In 2006, Dr. Jim Richards, the recently retired (2020) executive director of the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention (SBTC), made a startling statement regarding pastors in the SBT—which included me—who believed in the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit listed in Romans 12, I Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, and I Peter 4, and their practice in the life of believers and churches today, gifts that are particularly often exercised in private worship. The backdrop of Dr. Richard’s comment was in response to a sermon that I preached in chapel at Southwestern Seminary in August 2006 entitled, “The Baptism and Filling of the Holy Spirit.”
In this message, I challenged the International Mission Board of the SBC to rescind their policy adopted in 2005, that placed absolute restrictions on the SBC missionaries from praying and praising in tongues in private, because their policy was simply in direct contradiction to the plain teaching of Scripture; and it violated the religious liberty and conscience of the missionaries who were gifted by the Holy Spirit to pray, praise and give thanks to God in tongues, as practiced and preached by Paul (I Corinthians 14:2-5).
Dr. Paige Patterson responded to the sermon by releasing a public statement declaring my message was “harmful to the churches”; and he removed the recording of the message from the seminary archives, making it unavailable to the public. No chapel message in SWBTS chapel history had been treated like mine, not even the one preached by Dr. Karen Bullock in chapel, prior to Dr. Patterson’s arrival.
In 2015, under David Platt, President of the IMB at the time, the SBC-IMB reversed their anti-tongues policy and permitted missionaries to pray in tongues in private. In 2018, Dr. Jeffrey Bingham, then Interim President of SWBTS, restored my sermon to the seminary archives. Dr. Adam Greenway said to me, that if Dr. Bingham had not restored the sermon, he would have restored it upon becoming SWBTS’ new president. I love and appreciate Southwestern Seminary.
Back to Dr. Jim Richard’s statement: In 2006 in response to my chapel sermon, he stated, “If you have a private prayer language, you may ride on the bus at SBTC, but you will not be able to drive the bus.” I found that statement incredibly offensive as an African American and as one who has been spiritually gifted to pray, praise, intercede and give thanks in tongues, under the inspiration and influence of the Holy Spirit, as is taught in I Corinthians 14. I shared my pain and disagreement with Dr. Richards. He assured me that his comment was not intended to imply a racial connotation, only a theological one. Dr. Richards was gentle, respectful, and kind in his response to me, although he disagreed with my beliefs and practice. I visited him in 2006 to express to him why our church was withdrawing membership in the SBTC. However, I remained a member from then until today, simply to not break fellowship over a tertiary issue. I DECIDED TO STAY ON THE BUS FROM 2006 UNTIL JANUARY 2021. But, today, I have decided it is time to “get off the bus.” I no longer want to ride, and I certainly do not want to drive!
In November 2020, the SBTC adopted a strongly worded, anti-CRT policy that denounces all aspects of Critical Race Theory. There are certain aspects of CRT I also disagree with. For instance, if it is an accurate representation of CRT teachings that only Whites can be racists, I totally disagree with that premise. Racism is a sin. And there is not one sin a Black person is incapable of committing, including racism. However, there are beneficial aspects of CRT that cannot be denied. And because the SBTC, and it appears the SBC, are poised to deny any beneficial aspects of CRT, in a most dishonest fashion, I have decided to get off the bus. The purpose of this article is to explain why.
There is a current debate in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) regarding Critical Race Theory (CRT). The SBC , in her Annual Session in Birmingham, AL, June 2019, adopted a Resolution regarding CRT (Resolution 9). The resolution committee was chaired by Dr. Curtis Woods, who at that time, was a professor in the Black Church Studies Department at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, and also Associate Executive Director of the Kentucky Baptist State Convention, which is affiliated with the SBC. Dr. Woods is the most articulate person in SBC life about CRT, having completed his doctoral dissertation related to the subject.
Resolution 9 was passed by the “Messengers.” In the time since the 2019 Convention, there has been major opposition to the Resolution from various sources in SBC life. The opposition disagrees in totality with any beneficial aspects to CRT. Those of us who support Resolution 9 agree with aspects of CRT. Dr. Tony Evans, who is associated but not affiliated with the SBC had the following comment on the subject:
“Members of the 2019 Resolution Committee of the SBC, without my awareness or permission, used my name in recent Affirmation of Recent Statements from Christian Leaders on Critical Race Theory. Upon reading this affirmation, I need to state that their use of my name and what I said in a sermon titled Race & Reconciliation released on 11/15/20 needs clarification of what I fully said. They have referenced a portion without giving it the context of my sermon. I have a great deal of respect for the SBC and the work that they do around the nation and the world, and this misunderstanding does not diminish that in any way.
