Image

Is There A Nathan In The Land?

Are We Going To Allow One Man To Redefine The Family For Black America?

A Response To President Obama’s Speech At Morehouse College

By

William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 21, 2013

President Obama spoke with heartfelt identification regarding the plight, promise and responsibilities of young educated Black men; at the all-male Morehouse College 2013 graduation ceremony. He challenged them to:

  • Utilize their training and talents to serve underserved communities and people.
  • Not just be concerned about the good they can buy, but the good they can do.
  • Follow the examples and be inspired by the legacies of other great Morehouse men who worked for the betterment of all of society – not just African Americans.

He hailed Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of a Morehouse Man who was mentored, equipped, and challenged to serve humanity with excellence while a student at Morehouse.

The overall speech was a masterpiece. It was motivational and memorable. Highlighting historical figures was a most effective and heart tugging aspect of his speech.

Barack Obama’s life story embodies and exemplifies the very words he used to challenge and encourage the graduates. That’s what made the speech so compelling and effective.

There were two startling statements in an otherwise masterful speech, perhaps his best ever – that were probably unprecedented in a college graduation speech. His written speech, which was presented to the media in advance, differed from the oral presentation at a critical point.

(1). In encouraging the male graduates to be responsible family men, he

challenged them in his prepared text to,

                  “Be the best husband to your wife, or boyfriend to your partner, or father to your children that you can be.”

In the actual oral presentation he told them,

                  “Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.”

The way the audience responded to this statement makes it clear that they were surprised by this comment, and interpreted it for what he meant: an affirmation of same-sex relationships.

Affirming homosexuality in a public setting to a predominately Black audience is virtually unprecedented. If the President had been White, I believe there would have been a huge backlash behind his gay friendly remarks. Many of the parents would have objected.

Encouraging young Black males to “be the best husband…to your boyfriend, or your partner” is a very serious matter. Here we have the first African-American President of the United States, encouraging young Black men to be homosexuals. Who would have ever imagined this would happen?

President Obama was given the opportunity by the media to clarify the difference between his prepared statement and actual words that came out of his mouth and he refused to do so.

President Obama’s statements supporting homosexuality at Morehouse was a moral injustice and an assault on the biblical model of the family as taught by Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6). Furthermore, it was an assault on Christian values and convictions held by the vast majority of Black Christians.

Just as President Clinton’s widely publicized engagement in oral sex with a nineteen year old intern unleashed an epidemic of similar behavior on the youth of our nation; President Obama’s repeated promotion and affirmation of homosexuality will likely have an exponential influential impact on homosexuality in the Nation at large, and even more so on the Black Community. What a travesty!!!

I’m grateful that Morehouse’s best known alumnus, Dr. Martin Luther King, left a written document opposed to the notion of same-sex relationships. Hopefully, as they were admonished to do, on this subject matter the graduates should take their advice from Dr. King, not President Obama.

(2) Later in this speech, President Obama stated,

                        “Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love they share.”

I’m also grateful that Oprah Winfrey is on record disputing that two people of the same-sex can successfully raise a male child. In addressing the subject and the negative impact of fatherlessness and the land, Oprah said,

                          “Your mother can’t be your father” – Oprah Winfrey: OWN Network – May 5, 2013

The converse would also be true,

                          “Your father can’t be your mother” ~ Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Yet our President encouraged these unbiblical views of family life.

President Obama was encouraging Morehouse men to partner together and parent children. This should have set off an earthquake or avalanche in the Black Christian community. According to Oprah, this cannot be effectively done.

Mr. President, plainly and simply put; YOU ARE WRONG. WE LOVE YOU. The polls indicate the vast majority of America even likes you. Black America absolutely loves, admire, appreciate and deeply respect you, even as you trample on one of our core values.

Mr. President, in your heart of hearts you know you would not have been elected in 2008, if you had told America this is where you were headed.

Please honor the official positions of the nine major Black denominations, whose memberships largely supported you. All nine strongly support the biblical view of the family and hold that homosexuality is a sin. Please Mr. President! Stop this campaign. Do you really want your legacy to be, “America’s First Gay President” as you were labeled by Newsweek Magazine?

Nathan was the Prophet in Scripture who went to another political leader, King David, and rebuked him for his sexual sins. May our beloved President receive a visit from a Nathan, so that our sons and daughters might be delivered from his promotion of what the Black church historically has viewed as sinful and shameful. Are we going to sit idly by and allow this one man to redefine homosexuality for the entire Black race?

The Bible commands us to honor you (I Peter 2:17). But Mr. President, please, for the sake of our families, our children, the future of this great nation, and in memory of the very father that you often speak of not having in your life, please reconsider your public position and statements.

Mr. President, STOP THE ADVOCACY. STOP THIS PUBLIC CAMPAIGN TO REDEFINE FAMILIES AND TO TAKE FATHERS AWAY FROM THEIR SONS TO PURSUE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MEN. PLEASE STOP IT.

Lord, please raise up a Nathan who can touch the heart of our President, so that our families and nation will not be destroyed as you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Touch our President’s heart. Turn his heart toward You. Please Lord, move on the President to honor the Christ and the Bible that he says he believes in. We thank You for withholding your judgment and holding us with your mercy. Please God, send us a Nathan who can touch the heart and mind of our President with truth and love, in Jesus’ Name, Amen.

 

JACKIE ROBINSON, JASON COLLINS AND JESUS: LEGACY LESSONS

A JOURNEY THROUGH A JUNGLE

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

Life is filled with twist and turns, choices and consequences, difficulties and sometimes even demonic opposition. For many, life is like a journey in a jungle, where there is danger and darkness lurking around the corner; the unknown and unimaginable; temptation and potential torment. Test, temptations, obstacles, hurdles, demons, distractions, disappointment and difficulties will inevitably cross our path.

Jason Collins is not alone in terms of struggling with inner conflict or living with a secret. Our secret may not be his secret. But many of us deal daily with “many a conflict, many doubts.” Battles within and fears without. Bursting on the scene of world history last week was a relatively obscure professional basketball player, unknown to the public at large. He is now internationally famous and will forever be recorded in history as the first professional male athlete of a major sport to step up to the plate and say:  “I am gay.”

We now know Jason’s secret and struggle based on his own admission from his teenage years through today. We now know how Jason dealt with his secret.

Let me ask you two questions:  (1) What is the secret, challenge, test or demonic opposition that you face?  (2) How will you ultimately resolve or make peace with the challenge and test that’s in your path? How you deal with your demon will determine your destiny. It will also impact the destiny of others. Our ability to defeat our demons and to conquer our distractions will result in our legacy.

Jackie Robinson, Jason Collins and Jesus each faced demonic opposition and responded in different ways. We can learn lessons from each of them. Again, how you handle your demon will determine your destiny. Let’s examine these men; the demons they faced, and the legacies they left. What lessons can we learn from their demonic encounters?

I. THE DIFFICULTY AND DEMON THAT JACKIE ROBINSON FACED WAS RACISM.

The Bible is clear that God gives every man ever born gifts and talents. Jackie Robinson was a product of a broken home. His dad abandoned the family at an early age. Yet, he did not let that become a distraction and a detour from him developing and maximizing his athletic gifts.  Robinson was graced with tremendous athletic talents. He earned an athletic scholarship to UCLA after having a two-year successful stint at Pasadena Junior College. Robinson became the first athlete at UCLA to win varsity letters in four sports:  Baseball, basketball, football and track.

However, while at Pasadena Junior College, he was arrested for vocally disputing the detention of a Black friend by the police. He faced the demon of racism in the military. He served in a segregated Army in 1942 and was initially denied admission to Officers Candidate School in spite of a race-neutral policy change for the school adopted in July 1941.  On July 6, 1944 Robinson was ordered to the back of the bus on an Army-commissioned unsegregated bus line. He refused. He was then charged with public drunkenness (although he did not drink) and was court martialed. He was later exonerated. He faced repeated acts of racism throughout his major league baseball career.

How did he overcome this demon? John the writer reported that brothers and sisters in the kingdom of God (Revelation 1:9) can overcome demonic assaults by “the blood of the Lamb…by the word of their testimony…and by not loving “their lives to the death” (Revelation 12:11).

Jackie Robinson was a man who had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jackie Robinson was a man who often used his weekends in the military to visit Rev. Karl Downs, President of Sam Huston College—now Huston-Tillotson University—in Austin, TX, while stationed in Ft. Hood in Killeen, TX. Jackie read his Bible and would allow the Bible to read him. The “word of their testimony” means to apply Scripture to the demon you are facing. “The Blood of the Lamb” means to plead the blood, praise God for the blood and to declare victory over a situation because of the blood. Jackie attended church regularly and participated in the Lord’s Supper service. That is one way to defeat demons that are attacking you. Jackie sang the great hymns of the church about the blood of Jesus. That is another way to go on offense against the demons that are out to destroy you. Jackie based his salvation and his right standing with God on the blood of Jesus.

If you want power over the enemy and to defeat demons that seek to destroy you, I dare you to plead the blood, praise God for the blood, sing about the blood, and apply the blood over your heart, home and health by faith. The Bible says that you can overcome by the blood. Throughout his career Jackie had to restrain himself from not responding to racism with racism; and he was able to do so, because of the character of Christ in his life, because of his faith in the blood. I Peter 5:8 says, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” Robinson had a reputation at Pasadena Junior College and the military for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism. By the time he got to the Brooklyn dodgers, though tempted, he’d learned to defeat this demon by not fighting back and trusting the Lord for victory.

Jackie met Rev. Karl Downs when his family moved to Pasadena. Rev. Downs was serving as pastor at the Scott United Methodist Church. Rev. Downs served as a life-long mentor to Jackie Robinson. Jackie’s father was not at his wedding, but Rev. Downs was there. Jackie overcame the demon of racism and developed into manhood and maturity by looking to Jesus as an example and receiving mentorship from Rev. Downs. Rev. Downs and—to a lesser extent—Branch Rickey, perhaps, are two unsung heroes of the Jackie Robinson story.

The legacy of Jackie Robinson teaches us how to combat the demon of racism by looking to Jesus as our example and exercising our gifts with excellence.

II. THE DIFFICULTY AND DEMON THAT JASON COLLINS FACE(D) IS HOMOSEXUALITY.

Jason Collins is a man I respect for being a law-abiding citizen, a great son to his parents and brother to his twin. Collins has been an excellent role model as a citizen, student and athlete. Earning a degree from Stanford is no small feat. I sincerely celebrate and appreciate his life successes. Jason has been blessed to play 12 consecutive years in the NBA. Collins says he is a Christian; he grew up in a Christian home and taught Sunday School alongside his parents. I believe a person can be a Christian and struggle with the sin of homosexuality. Completely yielding to it and accepting homosexuality as a lifestyle is another question, though.

I want to address Jason directly for a second. Jason, God loves you. We love you. We admire your family. But Jason, you are no Jackie Robinson. Jackie Robinson fought and conquered the demon that tried to overtake him. You have succumbed or surrendered to the demon that was after you. Jackie Robinson didn’t wait until he was 34 to tell us that he was Black. Jason, you waited until you were 34 to tell us that you are gay. There is no biblical, biological or scientific evidence to support that anyone is born gay. Romans 1:26-27 clearly indicates that homosexuality is a choice.

The real hero of the Jason Collins story is Chris Broussard. The following is what he had to say about this matter, and that sums it up:

“When asked if he believes that Jason Collins is a Christian, he said this: ‘Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be — not just homosexuality, [but] adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be — I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.”

Just like Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie, although he was saved (Acts 5:3), and Ananias yielded his heart to Satan, I believe that Jason has yielded his heart to Satan and the temptation of homosexuality. If he comes to the point of repentance, he can be forgiven and restored, and I pray that he does. Because the blood of Jesus covers all sin, including homosexuality.

The heart of the problem as it relates to homosexuality and other sexual sins—is the problem of the heart. When our love for God is stronger than our lust for sin, we will be able to conquer our flesh.  Yielding to our flesh and not fighting back is a cop out.

The legacy of Jason Collins is to teach Christians how not to deal with the demon of homosexuality by yielding to it and openly accepting and affirming it.  There is nothing Christian about yielding to homosexuality and affirming it.

III. THE DEMONS THAT JESUS FACED WERE DEMONS OF DISTRACTION. MOST OF US FACE DEMONS OF DISTRACTION.

Satan was constantly trying to get Jesus off His game. In the wilderness the devil tempted Jesus while on a forty day fast with the lust of the flesh (bread), the pride of life (athletic prowess) (Matthew 4:6-7), and the lust of the eyes (Matthew 4:8-11). Satan used Peter to try and distract Jesus from the cross (Matthew 16:21-23). Jesus overcame the distractions of the enemy by focusing on prayer (Matthew 26:36-46). We too can conquer the demons that we face through the Word of God, the Blood of the Lamb, self-denial, and the power of prayer. Jesus faced demons attempting to distract him from the will of God and dying on the cross.

The legacy of Jesus teaches us how to maintain our focus on the will of God and not to be distracted or detoured from God’s plan for our lives. Jackie, Jason and Jesus all faced demons. Their responses determined their destinies.

WHY BORN-AGAIN BELIEVERS SHOULD BOYCOTT THE JAMIE FOXX MOVIE “DJANGO UNCHAINED”

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

November 27, 2012

While watching the Dallas Cowboys versus the Washington Redskins on Thanksgiving Day, I was excited to see the advertisement of the Christmas Day release of a movie featuring Jamie Foxx entitled, “Django Unchained.”

I am not a movie-goer. I am a man in love with my wife, and she loves to go to movies. Therefore, from three to six times a year, we make our way to the movies together.  One of our favorite times to go together is during the Christmas Holidays. This Christmas, I decided on Thanksgiving Day, that we were going to see “Django Unchained,” because I was so impressed with the trailer.

Family movies, historical documentaries, biographies and Black oriented movies are usually my preference in movie selections if I must go. The internet descriptions of “DJANGO UNCHAINED” captured all of my motivations for going to see a movie. Django was a freed slave in the 1850’s who set out to reclaim his family that he’d been separated from.

My wife and I plan to go to New York in February to see the Broadway Play entitled, “Scandalous: The Life and Trials of Aimee Semple McPherson.” Against the backdrop of William Joseph Seymour (May 2, 1870 – September 28, 1922)—the Patriarch of the Azusa Street Revival and the Pentecostal church emerges Aimee Semple McPherson.  Her play is a biographical church history documentary that, again, captures most of my motivation for seeing a movie or play.

However, as of today, I’ve decided to personally boycott the “Django Unchained” movie for one reason, and one reason only:  THE BLASPHEMOUS REMARKS OF JAMIE FOXX referring to President Barack Obama as “our Lord and Savior.”

During the Soul Train Music Awards this past Sunday evening, Jamie Foxx made the following comment:

“It’s like church over here. It’s like church over here. First of all, giving honor to God and our Lord and Savior Barack Obama.”

It’s highly possible that Foxx, being a comedian, was simply joking by his paraphrasing of a highly familiar greeting or preface statement often spoken in many African-American churches where the words “Barack Obama” appear in the above quote, the greeting would normally say, Jesus Christ.

But that begs the questions: Is this acceptable comedy to those of us who believe that Jesus is simply off limits to joke about in this manner? Is the Foxx comment a violation of the third commandment, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7)? Is the Foxx comment an example of what Jesus meant when He said, “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh…every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matthew 12:34b, 36b)? Was Foxx attributing praise and descriptions to President Obama that biblically only can be said of Jesus, thereby committing some form of blasphemy (Matthew 12:24, 31, 32; 1 Timothy 1:12, 13)? Jesus’ comments about blasphemy were in response to the Pharisees attributing to the power of the devil, the credit for what should have been attributes to the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:28). Did Foxx, by invoking the name Barack Obama in a place where only the name the Lord Jesus Christ belongs, commit a violation similar to what the Pharisees committed in Matthew 12:24?

I don’t watch Jamie Foxx often, but the few times I’ve caught him on TV, I immediately recognized that he has an affinity to and an intimate knowledge of the Black church. The reason his audience laughed immediately at his “joke,” was because they also readily picked up that this was a familiar expression in the Black church. Therefore, I am going to give Jamie Foxx the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was joking.

Nevertheless, I will personally boycott “Django Unchained”; and I believe all believers should as well, so that we can send a message to Hollywood that using our Lord’s name in vain, and—in a serious or comical blasphemous manner—is simply unacceptable.

If Foxx was joking, it was a very bad and inappropriate joke; if he was not joking it is an assault on the Christian faith. At either rate, unless Foxx repents, those of us who know and love the Lord Jesus Christ—including President Obama—ought to boycott “Django Unchained”; and the President should correct and repudiate Foxx’s blasphemous comments.  There is one Lord, and his name is not Barack Obama! His Name is Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; and He shall reign forever and ever. There is none like Him; not even the highly beloved, respected, appreciated and iconic historical figure, President Barack Obama!

AN OPEN APOLOGY TO DR. LAND FOR UNINTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTING HIS VIEWS ON MORMONISM

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

OCTOBER 25, 2012

I offer the following email exchange that will clarify Dr. Richard Land’s views on Mormonism and my response:

First message from Sam Dahl:

Dr. McKissic, just wanted to send you a quick FYI about Dr. Land’s position on Mormonism. Here are a few quotes from the article linked below that he wrote for The Christian Post that might give some clarity.

When the theologically uninitiated hear this answer (that Mormonism is a cult) they immediately think “Branch Davidians” or “Jim Jones,” and there is a cognitive disconnect. When most people hear Mormonism described as a “cult” they think, “No, that can’t be right. A Mormon is president of my Rotary Club or coaches my children’s soccer teams.”

The problem is that while Mormonism may technically be a cult theologically, in that it has moved well beyond the parameters of orthodox, apostle’s creed Trinitarian Christianity, it does not behave as a cult culturally or socially.

For nearly two millennia the basic Trinitarian formulation of the Christian faith has been accepted by Catholics and Protestants alike and it is not open to self-definition or reformulation. Christianity has objective, theologically defined parameters which Mormonism has clearly moved well beyond.

Mormons, Christianity and Presidential Elections

This quote from another Christian Post article, Mormonism Debate: What Is a Cult?, may also shed further light on his position.

Due to the misunderstanding that could result from the two different definitions of cult, Land explained, he does not use the word “cult” to describe the LDS Church, “even though it’s theologically accurate.””

Please let us know if we can serve you in the future.

Thanks,

Sam Dahl

Office of the President

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

615-782-8405

sdahl@erlc.com

My response:

Bro. Dahl,

Thanks for the “Richard Land on Mormonism” email. This is a more complete expression of Dr. Land’s stand on Mormonism.

While I believe that the timing is inappropriate to come forth with the distinctions on Mormonism (leaves one open to the charge of pushing a political agenda) and the designation of Mormonism as a “fourth great Abrahamic faith” is historically, theologically and biblically inaccurate, I do see now where, clearly, Dr. Land views Mormonism as a cult, but simply prefers not to use the term for the reasons stated in the email.

To the extent that my comments on this matter at SBC Voices and my blog have misrepresented Dr. Land (not being heretofore apprised of the information contained in the aforementioned email), I sincerely offer an apology for stating emphatically that Dr. Land was denying that Mormonism is a cult.

Finally, I would like to post this email I’m sending you and the one you sent to me on my blog and submit it to SBC Voices (both unedited) requesting they publish it also. Without your approval, I will not post it. But with or without approval, again, please accept my apology.

