from the website that you got it from. Did you bother checking the validity of the source?
You really hadn’t ought to accuse someone of murder without a little more evidence than someone’s kinsfolks say so.
“First is this Tom Parker?”
No.
“Second of all, you do know that your source for that “murder” is one of Carlisle’s descendants and it is dated 4/27/00, right?”
No. It’s from a book.
Fred Carlisle 4/27/00 entry in My Southern Family – Ancestry.com
As I said…it’s from a book-
Legend of the Free State of Jones
What evidence does the book put forth that Newton murdered Carlisle? Or did you automatically believe because you read it?
John, 2 things: (1) Dr. Leverett’s book is a scholarly work on the subject and generally considered reliable, and (2) that doesn’t mean he couldn’t or didn’t get some facts wrong.
Oh, and I meant to ask a question. John, Dwight, did either of you see the movie? If so, what did you think? Thanks.
Robert, I saw it on Friday night with my wife. It was very interesting to me,but I am a history buff. I think it was a bit slow
Thanks, John. I’m a history buff too, but often am disappointed by historical movies because “based on a true story” most often means: there was a true story; we didn’t tell it! But, unless I’ve missed it, the publicity of the “Free State” movie itself doesn’t seem to carry the “based on a true story” tag. Anyway, wondered what you thought, because of the movie coming out I’ve been reading up on the actual history of the incident. It is very intriguing, and somewhat disputed as to what actually happened. One of the minister’s on my presbytery was born in Jones County, Mississippi and he had referred to this a time or two, but I never checked it out at the time. (If you go to my blog, I put up a bunch of “Free State of Jones” links today, some of which you will probably be interested to read.)
Thank you, Robert. I read the article on whether or not Jones County, MS actually seceded from the Confederacy. Very interesting. I will read some more as I find
Great post, Dwight! I am thankful for your incredible foresight to lead the SBC into this repudiation and repentance! Thank you! For such a time as this! I was there and the whole thing brought tears to my eyes. I saw older Southern Baptists who were cheering FOR the Confederate flag complete change and cheer for Dr. Merritt when he made his appeal. The shift was immediate as conviction came over many and the resolution passed with well over 90% support. What an amazing scene! People everywhere were so happy and were in awe of the prophetic call of James Merritt. It was beautiful!
Thank you again, Dwight! God
Is working powerfully!
Alan,
By God’s grace and mercy, we both were blessed to have resolutions approved. I was really encouraged to see the media couch your resolution as going counter culture to Trump. Thanks for your long standing advocacy for the least among us, and the historically discriminated against. You are a brother beloved.
I personally liked the resolution as presented from the resolutions committee better than the amended version by Dr. Merritt. I think his amendment while well intention – stripped important phraseology from the resolution.
I agreed with Dr. Merritt’s words and sentiments – and Dwight you are quite correct his comments came accross passionately and beautifully on the live stream.
That said, I did not agree with his replacement amendment – I think it would’ve been wise to have left in the resolution the statement of understanding that not everyone who might display a rebel flag – or support others who choose to do it – do so for reasons of heritage and genealogy and cary no racist. I wish Dr. Merritt had suggested his amendment as an additional amendment to the resolution.
However had I been there I would’ve voted for the resolution and I’m happy to see that it passed so overwhelmingly. I do think it’s necessary and good for Christians to consider others even when displaying symbols that they do not intend or consider to be offensive. (At the end of the day though, I still think the place for this to happen is the local church – with faithful loving pastors shepherding their people – and not a resolution for the convention – but Resolutions have become the cool way we do things in the SBC – and that’s another discussion. )
^*….I think it would’ve been wise to have left in the resolution the statement of understanding that some who might display a rebel flag – or support others who choose to do it – do so for reasons of heritage and genealogy and carry no racist intent.
Dwight as you know I am beyond thrilled this passed. I am also thrilled the messengers voted for the strengthened version and not the committees version. I think it shows the power of messengers. History was made at this year’s convention.
If the Confederate Flag resolution had simply said,
“We oppose the display of the Confederate Flag for racist purposes”
I would have had no problem voting for it.
Rather, it bullied one group, simply to make another group feel good.
Judge Paul Pressler was not recognized, though he was at a microphone, during this discussion. It would have been informative to hear his view.
There was no reason to tie this politically with Charleston.
Shall we now embrace the Rainbow flag, to honor the 49 murdered in Florida?
As for all Confederate Flags not being worth one soul.
Of course that is true.
And of course that is a false choice.
There are multitudes of Christians who have no problem with the nonracist display of the Confederate flag, yet win multitudes to Christ, including many or mostly non-white folks.
You don’t have to oppose a flag to win people to Christ.
And, I would remind people that the SBC has not been flying the Confederate flag; in that sense this was a non issue.
Another thought.
Why is it that whites are asked to do things to improve racism, but blacks are never expected to do anything to improve racism? Shouldn’t this work both ways?
Last, the SBC resolutions against racism of 2014, 1995, 1993 already covered this area, and I agree with them.
But this is not the first time I’ve lost a vote, neither will it be the last.
David R. Brumbelow
Didn’t you hear racism is dead in the USA . We elected a black president TWICE and RACISM is dead in the SBC we voted against it. Now a resolution saying sin is bad and we should all be good.
