E
exnihilo
Guest
Why do you think Southern Baptist churches did not want blacks due to their skin color? What is the basis for this assertion?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
ltwin
Guest
Like I said above, the reports say that 5 or 6 members complained and the pastor gave in. Obviously, if black people were attending a church they obviously felt comfortable there. It is quite possible that they were not aware that a minority of people didn’t want them there. You don’t know all the facts, so for you to make blanket statements like you are is unwise.I equate a black wanting to join a church that did not want them because of their color with a Catholic or Jew wanting to join the KKK.
Does anyone know how large this congregation is? If it is a large church, that might explain how the presence of a few racists would go unnoticed by black people attending the church.
A
aicirt
Guest
As I stated in previous posts, the SBC broke off from the Baptist church in the 1800s because it supported slavery when the mainline Baptish Church didn’t.Why do you think Southern Baptist churches did not want blacks due to their skin color? What is the basis for this assertion?
S
Sixpence
Guest
This is all quite true. Sometimes, it’s tough (and I mean unreasonably tough) being a pastor in a Protestant church. The pastor has a lot more to lose than any member, while at the same time being invested with relatively little authority in order to protect himself, his family, and on occasion inter-racial couples in the deep south. Ideally, you get a solid group of elders that are well-positioned to mitigate the threat of losing your job, and hopefully you need a unanimous vote in order to fire a pastor. But that doesn’t always happen, and sometimes, a pastor is too easy to get rid of.I’m not defending him, but having once been a pastor myself in Baptist churches AND seeing first hand how other pastors are treated, there are factors he is probably weighing.
Is he married? If he is, does his wife work? Is his income as a pastor the only income the family has? Does he live in a fishbowl…er, parsonage? Is it a big city he’s in or a small town?
Can he afford to lose his job (as a pastor), lose his home, take a job at a local Walmart making half of what he makes now? If the wife is forced to work to provide income, do they have daycare for small children? What about school? Will they be able to keep their kids in a Chrisitan school (if they are in such a school), or be forced to send the kids to public school where they will be exposed to drugs and God knows what else.
Again, not saying its right, it isn’t. But I’ve seen this a thousand times. Never experienced it myself thank God. But I have seen it.
For many pastors in small rural churches, the line between a decent existance as a pastor and living in poverty, many times rests in appeasing a few bigoted idiots clutching a Bible in your church.
Then the question has to be…is that job WORTH saving?
It’s the 21st century. I would have hoped for two things by now- one, that racist Baptists would have less influence and less of a voice, and two, that churches like this one would have a system of appointing and removing pastors that keeps the job safe as long as there’s at least one voting member who stands up for racial equality. This church had way more than one such person, so I’m wondering what is so jacked up with their pastor removal process that caused him to be so worried.
I suppose it could be a pastor who was overly cautious given the circumstances, but I’m more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the pastor than the circumstances. He felt boxed in, so I suppose that means he probably was.
T
tarboy
Guest
I think the Pastor was appropriate in his response.I suppose it could be a pastor who was overly cautious given the circumstances, but I’m more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the pastor than the circumstances. He felt boxed in, so I suppose that means he probably was.
He helped his friends have a good wedding in a place where they were welcome. Why should they risk ruining such an important day to ‘make a point’
He did not cover it up or give false reasons for the move. Honesty takes courage.
The current story and reaction (shame) of the community and other church members will do more to change racist hearts and minds than forcing the wedding where it was not welcome.
If the wedding had occurred as planned, and the pastor was fired/replaced in six months for undisclosed reasons, it would not be a news worthy story. Protestant pastors are fired all the time for undisclosed conflicts with powerful church members.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Having been in his shoes AND seeing other pastors treated horribly I also am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the pastor. I have seen pastors practically rendered homeless, or forced to go into bankruptcy because they angered a few bigoted members who happen to be Deacons.This is all quite true. Sometimes, it’s tough (and I mean unreasonably tough) being a pastor in a Protestant church. The pastor has a lot more to lose than any member, while at the same time being invested with relatively little authority in order to protect himself, his family, and on occasion inter-racial couples in the deep south. Ideally, you get a solid group of elders that are well-positioned to mitigate the threat of losing your job, and hopefully you need a unanimous vote in order to fire a pastor. But that doesn’t always happen, and sometimes, a pastor is too easy to get rid of.
It’s the 21st century. I would have hoped for two things by now- one, that racist Baptists would have less influence and less of a voice, and two, that churches like this one would have a system of appointing and removing pastors that keeps the job safe as long as there’s at least one voting member who stands up for racial equality. This church had way more than one such person, so I’m wondering what is so jacked up with their pastor removal process that caused him to be so worried.
I suppose it could be a pastor who was overly cautious given the circumstances, but I’m more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the pastor than the circumstances. He felt boxed in, so I suppose that means he probably was.
And SP, despite how harsh I may have come off in the tread on ND churches, I do have a lot of sympathy for these men who walk into a proverbial hornets nest.
Looking back on my experience, and the experience of others, I now think pastors like this should have a “contract” before they take on being the pastor of these independent churches (SBC churches are independent), That if a situation like this arises, the church would give him several months salary and pay for his move back to wherever he came from. I think under a contract, these churches would not be so quick to go through preachers like underwear.