Dwight McKissic

Final Response from Sam Dahl:

Dr. McKissic, thank you for your email; Dr. Land appreciates your response and apology. You certainly have his and my permission to publish those emails in the aforementioned places. As another FYI, when it comes to the question of timing, the first time we can ascertain that Dr. Land suggested that perhaps the most charitable way to view Mormonism is as the 4th Abrahamic religion was at the end of 2007 when he was interviewed on December 26 for a documentary titled Article VI that was released in 2008.  We appreciate your gracious humility and certainly have no hard feelings or ill will toward you. As always, we stand ready to serve you if there is any way we can. Thanks,

Sam Dahl

Office of the President

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

615-782-8405

sdahl@erlc.com

CLARIFYING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN STETZER AND LAND ON MORMONISM

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

OCTOBER 22, 2012

I recently published a Blog Post that inaccurately and unfairly conflated the published positions of Ed Stetzer and Richard Land as it relates to how these Southern Baptist Convention leading figures view Mormonism. The purpose of this writing is to briefly and accurately make the distinction between their beliefs crystal clear and to publically apologize to Ed for having done so.

Here is my quote unfairly conflating and equating Stetzer’s and Lands’ positions on Mormonism:

“Even Ed Stetzer and Richard Land have taken a softer view on labeling Mormonism as a cult. Why? Stetzer and Land want to label Mormonism a fourth great world religion. Why? Unbelievable! Are Southern Baptists that desperate to elect Mitt Romney?”

Now to set the record straight, Stetzer makes it undeniably clear that he maintains that Mormonism is a cult, although he makes a case for distinguishing between Mormons being viewed as a theological cult as opposed to a sociological cult. Stetzer then goes on to argue for Mormonism to be viewed as another world religion without denying that Mormonism is a cult. Here are Stetzer’s exact unedited words as they appeared in a Christianity Today article:

“Mormonism fits the traditional evangelical definition of a ‘theological cult,’ but that is not what most Americans think of when they think of a cult; they think of a compound in Waco. I think it is more helpful to call it a different religion, like Islam and Judaism, and to share the gospel of Jesus with them accordingly.”
Ed Stetzer, president, LifeWay Research

Based on the above quote, I labeled Stetzer’s position as taking a “softer view on labeling Mormonism as a cult.” He objects to that characterization of his position, and I agree with him. He does think it is “helpful to call it [Mormonism] a different religion, like Islam and Judaism, and to share the gospel of Jesus with them accordingly.” I hope this clarifies Stetzer’s position and underscores the point that he never denied that Mormonism is a cult.

Richard Land unequivocally refers to Mormonism as a “fourth Abrahamic faith,” without labeling Mormonism a cult. Here are Land’s exact words unedited from
http://apprising.org/2010/08/31/sbcs-richard-land-says-mormonism-fourth-abrahamic-faith
:

“I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.” …“Not a Christian faith.”

By referring Mormonism as “the fourth Abrahamic faith” and not labeling it a cult, it appears that Land is trying to dignify and legitimize Mormonism to make it more palatable to the SBC and the masses. Land’s view of Mormonism is equally as damaging to me as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s view. They have essentially adopted the same position. I hope this clarifies this matter.

THE JEFFRESS-GRAHAM SWITCH AND THE BLACK VOTE

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

October 20, 2012

While touring the Dead Sea Scroll Exhibit recently, at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with President Paige Patterson, Governor Rick Perry, and twenty other Dallas-Ft. Worth pastors and Christian leaders, I was privileged to meet for the first time the pastor of the First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX, Pastor Robert Jeffress. Recognizing who he was from television appearances and public photos—upon seeing Dr. Jeffress, I immediately extended my hand and said to him, without introducing myself, “I appreciate your voice of righteousness to our nation.” He also recognized me upon sight and almost simultaneously said to me, “Pastor McKissic, I’ve quoted you across this country, ‘Don’t equate my skin with your sin.’” I then told Pastor Jeffress, I’d heard he was using my quote, and I was thankful that he confirmed that. That’s basically the sum total of our brief chance meeting.

Dr. Jeffress was indeed a voice for righteousness when he described Governor Romney’s Mormon faith as a “cult.” In October 2011, while endorsing Governor Perry for President, Jeffress told reporters, “Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.” Jeffress referred to Romney then as a “conservative out of convenience” who “does not have a consistent track record on the subject of marriage, on the sanctity of life.” He further stated, “I just do not believe that we as conservative Christians can expect him to stand strong for the issues that are important to us.”

Fast forward to today and Dr. Jeffress is still a voice of righteousness believing that Mormonism is still a cult, and that civil rights and gay rights are not proper parallels.

However, Jeffress has made a major switch regarding his initial theology/politics, inasmuch as he now embraces Romney for President-even as a “non-Christian” member of a “cult” over President Barack Obama who is a Christian, but does not hold a biblical worldview with regard to same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps, therein lays Jeffress dilemma—an ultimate decision to support Romney.

I can appreciate Pastor Jeffress not compromising his conviction—and one that I share—that Mormonism is a cult. However, my conscience and conviction will not allow me to vote for an individual who on more than one occasion has expressed a certain antipathy toward the poor and who, when given an opportunity to distance himself from the racist history and teaching in Mormon documents in a 2008 Tim Russert interview, Governor Romney refused to do so. Mormon “sacred text” refers to “dark skinned” people as “cursed,” “unattractive,” “filthy,” “despised” and “loathsome.” Voting for Mitt Romney given these viewpoints, expressed in his “Bible,” is a switch and compromise that I simply cannot make. I would rather fight than switch.

I applaud and appreciate Dr. Jeffress being a voice of righteousness on pro-life issues, gay-marriage issues and the civil rights vs. gay rights issue. However, I would be less than honest if I didn’t acknowledge that Pastor Jeffress’ switch is seen by many in the Black Community as inconsistent at best.

Evangelist Billy Graham historically has been a highly respected figure in the Black Community. Long before it was popular, he insisted on his meetings being racially inclusive, befriended Black preachers (including Dr. King) and singers and publically disagreed with Dr. W.A. Criswell’s segregation views, prior to his “open door” conversion. Billy Graham was highly regarded in the home I grew up in and viewed as a man whose heart was in the right place regarding issues of race.

However, Billy Graham’s recent departure from his lifelong practice of not engaging in partisan politics, and his removing the Mormon Religion from his website as a cult has generated a lot of discussion among Black pastors. The impression Graham’s decision leaves is that for the sake of electing Mitt Romney as President, he is willing to declassify Mormonism as a cult and engage in partisan politics for the first time in 94 years of living.

The question many are asking is, “why”? And, why now? If nominal Southern Baptists as Bill Clinton and Al Gore occupied the White House at the current moment, the question is would Billy Graham have made the same decision? Even Ed Stetzer and Richard Land have taken a softer view on labeling Mormonism as a cult. Why? Stetzer and Land want to label Mormonism a fourth great world religion. Why? Unbelievable! Are Southern Baptists that desperate to elect Mitt Romney?

The Southern Baptist Convention unanimously approved a resolution condemning President Obama’s position on gay marriage and his view of equating gay rights with civil rights—but refused to even bring to the floor for a vote a resolution condemning racism in Mormon documents. The question is why would Southern Baptists approve of one, while rejecting the other? Could it be that on both sides of the racial divide, that our theology is driven more by race, culture and economics than it is by theology, righteousness and the common good? The SBC’s refusal to condemn Mormon racist text aligns itself with the BGEA declassification of Mormonism being a cult. Both decisions were driven by placing partisan politics above theological integrity and accuracy.

This election will leave the country and Christians racially polarized and divided even more so than the 2008 Election. The tacit evangelical endorsement of Mormonism will pay long term negative consequences on evangelicalism and politics. The Graham announcements affirm Black Christians, who vote for President Obama because it demonstrates that political, cultural and economic expediency, sometimes trumps theological and moral considerations in voting decisions. We see this on both sides of the racial divide.

I’ve been asked the question several times, why is it that Black Christians vote for Democratic candidates overwhelmingly in light of the Democrats position on gay rights and abortion? Black Christians tend to prioritize social and economic justice issues (which are also life issues) and they consider those moral issues as well. Black Christians tend to compromise their faith on pro-life and gay rights issues in order to vote for the party that they perceive will best deliver social and economic justice. The White evangelical church in this election is willing to compromise their beliefs on Mormonism and racial and gender accountability in order to support Mitt Romney. Black and White Christians vote for the party and the president that they perceive will best empower them. They simply view empowerment and priorities differently.

For those who ask, how can President Obama be a Christian and hold non-Christian views on abortion and gay marriage?: The answer is the same way Anglo Baptists/Evangelical slaveholders were Christians but wrong about slavery and denying women the right to vote. Make no mistake about it:  President Obama and the Democrats are wrong on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. But just as Billy Graham is willing to declassify Mormonism as a cult in order to promote Romney, Blacks have prioritized economic and justice issues in order to elevate poor and historically oppressed people. I have burdens in my bosom concerning both parties. Therefore, I will be content to cast a write-in vote for Jesus Christ, and live with the results of who God sovereignly allows to become the next President.

If President Obama wins, I will take solace in the fact that Republicans will not be rewarded for their blatant disrespect of President Obama. Such as shouting “you lie” to him from the hall of Congress; the Governor of Arizona shaking her finger in his face; Laura Ingram referring to the President as, “you fool”; and I could cite many more disrespectful and racial attitudes and actions displayed toward President Obama, including declassifying Mormonism as a cult.

If Mitt Romney wins, I would hope that he would honor his commitment (though his history does not give me full hope) to stop same-sex marriage in its tracks and actually lead the Congress to adopt a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. If that happens, I will be eternally grateful and give God praise that my grandchildren will not grow up in a world where same-sex marriage is considered legal, sane and normal.

Although I’m not a Calvinist, I am perfectly content to trust the sovereignty of God in this election and praise His Name regardless to the outcome. I simply pray as a nation and as a church that we can come together in unity when the election is over.

 Bart Barber, Dave Miller and Howell Scott need to be taken seriously regarding this matter of sounding a clarion call concerning the declassification of Mormonism as a cult sooner, rather than later. Is a cult only a cult until one of its members wins a major party presidential nomination and their opponent is a Black Christian who believes in gay marriage and abortion?

Pastor Jeffress and Evangelist Graham have a right to endorse and vote for Mitt Romney for President, just as Pastor Otis Moss and Pastor Frederick Haynes have a right to support President Obama for reelection.

What Billy Graham does not have the right to do is to declassify Mormonism as a cult without the larger evangelical community throwing the “red flag.” If evangelicalism does not throw the “red flag” before the election, that is even a greater sign of our political and racial divide. We ought to be able to come together in unity and make it clear that Mormonism is a cult even if Black Christians and White Christians vote for different candidates. The unity of the faith is at stake here (John 17:21)!

THE MOSS “EPISTLE” vs. THE TREASURE BOX

EQUIPPING BLACK CHRISTIANS TO RESPOND TO PRO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PASTORS

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

October 4, 2012

In the aftermath of President Obama’s public affirmation of same-sex marriage, a high profile Black pastor not only supported the President’s position, but also gave a robust defense of the government sanctioning of same-sex marriage. Pastor Otis Moss III serves as Senior Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, formerly pastored by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Pastor Moss is making a mark and stamp on the social order, contemporary culture and the Black church at large as did his predecessor and his beloved father, Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a retired Baptist pastor and iconic Civil Rights leader during the King era.

Pastor Moss is affable, articulate, and academically credentialed, and has a winsome personality. His position on same-sex marriage and his rationale for supporting the President’s position is gaining traction in some Black pulpits and churches. There are Black pastors being swayed by Moss’ rhetoric and reasoning, and some congregants are giving a hearty Amen, to what heretofore would have been blasphemous in most Black pulpits and churches; the approval of same-sex relationships. Indeed, Moss was one of eleven Black pastors who recently held a press conference in Washington, D.C., encouraging Blacks to approve of legalizing same-sex marriages in an upcoming Maryland election, and again providing a rationale for his position that’s beginning to catch fire in the Black Community. That press conference was a sight that I thought I’d never see in my lifetime—Black pastors endorsing homosexuality.

Bob Ray Sanders, a highly respected Fort Worth Star Telegram news columnist refers to Moss’ published statement in support of same-sex marriage as, “Chicago black preacher’s epistle on gay marriage is a must-read.” Sanders appreciatively applauds Moss’ position.

I may be the lonely voice of one, crying in the wilderness; but I feel compelled by the Spirit of God and the Word of God to say to Black Christians that the Moss “Epistle” is diametrically opposed to and contradicts: The Bible; Jesus’ teaching on marriage; Martin Luther King’s published viewpoint on homosexuality; the landmarks of the fathers; the official position of the nine major Black denominations; and the early church fathers, neither is his view supported by the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, while respecting and loving our President and Pastor Moss, we must love our God and our Bible—more.

When the President or a Pastor makes bold declarations contrary to the Word of God, Christians must demonstrate love, loyalty and allegiance to their faith, above their race, and above what any man might say, “…let God be true but every man a liar… (Romans 3:4)” The church should not be moved by Moss’ Bible-less and baseless rhetoric from the “landmarks”—the Bible, prominent Black historical figures and the current Black denominations have set. I want to leave a record for future generations that the “Moss epistle” was way outside of mainstream thinking and theology in the Black church community. What does the Moss “epistle” actually say about this subject matter?

PASTOR MOSS’ “EPISTLE” REGARDING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

  1. Moss supports the notion that same-sex marriage should become the law of the land based on his belief that it is somehow permitted in the Constitution. Moss believes that same-sex marriage is a civil right. He and President Obama refer to marriage between two people of the same sex as marriage equality. Moss believes that to deny “same gender loving couples” the right to marry is comparable to denying the slaves freedom.
  2. Moss believes that since President Obama is the President of the United States and not the pastor or “Bishop of the Christ Holiness Sanctified Church,” he is President of all the people—including homosexuals who want to marry. Therefore, the President is not bound by the church’s beliefs regarding homosexuality. He is bound by the Constitution to provide equal protection and equal/civil rights to all persons, regardless of sexual preferences; thus, the term used by proponents of same-sex marriage—“marriage equality.”
  3. Moss believes that rights governing marriage in secular society and civil government don’t have to comply with or march in lockstep with rites for marriage in the church. In all fairness to Moss, neither does he believe that the government should force the church to perform same-sex marriages.
  4. Pastor Frederick Haynes provides logic and arguments similar to Pastor Moss, but adds Jesus never addressed homosexuality. The implication being, if Christ never mentioned homosexuality why should Black preachers be as up-in-arms about it. Moss and Haynes refer to homosexuals as “same gender loving couples.”

This summarizes the “epistle on gay marriage” by Pastor Moss. Some of the language and logic articulated by Pastor Moss are things “new and old” (Matthew 13:52). Many of the arguments he and Pastor Haynes espouses are something “new” to the Black church. Some of their arguments are old.

THE “TREASURE’ BOX ANSWERS THE MOSS “EPISTLE”

“Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matthew 13:52)

Thank God that the story on “same-gender loving couples and marriage equality” does not begin nor end with the Moss “epistle.”

Jesus referenced the knowledge that’s retained by students (disciples) in the Kingdom of God as a “treasure.” Jesus identified his disciples as “scribes,” “disciples,” or students of the Kingdom of heaven (Matthew 13:52). And as a disciple (student) of the Kingdom of heaven, one becomes a “householder” possessing a “treasure.” The “treasure” is knowledge, and according to Jesus the treasure contains “things new and old.” The knowledge of the Kingdom will never be outdated.

When persons raise new questions or present new arguments that contradict the Bible and our faith, Jesus taught that we could find the answers to those who raise the opposing questions and present opposing arguments, in the “treasure” that’s in our household. The “treasure” contains His words, the Word, and a timely word—“things new and old.” I want to respond to the Moss “epistle” by reaching in the “treasure” box and seeing if there are answers to the Moss “epistle.” After all, he raised new issues to support “same-gender loving couples” and referenced old issues—slavery and the civil rights struggle in America.

The “treasure” box that Jesus referred to and Moss’ “epistle” are in total disagreement with each other.

I.  In response to Moss’ belief that the same-sex marriage is a civil and constitutional right, in the “treasure” box that Jesus said would be in my house, I’ve found the following answers:

A.  Even if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is authorized by the Constitution and is a civil right that must be granted, the “treasure” is clear; when man’s law contradicts God’s law the citizens of the Kingdom of heaven (Philippians 3:20) are to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29).

B.  The request for two persons of the same sex to marry is asking for a special right, not a civil right.

C.  If any two people who “love” each other are authorized by the Constitution to marry, that opens the door for a man to marry his sister; his daughter; his mother or grandmother; his fifteen year old stepdaughter; or two wives. Why not, if the issues is simply “marrying who you love” or “marriage equality”? I’m curious if Moss would approve of a man marrying his sister, or his biological or step daughter in the name of “marriage equality” and civil and constitutional rights? And if not, why not? Wouldn’t we be denying those people “marriage equality” and their civil rights?

II.  In Response to those who compare civil rights to gay rights, I’ve found the following answer in the “treasure” box in my house:

 A.     CIVIL RIGHTS ARE ROOTED IN MORAL AUTHORITY; GAY RIGHTS ARE ROOTED IN A LACK OF MORAL RESTRAINT.

Moral authority was on the side of the abolitionists and slaves.  Moral authority was on the side of women and those who supported the suffrage movement.  Gay rights are not rooted in moral authority.  Gay rights are rooted in what the Bible calls the “lust of the flesh” (I John 2:16). 

Clarence James, a Temple University professor who has written books about the Black church and homosexuality stated, “The homosexual movement has nothing to do with civil rights.  The civil rights movement was about positive freedom, which is freedom to rise to the highest levels of capabilities.  The homosexual movement is part of the sexual revolution.  It is about negative freedom and the freedom from moral restraint.”

I’ve often read and heard homosexuals say that they discovered that they were homosexual at 18 years of age, 25, 33, etc.  I don’t know of any Black people who didn’t discover their Blackness until they were 25.

I’ve met former homosexuals.  I’ve never met a former Black.  You cannot compare civil rights with gay rights because my Blackness is a result of my birth.  Homosexuality is a result of wrong decisions.  My Blackness is a skin issue; homosexuality is a sin issue.  Therefore, you cannot compare to two.

If I could be a homosexual by nature, I could also be a polygamist, adulterer, or pedophile by nature.  Should we pass laws to approve of these behaviors?  Again, at the roots of the Civil Rights movement is skin; at the roots of the gay rights movement is sin–Big Difference!

B.      CIVIL RIGHTS ARE ROOTED IN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY; GAY RIGHTS ARE ROOTED IN CIVIL ANARCHY, LIBERAL COURT DECISIONS AND RENEGADE CIVIL AUTHORITIES THAT DEFY THE LAW.

The goal of the Massachusetts court (the first court to approve same-sex marriage) decision in their own language was to limit the influence of historical, cultural, and religious reasons for preserving traditional marriage. This was a judicial fiat.

The 14th and 15th Amendments secured citizens’ rights for people of all shades of skin, including the right to vote.  There are no constitutional guarantees to people based on their unnatural, unwise, unhealthy, unholy and unbiblical desire to marry people of the same sex.

The civil rights movement was birthed in the church.  The gay rights movement was birthed in the closet.  At the root of the civil rights movement is constitutional authority.  At the root of the gay rights movement is constitutional anarchy and carnal antinomianism—lawlessness.

 C.      THE SUFFERING OF THE HOMOSEXUAL DOES NOT COMPARE TO THE SUFFERING OF THE BLACK MAN IN AMERICA.

When homosexuals have spent 200 years in slavery, then we can begin discussion of parallels.  When homosexuals have been legally defined as 3/5 human, then we can begin the discussion of parallels.  When homosexuals have been denied the right to vote and own property because they are homosexuals then we’ll begin the discussions of parallels.  No White lesbian has ever been murdered for whistling at another White girl.  Black men have been murdered for perceived interest in White women.  Ask members of the family of Emmet Till. The comparison of civil rights to gay rights is extremely offensive because of the disproportionate suffering issue, and the comparison of race to sexual preference.

D.     THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS BIRTHED IN THE CLOSET; THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS BIRTH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT (II Cor. 3:7).

The Apostle Paul stated in Romans 1:27, 32, “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful …”  In Romans 1:32, Continuing to speak of these men who engage in these same shameful homosexual acts the Apostle concludes that these men, “who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”  God’s Word not only disapproves of homosexuality, His Word also disapproves of those who approve of homosexuality.