As I stated in my sermon, which I encourage everyone reading this to watch, I again affirm that the Bible must be the basis for analyzing any and all social, racial or political theories in order to identify what is legitimate or what is not legitimate. But I did not say, nor imply, that CRT or other ideologies lack beneficial aspects—rather that the Bible sits as the basis for determining that. I have long taught that racism, and its ongoing repercussions, are real and should be addressed intentionally, appropriately and based on the authority of God’s inerrant Word.”
The reason this is a major concern for me, and by extension, the Cornerstone Church family, is because of the practical implications and ramifications of what could happen if Resolution 9 is rescinded or a 2021 resolution supplants/trumps the 2019 resolution. The most respected and major opposition is coming from the Council of Seminary Presidents (CSP) of the SBC. It is unprecedented for the CSP to take a defiant position to the resolution committee’s decision and the majority vote of the messengers. This link contains the seminary presidents’ (CSP) full statement. The crux of the CSP statement, which is the last 25 words, is the point of disagreement. The rest of the statement is innocuous, and we agree with it:
“In light of current conversations in the Southern Baptist Convention, we stand together on historic Southern Baptist condemnations of racism in any form and we also declare that affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and any version of Critical Theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.”
The following are the reasons why the existing CSP statement (and the proposed SBC statement) could have impact upon our churches, and by extension, African American SBC churches, at large:
1. If this CSP statement is adopted in the June 2021 SBC Annual Session, in any form or fashion, thereafter when one addresses the subject of CRT or “race” from a seminary class, local church pulpit, or Sunday School class, “it could be interpreted” by the SBC/CSP policy as violating the SBC/CSP statement/policy on CRT, which could make any professor, pastor, preacher, or Sunday School teacher that is judged by this SBC/CSP policy, “incompatible with Baptist Faith and Message (BFM).” This could be used as grounds to disfellowship that church from the SBC or dismiss professors from their teaching assignments.
I am not willing to concede that type of power to the SBC/CSP based on an academic policy that originated with six Anglo seminary presidents.
2. The perceived image or impression by persons outside of the SBC/CSP will be to view Cornerstone and African American churches as being subjected to the SBC/CSP regarding what we can teach about CRT, and by extension, race, and remain in compatibility with the BFM2K based on the CSP existing statement, and what could become the SBC statement in June 2021.
I am not willing to allow them to dictate what the belief systems, definitions and authoritative binding, academic and ecclesiastical decisions regarding how race is to be communicated in the local church or be subject to SBC interrogations and investigations for having spoken outside of the CSP-SBC CRT policy.
3. We are not willing to sign-off on SBC seminaries and affiliated entities to be able to indoctrinate African American congregations and seminary students regarding CRT. Why? (A) Because this policy was developed without consulting with at least one African American in its origination; and (B) this policy fails to acknowledge that there are beneficial aspects to CRT. To affirm this policy is to affirm a dishonest approach to CRT.
4. The existing and proposed CSP/SBC policy empowers entity heads who happen to be all Anglo, to be in a final decision-making authority to determine the content of all literature that flows to our churches on the subject of CRT, and by extension, the subject of race.
5. Given the SBC’s history on race, it is preposterous to ask African American churches to blindly trust their interpretations regarding CRT—and by extension, “race.”
6. I have absolutely no clue what Dr. Malcolm Yarnell was addressing in the following tweet. However, it is applicable in my judgment to the Council of Seminary Presidents statement on CRT.
“Theologically speaking, to require an affirmation of something not addressed by Scripture or to require a condemnation of something not addressed by Scripture—both of these equally contradict the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.”
Make no mistake about it, I believe the Bible speaks with supreme authority in every area, including race. Where any racial theory contradicts Scripture, Scripture rules overall! This is applicable to the CSP/SBC CRT kerfuffle.
7. The SBC is openly rejecting the collective wisdom of men like Fred Luter, Tony Evans, Marshal Ausberry, The National African American Fellowship of the SBC, hundreds of African American pastors, and her own African American professors by dismissing our claims that there are beneficial aspects to CRT.
For these reasons, we are pulling out of SBTC; and if the CSP/SBC policy is ratified in June, we are discontinuing our affiliation with the SBC also. We are “getting off the bus”!
Finally, let me be clear: we are maintaining and strengthening our relationship with the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT); we are also maintaining and strengthening our relationship with the National Baptist Convention, which I am humbled for the opportunity to serve as a member of their Executive Committee. Furthermore, we may explore partnering with and launching a church planting, disciple-making, cross cultural fellowship—Kingdom collective, whose DNA is interracial from the outset.
A gentleman said to me, “Please pastor, wait for a season. Just as the SBC in 2006 rejected your message on respecting liberties in private worship, and reversed course in 2015 and 2018, they may reverse course and recognize certain beneficial aspects to CRT.” The gentleman could be right.