David B: What? No rejoicing over this being passed? I disagree with your whole comment. Out of respect for this passing and Dr. McKissic, I’ll refrain from saying any more.
David B.,
“We oppose the display of the Confederate Flag for racist purposes.”
1. The problem with that statement is, absolutely no one would admit that they have flown or posted the CF for “racist purposes.” Consequently, a resolution with your verbiage would have been meaningless. The CF was hoisted above the State Capitol in South Carolina in ‘62 as a statement of defiance against integration. The CF, sealed to the back window of a pickup occupied by three White males, that hollered out the “N” word to three Black men (including myself), praying on a vacant lot, that God would allow us to purchase and build him a house on those 34 acres, probably wouldn’t admit that the CF represented White Supremacy to them. Again, no one, including Dylan Roof, would admit that their use of the CF constituted racism.
2. To characterize the winning side of a vote as “bullies” is beneath the pale.
3. The Parliamentarian explained in detail why Judge Pressler was not recognized to speak. Do you disagree with the Parliamentarian’s explanation? Do you know what Judge Pressler was going to say?
4. It is not a “false choice” that all Confederate Flags are not worth one soul. There are multiple thousands of Blacks who reject ministry within a Southern Baptist context because of the complicity and history of the SBC with the Confederacy, slavery, Jim Crowism, KKK, lynching, etc. Admittedly, the generations that felt the strongest about this are older, dying and dead. But that sentiment still exists with some. The CF resolution helps to bridge that gap.
5. David, it’s isolated and not systemic; but yes, there are SBC churches that at times display the flag, particularly in Virginia. This resolution discourages SBC church members from flying the CF anywhere at any time.
6. The SBC resolutions that you mentioned did not “cover this area.” There was no mention of the Confederacy or the CF. Specifically, the SBC affirmed the Confederacy by vote. Specifically, the SBC needed to disavow it. Thank God they did.
7. Merritt said it best: “This is not a matter of political correctness. It is a matter of spiritual conviction and biblical compassion. There was no “political tie” to Charleston here. There was a blood tie—the tie of the martyrs’ blood to the SBC Kingdom family and the tie of the martyrs’ blood to the Blood of Jesus.
8. David, seriously, do you really want to compare the deaths of nine believers in a Bible Study/prayer meeting to the deaths of 49 predominately homosexuals, in a gay bar? You really need to rethink this comparison. You should be making a contrast here, not a comparison. Had the Charleston nine been killed in a gay bar, it would have been suicide for the CF resolution.
Glad you’re willing to dialogue, and I hope that you will at least come to the point that you see this as something other than a “bullying” match. Love you brother. Agree with you on the alcohol abstinence. The CF? Not so much – J One more thing. It appeared to me that Judge Pressler attempted to “bully” President Floyd.
Dwight, I don’t necessarily disagree with your point #4, but it could easily be said the Stars and Stripes are possibly keeping a billion Muslims from Christ, since they see the U.S. as the stronghold of Satan. How many flags and how many Icons must Baptists reject in order to continue to maintain Dr. Merritt’s call? Therefore why are we stopping with the Confederate Battle Flag and not banning the American Flag? Just saying…
Nate,
Simple. When an African American looks at the American Flag, they don’t see a reminder of slavery, oppression, and injustice. Yes, all of that did happen under the AF. But, the Union Army fought for their freedom under the banner of the AF. That changed the emotions toward the AF. The CF only fought for the continued enslavement of African Americans. The CF is associated with the KKK, Dylan Roof, and segregation. The AF is not.That’s the difference.
“The CF is associated with the KKK, Dylan Roof, and segregation. The AF is not.”
The United States flag not associated with the KKK?
You sure about that?
Dwight,
I’ve heard many times (and for many years) people espousing rhetoric regarding the AF that is very similar you posted about the CF.
You have not?
Also, factually – the KKK routinely marched and rallied under the American flag.
I did a quick google image search and quite frankly while perusing through the pictures I saw the rebel flag not one single time – while the US flag was *always* present and photographed Klan rallies and marches – this is true in almost every picture. I will say that their own designed flag was also quote often displayed as well – but the American flag was always there.
Debbi,
I share your excitement. What a mighty God we serve!!!
Dwight: Amen!
John,
Vera & I plan to go Friday night as well. Wish we could go together. Let’s talk after we’ve watched it.
Okay brother.
The issue of the American Flag is continually brought up. I understand the point being made, and it makes sense a little bit. But if the AF is stopping people from coming to Christ I would gladly give it up. I know and understand the sacrifices made under that flag for my freedom, and I’m thankful for them. I think Christians must be willing to give up the AF flag too, if that’s what it takes. A picture of this is seen in Lottie Moon and others adopting the dress, style, food, and customs of the countries there were missionaries too. It was far to often the custom for a person to keep their western ways and try to be a missionary, but others found out it was easier to give those things up, so they did.
That being said, I don’t think we need to pass a resolution repudiating the AF. I don’t think that is the problem in reaching Muslims or other nationalities. Christians live under the Communist flag of China, the fascist flag of Italy, the torturing flag of Romania, and on and on and on. As Dwight ably put, the CF stands for only slavery, and that alone. We need to make sure we repudiate the evil practices done under the AF, as those from other countries do as well. This world is not our home after all.
