What Jeremiah Wright and Rush Limbaugh Quotes Reveal to America Regarding Race

WHAT JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTES

REVEAL TO AMERICA REGARDING RACE

Jeremiah Wright and Rush Limbaugh quotes regarding race were used in efforts to thwart a presidential campaign and the purchase of an NFL team.  Responses to the Wright and Limbaugh quotes reveal the fact that Blacks and Whites are miles apart with regard to racial understanding.  Blacks and Whites often live in the same neighborhoods, work on the same jobs, sometimes go to the same churches and schools, and their children play on the same teams- we really don’t know, understand or fully appreciate each other beyond a surface level.  Therefore, we need to get together in an   organized and orchestrated fashion and seriously talk about the pink elephant in the room-race.

When Blacks have a discussion about race, usually there are no Whites present, so an important perspective is missing and the reverse is also true.  Consequently, when the discussion spills over to our television sets and newspapers surrounding some major incident such as the recent presidential campaign and Limbaugh’s attempted NFL purchase bid, we discover that Blacks and Whites are often miles apart when it comes to agreeing on the legitimacy of racist statements or incidents.  We vicariously talk to each other through quotes and sound bites, but not with each other in honest and sincere dialogue.

The recent highly publicized Limbaugh quotes surrounding his failed NFL purchase bid and the Wright quotes surrounding Obama’s presidential campaign, demonstrate that racial quotes can be damaging, divisive and detrimental to effective communication.  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity used Rev. Wright’s words toward an effort to convince the American public that they should not elect Barack Obama as president.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson used Limbaugh’s words to convince the NFL that Limbaugh should not be allowed to be an owner of an NFL team.  What do the Wright and Limbaugh incidents have in common?

Wright and Limbaugh are not viewed as racist, extremist or polarizing figures in their communities and among their constituencies, but obviously, they are viewed in this manner among outsiders. Limbaugh and Wright supporters believe that their quotes were exploited, taken out of context, unfairly politicized, or if they were allowed to explain themselves to an objective audience their comments would not be viewed as offensive.

In Limbaugh’s and Wright’s worlds their remarks would be rationale, reasonable, justifiable, factual and non-racist.  Anybody who would think otherwise would simply be mistaken.  The problem is Limbaugh and Wright, live, function and communicate in different worlds that are miles apart.  Therefore, if America is to avoid a race war, Wright and Limbaugh’s two worlds must come together and dialogue.

Perhaps, out of their shared pain, Limbaugh and Wright can host or spawn a series of dialogues across the country under the banner, RACIAL REASONING AND HEALING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA. Both men know what it’s like to be fairly or unfairly quoted or misquoted, depending upon one’s politics, perspectives or process reasoning. Obviously, an open, honest conversation about race is perhaps the most difficult conversation to hold, but it is one that America desperately needs to have. Black people and White people are still to distant from one another.  We need to come together and dialogue.  “Come, let us reason, together.”

 

Respect the office of the President

Respect the Office of the President

Even if you don’t respect the man or the woman in the office.

By

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

A request to President Johnny Hunt and Dr. Richard Land of the SBC to ask Laura Ingraham for an apology or to boycott her sponsors if she refuses.

While listening to talk radio on Monday evening, September 28, 2009, I heard conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham refer to President Barrack Obama as “YOU FOOL”. Shock, disbelief and utter amazement are the only words I know to describe my emotions upon hearing those words.  Later, I asked one of my research assistants to listen to the archived recording of Ingraham’s show to determine if I had  heard correctly, and I did. Referring to President Obama’s visit to the Olympic committee, Ingraham stated: “He doesn’t have time to speak to his General in Afghanistan, but he has time to fly to Copenhagen and push for Chicago. This is an exercise in egotism, pure egotism period…..The news over the weekend is that Colin Powell is being consulted as President Obama rethinks his Afghanistan strategy…By the way the president is getting personal on his outreach on this issue.  Why doesn’t he just call all the Generals? Why doesn’t he just talk to his own General? [General McChrystal in Afghanistan] He is going to old generals like Colin Powel.  Talk to the one who is actually in Afghanistan you fool.”

Referring to the President of the United States as “You fool” brings to memory the Joe Wilson  bellicose statement, “You lie”.  At the very least these actions violate the biblical and conservative principle of respect for authority, set a poor example for the people who listen to them -including children- and for some, raises the question of racism.

President Barack Obama, and his wife Michelle, have been called by Tammy Bruce, a guest host on Laura Ingraham’s show as, “trash in the White House”. Rusty Depass, a South Carolina Republican activist referred to an escaped gorilla as, “just one of Michelle’s ancestors”.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!  It is time for the church of the living God to take a stand.  In as much as Laura Ingraham called the president a fool publicly, I’m going to ask her to apologize to him and all her listeners who were offended publicly.  Morever, I’m asking that the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Johnny Hunt and the president of the Christian Life Commission, Dr. Richard Land, join me in repudiating  Ingraham’s and Joe Wilson’s remarks on the grounds of being disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States.

I am not accusing Ingraham or Wilson of being a racist-but clearly disrespectful.  However, we must acknowledge that many Americans of all colors and political persuasions believe that these actions have a racist underpinning.  Therefore, I am asking the Southern Baptist convention to address this issue.

As a fellow Southern Baptist, I need your help.  I alone cannot influence the culture to refrain from disrespecting the President.  But, if my Baptist brethren would sound the alarm it would go a long way toward furthering the biblical command to “honor the king” (I Peter 2:17). This is another opportunity to put teeth in the ’95 apology.

