Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair. -G.K. Chesterton
There can be no doubt that the Southern Baptist Convention plans to increase its membership roll in the coming years by adding more color, as in skin tones (and we applaud this long overdue strategy). Even before the SBC Annual Meeting took place, seminarians made public pronouncements that the next president of the convention should be African-American. Here is how it was reported in the Associated Baptist Press:
“A seminary professor says the next president of the Southern Baptist Convention should be an African-American. Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said via Twitter that he thinks Southern Baptists should elect Fred Luter next year when the convention meets in New Orleans.”
The article later states:
“In his own Twitter feed, (Danny) Akin indicated that he agreed with Moore that Luter would be a good choice to make history as the first black president of the convention formed in 1845, a split with northern Baptists over slavery.”
And as previously reported, the SBC recently made history by electing Fred Luter, an African-American, as second in command (first vice president) of the convention. With such high-powered endorsements from Southern Baptist leaders, it certainly sounds like Luter is well on his way to becoming the next president of the SBC when it meets in New Orleans, where Luter grew up.
According to the ABP article:
"Last year Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, said electing a black president would make the denomination more effective in reaching the kind of people discussed in a “Great Commission Resurgence” proposed by SBC leaders. McKissic, who is African-American, called for Southern Baptist to “repent of systemic, institutionalized and historic negative attitudes toward women, race and dissenters.” Luter said McKissic was one of several people who suggested that he seek the office in 2010."
While we appreciate the fact that Southern Baptists are finally taking tangible steps toward achieving solidarity with African American Christians as well as those of other ethnic backgrounds, we have to wonder whether predominantly black congregations will be inclined to affiliate with the SBC given their theological position regarding women. An insightful article entitled “The Role of African American Women in the Black Church” reveals the following:
“Faith is a strong guiding force in the lives of many African American women. And for all that they receive from their spiritual communities, they give back even more. In fact, black women have long been regarded as the backbone of the black church. But their extensive and significant contributions are made as lay leaders, not as religious heads of churches. The congregations of African American churches are predominantly women, and the pastors of African American churches are nearly all male.”
While African American women may be accustomed to male leadership in the pulpit, we wonder how well they will embrace the BF&M 2000 given their vital positions in both the church and the home. We highly doubt the ideologies being touted by patriarchs at Southern Seminary will be embraced by female African-Americans. It will be interesting to see whether Russell Moore, for example, will be able to demonstrate sensitivity to the matriarchal culture that has developed in the African-American church. Remember that it was Patriarch Moore who stated that the word “complimentarian” was not a strong enough term for him.
The Bayly brothers, who hail from the Presbyterian Church of America denomination, took great pleasure in quoting Russell Moore as follows:
“Russell Moore: Gender identity and complementarianism… I hate ….the word 'complementarian', I prefer the word 'patriarchy'...”
And it was Moore who wrote the paper “After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate”
A domineering attitude by Southern Baptist leaders could negate the entire approach of integrating African-American congregations into the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, it could lead to civil discord in the denomination if SBC leaders oppress female African-Americans who selflessly serve their families, churches, and community.
And who can forget the highly publicized SBC scandal of 2008 involving LifeWay? This was how Fox News reported it — “Magazine Featuring Female Pastors Pulled From Shelves, ‘Treated Like Pornography’.LINK Here’s how the article begins:
“The five women on the cover are dressed in black and smiling — not an uncommon strategy for selling magazines. But these cover girls are women of the cloth, featured in Gospel Today magazine's latest issue, which the Southern Baptist Convention has pulled from the shelves at its bookstores, though the magazine is available for sale upon request. The group says women pastors go against its beliefs, according to its interpretation of the New Testament. The magazine was taken off stands in more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores across the country, including six in metro Atlanta. Published for nearly 20 years, Gospel Today is the largest and most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. The magazine's publisher, Teresa Hairston, said she was just reporting on a trend, not trying to promote women pastors. "They basically treated it like pornography and put it behind the counter," she said. "Unless a person goes into the store and asks for it, they won't see it displayed."
As racial solidarity is promoted in the SBC, it will be fascinating to observe how African-American Baptist respond to the demands of submission by Southern Baptist leaders, including Fred Luter. Speaking of the SBC’s newly elected First Vice President, how many black churches like Luter’s are currently affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention? Well, here’s the answer, which we obtained from Urban Christian News. “Luter's church is one of an estimated 3,400 black churches in the nation's largest Protestant denomination, a small minority of more than 45,700 total SBC-affiliated churches with about 16 million members total.”