Dwight:
I was pleased to vote for this resolution.
I understand the concerns that have been raised, but when weighed against other concerns, there is no question what the right course was.
I am especially gratified to see your reaction to what the SBC did, and to hear of the reaction of our brothers and sisters in predominantly African American denominations. To me, that reaction alone, tells the story.
The SBC churches that I have been a part of love all people – including African Americans. I was in an integrated youth group back in the 70s.
It is good and fitting that the official denominational actions and declarations match what I have witnessed in Baptist churches.
It is a day to celebrate.
God bless.
Tom,
Yes, I’ve seen the KKK marching with the American Flag. I’ve also seen persons burn the American Flag. My point is, both are aberrations. The AF is not principally identified with the KKK. The CF is. The AF is not principally identified with racism. The CF is. Black parents don’t teach their children to hold the site of the AF with danger, threat, and suspicion. Black parents teach their children to view the CF in that manner.
Dwight,
I think that your answer was the most cogent answer I have ever seen to the question about the American flag. When you wrote, “The AF is not principally identified with the KKK. The CF is.”, that brought clarity immediately. You remind me of a deacon in my church, when he speaks it just clears things right up. That’s a valuable gift to have, brother.
it may bring clarity – but its just not factual. No disrespect meant – but to pretend that the AF was “not principally identified with the KKK” is ludicrous.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVi0PBWtXMiMAhEonnIlQ?p=kkk+and+the+american+flag&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&fr2=piv-web&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
Not when you actually know the definition of the word principally, Tarheel.
Even you link bears that out. There are way more CFs in those images than AFs. The CF is principally identified with the KKK.
I speak primarily about the “real Klan” the black and white pics from back at the times of lynchings and such.
Today the rebel flag has been used often – even by the more modern white supremacists including the neo Klan groups – but to say the AF was not principally and constantly identified with the old school Klan (and the new ones) is just not factual.
Yes it is factual when you understand the meaning of principally. You really believe that the US Flag is “first and Foremost” identified with the KKK?
The Klan’s “haeyday” was the “second Klan” that went from about 1925 to the late 40’s but took till the 60’s or so to die out so to speak…..
During that time – the American Flag was the staple and most prominent (which I think qualifies as principal, John W. 🙂 ) flag at EVERY Klan event and activity and march. It just was. More so than any other flag – except their own designed flag.
The prominent use of the rebel flag was popularized by other white supremacists groups and such that came along later.
Check out this march on Washington in 1928 – the start really of the Klan that most of us speak of when we talk of the group. Notice the ONLY flags present.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u1QARlCph0
Tar Heel,
The AF has always been larger than the attempts by the KKK to co-op the AF. The reality is, in most wars, the losing side’s flag is disallowed & removed from circulation. The USA allowed the CF to remain. But, it always has been & Lways will be viewed as a rebel symbol.
I have read with interest for some time the comments on many articles regarding this resolution and the CF. I do not own, display or promote the flag although it is a part of my heritage. I am however grieved when I read remarks that seem to indicate very soldier fighting for the CSA was sinning in doing so. I do not believe that the North suddenly got a pang of conscience about slavery and made an effort to wage war against it Having said that, I am glad the resolution passed in that any effort to further remove an obstacle that might hinder missions is good. Now lets move on from these elements of the war. My only concern is will it stop here. I think we have offered enough apologies or will one day we will pass a resolution like we did on Disney, suggesting people do not visit Stone Mountain in Georgia.
Newton Knight, of the Free State of Jones, was a Calvinist Baptist.
Now that should garner some interest here.
This ought to be a fascinating movie.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-free-state-jones-180958111/?no-ist
By the way, Sam Houston, of Texas and Tennessee fame, and a Baptist, refused to support the Confederate States of America.
David R. Brumbelow
“By the way, Sam Houston, of Texas and Tennessee fame, and a Baptist, refused to support the Confederate States of America.”
He also refused Lincoln when he proposed to invade the state and set up Houston as military governor.
You say that Tarheel, but I looked at your pictures and others, and rebel flags outnumber American Flags 3 to 1.
Yes in the modern pic…but in the Klan’s heyday….the falg they carried during the time frame that most of us think of the Klan – was the AF….not the rebel flag.
Its the Neo groups that use that predominately.
here is another example of a march on Washington in 1925 notice again from this govt. website the ONLY flags present.
http://mallhistory.org/items/show/175
Here is the newspaper clipping from the 1925 event….again….well you can figure it out.
http://mallhistory.org/files/original/af412d0370d91e060e00d0bf58ccc8b0.png
Tarheel,
Although the KKK marched with the AF, the USA government did not back or support the KKK efforts. The CSA and open racist supported the CF. Therein lies the difference.
Actually, the United states legislatures were full of KKK democrats who certainly fowarded the Klan’s agenda for many years.
My point is that the AF was the prominent flag and was used at every event, activity, meeting and march that they group did for many years. The Rebel flag was brought in later – sure – but during the first and second Klan’s the AF was the flag of choice.
Neo groups today use the CF a lot. The Klan used it too, back then, admittedly – but the AF was much more prevalent with the Klan than was the CF for most of the groups history.