However, a better solution is to treat CRT in the same way we treat a bruised apple. If you cut out the bruised part, no matter how large it may be, and you consume the rest. If the SBC would take a “bruised apple” approach to this controversy, the division over CRT immediately halts.
I know it is perfunctory to say this, but the seminary presidents DO NOT speak for the SBC. They only speak for their schools. Grantly, they are powerful men and their voices carry more weight than Iowa pastors such as me, but they are NOT a magisterium with the power to set policy for the SBC.
The problem is that in the perception of many people, that is exactly what has happened. Dwight understands what I am saying, but he has also witnessed the detritus of the statement because of the perception of many that the anti-CRT statement was an official policy going against Resolution 9 and establishing a certain view as official SBC policy.
I have seen multiple statements on social media platforms calling for the CSP to make statements about this or that. NO. NO. NO! They made a statement because they were regularly being attacked by CBN and others about being liberal, but we do not need MORE CSP statements.
As much as I am not a big fan of SBC Resolutions, it is RESOLUTIONS that express the will of the SBC (or technically, of ONE gathering), not the CSP. I hope that the resolutions and actions of the 2021 Annual Meeting will show that we are not moving backwards on race issues.
I know this is not an easy decision, Bro. Dwight. I’m grateful for you and stance you are taking. Thank you.
1 Corinthians 12, Verse 7, right after the previous verses name gifts of the Spirit, plainly says “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and He gives them to each one just as He determines”. So, the Holy Spirit chooses what gifts each person gets, and NOT the SBC higher-ups. It would not surprise me a bit, if all the messes we see in SBC life are attributable to that simple audacious ruling by the heads of the IMB.
Brother Dwight, can you provide clarification on what you believe are “beneficial aspects of CRT”?
We have disagreements for sure – but I do love and respect you, Brother Dwight.
Brother Dwight, many people who have commented positively about CRT, including yourself, have alluded to the beneficial aspects of CRT. I wonder sir, if you could name any of the beneficial uses of CRT for Southern Baptists? I would be extremely interested in what these could be. Maybe some specificity would be helpful. Thank you for your time.
This is a question that should have been asked of Dr. McKissic, and other African American SBC pastors by the Seminary presidents council before they issued their statement.
Pastor Dwight,
As someone who has had the opportunity to speak with you and interview you on multiple occasions, I know this is a decision you have agonized over and did not come to lightly. And I know that this is painful for you. I pray for the sake of the SBC, that wiser and more graceful heads prevail in Nashville, and that we do not see your departure. Losing your voice would greatly weaken the SBC.
But if you do leave, know that I understand, and that many will follow you, and they will not just be other African American pastors and churches. There are many of us who are sick and tired of the same things you are.
May God bless you and your church. I love you dear brother.
The problem with voting on any resolution regarding CRT is that it is so controversial one side is forced to lose and lose big and will feel utterly rejected by the SBC at large (that’s not true at all in reality as only a small number of SBC members will actually vote on this).
Now a racist deserves to lose. A Marxist deserves to lose. But the vast majority of SBC members are neither I believe. Vote for CRT and people will feel liberalism is back in the SBC and the SBC is a lost cause. Vote against it and others will feel the SBC is racist and won’t change. Neither group would be remotely close to being correct but that’s how people would feel. Emotionalism is triumphing over rational thought on this issue on both sides here.
The Resolutions Committee would be wise to not touch this issue with a ten foot pole this year or any year until cooler heads can prevail.
Scott H. good observations, CRT is a lose , lose proposition .It can only deconstruct not construct. What would cooler heads decide to do that would heal the divide?
I am not sure and that is why communication and free exchange of ideas is necessary to work this out without hurling charges at each other. I do know that the current polarized environment is the absolute wrong time to force a decision on people one way or the other because the losing side will throw a fit and read the absolute wrong thing into it.
It’s a resolution passed by a convention meeting. It is not binding on any church, the seminaries, the mission boards or the commissions. It is not policy. Leave it alone. It expressed the view of the majority of the messengers at an SBC meeting a year and a half ago. That cannot be undone. The resulting discussion and attempts to identify it as a sign of the return of “liberalism” to the SBC, and the action of the seminary presidents has stirred up yet another controversy with the very real consequence of churches severing their ties with the SBC during a decade when Southern Baptist churches lost more than a million members.
Now it’s been a while since I’ve been to an SBC meeting and I know things change and the small group that runs the denomination changes the rules to their benefit. It seems that within that group, there are those who can’t let other people think for themselves and feel compelled to make sure that the SBC aligns with their own singular interpretation of scripture and the BFM 2000. As Dr, McKissic mentioned, this isn’t the first time one of the SBC inner circle abused their power to strong-arm action because someone’s interpretation of scripture disagreed with theirs.