In the years to come, it will be fascinating to see whether a predominantly white Southern Baptist Convention headed by a black president can entice racially diverse congregations to join ranks with them. We’ll do our best to keep you posted!
Lydia's Corner: 2 Samuel 1:1-2:11 John 12:20-50 Psalm 118:19-29 Proverbs 15:27-28
I find it ironic that Russ Moore is making the same argument made for a black President of the USA.
Are these guys familiar with Galatians? There is no disunity of races when the Holy Spirit is present. In Christ, there is no Greek/Jew, male/female, slave or free.
Outward gestures are meaningless when the Holy Spirit is not involved. but I did get a chuckle thinking of my black girlfriends who are deacons and one even preaches….of them coming into the SBC! They are dynamos for the Gospel. They would shake things up.
But I fear this race relations move is more of the Voddie flavor.
Lydia
How will they “choose” which churches to associate with? Can you imagine how some of the woman will react to this. Not all of them regularly read GirlTalk.
I believe that the SBC could become more racially diverse over time. The way to do that, however, will not be to entice existing African American congregations to join the SBC.
You have highlighted one issue. There are many others. Black churches have their own denominations. Why would they want to leave those to be a minority in the SBC.
Also, many Black churches have strong political inclinations that would not mix well with the SBC. I believe that Blacks support the Democratic party in about the 90% range. Those numbers are very similar to the level of support for Democrats in the Jewish community.
For the SBC to become racially diverse, it needs to increase ethnic enrollment in seminaries, and they need to plant churches with ethnic leadership. That should be done, not as denominational strategy, per se, but just to reflect the culture.
I do not believe that the SBC will ever be the predominant expression in the Black urban areas of this country. But as more Blacks leave the urban areas and integrate with other races in suburbia, I believe there will be an increase in Black participation in the SBC.
Anonymous
You said “many Black churches have strong political inclinations that would not mix well with the SBC.” Please do not make any assumptions about my political background with this next comment. But there seem to be just two ways to read this comment.
1. Black churches vote liberal (read Democrat) so they are not welcome in the SBC.
2. The SBC is not political and political advocacy is discouraged.
Point 1 is a bit of a problem because it seems like the SBC would be using political expression as a litmus test for being a Baptist; something I find a little outside of Scripture. Is the SBC trying to get Christians or Republicans? And is unity within the faith incumbent on your party affiliation?
Point 2 would cause most people, both inside and outside of Baptist circles, to fall on their backs, laughing hysterically.
Could you clarify?
Interestingly, the SBC is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse large denominations in the US. That diversity is not reflected at the annual meeting and who sits on committees, boards and is employed in Nashville and at the seminaries.
But, compared to many of the mainline denominations, the SBC is quite diverse.
What’s interesting, however, is that most of the African-American congregations affiliated with the SBC are also affiliated with one of the historically African-American Baptist denominations, most are with NBC USA.
Also, the ethnic diversity recommendations passed by the Convention are really very progressive so to speak – really a fine initiative. The irony of course is that Southern Baptists have long adamantly opposed anything that looked like an affirmative action program. Yet, that’s what they have here.
BDW
Take a look at the comment by anonymous. What is your take on his thoughts?
I’m sure in some cases within the SBC their hearts are in the right place, but the way they present it at times? Its a real turnoff to me. Its almost as if we want to show we are no longer bigots, so we are placing our ‘token’ black man in leadership. If you are familiar with certain ‘southern’ attitudes? You understand. They will have to do more than that to show they don’t have bigotry. IMO.
It wasn’t that long ago that bigotry was acceptable, and its more a heart issue to me. They will never admit that some of it is more politically correct and trying to gain numbers that they are losing – compared to those that wish to do this for the right reasons. I have seen the attitude first hand. Its insulting.
I remember my parents taking the heat for being on the right side of the debate for the freedom riders for example. I remember them marching with Martin Luther King, and they were looked upon as ‘white traitors’. The worse of the worse. I also remember them telling their SBC family that if they were truly wishing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? They would be standing where they were, and taking the heat along with them. I hope that southern attitude dies a quick death.
I guess I bit a jaded. I see motive due to my own experiences. I just hope I’m wrong and their motive is good.
Okay. I will get off my soapbox.
”’ It is noteworthy that the vitality in evangelical complementarianism right now is among those who are willing to speak directly to the implications and meaning of male headship—and who aren’t embarrassed to use terms such as “male headship. ”’
The author also speaks about how they are shying away from speaking of the man’s authority, etc.
