As the MLK50 Conference sponsored by the ERLC and TGC came to an end last night, I was both encouraged and discouraged. I was incredibly encouraged with what was said, the amazing people I met, the hard truths expressed, and the desire of 4000 people to bring racial healing to the church under the blood of Jesus and the Cross of Christ. But, upon reflection I was also a bit discouraged that it has taken so long to get here, and I left concerned that we would easily fall back into our centuries old pattern of “going slow” when it came to all of us coming together in sacrificial love and unity in Christ. We must all excel in intentionally pursuing people from all races and backgrounds with gospel reconciliation, in joining together and submitting to godly leadership of different races, and to caring about the needs and concerns of people who are racially and ethnically different from white majority culture in SBC churches. We must do this with a vision of Revelation 5 and every nation, tribe, people, and tongue gathered before the Throne of God worshiping the Lamb.
Southern Baptists cannot “go slow” in our pursuit of racial/ethnic diversity in leadership.
We cannot wait.
It has already been too long. Going slow in order to not offend white people who feel threatened when we talk about racial reconciliation or true unity and mutual submission one to another in our churches so they will then supposedly hear the gospel without it being muddied with “social” concerns both cheapens the gospel and ignores the fact that Jesus purchased the ethnos with his blood. This is what Emerson and Smith pointed out in Divided by Faith. Going slow and not wanting to offend white people holding power caused baptists migrating South to affirm slavery 200 years ago. Going slow on confronting racial division and white supremacy ultimately led to the carnage and devastation of the Civil War. It gave us Jim Crow and its Biblical defenses. Going slow led us to reject King when he was non-violently addressing evil and calling us to repentance (see Letter From Birmingham Jail on the problem with the white moderate “going slow”). King has been dead for 50 years. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was over 60 years ago. The Civil War ended over 150 years ago. We can’t wait.
Going slow, while appearing to be wise, gave cover for great evil to be committed without being adequately opposed in our own country. There are many examples, but a local one for me that is largely forgotten occurred In 1836 when the government forced marched 10,000 Creek Indians through the streets of Montgomery from concentration camps where they were held in East Alabama and sent them on their way to Indian Territory. During the the same time period, coffels of slaves in chains were marched, reportedly 1000 in an average day, from the Carolinas and Virginia to sell in the slave markets in downtown Montgomery. Going slow caused us to ultimately affirm all of that because we didn’t want to rock the boat and lose our ability to “evangelize” the slaveholder and white farmer by offending him on slavery. That was 150-200 years ago. It was 1800 years after Christ. Going slow has an awful track record. This, and the reality of the Cross of Christ and the nations purchased by His blood is why we can’t wait.
Going slow has now given us resegregated schools, extreme poverty, continually segregated churches, immigrant/Refugee rejection, and growing alienation between races and ethnic groups manifesting in social and political division that threatens to tear our nation apart. We need to dispel the progressive myth that racial division will automatically get better and heal over time. As Dr. Christina Edmonson said at the MLK50Conference, “Time does not heal sin. Repentance from sin and turning to the grace of God heals sin.” We can’t wait.
White Southern Baptists in 2018 are in dire need of hearing from, being in relationship with, and being led by godly black and brown voices who also share with us the inheritance of the gospel and the fellowship of the Spirit. We can’t wait. We need to recognize, submit to, call, raise up, draft, and appoint godly, qualified, and anointed leadership from every race and ethnicity. And we need to be intentional about it because we understand that where you stand affects what you see and we need leaders who can see from all perspectives. Right now. We cannot wait.
We’ve waited too long, telling people to pay their dues and bide their time. Meanwhile, decades have slipped by. And still some say, “go slow.” Worse yet, when we do call forward a godly and qualified person of color to lead us, some claim that we are pushing quotas or are Marxist because we recognize that in addition to strong leadership and qualifications, we are in desperate need of minority leadership. Ironically, those objections never arise when one white person after another is nominated for leadership decade after decade, as though “whiteness” was a default position. Going slow has not eradicated this objection.
We cannot Wait.
We need to hear from and be led by mature believers who are minorities because their experience and wisdom is vital for us all … together. And, we need them to lead us. As I talk, meet, pray, and serve alongside black and brown brothers and sisters in Christ across the country, I am struck, humbled, grieved, and also encouraged by how different their perspective is on life in America and in our churches than white Christians. We cannot be a whole or healthy body of Christ in America unless we are truly joined together in mutual submission and co-labor on an equal footing, not just inviting “them” in to have a seat at “our” table, but actually rebuilding the table together so it belongs to all of us. That sometimes means we are privileged to be able to go to their table too.
In 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., took his Letter From Birmingham Jail written in 1963 and turned it into a book called Why We Can’t Wait. It was a response to a call from white moderate ministers in Birmingham to go slow, give it time, and things would rectify themselves concerning segregation and racism … eventually. They opposed his direct non-violent action in Birmingham and said that things were progressing well in race relations and he didn’t need to come in from the outside to stir things up. He opposed that thinking, said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and said that black people had already waited too long. He said the white church was at a crossroads and that if it failed to call for justice, it would be rejected by the next generation. His words largely proved true.
We can’t wait.
__________________________
In 2015, the Executive Committee of Southern Baptists issued a report entitled “A Review on the Southern Baptist Convention’s Progress on Racial Reconciliation, 1995-2015.” This report was approved, voted on, and adopted as an official report of the full Southern Baptist Convention in Columbus, Ohio. It charts the progress that has been made in increasing racial diversity, and it also states that we still have much progress to make. A series of recommendations were made. Some are being followed. There is progress. This report was from just 3 years ago, but it shows us that things don’t just change because time passes. We have to work for it. We can’t wait.
Over the past 3 years since 2015, progress has been made. There have been more appointments, resolutions have been passed addressing white supremacy, and a heightened awareness has been raised of the need for Southern Baptists of all backgrounds to work together, serve together, and submit to one another as we all submit to and follow Jesus. We have seen progress with appointments and more of an open door for participation. I am grateful for this and what has come before. But, while good, this work is only seen as progress relative to the abysmal situation that preceded it. We have a long way to go before we reach a state of “gospel normalcy” when it comes to biblical unity and Missional participation and leadership from all ethnicities in the body of Christ. We can’t wait.
We need to tell stories of what this looks like in our churches, associations, state conventions, and our entities. Things are going great in some places and progress IS being made! Wonderful! But, how do we bring that level of participation and invitation throughout the SBC on a regular, normative basis where positions for professors, deans, pastors, entity heads and staff, DOMs, missionaries, trustees, and committee members are regularly open to and filled by godly and qualified ethnic and racial minorities who are leading, ministering, starting, and developing our churches? How can we all help make that happen year after year? It is beginning. Now, let’s keep going and truly learn from one another.
We know that those who wait upon the Lord will renew their strength (Isaiah 40), but all of this was settled on the Cross almost 2000 years ago and the unity of the church that Jesus died to secure should be pursued now. There is so much more to be done in building relationships, loving one another sacrificially, listening to one another, repenting of hard hearts, forgiving one another, carrying each other’s burdens, caring more about the interests of others than ourselves, and healing the wounds and broken places caused by the sins of the past as well as the present. We have so much more work to do in welcoming and loving the immigrant and refugee and seeing the Church reach and minister Christ cross-culturally to all peoples. We are called to step in to these situations and love sacrificially.
We can’t wait.
As our nation continues to fray and tear at itself racially and ethnically, the Church of Jesus Christ has the answer flowing from the sacrificial love of from the Cross. There is so much more to be done and we have much further to go. Will the church embrace God’s call? Or, will we miss this pivotal moment? How we answer this question now will determine our future.
This is why we can’t wait.
For a more in depth study regarding Evangelicals, sacrificial love that flows from the Cross, and Why We Can’t Wait, check out When Heaven and Earth Collide: Racism, Southern Evangelicals, and the Better Way of Jesus (NewSouth Books, 2014).
Let me preface my comment by saying that I believe the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the most ethnically diverse body in all of heaven and earth. I look forward to being in that company of saints at the last trumpet when the dead are raised and we’re all together in the new heaven and the new earth. With that said, I know of nothing that is keeping any brother from any affiliated Baptist church from being nominated to any position within the Convention or her entities.
Nothing has kept it from happening, but it hasn’t been happening. And, where it has started happening, it is very slow. So, something has kept it from happening. It’s worth figuring out what that is and addressing it.
In part it hasn’t happened because though the churches that affiliate with the Convention are ethnically diverse the general membership of those same churches are not. We nominate who we know. White Southern Baptists know white Southern Baptists. Black Southern Baptists know black Southern Baptists. Asian Southern Baptists know Asian Southern Baptists. Latino Southern Baptists know Latino Southern Baptists, and so on. Now I am unable in good conscience to nominate a man I do not know because I do not know “the content of [his] character.” So, to have more ethnically diverse nominees you need messengers from all the various ethnic churches nominating men and women whose proven character they know. Of course, they still need to get elected and maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t. But they sure aren’t going to get elected if they never get nominated.
The other course of action would be for the Convention to vote for presidents who will make ethnically diverse appointments to the Committee on Committees, who will then in turn make similar diverse appointments to the Committee on Nominations, who will then in turn seek out ethnically diverse nominees to serve on the trustee boards, who will then in turn…Well, you know how it works. I’m not sure if this is happening or not. Nevertheless, if it were not happening messengers could move to amend the Committee on Nominations report from the floor of the Convention to make it more ethnically diverse. Maybe the amendment would pass, maybe it wouldn’t.