Well said. A no win situation. I would that CRT never be mentioned again. I’m not sure either side is willing to let that happen. It has become a rallying cry and mantra for both sides of the issue, which it never should have become. I pray the SBC can rise to a higher plane and move on.
I think your observation is right on, in that the CRT issue will largely be framed around avoiding liberalism rather than the real issues. However, does anyone think we can actually avoid this discussion this year with the CBN pushing their agenda? Also how would Pastor Dwight and others feel about letting this issue not being put to a vote until some undetermined time?
That’s partially my point. I believe the CBN / Founders types and Bro. Dwight’s side are both framing the issue in rather extreme, my way or the highway terms. Both sides are behaving divisively. If one side is allowed to win this year, the other side will balk loudly and unity around missions (remember missions?) will be lost (and the world will say we act no differently than they do) and we will lose more funding and thus fewer missionaries on the field and less Kingdom advancement. And all because we had to have our way right now about a divisive issue most Southern Baptists no next to nothing about.
Well, Pastor Dwight has been speaking about his concerns for years and in a thoughtful, non-divisive way. I would argue the fact that no one is listening has brought this to a head. Believe me, as an IMB missionary, unity on the cause of mission is important to me too. But that’s already at stake when we have so few of our Black brothers and sisters in IMB. The world already thinks SBC actually acts worse than they do, especially in matters of race. When we had only 13 missionaries of color this time last year in the whole IMB (and even those looked-over for leadership positions) it was clear we don’t regard our brothers and sisters even with as much esteem as “the world” does. But more importantly, our own brothers and sisters of color, like Pastor Dwight, are telling us they feel unheard, unacknowledged, and unappreciated. I’d say that’s a problem worth dealing with.
Not sure what you are responding to with this comment as my focus was on a very narrow issue and your comment covers a bunch of things other than that issue (the issue is should we vote on a very divisive issue that most people don’t really understand very well this year and should we threaten to divide if we don’t get our way).
The reason, by the way, to wait until later is to allow dialogue and listening by both sides for an extended period of time as we come to understand each other and simultaneously understand the issue better so we can reach a consensus as a denomination rather than have one side bully the other one into submission or alternatively force a split.
I love the idea to not vote on this until some indefinite time in the future. Great idea.
I stand by your decision, Pastor. When we spoke last night, I was so incredibly conflicted and had mixed feelings. But as I look at the bigger picture, I now see the wisdom and prudence of this move.
When my license was unjustly rescinded, not a single soul from the SBTC reached out to me. Their comms director also trashed me in a Newsweek piece. While they got the church’s side of the story, they never got mine (despite the fact that the church had violated numerous policies in their revitalization program).
The SBTC continues to give revitalization funds to churches that expel those who don’t vote for Trump, don’t discipline racists, and don’t have clear and biblical membership practices (all of which were reasons why I ended up resigning).
The Texas Baptists aren’t consumed with politics, nor do they enforce their prevailing orthodoxies under the guise of inerrancy. The SBTC never cared about inerrancy—they cared about preserving the prevailing orthodoxies of their culture.
Here we stand! God help us!
Not sure referring to “six Anglo seminary presidents” supports your comments racism is wrong no matter the source. We do live in a culture where aligned groups are taking a “my way or the highway” approach……sad day
I just can’t understand the reaction of some who jump to immediately explain to our Black and other minority brethren why they are wrong instead of listening to them and hearing them.
Maybe, now that we are where we are, had long range wisdom prevailed in the recent past, we would now have 5 White seminary presidents and 1 Black seminary president.
The time was right and the candidate was right for that to have happened. Yet, it did not and here we are.
For commenters who have the perfect YouTube video it is unlikely that such will be permitted here, nor keyword search terms. CRT critics are perfectly capable of finding on their own whatever confirms their view.
Please respect this. If allowed this site would be a source for every racist, supremacist, nutcase, conspiracy movement that is, sadly, churning our churches and fellowship.
.
If you know enough to have an intelligent discussion of the subject, make your points here using your own thinking not some you saw on YouTube or Twitter.
I support you in your decision if you feel it is best for you . When it comes to your congregation. I wonder will there be a congregational vote for such a decision.
Rather than attempting to speak for others I am only speaking for myself and to no one specific in my comments here.
I would politely object to any notion that Dwight has not been heard out and listened to.
Dwight has certainly been heard on these issues for many,many years… Hearing and listening and respecting does necessarily not require capitulation though.
I personally have listened to and gone from a bit of an adversarial approach to his posts and thought to a tremendous level of personal respect and admiration for Dwight – but our disagreements, as it relates to some specific issues, still remain and are pretty deep. These disagreements range from social justice realm to disagreements in the theological/ecclesiology realm. It should go without saying, but alas…. please note that none of our disagreements are based in any notion whatsoever that he and I (and people who look like both of us) are not both of equal intrinsic worth before God as His image bearers.
