Richard Land’s racial remarks against the backdrop of the Trayvon Martin tragedy are the most damaging, alienating, and offensive words about race that I’ve read or heard, rendered by a SBC personality, in the twenty-eight years that I’ve served as a SBC church planter/pastor.
The pain that Richard Land inflicted upon Blacks in the SBC is a pain that would be only felt greater by the pain inflicted upon Trayvon Martin’s family by George Zimmerman. In his non apology—apology, he blames those of us who responded to his racial views, for the pain we felt. The opening line in his letter of apology, dated April 16, 2012, says, “I am writing to express my deep regret for any hurt or misunderstanding my comments about the Trayvon Martin case have generated.” He then blames his readers and listeners for not being “progressive” enough to be on the same page with him racially:
“Clearly, I overestimated the progress that has been made in slaying the ugly racist ghosts of the past in our history. I also clearly underestimated the extent to which we must go out of our way not to be misunderstood when we speak to issues where race is a factor…Please know that I apologize to any and all who were hurt or offended by my comments.”
Note carefully that he never acknowledges that the problem was caused by the substance of his words but rather by the misunderstanding of his words. He begins and ends by telling us that the problem was the response to his words and the lack of progress in the public square as it relates to understanding or accepting his words. This is a huge problem for the President of the Ethics Division of the SBC to attempt to pass this on as a genuine apology. However, I accept his apology simply because he asked; and therefore, feel biblically constrained to do so (Ephesians 4:32; Matthew 5:23-25).
I remain appalled at his unrepentant words. And since Dr. Land will not repent of his words, I feel compelled to ask the SBC by way of resolution to repudiate and renounce the racially offensive, biblically unjustifiable and factually incorrect words of Dr. Richard Land. He spoke these words as an official of the SBC; therefore, the SBC must take ownership and responsibility for Dr. Land’s words. I could not with a good conscience attend a SBC meeting in the post Luter years, or increase giving to the Cooperative Program as long as Land’s words remain un-repented of. To do so would be to engage in self-hatred; the exercise and practice of low self-esteem; to support Land’s view of racial profiling and his flawed racial reasoning.
What was even more troubling to me than Land’s remarks, was his assertion that the vast majority of Southern Baptists agree with his racial views.____ If he is accurate in his assessment, it confirms the suspicion that many Black Baptists have held for years regarding Southern Baptists; and that is many Southern Baptists, if not the majority, inherently and instinctively don’t honestly respect, relate to or view Blacks with a mindset of mutual respect, equality and understanding. Blacks are primarily viewed as mission projects, not as mission partners. Inadvertently, Dr. Land opened to us the window of his heart and showed us this painful reality (Mark 7:20-23).
To read Land’s initial comments and his apology is painful, shameful and heartbreaking for many of us. Now the SBC must take ownership of Dr. Land’s words, because according to Dr. Land, his words reflect the views of his constituency. There are three reasons why I believe the SBC must repudiate Dr. Land’s remarks; or I, for one, will remove myself from SBC gatherings.
I. Dr. Land’s Racial Comments Are Factually Incorrect
Land owes President Obama an apology for assigning a racial motive to the POTUS Trayvon Martin remarks without any factual evidence to support his claim. President Obama said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.” President Obama was expressing Christian compassion, parental affirmation and support, and heartfelt identification with the grief and pain the family was suffering. For Dr. Land or anyone else to read anything else into the POTUS statement, they would have to do what theologians call “isogete” (reading into), rather than “exegeting” (taking out of). Land Says President Obama was “pouring gasoline on racialist fires” when he made the above statement. Dr. Land is simply factually incorrect.
Dr. Land falsely accused President Obama again, “It was Mr. Obama who turned this tragedy into a national issue.” Again, that’s simply not true. When the Samford Police Department took forty plus days to arrest George Zimmerman and the national media began to report this fairly early on, that’s what turned this story into a national issue. Again, Dr. Land owes the President an apology.
Dr. Land referred to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as “race hustlers” and “ambulance chasers” with respect to their role in the Trayvon Martin case. I happened to hear an interview where Trayvon’s mom and dad said that they called and asked Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton—both Baptist Ministers—to come and support them in the aftermath of Trayvon’s death. It is simply factually inaccurate and unkind to say to ministers who have been requested by a family to support them that they are “race hustlers” and “ambulance chasers” for fulfilling a ministry responsibility. Dr. Land owes these two men an apology. I know for a fact they were simply responding to the requests of Trayvon’s family. This is an unethical accusation coming from the chief ethics officers of the SBC. Shameful!
Dr. Land, speaking of Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan says, “In their eyes segregation has never been truly repealed; it has just become invisible…They need Trayvon Martin’s to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation. For them, is always Selma Alabama, circa 1965.” Dr. Land would be surprised to learn that if he has accurately summarized the beliefs of Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan with regard to “segregation,” this may be the only true statement he made; the vast majority of African Americans would agree with the “In their eyes…” statement. Land has to look no further than the Annual SBC meeting, the SBC Executive Offices and Sunday morning in most SBC churches to see the kind of segregation he described. Dr. Land’s comments are not only factually incorrect, they are biblically unjustifiable.
II. Land’s Comments Are Biblically Unjustifiable
As I’ve listened to Black Baptists discuss Land’s comments, I believe his most offensive remark related to his belief in justified racial profiling. The SBC must repudiate the profiling comment, if nothing else. According to the prosecutor and investigators in Florida, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed because of Zimmerman’s profiling. Land’s comments gives ecclesiastical license from the SBC for this kind of profiling. Land’s racial profiling comments are analogous to what the major SBC pastors and theologians said about Black people for many years—for which they have never repented of—and that is, Black people were cursed by God. Land’s “justifiable profiling” doctrine is virtually identical and analogous to the SBC “curse of Ham” doctrine. Land just presented the 21st Century version of the “curse of Ham” doctrine, financed with Cooperative Program dollars. This is an egregious offense. Black SBC churches only give 1% to the Cooperative Program. Nevertheless, our churches helped to finance Richard Land’s communicating to all of America that racial profiling is justifiable. It was the justifiable profiling doctrine that led the SBC to conclude that slavery and segregation were biblically permissible. Land has revived that doctrine. According to Dr. Land, persons like me are worthy of being profiled.
Dr. Land’s position on racial profiling is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Bible. In Malachi 2:10, the prophet said:
“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of the fathers?”
In Acts 10:34, “Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.”
In Acts 17:26, “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,”
In Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Dr. Land’s most serious racially offensive statement was the “profiling” remark. This is the statement that would make me a suspect if a crime occurred at the annual SBC meeting while I’m in attendance. Now that I know how Dr. Land feels about profiling, I no longer feel welcome at a SBC gathering, especially if the majority of the SBC agrees with Dr. Land.
Why would Dr. Land speak out on the Trayvon Martin case, while he remained silent about a litany of racial atrocities in SBC life? (http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/attitudes-toward-race-in-sbc-life/) (http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/lessons-from-the-animal-kingdom/) Why does Dr. Land remain silent about the fact that the majority of persons incarcerated are Caucasian? Why does Dr. Land remain silent about approximately 70% of all arrests in 2008 were Whites being arrested according to Royce West, Jr., a criminal justice professor and practicing attorney at the University of Texas at Arlington? If Dr. Land were balanced or fair, he would have to also look at statistics and argue for the justifiable criminal profiling of Whites. I don’t think we need to profile anyone and neither do I appreciate the Chief Ethics Officer of the SBC advocating profiling. Racial profiling resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. It is no small matter that the SBC is now embracing racial profiling.
III. Land’s Comments Are Racially Offensive and Balanced in Favor of Zimmerman
Dr. Land said:
“It turns out that alleged shooter George Zimmerman is hardly some kind of white supremacist. He’s Hispanic on his mother’s side. His mother is Peruvian. He has black family members. He has mentored black children and is a registered Democrat.
And Martin isn’t exactly a saint. He’d been suspended three times for vandalism, truancy and carrying a baggie with pot residue.”
Dr. Land owes Trayvon’s parents an apology for this unfair and unbalanced assault on the character of a dead man, whose life was cut short by a man who shares Land’s profiling doctrine. George Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer, domestic battery arrests and alcohol related arrests. Dr. Land mentions none of Zimmerman’s “unsaintly” history, but yet he attempts to paint Trayvon as a person worthy of profiling and, consequently, death. The SBC owes Trayvon’s parents an apology for helping to finance this unfair and unbalanced assault on a dead man paid for by the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m embarrassed and ashamed of our actions in this regard.
Richard Land has about as much business being in charge of the ethics of the SBC as I have being in charge of the physically-fit society or George Zimmerman being in charge of a battered women’s shelter and the temperance society. I trust and pray that Dr. Land will repent of his racially and attitudinally flawed words. If he doesn’t, I pray that the SBC will have the courage and character to hold him accountable by repudiating his remarks and dismissing him from an office that he no longer has the credibility to hold.
The real test of the SBC racial progress is not electing a man of color to a two-year position, but rather demonstrating respect and equality toward people of color eternally. There is not a person of color in the SBC today who serves as an entity head and manages a budget. Unfortunately, that will remain true even after Dr. Luter is elected president. Why would Dr. Land address the Trayvon Martin matter, when he has not addressed the current lack of racial inclusion and empowerment in SBC life? The SBC casts the wrong votes about slavery and segregation in the past. The question now is will the SBC cast the right votes regarding the repudiation of the Land racial remarks?
As a middle class Anglo, one of the things I’ve found over the years is that we base whether our attitudes and words are racist on our own perception of them. It wasn’t until I sat down with African American men and asked them their opinion did I realize that I still had racist overtones in my attitude and speech. Not until we regularly rub shoulders with people of other races will we learn our lesson…..the whiter the SBC remains, the more of these instances we will endure.
Absolutely. Dr. Land’s words were stereotypical, inaccurate and just plain wrong. Absolutely, the SBC should speak up and do the right thing by repudiating Dr. Land’s remarks.
But, none of it will make a bit of difference in the big scheme of things. Racism is a heart issue and politically correct words won’t change anyone’s beliefs or ideas.
So while we are calling for people to behave, let’s ask our President to keep his mouth shut regarding these kinds of crimes where there is so much innuendo, the truth will likely never be completely known. BHO had no business making any remarks on an ongoing criminal investigation. Does he think another beer summit is in order? Then there are the ever ubiquitous moths to the flame Jackson and Sharpton. Two men who have demonstrated repeatedly that the only thing that matters is whooping up public sentiment irregardless of the facts of any difficulty. I’ve yet to hear an apology to the Duke LaCrosse players.
Land was just wrong and he needs to go. But let’s not blame the entire SBC for the actions of one.
” If he is accurate in his assessment, it confirms the suspicion that many Black Baptists have held for years regarding Southern Baptists; and that is many Southern Baptists, if not the majority, inherently and instinctively don’t honestly respect, relate to or view Blacks with a mindset of mutual respect, equality and understanding.” Pastor McKissic these comments are wrong as well. I don’t know anyone who views blacks with a lack of respect or equality… I’ve no doubt those people are out there, but it’s equally wrong for you to decide what caucasian Baptists are secretly thinking, let alone insinuating that the majority of us are closet racists. Not helpful, not helpful at all.
Then if the majority are not closet racists, as you say, then SHOW it by voting to repudiate what Land said! Actions speak louder than words!
Huh? Did you read the entire comment? I do repudiate what Land said.
I would hope that Richard Land would receive at least the same level of grace and understanding that Jesse Jackson received when he stated on Network Television that he would like to perform…ahem…surgical alteration upon our current President of the United States.
Richard Land has a lifelong history of fighting racism. He should likely be considered the driving force behind our apology for the SBC’s racist past (something James Dunn never did when HE ran the CLC, by the way). The remarks were wrongful. Land said as much. I’m wondering how Christian it is to repudiate a man’s lifetime of work on the strength of a few minutes of commentary.
When did Land say his remarks were wrongful?
Maybe I’m misreading his apology (linked in the article above), but Land seems to be (a) convinced that he has been misunderstood, (b) sorrowful that he did not go out of his way to speak more clearly, and (c) sorrowful that his remarks may have caused hurt or impeded racial reconciliation.
What in Land’s apology would imply that he thinks his remarks themselves were wrongful?
Not familiar with the historic 1968 “A Statement Concerning The Crisis In Our Nation”?
Pretty important statement that was adopted three months after the assassination of Dr. King. It was an effort spearheaded by Jimmy Allen, James Dunn, Foy Valentine, Home Mission Board and SBC agency heads. It served as a statement of confession for Southern Baptists’ regarding their role in the injustices done to African-Americans.
