Because of the grace of Jesus, we are invited to forgive over and over again. 70 times 7. We are invited and enabled to forgive even before someone apologizes. We can even forgive if they never apologize. We can forgive not because of who the other person is or what they have done, but because of who Jesus is and what He has done in forgiving us. When we do wrong, we are to apologize and we are to apologize when we have caused pain, hurt, and loss. We are to try to make amends and to make things right. An apology doesn’t take away what happened, but it does show that we agree that offense has been committed and it is our desire to heal and rebuild the relationship that is broken, with a view upon the Cross of Christ. We also understand that we might not be able to rebuild the relationship, but the disposition of our heart is to sincerely try.
“Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” – Amos 3:3.
An Apology Starts Us Down the Road of Reconciliation. It is not the Finish Line.
An apology does not equal reconciliation. Reconciliation is not always possible and it is not always advisable depending on the circumstances. But if it is ever going to happen, a sincere apology and forgiveness are the first step in that process, not the finish line. Actual reconciling means that we come together and begin to go forward in relationship with one another. It’s possible to apologize and still go our separate ways and forego reconciliation completely. (This is especially true if the apology is insincere or self-serving.)
We should understand that an apology is just the beginning of the hard work of joining together in fellowship, which means that we carry each others burdens and we even sacrifice ourselves for the other. Jesus died to secure reconciliation between us and God and between us together.
Philippians 2:1-5 “Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus…”
Basically, if you have received anything at all from Jesus, we, in humility, ought to be caring about others before we care about ourselves. We need to care about the position of others before we seek to promote, protect, and defend our own “way of life.” That is Christianity 101. And, that kind of attitude rooted in Christ and the Cross will enable us to love others and readily apologize to those we have wounded.
But, while an apology is important as a first step in restoring relationships and bringing healing, it isn’t the end. It is a beginning. For example, In 1995, Southern Baptists apologized for a beginning and history of supporting slavery, supporting racism, and for causing harm to our brothers and sisters in Christ. A few significant statements:
…WHEREAS, Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention; and
WHEREAS, Many of our Southern Baptist forbears defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in, supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American slavery; and
WHEREAS, In later years Southern Baptists failed, in many cases, to support, and in some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of African-Americans; and
WHEREAS, Racism has led to discrimination, oppression, injustice, and violence, both in the Civil War and throughout the history of our nation; and
WHEREAS, Racism has divided the body of Christ and Southern Baptists in particular, and separated us from our African-American brothers and sisters; and
WHEREAS, Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and …
It goes on in the RESOLVEDs…
Be it further RESOLVED, That we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27); and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we hereby commit ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:6), to the end that our light would so shine before others, that they may see (our) good works and glorify (our) Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16); and
It was a good statement. It acknowledged wrong-doing and identified with the sins of the past. It recognized the hurt and pain that was caused by the actions of the SBC, both in leadership and in the pew. It apologized for, repudiated, and renounced the evil and, yes, heresy that was promoted by Southern Baptists in defending slavery and racism. And, it RESOLVED that we would “commit ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry” and that we would pursue “racial reconciliation in all our relationships.” This had a missional purpose in positioning us so we would reconcile, love one another in relationship, and so our light would shine and we could glorify God and rightly take the gospel to the ends of the earth. TOGETHER.
But, Does The Apology Mean Anything?
So, we apologized. It was a good beginning. But, did we continue down the road to reconciliation? Or, have some of us used this apology from 23 years ago as an excuse to just “move on” and not deal with the residue and effects of our historical, institutional, and structural racism and sin that the very apology clearly stated should be addressed in an ongoing manner? How many times have we heard over the past two decades, “We already apologized for that. How many times do we have to apologize?” When the subject of racial division and prejudice is brought up in any way, immediately there is a cacophony of Southern Baptist pastors and church members who descend from all corners accusing whoever brings it up of being a “social justice warrior,” a “cultural Marxist,” a “liberal,” and a “progressive” who is just stirring up trouble. That response misses the point of the 1995 apology that they refer to.