Dwight, I agree with you that the CF evokes feelings of despair and hurt within many (most) African Americans….i agreed that Baptists should use better judgment in displaying it – preferably not at all.
I just wish the resolution acknowledged that that there are good, non racist people who and and do appreciate the rebel flag as a symbol of southern heritage that goes with it and at the same time strongly oppose the idea of slavery. People are complex.
I can be proud to be a southern Baptist, which I am, but at the same time detest what some of our leaders do and say. I can be a proud SB and not agree with every resolution that is passed by a majority – Life is not always as simple as either/or. I wish the lines that acknowledged that had not been stricken.
Both the AF and CF have been used as symbols of racist groups (along with the bible and the cross, BTW) – but I contend that people can appreciate the good and throw out the bad – like eating a T-Bone. Eat the meat and throw away the bone!
But as Brumbelow intimated – things happen all the time that I disagree with (even if the disagreement like this one is more about style than substance) – but life goes on.
Tarheel: “Dwight, I agree with you that the CF evokes feelings of despair and hurt within many (most) African Americans…”
PEW Research poll 2011 and 2015
“Reaction to seeing the Confederate flag displayed” (%)
2011
Black
Positive- 10
Neither Positive nor Negative- 45
Don’t Know- 4
Negative- 41
2015 (poll taken about a month after the Charleston shooting)
Black
Positive- 6
Neither Positive nor Negative- 49
Don’t Know- 3
Negative- 42
Note that the total of those who have either a positive view or don’t know/don’t care is almost 60% in both polls.
The negative % for whites was 29 in 2011 and 27 in 2015.
Polls-
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/05/across-racial-lines-more-say-nation-needs-to-make-changes-to-achieve-racial-equality/8-4-2015_04a/
Tom,
I’m 60 yrs old, and I’ve never met a Black person who was in favor of or neutral regarding the CF. I did tea about one Black pastor who did not want to suppress anyone inclined to display the CF, because he saw advantage in those persons identifying themselves. Not a ringing endorsement of the CF from my perspective. I would imagine Blacks who aren’t opposed to it, in part don’t oppose the CF, because they see advantage in identifying persons who share CF sympathies.
Dwight, I hope you don’t agree with that philosophy – “advantage in identifying those who have confederate flag sympathies”
Because that attitude necessarily carries with it the notion that everyone who displays a rebel flag does so out of racist intent – hence “outing themselves as racist”.
That was and continues to be my point about the entire resolution – and this discussion – there seems to be an either or proposition in the minds of many
*either you completely and universally and without equivocation reject the Confederate flag in Totality and forever – or you’re racist.
I just don’t think that is fair.
In similar manner – would it be fair for A white person to say that unless one rejects completely, unilaterally, unequivocally, without reservation, and in total everything about the “black lives matter movement” then they are attached with the racist aspect of that movement are racist themselves.
Neither is fair – complexity and Nuance exist – dogmatic either/or proposition in cases like this I do not think are healthy.
“…one Black pastor who did not want to suppress anyone inclined to display the CF, because he saw advantage in those persons identifying themselves.”
The poll question wasn’t about suppressing the display of the flag but the person’s >reaction< to it.
“The Indiana Klan was perhaps the most powerful Ku Klux Klan in the nation. It claimed over 30% of white male Hoosiers.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_role
This article shows a 1923 Klan poster with the American flag prominently displayed.
David R. Brumbelow
Tarheel,
We were taught this as a survival skill.
No. Everyone that displays a confederate Flag is not racist, but many are. We were not taught that everyone CF displaying person was racist. We were simply taught that could possibly be a clue to know that u are interacting with a racist. As a general rule, I am on guard & have & desire less social interaction with proud displayers of the CF.
John Wiley has CF memorabilia in his office. I’m told Russell Moore does as well. I have no reason to believe that either are racist. But, if my 1st introduction to either involved knowing that they displayed Confederate memorabilia, it certainly would have raised my eyebrow, and governed my interaction with them to some extent. Wiley is as nicer person that I’ll find anywhere. We’ve exchanged pulpits, our families have met, and they’ve extended personal hospitality to us, & his family has spent the night in my home. Even when he showed me his CF memorabilia, it didn’t bother me, because I’d already formed a positive opinion. My point simply is though, without prior knowledge, the CF displays is a possible clue into the racial views of a person.
Look, everyone. This is done. Vote over, resolution passed. Fly the CF or don’t, but the SBC has spoken as strongly as it can and it is now part of our history.
David B., Tarheel,
The KKK marching under the AF is equivalent to the Westboro Church marching under a Baptist banner. Most SBC persons would consider Westboro Baptist as inauthentic, yet they march under the Baptist banner. The KKK are viewed by most Americans as inauthentic, although they march under the AF. There is no need to ban the AF because of a few inauthentic marchers exploited it.
As a student of Black History (I studied the subject in my undergraduate work at Lincoln Univ. in Mo. under one of the great Black Historians, Dr. Lorenzo. J. Green, associate Editor to Dr. Carter G. Woodson, editor of the Journal of Negro Life and History, and in my MK.A. Program in American Social and Intellectual History, and in the Univ. of South Carolina (the Modern Arab States) and at Columbia Univ. IN NY where I wrote a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation in Black History, delivered a lecture in the field in an afternoon lecture series and did my project for the D. Min. on Christian Love and
Race relations at SEBTS), I have no problem with the removal of the CF. But what does worry me is the PC, political correctness, that might be involved. When I went to Orangeburg to teach at South Carolina State, I took my wife and then my daughter came to live with us along with my mother-in-law and my wife gave birth to our son who is now our pastor. There was real danger in doing such a thing. One member of the white community got word to me through an intermediary that he did not want to see me at any neighborhood gathering.