There was an intense debate from the floor of the Convention. Robert Tenery (who I’m sure some here know personally) moved to delete the entire section titled “We Voice Our Confession.” After a good bit of discussion, that motion failed.
Did the statement say exactly what the 1995 statement said with very explicit language? No. Such a statement would not have passed in 1968. But the fact that this statement – with the sections voicing confession and commitment – passed is quite significant.
The details of this debate and document itself are available in the 1968 annual via SBHLA.org
Big Daddy,
Don’t paint Bob Tenery as a racist. Maybe I should rephrase that as a question. Big Daddy are you, by the content of your comment, suggesting that Bob was/is a racist?
CB,
I’m not suggesting anything – just offering a description of the historical record as stated in the SBC Annual. Tenery’s name was the only I recognized as someone still alive.
BTW, received an e-mail today from our mutual friend, Benjamin Cole.
Big Daddy,
He called yesterday. Can I assume you read his latest post?
He’s blogging somewhere?
Bart,
I’m yet to read where Dr. Land said his remarks were “wrongful.” Can you direct me to where he said that? If he indeed said that, I agree with you: we should extend grace to him and put this matter to rest.
No one is asking that Dr. Land’s lifetime work be repudiated; only his racial remarks concerning the Trayvon Martin case.
Jesse Jackson was wrong in what he said,pure and simple. And if he was serving in Dr. Land’s position, my posture toward him would be identical as it is toward Dr. Land.
Dwight
While acknowledging efforts Dr. Land has made to facilitate racial reconciliation during the course of his career, I must agree that his so-called apology was essentially a non-apology.
Nathan Finn tweeted this April 13:
“Talked to a SBC pastor yesterday whose former church wouldn’t allow African Americans to become members. In 2009. I hear this far too often.” along with
“I know 3 SBC pastors in the same southern state who’ve resigned pastorates in the past 5 years because of racist membership policies.”
This just seems impossible in this day and age, but there you have it.
Nathan also tweeted: “This is in addition to the similar stories I hear as a seminary professor every year. A racist church will always be an oxymoron.”
I cannot see inside anyone else’s heart. I am not even sure of everything that lies within the dark recesses of my own heart. I am not sure exactly what motivated Richard Land to make the statements he has made. They indeed do seem to conflict with other things he has said in the past. But until I see other evidence to convince me otherwise, the words he spoke, both in his original program, as well as in his apologies, are not only unfortunate, but shameful.
Thank you, Dwight, for pointing out some of the related background factual information of which I was not previously aware. Thank you also for helping me to see this from your perspective. I believe racial profiling is wrong, is incongruent with the gospel, and can never be justified. Yet I realize I am, no doubt, often unaware of even my own internal attitudes and motives.
I pray this can be a learning experience for all of us, and that we may be able to move forward hand in hand for the advance of the gospel.
“Father, we need your mercy, and we need your wisdom. The world is looking on. Help us to see things from your perspective, and to show love, mercy, and justice, in the way you would have us to do.”
Bro. McKissic, you are right about a lot of this but your defense of Jackson and Sharpton is a bit disconcerting. The Martins have been very understanding through this whole thing. They don’t see their son as deserving what happened to him and its hard for anyone looking at this honestly, to see that he deserves to be dead. Without even a weapon in his hand its hard to see how killing him could be justified. But, Jackson and Sharpton haven’t just supported the Martins. I hope they have done SOME of that. But they have tried to assassinate Zimmerman’s character and inflame anger against authorities and others. And yes, Zimmerman is no saint. But his past and Trayvon’s past, didn’t have much to do with what happened that night. And these two men rarely seem to care about what really happened. You can see that very well in Jackson and Sharpton’s past.
Land’s comments are very troubling and I wonder whether we need him or his office to be supported by Southern Baptists. But I agree with your call for the SBC leadership to own up to what Land said, and then to disown it, disagree with it, and basically repudiate it. I also further agree that this was an incredibly weak apology.
Clark,
I appreciate Pastor McKissic’s words here. However, like you Clark, I find the pastor’s defense of Sharpton and Jackson very concerning. These two men have often been repudiated by black pastors as opportunists and trouble makers. Land was wrong on much, but his comments on Jackson and Sharpton were right on target and one can be critical of these two men and not be racist. They are not “reverends” in my eyes nor worthy of praise but sharp rebuke.
Obviously Dr. Land’s remarks were insensitive and unwise. This should be dealt with in some way. I would think it should be handled internally, within the family of believers. There are some who really seem to enjoy the attention that comes along with being the offended one. Honestly, I am just as disappointed in McKissic’s remarks as I am Land’s. I do not view my brothers with a different color skin as “mission projects” but I do view them as mission partners. I also have never known anyone of sound mind, and I mean anyone in SBC churches that proposes the “curse of Ham” doctrine mentioned by McKissic. I know it exists and I have met a few people over the years who may have believed that, but only on the lunatic fringe. I am not opposed to the issue of Land’s remarks being dealt with more fully, raised by McKissic (and others), but this is very distasteful. A reasonable presentation (without inflammatory exaggerations) and a gentle spirit will find a much better reception.
Dr. Land’s use of his ecclesiastical office to make comments upon an open civil case is as deplorable as the churches and pulpits, African American or white, that prostituted the gospel during Sunday worship to take sides against Zimmerman or for Martin, when the world had yet to receive all the facts and had yet to hear a verdict from a jury. From my perspective, Jesse Jackson and Richard Land are, ironically, two peas in a pod.
Kevin,
Those of us who have been around the Baptist Blogosphere know Dwight McKissic very well. Dave Miller knows him as does Bart Barber, myself, and well, a lot of people. I have spoken in Dwight’s church, broken bread with him, had the privilege of having him pray for me and my family, have seen his people in action, and know him to be a man of God and a man of integrity with great love for people and a passion for truth and justice. You can disagree with Dwight on some things theologically if you like, but that disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. When I grow up, I want to be like Dwight McKissic and frankly, we need to hear from him more often.
I deleted the entire sequence (I think) based on the comment one person left. I left Alan’s comment above up simply because it was eloquent and it just didn’t seem right to take it down.
Making this a multiple choice between Land, Jackson, and Sharpton leaves me to mark: D-None of the Above.
Something about this scathing post doesn’t seem right to me. It seems this post suggests the writer believes that the majority of So. Baptists are hateful and racist.
Setting aside the deep south that I am not familiar with, I don’t think this is true
I also do not understand how the writer knows Obama’s motives are pure and Lands are not.
I absolutely understand the danger of even discussing the possibility that the writer’s perspective might not be absolutely accurate, or the rhetoric too hot.
The shooting has not been adjudicated and the writer has already decided Zimmerman was unjustified in shooting Martin. I groan to think that the only thing that matters is the color of the team’s jerseys
Frank L.,
I only responded to Land’s words–not his motives. You are right: I don’t know his motives–only his words.
My position is: justice for Trayvon and his family; due process for Zimmerman. Please point out the words on my post that suggest “Zimmerman was unjustified in shooting Martin”?
Dwight
Please point out the words on my post that suggest “Zimmerman was unjustified in shooting Martin”?
Probably the part where you asserted he should have been arrested earlier. People, as a general rule, aren’t arrested when they are justified in shooting someone.
Joe,
There is another side to this issue as well and that is having enough facts to make the correct charge and evidence that will lend itself to a conviction. When charges are filed, those charges must be correctly made and justified. If they are not, a judge can determine that there is not enough evidence to justify the charge and that individual can be released and the charges dropped and that can be it!
We have a complicated legal system that is supposed to protect everyone and quick arrests do not necessarily fit the circumstances. However, those same laws protect everyone equally, or certainly should. I am not sure your comment is very well worded, “People, as a general rule, aren’t arrested when they are justified in shooting someone.”
><>”
Bob Hadley – The safest place for Zimmerman to be after having his picture on television for two weeks as well as in the newspapers and internet , along with having a sizeable bounty on him which was being increased – is and was in jail in a cell by himself being fed three times a day . His parents or attorney couldn’t afford to keep him safely hidden away . Sometimes the Judicial is smarter than we give credit. Also the “Right To Bear Arms” is not so you can have a larger piece of jewelry . Just like the Old Testament talks about ( The Law ) – they are their to protect yourself.
Joe,
Are you saying Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon?
Dwight
Pastor McKissick,
Forgive the intrustion here, I’m obviously not Joe.
Here’s my take on the whole thing. I wasn’t there, you weren’t there. Neither of us can possibly know exactly what happened, let alone what either of these two people were thinking or their motives. That’s it. WE DON’T KNOW. We probably will never know now because the media has made such a mess of it, by purposely only airing certain parts of phone conversations, & the President of the United States opening his big mouth where it wasn’t needed. I doubt that any justice can now be served. Every element of fairness has been violated. The whole thing is shameful from beginning to end.
While I trust that you sincerely want a just outcome, it’s becoming quite clear that you really find the “majority” of us white folk Baptists to be closet racists. That sir, offends me. I don’t believe it’s true. It’s not true in my case or that of my husband and family. I’m quite sure most of the people who post here aren’t racists either. Rather… like you, they hope for the segregation of Sunday morning to cease. But, as I pointed out about a week ago, the segregation is self-imposed. I even heard TD Jakes say the very same thing.
I agree that Land was wrong and that his apology was so weak as to almost be unrecognizeable. However, making the ‘majority’ as you put it, into people who don’t respect blacks is just as egregious. We’ll never get past the nature of racism if we don’t start telling the truth. So will you now sir, apologize to the majority of us? That would be fair, yes?
I have no idea if he was justified. Not the foggiest clue. Law enforcement did not adequately investigate the shooting. I was pointing out that you said he was unjustified in shooting him because he should have been arrested earlier. Thanks to the pathetic job of the law enforcement in investigating what happened, if Zimmerman is gulity he may go free–which would be a total travesity. If he’s guilty he should be punished.
JOE, look at this:
“The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney’s office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn’t enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News. ”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T5FV_9lg6iA
“””only felt greater by the pain inflicted upon Trayvon Martin’s family by George Zimmerman”””
Normally, when someone harms another in self-defense, that one is not considered to have “inflicted pain” on the other party’s family.
No doubt, the Martin’s are feeling pain. However, if Zimmerman is found to have indeed acted in self-defense–the presumption at this time–then, he has experienced immeasurable pain, as much as the Martin’s have experienced an immeasurable loss.
I am not saying I know whether this is the case anymore than you know whether Zimmerman intentionally inflicted pain upon the Martin family.
It seems pretty clear to me from the statements I’ve heard from Jackson and Sharpton, there is not such a presumption of innocense. I’m sure you are aware that Sharpton has been “very wrong” in presuming the guilt of another party in the past.
If we lose the presumption of innocense because of a presumption of racism, we not solved anything.
I believe the following statement indicates the bias with which you may have (if you consider yourself in the group of Black Baptist that hold this view):
“””it confirms the suspicion that many Black Baptists have held for years regarding Southern Baptists; and that is many Southern Baptists, if not the majority, inherently and instinctively don’t honestly respect, relate to or view Blacks with a mindset of mutual respect,”””
I don’t indict you for having these “suspicions,” and I have no way of knowing if these suspicions are well-founded. I do believe that much of the above two statements indicates you feel there is a significant divide between white and black Baptists.
I can really only speak for one white Baptist: no such divide exists with me whatsoever.
Therein, lies my problem with you taking up the cause of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Especially, when you categorize them as simply Baptist ministers. I will grant they may be ordained, and may be called of God, but I don’t think they were called because the family did not have a “minister” to comfort them.
I also do not begrudge the family calling anybody they choose to call. But, I think it is only natural that some might conclude these men were called for skills other than pastoral care.
After saying all of that: I am NOT saying I agree with Dr. Land’s statements in any way. I’m not saying that I know whether he should go or stay.
Frank,
I really think (and certainly hope) Land was addressing the trial of public opinion that almost immediately took center stage as this event began to unfold as opposed to the racial issues themselves where this terrible tragedy was concerned. Make no mistake about it, this was a terrible tragedy, whether the shooting itself was legally justified or not. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the right to use them. Florida does have a stand your ground law which may this situation a little more complicated. No one really knows just exactly what took place on that night except for George Zimmerman.
In the US, individuals are still innocent until proven guilty. However, because of the sensationalism of television and 24/7 coverage and networks clamoring to find something extraordinary to broadcast, the stage is wide open for manipulation and profiteering for a small minority of folks on ALL sides to take advantage of. This is done everyday somewhere.