I personally am trying to learn (it seems a constant process for me, so those of you have mastered it, please advise) in real life and online, how to genuinely love and appreciate and respect those with whom I disagree without compromising the convictions I hold.
I have learned thus far that it is real hard to dismiss and disparage out of hand someone I actually care about and love – even if I strongly disagree with them. Being willing to love and respect and hear out people I disagree with is hard work…but like all hard work, I do find it is very rewarding. Plus, Christlikeness and Biblical obedience demand such. 🙂
I will not be gleeful or happy should Dwight and his church leave the SBC. I would sincerely hope that no one would, although, sadly, it seems some will and that saddens me.
I think what would tell you whether anyone has been listened to, heard, or considered on this matter would be to note how many African American pastors were present when the seminary presidents were considering their statements.
Blessings to you, Brother McKissic, and praying for you and for this entire situation.
For white Southern Baptists, our problem is our failure to listen to our African American brothers and sisters. Systemic racism is invisible to us unless we take time to listen to the experiences of African Americans. We remain unaware of how we have benefited from white privilege until we have taken time to listen to how our African American friends have been disadvantaged by it. This is why we must be open to insights gained by the analytical tools employed by CRT without necessarily embracing CRT’s underlying theory.
The scripture is sufficient, yes. But it needs to be read, studied, and applied within the fullness of the community of saints. Our problem is that the church remains fractured as a result of our racist past. We are still limited in our understanding of scripture because our communities are handicapped due to limited diversity, the inclusion of voices from different backgrounds and experiences. We have to heal our divisions in order to recapture the fullness of our understanding of scripture. This we will not due as long as we insist that African Americans bow to the definitions and parameters of discussion set exclusively by white leaders. This is in and of itself racist. May God grant us repentance.
Generalized statements like these are intellectually dishonest, divisive, and not true. God’s word holds us accountable as individuals and not groups. Most in SBC are the complete opposite of your allegations.
You admonish John Wallace for “generalized statements.” Then you end your comment with a generalized statement in declaring: “Most in SBC are the complete opposite of your allegations.”
Overwhelming majority…….evidenced by years of resolutions and actions.
And millions of dollars designated……
A resolution at the SBC does not declare anything really about “most in the SBC.” Were that true, there would not be any discussion of rescinding Resolution 9 within the ranks of the SBC. There would have never been a statement made by the seminary presidents. This post would not have been written.
Our problem is and always has been within the rank and file of the SBC. It has to be dealt with at the true “Top of the SBC.” That is in the local churches affiliated with the SBC.
Maybe we are not as “fractured as a result of our racist past” as we are now fractured by a racist present among our ranks.
CB Scott, using the tool of CRT as a way to heal and solve our inherent SBC racist problem now as well as the past, what course does CRT propose the SBC take. What solutions does CRT offer or what insight does CRT offer that leads to healing? Thanks
I think that we should not be looking for how CRT will help us heal. I think that the truths within CRT that affect us, as individuals, and as an affiliated group of churches, should be recognized and dealt with in a biblical manner.
I will use what I call Dwight’s money quote again here to illustrate my point about how to use the CRT.
“However, a better solution is to treat CRT in the same way we treat a bruised apple. If you cut out the bruised part, no matter how large it may be, and you consume the rest. If the SBC would take a “bruised apple” approach to this controversy, the division over CRT immediately halts.”
I think that reasonable people whose primary goal in life is to advance the Kingdom’s Enterprise to the nations could come together and work toward resolution of the issue of racism within the SBC. That’s my opinion anyway.
Maybe on this particular day, I could say, “I have a dream” that it could happen.
It all depends to “whom” you listen. I listen regularly to Voddie Baucham and other black pastors that are in the SBC who would not agree at all on the CRT issue. It would be super to see Voddie join the SBC after this summer and consistently share his wisdom on God’s inerrant Word. So John, just know there are many of us that regularly listen to brothers and sisters of color but their message is quite different.
Brother Mckissic,
I support you and your congregation in following your consciences in these matters, though I disagree with your conclusions.
May God bless you and your church as y’all continue to proclaim the Gospel with whatever affiliations you find best in your work for the Kingdom.
As of now, I support the SBC.
Others can not in good conscience.
I get that.
Thank you Dwight for your continued boldness and clarity. Folks that are calling you divisive truly are missing something. I’m curious what they think the proper course would be? Are you supposed to humbly sit back and just ride it out in the name of “not being divisive?” When a large section of our bipoc brothers and sisters don’t feel heard, then it can’t be considered divisive to speak on behalf of them. Beth Moore recently said that calling for unity without addressing what broke us to pieces in the first place is like pouring fresh concrete over a collapsed bridge. I think her point works here too.