III.  Self-identified homosexuals are American citizens and should be entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections of any American citizen. Their constitutional and civil rights are based on their citizenship, not their sexuality. President Obama is President of all the people. But when he and Moss emphasize that he is the President of “same-gender” loving people that is an attempt to dignify, legitimize and affirm homosexuality, in a way that it has never been affirmed historically in America. Homosexuals are to be valued and respected as human beings and citizens. There is no legal, moral, historical or constitutional basis to respect them on the basis of their bedroom antics. 

Martin Luther King led a march on Washington to demand that the United States make good on a check-guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing civil rights for all her citizens. Dr. King said the American check for equality and justice issued to her Negro citizens had come back marked “insufficient funds.” The homosexual community is trying to cash check on the constitution that has never been written to them. Their account was never constitutionally opened.

For Moss to argue that President Obama is President of everyone—including homosexuals—is a true statement; but the statement in and of itself does not grant legal status to homosexuals. The President is also the criminals’ (child molesters, murderers, thieves, bigamists) President. This statement about the President being the President and not Bishop of the Sanctified Church is a nonsensical, meaningless, empty statement. That statement by Moss only appeal to the most gullible, and non-critical thinkers.

At the root of Moss’ statement and the President’s, as both being professing Christians, is the notion that homosexuality is not a sin.  It is no small matter that a high profile pastor and a President who professes to be a Christian—and I don’t question or doubt Moss’ or President Obama’s Christianity—but I do question whether or not they believe—and the eleven pastors at the D.C. Press conference—whether or not a homosexual act between “same-gender loving persons” is a sin. I wish Pastor Moss would answer that question. I wish President Obama would answer that question. I wish the pastors at the press conference would answer that question:  Is a sexual act between a “same-gender loving couple” a sin?

IV.  I agree with Pastor Moss that the government can’t and shouldn’t dictate to the church that they must perform same-sex marriages. However, I disagree with Pastor Moss that Christians should not vote their values, views and convictions regarding this matter. To not vote your convictions regarding this matter is like not voting your convictions on civil rights. Everywhere where there has been a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, Black people have voted overwhelmingly in favor of disapproving of same-sex marriage. Romans 1:32 is clear that believers should not approve of homosexuality or give approval to those who approve of homosexuality.

W.E.B. Dubois makes it very clear that moral matters can and should affect voting matters and decisions. As a matter of fact, Dubois chose to not vote in the 1956 presidential election because of both parties being morally corrupt. However, I am advocating that people vote in the election—vote their conscious and vote their conviction, even if that means having to vote for a third party candidate or write in a candidate. Vote for President Obama if that’s your choice. Vote for Mitt Romney if that’s your choice. Vote for a third party candidate if that’s your choice. Write in a vote if you must, but by all means–vote!

I essentially agree with Pastor Moss’ distinction between “rights” and “rites” when it comes to the marriage law. There is a difference between an ecclesiastical ceremony and a secular ceremony. The marriage “right” is secular and granted by law, but there is no Federal law at this point authorizing this “rite.” There is no federal law that supports a “sacred” or “secular” “rite” or “right” same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is illegitimate.

 V.  To pastors who say that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, I have found the following answers in my “treasure” box:  Jesus addressed homosexual marriage when He addressed authentic marriage in Matthew 19:4-6. There He makes it clear marriage is between one man and one woman. Jesus also pointed out that when He returns, marriage will be an issue, (Luke 17:27) “they were given in marriage,” and He specifically mentioned, “As it was also in the day of Lot” (Luke 17:28)…on the day that Lot went out of Sodom” (Luke 17:29). We all know that homosexuality was an issue at Sodom. Indeed, the root word of sodomy is Sodom, which is a legal reference to homosexuality, derived directly from the Bible. Revelation 11:8 is clear that the spirit of Sodom would be prevalent just before Christ declares the consummation of the Kingdom of God (Revelation 11:15). When Jesus sanctioned the Old Testament when He often said, “It is written,” that would also be an affirmation of OT passages disapproving of homosexuality. In Mark 7:21, Jesus mentions “fornication” as a derivative of “evil thoughts” out of the heart of men. The Greek word translated fornication would include all types of sexual sins including homosexuality. Therefore, it is simply not true to say that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. This is a desperate attempt to give approval to what Jesus clearly disapprove of. Jesus never mentioned pirates or pedophiles; shall we then approve of those behaviors?

THE VOICES OF THE DEAD SPEAK OUT OF THE “TREASURE” BOX

 1.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was not supportive of homosexual relationships. In response to a boy who wrote Dr. King admitting to having an attraction to other boys, just as he also was attracted to girls; Dr. King had this to say:

 “Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony Magazine when he received an unusual letter.  ‘I am a boy,’ an anonymous writer told King. ‘But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?’ In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required ‘careful attention.’  ‘The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,’ King wrote. ‘You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.’”  (religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people) (Emphasis mine).

2.  George Washington Carver was a strong Bible-believing Christian in addition to being an agricultural and science professor at Tuskegee Institute. He taught Sunday school weekly on the campus of Tuskegee Institute. He clearly viewed Genesis 19 as an illustration of the judgment of God on a nation that embraces homosexuality. While discussing Sodom and Gomorrah, Dr. Carver asked his class, “And what happened to these wicked cities?” He viewed the desire and activity of same-sex involvement as “wicked.” He then used his scientific talents to cause a sudden burst of flames and fumes to shoot up from the table, and the Bible students fled. He sure knew how to make Sunday School interesting and to illustrate his point. George Washington Carver taught against the practice of homosexuality. (George Washington Carver; An American Biography, by Rackham Holt, 1943, Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, p. 198)

3.  In September 1929 Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., published a series of sermons on sexual perversion, (as per an article written by John McWhorter entitled, “What the Harlem Renaissance Teaches about Gay Rights”). Powell stated that homosexuality was one of the powers that debased a race of people and could destroy the Black family.

“Powell considered this ‘perversion’ to be ‘one of the most horrible, debasing, alarming and damning vices of present-day civilization.’ He decried ‘contact and association’ with gay people, considered them a threat to the ‘Negro family.’ He hated homosexuality for ‘causing men to leave their wives for other men, wives to leave their husbands for other women and girls to mate with girls instead of marrying.’”(
http://www.theroot.com/views/what-harlem-renaissance-teaches-us-about-gay-rights

4.  Augustine  said:

“Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D.400]).” (
http://www.gcmwatch.com/97/an-unbroken-witness-against-sexual-sin
)

I give God thanks for Pastor Moss and his gifts and leadership. However, on this issue he has chosen to stand on the wrong side of the Bible, the wrong side of history—the fathers, and the wrong side of God’s will for future generations. May the Lord use this writing to speak to future generations His will regarding same-sex relationships (Psalm 145:4)!

Pastor Moss is attempting to remove the “ancient landmarks” that the fathers have set. This could prove to be very dangerous and dastardly to the Black community and a death blow to the Black family. I hope that he will reconsider his position.

“Do not remove the ancient landmark Which your fathers have set.” (Proverbs 22:28)

PASTOR DID NOT SAY, DON’T VOTE

By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

September 20, 2012

Under the caption, “Preachers telling Blacks not to vote is sinful,” Bob Ray Sanders published an article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, September 18, 2012, that led persons who could identify me by description—not by name—to  believe that I instructed my congregation not to vote. That is absolutely and unequivocally not true. I’ve never and will never tell my congregation, how to vote or not to vote. As a matter of fact, for the upcoming election, I have encouraged the congregation to study the issues and vote their conviction.

To vote for President Obama in the upcoming election will advance the same-sex marriage agenda and affirm the Democratic Party Platform endorsing the same. To vote for Governor Mitt Romney is to not hold him accountable for the racist teachings in the Mormon “Bible” that “black skinned” people are “cursed,” “loathsome,” “unattractive,” “despised” and “filthy.”

When faced with the choice of two evils, my philosophy is to choose neither. Same-sex marriage is evil, and as it did with Rome, it will lead to the destruction of this great nation. Racism, and even more so, religious racism, is evil. I cannot with a clear conscience vote for a man, when given an opportunity by Tim Russert in a 2008 interview, to distance himself from the racist history and teaching of the Mormon Church—not only refused to do so, but stated, he stands by the faith of his fathers.

I cannot stand by President Obama and his beliefs on same-sex marriage. I cannot stand by Mitt Romney and his refusal to repudiate the racist text and history of Mormonism. Therefore, I choose to vote for neither. I am seriously considering writing in the Name, “Jesus Christ,” as my candidate.

Bob Ray Sanders ‘article was based on an erroneous story by the Associated Press that stated African American Pastors are encouraging their congregants not to vote. As Mr. Sanders accurately pointed out, no one was quoted with that viewpoint because none of us hold that viewpoint.

My statement to the Associated Press was that I would be voting in the early election down line, but would not be casting a vote for the Office of President. On Election Day, I plan to go fishing. That line was spun into, African American pastors suggesting to parishioners not to vote. Recently my oldest sister informed me that my parents paid a $2.00 poll tax for the right to vote; therefore, for me, not voting is not an option.

Finally, it is not my goal to help or hurt either candidate. It is my goal to advance the Kingdom of God. When one chooses the lesser of two evils, they still choose evil. “God help me. Here I stand.”

A RIGHT TO VOTE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO VOTE

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

September 17, 2012

“The Lord has established His throne in Heaven and His kingdom rules over all.” Psalm 103:19

The good news is, on November 7, 2012, God will still be God and His kingdom will still rule over all.  The bad news is…come November 7, this country will have either reelected a man and in effect endorsed a platform that affirms same-sex marriage or will have elected a President who for the first time in American history ascribes to a “Bible” that teaches that “blackness of skin” is a curse. Consequently, I find both candidates totally unacceptable. Whoever wins on November 6, I will accept as the appointment of the Sovereign God, pray for that individual, hold in high regard the office that they hold and consequently deeply respect the man in the office—no matter which candidate it is (Romans 13:1).

To set the record straight, I have never told the congregation, that I’m privileged to pastor, not to vote. I never reported that to Rachel Zoll, the Associated Press reporter, who interviewed me on this subject. I did say to Rachel Zoll (Associated Press) that I do not plan to vote for the Office of the President. I will vote down line. But I cannot with a clear conscience cast a ballot for President Obama or Governor Romney given their beliefs that are diametrically in opposition to the inerrant and infallible Word of God. I will vote down line in the early voting and literally plan to go fishing on Election Day. I told the Cornerstone congregation that I would respect whatever decision they made regarding voting. But as for me and my house, to vote in favor of President Obama is to violate Romans 1:32, that declares you cannot approve of those who approve of homosexuality. In my personal opinion, to vote for Mitt Romney, given the unrepentant, unapologetic racist views of the Mormon “Bibles”—as a Black man—would be like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders. Therefore, I choose to vote for neither. But if either publically changed their minds before November 6, I will change my mind and vote for one of them.

There will be those who will consider me a one-issue voter to which I will plead guilty. Major decisions are often made on major matters based on one-issue. People are hired and fired sometimes based on one-issue. People have surgeries based on one-issue. People marry and divorce over one-issue. People were enslaved based on one-issue.

President Obama has endorsed changing five-thousand years of marital history in every civilized country of the world based on—one issue:  “Marriage equality” as he labels it. Same-sex marriage is not marriage equality, it is moral insanity. Governor Mitt Romney was given an opportunity by Tim Russert in 2008 to distance himself from the history and teaching of the Mormon Church over one issue:  The Mormon “Bible” verses that teach Black people are “loathsome,” “despised” and “cursed.” The Mormon Church would not allow my sister to enter into certain parts of the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah, several years ago, while allowing her Anglo colleagues to enter part of the Tabernacle she was forbidden to enter, over one issue:  Her “Black” skin color. Pleeeze, don’t tell me I cannot vote over—one issue. The Mormons have never recanted of the racist teachings in their Bibles—“The Pearl of Great Price,” The Book of Mormons, Doctrines and Covenants.

At the end of the day my hope is not in Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus Name. On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

America went to war with Afghanistan over one issue. Appellant judges have overturned lower court judges over—one issue. To vote for Romney, I would have to violate my race and my right mind. To vote for Obama, I would have to violate my conscience, convictions and faith. I can do neither. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To violate conscience is neither right nor safe. “God help me, here I stand.” Thus said Martin Luther, and I agree.

A RESPONSE TO DENNY BURK’S POST ON THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPLEMENTARIANISM TO THE GOSPEL

BY

WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

AUGUST 30, 2012

Denny Burk recently posted an interesting and provocative piece regarding the relationship and importance of complementarianism and inerrancy to the Gospel.

I have two responses to Denny Burk’s post which is summed up in the following quote:

“The gymnastics required to get from ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,’ in the Bible, to ‘I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man’ in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.”

1.  To practically equate complementarianism—as The Gospel Coalition defines it—with an accurate definition of the Gospel and inerrancy, I find to be borderline idolatry and heresy, and a position that cannot be defended or argued from Scripture. This argument coming from the same people who will not equate social and economic justice with a wholistic definition of the Gospel (and certainly not inerrancy) simply proves that much of what we call biblical Christianity is simply cultural Christianity, and the passing on of someone’s biases, prejudices and preferences, in the name of or under the ruse of—orthodoxy.

By the way, I am a complementarian, if believing that the Bible teaches that a female cannot be a senior pastor because of God’s design, makes one a complementarian. I fully believe what the 2000 BFM states, and it does not preclude a woman from teaching a man in a public setting. If that’s what it teaches, certainly FBC Dallas under Dr. Criswell was in violation each week with his wife regularly teaching men.

2.  How do you get from, “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all, for to one is given…different kinds of tongues…And God has appointed these in the church…varieties of tongues…For he who speaks in tongue does not speak to men but to God…in the spirit he speaks mysteries…He who speaks in tongues edifies himself…I wish you all spoke in tongues…for if I pray in tongue, my spirit prays…I thank my God that I speak in tongues more than you all…If anyone speaks in tongue [and there is no interpreter]…let him speak to himself and to God…do not forbid to speak in tongues (I Cor. 12:7, 10, 28; 14:2, 4, 5, 14, 18, 27, 39)—to—“I forbid you to speak in tongues privately or publicly, with or without interpretation, and if you do so, you can’t serve as an IMB missionary, and you have psychological, emotional or demonic issues and influences effecting your private devotions”? I don’t know for certain, but it would not surprise me if Burk and Duncan can do the “gymnastics” required to get there. And if they can get there and consider themselves inerrantists, so can the egalitarian get from I Timothy 2:12 to egalitarianism and yet be an inerrantist and hold a proper view of the Gospel.

The way we got there is by employing the same thinking, hermeneutic, rationale and personal and cultural preferences and biases on the text as Lig Duncan has done here, and Burk affirmatively quotes him here.

If evangelicals can ignore the clear teaching of Scripture and arbitrarily decide to “forbid speaking in tongues,” why can’t the egalitarian do the same thing with the 1 Timothy 2:12 passage? I know you would say, “Not so”! Evangelicals arrived at their position on forbidding tongues based on careful and critical exegesis. “This is what my egalitarian friends say as well. I’m sure you are aware that those who conclude that same-sex marriage and monogamous homosexual relationships are not sinful also claim they reached those conclusions through careful and critical exegesis.

Therefore, I conclude where I started: To equate complementarianism and inerrancy (of which I wholeheartedly believe in) with an accurate understanding or definition of the Gospel is idolizing the doctrines of inerrancy and complementarianism to a height that the Bible does not elevate their doctrines and consequently distorts the true Gospel. It further removes our focus on the Gospel from where Jesus placed it; and that is on the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14, 15). An accurate view of gender roles in Scripture is not a “gospel” essential, nor does it threaten one’s belief regarding inerrancy. That is a cultural Christian perspective, not a biblical Christian perspective.

I have no problem with Burk and Duncan advocating a robust complementarianism as it relates to the office of the Senior Pastor. My disagreement with them lies in the fact that they appear to argue that their positions are inextricably combined with the Gospel. Not only do I find this position without biblical merit, but an unjustified indictment against all of the churches that I’m aware of (predominately African American) that at a very minimum allow a female annually on Sunday morning to address the congregation at the regular preaching hour on “Women’s Day” and many who allow women to speak/preach intermittingly throughout the year. What Burk and Duncan are advocating is robust Fundamentalism masquerading as the Gospel.

If I understand Burk and Duncan correctly, those of us who allow this do not have a proper understanding of the Gospel, and we threaten belief in inerrancy. Pleeeeeezze! These are the very reasons we allow these practices, because we believe they are biblical.

A MOTION ON MORMON RACIST DOCUMENTS

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

June 18, 2012

Whereas the awareness, acceptance and influence of the Mormon Religion is spreading throughout the island countries, particularly the South Pacific, in Africa, and among some African Americans,

Whereas Mormon promotional material often features African American professionals affirming the Mormon religion,

Whereas it’s growing acceptance and visibility will cause some to study or accept the Mormon Religion as valid,

Whereas in 1978, the Mormon Church agreed to permit Blacks into the priesthood, but they are yet to denounce the racist teachings,

Whereas people of color throughout the globe will be less likely to embrace Mormonism when they are made aware of their racist source documents,

Whereas Mormons recognize three books in addition to the King James Holy Bible as authoritative spiritual instructions,

I so move that the Southern Baptist Convention repudiate and reject the Mormon books:  The Pearl  of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants and The Book of Mormon as inspired, authoritative or canonical; and furthermore, we repudiate the racist teachings recorded in The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price that described “skin of blackness” people as being filthy (because of their filthiness”), “cursed,” “loathsome,” “despised” justifiably and derived the “blackness” of their skin color as a result of a Divine curse.

References:

The Book of Mormon, The Second Book of Nephi, 5:21, 25, and The Book of Jacob 3:5, 9

The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham 1:24, and The Book of Moses 7:8-12

DID SPENCER KIMBALL REPUDIATE MORMON RACIST TEXT?

WHY THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION SHOULD ADDRESS THIS

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

June 18, 2012

Which is more important:  The souls that are at stake or the possible controversy that could accompany this issue?

Did Spencer Kimball disavow the curse and other negative statements about Blacks? His complete statement on admitting Blacks into the priesthood is printed below. It is a mystery to me why people use this statement to say Kimball renounced or repudiated earlier statements calling Blacks filthy (“because of their filthiness”), “cursed,” “loathsome,” “despised” justifiably and derived the “blackness” of their skin color as a result of a Divine curse. None of this is addressed in the Kimball statement:

Official Declaration—2

To Whom It May Concern:

 On 30 September 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

 In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

 President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:

 As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

 Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

 He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

 We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

 

Sincerely yours,
Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
The First Presidency

 Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

 The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

 

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978

MORMON RACIST DOCUMENTS AND A SBC RESOLUTION

By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

June 12, 2012

When did Spencer Kimball, LDS President, state that curses against Black people are no longer in effect? Baptist Press cites Tal Davis, a former interfaith witness consultant with the North American Mission Board and now Executive Vice President of MarketFaith Ministries of Tallahassee, FL, making such a claim. Can Davis or anyone else document this claim?

 According to Joanna Brooks, a Mormon author:

 “To my knowledge, no Church leader has ever stood at the pulpit and formally renounced the idea that Cain or Ham are the source of racial Blackness and the priesthood ban.  Perceptive observers note that the LDS Church leadership prefers to let old doctrines fade away quietly rather than address them directly.  On race issues especially, I think this leads to missed opportunities.  While younger generations of Mormons may rarely think about and may not even know about the Church’s history with African-Americans, older Mormons continue to quietly harbor outmoded ideas, and many non-Mormons, especially African-Americans, are aware of the Church’s past teachings but without a formal renunciation do not know whether such doctrines continue.  In 2006, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley did state over the pulpit at General Conference that racism is unequivocally wrong and totally unacceptable among Church members.  His comments were welcomed by African-American Mormons and their allies.

