Resolution Condemning White Supremacy Causes Chaos at the Southern Baptist Convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter SyroMalankara
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SyroMalankara

Guest
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-southern-baptist-convention-alt-right-white-supremacy/530244/

Leaders from the Southern Baptist Convention were divided over a resolution affirming the denomination’s opposition to white supremacy and the alt-right during their annual meeting in Phoenix this week. On Tuesday, they initially declined to consider the proposal submitted by a prominent black pastor in Texas, Dwight McKissic, and only changed course after a significant backlash. The drama over the resolution revealed deep tension lines within a denomination that was explicitly founded to support slavery.

More here:
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-southern-baptist-convention-alt-right-white-supremacy/530244/
 
As an ex-SB, I think much of the “tension” is the result of attitudes that would just like the idea to fade into obscurity. Conventional meetings on the topic keep that from happening, even if you’re against White Supremacy.

In my first 20 years of life, I never met a SB that I was aware was a White Supremacist. And I was active at the local and state levels within the denomination in a US state with a history of institutional racism in earlier generations.

They just want it to “go away” and events like these prevents it from happening. White Supremacists are a very, very obscure minority within even the population of my state.

This would have been highly pertinent in 1920 or so. However, they’re all dead and their sons and daughters have cast that legacy aside fully - a handful of weirdos notwithstanding.
 
History is replete with politicians, doctors, clergy, well-heeled and respected members of society donning white sheets and attacking whatever group they targetted for abuse. Just because its hidden does not mean it is not there.
 
SyroMalankara said:
History is replete with politicians, doctors, clergy, well-heeled and respected members of society donning white sheets and attacking whatever group they targetted for abuse. Just because its hidden does not mean it is not there.
Click to expand...
History is also dead.

I was deeply involved in it. Never met a single one I was aware of.

As such, that gives credence to it being a non-Southern Baptist issue.

You would have experienced similar backlash if you wanted the Convention to consider a “Child Rape is Wrong” resolution. It’s so obvious that it doesn’t require a resolution.

It’s a solution without a clear and present problem.

I obviously think the SBs are theologically “off” as I’m a convert from them. But I’ll not implicitly support an interpretation of their hesitancy on the issue to mean there’s some support there for institutional racism. That notion is Totally absurd to virtually everyone that’s a member of the convention.
 
Vonsalza said:
History is also dead.

I was deeply involved in it. Never met a single one I was aware of.

As such, that gives credence to it being a non-Southern Baptist issue.

You would have experienced similar backlash if you wanted the Convention to consider a “Child Rape is Wrong” resolution. It’s so obvious that it doesn’t require a resolution.

It’s a solution without a clear and present problem.

I obviously think the SBs are theologically “off” as I’m a convert from them. But I’ll not implicitly support an interpretation of their hesitancy on the issue to mean there’s some support there for institutional racism. That notion is Totally absurd to virtually everyone that’s a member of the convention.
Click to expand...
Though, it’s terrible PR for those outside the Convention, and to minorities within, according to the article.

Like the child sex abuse cases within the Catholic Church – many folks probably personally never met an abusive priest, however, that shouldn’t be the criteria for condemning abusive priests since the minority do affect the whole with their ill actions.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Though, it’s terrible PR for those outside the Convention, and to minorities within, according to the article.

Like the child sex abuse cases within the Catholic Church – many folks probably personally never met an abusive priest, however, that shouldn’t be the criteria for condemning abusive priests since the minority do affect the whole with their ill actions.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I’ve never understood the reticence to condemn past actions, even if only undertaken by a minority, when those actions were so clearly wrong/vile/evil. Particularly when there’s a mistaken belief that the actions are truly past when it’s not entirely clear they are.

The old saying, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it” still remains a very valid maxim. Reminding people of the past isn’t belaboring, it’s preventative ultimately.
 
The problem was the wording of the original resolution. The SBC’s resolutions committee has revised it and it will still be voted on.

To say that this is indicative of some deep seated racism in the SBC is unfounded. The SBC has already repudiated racism and apologized for its part in upholding slavery as far back as 1989 and 1995. Most recently, in 2016, it called for the discontinuation of flying the Confederate Flag. And most obviously, it elected an African-American pastor to be its president. Fred J. Luter Jr. served two terms in that office.
 
Vonsalza said:
History is also dead.

I was deeply involved in it. Never met a single one I was aware of.

As such, that gives credence to it being a non-Southern Baptist issue.

You would have experienced similar backlash if you wanted the Convention to consider a “Child Rape is Wrong” resolution. It’s so obvious that it doesn’t require a resolution.