”’ This therapeutic orientation of contemporary evangelicalism is the reason, Wilcox explains, evangelicals don’t seem to speak often of male headship in terms of authority (and certainly not patriarchy), but usually in terms of a “servant leadership” defined as watching out for the best interests of one’s family—without specifics on what this leadership looks like. Thus, “headship has been reorganized along expressive lines,
emptying the concept of virtually all of its authoritative character.” ”’
Bigotry was about authority as well. Jesus served, and when he spoke of his authority? It was due to him being God’s son – not due to his ‘maleness’. The way they talk they wish to grab some of the Jesus authority – that is NOT their authority – and use the excuse of ‘gender’ to keep it.
If they can’t grasp when you place TOO much emphasis of ‘authority’ in worldly terms the way they do? When they refuse to acknowledge the abuses that have taken place DUE to that attitude? When they continue to speak of it as a ‘minority’, when the bible clearly states we may be prone to this form of selfishness and pride?
They will continue to drive people off in waves. If they can’t grasp what ‘the best interest of the family’ looks like in leadership? BOY do they issues! Its not about power. Its about service. Its not about ‘how do I keep my authority, and service others at the same time?”
hmm. Could be why they don’t have many black churches within the SBC. Their bigotry is showing.
I do agree with Anonymous that one way the SBC could become more ethnically diverse is through church planting and greater ethnic enrollment in seminaries.
But that’s not really a simple solution.
It does seem though, that Anonymous is suggesting that racial diversity in the SBC – at least in terms of African-American involvement – hinges on African-Americans becoming more like white Southern Baptists. I.E. “as more Blacks leave the urban areas and integrate with other races in suburbia.”
Perhaps the best hope for the SBC is if white Southern Baptists return to urban areas and minister alongside African-American Baptists. Doing that would better “reflect the culture” rather than attempting to making the culture more compatible with the “whiteness” of Southern Baptists.
I agree that the politics of African-Americans rooted in the themes of freedom, community, liberation and justice will not mesh well with that of white Southern Baptists and their free-market theo-politics. That’s the SBC’s problem though and it’s a significant hurdle.
Also, when the guy who made national headlines for praying for the death of the first black U.S. President (and all the birther nonsense) continues to be such a visible presence at the SBC annual meeting, running for president and receiving 100 votes, etc. etc. – that’s a problem.
BDW,
You have made some excellent points. If seminaries are to be a driving force for change in the SBC, they have a long way to go in becoming ethnically diverse. Last time I checked most seminary students at SBC institutions were white.
“The irony of course is that Southern Baptists have long adamantly opposed anything that looked like an affirmative action program. Yet, that’s what they have here..”
I know! And it cracks me up that the Patriarchal Russ Moore (AKA: Woody on Toy Story) is pushing the affirmative action angle.
I think something is up. It could be several things: The SBC is dying and they are just now starting to admit it. It could be a diversion from the Calvinism that is dividing people more and more.
I say this because they also passed a strangly worded resolution on immigration and Mohler used strange language about homosexuality calling the SBC “liars” and homophobes without giving any examples so we could repent as a group.
(Although he later claims the “we” meant evangelicals but he was speaking to the SBC)
Lydia
“he later claims the “we” meant evangelicals but he was speaking to the SBC)” Could you help me with something? Does the word “evangelical” mean something different than SBC? I thought SBC was one form of evangelicalism.
Dee:
I meant the exact opposite of what you think.
I actually believe that the difficulties associated with black churches joining the SBC are rooted in the intense political action within the black church community that seems to be part of their identity and ethos. I am not being critical. I am just describing what I have seen.
I believe that it is so much a part of the black church experience in many quarters to combine certain political agendas with the gospel. And much of that agenda is not supported in the SBC or lots of other conservative denominations. I think that BDW gets what I am saying.
I can think of one really good example. Back when Clinton was President, there was an initiative in black churches called “Health Care Sunday.” It conicided with First Lady Hillary Clinton’s on going healthcare initiative at the time. I cannot imagine that many churches in the SBC or the SBC itself would have participated in something called “Health Care Sunday.” I actually think that Mrs. Clinton’s agenda was not helpful to health care, so if someone wanted to tell my church to have “Health Care Sunday” that would be a problem for me.
I believe that this kind of thing can be part and parcel of what it means to participate in the black church in America. Not all churches, but many churches. The church in that community is very much a political expression. Many pastors are also political leaders in that community. I do not think that many of the initiatives that they focus on and engage in are the things that would excite many people in the SBC.