J
JustaServant
Guest
One article said they had about 800 members. So they might have gone unnoticed. But the minority just might be in the leadership of the church.Like I said above, the reports say that 5 or 6 members complained and the pastor gave in. Obviously, if black people were attending a church they obviously felt comfortable there. It is quite possible that they were not aware that a minority of people didn’t want them there. You don’t know all the facts, so for you to make blanket statements like you are is unwise.
Does anyone know how large this congregation is? If it is a large church, that might explain how the presence of a few racists would go unnoticed by black people attending the church.
E
exnihilo
Guest
But the facts are against your claim. I’m not a baptist historian or even a church historian. But Blacks were members of Baptist churches in the south. So Blacks were wanted by Southern Baptists. As I understand it the SBC came about in part, maybe entirely, because northern Baptists decided that slave owners could not be missionaries. As a result the SBC split to become its own denomination. The split had to do with slavery but was specifically due to northern Baptists limiting the role of slave owners. If this restriction was legitimate you’ll have to reconcile the fact that the New Testament contains a letter from Paul to a slave owner and possible church leader, Philemon. If slavery is a reason to reject the SBC then slavery is a reason to reject just about every Christian Church.As I stated in previous posts, the SBC broke off from the Baptist church in the 1800s because it supported slavery when the mainline Baptish Church didn’t.
And as I understand it after the War Between the States Black SBC members split to form their own churches and groups. In order for this to occur Blacks obviously had to be members of SBC churches. So the idea that Blacks were unwanted by the SBC is very problematic.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
There may be other reasons for a Priest to not marry, but IMO these aren’t it. A priest answers to his Bishop. He isn’t “hired” by a group of common people at a church and essentially working for them. This is what you see in a lot of Protestant churches and that is why a minister can be held hostage to the people. If a Priest is staying strong and true to official Church teaching, he is rest assured that his “job” is safe. Therefore, even with a family, a parish priest wouldn’t have this sort of thing as a concern.All your points are good and all are some of the reasons why priests should not be married.
Ideally, the minister should walk but he was broadsided at the last minute and was trying to help the couple too.The opposition announced its objections at the rehersal which is usually a day or two before the ceremony.
It is apparent that the congregation is in control and not the minister. How is one to preach love and tolerance when the people you are bringing the Word to can fire you?
What is the criteria of becoming a Baptist? You just come to the church and say so? Shouldn’t a newcomer be given a list of things required to be a Baptist asking, among, other things, that you are commanded to welcome all into the Church and bigotry will not be tolerated?
R
Rhuarc
Guest
Well think about when Homosexual marriage is legal. Then our Churches will have to do something similar to this. Two things are going to happen either the Church can do what it want’s or it is strong armed I think I like the first option better. I think this baptist church should be allowed to turn them down just so the precedent is set that we don’t have to marry invalid homosexual unions.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Sure, a religious institution should not be forced to marry anyone. However, it is un-Biblical to not marry a couple base on skin color. This couple wasn’t even one white and one black, so not argument about them being unequally yoked at all. It is Biblical to not marry a couple based on the fact that they are both of the same sex.Well think about when Homosexual marriage is legal. Then our Churches will have to do something similar to this. Two things are going to happen either the Church can do what it want’s or it is strong armed I think I like the first option better. I think this baptist church should be allowed to turn them down just so the precedent is set that we don’t have to marry invalid homosexual unions.
4
4Squarebaby
Guest
And given the location and the current life expectancy the senior members of this particular congregation, the grandparents, no doubt lived under segregation and Jim Crow.I am not! Let us not forget our history not to long ago when African Americans could not go to an all white school. How easily we forget.
A
aicirt
Guest
When a man has a family to consider, he is divided between his duty to his church and his duty to his family. There are priests that have had issues with their bishops. It happens.There may be other reasons for a Priest to not marry, but IMO these aren’t it. A priest answers to his Bishop. He isn’t “hired” by a group of common people at a church and essentially working for them. This is what you see in a lot of Protestant churches and that is why a minister can be held hostage to the people. If a Priest is staying strong and true to official Church teaching, he is rest assured that his “job” is safe. Therefore, even with a family, a parish priest wouldn’t have this sort of thing as a concern.
Let’s just say a Catholic priest is pretty much a free agent in comparison to a minister with a family hired by a congregation which can pull the rug out from under him and his family and they all must move. So to my mind, this is a good reason why priests should not wed.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly!And given the location and the current life expectancy the senior members of this particular congregation, the grandparents, no doubt lived under segregation and Jim Crow.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Level of business is a reason, yes. However, I was responding to someone saying that they couldn’t because they wouldn’t stand up for the Church’s beliefs on various matters if they felt pressure from the Congregation for fear of losing his job. I believe this would not be the case in a Catholic Church because if they are standing up for the Church’s beliefs, they have protection from the Bishop. A member of a priest’s congregation can’t complain to the bishop for sticking up for church teaching.When a man has a family to consider, he is divided between his duty to his church and his duty to his family. There are priests that have had issues with their bishops. It happens.