Is it possible that many in the convention serve because they long to serve… have been asked to serve by those who know them… ?
This is part of their way of defining their ministry and the have invested much along the way to be able to serve the SBC as they do.
These fine and faithful servents who are white are not thinking of stepping aside of what they long to do. They love their role and praise God for the opportunity.
How many whites who are serving will glady and willfully step down because someone says we need to be more inclusive?
Maybe the whites serving who are asking for more inclusiveness can lead the white exodus so our brothers and sisters of different races can serve.
Let me add… term limits to serve on things like Trustee Boards of all SBC entities should be instituted.
Jon and Robert,
Thank you brothers.
Usually I hear we need to change, to become more diverse, but there is very little in the way of constructive instruction on how that can be accomplished. Though your suggestions are just beginning steps, at least they are positive steps/suggestions.
Alan,
I appreciate your passion brother.
But…
“He opposed that thinking, said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and said that black people had already waited too long.”
This is secular talk. Not Christian.
Here is what justice is: since you have sinned you have earned eternal death and the wrath of God. You want justice, that is justice.
Or duty as Christians is to tell the world of justice and to also tell them of the only way to escape the justice they have earned: the Gospel, which is the mercy of God.
That isn’t to say we should not seek to have a more diverse leadership. But to build on sinking sand (secular thinking) is folly.
The Gospel is powerful enough to overcome the feelings of the oppressed or even those who think they are oppressed. If a person rejects the Gospel because the proclaimer is white, they will also reject it no matter what color the proclaimer is.
Mike, you are ignoring the numerous places in scripture that call for justice between human beings and for the people of God to do justice and work toward a just society. Personal response to the Divine justice includes both personal repentance and faith in the gospel AND pursuing the kingdom of God and His righteousness now. The Bible calls for the people of God to pursue justice not only to proclaim it.
Todd,
No I am not.
We as individuals and as congregations should treat all others by the golden rule.
That is my goal and that is the goal of the congregation I attend.
That is different than expending our energy to right the wrongs of secular society: in this case to give secular justice to a certain class of people. We in the USA are not the nation of Israel not does God expect us to use secular thinking to right wrongs.
God has appointed governments to do that. Vote your conscience.
Please show the Scriptures that say the Christian’s duty is to right social ills.
Just so I’m clear, voting is ok and preaching the gospel is ok but taking steps to end injustice and specific calls to action are secular and to be avoided? For example, William Carey was right to preach the gospel to Indian Hindus but wrong to transcribe/translate secular Indian works and to call for the Indian government to outlaw Sati? Religious conservatives today are right to preach pro-life sermons and vote for pro-Life candidates but wrong to fund crisis pregnancy centers or call for the defunding of PP? We can preach the unity and full dignity of all races from the pulpit but cannot call for society to treat all peoples with dignity? It’s OK to vote according to our conscience, but not to call on those same leaders to lead justly and to right societal wrongs?
In our own SBC (since that is the subject of this post) It’s OK to preach the gospel to people of color and lead them to faith in Christ and call them full brothers and sisters in Christ, and occasionally let them preach and let their choir sing, we are to pray for unity and preach unity, but it’s wrong to be proactive in sharing leadership, it’s wrong to call for progress and so we should just be content to have a Convention led almost exclusively by white men until God happens to diversify our leadership without our involvement because a black or hispanic or asian or native american man finally meets the muster of a white search team to be the “best man for the job”?!?
Todd,
You want us to call for this or that? I fail to see how words of calling are going to change anything. Note that two suggestions have been made: term limits and minorities nominating minorities. Will those sugeestions followed change anything? Maybe, but it is at least something. Simply calling on change to happen without soecifying a realistic approach to how such change can happen is just talking into the wind.
Progress? Calling for progress without any concrete idea of how to get from A to B is useless talk. Why does the SBC need to lookj at the color of one’s skin? What each of us should be doing is to be judging men as leaders on their merits. Isn’t that the dream of MLK? And if that is not happening now, what are the concrete steps that can be taken to make that happen?
But what I said to Allan was about justice. Is it unjust to not have black leadership?No. Is it unjust to have all blacks in leadership? No. And if your goal is justice, you must define what is unjust now. And then why it is unjust. And then who is acting unjustly. And neither you or Allan have done that.
Do you think racial reconciliation happens because black people are in charge? Why is that? Because they will be appeased for slavery? For racism? Thts not how it works. Sin is not overcome by secular power. That path is sinking sand because it is not the way of the cross. Not for whites nor blacks nor anyone of any color.
I commeneded two posters for at least offering suggestions towards the goal. You offered none. Simply calling for change leaves no one with direction.
Which candidate, Ken or JD will implement the needed changes? What changes? An ocean liner who wants to change course knows which way to move the rudder. The giant ship moves slowly in the direction. But all I hear from prominent men is we need to change. Just words without defined actions aamount to a hill of beans.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
You got this Todd?
As for biblical (NT) scripture, we can start with just a couple from the book of Acts. Ethnic unity was important enough in the Jerusalem church (Acts 6) for them to choose a group of Greek deacons to address a racial imbalance in the way Jewish vs. Greek widows were being treated. The unity of the Jewish and Gentile church was enough for them to call a council to address theological issues between Law-keeping Jewish believers and Gentile believers (Acts 15).
Todd,
Okay then.
Start a denomination by appointing a diverse ethnic group of men to lead it.
Or for the SBC, plead with those in power to step down so other men can step in. How long are we going to keep calling for diversity? Allan said in the OP we have waited too long. He says we can’t wait. I guess he means we cant wait anymore. But does he offer an iota of a suggestion to how to implement chnage now or even soon? Nope. Have you?
Call a council to discuss theological differences.
What are the theological differences between black and white and hispanic churches? Is that what is keeping us dis-united? I dont think so, but what say you?
Mike, I have lots of ideas. I can make lots of suggestions. I’ve written articles, books, and have consulted and spoken on this issue for several years. I’m doing quite a bit along these lines, actually. But, for whatever idea I put forward here, someone would argue with it and say it isn’t what needs to happen. So, how about if we all work on ideas where we are locally and in our churches, associations, conventions, entities, trustee boards, and nationally and we all try to figure out how to build relationships and identify and raise up leaders cross culturally and among different races.
Really, what I’m doing is asking all of us to keep working at this and not put it off or just wait for it to happen naturally. And, if you want concrete ideas, read the Executive Committee report from 2015 that I linked to that lists a bunch of them. The entire SBC gathered of messengers voted that report in to the record and approved of it. I’m saying we can’t wait to implement what we have already agreed to. So, let’s get on with it. The concepts aren’t hard. Carrying them out appear to be a bit more difficult.
Secular thinking in this area is not folly Mike. In fact they are well ahead of us in this area. To say that secular thinking on this is folly is folly in itself. This is 2018 and yet we are years behind the secular world in the area of diverse ethnicity. They are doing what the church should have been doing when slavery was still around and before.
What was folly and downright sin was the stance Southern Baptists in particular took during the Civil Rights Movement.
Debbie,
I agree 100%
Debbie,
The church includes people of all ethnic backgrounds and cultures except of unreached people groups.
Mike, your position is not biblical. To say there is no biblical requirement or mandate for how Christians are to treat other Christians and that if Christians sin against other Christians then the only expectation for those sinned against is judgment and hell and gratefulness for God’s
Mercy in salvation is just ridiculous. No, the perspective I express here is not at all secular. Your perspective, however, would mean that is one believer abuses, oppresses, sins against, and defrauds another believer, then the only thing the believer sinned against can do is thank God they themselves aren’t going to burn in Hell? While the Christian who abuses another Christian is only responsible to God and His judgment and can keep going without having to respond to a cry for justice from his brother?
King was appealing to the Christian South – and then America – and was asking for just dealings. That is not a secular position. It is fully rooted in Biblical revelation of how God wants us to live together under His direction.
As far as in the church, which is what I am talking about, we have every reason to believe that there should be an openness and eagerness to include the WHOLE BODY of Christ in leadership as God equips and qualifies. I’m not talking about unqualified leadership. I’m talking about being intentional in identifying and including qualified leadership, which exists all over.
So, Mike, our response is to tell the oppressed, mistreated, etc, just to “deal with their feelings?” To contemplate the gospel until they overcome their feelings?
To a raped woman you would say, contemplate the gospel until you get your feelings in line.
To a world broken by sin, our only message is “work on your feelings by contemplating the gospel.” I believe the fullness of the Holy Spirit has greater power than just navel-gazing.
The church has no responsibility to seek to make things better? Just contemplate the gospel and work on our feelings?
Of course, the fruit of the Spirit us live, joy, peace, etc. God works on our hearts, our emotions. But our call goes beyond contemplation.
Dave,
Who is being oppressed? Is not having a representative group mixed through the hall of SBC administrations repressive? Oppressive? Is that what is nessecary for black Christians to live holy unto the Lord? I think not. They lived holy unto the Lord while slaves.
Who is being mistreated, Dave? How? Who are you talking about?
Raped women? I’m not talking about raped women, why are you bringing it up. for shock value?
Thats pretty low.
To a broken world, our message has or always should be that the sufferings of this world cannot be compared to the glory that will be revealed in you if your hope and trust is in the risen Lord. The whole idea you are standing on is americentric. And as you know, the SBC already reaches out to those hurting both here and abroad in many various ways.