And I don’t think that the SBC, or other conservative denominations, betting involved in urban America will change that.
Here in our town, the Presbyterian congregations (PCA) have been really active and effective in some urban ministries – health care, a private school. But the Presbyterians (more so than the Baptists in our town) are wealthy and white and conservative politically. They love their urban brothers and sisters, and their leaders.
From what I have seen from that ministry, there has been some cross over into the Presbyterian church by the blacks. But the blacks that join look more like whites. They move to the suburbs. They are conservative, generally.
The existing leaders of the black congregations are not going to do that or urge that be done. Future ones may, but the current ones will not.
The white evangelicals who have moved into the urban communities that I have observed remain predominantly conservative after they move there. They home school or private school. They do not support many of the traditional inner urban initiatives of progressive political classes. Take David Platt. I will be very surprised if David Platt becomes and outspoken political liberal, even if he lives in the inner city for the next 50 years.
There are whites who engage with black churches who are liberal. But they are that way and remain that way. Take the religion prof at Wake Forest University, Bill Leonard. I just read one of his posts. He belongs to an African American Church. I am sure he loves the liberal politics there.
Basically what I am saying is that you are asking blacks (and many of their leader/pastors) to give up part of their identity to join an organization that doesn’t urge some of the things they believe to be important.
Or you are asking white conservatives not to be white conservatives.
These two groups can love and admire one another. But it’s hard to work together day in/day out over years to do the things that denominations do. One side is going to have to lay aside their agenda or adopt the other’s agenda. I just don’t think that works.
I personally could lay aside much, if not all, of any political agenda to do the work of missions, church planting etc.
But some people see politics as a part of the church’s calling.
Look, for example, at the exegesis of Jesus’ first sermon in the synagogue when he claimed to be bringing the “favorable year of the Lord.”
Most religious liberals I know see a blatant political agenda in that sermon that coincides with current day liberal politics. Jesus is here to bring a level playing field economically, to heal the environment etc. I just read this a month or two ago on a liberal Baptist website.
I just do not find a liberal political agenda in those verses.
For me, to follow Christ means accept him and his work on the cross for salvation and to follow him daily. For me, there is NOTHING about that that is political.
But for others, they see politics in that. Their primary mission is not to see that souls are saved. But to see that communities and the nation come alive and that the vehilce for that is liberal or progressive policies.
I am rambling here, but I am just saying that different groups of people have different agendas and that that may make it hard for them to get together.
That may be part of the obstacle here.
When he was asked to clarify he implied he was not singling out the SBC. (Even though it was asked at the SBC convention)
Some were asking specifically how the SBC had “lied” and were homophobic. He said he meant “evangelicals” as a whole. But did not give specifics. Which is important if evangelicals are to repent.
If he was not Al Mohler but Joe Smith, he would be in huge trouble. But because he is Al Mohler, the young minds full of mush who worship him are parsing this like crazy. The more he clarifies the worse it gets.
“I believe that it is so much a part of the black church experience in many quarters to combine certain political agendas with the gospel.”
”
“I can think of one really good example. Back when Clinton was President, there was an initiative in black churches called “Health Care Sunday.”
Are you forgetting “Justice Sunday”? Highview Baptist (Al Mohler’s church) hosted them in Louisville.
Lydia:
No. I am not forgetting “Justice Sunday.” That is a good example of what I am talking about. I can’t imagine black churches wanting to do that anymore than white churches would want to host a “Health Care Sunday” event.
I do believe that there are lots of people in the SBC who would be glad to not have the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, or at least some of its initiaves.
I am not sure how many black churches would be of the same mind.
Anon 6:43 pm
Read Matthew 25. In today’s political climate, I think that is an agenda. It at least is an agenda that mitigates what churches and church members do about the poor in their neighborhood.
Arce:
You are a bright guy, and I admire much of what you say.
But I have to part company with you on the meaning of Matthew 25.
I do not believe that those verses promote a liberal or progressive political agenda. I don’t believe that was Jesus’ mission or intent in that parable.
If God sees fit to allow me into his kingdom in the afterlife, I do not think it will be because I voted for a particular political agenda.
I do not think that any person should try and wrap Jesus around their political agenda, and I don’t think that Jesus anointed some political economic systems and not others.
Jesus did not really even address slavery, democracy etc., let alone macroeconomics.
I believe that man is left to try and implement the best systems possible. None are perfect. But some are much better than others in my opinion.
I will argue strongly about which systems I believe are best based on data and moral principles, but that is different from claiming that Jesus promoted one system over another or that he gave his disciples and the church instructions regarding such things.