Let’s just say a Catholic priest is pretty much a free agent in comparison to a minister with a family hired by a congregation which can pull the rug out from under him and his family and they all must move. So to my mind, this is a good reason why priests should not wed.
T
tarboy
Guest
Your argument presupposes that Bishops, in contrast to those “common people at a church”, always act with a pure heart and are never guided be politics, greed, or power.There may be other reasons for a Priest to not marry, but IMO these aren’t it. A priest answers to his Bishop. He isn’t “hired” by a group of common people at a church and essentially working for them. This is what you see in a lot of Protestant churches and that is why a minister can be held hostage to the people. If a Priest is staying strong and true to official Church teaching, he is rest assured that his “job” is safe. Therefore, even with a family, a parish priest wouldn’t have this sort of thing as a concern.
No priests’ job is safe when they are in conflict with their superior.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
It hardly amounts to what Protestant Ministers deal with. They are literally at the mercy of the Congregation.Your argument presupposes that Bishops, in contrast to those “common people at a church”, always act with a pure heart and are never guided be politics, greed, or power.
No priests’ job is safe when they are in conflict with their superior.
Sure, not every Bishop is perfect, but he also needs a legit reason to get rid of a Priest. If a Bishop were making decisions guided by politics, greed, or power, the local Priests have a right to submit a complaint higher up. There is a reason the Catholic Church has the checks and balances that it does.
T
tarboy
Guest
hi exnihiloBut the facts are against your claim. I’m not a baptist historian or even a church historian. But Blacks were members of Baptist churches in the south. So Blacks were wanted by Southern Baptists. As I understand it the SBC came about in part, maybe entirely, because northern Baptists decided that slave owners could not be missionaries. As a result the SBC split to become its own denomination. The split had to do with slavery but was specifically due to northern Baptists limiting the role of slave owners. If this restriction was legitimate you’ll have to reconcile the fact that the New Testament contains a letter from Paul to a slave owner and possible church leader, Philemon. If slavery is a reason to reject the SBC then slavery is a reason to reject just about every Christian Church.
And as I understand it after the War Between the States Black SBC members split to form their own churches and groups. In order for this to occur Blacks obviously had to be members of SBC churches. So the idea that Blacks were unwanted by the SBC is very problematic.
See Black Churches
Pre-civil war, blacks in the south were slaves, and were treated as such:
- Owners did not want their slaves to become Christians because they feared that slaves might interpret the teachings of Jesus Christ to favour equality. Hence, they did not teach them to read nor did not allow them to assemble (no organized bible study)
- The few southern churches that did allow them to attend church had them segregated. Slaves certainly did not sit in the pews with their white owners and white neighbors. They also were not allowed to have black preachers, only white.
After the war is when black denominations exploded across the South.
L
ltwin
Guest
It was more complicated than that. There definitely were missionaries to the slaves. Methodists were especially fervent about this. However, the problem was that to get access to the slaves the preachers had to enforce the slave master’s authority. But besides the established white churches and white missions, the slaves established their own church, “the invisible institution.” Whenever they could, slaves would congregate in secret in the brush arbors and elsewhere and worship God in their own way. While it was illegal in most southern states to teach slaves to read, many white owners did indeed teach slaves to read the Bible. And those slaves that could read the Bible would read to other slaves the stories of Moses and the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. Most slaves were illiterate, but they testified to God writing his word upon their hearts and especially for black preachers giving them the words to say. When slavery did end, distinctly black religious patterns were already well established.hi exnihilo
See Black Churches
Pre-civil war, blacks in the south were slaves, and were treated as such:
Only in the North were there black churches pre civil war.
- Owners did not want their slaves to become Christians because they feared that slaves might interpret the teachings of Jesus Christ to favour equality. Hence, they did not teach them to read nor did not allow them to assemble (no organized bible study)
- The few southern churches that did allow them to attend church had them segregated. Slaves certainly did not sit in the pews with their white owners and white neighbors. They also were not allowed to have black preachers, only white.
After the war is when black denominations exploded across the South.
While blacks could not be ordained in white churches, they were often given the office of “exhorter”.
T
tarboy
Guest
Yes it was complicated.It was more complicated than that. There definitely were missionaries to the slaves. Methodists were especially fervent about this. However, the problem was that to get access to the slaves the preachers had to enforce the slave master’s authority. But besides the established white churches and white missions, the slaves established their own church, “the invisible institution.” Whenever they could, slaves would congregate in secret in the brush arbors and elsewhere and worship God in their own way. While it was illegal in most southern states to teach slaves to read, many white owners did indeed teach slaves to read the Bible. And those slaves that could read the Bible would read to other slaves the stories of Moses and the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. Most slaves were illiterate, but they testified to God writing his word upon their hearts and especially for black preachers giving them the words to say. When slavery did end, distinctly black religious patterns were already well established.
While blacks could not be ordained in white churches, they were often given the office of “exhorter”.
I didn’t mean to say Christ was not at work, only that regular churches and organzied religion was held at arms length from the slave population. I was responding to a claim that slaves were an active part of the SBC before the war.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.