I have no problem with the understanding of biblical theology on the subject of slavery. Indeed< I happen to like J.M. Pendleton except for his Landmarkism. John Brown was a strong Calvinist who sought to force the issue. I am aware of the state within the state of Mississippi that opposed the Civil War. I also know of those in the mountains of eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina as well as those in West Virginia who like wise opposed the war. The border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri also contributed soldiers to both sides. One soldier shot his father and four brothers in a battle in Kentucky. There is no telling the grief that such a fratricidal war involved.
There is the problem of political correctness which is being used constantly to erode away our freedoms. Like it or not, Whites and Blacks both have a history that is grievous in many instances. However, people were converted and changed their views, e.g., John Newton, the author of Amazing Grace. Many made egregious mistakes like Whitefield who was the cause for the introduction of slavery into Georgia. He also treated Blacks as humans with souls and intelligence. One of his converts in Charleston became a preacher, a missionary, and an abolitionist who labored to abolish slavery in the British Empire.
Perhaps the reason why abolition did not occur in America was because someone intended for it not to happen. Some one or some people who wanted that war for ulterior purposes. Even George Washington admitted that the Illuminati were in America. One of their leaders was head of the Knights of the Golden Circle and is the only Confederate General to have a statue in Washington, D.C. And while we are at it: Why did the General in charge of the Union forces at Gettysburg destroy Lee's army. Seems there was someone who discouraged that General. In any case, the political correctness might well be our undoing as a nation of freedom with liberty of speech, faith, press, and assembly.
One of the saddest things is the elitism that was behind the slavery and the war is also behind our present day conservative movements. They do not have pastor John Robinson's (pastor of the Pilgrims) view expressed in the following fashion: "Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God's Word?" There is more, but I am weary with age and health problems.
I also think it would have been informative to here Judge Pressler’s views. Ronnie Floyd and McCarty know what Pressler was going to say because he told them last night. They could hear the noise from Microphone 1 and ignored it instead of extending the session. I think because what Pressler was going to say the wanted to protect him.
Ron: Conspiracy theories just aren’t warranted here. I think they ran out of time etc. just as they said. They do not treat anyone differently because of who they are, like they said.
They handled it well considering the temper tantrum thrown. I think we should just take Ronnie Floyd and McCarty at their word, like they said.
Since the SBC is involved in this denouncing business…shouldn’t they denounce and disavow any connection with the Democratic Party?
Considering that party’s long support of abortion?
And instruct members to stop displaying support for that party?
Now, that would take some real courage.
Not bandwagon “courage.”
Agreed! The Democratic platform flies in the face of biblical Christianity. I have always wondered why Baptist churches have not taken a stand against a platform that supports the murder of innocent babies! Regarding racial unity, we should address this very issue since there are large numbers of minority babies aborted every day. They are being prayed upon by the likes of Planned Parenthood. Seems simple on that principle alone.
Not to diminish the Carleston shooting. It was horrific. But how many black, Hispanic, etc. babies are murdered everyday?
Perhaps SBC2017? Lets take the lead on this SBC.
Forgive me for being blunt here but this statement is just ridiculous Tom and Tiffany. Good grief! It’s been done and done.
Listen Tom and Tiffany: We are a Christian denomination. Of course we are against abortion. Resolutions show this, but we have not always been non-racist. That is the huge difference. Folks in churches need to be made aware of the issues of race. Being predominately white we have needed to be aware of the racism in our churches. In the world.
It seems what you are trying to do is divert the conversation from race to abortion and that in my opinion is totally dismissing the black community or any community that is not white. I want to say stop it! But that would be very strong language that I am attempting not to use in case it’s just that you are not aware and not trying to divert.
Debbie,
The SBC is not a denomination. We are a convention of independent Churches. We have no heirarchy. Well, at least that’s been our history. Not sure what’s coming down the road. But, right now, we’re not a denomination.
David
Volfan,
Ummmm…..what on earth would bring you to intimate that our “convention of autonomous churches” structure might be changing “down the road’?
There seems to be a lot of Elder Ruled, Presbyterian type thinking, here lately.
tomato tomoto David. That is not the main thought on the post, so it really doesn’t matter. The majority of messengers spoke. That is the thought to take away.
Debbie,
You are correct that there have been resolutions regarding the horrors of abortion. There have been no resolutions regarding the Democratic party and their evil platform. Many people dance around this issue.
I find it ironic that so many are afraid of offending black congregants or those outside the church with the confederate flag; that it may be interfering with their souls coming to Christ. Yet, many of those same individuals would never say straight up to a black church leader, member, etc that supporting the democratic party is against many major tenants of scripture. The affiliation with such a party that oppresses blacks through their policies. Their very witness in churches who came out in support of Barak Obama openly says a lot about this issue. They are basically putting their seal of approval on the party and their evil platform.