Still, I’m looking forward to the day when more Mormons will say out loud:  We were wrong.  We were wrong about Cain.  Wrong about Ham.  And wrong to deny the priesthood to people of African descent.  For in this regard, the curse has been ours to bear.”

There is a growing awareness and acceptance of Mormonism—particularly among Blacks—in Africa and America. In the Baptist Press article, Tal Davis mentioned evangelizing Mormon Church members with the true gospel as a reason to not affirm this Resolution. Wouldn’t equipping African and African American Christians from being influenced by Mormon good deeds to accept Mormonism be a good reason to affirm this Resolution? I Peter 3:15 commands that believers be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about our faith. When a Mormon knocks on an African or African American door, wouldn’t this resolution equip the African/African Americans to defend the Christian faith?

Persons might take the Mormon documents at face value unless the SBC warns them.

I’ve never known Southern Baptists to be squeamish or timid about denouncing Mormonism. Why now?

I have forwarded the following three resolutions to the Resolution Committee for their consideration to present to the Southern Baptist Convention 2012 Annual Meeting in New Orleans:

  1. Resolution on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights
  2. Resolution on Racist Statements in Mormon Source Documents
  3. Resolution on the Recognition of Baptist Minister, George Liele, as America’s First Missionary

The first Resolution deals with same-sex marriage and civil rights; and it was primarily authored by Pastor Eric C. Redmond with minimal contribution, but full affirmation, from me. We are submitting it as a joint resolution.

I am solely responsible for the second Resolution.  This issue must be dealt with if Southern Baptists are to be consistent with what they have historically taught about Mormonism; and if they are to be viewed by Black Baptists as simply finding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and the racist views of his Bible more tolerable than President Obama’s skin color; this is how this discussion is being played out in Black barber shops, Black beauty salons and Black churches. If Southern Baptists support this resolution, it will say to the Black Community that they find Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and the racist views of his Bible abhorrent; but if they vote for him, it will be strictly because of philosophical and policy issues and positions, and not a vote against President Obama’s complexion.

The third Resolution is to simply acknowledge a historical fact that has never been acknowledged officially by the Southern Baptist Convention; and that is, the first American to travel to foreign soil to preach the gospel and plant a church was a man named George Liele who happened to have been a former slave. This will correct the view that Adoniram and Ann Judson were the first American missionaries. I think this is noteworthy in light of the election of Fred Luter and the Convention’s initiative towards reaching and empowering minorities as mission partners.

I. Resolution on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights

Whereas the Bible teaches that God is the author of marriage, and that he established marriage as an act between a male and female (Mt. 19:4-6),

Whereas the Apostle Paul affirmed that marriage of a man to a woman is patterned after that relationship of Christ to his church (Eph. 5:22-27),

Whereas marriage is an institution established by God rather than simply a human social construction,

Whereas the Scriptures indicate that all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful,

Whereas homosexual behavior is sinful, including what tis current age calls “same-sex civil unions” and “same-sex marriage,”

Whereas the Southern Baptist Convention has a long history of affirming marriage between one man and one woman,

Whereas, the Southern Baptist Convention previously recognized, “Redefining the concept and legality of marriage to mean anything other than the union between one man and one woman would fundamentally undermine the historic and biblical foundation of a healthy society (Genesis 1:28; 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6),” and “equating same-sex relationships with heterosexual marriage would create a host of religious liberty and freedom of conscience conflicts; now, therefore, be it” (SBC Resolution “On Protecting The Defense Of Marriage Act (doma),” June 2011),

Whereas the sitting President of the United States previously formally certified a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, allowing for public recognition of homosexual persons in the military, instead of honoring Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which precludes homosexual behavior among active service personnel,

Whereas the President now has publically voiced his personal support of same-sex civil unions, and that the legal approval of such unions is a matter for each individual state of our country to decide,

Whereas support of same-sex civil unions has been portrayed as a Civil Rights issue akin to the overturning of slavery and security of equal treatment under the law of African Americans,

Be it resolved that the messengers reaffirm our historic and consistent support of the biblical definition of marriage as the exclusive union of a man and a woman; and be it further,

Resolved, that we encourage individual churches to engage the culture with redemptive acts that will portray Christ’ love toward all members of society, and be it further,

Resolved, that we stand against any form of gay-bashing, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions toward persons who engage in acts of homosexuality; and be it further,

Resolved, that we urge the individual governors of each of the states not yet legally supporting same-sex civil unions to refrain from signing into law any bill that would affirm such unions and/or define such unions as “marriage;” and be it further,

Resolved, that we oppose any attempt to frame same-sex union as a civil rights issue; and be it further,

Resolved, that we reject the notion that race, as a by-product of birth given by the Creator’s design, and gender-orientation, as a behavioral choice made by individual persons, are to be compared as equal social issues, or that acceptance of the equality of races necessitates the equality of sexual preferences, and be it further,

Resolved that we encourage Southern Baptists everywhere to fight for the civil rights and human rights of all people where such rights are consistent with the righteousness of God, and be it further,

Resolved that we affirm that pastors should preach the truth of God’s word on marriage, homosexual behavior, purity, and love with all boldness and without fear of reprisal, and be it further,

Resolved that we proclaim that Christ offers forgiveness for homosexual behavior for those who turn from their homosexuality and believe on Christ for the forgiveness of sin.

II.  Resolution on Racist Statements in Mormon Source Documents

Whereas the Mormon Religion has a growing awareness, acceptance and influence in contemporary American culture,

Whereas it’s growing acceptance will cause some to study or accept the Mormon Religion as valid,

Whereas in 1978, the Mormon Church has denied and denounced racism and agreed to permit Blacks to the priesthood, they are yet to denounce the racist teachings,

Whereas Mormons recognize three books in addition to the King James Holy Bible as authoritative spiritual instructions,

Be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention repudiates and rejects the Mormon books:  The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants and The Book of Mormon as inspired authoritative or canonical; and furthermore, we repudiate the racist teachings recorded in The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price that described “skin of blackness” people as being  filthy (“because of their filthiness”), “cursed,” “loathsome,” “despised” justifiably and derived the “blackness” of their skin color as a result of a Divine curse.

References:  The Book of Mormon, The Second Book of Nephi, 5:21, 25, and The Book of Jacob 3:5, 9. The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham 1:24, and The Book of Moses 7:8-12

III.  Resolution on the Recognition of Baptist Minister, George Liele, as America’s First Missionary

Whereas, Dr. Danny Akin, President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has affirmed George Liele as the first American Missionary in a message preached in Chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,

Whereas, Adoniram and Ann Judson, who were sent out in 1812, are usually considered the first missionaries from America; George Liele chose to leave America in 1782 to start a church in Kingston, Jamaica, which was 20 years before Adoniram Judson left America to be a missionary in Burma,

Whereas, George Liele came to know Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in 1773, was baptized and discovered his compassion for evangelizing other Black slaves and encouraged them to sing hymns and learn the meaning of the hymns,

Whereas, Buckhead Creek Baptist Church, convinced of George Liele’s ministerial gifting and interest in God’s Word, licensed him to preach; and his owner granted George Liele his freedom from slavery which encouraged and empowered him to use his gift more freely,

Whereas, George Liele was the first appointed elder and preacher of the first Black church in America (Silver Bluff, SC…later moved to Savannah, GA),

Be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention recognizes George Liele as America’s first missionary, and be it further,

Resolved, that:

“George Liele, born a slave, ordained in a white church in Georgia, gathered the first black congregation, and became the first Black Baptist in America.  Liele, while not being supported by a church or mission agency, also became the first Protestant missionary to go out from America to establish a foreign mission.  This unknown hero without formal education, who learned to read the Bible and became a preacher and missionary shared the gospel with thousands, baptized hundreds and discipled many who became preachers, missionaries, and world leaders.  One of those disciples was David George, who left Savannah for the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia, and then later to Sierra Leone in Africa, where he started Baptist Churches in both countries.  Andrew Bryan also one of his disciples was one of only three Black Baptist preachers to stay in Savannah after the British left during the Revolutionary War to lead the First African Baptist Church. This man of mission raised up many courageous servants of the Lord who through their legacy of influence continue to bring freedom to the world.”

Reference: http://www.thetravelingteam.org/missionarybiographies/georgeliele

A KINGDOM VIEW OF RACE AND MARRIAGE

What Mitt Romney and President Obama Believe

By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

A Message to be delivered at the Cornerstone Baptist Church, Arlington, Texas, May 20, 2012

“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,” (Matthew 19:4)

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” (Acts 17:26a)

God’s universe centers around His Kingdom. At the heart of His Kingdom is His Dear Son. His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom. His Kingdom is to rule over all the earth. The Bible is the constitution of His Kingdom. Love is the language of His Kingdom. Faith is the currency in His Kingdom. The Holy Spirit is the governor and guide of His Kingdom. Citizens in His Kingdom are often called Christians, and their allegiance and loyalty are first and foremost—to God who sits on the throne; and His Son seated at His right hand; and His Spirit that is our intercessor on earth (Romans 8:26). The Kingdom of God is God’s total answer for man’s total needs. Righteousness is the precious commodity in His Kingdom and is to be sought after (Matthew 6:33). The first and foremost responsibility of a Kingdom citizen is to seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

The Bible says in Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” If righteousness will exalt a nation, what will unrighteousness, disobedience and rebellion do? Unrighteousness will abase or devalue a nation.

The purpose of this message is to speak prophetically to our nation and to President Obama and Mitt Romney on the subjects of race, family and the Kingdom of God. The very foundation, fabric, future and the definition of the family—as we know it today—is at stake. Redefining the family and expanding the definition of a family is a very serious matter that should not be redefined or expanded without sound, solid, scientific, sane, scriptural or even common sense reasons to do so. America needs to understand and weigh the full ramifications and gravity of this situation.

I am equally as concerned about Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith and what the Mormon “Bible” teaches about race. If Mitt Romney is elected President of the United States of America, for the first time in American history, we will have elected a President that ascribes to a “Bible” that teaches that “blackness of skin” is a curse. That is a huge obstacle that he will have to overcome, if he expects “blackness” of skin people to take him serious as a Presidential candidate. The media made a big-to-do out of Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s views on race, while they completely ignore Mitt Romney’s “Bible” view on race. This is the height of duplicity and hypocrisy.

As it relates to the racial views of Mitt Romney’s Bible and the same-sex marriage views of President Obama, my thesis is simple. History, Natural Law and the Bible are all in disagreement with President Obama and Joe Biden’s view of same-sex marriage. The Bible, the Constitution of the United States and majority evangelical thought are in disagreement with Mitt Romney’s “Bible” regarding its belief on race and other topics too numerous to deal with within the allotted time. My goal in this message is to advance the Kingdom of God as opposed to advancing any political party, personality, or people group. What does the Bible teach on the subject of marriage and race? God made a male and female and joined them together for the purposes of procreation, recreation, unification and evangelization of their offspring; and from one blood, He made all nations of men (Matthew 19:4-6; Acts 17:26). Therefore, I want to articulate a Kingdom response to (1) Mitt Romney’s “Bible” views on race (2) President Obama’s views or same-sex marriage (3) and to discuss, how should Kingdom-citizens vote given these realities?

I.  Mitt Romney’s Mormon “Bible” View of Race vs. The Kingdom of God

1.  The Word of God—the constitution of the Kingdom—teaches, “God is no respecter of Person” (Acts 10:34); He has taken “one blood” and made all nations of men (Acts 17:26); and all men should be respected and treated equally (Malachi 2:10).

2.  In the Mormon religion, The Book of Mormon is equally as authoritative as the King James Version of the Bible. Recorded in The Book of Mormon in The Second Book of Nephi, 5:21 & 25, are revealing thoughts about the Mormon view of the origin of darker complexion people and their attitude toward them:

 “5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

5:22 And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.”

3.  We get a deeper insight into the Mormon view of race as recorded in one of their four “Bibles,” namely, The Pearl of Great Price, also written by Joseph Smith (A Selection from the Revelations, Translations and Narrations of Joseph Smith, published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., 1968, The Book of Moses (7:8-12), page 20):

 “8. For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.”

4.  Also recorded in The Pearl of Great Price in The Book of Abraham, 1:24, (page 31), is a summary thought related to darker complexioned people:

 “24. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.”

Clearly these Mormon “Bible” verses teach that Black people are “cursed,” “loathsome,” “despised” justifiably and derived the “blackness” of their skin color as a result of a Divine curse. The view of Mitt Romney’s Bible on race leaves me most uncomfortable with him occupying the Office of President of the United States. I question how the evangelical White community can support a man whose “Bible” contains these racist, wrong and unbiblical views.

II.  The Obama/Biden View of Same-Sex Marriage vs. The Kingdom of God

1.  Marriage has everything to do with The Kingdom of God. Jesus compared the Kingdom of heaven to a king who arranged a marriage for his son (Matthew 22:2). When a husband and wife come together and produce a child, the three reflect the trinity of the Trinitarian God who made them. God established marriage to populate His Kingdom and spread His name to the generations (Psalm 145:4) that would be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:27-28).

In Malachi 2:15-16, God makes it clear that a primary purpose of marriage was to produce “godly offspring”. That’s why the Lord hates divorce—but not divorced people.

 “15But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one?
He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

16 “For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the Lord of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.”

How can a same-sex couple produce a “godly offspring”? They can’t! It is biologically impossible, because God never intended for two person of the same sex to marry! Adultery and fornication are also sin in the Kingdom of God. The Bible also calls adultery an abomination (Hebrews 13:4).

2.  In the Kingdom of God Jesus declared that marriage was God’s idea—not Sasha and Malia Obama’s. God set the parameters on marriage. In Matthew 19:4, in response to a question by the Pharisees regarding marriage and divorce, Jesus said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female”? Marriage 101 is that marriage is comprised of a male and female. The Word of God should not take a backseat to contemporary culture. Contemporary culture must take a back seat to the Word of God. Kingdom citizens/Christians should not compromise on this issue.

3.  The testimony of history supports marriage between a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage violates the constitution in the Kingdom of God.

4.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was not supportive of homosexual relationships. In response to a boy who wrote Dr. King admitting to having an attraction to other boys, just as he also was attracted to girls; Dr. King had this to say:

 “Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony Magazine when he received an unusual letter.  “I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”  (religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people) (Emphasis mine)

Dr. King’s view on this subject trumps all of the current so-call Black leaders, who unfortunately have abandoned the biblical position and bowed at the culture of political expediency and correctness. My posture will remain true to the word of God! In the words of the old Negro spiritual when it comes to approving of same-sex marriages—“I shall not, I shall not be moved; I shall not, I shall not be moved. Just like a tree planted by the waters, I shall not be moved.” God has called the church to be the moral guardians of society, to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

The church cannot be seduced by the government, but rather, speak truth to the government. Jesse Jackson, Otis Moss, Jr., Al Sharpton, Michael Dyson and Julian Bond all need to be placed in an intellectually dishonest debtors’ prison for comparing slavery to the practice of homosexuality. This is an insult to the slaves and the entire African American community. The suffering of the slaves is so far greater than anything that so called “same-gender loving” people have experienced; how can these men compare people who prefer their primary identification to be their libido, in the same sentence with persons who were enslaved because of their racial classification that they had absolutely no control over. Most homosexuals claim that they discovered that they were homosexuals when they were 10, 15, or 25 years of age. Black people did not have to wait 20 or 30 years to discover they were Black. I dare you compare the plight of the slaves to the plight of the homosexuals. This is insulting, offensive and demeaning to compare the slave’s skin to their sin. This is not an issue of marriage equality, but an issue of moral sanity.

George Washington Carver was a strong Bible-believing Christian in addition to being an agricultural and science professor at Tuskegee Institute. He taught Sunday School weekly on the campus of Tuskegee Institute. He clearly viewed Genesis 19 as an illustration of the judgment of God on a nation that embraces homosexuality. While discussing Sodom and Gomorrah, Dr. Carver asked his class, “And what happened to these wicked cities?” He viewed the desire and activity of same-sex involvement as “wicked.” He then used his scientific talents to cause a sudden burst of flames and fumes to shoot up from the table, and the Bible students fled. He sure knew how to make Sunday School interesting and to illustrate his point. George Washington Carver taught against the practice of homosexuality. (George Washington Carver; An American Biography, by Rackham Holt, 1943, Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, p. 198)

In September 1929 Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., published a series of sermons on sexual perversion, (as per an article written by John McWhorter entitled, “What the Harlem Renaissance Teaches about Gay Rights”). Powell stated that homosexuality was one of the powers that debased a race of people and could destroy the Black family.

“Powell considered this “perversion” to be “one of the most horrible, debasing, alarming and damning vices of present-day civilization.” He decried “contact and association” with gay people, considered them a threat to the “Negro family.” He hated homosexuality for “causing men to leave their wives for other men, wives to leave their husbands for other women and girls to mate with girls instead of marrying.”(
http://www.theroot.com/views/what-harlem-renaissance-teaches-us-about-gay-rights
)

It appears that politicians and preacher/politicians are teaming together to destroy the Black church’s strong opposition to homosexuality. This is also an attack on the Black family; and it is a vicious and violent assault of the kingdom of darkness against the Kingdom of God.

Augustine said:

 “Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D.400]).” (http://www.gcmwatch.com/97/an-unbroken-witness-against-sexual-sin)

The truth of the matter is that the act of homosexuality is unnatural. A female biologically uniquely responds to a male in a manner that is biologically impossible for a male to respond to another male; thus proving that homosexual sex is unnatural. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Same-sex attractions are not innate or natural; they are produced from cultural or environmental factors.”

I agree with Rev. James Meeks:  “I love my President, but I love my Bible even more.”

It is my conviction that Romans 1:32 forbids me from supporting anyone who supports homosexuality.

Y-Love (a Black, male, Jewish rapper) illustrates this problem in his statement:

 “‘I’m ready to find a husband,’ Jordan continued. ‘I’m ready to live without fear of being outed or the stress of keeping my whole self from people. And I’ve waited too long to do that.” (http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/jewish-rapper-y-love-comes-out-publicly-as-gay)

That is not marriage equality—that is moral insanity! Our President is now asking us to approve of this insanity. Same-sex marriage destroys the natural argument analogy that Jesus used to explain Christ as the groom and the Body of Christ as the bride. Marriage between a man and woman is not discrimination against same-sex marriage, but is simply a standard.

III.  HOW SHOULD A KINGDOM CITIZEN/CHRISTIAN VOTE?

There are persons that say, no one should be a one-issue voter. I disagree. It depends on what that one issue is. If one candidate was advocating placing people of color back into slavery if he or she were elected, we would all become one-issue voters. If one candidate advocated paying females workers systematically less than male workers, those of us with females in our families would become one-issue voters. If a presidential candidate ran on a platform requiring all eighteen year-olds—male and female—to be drafted and to spend a minimum of two years in the military, there would be many one-issue voters, voting against this. There are certain single issues that rise to a degree of importance and impact, or violate one’s conscience and convictions to the extent that one would make a voting decision based on that single issue.

There is at least a single issue—the Mormon “Bible” race issue—that leaves Mitt Romney extremely askance as I look through Kingdom eyes. The same-sex marriage issue leaves President Obama extremely askance as I look through Kingdom eyes. It is my prayer that both men would have a change of heart so that I could have an option in voting. But if there is no change by Election Day, I will vote for other persons on the ballot, but I will not cast a vote for President.

Some people say, vote for the lesser of “two evils.” That I will not do. I don’t have to settle for lessor, because I serve a God who is greater, and He’s my King. At the end of the day, I agree with the Apostles; “…there is another king”—Jesus (Acts 17:7). Thank God that I belong to another Kingdom—the Kingdom of God. In His Kingdom, the definition of marriage is clear. In His Kingdom, every kindred, tongue tribe and nation are equally loved and accepted. In His Kingdom, the wicked shall cease from troubling and the weary shall be at rest. In His Kingdom, the gospel is preached to the poor. In His Kingdom, the hungry are fed; the naked are clothed; the sick and in prison are visited. In His Kingdom, He sits on the throne, high and lifted up. It is a scandal-free Kingdom.