But as the vast majority have said on here, we support and love you regardless of decisions in 2021. Also, we are watching closely too wondering if the SBC umbrella is shrinking too much for our church too. I have been in the sbc my entire life (47 years) and it would be sad to go. I’m still praying that cooler heads will prevail and that a positive path forward can be reached.
God bless you and your church!
Here is the money quote for me in this article. Herein is the wisdom of negotiation and navigation in much of life for reasonable people.
“However, a better solution is to treat CRT in the same way we treat a bruised apple. If you cut out the bruised part, no matter how large it may be, and you consume the rest. If the SBC would take a “bruised apple” approach to this controversy, the division over CRT immediately halts.”
I have counted Dwight a friend for longer than most of the folks commenting on this link. I, for one, hope June, 2021’s events in Nashville finds July, 2021 with Dwight McKissic still in the SBC.
Amen. We need Dwight McKissic in July 2021.
CB Scott,
As far as I can tell, whatever there is in CRT is based on accepting its position that racism is everywhere white and in every white person, whether they themselves are racist or not.
And that the way forward is to deconstruct present authorities and remake them.
Of course, I may have been reading wrong or erroneous material, so if anyone in the know can explain which parts of this ‘apple’ are the good parts, I would much appreciate it.
Until then, I’m thinking the whole thing is poison and there aren’t any good parts.
Michael White, you summed it up very well. CRT can only destruct not construct. It is a trojan horse and any organization that allows it to creep in will destroy itself, which means for CRT mission accomplished.
The story of the Trojan horse does not work with this. The only way a Trojan horse is successful is if everyone thinks it is perfectly good and do not look cautiously inside. I don’t think anyone who is advocating using the CRT as a tool to help has declared it to be without error or falseness in its content. We need to look inside, do away with what is false and use what is truthful and good for edification.
Neil Shenvi (I think) has a great piece on the “Trojan Horse” aspect. It may be someone else but saw it on Neil’s page.
Sorry, originally said by James Lindsay.
I think the CRT can be used as a tool to help us deal with racism within the SBC. Naturally, it is not an authoritative document for us. However, within the CRT there is the exposure of some truth about the problem of racism.
Michael, there are racists within the SBC. They are there on every level. It is impossible to deny that. It is a reality. I would stand anywhere and say the CRT is not without error. The entirety of the White populace within the SBC is not racist to the core. The same is true of the Black populace. There are racists there also.
Racism does exist in the SBC just as it does in any other organization or entity, be it religious or secular. I will declare that the SBC has come a long way, more so than many others. Yet, we have work to do. The content of the CRT can help us with that work without our adopting it as truth without error.
To continue with the “apple” illustration: We need to take that apple and use a well sharpened knife in the hands of skilled and knowledgeable apple peelers and cut out the bad and put the good in the pie. It is my opinion we will be stronger for it. Pie is good when no bad parts of the apple filling is used.
CB,
We agree, there are racists in the SBC.
But CRT isn’t really about weeding out those individual racists.
Rather its is about declaring that the power systems in the USA are racist, even if most of the people running them are not.
It is about deconstructing the systems and rebuilding them with the core values and tenets of CRT as the foundation.
It is really not like an apple with some good bites and some bad bites.
It is more like a glass of water with too much arsenic mixed in.
At least that is my understanding.
But Dr. McKissic or any other proponent of CRT is sure welcomed to explain how I am wrong, and just what the ‘good bites’ are.
I love what Pastor Dwight did say about “racism can be in anyone because of sin – white or black.” This truth is denied by CRT and is a dangerous one.
When Dwight McKissic states that he is pulling out of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention because in November 2020, they adopted a strongly worded, anti-CRT “policy,” is he talking about the passing of Resolution 8 from the November 2020 SBTC annual meeting? If so, that got me to asking, just what in the world did the SBTC resolution say. So, for context, I’ve included it in its entirety below. ____________________ Resolution Eight: On Racial Harmony WHEREAS, being people of faith in God who hold the Bible to be God’s authoritative, inerrant, and sufficient Word, we believe that God created Adam and Eve as the first human beings to reflect his image in this world and fill the whole earth with godly offspring (Genesis 1:26-28); and WHEREAS, the entire human race originates from the God-ordained marital union of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20; Acts 17:26) and Scripture does not speak of a variety of races but rather of peoples and tongues and nations who have diverse languages and live in different geographical contexts (Genesis 11; Revelation 7:9-12); and WHEREAS, God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34-35) and Revelation 5:9-10 tells of one people purchased by the blood of Christ “from every tribe and tongue and people and nation … a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth”; and WHEREAS, God reveals that the dignity and equality of every human being is rooted in the image of God, regardless of ethnicity, age, or gender (Genesis 9:6b); and WHEREAS, the sin of partiality and prejudice against some peoples, tongues, and nations does exist among all peoples in the world, creating disunity and conflict within the human race, and within the kingdom of God; and WHEREAS, secular responses to prejudice, such as Critical Race Theory* and Intersectionality, are analytical tools that are divergent from biblical truth and often create disunity, confusion, and conflict; and WHEREAS, the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention sincerely desires racial harmony; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, we the messengers to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, meeting in Austin, Texas, November 9-10, 2020, will advance biblical language and avoid promotion of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, and other secular ideologies; and be it further RESOLVED, we condemn prejudice as unworthy of the people of God and an offense to God in whose image all people are created; and be it further RESOLVED, we will… Read more »
Ben, thanks you for posting this. You don’t see the wholesale denunciation of CRT?