The Southern Baptist Convention sat on the sidelines during the civil rights movement and watched hoses sprayed on Black people, dogs barking and biting Black people buoyed on by Bull Connors bullhorn, and bombs blowing up Black churches, while Black girls sat in Sunday school, reading the Bible. Please, don’t sit by and allow this president to suffer these kind of indignities and disrespect while the church sits idly by.  Please do not repeat the sins of your fathers.  Step forward and boldly denounce and condemn this disrespectful, unbiblical and possibly racially insensitive rhetoric for the kingdom of heaven sake and the Great Commission sake.

Lest I be misunderstood, my appeal is not that that persons restrain from speaking the truth as they see it, but to not dishonor and disrespect the office of the President as they critique him.

Finally, if Laura Ingraham refuses to apologize for calling the president a “fool” I’m requesting that the SBC call for a boycott of her sponsors, just as  the SBC called for  called for a boycott of Disney World for supporting behavior that violates scripture.

As the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish as fools”.

Conservative columnist, Mark Davis, who often host the Rush Limbaugh show acknowledges that, “among Obama’s detractors are some folks who just don’t like black people.”  Therefore, the convention needs to raise a prophetic voice and speak to the fringe element of the Obama opposition that is rooted in race.  Surely “ you lie”, “you fool” and “gorilla” ought to move you to action as did the gay friendly polices at Disney World and rightfully so.

 

RACIAL REASONING AND HEALING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

RACIAL REASONING AND HEALING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Are policy differences, or racism, the major driving factor(s) behind the opposition to President Obama? Conservative columnist Mark Davis acknowledges, “among Obama’s detractors are some folks who just don’t like black people.”  President Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times have rattled conservatives by asserting that much of the opposition to President Obama has racial roots.   As a Black conservative, I understand both sides of this issue.

I’m awaiting the final version of the health care bill before I take a firm position.  However, if the healthcare bill finances abortions, and is a requirement for all citizens subject to fines if not acquired, and can only be financed through an increase in taxes, then I would be opposed to it.  I am against gay marriage and gay civil unions.  I’m generally opposed to bailouts including the ones previous presidents initiated. Does this make me a racist?   If a parent does not want their child to listen to a speech at school by President Obama does that make them racist?

Let’s stipulate: there are no racial purist in America, and no one party or race has a monopoly on racism.  Let’s also stipulate that one can differ or demonstrate against the President and not be racist. I’m   ashamed   to admit, there are times when I still struggle with the ugly sin of racism in my heart.  Confession is a prerequisite to healing.

Listen to this Rush Limbaugh quote  … “We did not have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing.  Quite the opposite:  slavery built the South, I’m not saying bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits.  For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”  If Limbaugh’s remarks are not racist, they are certainly racially insensitive, and he is the most visible and vocal opponent of President Obama, driving the opposition; thus the question of racism?

Only God and Joe Wilson knows for certain if he is a racist or racially insensitive or neither.  I have labeled Joe Wilson as being disrespectful and disappointing. Wilson’s opposition could be purely ideological, but his track record gives reason to pause. One can’t help but wonder, would he have accused a White daughter of “smearing” the name of her father as he did Dr. Essie Mae Washington-Williams, simply because she wanted to publicly acknowledge her biological father, the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. Wilson’s support of the confederate flag in South Carolina also raises questions.

Listening to Mark Davis on the radio recently defending Joe Wilson’s action in rebuking Strom Thurmond’s daughter for identifying her daddy was appalling and startling.  Davis’ position on Strom Thurmond’s Black daughter may not be racist, but it is certainly inconsistent with conservative family values.

A greater concern is how children are being affected by this racial and ideological divide in our country.  E.R. Bills of Aledo, Texas (an Anglo suburban community) reported that in his son’s high school, class, when the teacher asked, what they thought of Obama, many of his son’s classmates answered, “Obama is the Antichrist.” Where do you think the children learned this idea?

Both sides need to put down the race card and pick up the facts and truth card.   As Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” President Obama did not create the racial and ideological divide in this country; the response to his election and administration, has unveiled it.   It’s time for the healing to begin.

 

Setting The Record Straight

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

September 17, 2009

My response to Mark Davis Dallas Morning News September 16, 2009 Opinion Editorial Concerning the Arlington ISD’s President Obama/President Bush Cancelled Education Speeches. (“A Missed Teachable Moment”)

While reading the Star-Telegram editorial on Friday,  September 4, regarding the Arlington schools denying the students an opportunity to hear President Obama’s proposed education speech scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2009, I found myself in full agreement with the entire editorial entitled, “Teaching Students to Fear Obama’s Speech Is the Wrong lesson.”  The closing statement of this op-ed speech resonated deeply with me and drove me to deploy my spirit and resources into action to create the opportunity for the students to hear President Obama’s speech:  “For the first U.S. president of African-American heritage to tell students-especially those who get a different message from other sources- that they should take responsibility for their futures, well that’s not leftist or socialist or propagandistic. It’s a message worth listening to and applauding.”

My wife, Vera McKissic, who is a former AISD teacher and Minister of Education at our church, later informed me that when she taught in the Arlington classroom they were allowed to show students presidential speeches delivered on television by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.  Upon learning this, I asked myself, why wouldn’t the ASID allow President Obama to speak?

After consulting with staff members at my church and being assured that we were technologically capable of presenting President Obama’s speech, I decided Friday morning, September 4, that we would show the President’s speech at our church on Tuesday, September 8, so that any student who wanted to hear it could experience it live with the vast majority of American students.

I left a message on Superintendent Jerry McCullough’s home phone on Friday evening, September 4, after 6:00 p.m., requesting that he return my call.   Mr. McCullough promptly returned my call after arriving home from a local high school football game.  We held a brief conversation, mutually cordial and respectful.  I requested that he give the students an excused absence if they chose to attend the Obama speech the following Tuesday.  Mr. McCullough without hesitation said, “Yes,” provided the parents contact the school and make the request.  I thanked Superintendent McCullough and hung up the phone with a deep sense of relief, appreciation and respect for him, because I internally questioned whether or not he would oblige my request.