He did not.
And that’s one reason Christianity is so transferable to other cultures.
But you must respond to the message of Matthew 25, which is, if there are people who need food, clothes, medical care, visiting in prison, etc., YOU, if you claim to be a Christian, are obliged to meet those needs. And, quite frankly, if all of the church members and regular attenders gave a tithe, the money would not be sufficient to meet those needs. So how do those needs get met?
Arce/Anonymous
The tithe has not been used for caring for the least of these in any significant way by many churches. The tithe has been used to support big church buildings, coffee rooms, fancy video equipments and nice salaries for the pastors. So even if people tithed fully, I think the money would go to some new “bless me” program.
That is one of the reasons that I have become an admirer of David Platt. Although I disagree with him on some secondary theological issues, his life impresses me. Anonymous, one of the reasons that I think some in the church have lost their way is how they have responded to Platt, calling his preaching the “new monasticism.”
One only needs to see how Mark Driscoll and Josh Harris responded to Francis Chan when he gave up the megachurch to work with Third World sex slaves to understand how far we have drifted from the ways of Jesus. Today we “target” the rich suburbs to start our church plants. Jesus targeted the down and out to change the world.
I think the church in America has become focuses heavily on the “bless the church crowd” approach. In my own life, I have taken some steps to do more with those who are poor, both in spirit and in material goods. In fact, it is Arce who inspires me in this manner. His life is a shining example of his beliefs.
Frankly, the longer that I am a Christian, the more I am bored with the new “building programs”, the new coffee bars in churches” and many of the same old Bible study programs that seem to ask for rote responses and then pat us on the heads and have us go our ways.
I am slowly beginning to reject power politics and, instead, embrace the sacrificial lifestyles of the Mother Theresas the world. Jesus cared far more for the poor, the lepers, the prostitutes than he did for the power people. He did some things very different. Today we headline the rich and famous if they go to our church. Jesus seemed to headline the women who gave her widow’s mite.
Here is a link to the post at TWW on these two Platt and Chan.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/09/09/david-platt-and-francis-chan-two-calvinistas-i-could-grow-to-love/
Dee,
Thanks for the compliment. I hope to live up to your expectations of me. There are days when I really have to work hard to work at all — some days it is an effort to be at the desk doing something productive.
Arce:
Matthew 25 does not say that Christians are obligated to meet the needs of all the people on the planet. Where would you get such an idea, and why would you carry such a burden?
Of course if you ran out of your own resources, the resources of others would have to be confiscated with or without their consent.
There is no easy answer to the tension in democracy between freedom and equality.
I am for equality under the law, but freedom otherwise. Human freedom (free speech, freedom of religion, economic freedom etc.) should not be put at risk to the plans some may have in society.
I really do not believe that Jesus taught that kind of thing.
If there are poor in your area, Jesus said you won’t get into heaven if you do not see to their needs. He did not specify how. That, to me, becomes both a personal and a political agenda. I am not suggesting socialism, just action to help the hungry not be hungry, especially children. We are now more wealth stratified than at any time in the past with the possible exception of the robber baron era and the great depression. The OT has lots of prophecy about the obligation of God’s people to do social justice, and names coming cataclysm on those who do not. And Jesus was very clear about our obligations to the poor. But if you are intent on hoarding your wealth, then I won’t see you on the other side, according to what Jesus said in Matthew 25.
“If there are poor in your area, Jesus said you won’t get into heaven if you do not see to their needs.”
That is not what Jesus said. That is your summary of what Jesus said.
I do not believe that Jesus taught that if there are poor people in my area that I won’t get to heaven if I do not see to their needs.
No one would possibly qualify for heaven if that were the standard. There are poor people everywhere within every man’s reach.
But then you said Jesus did not specify how to do that. Well, if he did not specify, then it is true that Jesus did not advocate for a particular political/social agenda.
But even if you believe what you have said in your summary, here, again, is what I said above:
“I personally could lay aside much, if not all, of any political agenda to do the work of missions, church planting etc.
But some people see politics as a part of the church’s calling.
Look, for example, at the exegesis of Jesus’ first sermon in the synagogue when he claimed to be bringing the “favorable year of the Lord.”
Most religious liberals I know see a blatant political agenda in that sermon that coincides with current day liberal politics. Jesus is here to bring a level playing field economically, to heal the environment etc. I just read this a month or two ago on a liberal Baptist website.
I just do not find a liberal political agenda in those verses.