Yet, the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches remain racially divided. With all of our good top-down focus from our entities on this issue, the SBC is still hovering around 90% white in a nation that is rapidly approaching majority-minority status. Recently, when looking for new trustee nominees for our entities, the mandate went out to intentionally look for ethnic and racial minorities. The result of that directive was that the Committee on Nominations brought back 67 out of 69 white nominees. The answer given by many as to why the slate was not more diverse after decades of calling for more diversity, was that we nominate who we know and white Southern Baptists still just aren’t in relationship with African American, Asian, Latino, and other minority Southern Baptists. There seems to be some kind of ongoing, structural, invisible hand of ethnic and racial division that keeps us separated. And, when it is brought up as the 1995 Resolution tells us to do, there are those of us who cry foul.
We do recognize that we have made progress and many in SBC life work hard at reconciliation, but the point of the 1995 apology is that awareness and progress is to be ongoing. We just received a report card on where we stand in building relationships that demonstrate true reconciliation and we now clearly see that we have a long way to go.
The whole purpose of the 1995 Apology was not to say some words to get off the hook and be able to point back to it and say “See! We already dealt with that! Now shut up about it!” while we go on ignoring the result of 150 years of sin, division, pain, and schism in the body of Christ. Our past racism had an effect that we are still dealing with today as white Southern Baptists often STILL aren’t in close relationship with brothers and sisters of other races the way we need to be and the way the 1995 Apology directs. As white Baptists, we don’t need to invite minority Baptists to our table. We need a new table where we all sit together as one in Christ and join together for the purpose of loving one another, letting our light shine together, mutually submitting to one another, blessing one another, doing good works together, and laboring TOGETHER in mission to all the nations of the world. The purpose of the 1995 Apology was meant to be a beginning and it laid out that there was much work to be done to make things right.
But, the apology only really means anything lasting if actions follow that lead to real reconciliation, at least where it is possible with African American baptists – fruit in keeping with repentance. For those white Southern Baptists who are actively seeking and building relationships with African Americans and other minority believers and unbelievers, the 1995 Apology is active and has meaning. For those who aren’t doing that, it means very little and is just an historical footnote.
Attached to the apology is a call to action to rebuild what was broken and to actively reconcile through ongoing action. It isn’t a real apology if you just say some words so you can move on. But, many Southern Baptists, in many ways, have excelled in saying some words, passively voting for resolutions, apologizing, and within minutes engaging the growing chorus of, “See! We apologized! Move on! It’s over! Don’t bring it up again!” All of that shows us that the purpose of the apology, at least in the way it is being used by some, is not to make things right and begin to carry on an ongoing process of reconciliation that glorifies God. But rather, the apology is then being used as a hammer to shut up anyone who is still hurt, who has not experienced reconciliation, and is who still shut out from full healing and resulting fellowship with the body of Christ. When the “apology” is used that way, it is abusive.
Which leads me to the situation with Dr. Paige Patterson. I’m not going to recount the whole saga. It has been written about ad nauseum. We’ll just say this: IF his apology is sincere, it won’t be the end of things. It will be a beginning. He will recognize the people who have been wounded. He will truly listen to the women who have written and spoken about how his words and actions have hurt them. He will make opportunity for further dialogue on issues of abuse and he will seek reconciliation that goes beyond words on a page and that turn into actions. His focus won’t be on his position, platform, prominence, or past history – and it sure won’t be as “Father of the Conservative Resurgence,” but rather, he will humbly focus on working to make things right. His followers will not, within minutes of his apology being posted, immediately begin to berate and bludgeon people with a demand to “move on” and “forget it!” and “it’s over, he apologized!” That response demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation. And if Dr. Patterson’s apology is sincere, it short-circuits the real work that Dr. Patterson intends for the future. The focus shouldn’t be to protect Patterson, but rather, it should be to actually let the purpose of his apology do the work it is supposed to do toward those who have been affected by his actions. In saying all of this, We are simply saying that Patterson’s own apology needs clarifying, fleshing out, and applying, as every apology should so it ends up being more than a PR statement.
The more we hear, “He apologized, move on!” the more it’s possible that his apology would be used, by some, as a hammer to beat people with. And, that is spiritually and relationally abusive and should be rejected. We would expect Dr. Patterson, if his apology is sincere, to speak against such use of his words. He can begin by speaking out against that right now. Like, today.