The responsibility of the church is first to preach the Gospel, and second, in preaching it to aid in meeting the needs of those we come in contact with. Needs, not the assuaging of hurt feelings. It is not the responsibility of the church to relieve the suffering of the world. In fact, again as you know, we agree to suffer in order to help others. To help them in their needs not make them feel better about themselves and life in general.
You think just calling for change is going to help hurt feelings? Of the oppressed and the rape victims? [Why you went there is unknown to me]. I am talking about justice, and you are talking about making people not have bad feelings. You are wanting us to do things to help people get their feelings in line? I dont get your line of thinking.
There is a lot of lies and false narratives promoted by those who gain from racial discord. Whatever their feelings are and how they ought to feel and racial harmony wont be achieved by putting a certain percentage of non-whites in SBC power positions, but if you can figure out how to put them there, give it a go.
As a white 65 year old Southern Baptist living in San Diego I agree with this post 100% The time is now for Southern Baptists to pursue racial/ethnic diversity in leadership. There are two top leadership positions open, the time is now to see new, different faces in these positions.
Nominate someone.
Talk is cheap.
Discussing race is difficult, and usually unproductive, but I will say a few things that I believe are important in this discussion.
The Bible clearly teaches that people are not to be treated differently based on race. So, in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile.
As Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has said, “The way to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race is to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race.”
The SBC should invite all people, regardless of their race, to be full participants in the SBC.
When elections are held, people are appointed to positions, it should be on the basis of things other than race. Otherwise, we are discriminating on the basis of race.
I note that this year there that the two candidates for President are both white. I am not aware of a candidate of another race. I would encourage all of those who feel that having members of other races be elected to office encourage ethnic candidates to run. Wasn’t their a Korean man who was nominated as a candidate when Gaines and Greear ran? Why is he not being encouraged to run again?
All of the SBC elected positions are based on the democratic judgment of the people who get to vote. I would never want any appeal to be made that this person or that person be elected, or not elected, based on their race.
People who are chosen by the President for the committees he/she chooses should be based on his best judgment, and he/she should include and consider people of all races in that group.
The Committee on Committees should select members of the Committee on Nominations based on their backgrounds, their enthusiastic participation in SBC matters, and their abilities. We need able and experienced people to serve on these groups. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of race.
And when the Convention votes on nominees trustees, people should not be selected, or not selected, on the basis of race. I have never known the race of the Trustee nominees, unless I knew them personally, and that should continue to be the emphasis, I believe.
If we begin to put our finger on the scales to count people’s race against them, or in their favor, that is clearly not in keeping with scripture. If we start doing that, we are discriminating against people on the basis of race.
We cannot make this a better world, despite our claims, by using race to harm people. We did it in the past, and we must not start again.
Racial discrimination is wrong. Period.
We also need to be very careful when we use slogans and appeal to concepts that are not clearly defined to achieve ends that are clearly against what God teaches.
And most of all, we need to love and respect one another even when we have disagreements. Jesus said we will be known by our love for one another, not our morally superior positions.
So, I agree with all of this. But, the problem involves history and past systemic, structural, and personal sin. In a perfect world, race would not matter and we never would have had segregated churches. We would not have had a significant number of SBC churches with closed door policies against blacks up until the 1960s and 70s, and some even later. There was a long standing and historic block against minorities participating in our churches and leadership. Calling for intentionality in bringing godly, qualified people from all races and ethnicities into SBC leadership is not now suddenly focusing on Race. It is an intentional correction for the 150+ years when we DID focus on Race, to our great shame and detriment. You can’t have massive systemic and personal unbiblical and ungodly racial discrimination that separated people and relationships and alienated minorities and then just say, “Oh, that was wrong and we don’t do that anymore and let’s not talk about Race again in fixing it and we think it will all just be okay now.” Then, 20 years goes by, there is little progress, and we say, “Yeah, racial division is wrong but it is also wrong to talk about it and intentionally try to do anything about it.”
You can assess the problem, say it is wrong, but if 20 years goes by and there is little actual change in the results, then you might need to take a different approach. Fred Luter becoming SBC president in 2012 was a great step. But, in 2014, I became convicted that we could not let that be the end of it. That we had to keep going intentionally or 20 more years would go by and we would be in the same situation. You can’t change this by just waiting and saying there is no division and we can’t talk about it. And, it needs to keep changing.
I’m not calling for quotas or to appoint or hire someone JUST because of their race. I’m saying that we should recognize that we need to intentionally include, appoint, hire, and elect people from all races and ethnicities and that should be something that we pursue as God leads and directs us to qualified, godly people.
The most obvious flaw in Mike’s brutally flawed argument is that ALL of our discussion is about racial harmony in the church, not in the world.
Dave,
And yet my first remarks included this quote:
“He opposed that thinking, said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and said that black people had already waited too long.”
1. “Black people” includes more than just Christians.
2. “Justice everywhere” includes outside of the church.
3. The context was beyond the church. MLK was not just fighting for black christians.
Thus this quote was more than just about racial harmony within the church.
And i am not against racial harmony in the church.
I am against calling such moves justice. They do not bring justice.
Mike, King was writing to white ministers who were telling him to slow down and stop what he was doing in Birmingham. They said he was an outsider who had no place to tell them about their business and that things were actually going well. But, there definitely was injustice at this time. This discussion was happening between people who claimed to be Christians. Is there no room for one Christian to say to another that the way they are treating people – or what they are tolerating – is wrong?
I’m glad you’re not against racial harmony in the church. I hope you would also be for racial harmony among Christians outside of the church walls, because that was the context of the quote that King wrote from jail.
Now, applying that to the current situation, a history of exclusion and separation in the church led us to a situation where we had all white leadership and where we continue to have mostly all white leadership. Time itself does not heal this, as we have seen. If the intentional racial exclusion and separation is wrong and sinful and is unjust – and on that I refuse to budge an inch – then the results of that intentional situation must be countered and corrected by intentionally invited those in who were once excluded – if at all possible and if they are godly and qualified. Now, would I elect, appoint, hire, or nominate someone who I had any question about their qualifications or character or gifting for the role just because of their race? No. I wouldn’t. But, there is no reason to even talk about that because we have PLENTY of godly, gifted, qualified, and able leaders of all races to appoint, nominate, and elect. We just have to choose to do so. I’m making that choice, not to correct any past wrong. You can’t fix past wrongs and you can’t alleviate guilt or wipe out the past. All of that past has to be given to Jesus. But, you can tell a better story for the future. That is what I’m praying for.
Alan,
Outside the church walls? I have no idea what you mean by that word walls.
Those white ministers were wrong. I am nt defending them in the least. There was open discrimiation and outright hatred against blacks, saved and unsaved and it was sin. And the SBC was wrong. Those members share in that sin.
But the narrative today is that blacks can get justice by reparations. And by other worldly means. Now you were speaking of not waiting, not of justice. But I also applied MLK words to today, where justice is a key word both inside and outside of the church especially but not limited to our black family in the Lord.
But 20years ago, the call went out to diversify and though we have made some steps, you think[as well as others] that we are far from the place we ought to be. Yet you admit you arenot talking about quotas, so…. where is that place we want to be?
How do we know when we get there if we do not know what it is?And more important, how do we get there if we do not know where we are supposed to end up at? Until then, all you have is words, like 20 yers ago that might accomplish some things good, but not diversity NOW. Inotherwords, without more concrete steps, we will have to wait a long time from now. Just like we have had to wait so far.
So ask yourself, Alan, why this problem is not a big problem for the SBC leadership….
Aren’t they the ones who appoint others to serve? And we have one offered reason: they appoint who they know. And the people only vote on who is nominated..
So start nominating those whom you wish to see serving.
“So start nominating those whom you wish to see serving.”
Mike, I do.
Good!
I hope your nominees find success.
But what if they don’t.
What then is the solution?
Am I accountable for the sins of my forefathers, or only for mine? You agree that quotas are not desired, but again hold that “intentional” means must be considered in order for us to go forward. Beyond a certain mindset that we should consider all people regardless of race for positions of leadership in the SBC, how would you go about implementing your desired “intentional” means? One can go about with the “right mind” and still fall short of results. Would you then consider the process a “failure” without obvious results? Or does “change” only include success in those outcomes you would consider successful?
Rob
Alan:
Totally agree that there needs to be intentional outreach to all minorities. There should be some effort here.
And Baptist doctrine, as much if not more than all other Christian doctrine, should be appealing to minorities. There is no priestly class. The priesthood of all believers. Baptists, by comparison, are not high and mighty in the eyes of the world. We grew because of outreach and love. And despite the negative history toward minorities, think of the investment of treasure and lives both domestically and internationally to bring the Gospel to all peoples. I can’t think of another denomination that has done more to preach the Gospel to the nations, since 1845, than the SBC. That part of the history is one of which we can joyfully claim and build upon.
Alan,
I get what you are saying.
But that has nothing to do with justice.
And besides calling for change and saying we cant wait does nothing more than what was done 20 years ago.
Consider this: it is as unjust to exclude blacks from participation for both the excluded ones as well as for those not excluded. The call for racial diversity shoud never be based on doing justice for past wrongs. It should be done for the enriching the body. Exclusion is made based on the Gospel: those that preach a different one are to be excluded. But you cant undo the wrong of the past. Period. You can’t undo the pain of years of hatred. You cant even undo the sin you committed yesterday. But you can repent of it and seek to walk in righteousness. But that doesnt bring real and true justice to those you sinned against or to yourself or to God. Now if you cant do that for yourself, how can you do that for others? You can’t. To those enslaved, we today can never bring justice to them. To those racially hated last week, we can not atone for the sins perpetrated on them.