If I’m allowed to write in a candidate for President, I will write in JESUS…Because that’s my King. He is a righteous King. He is judicious in His justice. He’s matchless in His mercy. He’s bountiful in His blessings. He’s merciful in His compassion. He’s majestic in His splendor. He’s holy, as none other. He’s awesome, in His acceptance of whosoever will—let Him come. He’s the Lord of life. He’s the Rock of Ages. He’s the fairest among ten thousand. He is a great Shepherd. He is a great Physician. He is a great Savior. He is a burden bearer. He feeds the hungry. He heals the sick. He governs, and He guides. If I have to, on Election Day, I will vote for Jesus. There is another King. His name is Jesus. Martin Luther said, “My conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me…here I stand!”

All hail the power of Jesus’ name
Let angels prostrate fall
Bring forth the royal diadem
And crown Him Lord of all
Bring forth the royal diadem
And crown Him Lord of all

A MUST READ FOR EVERY BLACK KINGDOM-MINDED VOTER

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 15, 2012

Pastor Eric Redmond has penned an eloquent, educated, ethnocentric sensitive, brief, balanced and fair response regarding President Obama’s affirmation of same-sex marriages. His assessment and analysis is prophetic, powerful and persuasive.

Every Black, Bible-believing Christian should read this before November’s election. I heartily recommend and agree with every single word. May the Lord grant wisdom and knowledge to His people as we all attempt to come to grips with this moral crisis! You may access Redmond’s article, “A Man From Issachar,” at ericredmond.wordpress.com.

Please forward this to everyone who you know that is seeking answers for this voting dilemma that many African American evangelicals are facing. May the Lord bless and keep you and make His face shine upon you is our prayer. Amen.

PASTOR MCKISSIC’S RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DECISION TO ENDORSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 9, 2012

President Obama has betrayed the Bible and the Black Church with his endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Bible is crystal clear on this subject, and the Black Church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His endorsement is an inadvertent attack on the Christian Faith. America is now a candidate for the same judgment received by Sodom and Gomorrah. This was a sad, sad day and a very bad decision, by our beloved President. The moral impact of this day and decision is equal to the military impact of AL-Queda when they attacked the Twin Towers on 911. Today’s announcement is a moral earthquake equivalent to a tsunami or hurricane that will have far more devastating results than Katrina.

This means that parents are now going to have an extremely difficult time teaching their children that marriage biblically and traditionally is between a man and a woman, when the President that many love and admire is now on record endorsing sodomy. This is painful and shameful. The Black Church should galvanize, mobilize and address this matter with the same (if not greater) intensity, velocity and resolve as we did the Civil Rights Movement. If we don’t, our children and grandchildren will pay a far greater price in suffering from a governmental sanction of same-sex marriage than we would have under segregation.

I will not be addressing this matter this coming Sunday—Mother’s Day; my wife will be preaching. But I will develop a sermon on this subject for the following Sunday entitled:  “A Kingdom/Biblical View of Marriage” based on Matthew 19:4-6. I will be submitting a Resolution to the Southern Baptist Convention at the June Meeting in New Orleans to go on record disavowing and repudiating the position of our beloved President Barack Obama as it relates to his position on affirming same-sex marriages.

HEALING THE “LAND”:  AN APOLOGY I CAN FULLY ACCEPT

II CHRONICLES 7:14

By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 9, 2012

God said, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

It was my contention that Dr. Richard Land needed to publicly apologize—own and disown his words –as it relates to the controversial racial remarks he made regarding the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman saga. If Dr. Land refused to own and disown his words prior to the SBC Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, in June of this year, I had planned to offer to the Convention a resolution requesting that the Convention own, and then disown Dr. Land’s words and repudiate the racial comments he made concerning the Martin/Zimmerman case. Furthermore, it was my contention that Dr. Land needed to resign or be fired if he did not disown his own words before the June convention. Dr. Land has now taken responsibility for his words and has rejected them.

With a joyful heart and a renewed spirit, I’m happy to report that Dr. James Dixon, President of the African American Fellowship of the SBC, has released a statement from Dr. Land which reveals that Dr. Land has indeed owned and then disowned his words regarding the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case. I want to thank Dr. Dixon for providing me a copy of the Land apology and authorizing me to release it.

Be it known that in keeping with my word, and in light of Dr. Land’s statement, I no longer am calling for his resignation, nor do I plan to submit a resolution to the June convention regarding Dr. Land. I fully accept his apology—without hesitation, or reservation—and appeal to all Christians, regardless of color, who were offended by his remarks to accept his apology and forgive him. My confidence in Dr. Land, in light of his apology, has been restored.  As much as our land needs healing, Dr. Land and his family also need healing. Let’s remember to pray for the Land family.

Dr. Land’s apology is as follows:

PRESS RELEASE

COMMENTS BY RICHARD D. LAND

PRESIDENT OF THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION OF

THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

I am here today to offer my genuine and heartfelt apology for the harm my words of March 31, 2012, have caused to specific individuals, the cause of racial reconciliation, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Through the ministry of The Reverend James Dixon, Jr. the president of the National African American Fellowship of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a group of brethren who met with me earlier this month, I have come to understand in sharper relief how damaging my words were.

I admit that my comments were expressed in anger at what I thought was one injustice—the tragic death of Trayvon Martin—being followed by another injustice—the media trial of George Zimmerman, without appeal to due judicial process and vigilante justice promulgated by the New Black Panthers.  Like my brothers in the Lord, I want true justice to prevail and must await the revelation of the facts of the case in a court of law. Nevertheless, I was guilty of making injudicious comments.

First, I want to confess my insensitivity to the Trayvon Martin family for my imbalanced characterization of their son which was based on news reports, not personal knowledge. My heart truly goes out to a family whose lives have been turned upside down by the shocking death of a beloved child. I can only imagine their sense of loss and deeply regret any way in which my language may have contributed to their pain.

Second, I am here to confess that I impugned the motives of President Obama and the reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It was unchristian and unwise for me to have done so. God alone is the searcher of men’s hearts. I cannot know what motivated them in their comments in this case. I have sent personal letters of apology to each of them asking for them to forgive me. I continue to pray for them regularly, and for our president daily.

Third, I do not believe that crime statistics should in any way justify viewing a person of another race as a threat. I own my earlier words about statistics; and I regret that they may suggest that racial profiling is justifiable. I have been an outspoken opponent of profiling and was grief-stricken to learn that comments I had made were taken as a defense of what I believe is both unchristian and unconstitutional. I share the dream of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that all men, women, boys, and girls would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Racial profiling is a heinous injustice. I should have been more careful in my choice of words.

Fourth, I must clarify another poor choice of words. I most assuredly do not believe American racism is a “myth” in the sense that it is imaginary or fictitious. It is all too real and all too insidious. My reference to myth in this case was to a story used to push a political agenda. Because I believe racism is such a grievous sin, I stand firmly against it politicization. Racial justice is a non-partisan ideal and should be embraced by both sides of the political aisle.

Finally, I want to express my deep gratitude to Reverend Dixon and the other men who met with me recently for their Christ-like witness, brotherly kindness, and undaunting courage.  We are brethren who have been knit together by the love of Jesus Christ and the passion to reach the world with the message of that love. I pledge to them—and to all who are within the sound of my voice—that I will continue to my dying breath to seek racial justice and that I will work harder than ever to be self-disciplined in my speech.  I am grateful to them for holding me accountable.

I am also delighted to announce that as a result of our meeting, the ERLC, in conjunction with the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee, will initiate regular meetings to discuss our common calling to heal our nation’s racial brokenness, work for meaningful reconciliation, and strategize for racial justice.

WALKING THROUGH LAND MINE(S)

A WAY OUT:  A FOLLOW-UP TO THE LAND “REPUDIATION” POST

By

William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

April 23, 2012

 

There are three questions that have surfaced to the top in response to my Richard Land “Repudiation” Post that I want to address in this article:  (1) Do I believe Richard Land is a racist? (2) Should Richard Land’s entire career be judged by fifteen minutes of commentary? (3) How do we resolve the “Land-mine” and the racial divide surrounding this issue?

How the SBC responds to the Land racial comments–not the election of Dr. Luter—may determine whether or not Blacks are attracted to the SBC, remain coy, or even be repelled by the SBC. Whatever gains that may grow out of the rightful election of Dr. Fred Luter as president—not on the basis of race, but on the basis of qualification—have already been neutralized, if not nullified, by the Land racial comments.

In recent years the SBC has been discussing and sometimes debating a name change; a Great Commission resurgence; and the renewal/revitalization of a declining denomination. The answers or solutions to these discussion/debates may all be wrapped up in the SBC’s response to the Land controversy.

I.  Do I Believe Richard Land Is a Racist?

No! I have absolutely no reason to believe that. Do I believe Richard Land is racial in his outlook and interpretation of matters? Yes! And so am I. If Richard Land is a racist, so am I and the vast majority of America, Black, Hispanic, Asian and White.

I make a distinction between being racist and racial. A racist is intentional, unashamedly and foundationally, comfortable viewing persons of other races as being fundamentally and inherently flawed or less than.  A racist prejudge or relate to other persons based on their foundational outlook. A person who is racial in their outlook—and most of us are—are simply products of the fact that we were born into a racial construct and society, and we observed or were taught certain things about race that shapes or form our world view. We sometimes think, write, talk and act out of the racial world view from which we basically inherited. This sometimes conflicts with a kingdom or biblical view of race. I do not believe Richard Land or most Southern Baptists are racist—but racial. The National Baptist Convention—of which I’m also a member—likewise is not racist, but clearly racial. As a matter of fact, the Southern Baptist Convention in many regards, are doing a better job than the National Baptists Convention to reach across the racial divide and bridge the gap. National Baptists generally view the SBC with suspicion and distrust because of comments like the ones Dr. Land made, the belief he reflects and the belief that his comments reflect majority Southern Baptist thought. Given that suspicion National Baptists rarely reach out to bridge the racial divide. When the moderates were in charge of the SBC race relations were actually far better between Southern Baptists and National Baptists then and now. The Conservatives who are now in charge really need to do some soul searching on that question.

Most Blacks who are a part of the SBC are members because someone in the SBC reached out and made us feel wanted and welcome as pastors, parishioners and participants; but the jury is still out as to whether or not we are welcome to occupy seats of power. In many instances the SBC entities provided resources and support that we could not or didn’t receive from the National Baptists. For that I applaud and appreciate the SBC. The issue before the SBC now is, will the Convention accept Blacks not just as members and participants, but will you accept Blacks as partners and share equal power? The ERLC that Land leads has twenty-one full-time employees and not one Black. There are about thirty persons on my staff at present and only one part-time White. Neither Dr. Land nor I are racist, but our hiring has been racial.

The Land racial remarks threaten the reservoir of goodwill in our convention regarding race that Dr. Land helped to establish, I’m told. Please read the Baptist Twenty One blog post where this young African American named Walter Strickland, whose spiritual DNA is SBC as opposed to NBC, clearly articulated the pressure and problem the Land remarks poses for us who are dually aligned or singularly aligned with the SBC. Ed Stetzer posted the best response to date by an Anglo SBC leader to the Land problem. Land’s racial statements, unchallenged, cause those of us who remain in the SBC be looked upon by other African Americans as “Uncle Toms.”  I appreciate Walter Strickland for expressing the huge problem Dr. Land has caused us. By far, this is the best African American response to the Land controversy. He expresses his viewpoint in a much more gentle tone than I do, which is good. We are addressing the same pain and crying for help from the SBC to heal the wounds and repair the breach.

The racist in the SBC are those churches that don’t allow non-Anglo members, refuse to baptize African Americans, officially or unofficially will not employ African American staff members (except custodians), reject African Americans as guest preachers (this happen to Dr. Luter in Louisiana in the 90’s) reject inter-racial marriages (currently know of an Anglo SBC church where this is an issue) and I could go on. Dr. Land would not support any of these practices; therefore, I don’t believe he is a racist. Succinctly stated, racism–I believe–is intentional. Being racial is accidental and unintentional. I do not believe Dr. Land’s remarks were intended to hurt or do harm. I don’t think he would have spoken these words had he known it would create a racial fire storm and deepen the racial divide in the SBC. To that extent, he has apologized; and I accept it. However, we are still waiting on him and the SBC to own and then disown his words.

As a matter of fact, seven to nine years ago, I recall reading in a Baptist publication, the fact that Dr. Land had a burden against modern day slavery in Sudan. He was addressing that issue with words and work, as I recall. I was impressed with what he was saying and doing based on what I read. I invited him to our church to preach on that issue. He accepted my invitation and he did a very fine job. Subsequently, our church responded to his message with prayer for the Sudan situation; and, as best I recall, we raised funds and supported a ministry that was addressing the situation.

I was experiencing personal pain over a personal situation that I was dealing with when Dr. Land came to preach. I shared with him my pain. He listened and ministered to me mightily, for which I will always be grateful. No! I do not believe Richard Land is racist. I do believe his word-view and words are sometimes racial and reflect a Euro-centric or secular, conservative, political, sociological outlook—as opposed to a biblio-centric, Christo-centric, and Kingdom of God oriented outlook. His Trayvon Martin comments reflected the racial construct in which he was born, not a biblio-centric outlook that says, “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart”  (1 Samuel 16:7). By most accounts, Dr. Land has a history of racial reconciliation work that is positive and long-standing.

II.    Should the SBC Repudiate a Man’s Life-long Work Over Fifteen Minutes of Commentary?

Dr. Bart Barber, echoed by David Brumbelow, raised this valid and compassionate question. First of all, I do not suggest that we repudiate his life-long work; only the controversial Trayvon Martin comments and particularly, the racial profiling justification commentary. I agree with Dr. Barber and David Brumbelow:  It would be non-Christian to repudiate a man’s life-time work over those fifteen minutes. Therefore, I am not, would not, and never have proposed that.

In The Tennessean article, dated April 14, 2012, Travis Loller reports:  

Land, who is white, said in an interview that he has no regrets. And he defended the idea that people are justified in seeing young black men as threatening: A black man is ‘statistically more likely to do you harm than a white man.’”

I appeal to Brother Bart and Brother David, to please try and understand that if the profile quote goes unchallenged, un-repented of, and not repudiated by the SBC or Dr. Land, then it forever becomes the official position and attitude of the SBC regarding racial profiling. Do we really want that statement to go unchallenged? If so, that statement would be far worse unchallenged than the curse of Ham teaching, that was taught by Dr. Criswell and most SBC preachers before him. That’s where he learned in from. And no one would deny that W.A. Criswell was the single most influential pastor/preacher in the past fifty years in SBC life; Although, Dr. Adrian Rogers would be an honorable mention in the same sentence with Criswell, when it comes to influence and impact upon the SBC over the past fifty years.

The reason that Dr. Land’s profile statement must be recanted is because, it approves of viewing Black men with suspicion, sanctioned by the SBC. Land’s profile statement places my freedom, job opportunities, goodwill with all men, life and ultimately my destiny at risk—to those who with SBC approval believe it is permissible to profile me based on statistics and skin color. Why in heaven’s name would the SBC place God’s kingdom agenda, the Great Commission, race relations and the future growth of our convention at stake—to uphold a secular worldview racial profiling posture. I can assure you, if this comment stands, it will greatly hinder the conventions outreach to African Americans. Why would I want to be a part of a convention that the chief ethics officer says that it is justifiable and understandable to view me as a suspect? This is a serious matter that must be addressed. YES! This portion of the fifteen-minute commentary at the very least must be resolved, because of the influence and impact it has over so many.

III.  How do we resolve the Land Mine and the racial divide surrounding this issue?

There are three ways to view the Martin/Zimmerman matter: (1) The White view; (2) The Black View (3) The Kingdom View. If the SBC embraces and adopt the Kingdom View, I believe that at least internally, we can resolve the crisis within our convention, so that we can celebrate the election of Dr. Luter, without any racial baggage associated with this case hindering it.

A. The White view of the Martin/Zimmerman case is basically:

  1. Let’s not rush to judgment.
  2. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself in a fight, even to the point of shooting and killing Martin.
  3. President Obama should not have commented on this case (although other presidents have commented on other national issue cases)
  4. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton should not have responded to the request of Martin’s family to get involved.
  5. There should not have been rallies and protests in the streets.
  6. The forty-five days it took to arrest Zimmerman was perfectly fine.
  7. The Black Panthers who put out the bounty should have been immediately arrested.

 B.  The Black view of this case is:

  1. Zimmerman should have been arrested that very night; in part because of the evidence and the recommendation of the investigator on the scene that night that Zimmerman be arrested. There is also a knowledge in the Black community that immediately that night, had it been a Black on Black shooting, or a Black on a mixed-race shooting, the Black man would have been—without question—arrested that very night, particularly with the investigating officer recommending arrests.
  2. Zimmerman was the aggressor and the profiler. He disobeyed the instruction of the 911 dispatcher regarding following Trayvon. Had Zimmerman stayed in the car, there would not have been a murder that night. Trayvon was not breaking any laws or posing a danger to anyone—had he been left alone. Therefore, Zimmerman is the guilty party here.
  3. If Zimmerman had been arrested that night—again, like a Black man surely would have been—the Black panthers nor Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or President Obama would not have been involved.
  4. The Black Panthers were absolutely and unequivocally wrong biblically and morally to offer a bounty for Zimmerman. I simply don’t know enough about the law on this matter, to know whether or not they violated the law. Vigilante justice is wrong whether practiced by Zimmerman or the Black Panthers.
  5. It is very common and expected from parishioners and the community for Black ministers to get involved, when requested by the family or community leaders. This is a historic role black preachers have played. Community organizers may be frowned upon in the White community, but they are highly respected in the Black community. Parenthetically, that’s why it was a tactical error by the Republicans to make light of candidate Obama being a “community organizer.” The disparaging of Mr. Obama as a community organizer, enraged Black people. After all, Martin Luther King in addition to being a pastor was viewed as a community organizer as leader of the S.C.L.C. the attacks and criticisms of Sharpton and Jackson after supporting Trayvon’s family are simply coming from person who don’t understand this has been an always I suspect will be the case that Black ministers got involved in these type of situations. They would face for more criticism, if they didn’t get involve. The criticism against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for their involvement is viewed identical to the criticism that Southern Baptists and White evangelicals leveled toward Martin Luther King. He was called a trouble maker and in effect a race hustler. Therefore Black people by and large dismiss these criticisms.

 C.  The Kingdom View:  As a Kingdom citizen (Philippians 3:20), with a Kingdom world view, I don’t know if we can or should fully embrace the White view or the Black view, we must embrace a Kingdom view of this matter. This was modeled well in my judgment by the Sanford pastors, Jack Hayford and John Piper. Unfortunately, no major SBC pastor that I’m aware of stepped up and spoke a Kingdom view. Where is the Kingdom view, Southern Baptist voice on the Martin/Zimmerman case? Southern Baptist may drop Southern from their name as a way of distancing themselves from their racist past. But when they remain silent on this issue or speak from Richard Land’s perspective which is largely viewed as anti-Black and pro-Zimmerman, it doesn’t matter what the SBC name themselves—trust has been lost. The question now is how trust can be regained. Again, the only ray of Southern Baptist hope that I’ve seen on this matter is the Ed Stetzer brilliant and gutsy piece entitled, “Southern Baptist, Stats, and Race: Reflections on Some Unhelpful Remarks.”

What is the Kingdom view? Based on Amos 5:24, Genesis 9:6, Proverbs 18:17, we should have come together across racial lines as pastors and cried out immediately for justice for Trayvon Martin and his family and due process for Zimmerman and his family. We want patience, peace and respect for law and order to prevail while we trust God and the authorities to adjudicate this matter. Had Dr. Land taken this position, we wouldn’t have the plagiarism investigation and the deepening racial divide between the SBC and the Black community.