In my conversation with Mr. McCullough, I never introduced the thought of him reversing his public position of not showing the Obama speech, realizing at that late hour, even if he were so inclined to change his mind, it would have been logistically, technologically and virtually impossible for him to reverse his course.  Now in hindsight I regret not asking him to consider showing the speech within the school district, which was an option I had pondered sharing with him.

We released a press statement over the September 5, weekend inviting students to attend the speech the following Tuesday and announced it in our church, Sunday morning September 6, 2009.  Approximately one hundred fifty students showed up and fifty parents.  We were surprised and pleased with the 10-12 media outlets present to cover the story.   The students and parents were thoroughly engaged and inspired by the Obama speech.  I sensed it had a strong impact on the students and the parents.  Our church provided 130 free box lunches to the students and some parents.

Because I was scheduled to be out of town, and she is more qualified than I to address education issues, I asked my wife to host the gathering and handle any media inquires.  Initially I was scheduled to be in Memphis, Tenn. attending the National Baptist Convention on Tuesday,  September 8.

However, I delayed my trip to later that evening, so that I could be here to affirm and encourage the students who wanted to hear the Obama speech. Mrs. McKissic still hosted and presided over the Tuesday gathering and handled the vast majority of the media requests.  I refused all interviews asked of me except two.

Monday night, September 7, I learned that the AISD had planned to bus the 5^th grade students to the Cowboy Stadium to hear President Bush on September 21, 2009.  I must admit that I was completely baffled and disappointed when I learned this news.  I was not disappointed because the students were going to hear President Bush- I proudly voted for George Bush twice, therefore I had no problem with them hearing him. However, this added to my bewilderment over why the students would not be permitted to view the Obama speech.     My trepidation was that if I granted interviews to the media I would express too vigorously my disappointment regarding the Obama speech, risking injury to the cause of Christ and the ministry of   our church.  However, when Chris Hawes a news reporter with Channel 8 in Dallas and a KCBI radio reporter asked for interviews, my positive history with these two media outlets, gave way to my concerns and I granted them interviews. In these interviews, I clearly expressed my disappointment that the AISD saw the Bush speech as a great opportunity while denying the Obama speech.  I was merely seeking an explanation.

Mark Davis in an op-ed piece in the Dallas Morning News, Wednesday, September 16 stated, “The good reverend [ speaking of me] apparently viewed the AISD decision as an affront to black people, curable only by apology and atonement “ Mr. Davis further states that   I “ basked” in the apology  Mr. McCullough later made regarding the hurt caused by his decisions. From Mr. Davis perspective, it was hard explaining the differences between the Obama speech and Bush speech to “people unwilling to hear it, for whom the only issue is black Democrat vs. white Republican”

Mr. Davis is wrong on several counts.  I have never mentioned race in any statement regarding this matter, nor has my wife.  I don’t consider the speech matter and “affront to black people.”  I consider this a matter of right and wrong.  It would have been right for the students to hear President Obama as Mr. McCullough now agrees.  It would have also been right for them to hear President Bush as Mark Davis agrees.  It would be wrong to be able to hear one and not the other.  Moreover, my position has nothing to do with color or party affiliation. I forgive Mark Davis for making this false allegation against me without him asking for forgiveness.

I did not “bask” in Mr. McCullough’s apology, I was surprised, but I did think it was the right thing to do and I admire and appreciate him for doing so.

Mr. Davis this is not an issue of “black Democrat vs. white Republican”. Again, this is a matter of right and wrong.

Since Mark Davis introduced the subject of race in this discussion, I will be glad to oblige him. I have more in common with a White man who loves Jesus, than I do with a Black man who does not know Jesus.  I believe Jerry McCullough is a genuine Christian.  I respect the humility and sincerity he displayed in apologizing and attempting to right a wrong.  The apology and the cancellation of the Bush speech were never discussed with Mr. McCullough prior to his decision.  The decisions to apologize and cancel the Bush speech as far as I know were his and his alone. I provided no input relative to either decision. I departed from my meeting with Mr. McCullough believing that he was sincere and a Christian brother.  I bond with people who love Jesus, regardless of color.

My wife and I have voted Republican in presidential elections consistently since 1984.   We did not vote for President Obama. Vera and I proudly attended President Obama’s inaugural in order to witness and celebrate this historic milestone in American history.

We support the Republicans party commitment to pro-life, pro family (marriage between a man and a woman) strong defense, low taxes, personal responsibility and limited government. These are non-negotiable issues for us.  I must admit that I believe the Democrats are better at social and economic justice, racial sensitivity and inclusiveness and the equality of women in the workplace.  These are important issues to Black people.  Moreover, some would consider these issues equally important as the same sex marriage and abortion issues that drive Christian Republican voting.

Americans are incensed at the disrespect shown to the president most recently in the halls of congress. With the likes of outspoken Republicans like, Joe Wilson, Rush Limbaugh, and SBC minister Wiley Drake pleading and praying for the failure of the Obama administration and openly disrespecting him, my wife and I are finding it increasingly difficult identifying with the Republican Party.  We are beginning to feel we have no place in a party, which could treat any president with the kind of disrespect, and disdain that President Obama has encountered.  I spoke at a gathering of Republicans in Arlington where President Obama was referred to as “our teen-age president” — which is the 21^st century version of “boy.”  Never before have, I heard of any President referred to by that kind of language.