Thus it is a pipe dream to think we can. And pipe dreams are not the basis for sound reality based paths forward. Giving some blacks justice by making some blacks position of power is a pipe dream. The goal of meeting NEEDS of people is to show them that we are willing to give up the things of this world [for them] because we have a better world waiting.But you are not talking about black people’s basic needs are you?
So what you want has nothing to do with justice.
Acts 6. Grecian widows complained, Greek deacons selected. First church fight over race, still fighting. Lewis, the Acts 6 text, totally contradicts ur thesis that people weren’t selected based on race.
Dwight – a slight correction. The “race” of the “Grecian widows” were Jewish. The “race” of the appointed were Jewish. The argument was over the perceived slight of home grown local people and those who lived outside of Palestine and spoke primarily Greek. Now you can make your argument stand that people were appointed primarily to settle a dispute made by the “out” group. But it was only a temporary settlement as these people later went home to be the Gospel where they lived after Stephen’s death.
Yes, it was a cultural division and not a racial division. But, since the concept of “Race” and racism, especially related to “blackness” is itself a relatively modern construct (See Racism: A Short History, by George M. Frederickson). But, still, that cultural division between Hellenized and Hebraic Jews was very strong. And, the gap was bridged intentionally and not just by telling people to get over it and move on. That isn’t what you are saying. I’m just making another point.
Thank you for affirming I would not say that. I disagree with Frederickson (or at least in the way you are proffering him here – I will have to go read the essay myself). My view is that race and racial distinctions have been present in the human condition all the way back in human history. It always manifests itself from the in group pointing the differences between themselves and the out group (Egyptians enslaving the Israelites is one example of historic racism based upon the clash of ethnic identity). In my view the “gap” can be breached without furthering the divide by discriminating by race. Race IS holy and made by God, each person being made in the image of God.
Frederickson’s point is that discrimination based on skin color or genetic grouping is a modern thing. Of course, there has always been tribalism and xenophobia. Conflicts between people groups, nations, tribes, etc. has been around since the beginning. But, to base discrimination on an ideological concept of Race is a new thing. We look back at the past through the lens of racial conflict and assume it was all based on Race instead of tribe, family kinship, nation, etc. But, “Race” was not a thing the way we see it now. At least that is Frederickson’s thesis – and others have come to agree. http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-01.htm
Rob, here is another essay by Audrey Smedley that further explains Frederickson’s contention. Race is a social construct. “Origin of the Idea of Race”
“Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the image of Africans began to change dramatically. The major catalyst for this transformation was the rise of a powerful antislavery movement that expanded and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era both in Europe and in the United States. As a consequence proslavery forces found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. Focusing on physical differences, they turned to the notion of the natural inferiority of Africans and thus their God-given suitability for slavery. Such arguments became more frequent and strident from the end of the eighteenth century on, and the characterizations of Africans became more negative.
“From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of “race.” The term “race,” which had been a classificatory term like “type,” or “kind,” but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century, and crystallized into a distinct reference for Africans, Indians and Europeans. By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio-political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity. Proslavery leaders among the colonists formulated a new ideology that merged all Europeans together, rich and poor, and fashioned a social system of ranked physically distinct groups. The model for “race” and “races” was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi-scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings. The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable.
“Thus was created the only slave system in the world that became exclusively “racial.” By limiting perpetual servitude to Africans and their descendants, colonists were proclaiming that blacks would forever be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. By keeping blacks, Indians and whites socially and spatially separated and enforcing endogamous mating, they were making sure that visible physical differences would be preserved as the premier insignia of unequal social statuses. From its inception separateness and inequality was what “race” was all about. The attributes of inferior race status came to be applied to free blacks as well as slaves. In this way, “race” was configured as an autonomous new mechanism of social differentiation that transcended the slave condition and persisted as a form of social identity long after slavery ended”
Historically I do not believe that this analysis is accurate (again I am at a disadvantage for not reading the essay(s) – I will do so soon). In example the caste system in classical Hinduism is a direct application of “race” distinctions and ideology that you are arguing can only be found in the modern era (the name of the doctrine of caste “Varuna” means “color” – a distinction that was imposed by the ancient Indo-Aryans upon the Dravidians in ancient India all because of skin color – and an ideology (shucks an entire religious system – there you go) was developed around it. As Solomon the wise has countered, “there is nothing new under the sun – vanity of vanities.” I would suggest that there is nothing new here either.
Rob
Since both Frederickson and Smedley are highly esteemed historians and are not ignorant of the subject that they studied and wrote upon, my suggestion would be to see if they are saying something different from what you think. I mean, I get disagreeing with me because, who am I, after all? But, perhaps reserving judgment until you see the way they explain their thesis might be in order.
I do think you make a good point regarding the caste system in India. I’ve been to India ten times and have have studied the historic, religious, and social situation there both through reading as well as through personal conversation and observation. While there are differences in castes, to be sure, it is not based solely on skin color or perceived “race” as we came to understand it in the West in the modern age, as I have pointed to above.
I have no doubt that these historians are “highly esteemed” in their own venues. As to weather they have considered ancient historical data or have centered themselves predominantly with American and in certain instances European data points is the question here. They also could be the product of their times as academia goes these days with various displays of virtue signaling found throughout the academy. However I will approach their work with an open mind and see where that leads me despite my presuppositions.
Historical Hinduism and caste has only one entry point: by birth in which there is no upward mobility, and no inter-caste marriage allowed (sounds familiar). Like all religions currently; Hinduism has experienced somewhat of a “softening” of caste requirements as India (the predominate place where Hinduism is practiced in a classical sense in the world today) has moved into a more democratic society and the modern world (India outlawed the caste system in 1955, and further brought clarification to the “Untouchables” in 1976 – yet the caste system in some form remains otherwise Mother Teresa would never have had a viable ministry) . Millennia has also softened the racial differences between those in Northern India and Southern India. However there still remains a racial and ethnic difference between those of the lower caste and the upper castes whose historical roots go back to the Asian invaders of the Indian continent who discovered African nomads who ventured from the African continent and who discovered the Indian continent by boat. Interesting that even in India that the defining difference between of the in and out group was skin color or “blackness.”
Rob
I understand, and like I said, you raise a good point here. I am familiar with that history in India. I am not sure that it is considered the same as what Frederickson or Smedley are talking about. However, it is definitely worth considering. At any rate, no one denies that there have been other kinds of conflicts both tribal, ethnic, and national as well as with religions since the beginning. The question is whether they took on the form of “racism” the way we see in the West. It would be an interesting study to compare the Hindu caste system with Western and specifically American racism. I am sure there are many similarities. Perhaps some differences, and that is what is being noted.
Thank you Alan for a very amiable discussion. Of course there are differences between the differing outbreaks of racism in history and throughout the world. The American form is unique in history as well as it’s current disposition. My argument is that “Racism” as sin is not unique – it is as old as humans are. And while the American version is unique, it is not totally dissimilar to forms of racism throughout history – as I demonstrated. Wherever humans live, no matter the continent or culture you will find racism in what ever form it manifests itself.
Rob
Rob,
Racial distinctions did not develop until after the Tower of Babel dispersion, and occurred naturally due to the loss of genetic information that occurs when large groups are isolated. Elevating race to a “God-designed” status would be at the expense of those of mixed race, since they fall short of the divinely intended ideal. The image of God transcends genetic differences.
Ken,
Good point.
The usa world once was almost exclusively black or white. But it is no longer like that. My granddaughter is not from a one colored set of parents. We have people of mexican descent, asian descent, and other various descents mixed together in our chidren and grandchildren, in our churches and neighborhoods, in our schools and workplaces.
Should we also intentionally point some mixed -descent people as well? What about non black or white people, intentionally appoint soe of them as well?
Whenever skin color becomes a criteria for such things justie is thrown out the window.
But it was done to meet basic needs. What basic needs are not being met?
I respectfully see that text as meeting a practical need in a practical way. Greek speaking widows needed. The church selected Greek speaking servants to help them. The church did not discriminate against others who may have wanted to help by counting their ethnicity against them.
Look at the rest of the epistles. The strain between Jew and Gentile was the issue of Jewish ceremonial law. I know of no text discussion ethnic power sharing. In fact, the “no Jew, no Greek” language comes, I believe, from Galatians.
We find no situation in the NT where there was the racial tension and the proposed racial remedies that are discussed today. I believe that is one of the reasons why the world around the NT was so amazed. How can all of these people of different backgrounds get along? It was because they loved the Lord and each other above all.
Could not have said it better Louis. Thank you.
Ethnic/Racial divisions, for our discussion and purposes, were developed in the New World and started with economic arrangements, then moved to law, then culture, then religion. And on and on. Trying to undo the effects of these sinful actions and their affect on the unity of the church requires intentionality because they were intentionally done and had long lasting results.
That is the question that needs to get beyond vague generalities to specificity. Beyond prayer and agreeing to a mindset of being intentional, what other proposals do you bring to the table? In the context of this post you have not posited any so far.