I don’t see a push in the SBC for a resolution to denounce the Democratic Party because of the evil it perpetrates. I do not see a resolution calling pastors to educate their congregations about voting for a leader who is not a member of this party.
Good grief Debbie! You have avoided the question posed and diverted it based on resolutions about abortion, not about the party.
So, you are incorrect. It has not been done, and done again.
Are you against such a resolution to denounce support of the Democratic Party?
I know many who are no longer attending and SBC church either because of Richard Land, Russell Moore, the ERLC in general, immigration, amicus briefs filed for a mosque, refugees, now the confederate flag (because it casts all who may fly it as racists and removed charitable language),….the list goes on. And these are just the socio-political issues that many use scripture to support in a dogmatic way.
Look, I don’t think we can pass a resolution to please everyone on every issue. We need to reserve this for the most important issues. But, if we are to go down the road of pointing fingers on such complex issues, we run the risk of being irrelevant.
However, I would support a resolution calling for SBC churches and leadership to repudiate the Democratic Party. I think this issue casts a much broader net to help end the disparities that many minorities feel on a daily basis. The Democratic Party is enslaving the very people the claim to have helped free. Oh those who do not know history. Slavery comes in many forms and supporting the Democratic Party is supporting a form of enslavement to all Americans, not just blacks.
If we can disavow a flag, we can disavow a party who many Baptists churches support.
I may be branded as racist for what I am about to say, but black churches across America voted in large blocks for our current President and typically tend to vote Democratic. Why are we afraid to speak out on this issue? I know there are those within the black community that do not support the President, but it is a small percentage.
Perhaps some of the reasons we don’t see as many multi-racial SBC churches is because we simply have a different view on these social issues. I am not negating those who truly feel a sense of reprisal, but I have found after living in Houston and attending an SBC church that the CF had nothing to do with why my black friends attended a different church. The format was not what they were accustomed to, the worship style was different, our view on a number of social issues was miles apart. We loved each other, but differed on these issues. I am not speaking for all. This was just my general experience in Houston. BTW – I became a minority in my neighborhood after Katrina, so I met people from all walks of life, Christian and otherwise. We talked about these things regularly. And yes, almost all of them voted as Democrats. This was well conversed because I lived there when President Obama was first elected.
SBC17 – Resolution: Repudiate Democratic Party and their evil platform
BTW – Debbie,
My post was made because abortion within the black community is at the heart of what the likes of Margaret Sanger and other Eugenicists would like to see. They wanted to sterilize and ultimately rid the world of blacks. They considered them inferior. This is a race issue. If we are to combat this problem of racism, it begins by informing those in churches of what is going on in the Democratic party. More blacks are killed by abortion than the likes of Dylan Roof. Plain and Simple. Statistics prove it.
So, really, this argument doesn’t end with the CF. And, to your note on white folks not understanding racism….I lived in a what quickly became a minority neighborhood. I heard from many neighbors about what problems they were experiencing. They were mostly the same problems as the general population, but many problems stemmed more from fatherless homes than from racism. I too have experienced racism. We lived in Cedar Hill a number of years ago and there were some neighborhoods where we later stopped shopping because the clerks were actually racist to us and said hateful things while waiting on us. One of them threatening me and my two very young boys at a Big Lots store because I asked her to get something off a shelf and she was a cashier who had a horrible chip on her shoulder about working for a white woman. It was scary. So, while you may not have had the privilege of experiencing these things, to assume churches need to be informed of the problem of race is ludicrous. Racism comes in many forms and will always exist. If we truly want to stop racism, we need to preach more, love more, serve more, pray more and expect God to work all around us and through us. That would do more good than making a public statement to repudiate something that I know of only a few people actually partaking.
I was discriminated against. What will be done to educate the black church about racism against other races? Where will this end?
You know, Baptists were not always against abortion. It wasn’t until the conservatives in the 1990’s really pushed the issue that strides were made in churches across America. They have issued a Resolution regarding abortion, but not the generational genocide being sold to the black community by the likes of the Democratic Party.
Volfan,
A lot? That is surprising. How do you know this?
Which SB author or commenter(s) on the forum has argued for a Non-Congregational elder ruled structure….because I truly have not seen it, Vol.
It seems that often you conjure up wild conspiracies from someplace other than the comments and discussions that actually take place.
The information may come from some other place than Voices. He said something, you asked for clarification and he gave it.
Mike, Just going on what he said.
“….elder rule around HERE lately”
Tarheel and Mike,
I’m talking about the Churches that have been coming into our SBC, here lately. I’ll guarantee you that we’ve got more Elder Ruled Churches, today, than we did 20 years ago. Acts 29 type Churches tend to promote Elder Ruled. That’s all, Tarheel and Mike. There’s no big revealing of some SBC leader that I was thinking about. There’s no big boogie man. There’s no big scoop. I was simply saying that we’ve had more Elder Ruled, and possibly Elder Ruled type of thinking coming into our SBC.
But, to answer Debbie’s statement. It’s not tomatoes. It’s a fact. We’re not a denomination, and we have no heirarchy. Denominations tend to have heirarchy. You know, the Elder board, or the Cardinals, or the Pope tells the Churches what they can do, and what they can’t do. So, it’s important to understand. We are not a denomination. We’re a convention of local, autonomous Churches.