Apologies only have meaning when they are a beginning to a process of reconciliation and not a quick way for the offender to “just move on.” Perhaps that process is not possible. Maybe the best thing is to apologize, forgive, and part ways. That is not my decision. But, we pray that Dr. Patterson’s apology produces fruit in keeping with repentance – just as I pray that the 1995 SBC Apology and call for Racial Reconciliation will no longer be used by some as a hammer to bludgeon those who call for the resolution to actually be carried out, but as a reminder that an apology just gets us started down the road to reconciliation. If real, it is a beginning, not the destination. And, as is painfully obvious, we have a long way to go.
Brent Hobbs
Alan Cross
Scott Gordon
Todd Benkert
Mike Leake
Doug Hibbard
Yeah…well…sure…OK. In regard to PP I’m prepared to move along and think that is the best way forward now, specifically without blowing up the annual meeting over forcibly removing him from preaching the convention sermon. Other leaders will be gradually addressing issues.
Why has there been such silence in regard to the gender makeup of various SBC bodies, not that anyone is demanding quotas for the same? There is an aggressive, vocal group that is focused on race. Is all the energy spend on that? My hacker and plodder thinking is that many are afraid of being kicked out of the tent because of this. It’s easy to storm the Baptist Bastille over the “two black eyes” story and the “built” anecdote. Harder to address the broader issues.
A couple points I’d make William. You’ve got a lot in two paragraphs. 1. I think his apology and whether or not it’s “accepted” is and should be a separate question for whether he remains president or preaches the convention sermon. Apologies, forgiveness, these questions do not necessarily mitigate the consequences of actions, nor do the things he’s apologizing for exhaust the concerns about him leading the seminary. No place here to decide or argue one way or the other, mainly that I think they are separate, though no doubt related, questions.
2. I think we at Voices have focused on ethnic diversity so you’re right that we haven’t been calling as much for women to be included. I think some of that is due to limited time and energy on our parts (i.e. we can’t focus on everything) but more than that it’s just been an issue we have neglected to pursue as much as we should have. I included stats a few days ago in this tweet, for example, so hopefully with reminders like yours here and others we can do a better job in that area.
Brent, I appreciate you and the way you write. I appreciate the spirit in which you write this latest post. I largely agree with it and certainly agree with your larger point about just apologizing without action is not enough.
Having said that, I do have an observation. You said, “Yet, the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches remain racially divided. With all of our good top-down focus from our entities on this issue, the SBC is still hovering around 90% white in a nation that is rapidly approaching majority-minority status.”
I have family in SE and SW Alabama. I get to visit there fairly often (I live in the St.Louis area). Both sets of family are Southern Baptists and attend relatively small SB churches in smaller towns. I attend with them when visiting.
The church in one town is 100% caucasian. The other church in the other town is probably 99% caucasian. I know many people in both settings. I cannot think of even one who is a racist or has racist leanings. I can’t think of one who would oppose African Americans joining their churches. I was at one of them a few months ago where my mother was being honored on her 88th birthday in the fellowship hall. Several African American guests had been invited (at my and my sister’s request…long time family friends). And actually one was the now grown daughter of one of the three ladies who were our “help” back in the 1960s and early 70s. Like family to me. This was no problem at all. Great interaction and love and affection all around.
The truth is, many of these folks who are caucasian and African American interact and carry on their friendships every day. And this is in the town of Harper Lee and the other town is the home of George Wallace. But, when it comes to Sunday? Well the fact is that largely due to the way these respective folks “do church,” the African Americans CHOOSE to join together almost 100% African American and the caucasians join together for the same reason. That daughter of our “help”? Well she would say, “with all due respect Les y’all are just too stiff in y’all’s services.”
I could go on, but you get the drift. I would argue that for the most part, the racial divide in churches you write of is not due to skin color and racist tendencies. It’s is just still cultural, largely the way we do church. Not intentional in a “No blacks allowed” way. Thankful for you brother.
Les, I take your comment as gentle, friendly pushback or clarification. It’s true that cultural differences & worship styles are one reason for separate black and white churches all over our country. Other reasons exist too, but let’s stick with this for now. The next question becomes this: Are we satisfied for it to stay this way? Is Jesus honored best in our current arrangement? My argument would be that we can better honor Christ when our churches are not functionally segregated by race. But I know the cost to many in terms of their comfort and preferences would be too great.
David Platt had an excellent section in his recent T4G sermon on this very question.