When Michael Steele, African American and Chairman of the

Republican Party and a man I highly respect, felt compelled by his party to grovel at the feet of Rush Limbaugh to remain in the good graces of the party, I knew then that the Republican Party effort to reach many Blacks would be largely unsuccessful.  Why, because Black men with a back bone and strong convictions can not and will not  respect a party  requiring its leader to cringe at the feet of a radio and talk show personality. Not with standing that this “entertainer” has boldly and unashamedly wished for the failure of The President of the United States and his administration.

Finally, Mark Davis, do you really believe that the AISD students should miss school to hear Troy Aikman and Emmit Smith, but not President Obama?  Go figure!

God help me! Here I stand!

 

Resolution on racial reconciliation and

the election of Barack Hussein Obama

 

Submitted by Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Cornerstone Baptist Church

Arlington, TX

Submitted to the Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention

June 24, 2009

Louisville, Kentucky

WHEREAS, the American colonists declared their independence from the British

crown on July 4, 1776, by recognizing as self-evident that “all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,

[and] that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;” and

 

WHEREAS, at the time of the nation’s founding and for nearly a century

thereafter, the American principle of liberty coexisted perfidiously with the evil

institution of chattel slavery whereby, in the words of President Abraham

Lincoln, men dared “to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from

the sweat of other men’s faces;” and

 

WHEREAS, President Lincoln – with undaunted and unparalleled courage – issued

the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, to declare that “all

persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State . . . shall be,

thenceforward, and forever free;” and

 

WHEREAS, from that time forward there grew efforts – both political and cultural

– to recognize the equality of all human persons and vouchsafe the civil rights of

all American citizens regardless of race; and

 

WHEREAS, among these advances in racial equality and civil rights are: The

adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in the United States

(1865); the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee due process and

equal protection under the law to all U.S. citizens (1868); the Fifteenth

Amendment to ensure the right to vote for all U.S. citizens (1870); President

Truman’s executive order to desegregate the United States armed services

(1948); the landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v.

Board of Education to end racial segregation in public schools (1954) and Bailey

v. Patterson to declare segregation in transportation facilities as unconstitutional

(1962); the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in voting,

federal-assistance programs and public accommodations, facilities and education;

the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited discriminatory voting practices

nationwide; and the landmark Loving v. Virginia decision of the Unites States

Supreme Court to strike down racially discriminatory marriage laws; and

 

WHEREAS, in 1868, John Willis Menard (R-LA) was the first African American to

take the oath of office to serve in the United States House of Representatives, and

has been followed by 115 other African Americans in the nation’s history;

 

WHEREAS, in 1870, Hiram Revels (R-MS) was the first African American to take

the oath of office to serve in the United States Senate, and has been followed by

only five other African Americans in the nation’s history; and

 

WHEREAS, in 1967, Justice Thurgood Marshall was sworn in as the first African

American to serve on the United States Supreme Court, and has been followed by

only one other African American in the nation’s history; and

 

WHEREAS, since 1937 the Southern Baptist Convention has formally rejected

every vestige of racial discrimination that remained from its founding in 1845 by

the adoption of resolutions denouncing racial prejudice, lynching, church

desecrations, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan; and

 

WHEREAS, on its 150th anniversary, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted “A

Resolution on Racial Reconciliation” that recognized the failures of some

Southern Baptists to affirm the dignity, worth, and equal rights of African

Americans, apologized and sought forgiveness for these injustices and purposed

to “eradicate in all its forms;” and

 

WHEREAS, during our 1996 annual meeting in New Orleans, Southern Baptists

demonstrated a renewed commitment to racial equality and justice by electing

Rev. Fred Luter as the first African American to serve as the convention’s second

vice president, and in 2001 selected him to be the first African American to

deliver the annual convention sermon; and

 

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was elected as the first

African American to serve as the President of the United States of America; and

 

WHEREAS, this tremendous moment in our nation’s history provides a new

opportunity for people of faith to facilitate racial reconciliation and heal the

wounds and scars of the past; and

 

WHEREAS, President Barack Hussein Obama – while pursuing numerous social,

political and economic policies that are in fundamental opposition to the values

for which our convention and our churches have stood – has yet demonstrated

commendable efforts to include the perspective of Southern Baptists by

appointing our former convention president, Dr. Frank Page of South Carolina, to

advise his administration concerning issues of faith and public policy; and

 

WHEREAS, it is the sacred responsibility of God’s people to pray for their leaders

and render them appropriate honor and due respect in accord with the principles

of Holy Scripture; now

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in

Louisville, KY, on June 24, 2009, celebrates the historic nature of the election of

President Barack Hussein Obama as a significant contribution to the ongoing

cause of racial reconciliation in the United States; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we earnestly pray that President Barrack

Hussein Obama will use the constitutional authority assigned to his office to

promote liberty and justice for all people, including the unborn; and

 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that we will join hands with President Obama and his

administration to advance causes of racial justice insofar as those efforts are

consistent with biblical principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

A Signature Without Caveats

A Signature Without Caveats

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 28, 2009

Today I read the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration Document.  I was deeply moved.  The vision, values, views and voyage advocated in this document resonates with my heart completely. I’m grateful to have signed this document today without caveats.

I also read an editorial today by Gary Ledbetter    (http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=publication&pub=90 

  in the SB Texan (Give the SBC resurgence a chance) voicing his confirmation, cautions  and concerns regarding this document and the 12-member  GCR task force committee that Dr. Hunt  is  likely  to  will appoint.  Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with Brother Gary, I would add that a Hispanic, Asian, African American and Woman should also be appointed to the GCR committee.  This would be in keeping with the spirit of this document.

It is the spirit of this document, along with the substance that makes it so appealing.  I don’t recall any minorities or females represented on the Peace Committee.  The GCR committee is far more important than the Peace Committee because it is looking forward, not backwards and the ultimate fulfillment and goal of the GCR committee will result in unifying the SBC, not dividing the SBC.  Brother Gary’s concern is to make sure “insiders” are included.  My concern is to make sure “outsiders” are included.