David
David Worley,
From Peter Lumpkins:
http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2011/05/acts-29-network-elder-led-or-elder-ruled-by-peter-lumpkins-632051.html
“If by “elder-led” the Acts 29 Network means to convey the well-known distinction between “elder-led” and “elder-ruled” or “elder-governed,” then the confusion lessens or perhaps even ceases and so should the concern raised by dedicated Baptists who rightly want to preserve our rich thee-ecclesiological heritage of biblical congregationalism. In short, a church could be elder leaded retain its congregational polity whether the churches single-elder led or plural-elder led.”
I don’t think, even according to Peter, that Acts 29 churches are elder-RULED, but elder-led. So put your fears to rest brother.
We’ve had elder-ruled churches in the SBC for ages. They are called mega-churches, and the SBC has always revered mega-church pastors.
Sometimes small churches are ruled too – sometimes it’s plurality and they call them Deacons – and sometimes it’s single elder ruled by pastor.
Pretending SBC hasn’t had this in its history and present churches is niave.
That being said, if a church officially is elder-ruled it doesn’t belong in the SBC. If a church practices paedo-baptism it doesn’t belong in the SBC. I don’t like the idea of allowing paedo-baptized people in as members either.
Bill Mac,
What about ‘unofficially’? I imagine that they’re a lot of deacon-ruled and single-elder-[pastor]-ruled churches in the convention. And if so, what problem has it caused? [I am for elder-led congregational-ruled churches which are what deacon-led churches are].
Elder led vs elder ruled.
1. I would hope that even a solo pastor church is elder led…the pastor can also be called an elder.
2. #1 above would be leading in conjunction with deacons in a Baptist church, typically.
So elder led is surely something I think most any church would want. Right? I men who would want a pastor that didn’t lead?
3. So, it’s a matter of how many elders are leading. The larger the congregation the more elders (pastors) leading. Hence a plurality of elders leading.
This can absolutely be done in a congregational form of government. Bill Mac r minds that it has happened for years with very large congregations.
4. Elder ruled is almost, ALMOST, completely governed by an elder board, but with some mix of the congregation involved in some decisions.
I ladder ruled is pretty badly extremely rare, if it exists at all, in the SBC.
Look, let’s be honest. In today’s SBC climate, the word elder is proxy for “Calvinist”. That is the real objection here. People don’t give two hoots about elder vs pastor or single vs plural. Elder=Calvinist=We Don’t Want Them. We’ve had effective elder rule in the SBC for ages. We elect ruling elders president every 2 years.
First this:
“I ladder ruled is pretty badly extremely rare, if it exists at all, in the SBC.”
No proofing on that sentence. I’m not even sure now what I was trying to say. Maybe, elder ruled is probably extremely rare, if it exist at all, in the SBC.
Second, Bill Mac you’re right. If a high profile Trad used elder terminology then the objection would likely go away.
correction: ” a church could be elder-led and retain…”
“I’m offended when people want to ‘rewrite’ history or in some cases ‘eliminate’ events because they are offensive to today’s world. There are those today who want to take photos off walls or pictures off our currency because they once owned slaves. Yes, slavery is wrong but at one time it was an accepted practice. That doesn’t make it right but ignoring it ever happened, or punishing those who condoned it then (and have been dead for more than a century), does nothing now. Rather, history should be preserved to serve as a reminder that slavery was wrong and it should never happen again.”
-Lonnie Wilkey, Baptist and Reflector, TN.
http://baptistandreflector.org/im-offended-but-the-world-doesnt-care/
David R. Brumbelow
I posted this on another site, but this is why I think our stand against the Confederate flag is so important. It’s not just going to reverberate in the United States but all over the world.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-sharp-spike-in-racist-incidents-reported-after-the-brexit-vote/ar-AAhE8xs?ocid=spartandhp
I’m in a movie theatre about to watch “free state of Jones”.
Tarheel, when you have time tell us what you thought.
I saw the movie, The Free State of Jones, yesterday. The last time I saw an R rated movie was The Passion. I seldom see movies.
I assume the R is for violence, and there is graphic violence.
The movie is well done and interesting, and seems correct in historical details. It is definitely part of the history of the time (see link above I mentioned about the movie), but not the only part of the history of the time.
There is a moral issue in that apparently Newton Knight, when separated from his wife, lived in a common law marriage with another woman (Rachel) and had at least one child by her.
Slavery, and that part of the Confederacy was 100% wrong.
However, this movie presents one side, albeit a valid side.
It should be remembered you can make an accurate movie, that leaves you cheering for the Confederates, the Union, the Blacks, the Whites, the American Indians. And, you can make an accurate movie that leaves you despising each of those groups. There was good and bad, valor and things less than noble, in each of them.
If you can handle the graphic violence, see the movie. It offers a little known and valid aspect of the Civil War, and beyond.
It reminds us that war is horrible, slavery and racism are sinful.
David R. Brumbelow
I thought it was good. Acting was good. They did a good job making some characters likeable and some very unlikeable. I think it demonstrated that slaves were used, and mistreated by both the North and South and neither side was “in it for them” – that’s rare in civil war movies.
Lots of dramatic liscence was taken in the movie (like with the presentation of a gun fight at a church and the events that took place surrounding it) at least according to what I’ve read regarding Newton Knight.