It is disconcerting to see public opinion and outrage running out of control in any tragedy as if “we the people” somehow have the ability to know what the authorities ought or ought not do when we have no clue what the facts are. To me, this represents a serious problem and certainly was a factor in this case.
I agree with CB, Kevin does usually make sensible comments but this is one where he stepped out of bounds, as I see it. I do not know my brother Dwight but have seen comments he has made from time to time and while I believe he could have perhaps written what he did here in a more gracious tone, there is certainly no justification in attacking his theological positions as justification for disagreeing with his comments.
May our collective prayer here be one of reconciliation and respect for everyone; perhaps Land has been grossly misunderstood in all this; maybe not. Seems like there is an awful lot of conjecture here too.
Just my two cents worth. May God’s amazing grace prevail!
><>”
First, I hope that Brother McKissic is not insinuating that a belief that Zimmerman was fully justified to use deadly force makes one a racist. Based on the evidence that has been presented, that is what I believe. At the very least however, I would state that second degree murder charges are overkill. If he was not justified, then the only possible charge should be involuntary manslaughter. That is, if Zimmerman did not pull his firearm until after he was physically attacked by Martin, then while the use of deadly force was not justifiable, it was done with out malice aforethought. I recognize that we (everyone here) may disagree with my opinions on this, but I do hope that we can agree that whatever one’s position is on the legality of Zimmerman’s actions, the race of the parties involved, whether ours or the ones in the case, does not direct our opinions. It does not impact mine, and I hope it does not impact others here.
Second, I will state that I am sick and tired of conservatives of all colors, continually letting liberal nut-balls like Sharpton and Jackson dictate the feelings, beliefs, and positions of “black” Christians here in America. Dr. Land’s statement may have been misguided, misstated, and all around stupid to say. But the fact remains that Conservative Christians need to start lifting up both religious and political leaders in the black community. Why cant men like Bros McKissic and Luter be lifted up instead of Sharpton and Jackson? Why cant we conservatives put our full support behind men like Alan Keyes, Allen West, or Herman Cain?
Frankly I think the reason why we cannot, is largely due to the racism that still exists in Christian conservatism, including largely the SBC. In this past week Russell Moore, Nathan Finn, and Micah Fries (just to name a few), mentioned personally knowing of churches in the SBC where being “white” is required for membership. But we in the SBC like to put our heads in the sand and pretend as if that is not really happening. Until we can fix this problem (of which the election of Luter to SBC president would be a significant but still small step), we are going to have issues like the Land debate continue to sprout up. I would be willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of theologically conservative “black” baptists in this country that would jump at joining a mission focused denomination like the SBC if they are given half a chance. Just like there are just as many politically conservative “blacks” who would love to join their “white” conservative brothers and sisters if given a chance. The problem lies in that we “WASPs” are NOT giving them a chance to join. Either out of latent racism, or out of ignorance.
I am not going to defend Land’s post. I don’t agree with him, but he does bring up some interesting points. Some good, some very bad.
That said, there were some interesting inconsistencies in the above critique of Land that I feel need to be noted.
The accusation of racism (“Land opened to us the window of his heart and showed us this painful reality”…and this issue”confirms the suspicion that many Black Baptists have held for years.”) is interesting. Racism is spoken of in the post as being demonstrated by lack of understanding and suspicion of distrust and disrespect. But isn’t that the exact thing demonstrated toward Land?
Now, I agree with much of McKissic’s critique of Land’s words…but we need to be consistent here, regardless of race or topic. Do we investigate every issue with suspicion of distrust and disrespect (assuming others are against us and cannot be trusted)? Or do we “believe all things, hope all things”, etc? Can we blast someone for his failure (from our perspective) to treat others with honor and respect, while being guilty of the same thing toward him? That is how this post reads to me.
This is disheartening to me, not because I believe McKissic is wrong in that evaluation of Land’s motives (he is probably right)…but because we are all so blind that we fall into the same trap on the opposite side as we roll our eyes and make blog posts against Land. The irony is what breaks my heart.
A few observations, Bro. McKissic….
Answering factual errors with speculation is not helpful.
We don’t know what Mr. Obama was trying to do. I do believe he was trying to show parental support and heartfelt identification. But I can’t prove that. I don’t think we can assert that he was showing “Christian compassion” – there really is no external proof of such a statement. But I don’t think we can assign evil intentions to Mr. Obama either. Land was wrong on that.
However, we cannot lay the blame of this circus at the feet of the Sanford PD. You said the waiting 40 days to arrest Zimmerman is the cause…well, that would be true if the outrage started after 40 days. But the outrage started immediately – there was no way for the Sanford PD to win this. If the evidence cleared Zimmerman, the public had already decided they were in the bag. If they took their time and investigated the evidence, the public decided they didn’t move fast enough. It was lose-lose for them…and that was NOT their fault. The Sanford PD took their time (as they should) and did what the evidence/testimonies required. It took longer than anyone wanted, but it took as long as it took. This became a media circus for a myriad of reasons – and the public was/is too ignorant of the situation to make an informed analysis. Regardless, this became a firestorm long before 40 days. True? (You called for land to apologize to Obama – perhaps you owe the Sanford PD an apology for your accusations?)
Jackson and Sharpton are “ministers” in the loosest sense of the term. I think you know that to be true. I would not want to venture where Land trod in his analysis of them, but your defense of them may have been a bit over the top as well.
Comments connecting Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin to modern SBC pastors is unfair, and a bit racist in its own right. This type of profiling should be repudiated…and I agree wholeheartedly. But you yourself were guilty of applying the same mentality in that very paragraph. You took thoughts and actions of past people of the same skin color (SBC pastors and theologians of the past) and then applied their motivations, thoughts, and perspectives to modern SBC pastors so that you could paint the SBC as affirming the same thing. That is dangerous ground – and intellectually untenable.
I agree with your statements that such profiling is unbiblical and needs to be eradicated. But again, I see the heartbreaking irony of how such profiling is deep in human hearts…on both sides, even in the midst of an argument against it.
BTW, has not the SBC repented publicly and on multiple occasions for its former racist stands? If they have, how can you say they have never repented? Or do you demand something else?
I hesitate to even post as this is such a heated discussion. I wanted to post this comment from someone who also did not like Land’s comments and felt they were inappropriate. But I fear McKissic’s critique may have gone too far the opposite direction and be guilty of some the same offenses for which he accused Land.
There is much I like about the post and much with which I agree. But we can’t answer suspicion and lack of respect and fuzzy facts with the exact same errors…and sadly, I think this piece is guilty of that.
I hope this can be received in the helpful manner in which I intend to post it.
Jason,
I never accused land of racism. I accused him of being factually incorrect, biblically unjustified, racially offensive and imbalanced. These were the things he opened up and showed us in his heart. And they are not the same as calling him racist.
It is not my job to qualify or disqualify Jackson and Sharpton as ministers. I was simply reporting the facts. They are recognized as ministers in their Baptist denomination.
NO!!!! The SBC has never repented of teaching the curse of Ham theory in their pulpits, books and seminaries. Up until 2-3 years ago, Lifeway was selling the SMITH’S BIBLE DICTIONARY that clearly teaches that African descendants are cursed. I offered the resolutions committee an opportunity to repent of this and they denied my request. Was that because they believe in profiling?
I appreciate your honest feedback.
Dwight
Bro McKissic,
I fully agree with you. Until the SBC openly and clearly denounces racist garbage like the “Ham” theory, as well as other garbage like the “white” requirement for membership in a significant number of churches, the SBC will never be a “welcome” place to more men and women like you, Bro Luter, and others who currently are “unofficially unwelcome”.
Dwight,
I personally know many (a whole bunch) professors on Southern Baptist institutions of higher learning. In 38 years, I have never heard a professor, publicly or privately teach the curse of Ham theory as truth. Yet, I have heard more than one professor rebuke students who made comments that promoted the theory.
Year ago, I had a professor who threw a fellow classmate out of our theology class because he was at he time a member of the Klan.
I think you maybe should think through that one. That’s somewhat overboard.
Also, how many administrative personnel at LifeWay have proof read the SMITH’S BIBLE DICTIONARY? Probably none.
Dwight, I can assure you that Mark Scott, pres. of LifeWay Book Stores, does not believe in the curse of Ham theory. He is not a racist and I promise you he did not know that such was in that dictionary.
I realize there are racists in the SBC, but there is not one in every pulpit presently occupied by a White man. Brother, that is just unfair.
Bro CB,
I think part of the problem, and a significant indicator of the unwillingness to face Racism in the SBC, is that SBC folk will spend mountains of energy fighting Lifeway on the inclusion of things like the Shack, or the writings of Driscoll, yet not a peep regarding racist literature like the Smith’s.
I dont know if people believe that “The Shack” and/or the writings of Driscoll are more dangerous than racist garbage theology, but if they do, then that itself is a very bad sign.
Smuschany,
In my comment I made it known that I know there are racists in the SBC. There is no doubt about that. It is a reality, sad, but true.
Smuschany, the Smith dictionary is an ancient book. It is also s dictionary. You may own one. I do. Yet, I did not know the Ham theory was in it. Why? Because it is a dictionary. Who reads a whole dictionary? I know of only two guys to have done so: Joe Scott and Ben Cole and they read Webster’s not Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
And I can assure you if they had read Smith’s and found the Ham theory there, they would both have written articles on it and repudiated it’s presence in a Bible dictionary.
Comparing the Shack and Driscoll’s book to Smith’s Bible Dictionary and what should be done with them really is apples and oranges.
CB,
Never said that there was one in every pulpit. I never called Mark Scott a racist. They sold the dictionary. I bought 2 copies that I am looking at right now. The second one I bought just to see if they were still selling it, only to discover they were. Shortly after I reported this they stopped. The facts are the facts, whether we like them or not.
CB, W. A. Criswell taught the curse of Ham theory. This is well known. Don’t make me write a paper on how systemic this teaching was in SBC life. It looks like this is being revived as “profiling.”
Didn’t you promise to buy me dinner in NOLA; or did I promise to buy you one? I can’t remember but I look forward to having dinner with you.
Dwight
Dwight,
I talked to Bob Cleveland about New Orleans just yesterday. I also think one of my sons may join us. Lunch is on me. Also, on a lighter note, I made a comment on the long thread about Richard Land about the first time I met you and Robin Foster and how I profiled you both. Check it out.
Now, back to the issue at hand. We both know about W.A. Criswell. Yet he did not teach in a Southern Baptist seminary, university or college. He was a local church pastor. The SBC had no control over him.
My point about Mark is that had he known such to be in the Smith’s Dictionary he would have pulled it himself long before you brought anyone’s attention to it. For that matter, so would Thom Rainer have done the same thing.
The fact that needs attention here is that it was pulled after you made them (LifeWay admin.) aware of it. I think the guys there deserve credit for making the situation right rather than a scolding, you think?
Again, I do look forward to seeing you in NOLA. That meal might grow in numbers, maybe….you think? Maybe the two of us will get our meals free for bringing in a bus load of customers. That is, if the stingy rascals tip well. 😉
So they stopped selling it because Dwight M. Complained. I think that shows quite a bit of sensitivity
W.A. He’s still in the news!
With all due respect…Bro. McKissic, you didn’t state “He is a racist”…but you led us down the path and certainly implied it. Is this comment not meant for us to conclude that Land’s words gives insight into his own heart which reveal racism present? You wrote: ” If he is accurate in his assessment, it confirms the suspicion that many Black Baptists have held for years regarding Southern Baptists; and that is many Southern Baptists, if not the majority, inherently and instinctively don’t honestly respect, relate to or view Blacks with a mindset of mutual respect, equality and understanding. Blacks are primarily viewed as mission projects, not as mission partners. Inadvertently, Dr. Land opened to us the window of his heart and showed us this painful reality (Mark 7:20-23).”
Certainly you and I both would say that someone who does not view others of different skin color with respect, equality, and understanding – and would not view them as ministry partners – is racist. That is what racism is.
So, that comment is meant to point us to your conclusion that he is racist. More than that, it wasn’t just his words, but his heart, of which you pointed those comments.
Certainly you can see that.
And not just that Land was racist…but there is a fear that a MAJORITY of Southern Baptists are racist. Not just that racism exists, which it clearly does, but that a MAJORITY of baptists are racist.
Again, assuming we can all agree that someone who does not view those of other skin colors with equality and respect is a racist….then that is at least what you were IMPLYING. Was it not? Please correct me if i am wrong…but your words appear to say that.