For me, to follow Christ means accept him and his work on the cross for salvation and to follow him daily. For me, there is NOTHING about that that is political.
But for others, they see politics in that. Their primary mission is not to see that souls are saved. But to see that communities and the nation come alive and that the vehilce for that is liberal or progressive policies.”
It is clear that we do not agree on the message of Jesus regarding the nature of salvation or the message of Jesus (or absence thereof) regarding governmental political/economic systems.
From what you have said, it appears that your salvation is dependent on 1) whether there are any poor in your area that you have not helped, and 2) that you use a political agenda to try and confiscate money from them to give to others.
I admire you personally. Based on what you have displayed in numerous posts, your personal sacrifice and advocacy are admirable and an exemplar.
But I disagree strongly with what you are advocating in terms of what you claim Jesus taught, both as to personal salvation and political action. I believe that the passage you cite does not teach what you claim. I am sure that you are familiar with other interpretations of this passage and have rejected them in favor of what you have stated above.
But you can see, I assume, why people of our differing opinions, while possibly admiring one another, would not do well to join together to operate a church or denominational programs supported by a group of churches.
That was the point I was making. Many African American churches may believe as you have stated. There is no way they would be comfortable joining the SBC.
Anonymous
I would be cautious in making an assumption about hat Arce believes about the nature of salvation. Sometimes people make a point about a current injustice by pointing out an even stronger admonition. In some respects I read it a bit differently than you.
None of us can ultimately judge the salvation of another. That is left in the hands of the Perfect Judge. However, in many evangelical circles that I run in, I hear people making judgments based on the fruit of those who claim to be Christians. Frankly, in many of those circles in Dallas, I found a bunch of self-absorbed who showed up at church, very well dressed, and emphasized personal success over service. They were enamored of celebrity Christians. believed good churches were those with a gazillion people which also served good coffee in pleasant coffee bars, and were obviously perplexed when someone from one the housing projects showed up. They were welcome to be there but they were not welcome as friends.
I, too, began to question the hearts of the people. I think there are far too many Christians who could give a rip about the poor. Oh, they might do an Angel Tree family at Christmas because that is now “expected” but they do not deeply care for the plight of many in the world.
So, by their fruits, it looks pretty bad. Yes, they may be saved, but as through the fire. A person who truly has the indwelling of the Spirit, at the very least, should have great compassion for those who have not been so blessed. And the Bible makes a very strong point in this area. I believe if Christians do not understand such a strong admonition, they may need to do a heart check. And that is what i believe Arce is doing.
In Matthew 25, Jesus said that if you do not do for the poor you are not doing it for him, and you will be among the goats, not the sheep and will not go to heaven. He also said in that chapter that not everyone who calls him Lord will be admitted to heaven.
I think that everyone is forgetting an important point about the SBC….not all of them are in the South. I am by no means defending them, having recently left an SBC Church within the last two years over other issues. (that’s how I found this blog) But…diversity was not a problem at ours. Our SB church was in California and it’s membership very much reflected the racial demographics of our town. (primarily white and hispanic however we had black and mixed race families) Our new church is a Calvary Chapel and is very diverse. To my mind that is how you fix this racial problem in our churches….there should just be churchs, not black ones, or hispanic or white ones. It makes no difference how many minority churchs the convention has, if those Christians do not fellowship and worship together. What’s the point? I do of course see the need for churches that misiter to a specific ethinic group especially when there is a launguage issue. For example a church plant for Asian refugees who don’t yet speak english. However, language should not be a problem in this country between whites and blacks.
There are many SBC churches in the northern U.S., including Ohio, where I grew up in one and another where I worshiped in the late ’70s and ’80s, and a third in the early ’80s, all because of moving from one place to another. Two were fairly moderate at the time I was a member there, but one has taken a sharp turn with the SBC and another changed just enough to stay out of trouble, but it is no longer the vibrant congregation it was 30 years ago, when it was in the top 5 in both per capita missions giving and total missions giving — the only church in both. When it was accused of being “liberal” (for considering allowing the election of women as deacons), the then pastor said to his counterparts “when your congregation is as liberal with its money as ours, then we can talk about who is conservative and who is liberal on theology and ecclesiology.
Arce:
I agree with the formulation you stated at 9:43 a.m. Just not the earlier one.
Dee:
Thanks for the admonition. I really was not trying to read anyone’s heart or make assumptions. I was trying to go just by what was said literally.
Again, the big point was to emphasize one of several issues that might be stumbling blocks to the entry of some ethnic churches.
Pingback: Rex Ryan