It is encouraging to know that men such as Dr. Hunt and Dr. Akin are spearheading this effort and they share the biblical, balance, inclusive, Spirit led and empowered burden, to steer the SBC ship toward the task of fulfilling the Great Commission in the spirit of unity while acknowledging our diversity. This document seems to represent a new spirit and day in the SBC life.

Thank you Dr. Hunt and Dr. Akin for allowing God to use you to present such a lofty, motivational and unifying vision.  May God smile upon your efforts.  

A Signature Without Caveats

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 28, 2009

Today I read the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration Document.  I was deeply moved.  The vision, values, views and voyage advocated in this document resonates with my heart completely. I’m grateful to have signed this document today without caveats.

  I also read an editorial today by Gary Ledbetter in the SB Texan (Give the SBC Resurgence a Chance) voicing his confirmation, cautions  and concerns regarding this document and the 12-member  GCR task force committee that Dr. Hunt  is  likely  to   appoint.  Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with Brother Gary, I would add that a Hispanic, Asian, African American and Woman should also be appointed to the GCR committee.  This would be in keeping with the spirit of this document.

It is the spirit of this document, along with the substance that makes it so appealing.  I don’t recall any minorities or females represented on the Peace Committee.  The GCR committee is far more important than the Peace Committee because it is looking forward, not backwards and the ultimate fulfillment and goal of the GCR committee will result in unifying the SBC, not dividing the SBC.  Brother Gary’s concern is to make sure “insiders” are included.  My concern is to make sure “outsiders” are included.

It is encouraging to know that men such as Dr. Hunt and Dr. Akin are spearheading this effort and they share the biblical, balance, inclusive, Spirit led and empowered burden, to steer the SBC ship toward the task of fulfilling the Great Commission in the spirit of unity while acknowledging our diversity. This document seems to represent a new spirit and day in the SBC life.

  Thank you Dr. Hunt and Dr. Akin for allowing God to use you to present such a lofty, motivational and unifying vision.  May God smile upon your efforts.  

 

One Southern Baptist Pastor’s Response To Dr. Thomas White’s Sermon On Psalm 127

One Southern Baptist Pastor’s Response To

Dr. Thomas White’s Sermon On Psalm 127

By:

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

 

I certainly agree with the tenor, tone, thrust and thesis of the message of  Dr. White that children are a blessing to God and should be to us as well. I commend Dr. White for being an example of what he preaches by adopting a child.

 

I am from a family of nine children and my mother was 36 years old when I was born and she graduated from college the same year. I am certainly grateful that my parents did not consider abortion, nor did they practice birth control – to the best of my knowledge – when I was conceived. Thank God abortion was illegal in 1956 and I wish it were illegal today.

 

My concern with Dr. White’s message is that he taught taking birth control pills is sinful and wrong. He preached this message as if it was a mandate from God or a position in Scripture, that to take birth control pills is absolutely wrong for all Baptist believers. That, to me, is an extremely problematic, over simplistic, and unscriptural position. For this professor to preach a personal opinion as if it was the inerrant and infallible Word of God is to disallow diversity of thought and critical thinking skills to be applied to this subject matter without one scintilla of Scriptural backing for this extreme position.

 

I am concerned because I see a pattern developing at SWBTS of adopting views not supported by Scripture, but preached as if they are in line with Scripture. Such as:

·        Placing restrictions as to how Baptists can pray in private and disqualifying them from missionary service and seminary employment based on their private prayers.

·        Preaching that women cannot teach Hebrew or church history when previous conservative, inerrantist Presidents and Trustee Boards have approved women teaching Hebrew and church history.

·        Disqualifying Baptist believers from service as missionaries because they were not baptized in a Southern Baptist Church, although their personal baptism experience met biblical qualifications.

·        And now, practicing birth control/taking the pill, is sinful and wrong

 

This is bizarre to me. This is Fundamentalism run amuck. These views don’t represent all nor the majority of Southern Baptists. I don’t want the world to get the wrong impression of Southern Baptist based on the views of SWBTS that lack Scriptural support or SBC adoption and approval.

 

I am concerned that this great Baptist seminary is slowly degenerating into a Fundamentalist indoctrination camp. These views represent a radical shift in Baptist life in the past few years. You would expect this kind of thinking to have come from Bob Jones University or some independent fundamentalist Baptist seminary, but not SWBTS. All of these aberrant views explain why the SBC is a denomination in decline.

 

Dr. White has a right to his opinion. But to communicate his opinion as a mandate of God is totally wrong. Unfortunately, these non-biblical views are communicated from a podium financed by cooperative program dollars. I think the seminary should release a statement distinguishing between Dr. White’s view and the views of SWBTS and the Southern Baptist Convention. My question is, does Dr. White’s viewpoint on this subject matter represent the views of SWBTS? Are his views taught in the classrooms of SWBTS? As a Southern Baptist, I would like to know.

 

I agree that the primary role of parenting is to lead children to a saving grace and salvation through the Lord, Jesus Christ and to pass on a godly heritage. However, I don’t believe the seminary needs to intrude into the bedrooms of Baptist couples to determine their method of birth control or to declare taking birth control pills is wrong without clear biblical instruction.

 

Again, I commend Dr. White’s strong conviction that children are a heritage from the Lord and I share that conviction.

 

WHY I’M NOMINATING LES PURYEAR TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE SBC

 

 

WHY I’M NOMINATING LES PURYEAR TO BE PRESIDENT

OF THE

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

BY

WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

 

One of the most brilliant and insightful Baptist bloggers and thinkers among us is a church history professor at SEBTS named Nathan Finn. Dr. Finn boldly asserted in a blog post entitled, “The Varieties of SBC Conservatism” that, ” you have a Southern Baptist Convention that is more conservative now than it was in 1975, but it is divided as it has ever been; the divisions are simply different in the present context.” No truer words have ever been spoken. Dr. Finn delineates the division in SBC life far better than I am capable of doing. However, suffice it to say, that our beloved SBC is splintering and separating into many different camps. Healing the divisions and disunity in SBC life is no small matter.