So, what is our way out? How do we resolve this crisis within the SBC? If Dr. Land, President Bryant Wright and two-three African American preachers agree and release a statement similar to the following, I believe it will immediately reduce tension, consternation and frustration among Black SBC pastors and parishioners:

“Racial profiling is not a biblical concept. As a matter of fact, Scripture cautions against racial profiling (1 Samuel 16:7). We reject the notion of viewing persons of other races with suspicion based on statistics or racial classifications. The SBC does not believe in, support or practice racial profiling. Dr. Richard Land regrets that he made statements in support of racial profiling. Furthermore, he regrets the damage, offense and hurt that these statements caused. And he asks your forgiveness.”

If a statement similar to this is made, it would be widely and readily accepted by all of good will and kingdom-minded. We could then put this crisis behind us and go on to NOLA to elect Fred Luter as president, which could be the dawning of a new day is the life of the SBC. Could it be we are where we are, at this point, because this is a Divine test? Our convention could be hanging on the balance, based on our response.

  • WHY THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION NEEDS TO GO ON RECORD REPUDIATING THE LAND RACIAL REMARKS

By

William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

April 18, 2012

Richard Land’s racial remarks against the backdrop of the Trayvon Martin tragedy are the most damaging, alienating, and offensive words about race that I’ve read or heard, rendered by a SBC personality, in the twenty-eight years that I’ve served as a SBC church planter/pastor.

The pain that Richard Land inflicted upon Blacks in the SBC is a pain that would be only felt greater by the pain inflicted upon Trayvon Martin’s family by George Zimmerman. In his non apology—apology, he blames those of us who responded to his racial views, for the pain we felt. The opening line in his letter of apology, dated April 16, 2012, says, “I am writing to express my deep regret for any hurt or misunderstanding my comments about the Trayvon Martin case have generated.” He then blames his readers and listeners for not being “progressive” enough to be on the same page with him racially:

“Clearly, I overestimated the progress that has been made in slaying the ugly racist ghosts of the past in our history. I also clearly underestimated the extent to which we must go out of our way not to be misunderstood when we speak to issues where race is a factor…Please know that I apologize to any and all who were hurt or offended by my comments.”

 Note carefully that he never acknowledges that the problem was caused by the substance of his words but rather by the misunderstanding of his words. He begins and ends by telling us that the problem was the response to his words and the lack of progress in the public square as it relates to understanding or accepting his words. This is a huge problem for the President of the Ethics Division of the SBC to attempt to pass this on as a genuine apology. However, I accept his apology simply because he asked; and therefore, feel biblically constrained to do so (Ephesians 4:32; Matthew 5:23-25).

 I remain appalled at his unrepentant words. And since Dr. Land will not repent of his words, I feel compelled to ask the SBC by way of resolution to repudiate and renounce the racially offensive, biblically unjustifiable and factually incorrect words of Dr. Richard Land. He spoke these words as an official of the SBC; therefore, the SBC must take ownership and responsibility for Dr. Land’s words. I could not with a good conscience attend a SBC meeting in the post Luter years, or increase giving to the Cooperative Program as long as Land’s words remain un-repented of. To do so would be to engage in self-hatred; the exercise and practice of low self-esteem; to support Land’s view of racial profiling and his flawed racial reasoning.

What was even more troubling to me than Land’s remarks, was his assertion that the vast majority of Southern Baptists agree with his racial views. If he is accurate in his assessment, it confirms the suspicion that many Black Baptists have held for years regarding Southern Baptists; and that is many Southern Baptists, if not the majority, inherently and instinctively don’t honestly respect, relate to or view Blacks with a mindset of mutual respect, equality and understanding. Blacks are primarily viewed as mission projects, not as mission partners. Inadvertently, Dr. Land opened to us the window of his heart and showed us this painful reality (Mark 7:20-23). The question now is, did Richard Land show us the heart of the entirety of the SBC?

To read Land’s initial comments and his apology is painful, shameful and heartbreaking for many of us. Now the SBC must take ownership of Dr. Land’s words, because according to Dr. Land, his words reflect the views of his constituency. There are three reasons why I believe the SBC must repudiate Dr. Land’s remarks; or I, for one, will remove myself from SBC gatherings.

I.                    Dr. Land’s Racial Comments Are Factually Incorrect

Land owes President Obama an apology for assigning a racial motive to the POTUS Trayvon Martin remarks without any factual evidence to support his claim. President Obama said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.” President Obama was expressing Christian compassion, parental affirmation and support, and heartfelt identification with the grief and pain the family was suffering. For Dr. Land or anyone else to read anything else into the POTUS statement, they would have to do what theologians call “isogete” (reading into), rather than “exegeting” (taking out of). Land Says President Obama was “pouring gasoline on racialist fires” when he made the above statement. Dr. Land is simply factually incorrect.

 Dr. Land falsely accused President Obama again, “It was Mr. Obama who turned this tragedy into a national issue.” Again, that’s simply not true. When the Samford Police Department took forty plus days to arrest George Zimmerman and the national media began to report this fairly early on, that’s what turned this story into a national issue. Again, Dr. Land owes the President an apology.

 Dr. Land referred to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as “race hustlers” and “ambulance chasers” with respect to their role in the Trayvon Martin case. I happened to hear an interview where Trayvon’s mom and dad said that they called and asked Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton—both Baptist Ministers—to come and support them in the aftermath of Trayvon’s death. It is simply factually inaccurate and unkind to say to ministers who have been requested by a family to support them that they are “race hustlers” and “ambulance chasers” for fulfilling a ministry responsibility. Dr. Land owes these two men an apology. I know for a fact they were simply responding to the requests of Trayvon’s family. This is an unethical accusation coming from the chief ethics officers of the SBC. Shameful!

Dr. Land, speaking of Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan says, “In their eyes segregation has never been truly repealed; it has just become invisible…They need Trayvon Martin’s to continue perpetuating their central myth:  America is a racist and an evil nation. For them, is always Selma Alabama, circa 1965.” Dr. Land would be surprised to learn that if he has accurately summarized the beliefs of Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan with regard to “segregation,” this may be the only true statement he made; the vast majority of African Americans would agree with the “In their eyes…” statement. Land has to look no further than the Annual SBC meeting, the SBC Executive Offices and Sunday morning in most SBC churches to see the kind of segregation he described. Dr. Land’s comments are not only factually incorrect, they are biblically unjustifiable.

II.                  Land’s Comments Are Biblically Unjustifiable

As I’ve listened to Black Baptists discuss Land’s comments, I believe his most offensive remark related to his belief in justified racial profiling. The SBC must repudiate the profiling comment, if nothing else. According to the prosecutor and investigators in Florida, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed because of Zimmerman’s profiling. Land’s comments gives ecclesiastical license from the SBC for this kind of profiling. Land’s racial profiling comments are analogous to what the major SBC pastors and theologians said about Black people for many years—for which they have never repented of—and that is, Black people were cursed by God. Land’s “justifiable profiling” doctrine is virtually identical and analogous to the SBC “curse of Ham” doctrine. Land just presented the 21st Century version of the “curse of Ham” doctrine, financed with Cooperative Program dollars. This is an egregious offense. Black SBC churches only give 1% to the Cooperative Program. Nevertheless, our churches helped to finance Richard Land’s communicating to all of America that racial profiling is justifiable.  It was the justifiable profiling doctrine that led the SBC to conclude that slavery and segregation were biblically permissible. Land has revived that doctrine. According to Dr. Land, persons like me are worthy of being profiled.

Dr. Land’s position on racial profiling is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Bible. In Malachi 2:10, the prophet said:

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of the fathers?”

In Acts 10:34, “Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.”

 In Acts 17:26, “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,”

 In Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

 Dr. Land’s most serious racially offensive statement was the “profiling” remark. This is the statement that would make me a suspect if a crime occurred at the annual SBC meeting while I’m in attendance. Now that I know how Dr. Land feels about profiling, I no longer feel welcome at a SBC gathering, especially if the majority of the SBC agrees with Dr. Land.

 Why would Dr. Land speak out on the Trayvon Martin case, while he remained silent about a litany of racial atrocities in SBC life? (
http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/attitudes-toward-race-in-sbc-life/
) (
http://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/lessons-from-the-animal-kingdom/
)  Why does Dr. Land remain silent about the fact that the majority of persons incarcerated are Caucasian? Why does Dr. Land remain silent about approximately 70% of all arrests in 2008 were Whites being arrested according to Royce West, Jr., a criminal justice professor and practicing attorney at the University of Texas at Arlington? (For more information and statistics concerning the U.S. Prison System, please see Marty Duren’s articles—“Our Comfortable Injustice, Part 1: Christians, Race and the U. S. Legal System” and Our Comfortable Injustice, Part2: Incarceration for Profit—at martyduren.com.)  If Dr. Land were balanced or fair, he would have to also look at statistics and argue for the justifiable criminal profiling of Whites. I don’t think we need to profile anyone and neither do I appreciate the Chief Ethics Officer of the SBC advocating profiling. Racial profiling resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin. It is no small matter that the SBC is now embracing racial profiling.

 III.                Land’s Comments Are Racially Offensive and Balanced in Favor of Zimmerman

 Dr. Land said:

 “It turns out that alleged shooter George Zimmerman is hardly some kind of white supremacist. He’s Hispanic on his mother’s side. His mother is Peruvian. He has black family members. He has mentored black children and is a registered Democrat.

And Martin isn’t exactly a saint.  He’d been suspended three times for vandalism, truancy and carrying a baggie with pot residue.”

Dr. Land owes Trayvon’s parents an apology for this unfair and unbalanced assault on the character of a dead man, whose life was cut short by a man who shares Land’s profiling doctrine. George Zimmerman has been arrested for assaulting a police officer, domestic battery arrests and alcohol related arrests. Dr. Land mentions none of Zimmerman’s “unsaintly” history, but yet he attempts to paint Trayvon as a person worthy of profiling and, consequently, death. The SBC owes Trayvon’s parents an apology for helping to finance this unfair and unbalanced assault on a dead man paid for by the Southern Baptist Convention. I’m embarrassed and ashamed of our actions in this regard.

Richard Land has about as much business being in charge of the ethics of the SBC as I have being in charge of the physically-fit society or George Zimmerman being in charge of a battered women’s shelter and the temperance society. I trust and pray that Dr. Land will repent of his racially and attitudinally flawed words. If he doesn’t, I pray that the SBC will have the courage and character to hold him accountable by repudiating his remarks and dismissing him from an office that he no longer has the credibility to hold.

The real test of the SBC racial progress is not electing a man of color to a two-year position, but rather demonstrating respect and equality toward people of color eternally. There is not a person of color in the SBC today who serves as an entity head and manages a budget. Unfortunately, that will remain true even after Dr. Luter is elected president. Why would Dr. Land address the Trayvon Martin matter, when he has not addressed the current lack of racial inclusion and empowerment in SBC life? The SBC casts the wrong votes about slavery and segregation in the past. The question now is will the SBC cast the right votes regarding the repudiation of the Land racial remarks?

Peter Lumpkins posted a provocative piece concerning the SBC/GCB name change proposal that prompted me to opine and pontificate with regard to my posture on this proposition.

I’m in favor of a name change because of regional, racial and public relational baggage/issues associated with the current name. However, I agree with you: if the original stated reasons for the name change proposal were valid-and I believe they were-then money is an invalid reason not to change the name. To not change the name for monetary reasons is a borderline insult.

Given the convictions, courage, strength of personalities and character of the persons on the name-change committee, I’m surprised and disappointed that they didn’t recommend a name change. As far as I’m concerned the descriptor leaves us with an identity crisis: “The SBC-the Regional, Racial & Public Relations Baggage/Issues Convention” vs. “The GCB-the Inclusive, International and Kingdom-Driven Into All The World Convention.” The committee attempted to “split the baby.” The problem we’re left with though is, one baby-with dueling identities. Who is she; The SBC? Or The GCB?

If there is any redeeming value to this descriptor proposal, it lies in the fact that the driving force behind this compromising “win-win” decision was unity. Unity obviously is important, particularly with regard to a Kingdom enterprise. It’s the question of unity that gives me pause about voting against this proposal. Nevertheless, I have until June to settle on this matter. In my judgment the name change committee needs to ask those of us who agree with the reason for the proposed name in the first place to accept this for financial, legal, practical and unity reasons. If we are specifically requested to accept not changing the name for those reasons it would make it more palatable. I think our Convention is in good hands with Dr. Frank Page. He preached at our church this past Sunday, February 26, 2012,  on race relations; and he connected very well with our people. They fell in love with Frank Page.

Electing Fred Luter as president will be a very positive impact on gaining the attention and some level of respect from Black churches that are not SBC, but would embrace the 2000 BF&M Statement. But I don’t believe you will see any serious additions of Black churches joining the SBC until we see at least two-three minority entity heads.
At the moment I have not decided for sure how I will vote on the descriptor proposal. Although it is a step in the right direction, I’m inclined to vote against it. Why? To vote for the proposal is a vote to retain the name SBC. And a vote to retain the name SBC, is a vote to retain the baggage that comes with the name. Therefore, Peter, you, Howell, and I, may vote the same way for different reasons.

Peter thanks for an interesting and provocative post.

Posted by: Dwight McKissic | Feb 27, 2012 at 10:17 PM

FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT OF FAITH
BY
WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
A KINGDOM RESPONSE TO THE ELEPHANT ROOM II
Featuring Pastor James MacDonald and Bishop T.D. Jakes

The late Rev. Vernon Johns made a lighthearted, yet loaded comment regarding engaging in ecclesiastical and civic controversy that I believe is applicable to The Elephant Room II controversy. The Johns comment: “If you see a good fight, get in it.” There are significant, substantive, and scriptural issues yet being debated in the aftermath of The Elephant Room that I feel compelled to address in light of Rev. Johns’ admonition and more importantly Kingdom implications.

Parenthetically, Rev. Johns was the predecessor to Dr. Martin Luther, Jr., as pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama and as his quote sort of indicates, he was an eccentric and bombastic personality. God used him in the context of the Civil Rights Movement to pave the way for Dr. King, just as He used another eccentric and bombastic personality—John the Baptist—two millenniums earlier in the context of the Kingdom movement, to pave the way for Jesus. Rev. Johns is highly regarded and remembered for his idiosyncrasy, courage, candor, and character, much like John the Baptist. Some would argue that without the preparatory and foundational work of Rev. Johns, there would not have been a Martin Luther King, Jr.

Back to The Elephant Room: At the dawn of this new millennium, there’s a man who has stepped forth in somewhat of an eccentric and bombastic move, reminiscent of Vernon Johns and John the Baptist, named James MacDonald. Pastor MacDonald has cast a vision for The Elephant Room that I believe is Kingdom driven to the core. The vision of the Elephant Room as I see it is simple, yet powerful; to provide a twenty-first century forum for ecclesiastical dialogue based on a first century model that seeks common ground rather than battleground; unity over division; love over indifference and dialogue rather than distance, without compromising truth or biblical integrity. That is a bold, grand and biblical vision unlike any I’ve seen in my fifty five years of observing church life, with the possible exception of the Promise Keepers Movement. The Kingdom of God is relational, and this is a bold kingdom vision. The biggest problem in the body of Christ today is not doctrine, but relational division. Jesus did not say they’ll know we are Christians by our doctrine, but by our love. The world is yet to see the entire body of Christ in love with each other or even willing to dialogue: James MacDonald has plowed new ground in this arena, and I celebrate him for doing so.

How can a born-again, Bible-believing, citizen of the Kingdom of God not applaud, celebrate and appreciate Pastor MacDonald’s vision? The Bible indicates that in the last days we will see an intergenerational, interracial, and in the context of modern times, interdenominational kingdom movement take place (Acts 2:17-18). Could it be that is what we’re seeing in The Elephant Room? Could it be that some of the push-back is because we have not seen a vision or a movement like this, in the history of American Christianity? People are afraid of the unknown and the untried. Yet, a Vernon Johns, John the Baptist and, yes, James MacDonald will come along and prod us to go places we’ve never been before; and prepare us for what we’ve never seen before. Why? Because the Kingdom of God is on a forward advance (Matthew 11:12). God always calls one person to get there first and then beckons for the rest of us to come (Exodus 3:10, Nehemiah 2:5-10, Matthew 1: 3:1-11, Acts 7:1-60); and, that one person usually pays a heavy-heavy price for their voice, vision and venture. I want to say to Pastor MacDonald: BE ENCOURAGED! You’re in good company. They stoned the prophets which were before you.

WHY THE OPPOSITION TO THE ELEPHANT ROOM?

Three words or one name answer that question: Thomas Dexter Jakes, commonly known as Bishop Jakes. Why is there so much opposition to The Elephant Room because of Bishop Jakes? Bishop Jakes came to know Christ and launched his ministry in a Oneness Pentecostal context; and still maintains association, fellowship and a preaching presence in Oneness Pentecostal settings. Because of this one name, one man, one personality, a vision as bold, daring, captivating and kingdom-driven as The Elephant Room, is under major attack; and the founder and architect of this vision, along with his elders, are having to make the tough decision: Do they discontinue The Elephant Room after two incredibly successful gatherings? Obviously, they are meeting a very serious need. Again, this great vision and gathering, is under serious review, because of the participation and inclusion of one man. By the way, Bishop Jakes did not preach at this meeting; he simply sat at a table and humbled himself to answer questions about his beliefs and contributed to other parts of the dialogue as a well-known churchman. But a conversation and input from Bishop Jakes in this forum was anathema to many. The opponents to James MacDonald’s inviting Bishop Jakes simply believe that Bishop Jakes was not or is not an authentic, genuine, born again, orthodox Kingdom citizen—or follower of Christ; therefore, they staunchly opposed him being there, and many still opposed even after he made his beliefs, crystal clear (James White, Voddie Baucham).

Can a person genuinely be born again in a Oneness Pentecostal setting? This question is at the heart of this controversy. In all fairness to the opponents of The Elephant Room and the presence of Bishop T.D. Jakes, I must admit, if one truly believes that anybody who claims that they were saved in a Oneness Pentecostal setting and maintain long-standing affiliation and fellowship with Oneness Pentecostals could not be genuinely saved, because of the modalistic belief system of Oneness Pentecostals, then I agree with them; If that’s your position, Bishop Jakes should not have been invited to the Elephant Room, and Pastor MacDonald, then, would be wrong for having invited him. Absolutely not! You don’t invite a non-Christian, or in my judgment an avowed committed modalist, to sit on a panel like this. Those who hold this position, I believe, are sincere. But the question is: Did Bishop Jakes sit on that panel as a non-Christian and is he a closet or avowed modalist? That, my friend, is the question and controversy surrounding The Elephant Room.

ARE ONENESS PENTECOSTALS CHRISTIANS?

I’m sure some of you are asking, what is a “modalist”? I do not claim to be an expert in modalism, Trinitarianism or theology. However, what I do know is that Oneness Pentecostals generally have a modalistic view of the Trinity; and evangelicals, generally have what is called an ontological view of the Trinity. Let me explain: Oneness Pentecostals and evangelical Christians would all say that they believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. The difference is, Oneness Pentecostals believe that, one God appeared in three modes (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) without remaining distinct personalities. In other words, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are simply designations or names of the God who is one in person. Thus they are called Oneness Pentecostals, or in the Black community they are often called the “Jesus Only” people or Apostolic.

Evangelical Christians believe that there is one God, and yet this one God exists in three distinct Persons, not just modes of the same God, but three persons: The Father, who is distinct from the Son; the Son, who is distinct from the Holy Spirit; and the Father and the Holy Spirit, who is distinct from the Father and the Son. Yet, according to Scripture, these three are one, and they comprise the Godhead (Colossians 2:9).