Well said, brothers. Well said.
Why was the name of the author of this article changed from Brent Hobbs to SBC Voices Editorial Team? Not trying to cause trouble, just asking.
Good question. I hesitated to put my name on it because some of us worked on it together, but there’s no function in wordpress to allow multiple authors. When we confirmed, later in the morning, with more of the team that they wanted to include their names too, we adjusted the author setting to the editorial team.
Thank you for the answer, Brent
Brent, I have a question that I ask with the utmost respect to you and the other writers, and I ask it with not a hint of ill will or malicious intent.
Why, and I understand our past history as whites and our sins against our black brothers, but why is the onus always on the white people to reach out to people of color to multi-ethanicise our churches? I am a white pastor in a rural church in SC. I have people of color who are members of my church. I have invited the local predominantly African- American church to worship with us on different occasions. However, I cannot recall ever being invited to worship with my black brethren and to make “their” church “my” home.
Help me understand guys. Correct me or rebuke me where I’m wrong. I will accept it in the spirit it is given.
Stuart Houston
Wow. You’re actually asking a HUGE question here. I think I could pick out three different aspects and write a full post on each one. Here’s what I’d say in summary form, realizing the the summary will cause serious objections in the minds of some. 1. The onus is and should rest on the person who wronged the other when reconciliation is being pursued. 2. There is actually a problem with white Christians expecting minority Christians to assimilate to our cultural norms (and I sense you grasp that from your question), which is often what we mean when we try to move a church in a multi-ethnic direction. 3. When an institution or culture develops as a part of a persecuted minority (here talking about the historic black church), that expression is often even more meaningful than just the institution itself. For us, our church is where we worship. But for many black Christians, the church has historically been not only the place they worship, but also the place they could relax and be themselves, build community and economic networks, suffer together through slavery, segregation, and other painful experiences together – and that’s something the black church offered them that they may not have been able to find in other places. All that to say I understand why black churches might be hesitant to do the kind of intentional multiethnic outreach you’re describing here. There’s not an easy answer here. But I think in the article where we talk about not just inviting others to OUR table, but building a NEW table together may be the most important key in all this. But I’m still learning.
I agree Brent. Having pastored the same church in rural Va. for many years I see your three point clearly. I’ve worked pretty hard to change things in our community but really to not much avail. Where I live everything is racialized except what government forbids–school and work (though even school was racialized for the longest time when white people fled the public schools years ago). Our hunt clubs, our churches, our Masonic lodge are all divided by race. The county where I live is very amicable–we don’t have racial problems, that I know of, but nonetheless we are divided and it seems impossible to break down. Though I pray for it and work for it. A lot of factors contribute to that still today, but your third point was something I had never considered. I knew it, but I felt it as I read your words. It will have to be the new table thing, and we need the Spirit of God to help us. Not sure we can do it without Him sending revival to His church as we’ve read about in days gone by.
Thank you Brent!
I certainly don’t want to cyber-squat the thread with allegedly hard-to-follow ramblings, but there are key two points I’m compelled to address:
1.”There seems to be some kind of ongoing, structural, invisible hand of ethnic and racial division that keeps us separated.”
It is the culture. Churches are local. Excluding some regional mega-churches, the vast majority of the 46,000+ SBC churches draw from areas of limited geography. While there may still be some communities and churches who actively discriminate and forcibly segregate (which should not be), the real reasons why there aren’t more “persons of color” in SBC churches is that there just aren’t enough local churches affiliated with the SBC that are perceived as both geographically convenient and “need-meeting” located where “persons of color” live. There are also mature denominations under the control of ‘persons of color’ which may reduce the “market effectiveness” of church plants in in minority areas. There’s probably also not enough investment in church planning, especially in poorer socioeconomic areas . We also cannot ignore ethnically divergent worship styles tend to influence to whom a particular church appeals to.
One also cannot ignore the thousands of SBC missionaries and hundreds of thousands of SBC laypersons across the globe actively working among a highly-diverse array of people groups, as evidence of the heart of Southern Baptists.
2.” [Patterson’s] followers will not, within minutes of his apology being posted, immediately begin to berate and bludgeon people with a demand to ‘move on’ and ‘forget it!’ and ‘it’s over, he apologized!’