Brother Dwight, in your view, could a person affirm that there is systematic racism but not affirm CRT? I’m not trying to make a point, just asking a question.
Here is what I see affirmed in that resolution:
1. We are all one race called human, graced with dignity and equality by God;
2. All the redeemed are one in Christ;
3. We agree that racism is real and wrong and condemn it;
4. We desire racial harmony;
5. We believe God has given us a plan for racial harmony in the Bible;
6. We believe God’s biblical ways are the best way forward;
7. We will strive to follow God’s ways into racial harmony;
8. We believe that CRT/I are secular ideologies that go against biblical principles;
9. We believe that CRT/I do not promote racial harmony;
10. We will not promote CRT/I.
So, yes, I do see a wholesale denunciation of CRT/I, but I also see a lot more than that. There is so much to gather around and rejoice in with this resolution. I see the SBTC putting forth a well-balanced, fully-biblical statement seeking to chart out a way toward racial reconciliation.
Dwight, I’m assuming that you want racial reconciliation too. However, I’m also assuming given that fact that you are willing to disfellowship over it that you think that is not possible without the ideology of CRT/I.
I respectfully disagree with you. I’m glad the 2020 SBTC messengers disagree with you. I’m glad the seminary presidents disagree with you. I pray the messengers to the 2021 SBC disagrees with you.
I also pray that you will change your mind on the matter. CRT/I is not a bruised apple. It is a poisonous apple.
Okay, I’m saying this with deep humility as I could be wrong. (not an expert at all on CRT)
But, I’ve noticed among some super conservatives that there is a big push to talk about how ‘race’ isn’t Biblical. Now, as I understand it, CRT says the same thing…ie, that race is a social construct that was created to subjugate others that were not white. (Which is objectively a true statement as far as I can tell). Now these are in agreement…that is, that there should only be one human race according to Scripture. CRT would agree that race isn’t God-ordained, but rather that it was man made, and not for good intentions.
Where it gets interesting to me is that this premise seems to be leading to 2 drastically different outcomes. I heard on a podcast recently where 2 conservatives argued the premise and their conclusion was therefore that Christians should search their hearts for “sin”, repent, and strive for unity. There was no mention of systemic racism. It reminded me very. much of the old promise keepers idea where you could find a biopic person, give them a hug, and walk away with ‘no hate in your heart.’
Christians who have used some parts of CRT fuse the premise and say, if race is a sinful creation that was baked into our systems, then we better make sure that we are aware of those sinful systems and work to root it out. Clearly, the Apostle Paul makes clear that systems and powers are serious players in the world of sin. I see no reason how we could somehow assume that the sin of “race” that was literally written into our founding documents as a country, could somehow have all disappeared in 2020.
If what I’ve said is true, I can see how folks would be suspicious that rejecting CRT outright is code for rejecting systemic racism. (and yes I’m aware that some have specifically said this isn’t the case, but just because it isn’t for them doesn’t mean it isn’t a big part of it for many or even most)
Tim, Dr Mohler made a very important point back in June 2020 in an article on systemic racism. While saying that there is indeed a legitimate use of the term, he cautioned people because “in the national conversation right now, the terms structural and systemic racism or structural and systemic sin have more to do with this Marxist idea of liberation than they do with a biblical understanding of sin and the consequences of sin, individual sin and its corporate representations.”
This is exactly my point. We need to realize that our history has a very bad track record on this. During the Jim Crow era, Christians were notorious for crying “Marxism” as a way to shut down black voices that were crying for justice. Sadly, I see Al Mohler doing this all over again. As I heard someone say recently, history doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme.