Why? Jesus prayed for unity among his followers because he recognized that evangelism is hindered where there is a lack of unity (John 17:21).

The primary purpose for which the SBC exist is to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth and to disciple men and women in the faith of our Lord. Unless our convention experiences healing, wholeness and unity, our evangelism, missions and ministry in the SBC will continue to suffer. For the sake of the gospel and the mission of the SBC, we need to elect a president who can bring our convention together in unity under the banner of Christ.

The divide between the Calvinist and the Semi Arminian is growing wide. The divide between the emergent church movements/missional groups and traditional approaches to church planting and development is widening. The divide between the cessationist and the continualist is growing wider. The divide between the generations- as astutely observed by Dr. Jimmy Draper several years ago- is growing wider. All you have to do is just look around you at the annual SBC meeting and you’ll notice that there is obviously a divide and disconnect between Black Baptists and White Baptist. Not only is our convention fractured and divided, we’re also beginning to see signs of decline, and decrease documented in the Annual Church Profile.

I believe this decline and decrease is a direct result of our lack of unity. The question before us is how and when will we heal the disunity and division in the SBC? Where do we from here?

From my vantage point God has placed the burden, vision unction and anointing on one man to lead the SBC at this critical hour out of the morass of division, disunity and documented decline, That man is Reverend Les Puryear, pastor of the Lewisville Baptist Church in Lewisville, North Carolina.

There are three reasons why I will nominate Les Puryear to be president of the SBC:

1. Brother Les will continue the practice of our current president Dr. Frank Page of including and involving men and women in the life and leadership of the SBC that previously have never been invited to the table. Brother Les will only appoint and involve Baptist who affirm the 2000 B, F and M totally without out caveats.

2. Brother Les will reach out to all ethnic minorities in SBC life as did Frank Page and work to make sure that they are also seated at the table.

The fact that I’m doing his nomination speech is indicative of this.

 3. Brother Les will be able to relate to small Church pastors that make up 80% of our SBC churches, while possessing the leadership skills and academic acumen to relate to and lead pastors in our convention who pastor much larger churches. I agree with Dr. Frank Page, It is time for the SBC to elect a small church pastor as president. Les can relate because his church averages approximately 200 in worship.

Finally, the story has been told of a scene during the days of slavery in America where the women slaves were required to take their babies to the cotton fields while they chopped or picked cotton. On one occasion a mother could not locate her baby in the cotton field and after an extended period of searching, the idea was presented that all the slaves join hands and march down all the cotton rows together. This is what they did and in doing so, they soon found the baby. Unfortunately, by the time they found the baby, the sun and dehydration had taken its toll and the baby was found dead. Some one then remarked, “Had we joined hands sooner, we could have saved the baby.”

My brothers and sisters it is not to late to save the SBC baby, but we must join hands and hearts now under the banner of Christ and Les Puryear for tomorrow may be to late. I urge you to elect Les Puryear president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

May 30, 2008, 3:00 PM

 

The Historical Basis for the ANC

     The late great African American Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. George McCalep often stated that “the church at her birth was the church at her best.”  In the book of Acts we see the church at her birth and at her best.  The book of Acts records the history of the Christian church from the ascension of Jesus through the missionary journeys of Paul.  There is much that the 21^st century church can learn from the 1^st century church – the first Gentile church, the mother of all others that was named after an ancient Syrian city called Antioch.           

     The first lesson that we learn from the church at Antioch is the fact that this church was birthed by a multi-ethnic church planting team.  “Men from Cyprus [a southern European country] and Cyrene [a northeast African country] when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists [Greeks], preaching the Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:19,20).  In the book of Acts sometimes we see Greek men witnessing to Africans and Asians (Acts 6:8-15, 8:26-40) and we also see African men witnessing to Greek men (Acts 11:19,20).  In Acts 8:26-40, God used a Greek speaking man (Phillip) to share the gospel with an unnamed African man who was reading from a Jewish Bible while riding in a Roman province.  God wants those of us who know Christ to witness and birth churches that witness to those who do not know Christ irrespective of their color or ethnic identity.  The African and European men who planted the church at Antioch were probably Jewish believers who were converted to Christ at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11) and “scattered” to Antioch from Jerusalem during the time of great persecution inflicted upon believers in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1).  Many of the Jews at Pentecost and at Antioch were proselytes (Acts 2:10, 6:5).  Jewish people usually share in common the same physical features the natives of that country have.  The church at Antioch was planted by African Christian men and European Christian men from a Jewish background.  Again, the church at Antioch was birth by a multi-ethnic church planting team, “men from Cyprus and Cyrene” (Acts 11:20,21).           

     Antioch was a multi-ethnic city.  It was the third largest city in the Roman Empire (after Rome and Alexandria) with a population in the first century of about 500,000.  A cosmopolitan and commercial city from its foundations, its inhabitants or citizens included many Jews, Africans, Europeans and Asians.  Situated on the left bank of the Orantes River, about 15 miles from the Mediterranean and with caravan roads emerging upon it from the East, Antioch was accessible by boats and caravans to and from Africa, Europe and Asia.  The church planting team and the city of Antioch was multi-ethnic.  Consequently, the church at Antioch became a multi-ethnic congregation.           