This unfairly distorts what ‘His followers” are saying. The issues about “listening”: and the “role of women” and even complementarianism are obviously not over. They will likely always be with us. What should be “over” is the immediate unfair, ungracious, and unblblical attempt to humiliate Patterson, cancel his 2018 SBC convention sermon, and destroy his ministry. There cannot be any effective reconciliation with Patterson or “his followers” if it is based on forcing Patterson into the calculated, intentional humiliation of an immediate “retirement.”
(I hope no one is confused or offended by this . . . .)
This is a biased hit piece . More “whites are privileged”. And Paige Pattersom is a misogynist garbage.
Brad: can you think of *any* more charitable way to read this? If so, what would it be?
Overall I agree with this blog post, but can I ask “The Team” a question, and I don’t intend it to be a gotcha type question.
To show how hard change is in the real world, not in ivory tower academia,
I just took a quick glance at all your teams church websites, except for Alan since it looks like he does not have a church that he pastors listed, and all the staff are White, except for a non white elder at Brent’s church.
I used to work with a guy who had a great saying:
At the end of the day, when it is all said and done, there will be a lot more said than there will be done..
Guys, your individual church has as bad % as the 67 out of 69 you soap boxed about
By the by looked at Dave’s as Well, ditto.. ( wish Dave a speedy recovery)
Benny, I’m not pastoring now. Work with my association and a couple of other ministries. The church I pastored went from all white to a good portion ethnic minority and we helped plant Hispanic and Korean churches that met on our campus and we partnered with. I left before the staff diversified, but that was largely because I wasn’t going to fire people because they were white and we didn’t have money to hire more staff. But, even with that, on my last Sunday, I remember the beauty of seeing people from all different races and ethnicities one after another come forward to the Lord’s Table and take communion. It was beautiful. It broke my heart O pieces to leave, but God called me to work with other churches with immigrant ministry. So, I did.’ The key to reaching people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds isn’t first in hiring a staff member. With limited resources and with God leading you to the people he has for you, that might not always happen right away. But, loving people sacrificially, carrying burdens, entering lives, suffering with them, caring what happens to them, preaching not just to a white audience but understanding that there are different life experiences for different people … all of that helps reach people and the church will diversify.
But, all that said, a handful of churches is a small sample size. We’d never go to a church and just arbitrarily accuse them of doing it wrong just by looking at a website. But, we’re talking about the whole SBC all over the country and think that 67 out of 69 trustee nominees being white is a report card that relationships are not where they need to be and we need to keep working so our apology continues to be made real and work out in all aspects of SBC life. Including all of our churches.
Alan, good response, like I said mine was not a gotcha question.
I wasn’t intending to say fire good white staff either, I was going much bigger picture on race and racial reconciliation.
Sometimes solutions seem so simple, and sometimes they seem so complex, we ( white people) all are in one way or the other late to the table. This is a problem in the church, and it may take the wisdom of Solomon to make all this right. We are all throwing bombs at each other and it needs to stop.. Colossians 3 is one of my favorite chapters in all the New Testament……
Benny, I know there are bombs being thrown, but the intent of this post is to talk about the purpose of apologies, how to follow through with them, and specifically how we should continue to follow through with the 1995 Apology in light of what it says. Then, application was made to Patterson along the same lines. The goal here is to call us forward together and in sincerity. Not throw bombs.
Alan,
The “ HOW TO “ is the 64k question “……..
I’m a simpleton, but I believe we make it harder than it is. The basic methodology is set forth in the Great Commission and Acts. The fundamentals are the same whether it’s across town or across the ocean:
Go . . . .
(Even in our technological age, the Gospel spreads interpersonally . . . and where the “fields are white for the harvest” are probably not the well-churched wealthy suburbs that can quickly financially support a new church . . . . Sometimes “go” includes “bringing in the sheaves.”(e.g. bus ministry . . . . ))
Make Disciples .. . .
Baptize . . .
Teach them in Christ’s commandments . . . .
Develop indigenous local leaders , local programs, and local fellowships . . . . (unless we develop leaders from the community and a “footprint” within the community, we will likely not reach much of a community)
Subsidize the poorer churches (see e.g. the collection for the Jerusalem church (Acts 20:1-5)).