Rob
Holy Spirit intentionally sent diverse nationalities to the cradle(Psalm 72: 10, 15); in Jesus’ genealogy(Matthew 1, 4 ladies were non Jewish); at Jacob’s well(John 4); @ The Cross(An African, Roman Soldiers, an Jews were involved); in the countries named in The Great Commission(Acts 1: 8); In intentionally selecting Greek Speaking men 2 serve, Greek Speaking widows, Greeks were racially diverse, moreso than the Hellenistic Jews); in the diverse leadership of the Early church (Acts 13:2); in an African getting saved in Acts 8; a Midfle Eastern man in Acts 9; & a Italiaian in Acts 10. Even in the diverse makeup of biblical authors, The Holy Spirit was quite intentional. If one chooses to believe this was all coincidental, that’s their choice. The Sovereign God chose to diversify His Kingdom & He did it very intentionally.
Yes my brother, the Sovereign God intentionally did all of those things. Though I do not understand how this bolsters your argument. Are you saying we take a passive approach and allow God to work and invite us to His work? Or do you believe that we have an obligation to be intentional? Not sure what exactly you are wanting us to do if your argument is that God is sovereign and intentional. Perhaps I am missing something that I am not quite getting from your reply here.
Rob
Dwight,
They were selected because they met the needs of both the church as a whole and the needs of some individuals. Those indiviidual needs were needs that needed to be met. What needs need met for non-white SBC christians that are not being met currently?
Not saying there isn’t any, but I think it is pertinent to know.
Dwight is correct here. I don’t see how on earth this comment gets down votes. Acts 6 is a clear passage that shows leaders chosen specifically from among one ethnic group to address a unity issue among ethnic groups in the church.
Todd it’s clear as day. Louis, Rob have no underlying ill will, or sinister racial motives-not in the least bit-when they argue against intentionality in being diverse, drove the ethnic group selected to serve the Grecian widows, or the intentionality found in various parts of Scripture. But to ignore, deny, or explain away, what’s apparent to so many of us, begs the question many ethnic SBC persons & prospective ethnic Pastors/Churches ask: why belong to an organization where u have to fight to be included or for cross cultural representation to be achieved by design, not by happenstance. The vitriol & rejection of the recent ERLC Memphis celebration by some say, Hankins & the LBC is so disheartening. I’d thought most SBC persons were supportive, since I there was no written opposition to the King celebration. But, now I see there is an element in the SBC that simply want a multi-color SBC, not a multi-cultural SBC. The Capstone report objecting to the King Celebration is disheartening beyond measure. The excitement I was enjoying over the King celebration was certainly tamped down after reading the racially insensitive & factually incorrect Capstone Report n malicious assault on RM & the Memphis MLK 50 celebration.
Thank you Dwight for not impugning any ill will or sinister racial motives at my feet. Would you mind giving your word “intentional” a definition? Let me help. Discrimination – “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex” based on Racism, “…prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” We have agreed that both Racism and the Discrimination spawned by Racism is sin (if we were Catholic we would say “venal” sin). Both of these connected sins are found in the history of the country we live in and in the church organization we belong to. In some segments of society and church culture it can be found today. I think that we can speak for all of us now in this post and say we repudiate Racism and Discrimination historically in all of its forms and have worked in our communities and churches to bring about cultural change in both our communities and the church. What cannot be seen by you clearly is this in my opinion: your idea of “being intentional” is just another form of Discrimination – not based upon the sin of Racism but on the notion that justice demands recompense. Your justice however would inflict upon innocents who had nothing to do with the past or the present opportunities in both culture and the Body of Christ. How can one say that “discrimination” is a sin and yet intentionally discriminate against a person because of the color of their skin through “intentional” means? “Come Let Us Reason Together.” I do not seek brother a multi-color church or a multi-cultural church. I seek One Church, One Body, made of redeemed people of all people, nations, tribes, cultures and ethnic peoples who have bonded together at the foot of the Cross and have been made alive by the Risen Lord.
Rob, the practical result of your line of thinking is that Blacks would remain @ the back of the bus, with a few exceptions. Our Sovereign God was not being racist or discriminatory when He intentionally diversified leadership in the first Gentile congregation. You seemingly object to the SBC emulating God in this matter.
We will never agree on this issue. Consequently, it causes me to understand why all the ethnic Fellowship’s in the SBC exists. It appears the absence of minority leadership in the SBC is intentional & satisfactory to the majority, just as Blacks excluded from MLB was acceptable to the majority, until Branch Rickey came along. Vance Pittman & Alan Cross May be the SBC’s Branch Rickey’s. Placing my hope in The Sovereign God and SBC men/women of their ilk to change things. Grateful for the ilk that elected Barack Obama even though I didn’t vote for him. I see now his election was miraculous. Grateful this morning President Obama won twice. It was poetic justice. I pray Kevin Smith succeeds, & the SBC won’t fail this test. His credentials & qualifications are impeccable. But, lest I end up disappointed, I’m reminded of a Hispanic SBC Pastor, trained @ SBC schools with a Ph. D, who told me he was beat out for a SBC missions job that required a Spanish speaker by an Anglo non-Spanish speaker, with less education & qualifications. Why, he was only left to speculate. But, unless the SBC moves with intentionality in hiring minorities, this pattern continues to repeat itself & it’s sickening & disgusting.
One reason for all the ethnic fellowships in the SBC is because not everyone speaks Ayapaneco.
I object my brother using sinful means to equal some idea of good along the lines that “two wrongs never make right.” You understand what racism and discrimination mean for it has been inflicted on you – why do you wish to intentionally inflict the pain of discrimination on others who are also guiltless to make right that wrong?
I am not against emulating the Acts 6 model. A part of our body perceives they are being slighted. What the Apostles did was “make” new positions of service that did not exist before that moment to meet those needs. Perhaps the SBC needs to open a ministry convention wide specifically to those who feel slighted along the model of that first church, hiring and equipping minority and ethnic churches and people from them into positions of leadership to service those undeserved communities. From that platform leaders will be recognized by all the churches and would then have the opportunity to further their reach by being trained and available for further service in other Convention positions. Part of the problem that you are railing at is not necessarily a discrimination issue, but the fact that we only know those around us. I am all for making a new organization within the SBC dedicated to bridge the divide and service our minority churches. I can design it, or you can and I can forward the motion and you can second it or vice versa. I am against any type of quota system that would affect any current hiring practice that place people in service not based upon character, credentials, education, and abilities but merely on the color of their skin. That is antithetical to Scripture and everything that Sovereign God stands for and against.
I do not believe that most current “exclusion” is intentional (you may call me naive and that is okay) and requires looking at the heart of others which I am unqualified to do. God knows the heart. As He is intentionally working in the world He will make all wrongs right either in this life or the next. It is not my desire for any person be left “at the back of the bus” and that as equal recipients of the Gospel we all stand at the foot of the Cross. “Come Let Us Reason Together”.
Rob
Dwight,
What bus? is not the Judge of all just? Does He not reward the sufferings of His people in the age to come?
Having said that, I do not care if the SBC choosers intentionally choose non-whites for positions. Let them. And may we all be blessed by their [the non-whites] service. Speaking for many, but not all, I am sure, I care not what color a person’s skin is but the character and qualities they bring.
But you care about skin color. You think something can be gained by caring about skin color. So n the one hand, you and Allan and a host of others decry discrimination based on skin color whie on the other argue for it. The Biblical way is not to discriminate based on skin color or sex or money or anything of this world. And the objection is we must discriminate to make up for wrongs done. Two wrongs dont make a right.
Let us remember the SBC isnt the church. It is a man made organization and like every other one will some day not be. The church is and always will be multi colored.
Mike White said, “So n the one hand, you and Allan and a host of others decry discrimination based on skin color whie on the other argue for it. The Biblical way is not to discriminate based on skin color or sex or money or anything of this world. And the objection is we must discriminate to make up for wrongs done. Two wrongs dont make a right.“
Speaking only for myself, I can say that is profoundly untrue. I have never argued for discrimination based on skin color. I have been really clear what I am asking for –
That we labor to increase participation, Service, leadership, appointments, and ministry opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities who have historically not been in those positions. That isn’t discrimination. And, despite your baiting, I intentionally refused to give specifics on how to do that because I believe that it can play out in many ways as the Spirit leads, relationships are built, qualified and gifted people are identified, and opportunities arise. I am calling for a Continual focus on intentionally welcoming people from different races and ethnic groups into leadership as we find them.
I am not calling for quotas or affirmative action. I am saying that we cannot Wait
You completely mischaracterized my post. Terribly so. And, we’ve had enough interaction here over this the it impossible for me to think you are unaware of what I am trying to say. Let me reiterate:
“We must all excel in intentionally pursuing people from all races and backgrounds with gospel reconciliation, in joining together and submitting to godly leadership of different races, and to caring about the needs and concerns of people who are racially and ethnically different from white majority culture in SBC churches. We must do this with a vision of Revelation 5 and every nation, tribe, people, and tongue gathered before the Throne of God worshiping the Lamb.”
If you can see discrimination in what I have said in calling us to intentionally hold the door open for qualified, godly people from ALL Races, ethnicities, backgrounds, and cultures to work, serve, lead, and submit to Christ and one another together, then you are just seeing what you want to see through a lens of your own choosing.
I am ALL IN for racial diversity to be received and seen in the SBC. Here is a way…
Let us elect an African American President (again) and give him the responsibility to appoint only non-whites to the Committee on Committees and any other appointment he would be responsible for.
If it needs to begin now, there are too many whites in leadership who only know whites (in the larger number sense). Putting a few non-whites every year on the C on C will take decades to see any significant difference. Two to three years of such intentional structuring can move this docked ship out of the white mostly port to a more racially diverse landscape.