Thank you, Dwight and Ben. I think there are some things to give hope in the SBTC resolution. However, I feel that it is a poorly crafted document that comes across largely as reactive. First, discounting the category of “race” in favor of concepts such as “diverse tongues” and “geographic contexts” does not in my opinion fully capture an understanding of “people”, from either a biblical or a practical viewpoint. We simply can’t undo centuries of damage done by socially-constructed “races” by pretending that the social constructs do not exist or affect our perceptions today. Secondly, by referring to CRT as “analytical tools”, they are conflating a theory with the analytical tools that are used to test that theory. This is sloppy use of language and comes across as a swipe at Resolution 9 without giving it a fair reading. Thirdly, the SBT resolution reinforces the notion that the SBC establishment (overwhelmingly white) gets to define terms (such as CRT) and dismiss anyone who doesn’t submit to their definition from the conversation. I don’t know if I will ever understand the motivation behind those who have reacted most virulently to Resolution 9. Are they just looking for grounds to toss our Bible-believing African American brothers and sisters off of the bus because they don’t like their terminology?
John,
“Believing in race is like believing in unicorns because neither race nor unicorns exist in reality.” -Thabiti Anyabwile, T4G 2008
Biblically, one race of humans, but many ethnicities.
Of course, the resolution is reactive. It’s a resolution addressing an issue. That’s what resolutions are for.
You say, “ simply can’t undo centuries of damage done by socially-constructed “races” by pretending that the social constructs do not exist or affect our perceptions today.” That’s true, but we also can’t double down on those constructs by embracing CRT/I, which is those concepts on steroids.
Thank you, Ben. I don’t know of any leader in the SBC who is embracing CRT. I’d be happy to read one if you would provide me with a source.
John, the irony of your comment is thick given that we are in a thread connected to an article where an SBC pastor and recognized leader declared he is leading his church to longer cooperate with the SBTC and is threatening to do the same with the SBC because his embrace of CRT/I is being discouraged.
I’m late to this discussion and considerably uninformed, but I ask someone–anyone–to answer some questions or point me to an online resource answering same. Several brethren have asked the question. I could be wrong, but I’ve not yet seen an answer.
What exactly are the “benefits” CRT/I contribute to racial reconciliation which are NOT contained in Scripture? Just a brief outline will be sufficient. In other words, how does CRT/I enable a “racist” SBC to become “nonracist” that is NOT addressed in Scripture?
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer if I was you. You are not the first one to ask and I have yet to see an answer to your question.
I’ve seen others (Jemar Tisby, Color of Compromise) point out how this continues a question from American slavery about how we read the Bible. Our leaders (Furman, Boyce, Broadus, Manly, etc.) armed with a “plain reading of Scripture” had biblical apologetics in favor of slavery that we now reject. CRT is a human interpretive tool or lens, just like any other scholarship, that would bring out certain themes in Scripture that we are blind to, just like in antebellum America. For example, I grew up taught the Curse of Ham heresy (black people are cursed by God because of Genesis 9:25-27). I have even had it repeated back to me by pastors here in Madagascar who had it passed to them by missionaries. My wife recently did a (2017) Lifeway Bible study that equates Europeans with Japheth, Africans with Ham/Canaan and then asks if the reader can think of a time in history when a European power subdued Canaan?! This author later traces this comparison to Acts 2 and proclaims that the lineage of Japheth (Europeans) inherited salvation, effectively excluding Africans from salvation! Believe me, I think all this was done unintentionally, but that doesn’t make it any less true these are heretical, damaging, racialized readings of Scripture that reveal blindspots our Christian brothers and sisters of color can see (see Pastor McKissic and others in Removing the Stain of Racism from the SBC). Especially the blind spot of race! CRT/I points out blind spots that specifically effect institutions like the SBC, like the fact that we funded missionaries to Africa with African-slave-earned money (modern missionary to Africa here). In that sense, the benefit of CRT/I is that it can function as a modern-day Nathan the prophet, pointing to us, saying, “You are the man.” Lament, restitution, repentance, and, confession are all biblical categories CRT/I gives us the opportunity to put into practice. The Bible doesn’t use the terms Republican or Democrat, yet most of us feel very strongly that we can take the framework provided by these two parties and apply Biblical principles to determine which party we want to vote for. The Bible doesn’t mention “music ministers” or “youth ministers,” yet culturally these are integral parts of most Baptist churches. Most of us agree that we should follow traffic laws—the framework our state gov’ts have provided to keep us safe in our cars–though auto safety is not mentioned… Read more »
Nathan, what is the name of the 2017 Lifeway Bible Study that you’ve referenced here. I’d like to read it. Thanks.If you want to email me, send it to my assistant:
Glorian Ford
dmckissic@cbcarlington.org
Sure thing. I’ll send that on to your assistant.
Sometimes, as I look as the various posts in these many discussions, it seems as though commenters are using different definitions of CRT. I was tempted to define it for the sake of the discussion, but actually, Daryl Cornett (December 31, 2020) has already provided a very excellent summary of what the major tenets of CRT are. I suggest that this post (Bro. Cornett’s post) should be reviewed to bring more discussions onto the same page as to what exactly is being discussed. Nebulous and imprecisely defined concepts cause as much disagreement, I think, as the strong feelings on both sides.