Jason,
No. I make a distinction between being racist and racial. What I described is being racial. Blacks and Whites are affected by this. We were born into a society that handed us a racial construct. Land was born into that construct; so was I. Unfortunately there are times when we all have a tendency to revert to the racial construct we were taught or observed from birth. A racist is a person in my judgement who is intentionally and unashamedly devalue and prejudge persons based on race. I do not consider Land a racist. If he is–I am one as well. In this instance he spoke racially as opposed to Kingdom-minded or biblio-centric and therin lies the problem.
BTW, Dr. Land preached for me about 7-9 years ago. He did a fine job. I asked him to preach on the slavery in Sudan matter. He was working on that effort and I was impressed with his work and words regarding Sudan. Therefore, I invited him; he accepted my invitation and I enjoyed his company. I shared some personal pain with him that I was experiencing at the time on a personal matter and he ministered mightily to me. I shall always be grateful for that experience. Nevertheless, that does not excuse his words and actions in the Trayvon case. But I would step up and quickly say let’s drop this matter and move ahead if Dr. Land recant, repent and repudiate his very offensive words.
Dwight
Oh, I am with you that he needs to give an actual apology. In my first response I pointed out that I agree with you on MUCH of what you say. I was shocked and appalled at his words. I am with you that he needs to repent of his words. I am sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I simply posted because I saw what I felt were inconsistencies in your posted response. Like I said, I agree a response was needed – but I think some of the areas you mentioned were a little too much and perhaps you were guilty of responding in kind. I understand the response, but I wanted to caution us not to fight fire with fire, so to speak. I hope you understand my intentions.
Your explanation of the difference of what you mean by racial and racist is helpful to understand your post. That clarifies much of my concern. I hope you can see why I was a bit confused by your words, the clarification was much needed – though I would want to parse it out a bit more. (Maybe another time and place.)
Thanks for the responses.
Dwight somehow this post does not match the tone of the original. It is a bit confusing to me what you really believe.
As for the Curse of Ham theory…I am only vaguely aware of it, and know of no one who holds to it. I will have to trust you on Criswell and the Smith Bible Dictionary. I can’t speak to either of those issues.
I don’t believe that was a doctrine officially held by the SBC, and as such I am not sure if it appropriate for there to be public repentance from the Convention. If it was 1 book, and that 1 book had been removed from the shelves, I’m not sure much more can or should be done.
I join with you in calling such a belief morally repugnant and offensive. Such thought has no place in Baptist life. But demanding public repentance from a bunch of people who don’t hold to such a view (many of which probably don’t even know of such a view) seems a bit much…and betrays the meaning of repentance. The SBC has publicly confessed and repented of past corporate and widespread (even virtually unanimous) racism. Can’t we, in the spirit of grace and redemption, include in there even ridiculous theories that no one currently holds to or teaches?
But let us continue to call anyone who PERSONALLY holds to such a horrible doctrine to denounce it as sinful and repent of it. I’ll join you on that, brother.
Jason,
John The Baptist taught ” laying the axe at the root of the tree.” The root of the tree is the curse of Ham theory. This is at the root of the SBC churches today that don’t allow Blacks to join, be baptized or inter-racially marry. Therefore, if we want to get this mess straightened out, we need to repent of the curse of Ham theory. If you do research you will see the roots and fruits of this doctrine still has an residual effect in SBC life.
Dwight, somehow this comment got misplaced. I don’t want you to miss this one so I am double posting it. Dave can delete the other one since his delete button is already warmed up.
Dwight,
Some of us don’t have any “roots.” Some of us were pagans before we were saved and had no church experience. Some of us are just here because we received the saving grace of God and became Baptists because we read the Bible with rather remarkable comprehension and clarity. (genetics or spiritual gift, I don’t know, maybe both)
The first time I ever heard the “Curse of Ham Theory” I had been in ministry for a year maybe and was invited to preach a revival in a Redneck church in KY. The pastor started giving me his “views” on race and told me about Ham. It got heated between us. I threatened him. Long-story-short, the revival didn’t go well.
Look Dwight, I have “laid the axe to a lot of trees, both the four and two legged kind.” I think you are painting with a broad brush here. I also think maybe Big Daddy is enjoying this maybe a little too much also.
What happened in FL was and still is a terrible thing, but I think too many people have thrown gas on an already raging flame since the Martin boy was shot. This thing has become an evil octopus with vile tentacles that are growing in length and strength by the day. The outcome could take a lot of people where they really don’t want to be when the truth of it all is known, if it ever is.
BTW, I realize my comments are not “eloquent.” But this is not a doctoral paper, this is a blog. My goal is to be truthful above eloquent. I pray that never changes about me.
It is one of my few virtues. I think it is best just to tell the truth and let the devil have the hindmost parts with the rest of it. Now that statement was “eloquent.” Would you not agree, Dave?
Frank L.
Would you mine briefly explaining to me in comment #47 what do you mean by the different tones in my post and what might you be confused about? I would like to clarify the matter for you. But I must first make sure I understand what you mean.
Dwight
“mine” should have been mind.
Dwight,
This is my personal reaction and I don’t want to go far in making it sound accusatory or a personal attack upon you in any way. That is always a danger in blogging because these are not academic treatises.
I personally find your harsh tone–accusatory and derogatory and without any equivocation–in your original post to be incongruent with someone who had so graciously (by your description) ministered to you in a time you were in great need.
I can only speak for myself, but had someone helped me so graciously in the past, I would be more than reluctant to excoriate that person in a blog.
Now, perhaps you called Dr. Land before your post and he was braced for your unequivocal call for his immediate termination. That might make the original tone a bit more acceptable, I guess.
Again, this is my personal reaction. You are in no way obligated to interact with others by my standard.
I just found the original tone to be how one would address an unfamiliar political figure in a marketplace discourse, or even debate.
I found the tone of the subsequent post to indicate a relationship in which you were the recipient of much grace and seem to hold Dr. Land in very high regard.
Thus, I speak of my confusion because the two posts do not jive with me.
I guess it might seem a little like the old adage, “don’t bite the hand that fed [feeds] you.” I certainly could be gravely mistaken and would humbly accept your explanation.
Frank L.,
Just returned from a preaching engagement and that’s why I’m just now responding. Thanks for giving me a very clear explaination of what you meant by being confused.
I genuinely meant and still embrace everything I said earlier about Dr. Land in the post that confused you. I internally debated whether or not to include the information that confused you in the original post. Hearing your reaction leads me to believe I should have Honestly, I simply wrote by inspiration and I didn’t see at the time where that information would be a good fit or necessary. I left out other information that I considered as well. I shared it here in response to I believe Jason’s allegation that I was accusing Land of being a racist. Here, I found it necessary to include that information.
As far as my earlier tone being accusatory and derogatory–without equivocation–that certainly was not my intent or attitude( accept maybe for the without equivocation aspect)–but I’m sure I came acrosas that way. You are not the first one to make that observation. In hindsight, I probaly could have made my points and sounded a little less strident.
I will work on a subsequent post and include some of what we’re discussing here and respond to other questions and concerns growing out of my first post.
Dr. Land and I did not cultivate or continue a personal relationship beyond his preaching engagement at my church that I earlier described. About three times since that preacing engagement–approximately– eight years ago, I’ve seen him at meetings and we spoke to each other friendly. My point is–we have no close personal relationship–but it was a very positive experience when he came to speak for us. I tried to seperate the issue at hand from our personal history or emotions. Perhaps, that was a mistake. Some would have been more receptive to my message–maybe– if I had addressed our personal history. I trust I have adequately cleared up your confusion. If not, let me know and I will explain further.
Dwight
Dwight,
You certainly did not owe me any explanation, but I humbly accept your graciousness in doing so.
It is no secret from past discussions of race issues on this blog that I do not agree completely with your perspective. I do have some experience with being a “minority” having lived in downtown Oakland, CA., for a few years–and I mean downtown.
My wife also graduated from Castlemont High which was an all black inner city school. She is very white. To stand out even more she was the valedictorian. She is the third of four generations to be born in Oakland, CA–my daughter being the fourth.
So, while I do not hold the same view of matters as you do, I can certainly appreciate (though perhaps not completely understand) your perspective on this matter.
To be honest, not knowing you but only reading about you on blogs and other places, I do not feel a kindred spirit in regard to how we each approach the race issue.
Knowing I have this bias, I’d like to apologize if it has ever clouded my judgment in responding to your posts. I certainly do not view you as an “enemy.”
I think it is probably the final days for Dr. Land. I am not sure we have “done ourselves proud,” as some would say, in regard to this issue. I’m sure I could have chosen my words better.
God bless you. I sincerely hope this issue can be put behind us as a denomination. Racial issues will be with us until Jesus comes, as long as men of flesh inhabit this earth.
Learning to deal with issues without the “rhetoric to win” I think will serve us well. There is no winning when it comes with this issue–there is only coping and growing. When the rhetoric reigns, civility loses and Satan smiles.
I think it’s about time strong words were used. I don’t see this as a issue to be softly treading around. I see Dwight’s words as appropriate considering the words Land chose to use. I keep saying this, but it is 2012. We have a black man in the White House, yet Land chose to speak the words he did. I have a hard time processing this kind of thought in this day and age and I do not think Dr. Land is alone in the thought behind what he said.
To say there is no racial problem or that Dr. McKissic is too strong in his language is to not see the problem clearly. I pointed out earlier in comments on other posts the problems I believe exist in the SBC and was told I was imagining things then. Until we are willing to agree with Dr. McKissic on this, to applaud what he has said in this post, without backing him on this much needed resolution he is proposing, the problem is stil going to be there. The word knows that, we know that if we are honest. And….we need men like Dr. McKissic in the SBC. For him to leave, which I don’t blame him for, would be to the detriment of our denomination.
Dr. Land is a wordsmith in his own right and I believe he knew exactly what he was saying.
That should be the world knows that.
“””or that Dr. McKissic is too strong in his language is to not see the problem clearly”””
Apparently, you know more about what’s in Dwight’s heart than he does. He admits his language was too strong. Just like you rhetoric.
You always seem to know more about peoples’ hearts than I could ever imagine possible. Your rhetoric on this issue is always over the top painting others with broad brush strokes.
Your rhetoric actually fuels racism, just like Jackson and Sharpton. You just don’t see it. Racism IS NOT going away–ever! At least not until Jesus comes again. We need to find a way to cope with it and corral it.
Shouting at others about it will likely fuel it.
And . . . where did Dwight say he was leaving the SBC. I completely missed that.
First of all, the reason Sharpton and Jackson were called is precisely because they’re race hustlers. Providing some sort of ministerial comfort is not the same thing as blathering on the radio and tv. They most certainly were not simply fullfiling their ministry responsiblity (oops better make sure I cite my referecne for those four words: Taken from https://sbcvoices.com/why-the-southern-baptist-convention-needs-to-go-on-record-repudiating-the-land-racial-remarks-by-william-dwight-mckissic-sr).
Further, admittedly it has been a while, but I guess I missed the part where the decision to arrest someone was made via community opinion.
Finally, the police should have done the right thing of investigating this completely immediately following this young man’s death and then taken appropriate action based on the result of that investigation. The fact that they didn’t is a travesty.
Joe,
You should also point out that Florida’s “stand your ground law” further pushes the line of when a person can and cannot be arrested.
We might keep in mind, that he HAS been arrested. Nobody has been exonerated, and nobody has been convicted. Thankfully, nobody has been subject to vigilante justice.
This will play out for at least two years and no matter what the verdict — racial tension will be nearly guaranteed. I think this is the legacy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
I do not hold them in as high a regard as some.
Do we need to be reminded that being a “Baptist minister” does not necessarily equate to be “genuine.”
They most certainly aren’t genuine. To them, the gospel equals left wing politics.
Joe,
Are the political leanings of Shatpton and Jackson any worse a perversion of the Gospel than those of Land and the Tea Party? The Gospel is not about politics it is about Jesus. I don’t think Southern Baptists can be critical of preachers injecting political positions into the Gospel when we do it all the time. The mere fact that the ERLC exists makes criticism of Sharpton and Jackson an exercise in hypocrisy.
That being said I dislike both instances. The purpose of both Land and Jackson and Sharpton as ministers if the Gospel should have been to comfort Trayvon’s family and to counsel Zimmerman after he committed the crime. Sharpton and Jackson at least did that. Land just went on the political offensive. That’s a sad statement for Southern Baptists.
You know, it’s funny–the people that belly ache the loudest about Southern Baptists having conservative political leanings are the ones who (a) support left wing politics or (b) those who would cooperate with those supporting left wing politics.