     The second lesson we learn from the church at Antioch, is that it was led by a multi-ethnic leadership team.  This mother congregation was led by Barnabas (European-Cyprus) (Acts 13:1), Simeon who was called Niger (African), Lucius of Cyrene (African) Manean (believed to have been Roman-European), friend of Herod Antipas (Roman) and Saul (Tarsus-Southwest Asia).  This multi-ethnic leadership team led the congregation to practice cross cultural evangelism (Acts 11:20-26).  A married couple comprised of two different races doesn’t have to try and produce a multi-racial child.  As a natural by product of their “fellowship” a child conceived from this union will be multiracial.         

     The Antioch Network of Churches aspires to return to our biblical roots – the 1^st century model and reflect multi-ethnic leadership and produce multi-ethnic church plants and send out multi-ethnic missionary/leadership teams that reflect the biblical church at Antioch.            We believe that it’s God’s perfect will for the churches on earth to look like the multi-ethnic make up of Heaven (Rev. 5:9, 7:9). Our network will pray and labor to plant and develop churches that look like Heaven.           

     The Bible provides a prophetic portrait of an eschatological (end times) spiritual awakening among God’s people that specifically includes people of every nation (Acts 2:5, 2:17; Hosea 6:3; Isaiah 66:19-23; Daniel 7:14; Malachi 1:11).  The ANC will avail ourselves to the sovereign God of Heaven to be used (if He so chooses) as a conduit of revival and spiritual awakening that He wants to pour out on His people.           

     The third and most important lesson that we learn from the church at Antioch is that they majored in missions, ministry, worship, fasting, evangelism, benevolence, church planting and spiritually gifted leadership (Acts 11:19-30; 13:1-4).  They were effective as the church at Jerusalem with the doctrine of Christ (Acts 5:28).  The church at Antioch was Spirit led, Spirit filled, spiritually gifted, spiritually blessed and worshipped God in Spirit and in truth.           

     The church at Antioch gave rise to a school of thought distinguished by literal interpretation of the scriptures.  Like the church at Antioch, the ANC believe that the Bible is God’s pure (Prov. 30:5), perfect (Psalm 19:7), powerful and inspired (II Tim. 3:16) absolutely without error in the original manuscript and reliable translations are authoritative, accurate, authentic and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Tim. 3:16,17). 

     The biblical basis, philosophy, mission, vision and purpose of the ANC is inextricably correlated with and modeled after the New Testament church of Antioch.  Our reason for being is to provide a conduit for the sovereign God of the Universe to glorify Himself through His people of every kindred, tongue, tribe and nation cooperating together to plant local churches, serve and revitalize local churches and to expand the witness of the church to the ends of the earth so that all men would be drawn unto Him (John 12:32).

     The Psalmist declared, “one generation shall praise your works to another, and shall declare your mighty acts” (Psalm 145:4). What are lessons today’s Baptists and evangelicals can learn from our Baptist and evangelical heritage that would speak to our generation?

The Charlestonian Baptist Tradition 

     The Charlestonian Baptists were also known as the Regular or Particular Baptists. They were known for their Reformed, or Calvinistic theology, a commitment to doctrinal purity and precision, structure, formal worship, theological training and dialogue, and social and spiritual sophistication. Today they would be referred to as “high church” or “silk stocking” Baptists in White and Black church settings, respectively. The Regular Baptist churches (Charlestonian Baptist) were mostly in urban areas and they shied away from the revival emotions that accompanied the First and Second Great Awakenings. The Charleston tradition believed in providing education and organization for Baptists in the South.  Their worship and preaching were more formal and less emotional.  Walter B. Shurden described the “Charleston Tradition” with its grace and dignity as emphasizing theological order in their confession of faith, ecclesiological order in their “Summary of Church Discipline”… their liturgical order with their dignified worship and stately hymns and their ministerial order in their emphasis upon a trained minister.” 

The Sandy Creek Baptist Tradition 

Sandy Creek Baptists were also known as Separate Baptists, and they were known for their devotion to fervent and free worship, evangelism, and church planting.  The Separate Baptists were dedicated to the “old time religion.” They preached a “whosoever will” gospel with strong gestures, tears, and altar calls during which the preachers left the platform and went through the congregation exhorting sinners to come forward to be saved.  The entire congregation sang the gospel in folk tunes. Songs such as Amazing Grace were set to these folk tunes. They rattled the rafters with their songs and were free to testify in church, say “amen” or “glory,” and run or shout if they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Separate Baptists most distinctive feature was their emotional style preaching and worship. Outcries, epilepsies and ecstasies attended their meetings. Shouting, weeping, and falling down in a faint were not uncommon. They often danced in the spirit during worship.  Women assumed a more prominent role among the Separate Baptists.  There were elderesses and deaconesses, and some women also preached and prayed in public. The role of women at Sandy Creek was initially problematic for the Charlestonian Baptists. Walter B. Shurden described the Sandy Creek tradition as people of “Ardor”.  He writes, “their worship was revivalistic: Faith was feeling and every Sunday was a camp meeting.  Their ministry was charismatic; preaching was a calling and never a profession, and their ecclesiology was independent; their theological approach Biblicist”  Walter Shurden said that they were “semi-pentecostal. 