NAMB Trustees need to commit to hiring a non-white. The EC needs to hire a non-white. This will help in two key roles.
Excuses anyone?
Alan,
My mistake then. I apolgize for attributing to you wrongly.
As to the baiting, I am not baiting. You want change now because it cant wait. And however the Spirit leads.
Are you saying you know that the choosers are not following the Spirit in the choices they are making now. Some sure are not for that is the way with man. But what if most are raying and seeking godly counsel and yet are not choosing the right people for the job? How do you know they are choosing the wrong people?
How do you know the Spirit is leading the SBC to choose more non-whites? He could be. He may be doing things in His timing. How are we to know?
How do you know that our present choosers are not intentionally welcoming in non-whites [since we are all one race] as they find them? Maybe the pool to chhose from includes very few non-whites.That doesn’t mean there isnt plenty of nonwhite skinned people out there who can do the job but that the choosers do not have their names.
Didnt the NFL make it mandatory for some coaching positions that nonwhites had to be interviewed?
If such or simiar rule was in place, at least the opportunitues would be there, even if the hiring agency had to search out viable nonwhite skinned applicants.
Have a blessd Sunday.
Okay, Mike. If things are as they should be, then there isn’t much to discuss, I guess.
Alan,
Are they? The way they are supposd to be? Note that I offered a suggestion to possibly help change things.
Here is what I percieve to be a problem: though there is nothing wrong with calling for greater diversity, unless there is also corresponding concrete ways to make it happen, or to attempt to make it happen, we wil still be where we are 3 years from now, and so on.
Things dont change because we call for them to change. They change because those who can change them DO what needs to be done. That wouldn’t be me, it might be you, I dont know. But even if it was you, if you [or whoever] do not know what to do to change things, NOTHING will get done.
Yet you say: “And, despite your baiting, I intentionally refused to give specifics on how to do that because I believe that it can play out in many ways as the Spirit leads, relationships are built, qualified and gifted people are identified, and opportunities arise.”
Suggestions have been made on this thread. Some might work, others probably not. But nothing will work if nothing is tried. And in order to try, one must have an actual plan of moving forward to implement so that goals can be reached.
or simply, it is not going to play out at all if no suggestions are made and implemented.
At my church, when we have a problem, we dont say, oh let the Spirit work it out. Rather, we trust the guidance of the Spirit as we develop a plan of action and seek to carry it out.
So how can we seek to get to “relationships are built, qualified and gifted people are identified, and opportunities arise”? How can we get those that choose to have the type of relationships [they need?] with those who are the qualified and gifted identifed people, so when opportunities arise, non white skin colored people can be appointed? because if no convrete workable and practible suggestions are made, nothing will change. Words without deeds are hollow.
Mike, I’ve offered lots of suggesruons. I’ve linked to reports full of suggestions. I think there are lots of concrete things we can and should do. Maybe I will write another post pointing those things out again. Thanks for the feedback.
Alan,
Hmmm. Color me confused. One moment you call it baiting to ask for suggestions and refusing to give them out. Now you are saying you have given them out and you are thinking about writing a post on them.
Well whatever. Have a great rest of the Lord’s Day.
I have given them out. I have been pretty specific. You want more. I thought you were baiting me into calling for quotas or something. You say you aren’t. Fine. I believe you. You don’t like my suggestions or think they are insufficient. I’ve tried not to get too lost in the weeds, but you say you want more. So, I say maybe I will get even more specific in the future. Now, you say you are confused. Okay.
Alan,
Looking forward to that post.
May it be full of useful and implemented ideas.
Wow Mike just wow!
Alan – I thought your quote below was a great summary. I’m sort of a ‘drive-by’ poster here but I read it a few days back and thought ‘that’s really well said.’
“We must all excel in intentionally pursuing people from all races and backgrounds with gospel reconciliation, in joining together and submitting to godly leadership of different races, and to caring about the needs and concerns of people who are racially and ethnically different from white majority culture in SBC churches. We must do this with a vision of Revelation 5 and every nation, tribe, people, and tongue gathered before the Throne of God worshiping the Lamb.”
Thanks, Randy. That paragraph really is the point of what I am saying and asking for.
Thanks, Dwight, for the nice comment about me. The feeling is mutual.
I don’t know anything about the Capstone Report or the other stuff. I will look that report up to see what it is.
I believe in intentional outreach to all persons of any ethnicity in the SBC, as I have said above.
Racial discrimination, in all of its manifestations, is wrong, and clearly condemned in Scripture. Everyone stands individually before God and man, and should receive equal treatment.
No serious Christian can give weight to Capstone. It is the InfoWars of the SBC.
I don’t know who is giving the minus marks, but it’s either trolling, a sincere minus on these excellent comments, which says a lot about the person giving them, either way they are wrong in doing so even though everyone has a right to their “opinion”.
Yet they were all Jews. Ethnic differences? I think not.
Louis,
Excellent post.
The problem is that in order to achieve racial diversity now we have to consider people based on the color of their skin.
I personally don’t care if every admin head is a person not white skinned.. maybe some day the SBC will be like that.
But to think we have to go there is to do exactly what you are objecting to: treat people differently based on the color of their skin.
But even that is not terrible if it promotes the greater good.
But to think we need to do it to be just and to give blacks justice is ludicrous. It is neither just nor will it give justice to anyone.
Louis: I disagree with the statement that race is difficult to talk about. One just talks about it. I don’t see it as difficult. Maybe for those who don’t see it as a problem, which I think they see it they just refuse to acknowledge it. But talking about race is just as easy as talking about some of the other subjects we talk about. But the time for talking is over I think. It’s 2018. Martin Luther King Jr. began his work in the 60’s and earlier. It’s time we catch up don’t you think?
Thank whoever for the minus on my comments, that usually means I am on the right track in my thinking. 🙂
Ethnic minorities exist in large enough numbers in the SBC to have representation at least equal to their percentages of the membership. But one of the inherent problems I see is that most of them don’t attend or serve on the staff of the small group of megachurches from which the majority of SBC trustees and committee members come. A good friend of mine who is Mexican American pastors a Spanish speaking congregation in Chicago, and they have far more pressing needs for the $1,200 that it would take to send their pastor to the SBC meeting. So would most of the ethnic congregations in the SBC, which is where most of the racial and ethnic diversity exists.
I think the SBC should consider a bold move to end at least some of the division among Baptists which runs along ethnic and racial lines. Do a lateral merger with one of the larger African American Baptist groups like the National Baptist Convention, which runs pretty close to the SBC in terms of theology and organizational structure. It would require some power structure reorganization and leadership restructuring for both groups, but it would be a powerful statement about racial and ethnic equality and diversity in the church made by a conservative denomination in an area that is currently the exclusive domain of the far left wing of Protestant Christianity in America.
You are spot on about the lack of minority presence on the staffs where a lot of the SBC leadership comes from. That is clearly a problem. But we have looked for staff with the SBC educational background that we would like to see, who have an interest in local church discipleship. It is not easy to find.
Mergers are extremely difficult things. Just try merging 2 churches. It doesn’t go well many times.
I would not recommend that the SBC merge with any of the national historically African American Baptist groups. To my knowledge, those groups have not sought that. I would be surprised if they would want to do that.
It would be extremely difficult. Race is not the barrier, however. Economics, emphases are.
Addressing this issue should not be a top down engineered process.
Lee,
I commend you for a positive suggestion.
What percent of SBC members are racial minorities?
Ron,
here is an article from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/southern-baptists-efforts-at-racial-reconciliation-a-mixed-bag-review-finds/2015/06/17/db4040ba-1533-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html?utm_term=.4337f6e95419
it said 27%.
Alan Cross and Dwight McKisic were both mentioned
The article said the nominating committee was 27% minorities. I was wondering about our general membership. Thanks.
Pew has a 2014 survey which says 85% are white (and 89% are absolutely certain there is a God, good to know). We get greater percentages of non-white (but not including Latino) if you break it down by main ethnic status of congregations. Any way you slice it 27% of any SBC committee being “minorities” is very high based on the overall SBC membership but then there’s the breakdown of individual churches which surely shows that most white SBC congregations are not appreciably integrated, neither are most African-American congregations affiliated with the SBC. Then there’s our practice of planting ethnic churches which are, well, ethnic.
Alan probably has all of this in his head.
You are analyzing it correctly, William. The answer is that no one really knows. I’ve seen numbers from the EC that aren’t exact, but taking them in aggregate would have the SBC at somewhere around 10-15% of our makeup as ethnic/racial minority. You take the numbers from the predominately ethnic minority churches and add the estimated numbers from minorities in SBC churches and that gets you in the ballpark. But, no one really knows for sure.
Maybe someone can help me understand.
I have heard at least two reasons why the SBC should intentionally appoint nonwhite skinned people to various positions.
I am not against such intentional choosing, although I do not know why its necessary.
The first reason was for the sake of justice. Because of the injustices of the past [and there was and it was horrific] and the injustices of today of bias and racial discrimination, which is still done by those who call Christ Lord, the white skinned leaders of the SBC should appoint nonwhite skinned people to places of prominence [like entity heads or boards] and other ‘lower’ places as well. How that satisfies justice no one has explained.
It certainly doesn’t give justice to those who were enslaved. And unless a person today has been falsely discriminated against [and I am sure that has and is and will happen] how does that give justice tonic white skinned people today?