Well Joe since I am neither would you care to answer the question? Which is worse? Or are they equally bad? I think you believe it is ok for pastors to promote politics as long as the politics are conservative. Am I correct?
Where can you find justification for that in scripture? Chapter and verse please and I will drop it.
I think you will be looking for a long time.
I don’t have any problem with a pastor promoting making abortion illegal. That happens to be conservative politics.
I don’t have any problem with a pastor preaching that marriage is one man and one woman. That happens to be conservative politics.
I would have a huge problem with a pastor saying that gun laws ought to be loosened. That happens to be conservative politics.
I would have a huge problem with a pastor who said that taxes should be lowered on big businesses in order to spur economic growth. That happens to be conservative politics.
There is not one point of the left’s political agenda that is supported by any scripture whatsoever. Therefore, there is never a justification for a pastor to support left wing politics. Not once. Ever.
There are some biblical positions (being anti abortion, anti gay marriage) that happen to be promoted by conservative politicians. As long as the position is biblical, I don’t have a problem with a pastor advocating that poisition.
Ryan Abernathy,
A couple of months back, Rick Patrick, John Killian, and I went to a conference wherein Dr. Timothy George was the speaker. The conference was about God and Government.
It was a good conference. I will admit that I would think it to have been a good conference, because I like Timothy George and I agreed with his position even before I went to the conference.
Nonetheless, he gave all who attended the conference a book written by Charles Colson. I know that since you read blogs, you probably read a lot of books also and like reading, so I would like to recommend the book to you. It addresses some of the content of your comment to Joe.
The book is entitled: God & Government: An Insider’s View On The Boundaries Between Faith & Politics.
I think it may be an informative read for you and may give you some insight as to why some of us feel as we do as to why Christians who share the biblical gospel regularly must also be watchmen in our political world.
Anyway, give it a shot if you have the inclination.
CB,
I will download the book this week. I am always looking for new material. Thanks for the suggestion. I have read very little of Timothy George and would enjoy delving into his perspective.
Have you read Blinded by Might by Cal Thomas. I would commend it to you. It is the book that exposed me to the dangers of a marriage between politics and true biblical Christianity.
I’m sure we agree on a lot of things politically. I think we just differ on how best to accomplish those things. I’ll let you know what I think of the George book.
Joe,
So taking care of the poor and the elderly are not biblical positions? Those are planks of the left way more often than of the right. Further, where in scripture are the positions that those who have businesses should pay less in taxes to the detriment of the poor? Where in scripture are gun laws discussed? I agree with you on marriage and abortion and those are biblical positions that have been coopted by one political party to assure themselves of the votes of single issue Christians. We should try to stop abortion and protect marriage but we should also care for the poor and the elderly. Neglect of ALL of those duties is sin by omission. It’s just as much sin to balance the budget on the backs of the poor as it is to abort a baby. Both are heinous.
I don’t think these issues can be solved by voting for candidates. They can be solved by the church being the church. There would be fewer abortions if there were more Christians willing to engage pregnant young women and adopt their babies. There would be fewer poor peoples if the church practiced charity and helped train people to work and support themselves.
That’s why I don’t think politics is the answer. People being transformed by Jesus is the answer but it’s hard to vilify people with that as your mandate and politics in our country has become about developing heroes and villains. The church has made devils out of a lot of people who Jesus died to save and we will not regain our voice with them until we lay down our political weapons and embrace them as people Jesus sees as worst saving.
So taking care of the poor and the elderly are not biblical positions? Those are planks of the left way more often than of the right.
No, their plank is redistributing wealth via the federal government. Please, quote me the verse that says that’s ok. What the Bible says about the poor and the elderly is that we, not the government, are supposed to care for them. Therefore, the left’s entitlement mentality that says “Yes, you’re able bodied and could work, but please, just sit on your can and we’ll give you what you need” is not biblical. Thanks. Have a great day.
Further, where in scripture are the positions that those who have businesses should pay less in taxes to the detriment of the poor? Where in scripture are gun laws discussed?
What in the snot are you talking about? Where did I say those were positions that I would agree with a pastor supporting? Oh that’s right, I didn’t. What I said was I would have a huge problems with a pastor supporting those policies and I observed those were generally policies associated with conservative politics.
I think Christians should adopt when they’re able to and want to. That’s not the point. I want the people who get pregnant and want to abort the baby due to the inconvenience the baby brings to either (a) have to suffer through that inconvenience or (b) have to endure the dangers of an illegal abortion. Actions have consequences, after all.
The church should do much more than it does helping poor people, particularly in this country. But there is a segment of that poor population that has a mentality similar to a woman that came into a pizza restaurant I managed years ago. She was obviously poor and not in good health. She asked me if I would give her a free pizza. I said no, but I offered to drive over to Wal Mart and buy her a loaf of bread, bolagna, and a bag of baby carrots. She didn’t want that. Her refusal was very, very telling and a perfect illustration of the mentality of the political left and some “poor” people.
Ryan,
I don’t know where this post will fall.
But, to equate what Dr. Land does as a Southern Baptist to what Jackson and Sharpton do as “independents political machines,” is hardly a fair comparison in my view.
Sharpton and Jackson are “industries,” not “ministries” in my view.
I could be wrong: do you know what single denomination pays their salaries to keep watch on moral and ethical issues?
THings I believe,
1. I should have made sure I could be around to moderate a little when this post went. I couldn’t. I’ve deleted a few comments. Let’s discuss issues and avoid extrapolations and accusations.
2. Middle class whites like me have a really hard time seeing issues like this the way that black people do. We just come from a different experience. I see this and I think – wow, that’s bad. But people who have spent their lives being pulled over for no reason, treated badly because of the color of their skin and ostracized from Southern Baptist Churches because of that skin color are going to react viscerally in a very different way.
3. Richard Land is not a racist, but the things that he said were ill-advised. Why jump in the middle of this? It’s just not something the SBC’s ERLC needs to be taking positions on.
4. Dwight is right that the Land apology was more of a non-apology apology. “Sorry you got upset.”
5. Dwight’s said something in a comment above that states my position. I don’t know what really happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. But Trayvon deserves justice (whatever that is) and Zimmerman deserves due process.
6. I have little respect for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But they are not the issue here. They are a sideline to the real issue and Land focusing on them was a huge mistake. Justice and due process are the issues, not those two men.
5.
One more comment. Two facts from my experience.
In my 54 years, I have never heard a pastor or a member of an SBC church advance the Curse of Ham theory. I found a book years ago from the early 1900s that did so, but that is it.
On the other hand, people I respect and trust have told me that such strains of Baptist life have not been eradicated and that there are still SBC churches that do not permit blacks to be members. So, the Curse of Ham theology may not be as dead as it should be.
I have only encountered the “Curse of Ham” theology in two contexts:
The first was a critique of Mormonism for holding it up until the 1970s.
The second has been in reading historical theology works that have listed bad things that have been believed and taught throughout the years. I have yet to actually encounter a proponent of it.
That does not delete a reverberation of influence. I’ve never actually met an historian who thought “The Trail of Blood” was an accurate portrayal of Baptist history, but I’ve encountered church members whose favorite preacher from years gone by held to that theory–and so they did as well. This is likely true of other issues. And if we’re too busy with other things, we’ll never address the fallacy of “Curse of Ham” theology and get it straightened out.
David, I have been to two SBC seminaries and have an undergraduate degree in religion from a SBC university.
I’ve never heard the “Curse of Ham” taught or discussed as a credible theology.
It has always been soundly repudiated.
It is a straw-man.
Dude, I’ve heard John MacArthur say it several times. I was aghast. Like “I need to pick my jaw up off the floor”. I can’t believe someone who is so solid about a lot of things would say that.
I can’t find the audio and don’t remember the name of the sermons.
Joe,
You heard John MacArthur say what? I’m not sure what you are referring to that you heard MacArthur say?
Dwight
Dwight
I’m going off memory here and it’s been about a year.
He was talking about the curse on Ham, which I guess is really a curse on Cannan, and he mentioned the part about them being cursed as slaves. He then said that Ham’s decendants were those who were from African nations, which I took to mean Black people. He didn’t directly say it but I took it to mean he was saying the reason Black people had been slaves was due to this curse. I wish I could remember specifically where I heard it.
Anyway, I found the statement offensive.
Dwight and Joe,
Don’t go all Michael Servetus on MacArthur just yet.
Here is his comment from his commentary on Genesis.
“The shift from Ham to his son Canaan established the historic legitimacy of Israel’s later conquest of the Canaanites. These were the people with whom Israel had to do battle shortly after they first heard Moses’ reading of this passage. Here God gave Israel the theological basis for the conquest of Canaan. The descendants of Ham had received a sentence of judgement for the sins of their progenitor. In 10:15-20, the descendants of Canaan are seen to be the earlier inhabitants of the land later promised to Abraham.
Conquered peoples were called servants, even if they were not household or private slaves. Shem, the ancestor of Israel, and the other “Semites” were to be the masters of Ham’s descendants, the Canaanites. The latter would give their land to the former.”
Guys, this in not the same concept of which the Curse of Ham Theory embraces. MacArthur is not embracing such a theory as fact, not promoting it to be true. What he stated is a million miles away from such foolishness.
Joe,
Thanks
Dwight
CB,
I heard Mrs. Criswell teach that Africans were cursed on the radio in the late ’90’s. She said almost word for word what Joe summarized MacArthur saying.
Dwight
I had read that about his Genesis commentary and maybe what I thought he meant in what I heard him say was wrong. I just thought he was too close to the line for my comfort.
Nah, I’m not ready to go all Calvin on him.
OK Dwight,
I will go out on a limb here. What’s new, right?
You have been around for a while as have I. You know how Mrs. Criswell was. You know that as well as do I.
What Mrs. Criswell said and what MacArthur has stated in his Genesis commentary is apples and oranges related to the curse of Ham theory as embraced by the late Jesse Helms and Mrs. Criswell’s late husband. You gotta know that.
I grew up in a rural Southern Baptist church and association of churches and never knew that some churches will still not allow African Americans to join. I wonder how widespread it actually is. Rather than call the convention as a whole to repentance on the basis of the sins of a few, why not identify individual churches who will not allow African Americans to join, call them to repentance, and dis-fellowship them from the convention if they are not willing to repent?
I do not understand why Sharpton and Jackson were brought into this discussion. They are not employees of an SBC entity and so their comments and actions have zero to do with our analysis of Dr. Land’s comments. We have to admit that Dr. Land’s comments were unhelpful at best and all learn a lesson in racial discourse from this incident.
I’m deeply grieved by what is being exposed in the SBC by this controversy.
I’ll acknowledge that I’m a recovering racist. I grow up in a predominantly white suburban church. The vestiges of racism were all over our church culture, even though virtually no one would admit to being a racist.
Many of us went to conferences where we were taught (with some of the most convoluted biblical proof texting) that songs with European rhythms were godly while songs with African rhythms were evil. Is it possible that “curse of Ham” theology instigated the values that perpetuated this teaching for years after the theology itself was discredited?
Today, virtually no Southern Baptist will admit to embracing “curse of Ham” theology. Yet I think it’s fair to say that the vestiges of this theology are still affecting the way we think and feel about racial justice. I’ll give Dr. McKissic due credit for making this case.
“. . . we were taught (with some of the most convoluted biblical proof texting) that songs with European rhythms were godly while songs with African rhythms were evil.”
I had the exact same experience, in the late 1990’s, in a prominent suburban SBC megachurch. It wasn’t taught officially, (and I’m 100% certain that the senior pastor and church leadership would have strongly repudiated the teaching if they knew it was going on), but I actually had a church staff member pull me into their office and chide me for spending so much time playing in the praise band for the new contemporary service, as opposed to playing in the orchestra for the traditional service (where I had served for several years). Their justification for confronting me? The praise band played that loud rock music, which was influence by early African American music, which was based on those satanic African rhythms.
I have absolutely no idea how widespread these teachings are—and I suspect the answer is not very—but they do still exist to some degree, and it’s not necessarily confined to small, backwoods SBC churches.
Dwight,
Some of us don’t have any “roots.” Some of us were pagans before we were saved and had no church experience. Some of us are just here because we received the saving grace of God and became Baptists because we read the Bible with rather remarkable comprehension and clarity. (genetics or spiritual gift, I don’t know, maybe both)
The first time I ever heard the “Curse of Ham Theory” I had been in ministry for a year maybe and was invited to preach a revival in a Redneck church in KY. The pastor started giving me his “views” on race and told me about Ham. It got heated between us. I threatened him. Long-story-short, the revival didn’t go well.