One thing that really bothered me was that progressive politics instead of his faith and the strong opposition the slavery that came with it was presented as the strongest motivation for his actions (though faith was generically highlighted to some extent)
Immediately after the movie – I asked my wife (who had no prior knowledge/understanding of Knight and Jones County) what she thought was Knight’s strongest motivation was – she said “it seemed like his strongest motivation was like a 99%er taking on and beating back the 1%ers”.
Economics, military power and politics primarily drove the union and the south to war – but I don’t think that was Knights primary motivation at all. I think, though a deeply flawed man, he was primarily compelled by his love for fellow image bearers and not wanting to see them being maltreated. I wish the movie had focused more on that.
Tarheel,
Valid points as well. Interesting that wealthy people were cast in such a bad light. In real life, there are good and bad wealthy people, just like every other group.
David R. Brumbelow
Tarheel and David, I am not a movie goer but may have to see “The Free State of Jones County.” I guess none of us have any real idea what motivated Jones County to do what they did during the civil war. Jones Countians had few slaves and didn’t care to fight in the war. As a lifelong Mississippian, I am under the impression that Newt and his band’s motivation for opposing the Confederates was the taxes the Confederate army were seizing to support the war effort. They fought to keep their goods from being confiscated. I have not read all the works on Newton Knight but have read enough to believe if the movie depicts any motivation other than retaining personal property the creator is probably taking some license.
His liberty minded beliefs that “what you put in the ground is yours to keep” was a strong component of the movie as was “No man can make you fight and die in another man’s war”.
The tax-in-kind law (10%) would not have impoverished the people. “Unauthorized parties” collecting livestock and other supplies is what created the disaffection in Jones and the surrounding area-
“…great injustice is done to producers by the loose and careless manner in which the tithe is often collected by officers attached to the army. Unauthorized parties, both officers and privates, often exercise this power….
You cannot realize what disservice has been done to the cause by such irregularities, alienating the affections of the people and destroying the means of subsisting the army….”
pages 727-729:
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=jones;q2=county;op2=followed%20by;op3=near;rgn=full%20text;amt2=40;amt3=40;idno=waro0059;didno=waro0059;view=image;seq=729;page=root;size=100
Great clarification, Tom. It was the abuses rather than a equal application of the law itself that was the big problem.
I’ve been doing a good bit of reading on Knight and Jones County lately. Here’s some things y’all might find interesting. I would not to discount Knight’s religious faith — I believe it was real and affected his actions. Nevertheless, I would say the leading causes for men like Knight returning home and abandoning the Confederacy were: (1) They initially did not support secession and war, (2) the exemption from fighting for planters who owned twenty or more slaves angered yeoman farmers, and (3) the Confederate “tax in kind” system was often debilitating their families while they were off fighting. [We have a long-standing family story of one of my maternal great-grandmother’s relatives who served as a Confederate soldier, killed an officer who kicked his plate of food out of his hands, and then fled to and served with the Union army. (Found this story of Jasper Collins and the ‘Ellisville Patriot’ this morning.)]
The exemption for wealthy planters was definitely a bur under a lot of saddles. This led to soldiers turning against a war that they had little interest in already. Historians favor this as the reason that Jasper Collins returned home. They say he even informed his commander that he was leaving and why. Jones County voters had elected John H. Powell (Jasper Collins’ father-in-law) to oppose secession at the Mississippi State Convention of 1861. After arriving in Jackson at the Convention, Powell caved in to the “peer pressure” dominating the convention — he voted for secession. So, many Jones County residents would have felt they were deceived and misrepresented.
What was happening to family back home with the Confederate “tax in kind” system was another “bur under the saddle”. Some say that Knight’s hearing that the Confederate cavalry had taken his family’s horses was the immediate reason that he returned home. No doubt, like many things about this war, the Jones County Unionists’ reasons for doing what they did were diverse and complex. There was probably more widespread doubt, discouragement, dissension, and desertion across the South than we Southerners think of today due to the long-held narrative of the Lost Cause.
The movie shows a little of how complicated things were back then, as well as today. Simple explanations are often inaccurate.
And, to the extent “The Free State of Jones” presents rich people as evil and that it is acceptable to steal from the rich to distribute to the poor, I reject that view. Scripture does as well. A rich man has as much right to his property as a poor man.
David R. Brumbelow
Agreed….and I am sure you mean this as well David B., so long as that “property” is not a person.
Right. And an important clarification.
David R. Brumbelow
John Wylie, here is something you might find interesting:
Jones and Other Free States
Thank you, brother. That was interesting. Hey, I noticed that you like Sacred Harp signings, do you even attend any?
Yes, I attend several a year. We have a large and very old convention (org. 1855) right here in the county where I live. Do you attend some?
No but I have always loved listening to sacred harp signing.
Casey Gerber started SH singing with his students at OBU. I’m not sure of the status since he went to the U of O. We have an annual singing in January at Southwestern Seminary in the rotunda of the music building.
SH singing has a long-standing tradition among Baptists in East Texas, though it obviously is not common like it used to be.
WORLD magazine’s review of Free State of Jones
https://world.wng.org/2016/06/free_state_of_jones
David R. Brumbelow