Some would argue that this is purely a semantical debate; yet there is clearly a distinction as to how oneness Pentecostals view the members of the Godhead and how evangelicals view members of the Godhead. Bishop Jakes admits that at one point he fully embraced modalism and passionately argued in defense of this viewpoint. Long before the Elephant Room, Bishop Jakes had given an evangelical explanation of his Trinitarian beliefs and described the members of the Godhead as persons–something a true modalist never would do; but yet his detractors and opponents, simply won’t take him at his word.

Dr. Daniel Akin addressed the question, “What is Modalism and How Should Christians respond to it?” on his “Between the Times” website on October 12, 2011, in response to the announcement that Bishop Jakes would be a guest in The Elephant Room.

In the comment section, I posed the following questions to Dr. Akin:

“Dr. Akin,
Based on your definition of the word “Christian”, and your understanding of T. D. Jakes beliefs(which I believe that you have misrepresented) do you believe that T. D. Jakes is a Christian? Another way to phrase the question is, do you believe a person can be a modalist and also be a Christian?

I have a pastor friend who heard the gospel clearly, he says in a oneness Pentecostal church and was saved. Later, he began to question their view of the trinity and made his way to a Baptist church and embraced an orthodox view of the trinity. He now pastors a Baptist church in southern California. Was his salvation experience in the oneness Pentecostal setting, legitimate? BTW, there is not a leader in SBC life that I respect and appreciate any more than you. I listened to your sermon preached last year at chapel concerning the first American missionary. Great sermon.”

Dr. Akin provided me with an answer that I wholeheartedly believe and agree with every single word:

“Dwight, thank you for writing my brother. I love and appreciate you and your passion for our Lord. A friend wrote me privately saying he believes pastor Jakes no longer affirms classic modalism. That encourages me and perhaps the “Elephant Room” conversation will allow him to clarify this once and for all. And, is it possible to be a Christian and be a modalist? I believe the answer is yes though to do so is theologically erroneous and inconsistent. In fact it is spiritually dangerous. However, Scripture does not say believe in the Trinity and you will be saved. I was saved as a boy and had very little understanding of the Trinity. However, as I grew in my understanding of biblical truth I naturally came to embrace what is clearly the plain teaching of the Bible. Ultimately, the doctrine of the Trinity is deeply embedded in Christology, something the early church understood. And a text like Isaiah 53 and all the “sending” language of the gospel of John makes little sense without a Trinitarian framework. There is so much more we could say about this but I hope this is helpful.”

If Dr. Akin’s answer is accurate (and I believe it is), then it is possible to be a modalist and a Christian. And if it is possible to be a modalist and a Christian, Pastor MacDonald was certainly right to invite Bishop Jakes to The Elephant Room to clarify his beliefs. That’s the vision and purpose of the Elephant Room; therefore, what’s the problem? All Southern Baptists would not agree with Dr. Akin’s answer. Dr. Bart Barber believes Bishop Jakes need to be baptized again and only became a Christian simultaneously with his subsequent Trinitarian profession.  (Dr. Barber stated on his website: Statement #3. This is something for all of us to celebrate. When Jakes became a Trinitarian, he became a Christian. His eternal destiny changed at that moment. Now he needs to be baptized. Again, this is something to celebrate.)

A SWBTS professor that I will leave unnamed, and a fellow pastor with a PH.D. in systematic theology that I will also leave unnamed, share Dr. Akin’s public viewpoint, that modalism is incorrect, erroneous and even heretical; but yet, one can be a modalist and a Christian.

The late Jerry Falwell considered Calvinism, heretical; but he did not consider Calvinist, non- Christians. And neither do I consider, Oneness Pentecostals as Non-Christians; Incorrect on the Trinity, yes; Heretical, by not making a distinction in the Godhead—Yes. However, because they believe Jesus is Deity, Divine, Lord and the only begotten of the Father and the only way to salvation, I believe, based on Romans 10:9, they are authentic Christians, with extremely flawed doctrine.

Dr. Bart Barber is correct on this point though: If you’re going to condemn Bishop Jakes for not disavowing modalism at The Elephant Room, you must also condemn everyone else on stage who did not disavow modalism. Asking Bishop Jakes to publicly disavow modalism is like asking a man to disavow his mother. Inherent in Bishop Jakes answers to Mark Driscoll’s questions regarding the Trinity, was a disavowing, of modalism; that’s why many of them consider him a heretic. The only purpose Bishop Jakes would serve in disavowing the modalist that won him to Christ would be attempt to satisfy or be accepted by the Calvinist, Fundamentalist, and cessationist community that reject the Bishop and the few Black Calvinist clergymen that have been heavily influenced by their Anglo associates who also reject Bishop Jakes.

I believe that Bishop Jakes is an authentic, born again Christian, who has shifted from classic modalism to an orthodox Trinitarian view. The only reason that one would believe otherwise, would be to not take Bishop Jakes at his word as articulated in The Elephant Room and even before. James White attempts to prove that Bishop Jakes is still a modalist even after his Elephant Room confession, but he falls woefully short. White simply is straining at gnats, while swallowing the camel of disunity and division.

I was extremely grateful and proud that Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Dr. Russell Moore, and Dr. Bart Barber, fellow Southern Baptists, all now affirm Bishop Jakes as an evangelical Trinitarian. They all three made what I consider condescending, elitist, false and arrogant misrepresentations and statements about the Bishop otherwise, but for well-known respected Southern Baptist professors and pastors to affirm the evangelical-orthodox Trinitarian posture of Bishop Jakes is HUGE in my opinion. Pastor Dave Miller went a step further and apologized to Pastor Vance Pittman for railing against Bishop Jakes musician performing at the Phoenix SBC Pastor’s conference. Ironically, the musician was preparing to lead the pastors in the “Holy, Holy, Holy” which affirms “God in Three Persons”, blessed Trinity. The best Southern Baptist Convention bloggers who addressed this subject with fairness, fidelity and accuracy were Ed Stetzer and Brandon Smith.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Trevin Wax made an astute observation about the aftermath of The Elephant Room that I believe sums up the matter. He is contrasting the James MacDonald approach to enlarging the tent vs. The Gospel Coalition’s approach:

“It is good to celebrate minimal agreement on fundamental doctrines, but even better to pursue a robust affirmation of biblical teaching. I understand there are multiple issues related to the resignation of James MacDonald from The Gospel Coalition. But at the foundational level, it’s safe to assume that the philosophy of The Elephant Room proposes a different way forward for evangelicalism than The Gospel Coalition does. And the primary differences zero in on the question of minimalism. In other words, what is the minimal number of doctrines and beliefs that must be agreed upon in order for there to be close friendship and fellowship between pastors?

What we have here are two different visions: one contemporary and one confessional: 

Contemporary evangelicalism is a big tent that keeps getting bigger. A short list of doctrines must be in place in order for people to cooperate, fellowship, or share a platform together, but there is no consensus regarding how those doctrines should affect one’s ministry philosophy. That’s why contemporary evangelicalism has sometimes been described as encompassing “anyone who likes Billy Graham.”

Confessional evangelicalism seeks to renew the center of the movement by uniting likeminded believers around the gospel and promoting the centrality of the gospel in one’s teaching and preaching. A common theological vision for ministry leads these pastors to take associations very seriously, and even if there are no hard, fast rules in place, they generally refrain from sharing a platform together in a way that leads to a perceived endorsement.

The Elephant Room aligns more with the ethos of contemporary evangelicalism (public platform-sharing with anyone who confesses Christ). The Gospel Coalition aligns more with the ethos of confessional evangelicalism (public platform-sharing with those who share a common theological vision of ministry).”

I’m making a public appeal to Pastor MacDonald, to by all means to continue The Elephant Room. The concept is so powerful, groundbreaking, biblical and Kingdom-centered that I personally pledge moral and monetary support, and wait for an interesting line-up of guests to dialogue, because I want to be in the audience and bring my senior staff members. This is Pastor MacDonald’s second conference and he has broken racial barriers. Interviewing Bryan Loritts, Charles Jenkins and Eric Mason was an incredibly wonderful idea and the imagery of including and affirming the next generation was powerful. One of them needs to be on the platform next year. Bryan Loritts wrote a prophetic courageous and accurate piece about The Elephant Room. I was so, so proud of him.

The attacks on Bishop Jakes being a “prosperity preacher” are baseless and unfounded. The criticism of Bishop Jakes, in this regard, reflects a tremendous ignorance of the Black church. However, to address this issue would require a totally separate post. This one is already too long; so I’m finished.

Finally, The Elephant Room has the potential to bring the entire body of Christ together across racial, doctrinal, denominational and class lines. Pastor MacDonald, maybe God has raised you up to lead the body in answering Christ’s prayer for unity (John 17:21). Again, I urge you to GO FOR IT! The Kingdom needs you for such an hour as this (Esther 4:14b…”Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”)

Thank you Pastor MacDonald! Maybe now the Calvinist and charismatic, the Baptist and Bible church member, the Pentecostal and Presbyterian, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the Black and the White and even proponents of the Gospel Coalition and the Elephant Room can come together on the basis of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:6). Where else can you go and experience the type of gathering Pastor MacDonald offered at The Elephant Room?

THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS
IN DEFENSE OF HERMAN CAIN
BY
WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

The liberal media, conservative Republicans who support rival candidates and African American civil rights leaders who strongly support the Democratic Party and liberal causes, have unwittingly, formed an unholy trinity to defeat and destroy the presidential aspirations of Herman Cain. The purpose of this article is not intended to endorse Herman Cain for president; but rather to defend Mr. Cain against the scurrilous, scandalous and shameful attacks on his character.

An allegation and formal complaint is not a conviction. A settlement is not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement that the parties involved have brought the “disputed” matter to an agreed upon closure without any admission of guilt or liability. There has not been one shred of evidence made available to the public with regard to the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Mr. Cain that suggest he’s guilty. The National Restaurant Association has granted the anonymous accuser(s) and her lawyer the right to tell her story, but they declined. WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Why are these charges being brought to the public’s attention at this point? The answer is obvious. Mr. Cain has thus far done the impossible. Who would have ever thought that an American Black conservative would be leading the pack for the Republican nomination for president of the United States within a year of the election? No one. That, my friends, is why these charges are being leveled against Mr. Cain. Who has the most to lose if Mr. Cain succeeds? The liberal media, rival candidates, and the Black liberal Democratic civil rights community.

The election of Herman Cain as president of the United States of America would change the political, social and economic landscape in America like nothing we’ve seen before. Therefore, he’s a threat like none other to the established order. In Herman Cain, we find the reincarnation and fusion of three great men. His candidacy is causing such a stir and a buzz because he could be the second coming of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ronald Wilson Reagan all wrapped into one. In my lifetime, these three men impacted the political, social, racial and economic landscape like none other. Cain has the populist appeal and tax cutting philosophy of Kennedy. He has the rock-solid conservative values and principles of Reagan. And, he has the racial sensitivity and inclusion/empowerment agenda for minorities and the poor as Martin Luther King, Jr. America has never seen a presidential candidate with all these qualities in one package. Cain has the potential to bring America together like none other. Therefore, this unholy trinity is unleashing everything within their power to stop him.

I’ve never seen the media report as many as three anonymous allegations of sexual harassment, and not only fail to give us names, pictures, interviews, etc., of these accusers. They even fail to provide any specifics or details related to these charges. No other presidential candidate has been treated like this in my lifetime. Why Herman Cain? Names, pictures, and specifics, have been given with every other politician that I can recall who faced a sex scandal. I repeat: Herman Cain is the only one that I know who has to endure a mirage of news reports about sexual harassment without any supporting evidence.

Where is the NAACP in defense of Herman Cain? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in defense of Herman Cain? Where are the liberals who love to support oppressed minorities in defense of Herman Cain? These entities and individuals are losing credibility, because they are proving to be only interested in defending and advancing Black liberals, not Blacks who are independent thinkers. Is the NAACP the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People–period?

I never thought I’d live to see the day when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other conservative commentators would defend a Black man who is being falsely accused, while the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton remain silent or partner in the unholy trinity.

My voice is minor and marginal, compared to the voices that capture the media’s attention with regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I can’t sit idly by and watch this decent, honorable Baptist minister and businessman under attack, and I say nothing. Therefore, in the spirit of John the Baptist, I’ve decided to be a voice crying in the wilderness appealing to this unholy trinity as it relates to the sexual harassment charges—LEAVE HERMAN CAIN ALONE! STOP THE MADNESS! CEASE AND DESIST THE PRACTICE OF A DOUBLE STANDARD! Cease this media lynching. And the only Uncle Tom’s and sellouts that I’ve seen in this campaign are those who are African American that are aiding and abetting this lynching. The one candidate that the liberal media, Black liberal Democratic leaders, and even other Republican candidates fear the most at this point is Herman Cain. And that, my friends, is the basis for this attack.

Make no mistake about it; the liberal media quoting the anonymous sources is racist and wrong on this matter—specifically, Politico. If credible evidence comes forth that suggests Mr. Cain is guilty, I will immediately post an apology; and I will repent; Mr. Cain would need to do the same as well.

With regard to Sharon Bialek, the fourth accuser, I find her story less than credible for the following reasons: (1) She waited 12 years to tell her story; (2) The story she described if accurate would constitute a crime. Why didn’t she report it to the law when it occurred? She appears to be a pawn of the unholy trinity, seeking to deny this American Black Conservative from winning the nomination for president. Since the anonymous charges did not stick to Mr. Cain, she offers herself as a “sacrificial lamb” that stands to gain fame and fortune from her alleged dalliance with Mr. Cain. What we’re seeing is truly a high-tech lynching, akin to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and for the exact same reason. (3) Where is the “blue dress”? She provided no evidence to her claim to truth.

If Mr. Cain wins, the liberal Democratic stronghold on the Black vote will be broken for a long-long time. This is the reason the liberals are trying to defeat Mr. Cain.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE SBC

By

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Regarding a proposed name change for the SBC

 President Bryant Wright has appointed a self-funded blue ribbon advisory committee, authorized by the Executive Committee to provide counsel to him as he prayerfully weighs recommending to the SBC in her Annual Session upcoming in New Orleans, a proposed name change of our beloved convention.

I commend President Wright for his thoughtful, deliberate and considerate proposal. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit, letter, advisory committee and methodology used by President Wright in launching this proposal.

There may be some validity to the complaint that there are no lay people on the advisory panel; and perhaps it would be wise if President Wright added two–three lay persons to this panel. If youth and young adults are not represented on this panel, consideration should be given to adding that demographic as well.

Unlike the GCR panel, this advisory committee has at least one African American on the panel as forethought, as opposed to an afterthought. This I believe is what the 21st Century SBC should reflect: The Kingdom of God (Rev. 5:7-9).

Whenever a name was changed in Scripture, it usually signified a change in character, conduct or focused concentration on the part of the person or entity whose name was changed. It was not simply a cosmetic change.

Jesus challenged and rebuked the Pharisees for representing a cosmetic change, but inwardly not committed to a character, conduct or focused concentrated Kingdom-minded change. Again, I believe the only biblical justification for the proposed name change of the SBC must be (as some have already indicated in naming possible reasons for the name change) would be a commitment to change in at least one or all three of these areas: Character, conduct and focused concentration.

If the SBC is to change her name, the name change ought to be indicative of a change in focused concentration from a regional and racial 19th and majority of the 20th Century focus, to a 21st Century and biblio-centric concentrated focus on the Kingdom of God. The 1st century church was a Kingdom of God focused church as opposed to a regional or racially focused church. Consequently, they filled all Jerusalem with their doctrine and turned the world upside down for Jesus. Their message was, as Dr. Russell Moore so appropriately points out in his book, The Kingdom of Christ—“There is another king” (Acts 17:7).  And as R. Allen Street (Professor of Evangelism at Criswell College) so rightfully echoes our evangelism as instructed and modeled by Jesus ought to be a Kingdom-focused evangelism. The major theme of Jesus’ preaching was the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ first, last and intermediate preaching/teaching and evangelistic initiatives focused on the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).

Matthew and Mark summarized and capsulized the message and ministry of Jesus as, the gospel of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15, Matt. 4:23).  Jesus said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14).

If the focused concentration of Jesus and his public ministry was not exclusively identified with or limited to a certain region or race, neither should the identity and focused concentration of the SBC be indicative of region or race. Therefore, I propose the name, KINGDOM BAPTIST CONVENTION. Who could argue with the Kingdom of God being our focused concentration and indicative of our universal assignment (Matthew 28:19-20)? Who could argue that the word “Baptist” following the word Kingdom is suggestive of the right priority and emphasis? Yet by including the word “Baptist,” it immediately identifies our heritage; and it also quickly distinguishes us by our non-negotiable doctrines, authority/inerrancy of scripture, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, eternal security of the believer, baptism by immersion, a regenerate membership, substitutionary atonement, a physical body resurrection of Jesus as well as a physical bodily return.

Historically, the word “Baptist” preserves our identity and continuation of the legacy established by great men, women and movements of yesteryears that I admire and appreciate such as: Thomas Muenster, Charles Spurgeon, Shubal Stearns, Martha Stearns, John Jasper, Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., E. C. Morris, Henry B. Morehouse (Morehouse College named in his honor), Martin Luther King Sr. and Jr., W.A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Jack Taylor, Beth Moore, Rick Warren, Gardner Taylor, Frank Page, J.H. Jackson, Nannie Helen Burroughs, Lottie Moon, Ken Hemphill, George Liele, Howard Thurman and yes, Fred Luter; the Anabaptists, Sandy Creek, Charlestonian, National Baptist, Southern Baptist, Fulness and Full Gospel Baptist. These were Kingdom believers of a Baptist persuasion. In spite of the distance that some Baptist place between themselves and the word “Baptist,” and the many stripes and flavors of Baptist that exist (as indicative by the above mentioned names), I believe the word “Baptist” still has major significance and is a worthy distinguishing factor doctrinally and historically. However, the word Baptist should always be secondary to the Kingdom of God, and my proposed name for the new SBC keeps this priority in focus.

The word “convention” is simply indicative of a multitude of churches who share Baptist doctrine and historical roots who convene together to advance kingdom business; thus, the name Kingdom Baptist Convention.  I would hope the word “Baptist” is retained in this new convention name.

The conduct change that should accompany this name change it appears will happen somewhat simultaneously with the name change proposal. And that is the election of Pastor Fred Luter as president of the SBC. This is a positive and good move, solely on the basis of merit and character, without any consideration of color or political correctness. However, I trust and pray that the election of Fred Luter is an indication of a conduct change systemically with regard to racial matters. If the post-presidency-Fred Luter-SBC looks like the current SBC with regard to racial diversity represented on the Executive cabinet, then the election of Fred Luter will look like that Pharisaical cup (Matthew 23:25-27). The real litmus test of whether or not the SBC has undergone a sea change with regard to racial conduct will only be known when it is time to replace some of the current entity heads. However, the election of Fred Luter is a major symbolic step, but a substantive step remains to be seen to elect an African American as an entity head.

Until such time, the jury is still out as to whether the name change and Luter election is cosmetic or real. Again, if the post Luter SBC does not change, then there is no need to change the name. The current name represents the current practices quite well. The missions, evangelism and church planting emphasis of the SBC often overshadowed the name, and that’s why some of us were attracted to  and remain SBC; but at times it is still painful, and we are occasionally reminded that the SBC is well, just that, the SBC.

I am excited and thrilled beyond measure with regard to the recent church planting emphasis of the NAMB. Dr. Ezell and the NAMB have my wholehearted support. I was really encouraged when I read what Dr. Kevin Ezell stated that the NAMB will not prevent church planters from having relationships with historical denominational linkage that believe and practice “degrees of charismaticism.” It is my prayer that this attitude would be conveyed by Dr. Ezell and NAMB to funding church planters who practice “degrees of charismaticism.” Dr. Danny Akin, President of The Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, perhaps made the most prophetic and Kingdom-minded statement regarding the controversial IMB policy concerning private prayer language which is also basically identical to NAMB policy: “’I think the IMB policy on private prayer languages is wrong,’ Akin said. ‘I’m with Jerry Rankin on that.’ Rankin is president of the IMB.” Ironically, for making a statement similar to what Dr. Akin made regarding the IMB policies, there was an attempt made to remove me as a trustee at SWBTS and my chapel sermon was censored, saying I criticized a sister SBC agency. This is also another example of a SBC double standard. WOW! I’m grateful to see positive movement in this direction.