Look Dwight, I have “laid the axe to a lot of trees, both the four and two legged kind.” I think you are painting with a broad brush here. I also think maybe Big Daddy is enjoying this maybe a little too much also.
What happened in FL was and still is a terrible thing, but I think too many people have thrown gas on an already raging flame since the Martin boy was shot. This thing has become an evil octopus with vile tentacles that are growing in length and strength by the day. The outcome could take a lot of people where they really don’t want to be when the truth of it all is known, if it ever is.
BTW, I realize my comments are not “eloquent.” But this is not a doctoral paper, this is a blog. My goal is to be truthful above eloquent. I pray that never changes about me.
It is one of my few virtues. I think it is best just to tell the truth and let the devil have the hindmost parts with the rest of it. Now that statement was “eloquent.” Would you not agree, Dave?
“The first time I ever heard the ‘Curse of Ham Theory’ I had been in ministry for a year maybe and was invited to preach a revival in a Redneck church in KY.”
I am a rural “redneck” Kentuckian from a rural “redneck church” in KY. I do not ascribe to the curse of Ham theory nor did my fellow church members. I take great offense to your language here. If you are not from rural Kentucky, or from the rural South, you should delete the term “redneck” from your vocabulary. I find it highly ironic that you would use such a term in a thread in which you rightly accost bigotry.
Chris,
I have preached in many Redneck churches in KY, VA, MS, NC, TX, PA, AL, GA, and several other places.
To be a Redneck is no shame. To be a racist Redneck is a shame. To be a racist Black man is a shame. To be racist Korean is a shame. To be a Politically Correct, Elitist White guy living in the Hamptons is a shame. To be a racist of any background is a shame.
BTW, I have known a few Black Rednecks in my time. I liked those guys a lot. They had some of the finest rabbit dogs I have ever had the pleasure of killing rabbits behind. They also cooked up some mighty fine rabbit.
You know Christ, maybe some of you guys are just a little too touchy (silly maybe?) for this thread’s subject matter, you think?
Wait, someone suggest that you’re not qualified to call someone a redneck?
I’ve never met you in person, but based on your blog persona, if anyone’s got that qualification, that would be you.
Doug Hibbard,
Actually, I am an Irish Ridge-Runner and part time Hillbilly. But I have been known to hang out with “4 or 3” Cajuns and various “Foreigners” of several skin tones during a set-to once-and-a-while.
But, mostly, as you know, I am a Blue-blood-born SEC Sabanite. 😉
“You know Chris, maybe some of you guys are just a little too touchy (silly maybe?) for this thread’s subject matter, you think?”
I am sick and tired of the pass people get when it comes to using slurs against rural Southerners. If someone were to use the n-word to refer to an African American, then that person would be rightfully repudiated. You know good and well that you were using the term redneck disrespectfully and not descriptively, but then again, what do I know, I am not only a redneck, but silly as well.
Well Chris, I don’t know if you qualify as a Redneck or not. Rednecks are pretty tough people generally. So since I don’t know you, I don’t know if you qualify, but I will agree with you that, in this case, you are “silly.” And for sure you are too “touchy.”
I find it interesting that you are more upset with CB’s use of a single word, rather than the situation he provided an example of in using that word.
I also find it interesting that you assume to speak to what CB did or did not intend in using that word. News flash, you are not CB. The world can only handle one CB and as we already have one, you need not be another. Tell me, what word would you use to describe a rural, lower class, poorly educated church in the south? Redneck is the best and most accurate fit. As CB said, “redneck” does not equal “racist”. And it most certainly is NOT equal to the use of the “n-word”.
Chris,
Anyone who wears an Alabama outfit is certainly most highly qualified to identify rednecks… even if the tint is crimson.. a darker shade of red.
><>”
cb scott,
I have enough redneck left in me that I would be glad to settle this face to face to see if you have in person the gall that you have behind the computer screen.
Smuschany,
I spoke to what I think should be done with racist churches in the SBC above. What exactly are you insinuating?
As to how one should refer to “a rural, lower class, poorly educated church,” how about a rural church or a country church. “Redneck” is a term that outsiders use derogatively of rural people.
You know, Chris, there is just no way that we can compare “redneck” and the “n-word.” Apples and atomic bombs, my friend. The “n-word” is charged with 400 years of disrespect and oppression.
That is not a comparison that I believe to be wise or helpful.
Chris are you actually threatening CB? That is disgusting, repugnant, and most certainly not Christ-like.
Chris, comparing the term redneck with the mother of all racist terms is unwise. Challenging CB Scott to a fight is just plain stupid. I’m twice his size and I wouldn’t do it.
But you need to cool down, or I’m gonna have to block your comments.
Look Chris,
I love Dwight Mckissic. He is my friend. He does think differently than me on some things. This situation is just one example. In truth, I like a lot of guys in SBC life who think differently than me on many things. That don’t mean I do not count them as friends.
My life has counted on some folks from different cultures, nationalities and creeds. Frankly, I ran into my biggest encounter of “non-violent-closet-racism” after I became a follower of Christ.
Trust me Chris, your background is not like mine, (of which you should be thankful) but I know your state of KY. I have nothing against your people. I have a son who was born there. Today, he would be considered an Elitist White guy. I have another son who was born in VA. He is a Redneck. I have another son who was born in AL and now he guards the president of the United States. (He was not in Columbia recently, BTW).
But, I can tell you that my sons: the Redneck, the Elitist, and the One who goes in Harm’s Way for this country’s Commander and Chief and there are a couple more I call my sons and now a couple of little girls, none of them are racists.
Now, my wife is a lady. She is no racist either. We reared our children not to be racists, not because it is politically correct not to be a racist, but because God’s Word gives the truth of all men bearing His image and part of that image is personhood.
Chris, I have fought to blood for personhood. I don’t consider myself a racist. I do admit that I am a bigoted person when it comes to some things and ways of life on this godless earth, but that is not the subject of this post or thread, and I have already been deleted on this one tonight. So I will just let that statement stand on its own.
Proud to be a redneck and have the missing teeth to prove it!
Dave,
This will be my last post tonight as it is already past my bedtime. Maybe I will cool down in my sleep. You are willing to confront white racism against African Americans. For that, I commend you. However, I am disappointed in your willingness to allow cb scott to use the term “redneck” in the derogatory way that he uses it above.
cb scott,
If I am silly, I am not the only silly one around in rural areas, so, all literary muscle-flexing aside, you need to use your terms with more wisdom or you are likely to be deemed what you deplore.
Smuschany,
Calling someone silly after offending their heritage, whether intentional or not, is also not Christ-like. Would you agree?
Chris,
Seeing as I think you are indeed “touchy” and “silly” as CB mentioned, no I dont agree. They are accurate descriptors of someone who seems to have a chip on their shoulder. You are oversensitive to the word “redneck”. Furthermore, once again, to liken the term “redneck” with the “n-word” is indeed SILLY!
Sorry Dave, I have yet to make it to bed and Smuschany has only served to make me hotter.
Smuschany,
You think I am silly and oversensitive to the word redneck. I think you are being a jerk and your insensitivity to the word redneck is “disgusting, repugnant, and most certainly not Christ-like.” I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
This is the closest option I saw to reply to Chris. I grew up in the deep South. Most of my pastoring has been in the deep South. Most places I’ve been, “rednecks” are not only most likely self-identified as such, but also wear the description proudly. The term definitely does not carry as negative a connotation with the referenced group as you seem to ascribe to it.
Chris,
Truthfully, I had no intention of my comment being offensive to you or any other person of rural culture or Kentuckian in particular.
In trying to discern what caused this set-to, I think maybe you have lived mostly in one place for the greater part of your life. I have lived in several places and worked in many more—some good, and some, well, not so good.
I think that in your experience that the term Redneck has a specific meaning and only one meaning. I have a difference experience with the term. I now live among people who have tags on their cars and trucks (especially trucks) that state they are, “Members of the Redneck Nation.” Radio stations play songs about “Redneck Girls” and those songs are favorites.
One comedian got famous telling Redneck jokes. I know one head of a SBC entity who cherishes being called a Redneck. Chris, I know a lot of people in KY. Many of them seek to live what they call a “Redneck life.”
Chris, I really believe the identifier “Redneck” has very different meanings to the two of us. Nonetheless, I apologize for having offended you. I mean that.
Now, please know that I am not apologizing because you offered to buy me a piece of huckleberry pie. I’ve had lots of huckleberry pie. I have never really minded the taste of it. And please know that the way I communicate on a blog thread is pretty much the way I communicate in person.
Anyway, please know that my apology is without wax and given without fear of getting fed huckleberry pie if we ever meet. I feel it is just the right thing to do, so I am doing it.
BTW, if you get down to New Orleans for the SBC look me up. I am easily found. I may be with a big, tall, well-dressed, and manly handsome, Black preacher from TX and you can eat lunch with us. I’ll buy yours. One thing though, we will have cake for desert and maybe some ice-cream, but no huckleberry pie. No pie at all! 🙂
David T.,
I completely agree, but you miss my point. Yes, many rural people proudly use the term redneck in reference to themselves and amongst themselves. I am one of them. I realize that there are problems in my rural culture, and where the Word of Christ reprimands a feature of my culture, I try to follow Christ and not my culture. However, I also recognize that there is much good among poor, uneducated, lower class people deemed rednecks by outsiders. Therefore, to me, when I use the term concerning myself or my friends and family, it is a badge of honor that I own and wear proudly. However, when an outsider uses the term in reference to me or my family, I am greatly offended, because I know that he/she does not have the same pride in it as I do, but is probably using it negatively. When cb scott stated in the context of a discussion about racism in the SBC that he preached at a “redneck” church in Kentucky, I took offense.
Chris, you are finished discussing the “redneck” issue on this comment stream. This is about a serious topic and you are turning it silly.
It’s over. No more. Leave it alone.
cb scott,
Apology accepted. I also apologize for going overboard with my comments toward you. Unfortunately, I will have to watch the SB convention online this year, so I will have to take a rain check on lunch. I lived in rural Kentucky until my mid-twenties. While commuting to a local Bible college, I pastored a rural church about two miles from the home in which I was raised. I hope to return there one day and pastor for the rest of my life. I love rural Kentucky and can’t wait to return there. For the last six years I have lived in Louisville, which is a part of Kentucky in geography only.
(Comment edited by moderator)
Blessings
Chris,
Would you be willing to inform me as to the name of the Bible college you attended in KY?
cb scott,
I attended MCU in Mayfield.
Chris,
Years ago, one of the churches I served as pastor gave a lot of financial support to MCU before it was called MCU. The best minister of youth I ever had the privilege of having on staff was a graduate. I know the institution well.
Chris, I have two degrees from Clear Creek. I have preached all over those mountains. Dr. J. S. Bell was one of my mentors and heroes of the faith. I was in Harlan County during one of the hard UMW strikes. One of my sons was born in the Pineville Hospital. I was in Pineville when the flood waters came over the wall, flooding the town with seventeen feet of water. My wife and I got people off the roofs of their houses into our John boat and took them to safety on high ground.
Another of our boys went to Union College to play football. Papa Bush called for help to fight in the first Iraqi war and David went to serve there as Special forces. he came back and finished up his degree and went to work in hospital administration in Bristol, VA.
I have hunted and killed most every kind of varmint living up in those mountains. I have preached during the shift change at many coal mines. I have doctored dogs, cows, pigs, goats and one cat in those mountains. I can tell you a thousand stories and you might not believe any of them, but they are all true.
Chris, someday when you look in the mirror, you may see some of the same KY made, preacher wrinkles in your face that I have in mine.
Small world, huh?
I have 3 degrees and am working on my Ph.D. I live in NY State. I also hunt, fish, and have 6 dogs. I’m an elite redneck.
After pastoring in a very small southern town from 2006-2011 I found the ‘curse of Ham’ alive and well, much to my dismay. The city (and the church) where we were had a long history of racial strife and trouble. When we first came we invited a black family only to see two families leave the church telling me that those n****** shouldn’t be allowed in our church. We were, quite honestly, happy to see them go.
After that, in 2009, we baptized the first non-white member of that church in over 95 years of existence. It wasn’t easy but the Lord was moving and that was the only thing that mattered. The Lord moved within the church’s heart – though there is always a long way to go.