The Silver Bluff Baptist Church Tradition 

The Silver Bluff Baptist Church tradition was comprised of free and enslaved Blacks who fellowshipped with and were constituted by leaders in the Sandy Creek tradition.  They shared with Sandy Creek Baptists a devotion to exaltation, evangelism, and church planting. The emotional worship style of the Sandy Creek Baptists resonated with the Silver Bluff Baptist and they often enjoyed joint worship and fellowship.  This Black Baptist church can trace her roots back to Sandy Creek. Plantation slave preacher George Liele, the first Black Baptist in Georgia, founded the Silver Bluff Baptist Church in Silver Bluff, South Carolina in 1773. Sandy Creek Baptists strongly opposed slavery, while many Charlestonian Baptists passionately supported slavery. This may also explain why the Silver Bluff Baptists had a strong relationship with Sandy Creek Baptists. Although today all Baptists would agree that slavery is a horrible sin and shame on the legacy of Baptist and American history, the slavery issue initially served as a barrier to Sandy Creek Baptists and Charlestonian Baptists uniting.  The religious expression of the Great Awakening, particularly that of the Separate Baptists, proved to be congenial to the needs of African-Americans and as a threshold to the merging of African and American cultural traditions. One of these itinerants, Waitt Palmer, a White preacher from Connecticut, (the same man involved in Sandy Creek) found willing listeners in two men named David George and Jesse Peters.  Waitt Palmer formed eight residents of Silver Bluff into a church, including George and Jesse Peters.  George Liele preached to the Silver Bluff community after the church was constituted by Waitt Palmer.  This church is arguably the oldest Black Baptist church in America.

The Union – The United Baptist ChurchRegular Baptist (Charleston Tradition) and Separate Baptist (Sandy Creek Tradition) Merge 

H. Leon McBeth in his book, “Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness,” summarizes the tradition debate extremely well when he writes, “The order of Charleston and the ardor of Sandy Creek contribute to the synthesis that made up the Southern Baptist Convention.  Creative elements from both traditions have enriched Southern Baptist life, and like two streams merging into one river, currents from each can still be identified and traced.  The merging of these traditions which continue today; Southern Baptist are still trying to maintain balance between two streams of their heritage, the order of Charleston and the ardor of Sandy Creek”

 

 

With God’s Help We Can Reverse These Statistics

After reading this  DMN article stating that at least 1 in 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease and 48% of Black teenage girls have an STD,  I thought I would post the Christian Family Manifesto (below) adopted at our 2005 Heritage and Hope Family Conference.  This manifesto was also adopted by a fellowship of pastors called “Not On My Watch” that addressed the same sex marriage challenge our country is facing.

If each believer takes the following Christian Manifesto seriously, we can reverse these statistics.

The Christian Family Manifesto 

Not On My Watch is a fellowship of Pastors dedicated to protecting, preserving and promoting the biblical concept of the family. As we observe families in decline and defeat, we feel compelled to raise a prophetic voice to give encouragement and direction to the family to submit to God’s design for the family; thereby restoring security, stability, structure, and wholesomeness back to family life.

In light of the decline and destruction of today’s family, we offer the following ten (10) biblical recommendations in order to enhance the permanence and prominence of family life. Our goal is to bring joy to the family, not judgment, and we believe these ten (10) statements, if followed, would ultimately bring joy to the family and community.  We believe that the problems of any family will not be solved by the White House, congress, or courts, no matter who is in office. We also believe the plight and problem of American families can be corrected, but it must first start with the man and/or woman who leads each home.

Many of us have violated one or more of these statements. However, we’re grateful that God is a God of forgiveness, a God of a second chance, and a God who loves us when we’ve done wrong, but loves us too much to allow us to continue to do wrong without a word of grace and truth.

We define a family as a single adult head of household, single adult with children, a legally married husband (male) and wife (female), and a legally married husband (male) and wife (female) with children.

 We stand together to promote, protect, and preserve the family. 

1. We encourage young men and women to flee youthful lust and postpone sex until marriage for moral and economic reasons. (I Corinthians 7:1-2)
2. We encourage all unmarried couples living together to marry in accordance with God’s Word and will. Again, this provides stability, structure, and security for the family. (I Timothy 5:14)
3. We encourage intact families with fathers to open their hearts and homes to fatherless children in our communities who desperately need a positive biblical male presence in their lives. (James 1:27)
4. We want to express love, mercy, grace and truth to those involved in a homosexual lifestyle. We encourage them to receive God’s forgiveness and seek fellowship, restoration and counseling in a Bible believing local church. We further encourage the President and all Democrat and Republican Congressmen to work together to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. Many of the republican presidential and congressional candidates campaigned on this issue. We respectfully and publicly encourage them to be as diligent in bringing the FMA up for vote, as they did during the campaign and as they have passionately promoted social security reform and judicial nominations. We also encourage families in each state to support State Constitutional Amendments declaring marriages to be between one man and one woman. We further encourage families to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Genesis 2:24)
5. We encourage all men to pay child support voluntarily and without complaining, recognizing this as your reasonable responsibility if you are to be in God’s will. (I Timothy 5:8).
6. We challenge every man to honor his marriage vows. We encourage men to not pursue or file for divorce and to seek forgiveness and reconciliation. We’re asking men to take responsibility for reducing the large number of divorces and children born out of wedlock by honoring marriage vows and abstaining from fornication and adultery. (Matthew 19:1-9)
7. We encourage single women to stop sleeping with married men and single men to cease sleeping with married women. This lifestyle works to destabilize and destroy the family when they allow themselves to participate in the violation of marriage vows. (Proverbs 5)
8. We encourage all men with children to regularly spend time with their children and take the initiative to be involved in their lives in a meaningful way; whether the children live in the home with them or not. (I Timothy 5:8 and Malachi 4:5-6)
9. We applaud, appreciate, and affirm single mothers and fathers who, for whatever reasons, are raising children without the benefit of a spouse. We encourage them to take advantage of the mentoring programs available in many local churches. (James 1:27)
10. We encourage all families to tithe a minimum of 10% to the local church, save 10% of their income, and pursue a debt-free lifestyle. (Malachi 3:8-12, Matthew 23:23, Proverbs 6:6-8)

We trust that this Christian Family Manifesto will be accepted in the spirit in which it was given. We publish this manifesto so Christian families can hold each other accountable and to affirm the biblical view of family life in a culture and climate that’s fastly distancing itself from biblical values.