Exactly my point John. Look, I pastor in a highly diverse inner city neighborhood in the South. We have every tribe, tongue and nation. Our neighborhood is large and not unique. I’m fortunate in that when I arrived there was an aging, giving base still present in the church. They’re still hanging on. They simply had turned inward though. They aren’t racist, they weren’t reaching out to anyone. We’ve been trying to change that and have seen fruit. We’re an integrated church. But apart from that aging base that didn’t leave 20 years ago you aren’t supporting a church with a bunch of single moms and broken families. And these people are black, white, brown, yellow, you name it. All living together united by one common denominator, they’re poor. The convention has written off churches like mine as we still have a bunch of older folks. My African American friend who’s a planter might as well be IFB as he has to raise his own support in an area poorer than mine. If we’re going to be serious about reaching truly oppressed people we as the SBC better start targeting the thousands of areas just like mine. But we ignore them. Our model is basically designed to reach mom, dad, the two kids and family dog Penelope. Folks who may only give their 2.5% but that adds up to 20 times what a single mom in my area could afford to give. These areas are where the harvest is. Poor people need God, for basic provision. We need to finally own up to are we about planting “successful” churches, or really ministering to people behind the eight ball. The fact that our NAMB strategy is basically targeting gentrified areas instead of areas of many times desperate need honestly depresses me. Yes, middle class folks need Jesus to. But we’re ignoring that person whom the bible tells us we should truly be there for. You want churches that so to speak look like heaven will, start going where heaven told us to
[I’m editing out this part of my response. I was too harsh, I apologize.] There’s not one of us who wouldn’t like to see more diversity among our local churches and we know it’s not easy.
Now as to the church where I’m a pastor, we have six elders, one is not white, and I’m incredibly thankful for that small amount of diversity in leadership (17% if we’re doing figures). God has allowed us to see some diversity among our church family as well. I invite you to look at this from Facebook of a recent event. https://www.facebook.com/NSFVB/posts/1618423228265099
Brent, like I said I basically agreeed with the post, and wasn’t trying to start a dust up with any of the team, I was just saying there isn’t an Office Depot red easy button on race reconciliation issues, truthfully I probably should not have looked at all of teams staff and made a public comment in hindsight. Just saying I can see both sides of some of this…..
And I will look at your link ASAP…….
Benny, the larger point is that the comparison isn’t valid. We have plenty of minority pastors and churches in the SBC, they are just not being chosen. A more valid comparison would be a diverse local church where leadership (elders/deacons/staff) was all white
Brent, I hear you brother, I am a deacon at a SBC church in Atlanta suburb, since mostly white over 90-95 %. Mostly north of 65 to 80 year old folks. ( not that there aren’t small blessing for the age demo) I can reuse a Sunday school lesson every third week and they wouldn’t notice, I don’t do that, but I know I could. And I would love to talk about race reconciliation in a very honest and open and deep way, but honestly I am kind of scared what I would hear. It’s dangerous to judge people from the past even somewhat recent past by today’s standards, IMO anyway, people think I’m joking when I tell them Ted Turner that paragon of virtue who used to own the Atlanta Braves in the 70’s when the team was abysmal, was kicking around the idea of having wet tee shirt contest after home games and from what I hear he did try it a couple of days times, the 70’s were not that far in our history.
Iris Chang wrote The rape of Nanking about the brutal way Japanese soldiers treated the Chinese, so horrific, that some say the research drove her to suicide. It’s a tough read, but great book.
So with Colossians 3 in mind, how are Chinese new converts to Christ suppose to treat Japanese Christians when they come to Christ?..
It’s all very hard to deal with……..
Benny, when I got to my current church in a highly diverse, inner city neighborhood in Columbia,SC the congregation, all 40 of them, were white, all but five 65 or older. Today we’re an integrated church. Not where we should be but fully 25% of different ethnicity now and at times much higher than that(it’s a highly transient area). Don’t be afraid to speak up. They’d probably surprise you with their acceptance of the idea, though they’d need to be made to understand over time how difficult a transition it is. I’ve never found the issue to be racism as the biggest obstacle, it’s our comfort
Brent, great pic’s of Easter event, beautiful kids !!!