In 2011 we moved to our current church and found a very different situation. In the 1960s, the church we now serve in welcomed their membership roles and fellowship to the members of the then closing African-American church in our local city. This sense of spirit has continued and is quite different. Though our town as a whole is not racially diverse, the membership closely looks like the town does as a whole. This happened long before we ever showed up.
We have a long way to go and the ELRC is quickly becoming a liability instead of an asset in my opinion. If diversity and community is the picture we have of the Kingdom of God then we must get rid of our infatuation with right-wing politics, Fox News (or left-wing politics and MSNBC for that matter). It is hard to have a ‘mouthpiece’ for the SBC when our mouthpiece speaks in ways that we ALL would NEVER speak or say things that we ALL would NEVER say.
My wife and I have seen what the Spirit does in the face of racial strife. As long as the ELRC continues in this way, I will continue to distance myself from it.
Eric,
I think it’s easy for many of us to say that the “Curse of Ham” theology isn’t taught because few people that hold it today use that label. That’s my perspective–and I preached in the church you were in 2006-2011 back in 1998. I guess I’ve preached in all 4 corners of this state, now that I think of it.
Most of the folks in our beloved state phrase it as simply “how things ought to be” without truly considering what they say. That’s what we’re up against out here. Glad to hear that where you are they have made progress!
For us, progress is that once-a-year meeting with the church from the all-African American town just down the road. We keep talking about making more progress than that, but so far that’s as far as we’ve gotten.
Thank you for sharing that.
Raceism is ugly!
White Raceism is ugly!
Black Raceism is ugly!
Asian Raceism is ugly!
Hispanic Raceism is ugly!
In all of this perhaps we have forgotten that a man who was neither Black, White, or Hispanic died upon the cross for both Trayvon and George… I wonder what he would think of all the comments on this article, and the article itself.
I am disappointed with the comments of Dr. Land’s comments. I think they were unwise and unnecessary! I am just as disappointed with this article by Dr. McKissic. I think it was equally unwise and unnecessary!
I have never met either of these men, but I have respected both of them greatly for many years… And l am now disappointed in them both. Dr. Land should never have made his comments, and Dr. McKissic should never have written this article. Neither are helpful to healing the racial divide within the SBC, nor in furthering the cause of Christ among the nations.
That is all I trust myself to say on this matter… Someone once said “It is a wise man who knows when to stop speaking.”.
Grace for the journey,
Why would Dr. Land address the Trayvon Martin matter, when he has not addressed the current lack of racial inclusion and empowerment in SBC life?
Bro. Dwight,
This question really gets to the heart of the matter. Apart from the apparent irresistable temptation to make his voice heard on such a highly-charged racial matter, there was no good reason for Dr. Land to weigh-in on the Trayvon Martin case apart from offering sympathy and prayers to the family over the death of their son and to call for justice to be done in the matter. We simply do not know (and may never know) exactly what transpired on the night that lead to Martin’s death. Zimmerman is obviously entitled to a presumption of innocence. Let the legal process play itself out and pray for the truth to be revealed, whatever that truth might be.
In a blog post, it’s difficult to have an in-depth discussion to try to come to a mutual understanding. There are some things that you stated that I might quibble with regarding Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton, but, at the end of the day, this is not about them or President Obama. It’s about how we can work together to overcome hurts that are all too real, painful, and ongoing. The problem with Dr. Land’s comments and actions in the Martin case as well as other issues is that he has strayed from the moral/ethical into the realm of politics. His statements and subsequent apology strike me as political. His partnership with Glenn Beck in the Black Robe Regiments during Beck’s political rally in Washington, D.C. last year showed a clear lack of judgment. I’m not sure how effective that Dr. Land can be going forward, not just because of this issue, but because of a whole host of issues. Perhaps it’s time for a fresh start for the ERLC. It would not surprise me if Dr. Land announced his “retirement” either before or at the NOLA Convention. Thanks for your perspective. God bless,
Howell
Yep. Pretty much agree there Cuz.
Counselor:
I may not always agree with you, but this is spot-on. Kudos.
Howell,
After reading your perspective here, if the Ethics job in the SBC ever come open, I certainly gope you would apply for it. Given your background, you would be perfect for the job. Hope to see you in NOLA.
Dwight
Bro. Dwight,
Thanks for your kind words. I look forward to seeing you in NOLA as well. God bless,
Howell
I totally disagree here, Dwight. If the Ethics job comes up, I’m going to lobby for YOU to get it.
Wouldn’t that shake things up a little?
Dave,
I would stand about as much chance of getting that job as Barack Obama would of becoming president of Liberty University when his term ends. Hopefully, and thankfully, it would not be my color that would prevent me from getting the job–but rather my outspokeness. Come to think of it that may put both of us in the same boat.
Dwight
I would never want a denominational job anyway. The only thing in ministry I truly LOVE doing is preaching. I do the rest of it so that they will let me preach on Sundays. Why would I take a job that doesn’t involve preaching?
I think the election of Fred Luters is a great and significant milestone. But, it would seem that the NEXT significant milestone would be the selection of a black entity head. How soon will that happen? Who knows.
I think this man would make a good head of the ERLC:
Craig Mitchell: Associate Professor of Ethics, Chair of the Ethics Department, and Associate Director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement.
He is also ex-military. He is bright, well educated and a strong follower of Jesus. He is also a real man. That might help in these strange times.
Let me follow-up just a little. Dr. Craig Mitchell serves Southern Baptists at SWBTS. He recently testified before a congressional committee regarding the Obama administration’s requirement that religious organizations subsidize insurance plans that cover contraceptives and abortifacient drugs for employees.
He spoke well. He spoke with wisdom. He spoke with grace. He spoke the truth.
This is the guy who could represent us well in the land of flakes and nuts, Washington D.C., and not become one himself.
CB,
Craig and I were classmates. We began the Ph.D. program at SWBTS at the same time. He continued, I went back into full time ministry.
He is brilliant. He is a retired Air Force Officer. In addition to his seminary degrees he has two or three Masters. He also has a really good sense of humor and gets along with just about anybody.
He gets my vote.
Fraank L,
I think he would be a great choice. I would like to see him in that position.
Dr. McKissic,
As I read this article and the accusation hurled as to Land’s eisegesis, I could not help but to see that perhaps you had done the same to his own statement in order to make your point. Which leads me to a different question, specifically to you as a leader among dark skinned people: Is it not time to forgive? Regardless of the Land’s or our SBC forefathers actions, is it not demanded in scripture to forgive? It seems much of the racial tensions perpetrated today for media flair, propaganda and profiteering all stem from forgiveness NOT being given. For if forgiveness is truly given, then you would not see turn and would not demand repentance before forgiveness.
Time truly limits my interaction on blogs these days, so I might not get back here to reply to any responses. Not that any need or should reply, but I do think this is a most important question that has been overlooked.
Pray about it.
I came of age during the Civil Rights movement. My father was in the Army and I typically went to Army schools which were open and inclusive so I was insulated from a lot of society. Still, I lived in the South for a time and I know the language of segregation, the demarcation lines, and the codes. I saw the before and after of Jim Crow. I also lived through the time when all of the hidden codes of race behavior were uncovered (the time of de fact segregation). I always found what was done to African Americans repugnant. Still, I am very aware of race because we live in a national community that is extremely sensitive to race. That sensitivity means I am racist because the discourse is now fraught with a lot of disjunctives: past wrongs neither acknowledged nor righted, the institutionalization of race as a factor in dividing up the benefits of public/private life, a cheap culture of entertainment and political discourse, and, finally, the hidden smugness of people like me who believe race is now “fixed” set against the continuing pain of African Americans dealing with a festering and open wound. . As I grew in Christ, I still encountered old attitudes in the churches to which I belonged. Still, I have never heard a sermon on what race means, both in the past and now. While no one has actively taught the idea of the curse of Ham, it has also never been publicly repudiated. And so, here we are again: another incident that has roiled and stirred our subterranean codes and suppositions about “race” and someone has spoken from that brew and we see the incompleteness of faith and the misplacement of love. In the end, Dr. Land will resign, someone will say something mollifying, and it all goes back below the surface.
However, this time why can’t we do something important. Dr. McKissic is saying things I have heard many times before and those on the other side are saying things I have heard many times before. However, what is not being said is what would Jesus do and expect of us as a community of believers. First, I think we need to re-affirm love, the kind of love that actually sees each person as a fellow citizen of the Kingdom of God. Yes, pigmentation and culture all affect relationships but these are not dispositive of building the kind of familial relationships that we are to build in Jesus. That is a community endeavor and it would be nice to see it start at the national level and in local churches. Second, things need to be said. Dr. McKissic tells us over and over again what can be said and I imagine he has other ideas. I know I was never a participant in de jure segregation and I have tried to live my life well with all. However, the wrongs of the past, to truly be put aside, have to be brought into the open, seen in their awful truth, and the damage done affirmed before there can be a hope of the future. Simply changing the law, establishing an administrative mechanism to insure compliance with legislated racial mores (which to me have always seemed redundant given the ideals underpinning our nation’s founding as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution), developing a culture of correctness in public speech, electing an African American president of this or that, or whatever else we seem to grab hold of to make us feel that the issue of “race” has now been fixed, does not heal; it only changes the outer structure of our lives. What we need to do, leading the way as Christians, is to be transformed in relationships and empowered by love. We need to say things out loud that we don’t feel we have to say because we did not do them. Among a lot of things we need to say not just that slavery was wrong; we need to say that the blood debt paid by Union soldiers (both white, old born and newly arrived, and black) was not honored, we need to say that the condition of African American families is a result of conditions fostered and maintained by a country of which are are now citizens, we need to say that it was all wrong, and, finally, we need to say, as Christians and Americans, that we are in fact a new people, one in Christ and love and one in opportunity and national community.
If we don’t start manning up as Christians (sorry, ladies but I am a guy) and actually see what is happening as God sees it and to begin to act redemptively in humility and love, we are just going to see another racial drama being played out, with familiar faces, with empty but all too familiar words, a resignation perhaps,and ending with a sort of unresolved exhaustion which does not never but reinforce the wrongness that got us into this in the first place.
It’s time people. Let’s start something.
Dr. McKissic,
I was one of the first to respond to this article yesterday. I think my responses have been removed (and rightly so). What I wrote was wrong. Because I am responsible to God for…
1. Every thought (2 Corinthians 10:5).
2. Every Word (Matthew 12:36).
3. Every Deed (2 Corinthians 5:10).
4. Every Attitude (1 Peter 3:10).
5. Every Motive of my heart (Jeremiah 17:10).
I wish to sincerely apologize to you and the others I offended with my post. I was wrong, please forgive my transgression.
God Bless,
Kevin Burden
Kevin,
Apology accepted. Appreciate the scripture references. I was not offended by your post, I just didn’t understand–until you later explined it–why you were addressing a matter that is generally well known, by those who know me– into this conversation. No harm done. All is forgiven and forgotten.
Dwight
You people aren’t smart enough to deal WITH TODAY – and if you can’t put these “ham” happenings and such behind you then you are resolved to be consumed in yesteryear. What is the TOPIC of the BLOG. ? McKissic was all thrilled to back that other rich black guy whose alleged flandering took him down . The smarts aren’t showing themselves particularly by cb scott . Read the Trustee’s statement. I agreed with you yesterday Dwight and I talked with you on your cell phone when you were driving back from the last convention in Florida and we agreed on some things . I don’t care how many meals you and cb share – the truth is the truth and it stinks.
Jack Wolford,
Come on down to NOLA. We will make room for you at the table. Might make for an interesting day.
cb – I can’t carry enough supplies to get me through down there and no one there even has a “threat” of a real fight which allows them to open their mouths even more . ” All show and No Go ” .
OK Jack Wolford.
Tell you what though. If you do show up we will make sure you have a place to sit and eat with us.
cb – That’s a good offer .
CB, speaking of politics, have you read The Divided States of America? by Richard Land?
Mark,
I have not read that book.
Mark, the truth is that my view of Richard Land is extremely tainted, having little or nothing to do with this last fiasco. I am just not a fan of his being in the big chair of the ERLC.
Yet, I do pity him in some of this. He should never have gotten into this one.
I totally agree. Land should have kept his nose out of it. Then again, so should Sharpton and Jackson.
My sentiments exactly.
Joe,
Spot on. Jackson and Sharpton only serve to make any situation worse. I find the title ‘Reverend’ completely inapppropriate for these two twin devils of deception.