Another reason given was that Acts 6 is the Scriptural basis for reconciling race differences. Well, actualy it isn’t. They were all Jews. But two things. One, it was a cultural problem: Hellenstic Jews against native Hebrews. And so today we could say that we are all Americans but culturally, those who are dark skinned are different than those who are white skinned.
The second thing is that the problem arose because the church was seeking to take care of widows by giving them food: in other words they had a basic human need [to eat] and some were not getting food. And you need food to live. And if we see a brother with such a worldly need but do not help them we have a cold heart, not a Spirit led heart. [1st John 3]. Now the men who were appointed could have been Hellenstic Jews or native Hebrews or a combination. The Scripture doesn’t say. It doesn’t say, because that wasn’t the important thing in choosing these deacons, Rather they were to be “men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom.”
What basic human need does the Christian SBC people with dark skin need that they need ‘deacons’ appointed to carry out the task of meeting that need?
Somebody else brought up their feelings. really?
Now if a person is intentionally discriminated against, by being denied a position they applied for because they were dark skinned [like an example that Dwight gave us], then yes that person has been wronged and those that wronged him and the organization that wronged him, and even the SBC who wronged him should make it up to him. To him, the one discrininated against.
And the SBC and its entities shoud take concrete steps to end all such discrimination and to discipline and/or remove the offenders and those complicit with them in that sin.
That has nothing to do with Acts 6. It has nothing to do with slavery. It has nothing to do with the sad and sorry sin of bias and discrimination of the SBC in the past. It has to do with repenting of that past BY changing what one does today :Go and sin no more.
Alan, thank you for your post. I did not attend the MLK50 conference but have watched some of it online. As time allows , I am making my way through the speakers. Concerning the conference, I have heard a number of speakers talk about the continuing problem of racism—specifically of the systemic kind. What I have not heard are specific accounts of systemic racism or oppression. I hear about inequities in housing or education in general terms but I haven’t heard any specific instances of systemic racism, i.e where someone can’t get a house or a loan because of systems that prohibit them from doing so. I haven’t heard anyone talk in specific terms of how people are oppressed by rules or policies. It may be that I have not listened to the right speakers or don’t have a clear understanding about what systemic racism is. I know that there are countless examples and anecdotes concerning racist individuals or even churches but I am just not sure where to look to find the systemic racism that we need to fight against. I think that if we are going to have any hope of dealing with an issue then we need to have a very clear understanding of what the issue is. In my experience it is hard to find concrete solutions to murky pronblems. I know that you have known and forgotten more about this issues then I could ever know so I was hoping that you could provide some clarity for me.
Lee, thanks for the question and I’m glad you’re taking the time to listen to the speakers. I believe there are some widely agreed upon instances of systemic racism that many of the speakers alluded to. I think for various reasons (time, giving detractors ammunition that would distract from their major points) many of the speakers gave generalized descriptions of systemic racism rather than getting bogged down in the weeds.
Some specific examples would be police violence toward black men, disparate prison sentences for the same crimes, higher likelihood of the death penalty, over criminalization (which is/should be a conservative critique of over-reaching government), recidivism, the war on drugs (which many argue disproportionately affects the black community especially when disparate prison sentences are accounted for), the poverty cycle: which includes underperforming schools in poor neighborhoods, government policy that encourages the breakdown of the nuclear family, difficulty of finding a job after imprisonment (which may have been for a “crime” that should have never been or was over-charged), the lower effectiveness of public defenders… thats off the top of my head the list goes on and on…
There are resources for you to become aware of these specific problems. I think the speakers avoided too much specific discussion of these because ANY ONE of them you choose (and some commenters here are already warming up their keyboards to argue with me) there will be detractors and arguments about why “it’s not really a problem”. I know because I could have made most of those arguments before – before I started listening to people who know more about these issues than me.
It goes well with Matt Chandler’s message: we don’t know what we don’t know, which leads to immaturity, which leads to speaking when we should listen and staying silent when we should speak. I commend you for seeking to understand more of the specifics.
Brent,
Who are some of the people you listened to?
And i woud add to that list welfare, government housing [which is usually substandard], and quotas that reward mediocrity, among other things. The government is greatly at fault forhow it has treated nonwhites and fostered problems within their communities.
But short of not appointing more non white people to positions in our entities, what instances of systematic racism is prevalent in the SBC?
Brent,
Thanks for the reply. I just watched Chandler’s message and again there is a lot of talk about systemic racism and oppression in general terms but not specific stats or data. I get that it is hard to go deep into a issue in 30 minutes timeframes but I do think it would be helpful to discuss these issues in concrete ways. I can understand the fear of pushback but I think that broad generalizations sans concrete data has the potential to create even more pushback.
That being said, I was wondering if you or Alan would be willing to take one of the examples of systemic racism you mentioned and give further explanation, including data and references to actual policies, that demonstrate systematic oppression of people of color. I know that is a lot to ask so if you can point me to literature that spells out these issues then that would be great.
Like Chandler said, we don’t know what we don’t know but I would like know what I don’t know concerning these issues. Thanks again for your reply.
Thank you, Alan. I would like to believe that we are even going slow. Unfortunately, it seems that we are going backward. I’ll believe we’re going forward when I start hearing repudiations of racist pastors, when I start seeing specific example of racism called out. As much as I hate the idea, I suspect that the SBC will divide before we go forward.
“Repudiations of racist pastors…”
Who will be the grand determiners of who is and who is not a “racist pastor” and by what standard will they adjudicate? What will be the method of repudiation?
Will those who hold honest differences in opinion as it relates to procedure and process relating to “racial reconciliation”, while affirming and teaching the biblical principles of intrinsic value and worth of all people created equally in the image of God, be rendered “racist” and somehow appropriately shamed?
Will there be an office of social justice in Nashville staffed with those trained and ready to call out those who don’t meet standard? Who will train these persons?
Will “white brothers and sisters” who refuse to accept accusation that they, their parents and grandparents are the murderers of Martin Luther King and are responsible for the racism of history be designated enemies of reconciliation and therefore racist?
One thing I am utterly convinced of concerning the pastors of the Southern Baptist convention is that we love to find – and if necessary create – issues to “fight” against.
I swear, If it’s not one thing it’s something else… Fight, fight, fight! It’s what we do.
Regarding police violence toward Black men; a little from the other side of the picture:
Heather Mac Donald’s most recent book, “The War on Cops,” points out some devastating and sobering statistics:
“Blacks were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of all murders, and 45 percent of all assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, while constituting roughly 15 percent of the population in those counties. From 2005 to 2014, 40 percent of cop-killers were black. Given the racially lopsided nature of gun violence, a 26 percent rate of black victimization by the police is not evidence of bias.”
-Walter E. Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2016/07/13/challenges-for-black-people-n2191126
David R. Brumbelow
Police bias is also claimed when the police person is also black. It is the outworking of a victim mentality. Are some cops racist? Of course. But many people earn their arrests.
but no one earns being shot when they are unarmed, like the man was in Sacramento a few weeks ago. Those things happen to frequently to all be accidents. It’s indicative of a wider problem.
Some cops are racists. Some shouldn’t wear the uniform. The wider problem is the high ercentage of crime done by dark skinned men.
A higher percentage of crime has little to do with unarmed men being shot. How often do you hear of unarmed white men being shot? You don’t even hear about it in numbers proportion to white men being arrested. Can’t we just admit that it is a problem with men get shot and killed, even regardless of what they are guilty of? It is a man made in God’s image that lost their life.
White people killled by cops versus those of other skin tones.
It actually happens much more often, Luke.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
The reasons you don’t hear about it I’ll leave to your speculation…
FYI – Unarmed doesn’t necessarily mean “not a threat.”
David B,
Help me understand the point u are trying to make. It can be that the unjustified murders of unarmed Black Men by police persons are justified based on crime statistics? That can’t be ur point. But that’s the only interpretation I can glean from ur comment. Please give me the riight interpretation of ur remarks. Thanks.
Dwight, I appreciate your input. I asked in a previous comment for some clarity concerning systematic racism and oppression. I have watched much of the MLK50 conference and it seems that everyone talks about systemic racism and oppression in general terms. It seems like we need to get specific and concrete before we are going to be able to make any progress. Are you able to give some specific ways in which black people are oppressed through policies or organized discrimination in one of the areas that Brent mentioned above, i.e. criminal justice, government policies, education disparities, etc.?
Dwight,
When some claim unarmed Black men are being shot down every day, and there is a war on Blacks by police, we should consider all the evidence. One consideration is that percentage wise, Blacks commit more crime than some other racial groups. Therefore, police are going to interact with African-Americans more than others.
Facts show there is no war against Blacks by police. More and more police are Black themselves. For years now, many top police positions have been held by minorities. Many Black lives are saved every year by police.
Roland Fryer, a Harvard professor, did a study of Houston, TX police shootings and found Blacks were 23.8 percent less likely to be shot at by police than Whites. -Houston Chronicle
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texanomics/article/Houston-Police-appear-to-not-racially-8351840.php
So, I’m simply saying be fair and consider all the hard evidence, including both my previous comments here.
David R. Brumbelow
When an unarmed man, of any race, is killed by police, there are a number of questions to consider.
Was it a tragic accident?
Was it murder?
Was the victim also a criminal?
Was the victim engaged in criminal activity at the time of, or just previous to, the shooting?
Did he put up his hands?
Was anything in his hands? Anything that may have looked threatening? When confronted by police, you should immediately drop whatever is in your hands.