It’s a solution without a clear and present problem.

I obviously think the SBs are theologically “off” as I’m a convert from them. But I’ll not implicitly support an interpretation of their hesitancy on the issue to mean there’s some support there for institutional racism. That notion is Totally absurd to virtually everyone that’s a member of the convention.
Click to expand...
Well said. Thanks for your viewpoint.

Mary
 
Since some say they will reword and vote on the resolution, it seems the Convention does consider it a matter worth addressing and voting on.
 
Oh, they’re gong to be hitting the grape juice over this one…

Just wondering why there is no “alt-left”? Or, are they mainstream?
 
Vonsalza said:
I obviously think the SBs are theologically “off” as I’m a convert from them. But I’ll not implicitly support an interpretation of their hesitancy on the issue to mean there’s some support there for institutional racism. That notion is Totally absurd to virtually everyone that’s a member of the convention.
Click to expand...
I was raised Southern Baptist and remember people telling racist jokes in the parking lot after church.
 
Vonsalza said:
History is also dead.

I was deeply involved in it. Never met a single one I was aware of.

As such, that gives credence to it being a non-Southern Baptist issue.

You would have experienced similar backlash if you wanted the Convention to consider a “Child Rape is Wrong” resolution. It’s so obvious that it doesn’t require a resolution.

It’s a solution without a clear and present problem.

I obviously think the SBs are theologically “off” as I’m a convert from them. But I’ll not implicitly support an interpretation of their hesitancy on the issue to mean there’s some support there for institutional racism. That notion is Totally absurd to virtually everyone that’s a member of the convention.
Click to expand...
What you are saying makes perfect sense, but I also suspect there are more than a few Baptists that are concerned that this is leftist stuff trying to find it’s way into their platform.
 
esieffe said:
What you are saying makes perfect sense, but I also suspect there are more than a few Baptists that are concerned that this is leftist stuff trying to find it’s way into their platform.
Click to expand...
Condemning White Supremacy is leftist? :confused:
 
ltwin said:
The problem was the wording of the original resolution. The SBC’s resolutions committee has revised it and it will still be voted on.

To say that this is indicative of some deep seated racism in the SBC is unfounded. The SBC has already repudiated racism and apologized for its part in upholding slavery as far back as 1989 and 1995. Most recently, in 2016, it called for the discontinuation of flying the Confederate Flag. And most obviously, it elected an African-American pastor to be its president. Fred J. Luter Jr. served two terms in that office.
Click to expand...
What was the problematic phrasing of the original resolution?
 
nodito said:
What was the problematic phrasing of the original resolution?
Click to expand...
It was language that could be interpreted as condemning not just the white supremacists and the racism of the “alt-right” but also just people with conservative views on immigration or just Republican politics in general. Here are some passages from the original resolution:

*WHEREAS, just societies will order themselves as free men and women and organize at various times and for various purposes to establish political order and give consent to legitimate government; and

WHEREAS, the liberty of all nations to authorize such governments will, at times, allow for the rise of political parties and factions whose principles and ends are in irreconcilable conflict with the principles of liberty and justice for all; and

WHEREAS, there has arisen in the United States a growing menace to political order and justice that seeks to reignite social animosities, reverse improvements in race relations, divide our people, and foment hatred, classism, and ethnic cleansing; and

WHEREAS, this toxic menace, self-identified among some of its chief proponents as “White Nationalism” and the “Alt-Right,” must be opposed for the totalitarian impulses, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that infect the minds and actions of its violent disciples; and*

Another paragraph read :

*RESOLVED, that we reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so-called “Alt-Right” that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society, and infect our political system; and be finally
*

The new resolution tries to avoid suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump was voting for white nationalism with more measured language:

WHEREAS, Racism and white supremacy are, sadly, not extinct but present all over the world in various white supremacist movements, sometimes known as “white nationalism” or “alt-right”; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 13–14, 2017, decry every form of racism, including alt-right white supremacy, as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we denounce and repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as of the devil; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we acknowledge that we still must make progress in rooting out any remaining forms of intentional or unintentional racism in our midst; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we earnestly pray, both for those who advocate racist ideologies and those who are thereby deceived, that they may see their error through the light of the Gospel, repent of these hatreds, and come to know the peace and love of Christ through redeemed fellowship in the Kingdom of God, which is established from every nation, tribe, people, and language
 
How about a response taken from the standard liberal playbook. “I’m more worried by people who are fixated on the sins of others, than on their own sins”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top