Southern Baptist " Spiritual Malpractice"...

[Sandy]

http://religiondispatches.org/the-south ... lpractice/

Stephen posted this in the topic "New Baptist Covenant." It sort of got buried there. It's really a pretty good article, and, well, you can evaluate it yourself. William already has.

Many of the authors at Religion Dispatches have a way of taking your own perspective when it comes to scripture, and faith, and turning it right back on you with a smack. They're certainly good at finding the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in those whose belief in inerrancy and infallibility also include a verbal and plenary interpretation of scripture.

Something else that might be a response.

http://cacoethisscribendiblog.wordpress ... -ferguson/

[William Thornton]

Crap on several levels. Check the authors.

[Sandy]

The identity of the authors doesn't change the legitimacy of the questions they raise.

Dr. McKissic's original resolution was well researched, and factually pointed to the rise of the alt-right, as well as to the Biblical citations many Southern Baptists once used to justify segregation. Why leave that out, and criticize it as "poorly written?" That's aside from the question of why it took several efforts by messengers to prompt the appointed leadership to consider moving forward with a non-binding resolution.

The SBC has been pretty definitive when it has drawn lines around both theological and social issues since the conservative resurgence. There's been no tolerance at all for anything they've determined is out of bounds. But on an issue like this, when their African American members and pastors are right on target from a Biblical perspective, there's obfuscation, resistance and obstruction. I think these authors, along with pastors like Dwight McKissic, are saying that if you make a claim to belief in the Bible's inerrancy and infallibility, you don't get to pick and choose what you decide to apply, and what you decide to ignore.

The SBC has made a lot of progress in this area, but they want to point to the progress, and control where it goes while ignoring what's left to change. If this resolution had been presented by Paige Patterson, or Ronnie Floyd, or Mac Brunson, would it have been rejected, and then heavily edited before passage? There are still Southern Baptists who believe that whites are superior to blacks, that such attitudes are justified by scripture, and that racism is justifiable. I've met some of them. I've seen it in posts on this board. The resistance to change those attitudes, and to confront it, is subtle, but firm. The reaction, from Dr. McKissic, and other African American pastors and leaders in the SBC appropriate in considering whether they really do have a future in the denomination.

[Jon Estes]

With so many SB's in the USA and from every walk of life... I am of the opinion that the cure for racism will not come before the cure for cancer or the Lord's return.

This is sad, extremely sad.

I could be and hope to be wrong. I hope that within the next 3-5 generations, the presence of racism will be so minimal, we just let it die.

[Dave Roberts]

I am not a great historian, but I was introduced several times to the idea of history seen in pendulum swings. To some extent, I see that borne out in Baptist life. For may Southerners (some of whom are Baptist0 the election of an African-American as President produced a desire to deny and even erase the evidence that it ever happened. That may, in part, explain the Trump phenomenon as a swing away. There was great racial progress made in the SBC with the election of Fred Luter as SBC President, but there has been a pendulum swing away from this. Pressure on the pendulum may swing it back in the other direction, but there is a great deal of fear that the pendulum will swing too far. Sometimes, looking at the broader perspective may help us.

If we look at SBC history, there have been a number of swings that are evident. In the 1940's, SBTS was sneaking some African-American pastors into classes under the certificate program. They did not graduate, but they did go to classes. In the 1950''s following the Brown decision, there was a drawing back as churches closed ranks in support of segregation. The 1960's brought a new openness even to have African-Americans residing in residence halls and seminary apartments as they attended and graduated from Baptist seminaries. The 1970's brought some pushback again on too much racial openness. The same pattern can be seen of pendulum swings in the work of the HMB/NAMB efforts.

My hope is that all Baptists will move past the racial hatreds of the past. We need new perspectives across the theological spectrum among Baptists.

[Sandy]

The history of movements toward racial equality, and racial reconciliation, particularly in this country, is that they are always initiated, and largely carried forward by the minority group. The movements begin at the grass roots with whatever influence tools they have available to them. Along the way, they find sympathetic whites who help, and contribute what they have to offer to the influence battle, though when there is pushback, the minority group bears the brunt of the consequences. It takes generations for genuine gains to be realized, and there is almost always constant resistance.

Within a denomination like the SBC, the structure itself is an impediment to racial reconciliation, and a genuine change of attitude when it comes to race. The organizational structure is set up to be a "good ole boy" favor granting system, which, by the way, didn't get changed as a result of the conservative resurgence. And that same system is replicated at the state convention level, and at the associational level. The level of resistance to change in the SBC is quite telling. The most dramatic shift the convention ever saw in terms of the position of the leadership who gained power and control was the conservative resurgence, based on a hard-line, conservative view of the scripture, and on some pretty hard-right interpretations of it. Yet the racial attitudes and actions exhibited openly within the convention from its inception, and all the way through most of its history are antithetical to the principles of the very scripture touted as the "inerrant, infallible written Word of God" by the SBC.

The SBC, billed as the "nation's largest Protestant denomination," and clearly the dominant religious group in the south, claiming as many as half of all Christian church members in many counties in the southern states, made no appreciable record of assistance to those involved in the Civil Rights movement. In other words, when African Americans were looking for allies and advocates, they didn't go to the SBC to find them.

I think a lot of that has changed since then, certainly in recent years it has. But it is still the African American, Latino, and Asian voices within the convention itself who are doing the lion's share of the work to bring about racial reconciliation, and even when progress is made, there are still disappointing setbacks, like the way Dr. McKissic's resolution was handled. If a prominent, well-known conservative had presented a resolution to the committee, would there have been any hesitation in passing it along, unedited, to the convention? Rhetorical question, but the answer is no. Until the SBC abandons its provincial oligarchy, and actively seeks to resolve the nagging and persistent resistance to racial reconciliation, and the inclusion of its minority race church members in full leadership, it will continue to be a problem.

[William Thornton]

I think Sandy and the mod/libs here are under informed on this issue relative to the SBC. The SBC at the national level would compare favorably to the CBF on racial matters unless you talk about real jobs in which case the CBF has very few to offer.

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

Overly broad generalization.