Clearly, Land never had any education in Black History or Black Studies worthy of the name. He also is not aware of how much of the Southern Culture he reflects in what he says and why that is so offensive. He has never conceived of his children as having been in such a situation, nor wept at the senseless slaughter of the children African American citizens as in the Orangeburg, Massacre. I taught at South Carolina State 2.5 years after that tragedy. In the Spring of 71, I had a student in a Philosophy class that had been shot in the massacre. He was not taking part in the demonstration that led to the National Guard and State Highway Troopers cutting down on the students (some of whom were veterans of Vietnam) with high powered weaponry. The student to whom I referred was watching the denomonstration, when the shooting occurred in which 3 were killed and a number wounded. He was one of the wounded. A bullet brought him down on the porch of the dormitory. I read a letter written by one of those who died that day. He was a young Baptist man, who had written home to his mother, saying he was going to church faithfully and attending classes. He sounded like any child of any of us and like we ourselves in our youth, writing home to our parents about our first year in college. Three families lost three sons that day. They never got to see them graduate. They never got to see them get jobs, work, get married, have families, and bring them grandchildren.
Black army officers who taught the ROTC classes stopped the students that night from taking the guns in the ROTC armory and going over to the white side of town (where there were white folks waiting armed in bushes, trembling in fear). In the Fall of ’69, before I moved to Orangeburg, my wife and I visited a cousin of hers in Ashland, Ky. to play a game of Rook with her and her husband. While we were playing, we begin to discuss the issue of Black people and their rights. The husband (a former marine) of my wife’s cousin said, “I don’t feel about those folks like most whites. When I was in ‘Nam, one night, we had incoming fire and my buddy threw himself in the way to protect me.” Then he said, “I sat there and held that black man in my arms while he died and cried like a baby.”
Later, in the Summer of ’71 I would write a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation at Columbia Univ. on the subject, “The Baptists and Slavery.” This morning I awoke thinking about the fact that Black folks, African Americans are one of God’s primary proofs to our liberal critics and mentalities that He exists and His Gospel is the truth. Believe me. I know a lot of material on the issue. And the African Americans are in instances to numerous to count sterling examples and instances of Gospel salvation. The illustration of the young men with wwjd on their t shirts is but the tinest tip of the Iceberg.
In TODAYS BP and also listed on VOICES is – Land’s comments on Trayvon Martin and the Justice System wherein he states that Zimmerman “pulled the Trigger” . You can’t assume that in any fight and Land should be smart enough to know that – but he isn’t . The whole story will be told in court .
Just for fun, and because I haven’t said anything about anyone named Zimmerman, Martin, Land, McKissic, or anyone else in this whole thing, let me say something else about something else.
I believe 3 months ago, that most would have agreed that the NOLA Convention would represent at least a small positive step in the racial atmosphere in the SBC (what with Fred Luter’s likely election). Suddenly the Zimmerman/Martin matter comes up, and old wounds are re-opened.
Now it has been my experience that satan doesn’t much mess with folks who pose him no danger, but when that sleeping soldier in the barracks wakes up and heads out to get trained .. thereby becoming more dangerous to satan .. that he sees that as the time to attack.
Before the enemy gets more dangerous to satan.
I am thoroughly convinced that satan has orchestrated this whole thing .. not that he’s personally speaking through any of us. But I think it’d be good if everyone remembered that satan is probably pretty happy with us right about now.
Zimmerman? I think he 1) violated what the police told him (don’t get out of the car); 2) Exceeded what Neighborhood Watch folks are instructed to do (observe and report), 3) Chased Trayvon Martin down and confronted him, and 4) Murdered him. My hope is he never sees freedom again (not speaking spiritually).
Dwight McKissic? I don’t know a finer man.
CB? My best (non-family) friend in the world.
The results of all this? Satan’s shooting himself in the foot, again, and we’ll all come out of this better for it, having learned something maybe we didn’t want to deal with, about ourselves. And that’s a good thing, if we’re willing to handle what God points out.
“””3) Chased Trayvon Martin down and confronted him, and 4) Murdered him”””
Obviously, there are many who agree with you and are ready to give Zimmerman the axe.
I pray you are never put on trial with a jury of YOUR peers, for I’m afraid if you are you will be “guilty until proven innocent.”
The facts may turn out to support your presumptions and you can remember to say, “I told you so.” As I’ve already said, it does not matter what the verdict is in the end, it will not bring us any closer to racial harmony than before.
This is a “lose-lose” situation and the Martins will bear the greatest loss no matter how it turns out.
I don’t think scuttling our judicial system is a good avenue to repairing our racial wounds.
I’m not a big fan of Mr. Land’s for various reasons, but his remarks concerning the Martin case are so self-evidently true that I simply cannot understand the reaction by some to those remarks. If the SBC backs down from the truth, then really what would the convention be worth?
For the record, this Dave is not me.
Speaking of Dr. Richard Land, Bart Barber said, “I’m wondering how Christian it is to repudiate a man’s lifetime of work on the strength of a few minutes of commentary.”
I agree.
Too often racial “dialogue” only goes one way. Too often only one side has the right to be offended.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
Dr. Barber also referenced certain aspects of Dr. Land’s commentary as being “wrong.” Shouldn’t the Convention own the wrong (inasmuch as Land won’t)–then disown the wrong, so we can put this matter behind us and move on? Land has every right to be offended. However, as it relates to this issue, I don’t know what he would
be offended about.
The “profiling” statement is the most offensive and alieanating comment Dr. Land made. No one questions the accuracy of his statistics, but rather the application he made-based on the statistics. If Dr. Land makes it clear that the SBC is opposed to racial profiling and in the Trayvon Martin case–or any other case–it is not justfiable–I would not submit my resolution. And such a ststement would begin to heal the wounds. As long as he and the SBC stands by the jusfiable profiling position–we are facing a crisis in the SBC. This matter needs to be hurriedly resolved so that we can celebrate the election of Dr. Luter without any taint of racial scandal surrounding Land’s remarks.
Dwight
Dwight,
You stated, “According to the prosecutor and investigators in Florida, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed because of Zimmerman’s profiling.”
I have tried to keep up with this case as best as I can. But where is this assertion of Zimmerman made with credibility and proof?
Thanks,
Les
Les,
Google Zimmerman, profile, prosecutors, and private investigators and I’m sure you will find it. If not, I know I read and saw on tv where this was reported. If you can’t find it, I’ll find for you next week if you notify me.
Dwight
Thanks Dwight. I’ll see if I can find it. And I understand the case is different than the issue of what Land said.
But the accusation that Zimmerman was racial profiling is just that…an accusation that is yet unproved. In fact, after NBC doctored the 911 audio that appeared to make Zimmerman out to be racial profiling and was found out, the actual un-doctored seems to prove the opposite…that Zimmerman wasn’t even sure of Trayvon’s race. The 911 person is the one who brought up race.
I think we all just need to make sure that we not unintentionally perpetuate an unsubstantiated assertion as facts of the case. I don’t think you were trying to do that. But I thought it good to remind us all that there are many assertions in this case and there has yet to be a trial.
By the way, I have been searching for a transcript of all of Land’s remarks and cannot find them. No luck on Google yet. Does anyone have a link to the full transcript?
Les,
Try Aaron Weavers blog–Big Daddy Weave.
BTW, Zimmerman’s 911 conversation about Trayvon is clearly a case of profiling in my judgement.
Dwight
Dwight,
I’ll take at look at that blog. Thanks.
If the 911 call was indeed racial profiling, and I don’t necessarily think it was, it was the 911 operator doing the profiling, not Zimmerman.
I’m surely no expert, but when someone calls 911 to report a suspicious person, it seems to me that for the 911 operator to ask for identifying characteristics which include race or ethnicity should be expected. After all, should the caller lose sight of the person, the 911 operator needs some way to describe the suspicious person to other officers if needed.
Dwight,
I read the transcript. Thanks so much.
If that is accurate, I have a few observations.
1. I didn’t find his remarks either racist or unbecoming at all. I think he spoke truthfully about how the race hustlers have helped fuel a rush to judgment.
2. I agree with him that President Obama added fuel to the fire. And, it is telling that other deaths occurred near the same time frame and the president and other black leaders were silent.
3. It is profoundly sad that Travon lost his life. But the rush to judgment and Zimmerman being called a murderer was and is uncalled for.
4. the reason Zimmerman was not immediately arrested has to do with FL law as I understand it. It had nothing todo with the racial of any parties involved.
5. Whether Land should be remarking on something like this on SBC dollars is a separate matter. If he is paid to speak to cultural issues and news, then that’s what he was doing. You may disagree with his opinion, but he should not be fired for doing what he’s paid to do.
6. If the SBC doesn’t like Mr. Land’s opinions, then by all means seek to put someone else in that position or eliminate the position by appropriate constitutional means.
God bless,
Les
Sorry, this should have been here.
\Dwight,
You stated, “According to the prosecutor and investigators in Florida, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed because of Zimmerman’s profiling.”
I have tried to keep up with this case as best as I can. But where is this assertion of Zimmerman made with credibility and proof?
Thanks,
Les
I believe this legal analysis of the facts of the case show that the racial profiling charges against Zimmerman are unfounded. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/saturday-night-card-game-what-is-left-of-the-zimmerman-martin-racial-narrative/
Dr. McKissic,
You made the following comment in your original post: :The SBC owes Trayvon’s parents an apology for helping to finance this unfair and unbalanced assault on a dead man paid for by the Southern Baptist Convention.”
Can you explain this statement. I can see “helping foster” this assault but not sure how “finance” and “paid for” are appropriate unless there is something I am missing.
><>”
Bob,
My assumption is (and I could be wrong) Land’s radio time and all necessary for it’s production, is paid for by the SBC. Certainly, his salary is. Therefore, if the studio; air time; and production cost are pais for by the SBC–then we financed these rhetorical and false assaults against Trayvon’s family. If my assumptions are incorrect, I will gladly give a real apology.
Dwight
Dwight McKissick – What do you make of the Trustee ” ad hoc ” committee which by definition is concerned with ONE item and the purpose of which ” to investigate the allegation of plagiarism and reccomend apprporiate action ” . Taken from the 04-18-2012 ERLC Trustee Exec. Committee . The rest Land gets a “pass” for his past work .
Jack,
The jury is out on this trustee committee. Time will tell. I was shocked that they are investigating the plagiarism charges. If he is correct that the majority of the SBC thinks like him with regard to his racial comments–then I understand why they are giving him a pass and not investigating this matter. That’s why I’m asking the Convention to weigh in. I never thought his trustees would take this matter seriously. land would not have made those comments without believing that the majority of his White constituency agreed with him. Again, that’s the part that’s most troubling to me.
Dwight
Thank you . I remember how the SBC rolled over your resolution in Florida and went to the trouble to get in contact with you . I’m on nobody’s “Team” but will as you will , fight for what is right . I’m 72 plus years old and born in D.C with a lot of mileage . I have seen racism in its “secret” underhanded forms including the red, tie with blue stripes w/ a white border that show up on some diazs . I’ve had less experience in this regard than you I’m sure , but I’m no stranger to facing cops who are mis-quoting the Law for discrimination purposes and have no problem facing the SBC. I’m concerned that they are “using ” Luter to keep the noise down. Now I know your listening & I’ll leave you alone . Thanks for the reply. I’ll authorise D.Miller to give you my email address and after that my phone if you ever want it .
I’m hitting this conversation a bit late, but this incident has put SBC racial attitudes on full display. Land’s apology was one of those “I said what I meant, and I’m sorry if you didn’t get it,” non-apologies. When I saw it, I winced – it just made things worse. Dwight’s blog revealed the other side of the racial divide: “We knew it all along – most of you white SBCers think this way and you’re wrong! Maybe we should take our ball and go home.” What concerns me is that each side holds the other’s racial attitudes with suspicion. Is this representative of who we are as believers in Christ? How are we ever going to move forward?
We need more humility and forgiveness. Who’s going to put on their Christian big-boy pants and show some? Richard – is it you? Can’t you just clearly admit what you said was wrong and ask for forgiveness? Dwight, is it you? Can you give the benefit of the doubt and trust that your SBC brothers will do the right thing because it’s the right thing? What about me? Do I call for Richard’s head (already did that), or should I allow more room for Richard to be human? Do I write Dwight off as having a chip on his shoulder, or do I work to understand his frustration? Maybe we all need to put on our Christian big-boy pants and work to show both repentance when we sin and forgiveness when someone else does.
My question for Land is, “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!?” I feared his words would divide us, but now I see the division was already there. His words have just brought it out into the open. Maybe this can be a catalyst to examine ourselves and ask the Holy Spirit to lay our own pride before the cross. I think God would honor that.
Excellent post.