I’m brand new as a pastor here (since Feb 1) but led my previous church to lead out in local reconciliation efforts and will do the same here. Church work is a slow process, hearts and minds often have to be changed, unity needs to be seen as a priority, and then our strategies and practices begin to match our hearts. All of us are committed to this work in our local contexts even if the fruit of such efforts is not yet highly visible.
Here in the SBC, we’ve been at this work for more than 20 years and I don’t think the pace of our progress is sufficient and a higher degree of intentionality is needed. For our part, our little blogging group has done much work with the available means at our disposal, both visibly and behind the scenes, to further ethnic and racial unity and diverse representation in leadership. We will continue to do so and call on those with the opportunity to act to do so as well.
Question: How many of the SBC Voices “team” are of an ethnic or racial minority? How many are women? I couldn’t really tell from the “team” page.
For some reason, I’m reminded of the great, old Williams Brothers gospel song I used to hear on KNON-FM “Sweep around your own front door before you sweep around mine.” Change is local.
(BTW, I’m surprised that the Patterson apology squad hasn’t demanded an apology to KNON-FM . . . The Criswell Bible Institute’s KCBI squared off against the station in the FCC and court in the late ’70s when the community radio station that later became KNON-FM “went dark” on a better FM frequency due to lack of funding . . . . )
(And I told myself I wasn’t going to post more than once to this thread . . . BACKSLIDER!)
Explanatory edit: “Went dark” is a broadcasting industry term for when a licensed station goes off the air. It references transmitter tubes no longer glowing from use.
There is no racial dimension or double entendre. (Oh PLEEEZZZE no one be offended . . . .)
Fair question — we are actively seeking to further diversify our team. We also have regular guest contributors that have not committed to writing on an ongoing basis. Our blog regularly features a diversity of authors and viewpoints.
Patterson is who he is, his apology means nothing except to his intended audience.
The real problem is with the CBMW and just about everything it represents- including or especially Piper and his legalistic 47 ish point list of what women can and mostly can’t do in the church
We read about how different the culture is now than it was when Patterson initially made his comments, yet we do not recognize how different the culture was in the 1st century, and then proceed to ignore the roles women of the New Testament played in the scriptures- and in the first couple of centuries AD.
I think the SBC needs to rethink its “complementary “ theology due to its propensity to allow for abusive relationships
And they said this wasn’t really about complementarianism . . . . (Some of us knew it was, at least in part, all the time)
I am greatly in the minority on this board, but as the husband of a strong wife and father to two strong daughters I have been much closer to the egalitarian position my entire life.
My position is strengthened by The Lord’s use of women throughout the New Testament – including Priscilla, Phoebe and Junia. I don’t think any of these women would have into Piper’s list of what women can do. Wonder if Patterson would have fired one of them for teaching History or Hebrew…
Thanks editorial board (I respect the writings of all 6 names) for your wisdom and excellent contribution. This is a critical time in the life of the SBC. A real watershed moment for our witness and the future of the SWBTS. Appreciate your courageous statement and insights.
Is there any way to find out what percentage of our new church plants through NAMB is these large, mostly unchurched cities are actually being planted in poor socioeconomic settings? An African-American pastor friend of mine who pastors a church like the one I do, in a poor socioeconomic setting with a high minority population, says he has spoken with NAMB and they have told him very, very few are going in to these areas. He says he’s been told the plants are going into largely gentrified areas for economic reasons. Poor communities can’t financially support a church. If this is true, there’s a place to really begin with this. Find a way to do this in areas where you have multiple cultures existing together. We figure that out and this issue will organically begin to change. I’m all for existing churches changing to be more welcoming to different cultures. We had to do it. But we had to because, we had to. When you are surrounded by other races and cultures it’s a matter of survival. Most churches simply are not in that setting and are not “destination” churches people are going to travel to get to.
Guys this is absolute garbage. I typically have respect for this blog, and am praying for Dave, but you all should ashamed of yourselves.
“IF his apology is sincere…”
You know what? When a brother in Christ apologizes to me, I’m not going to gauge his sincerity. I’m going to rejoice and be grateful for God reconciling.
Repentance is proven over time. When people ask for forgiveness, we forgive 70*7. The way we know if an apology is sincere (i.e. true repentance), however, is what follows an apology. The “IF” is not particular to Patterson. With every apology there is an unknown “if” in that can only be known later.