Were his actions or speech threatening to the police?
Was there a chase?
Was he trying to escape or resisting arrest?
Was he trying to get the officer’s gun?
Shouldn’t we wait to pronounce judgment until the evidence, facts, witnesses have spoken?
It should also be remembered that a White officer shooting a Black man is much, much more newsworthy to the national media, than a Black or White officer shooting a White man. Therefore, you will usually hear much more about the first, rather than the second.
I understand there are some unjustified police shootings, but facts reveal there is no war by police against Blacks.
The ethnic population percentages are never going to be perfectly represented in real life and in different scenarios.
If you are respectful and follow the officer’s orders, you are very unlikely to get shot. I, too, have been stopped by an officer for what I considered a wrong reason, and for no reason; but I was respectful, followed orders, and survived.
On the other hand, a police officer is given great authority. If he abuses that authority (regardless of race), he should be punished severely.
David R. Brumbelow
I don’t need any facts to know that the killing of anyone, white or black, armed or unarmed, criminal or saint, is a tragedy. The taking of any life is tragic. That should not be hard to admit.
No one is denying that loss of life is something we should certainly not relish in or belittle – but it’s also reality that sometimes what happens is necessitated and justified.
As I said – unarmed (the lax definition in these issues notwithstanding) doesn’t necessarily mean not dangerous.
Luke,
No one disputes that.
But an earlier comment spoke of systematic racism specifically [as one instance given among others] police violence toward black men. Have police been violent toward some black men Yes. But usually the reason has nothing to do with the color of their skin, but because they have committed crimes.
What happens is the media speaks a narrative that promotes police on black violence as racism and using every example of it as examples, whether or not such violence was proper. And sometimes it is improper, and sometimes it is due to racism.
But it is usually proper and usually has nothing to do with the color of skin.
Thus there isnt systematic racist violence against black men.
That black men commit much more of the violent crimes percentage wise than any other skin color leads police to react stronger towards suspects of dark skin color.
Here then is the rub: On one hand, many of those with black sin and some of the advocates want people not to be color blind when it benefits them but when it desn’t benefit them they cry foul: don’t profile our yoing men eve though many of your men are committing violent crimes.
I live in Ohio, and I dont see racism. Black skinned folk, many of them, are doing fine economically, socially, and hold powerful postions in government. White and black folk shop together, work together, go to school together, worship together [somewhat], live in neighborhoods together. bank together, go to sports venues together, go to bars together, you name it. We have balck cops, black mayors, black city council people, black school principals and black judges and so forth.
Maybe it is more prevalent in other parts of the country, maybe its more prevalent in high faluting country clubs, but everywhere I look I see back and white people going about life together some richer, some poorer.
I swear you are all arguing your “points” just to be arguing because none of you, Mike, Dave C, Luke, David B, can believe what you are writing and be reasonable. I might also point out the color of your skins, which is white. It’s difficult I am sure for a person of color listen to white skinned people giving arguments that go against the true facts. I think you all need to get out more if you believe what you are writing is true. Of course I live where polite people don’t use the N word because that would be too obvious, but where racism of Black people, Muslims are an every day occurrence in places of business. I heard it everyday.
The above statement from me would also include Marshalese, Mexicans, especially if they don’t speak English, and the list goes on.
Debbie,
See this mess right here is the exact reason that it is so difficult to discuss race in a civilized manner… Because there are sanctimonious blowhards like YOU who constantly and quickly go to the “you’re racist” motif… It’s annoying, stupid, simpleminded, and sinful. You should repent. I tire of it – that’s why I stayed out of this thread for so long…it’s pointless.
I haven’t read all the comments in this thread or many of the ones that you referenced so I can’t speak as to their comments – but I know for and absolute fact that I have said NOTHING unreasonable, racist, macro or microagressive in this conversation. I dare to take show where I have done so!
I wonder – does the virtue signaling high horse ever get too high for you, Debbie?
I also point out I have not said anything that goes against “true facts” and I stand by what I have said.
Debbie,
Two things.
First, if you are going to accuse your brothers of sins, you should be specific than just a general statement that they are liars and haters. Your words otherwise are unchristian and divisive needelessly.
Second. I agree that racism takes place. Although what you describe may be a fear of a religion, but it may be racism as well. That there are racists doesnt mean that it is systematic. To use the police as an example, that there are racists in the police force across the country does not mean that every cop is racist or that every police depaertment has racists cops or that the nature of being a police officer causes racism so that even black poice are racist against black citizens.
I am not saying there isnt any racists in my part of Ohio. I am saying that there are a lot of white people who get along with a lot of black people, including muslims.You are encouraged to dispute this with true facts if you can prove I am wrong.
Dave C: I did not insinuate that you or any of the others were racist, deniers maybe, what I described were racists that I dealt with on a daily basis in the work world. But it continually amazes me that Christians would actually say other Christians are claiming a higher moral ground but in all honesty I think we are on a higher moral horse, ground whatever word you want to place on it. I don’t say this with any sense of glee, in fact the opposite. I thought the church and Christ followers would lead in this area, not still be stuck in 2018.
Mike: I have no idea what you are talking about other than you have completely rewrote what I posted, again. Why? I don’t know. Well I do know I think. And it’s not a pretty reason.
I’m not a denier either.
Guess I shouldn’t be surprised you double down and continue your divisive tactics.
Whatever.
So then you would agree, based on your comments, that the shootings of Philando Castile, Terrence Cutcher, and Trayvon Martin were all murder? And the recent shooting of Stephon Clark? Also murder?
The problem is the first three I mentioned were all acquitted. And they shot empty handed men who were obeying police commands.
We will see what happens with Clark but I doubt it will be much different.
Glad to know you are coming around on agreeing that shooting unarmed black men who are obeying he police is murder. Can you please convince others of that as well.
Ryan,
Also, the comment about obeying police commands – are you even serious? Do you even fact?
The only case, of 3 police related cases, you mentioned where obedience to police commands was even potentially a reality was the Castille case – and he actually had a gun.
Come on, dude.
Castile had a conceal carry and stated such to the officer. That’s a fact. And that’s what he was supposed to do.
Trayvon Martin was a 14 year old kid accosted by a grown man who was acting as a security officer. He had no gun and Zimmerman had no legal authority. He started the situation by racially profiling Martin. When Trayvon defended himself, ZImmerman shot him.
Catcher was not armed and was doing nothing threatening to the officer. There were five officers at the scene. The car had already been cleared. They knew he wasn’t armed.
The officers in the Clark case never identified themselves. Clark was shot in the back 6 times.
Do you know a fact when you see one or do you just twist them to fit your narrative?
Your inability to see the injustice in each of these cases says a lot about out you. You may the be sole remaining defender of George ZImmerman. You do realize that guy has profited off Trayvon’s death by auctioning off the weapon he used to kill a 14 year old kid and has also been arrested since Trayvon’s shooting for another crime.
Maybe you need to do some fact checking of your own heart.
I deleted a whole bunch of non-productive and argumentative comments.
Move on, guys.
Trayvon Martin was not shot by police and he was hardly innocent and it wasn’t murder.
According to testimony and evidence he was on top of Zimmerman physically attacking him.
The other two cases are full of nuance and the facts present different and plausible outcomes than you simplistically seek to convey.
Murder has a specific legal definition and none of these cases fit that definition. Which is why exactly none of these people were charged with murder.
Over hyped rhetoric is not helpful.
Alan C, while I agree with your initial point that blacks are underrepresented in the leadership of the SBC, I think you could have made a clean case that blacks and other minorities need representation in the present day because they are about 20% of the SBC and everyone needs to be represented and that is reason enough. The present situation is sufficient reason. I don’t see what was gained by bringing up slavery, and Jim Crow laws and I still can’t understand the need to bring up the Indian Removal through The Trail of Tears (What do the Indians in 1839 have to do with blacks in the SBC in 2018?). The result of the overall effort to focus on past atrocities of whites in the south has led to a lengthy back and forth argument about white racism, police brutality and whether or not there are white racists in Mike White’s part of Ohio or Debbie Kauffman’s part of Oklahoma (I’ll settle it – there are racists in every state). Ultimately, the motivation doesn’t have to be trying to mediate for sins of the past, but instead bringing about a stronger Convention for effectiveness in the future. The argument you made focused greatly on the past. Guilt about the past is not a strong long term motivator for action.
If we look back, there were probably a million key strokes wasted in the discussion about changing the name of the SBC to the Great Commission Baptist because there was a belief by some that the term Southern is synonymous with racism. There were hundreds who couldn’t wait to embrace the new name (including Dr. AL Mohler). Now, tell me one institution who uses GCBC. Here again, the motivation was guilt about any association with the southern part of the U.S. because some people associated it with racism.
A final thought, you can constantly remind people of past sins or you can look to the future. My whole upbringing happened where it did because the U.S. Government made the decision to forgive and bring to America former Nazi rocket scientists to develop a Space program. It was known that Dr. Werner Von Braun was a member of the Nazi Party and that he knew Adolph Hitler personally, yet President Truman ordered Operation Paper Clip and Von Braun and his team were brought to the U.S. and twenty years later Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. There were tremendous technological advancements as a byproduct of the Space Program. My dad worked with these German scientists and I wouldn’t have grown up where I did if Von Braun and his team weren’t here. Truman could have held it against them what they had done as Nazis (They developed the bombs that hit London killing thousands), but he chose to look to the future instead of the atrocities of the past. Perhaps, the SBC needs to do the same.