A writer above asked what percentage of NAMB church plants are in poor areas. I don’t know the answer to that, but I can affirm that for the past several years more that 50% of new church plants have been ethnic minority (non-Anglo) churches. I agree that we need to give more attention to church planting in poor areas. One aspect of the NAMB’s strategy works against church planting in poor neighborhoods. NAMB wants to see the new church become self-supporting within three-five years. That is much harder to achieve in a poor neighborhood.
It is Mark Terry. I understand a large share of new plants are ethnic minority. But the way I took the OP was we should look to have more diverse church bodies not more and more diverse separate, ethnic congregations. Planting an ethnic congregation may help reach that people group, which we should rejoice in. But it doesn’t help with integrating individual bodies. Now, I’ve never really seen that as a stated goal. But should it be? And if it should, how many truly diverse communities are there to attempt this. Where different cultures live side by side. Thousands? I can name plenty right here in SC in the city I live. Yet in spite of the fact that most existing churches in these areas would basically be a revitalization, or more; and that these areas are ripe for the harvest; efforts are minimal if non-existent to become involved in them. A revitalization can happen, but we know that’s a tough road. That’s the path we’re on. But we face the same issues, and more, than a plant, having to overcome traditions. If we’re serious about seeing individual congregations truly become diverse, this is where you start. Viewing this type situation more like a foreign mission field assignment seems to be a logical course of action. That is, if we’re going to see more than an occasional church become truly multi-cultural. That type change isn’t likely to begin and multiply in an established church
Jeff, in regard to ethnic church planting, many times language is a big factor. In other words, the home missionary plants a church in which the people use their heart language–Spanish, Korean, Russian, etc. Usually, over a period of time those churches evolve into bi-lingual churches and eventually into English language churches. The reason is that the children are being educated in English. For example, the Baptist General Conference (think John Piper’s denomination) was originally the Swedish Baptist Convention, but none of their churches worships in Swedish today. Planting a multi-cultural church is much harder, though certainly a noble task.
Mark Terry, agreed. That’s why we nest a Hispanic plant, Pentecostal though they may be. I think the larger issue regarding our strategy is the absolute necessity to find a financial means and strategy to plant in the poorer areas, which are a harvest that is ripe. How can we say we truly care for oppressed people and yet basically ignore them in our planting strategy? Funds are limited no doubt, but we do it on the foreign mission field. Why not at home? There’s a reason Pentecostalism has exploded in depressed areas of our nation and the world, their strategy of raising up local leaders to plant churches instead of sending strictly planters per se quite frankly has proven far superior to our strategy. That would work right here at home. But not until we begin actually targeting these plentiful areas where we basically have no presence at all with some coherent strategy. They need to be treated as a foreign field would be. Heck, IFB churches are planting in these areas, and we can’t?
“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest …”
We said at the beginning that forgiveness happens because of Christ irrespective of if there is even an apology or not. We are called to forgive everyone. So, forgiveness is not the issue.
How can we know if an apology is sincere or not? Sure, you accept it. The post didn’t mention not accepting the apology. It was about the future. IF the apology is sincere, it will show over time and the apology will be just a beginning.
You read things into the post that wasn’t there. There was no attack on Patterson. Just a realistic assessment of the situation.
While I understand the article is mainly about the apology, Benny is 100% right. There are major ‘bombs’ and strong accusations being made by the writers of this article. And a check of the current leadership teams reveals that many on the team that wrote the article aren’t backing up what they are loudly and frequently protesting on this site and publicly. Guys, respectfully, that can’t happen.
Apples to oranges, bro.
First, you can only hire those who send resumes. Secondly, I live in monoethnic SWMO.
The SBC is national and multiethnic. It’s a much different system with far more options and possibilities for minorities.
I would be happy to have more minorities in our church and leadership. But it’s hard to get folks to drive an hour for services. We are working as an association on a Spanish mission so who knows maybe we will see some staff through that. And I’m happy to explore any ways we can improve on this.
I see a problem where those who wait for an apology have a mindset on what that apology must look like… sound like… state specifically… speak directly to whoever… OR… the apology is not acceptable.
Dr. Patterson cannot apologize enough… not because his sin is so wicked but those on the lynch mob’s is.
If he apologizes and any of God’s people do not forgive, what is left?
Does Dr. P, then become a Victim?