Recently, the SBTC has in principle agreed to fund a proposed church plant/satellite sponsored by the church I pastor, knowing full well my beliefs and practices as it relates to praying in tongues in private.  (I will initially be serving as church planter while simultaneously serving as pastor of CBC.) I have not agreed to accept the funds because I am just not sure of the future direction of our convention. I did not feel right receiving funds from the SBC for church planting in light of the fact I’m aware of church planters who have been denied funding because of the policies concerning praying in tongues at NAMB and the SBTC. Our church has donated over $100,000 to church planters whose beliefs and practices are identical to mine. Offering me funding represented a Kingdom mindset by the SBTC that ought to be extended to all church planters and missionaries. But nevertheless, I am beginning to see positive movement in the right direction. I want to apologize to the SBTC for stating on more than one occasion that they would not fund someone like me as a church plant today, but apparently I was wrong.

The appointment of Ken Weathersby as Presidential Ambassador for Ethic Church Relations in the SBC is also a right and timely move by Frank Page and Kevin Ezell. Before Ken Weathersby was promoted to this position he was demoted as VP at NAMB. This sent a shock wave through the African American Southern Baptist community. However, I must admit I was sorely disappointed when I read in the Baptist Press and saw pictures that NAMB had appointed four Whites as Vice President to develop church planting throughout the United States and overlooked four highly qualified mid-level African American NAMB personnel for one of these slots. This has caused much consternation with African American Southern Baptist churches. Why would we attempt to plant churches in Urban America with four men who ethnically don’t resemble the majority of people in Urban America (Acts 13:1-3)? The name change has to represent a departure from these types of practices.

I could cite several other instances of racial and character issues currently being practiced in the SBC that need to change. However, the point of the article is to celebrate the fact it appears we are moving toward change, and I celebrate this move!

Lord, let thy Kingdom come, let thy will be done on Earth and in and through the SBC, as it is in Heaven. Amen.

LESSONS FROM THE ANIMAL KINGDOM

BY

WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

 

The largest animal the Jews knew in biblical times was a camel, as the gnat was the smallest. Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! …Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24)

 “Straining out a gnat” describes the custom of the strictest sect of Pharisees who strained everything they drank for fear of swallowing an insect that was considered unclean. “Swallowing a camel” intentionally introduces an exaggerated figure of speech in order to demonstrate the Pharisee’s propensity to major on minors and to minor on majors. Jesus was saying to the Pharisees, you take care to strain the smallest insect out of your drink, but you are like people who swallow a camel without even knowing it. The German Common language version translates this phrase as “but you swallow a camel without seeing it.” It was characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees to strain out the gnat and yet to swallow the camel. The Southern Baptist Convention is “swallowing a camel” without seeing it.

The church where I serve as pastor joined the SBC at our inception in 1983. For the past thirty five years, as a college, seminary student and church planter/pastor, I have observed SBC life. I can honestly say that during these years the major focus, impact and effectiveness of the SBC has been where it should have been; and that is on exaltation, evangelism, edification and the elevation of society. Indeed my life, family, congregation and society as a whole are far better off because of the witness, work, word and worship of the SBC.

Whatever strength that our church enjoys, the roots of that strength can be traced back to the church planting and discipleship efforts of the SBC. For this I shall be eternally grateful.

During my thirty five year pilgrimage in SBC life, I’ve noticed periodic and intermittent intervals, where many in the SBC, and often the gatekeepers, have reminded me of the words of Jesus, “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” In recent days, I’ve noticed that this periodic and intermittent tendency continues.

The recent flap over Jamar Jones, a pianist at The Potters House where Bishop T.D. Jakes serve as pastor, is one of many examples that I want to address of the SBC, “straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.”

Todd Littleton has addressed this subject in a factual, historical, scriptural and kingdom minded manner. I commend him for his great post. Todd is correct! “It seems there is nothing that T.D. Jakes can do that will answer his Southern Baptist critics.” Suffice it to say that no SBC personality has provided any evidence that Bishop Jakes is a modalist. As a matter of fact, as Todd so ably pointed out, there is evidence to the contrary. Yet, I’ve recently learned that Jamar Jones has voluntarily removed himself from the role of playing the piano at the SBC Pastors’ Conference because of his desire to be helpful to the Kingdom and Southern Baptists, rather than a hindrance. The truth of the matter is that Bishop Jakes was the target; Jamar Jones is a casualty of not so friendly fire from fellow Kingdom soldiers. It is tragic, sinful and shameful that Southern Baptist missed an opportunity to bridge an obvious racial divide and to fellowship with a Kingdom saint who is not of the SBC fold, simply because the SBC periodically and intermittingly choose to “strain out gnats and swallow camels.”

About twelve-fifteen years ago, I was asked to be a guest on TBN; and I was informed that Bishop Jakes would be the host. I initially hesitated accepting the TBN invitation because of all the hoopla about Bishop Jakes being an alleged modalist; and at the time I had not researched the matter. I consulted with a professor at SWBTS (that I will not name) and a highly respected, well known pastor with a doctorate degree in systematic theology (that I also will not name). Both informed me that they viewed Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity as “technically incorrect, but not cultic.” Now that more light has been shed on his views, I don’t believe either the professor or the pastor would view Bishop Jakes’ view as “technically incorrect.” They both encouraged me to accept the TBN invitation because they viewed Bishop Jakes as a genuine Christian. Upon their recommendations, I accepted the invitation and had a wonderful experience.

If Bishop Jakes is going to be rejected by Southern Baptists because he uses the word “manifestations” to describe the Trinity, if Southern Baptists are to be consistent as Todd Littleton points out—they would also have to reject Hershel Hobbs—a revered, renown SBC pastor/theologian who also used the word “manifestations” to describe the Trinity. He too probably would be labeled “technically incorrect, but not cultic” by the pastor and professor. Since that time, Bishop Jakes has used the word “persons” to describe the Trinity; but this still does not satisfy his SBC critics, because periodically and intermittingly the SBC simply chooses to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” One would be hard pressed to find one Black SBC pastor, let alone ten, who would publicly or privately state that Jamar Jones should not play the piano at the Pastors’ Conference because he is associated with Bishop Jakes. I pray that the Father forgive the SBC for they know not what they do. The SBC views every evangelical denomination as having some views that are “incorrect but not cultic.”

I must admit that I’m not surprised by the Jamar Jones treatment, because I watched the SBC dismiss a great number of missionaries, simply because they would not sign the 2000 B, F, and M, although they signed up as missionaries under the 1963 B, F and M. If the SBC would dismiss experienced, successful missionaries for superfluous reasons under the guise of doctrinal purity, it stands to reason that they would castigate a pianist who belongs to a church that many in the SBC consider doctrinally suspect—without one iota of evidence. Here is another example of “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” The very reason that the SBC had to recently lay off six hundred missionaries due to a lack of funding is because of this bizarre propensity to “strain out gnats, while swallowing camels.” The SBC/IMB/NAMB policy of firing and not funding missionaries who pray in tongues in private is another example of the SBC “straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.”

Our church has baptized over 2000 souls since 1983. Had the SBC questioned me about my views and practice as it relates to praying in tongues in private, these 2000 souls would not be credited on SBC records, nor would I have been able to serve as President of the SBTC Pastors’ Conference or preach at SEBTS and many other places. The SBC “swallowed” me, because they did not know me.

In the 2008 presidential election, I was shocked that SBC pastors, by and large, did not rally behind Mike Huckabee. The reason Huckabee did not get SBC support is because he was reportedly sympathetic and cooperative to the “moderates” while president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention. I publicly endorsed Mike Huckabee. Had Southern Baptists wholeheartedly and enthusiastically embraced Huckabee, he perhaps would be President today. Consequently, same-sex marriages, the Mexico policy, the Health Care policy that funds abortions and bailouts would not be moving into the mainstream and becoming public policy. But because of the SBC’s propensity to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel,” we are now faced with these policy initiatives that most SBC pastors and pew-sitters disagree with.

Southern Baptists have watched women in the SBC be denied opportunities to teach Hebrew and Church History and serve as an IMB vice president, because of this periodic and intermittingly bent toward “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” Female seminary graduates are denied positions as chaplains endorsed by our convention because of our pettiness and unscriptural views toward women. God forgive us. Male pastors and staff members who have violated and abused women and girls in our churches will not even be given the dignity and respect of having convicted persons’ names registered in SBC life because of the SBC’s long bent toward chauvinism. Women like Christa Brown and others who express valid and legitimate concerns about sexual abuse at the hands of clergyman in SBC life are often disrespected, disregarded and once again violated by males because they simply point out the truth and make an effort to protect females in our pews by identifying documented abusers. The SBC deny women all kinds of ministry opportunities and affirmation that is not restricted by the Scripture—yet they allow women to be abused and violated even further by not exposing abusers. I agree with the late African American Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. George McCalep, who said, “The SBC views and practices regarding women are driven by testosterone more so than by biblical doctrine.” Once again, our treatment toward women in our quest for doctrinal purity is simply “straining out a gnat, while swallowing a camel.”

A few years ago, an African American was being considered to serve as an entity head. When he was questioned about his views on women in ministry, he expressed a view in keeping with the B, F & M 2000 and remains in SBC employ; however, his view of women in ministry was still to expansive for the decision makers; therefore, he was not offered the entity head position. The good news is he was not rejected because of his race. The bad news is he was rejected because he did not express a hard-line position against women in ministry. Once again, the SBC drifted toward their tendency to “strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”

The very reason Vance Pittman is President of the Pastors’ Conference and not Troy Gramlin is because the doctrinal purist in the SBC disliked Gramlin’s affirmation of women in ministry. His views and practices are within the boundaries of the B, F, and M 2000 Statement and the Bible, or else he would have been dis-fellowshipped by his Association, State Convention and the SBC. Nevertheless, he was rejected in favor of Vance Pittman because the SBC loves to “strain out gnats and swallow camels.” All the dissension and dissatisfaction registered in the blogosphere over the Pastors’ Conference is in my opinion—poetic justice—because of the ill, malicious treatment by many toward Troy Gramlin.

The only reason that the SBC include a statement in their constitution making it clear that they will not seat messengers from a church that affirms homosexuality, but they refuse to and artfully and hypocritically dodged voting on an amendment to the constitution to not seat churches that affirm racism, is simply because the SBC has a higher tolerance for racism than they do homosexuality. The stated reason at the Orlando Convention for not allowing a vote on the racial discrimination amendment was simply to give the lawyers a chance to vet the amendment. However, the messengers were assured that the executive committee was sympathetic to this motion and would be supporting it. The response to my motion could be a case study in dishonesty and deception.

The “camel” that the SBC has been swallowing from her inception until this very hour is racism, sexism and factionalism—“they are not one of us mentality.”

One of the objections that some have raised regarding the racism amendment is that it would be hard to prove. This simply is not true. All of the excuses used to object to the racial discrimination amendment, remind me of all the excuses that were used to deny Blacks equality, fairness and justice across the years.

In the 90’s I served on the missions funding committee of the BGCT and discovered at that time that all Black churches were required to pay 6% interest on loans and low income White, and Hispanic churches paid 0% interest. This can be documented and verified. They changed their practice after I objected to this in three consecutive meetings. The persons and churches that supported this policy should not have been seated as messengers.

In the 90’s a cemetery owned by an SBC congregation in Georgia would not bury a child of an interracial couple, because the deceased baby was half-Black. This church’s messengers should not have been seated. Interracial couples have joined many African American churches because they were made to feel unwelcome, or in some cases, the pastor refused to perform their wedding ceremony. Messengers from these churches should not be seated.

Black ministerial students at Samford University were sent out along with Anglo ministerial students to preach in SBC churches in Alabama in the late 90’s or early 2000. Some Baptist papers reported this. When some of the Anglo churches discovered Black students would be preaching, they canceled engagements. Messengers from these churches should not have been seated.

Black SBC denomination employees have expressed to me that they have been invited by virtue of their positions to speak at Anglo SBC churches. However, like the Samford students, when it was discovered that they were Black, the invitations to speak were withdrawn. The messengers from these churches should not be seated. Black SBC employees have also informed me that when Black churches or ministries rent certain SBC facilities they are charged a higher rate than Anglo churches. This reminds me of the BGCT practice; therefore, I find it believable. Churches and messengers who support this practice should not be seated.

I heard with my own ears, Mrs. Criswell teaching on the radio on a Sunday Morning embracing the view the Africans were cursed because of their descent from Ham in the mid 90’s. I purchased a copy of the tape/CD. The messengers of FBC Dallas should not have been seated at the Convention, unless Mrs. Criswell repented. The Vice President of Criswell College repented a couple of years ago of calling Hispanics “wetbacks.” Had he not repented, the messengers of FBC should not have been seated.

An SBC church in Louisiana, dis-invited an IMB Anglo missionary couple from speaking at their church within the past three years as reported by the ABP. Why? This couple adopted native African children. This church’s messengers should not be seated. As a matter of fact, it was my reading about this church that in part inspired my proposed racial discrimination amendment.

Dave Miller, a man I have tremendous respect for, talks about being denied a raise by his predominately Anglo SBC congregation. Why? He allowed Blacks to play basketball on the church parking lot. If that was the basis for the decision, this church’s messengers should not have been seated.

Tim Rogers saw a local SBC church in North Carolina, where Dr. and Mrs. Patterson were members at the time vote to fire their pastor because African Americans were baptized in the baptistery. To their credit, Dr. and Mrs. Patterson announced he would not be back because he could not support a church that would take that kind of action. Neither should the SBC seat the messengers from this church.

William Thornton of Georgia, an SBC pastor, stated, “I once supplied at a church who had in their statement of beliefs an article that they believed, ‘God has ordained the segregation of the races…’” This SBC church had this printed on the back of their weekly bulletin, right along with the deity of Christ! Certainly, the messengers from this SBC church referenced by Pastor Thornton should not be seated.

Persons from churches who hold these views and practices are eligible to and sometime serve on SBC boards and committees. Are you expecting us to believe the persons who make personnel and policy decisions from these churches for the SBC do not take race into account in their decisions? If these churches will not allow interracial marriages, people of color to be baptized in their church or play basketball on their church parking lot, are you really expecting us to believe they will objectively make a fair hiring decision about African Americans as an entity head? Could it be that people from these churches decided that we don’t need a racial discrimination policy in the SBC Constitution? This is unbelievable.

In the early 90’s two Black SBC churches including the church where I pastor traveled on a 15-day mission trip to South Africa to construct a small church edifice. The two African American churches heavily funded this trip. The trip was coordinated by a non IMB, SBC related mission’s group based in Tennessee. At lunch time, we noticed that volunteer South African Anglo workers were invited to eat lunch with the mission’s crew from America. The native Black South African volunteer workers were not invited to eat lunch with the American Mission’s team. When I questioned this, they explained to me that this was simply the custom and tradition in South Africa. I vehemently objected to this practice because it was blatantly racist. The missions group that coordinated this trip were all members of an Anglo SBC church. Messengers from an SBC church that engage in such racist mission practices should not be seated at the SBC annual session.

I’ve been told numerous stories of this kind by many Anglo SBC pastors. The EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS SIMPLY IN DENIAL. Bart Barber, another SBC pastor that I respect greatly but often disagree with, has acknowledged in the blogosphere the fact that racism exists in the SBC. Dr. Russell Moore at Southern Seminary has also addressed the historic racism among conservatives in the SBC, and the tentacles of that admitted racism is visible today. Ironically, moderates did not swallow racism. Unfortunately, in some instances, they would sometimes swallow liberalism.

While attending the African American Banquet at the Orlando SBC, I was stunned as I heard the newly elected president, James Dixon, state, “The pink elephant in the room at the SBC is racism, and nobody wants to deal with it.” A Baptist Press reporter was sitting there. I knew she would report this, but not one word. I regard James Dixon highly. I’m convinced that he will address these issues during his tenure as President. It is doubtful that you could find one African American pastor who could not share with you a story of racism that they have experienced in SBC life.

A guest singing group at SWBTS wanted to display a Confederate flag at their appearance. Dr. Paige Patterson rightfully stopped them. This would have been offensive to many African American and Anglo students. The University of Texas removed a picture of one of their former law professors from the wall because he was a Klansman. Several pictures hanging on the wall of former presidents at SWBTS were slave holders and Klansmen. Their pictures should be removed. We cannot let the world have a higher standard than the Church.

While serving as a trustee at SWBTS, I was going to have to cast a vote regarding investing a substantial portion of seminary funds. I asked a fellow SBC pastor to research this matter for me in order to be able to cast an intelligent vote. This pastor discovered that the investment company leadership had a jaded history. Therefore, I decided that I could not, with a clear conscience, vote to invest SWBTS funds with this company. Unfortunately, my SBC pastor friend posted this information on his blog, and the seminary then decided not to hold a vote on this matter. I was then accused by a trustee committee of breeching a non-existent confidentiality policy. Furthermore, they recommended to the SBC that I be dismissed as a trustee. They later withdrew this request after I held a heart-to-heart talk with Dr. Patterson. Lest you think I hold any ill feelings toward Southwestern, I led my congregation to donate the cost of a chair in the new chapel at the seminary, after I resigned as a trustee. The seminary was asking for $4000 per chair.

Interestingly, before Claude Thomas could assume the role of seminary chaplain, one of the trustees circulated “confidential” information that led to the seminary withdrawing the offer of the Chaplain’s position to Brother Claude. My question is, if two trustees both exposed “confidential” information, why wasn’t the other trustee recommended to the SBC for dismissal and publicly humiliated as the Seminary attempted to humiliate me?

Southern Seminary was the SBC seminary of choice for African Americans in the 60’s – 90’s. Something happened. I’m not sure what. The Black student population of Southern has significantly declined. I attended a Black Church Conference at Southern in the mid seventies. Never in my life had I witnessed twenty plus Black PhD’s in religion, assembled in one place at one time. Martin Luther King spoke at Southern in the early sixties. In talking to Black Southern graduates, I’m told that the SBC and Southern’s shift to FUNDAMENTALISM, REPUBLICANISM, CHAUVANISM, and CESSATIONISM caused the Seminary to be less popular with Blacks. All four of these “isms” are generally rejected by African American SBC churches. I’ve visited Southern’s campus twice. I can say that I was treated with the utmost respect and cordiality while there. Russell Moore and Hershel York went out of their way to make me feel welcome. I was there engaged in independent study. I was not an invited guest of the seminary, but I was treated to lunch by Dr. York; and Dr. Moore went out of his way to find me in the library and made all the resources of the library available to me. Without compromising their theological convictions, Southern need to recapture their ability that they once had to attract Blacks in major numbers. I do not know Dr. Mohler personally. I owe him royalties for teaching the men of Cornerstone, his teaching on manhood almost verbatim. I did give him credit. When he was critical of Rick Warren for praying at President Obama’s inauguration and indicated that he would not have accepted that invitation, I was disappointed. Why? The message sent to all of his students, red, yellow, black and white, is that if you are not in political/theological agreement with a politician, you shouldn’t pray at their gatherings. I attended the inauguration and happened to meet and briefly visit Rick Warren there. But how do you say to students by written word and example that you shouldn’t pray at the President’s inauguration? This defies the clear teaching of Scripture (1 Timothy 2:1-8). Rick Warren did not compromise in his prayer. I commend Rick Warren for his prayer for our nation’s new President; but, I question why Dr. Mohler would object. If invited, Dr. Mohler could have prayed at the inauguration; however, he felt led and set a good example for his students. I believe that is one among other reasons that have made Blacks less attracted to Southern.

The Life Action Revival Team based in Michigan has conducted two very successful two-week revivals at the church where I pastor. Life Action is a predominately Anglo revival team of about twenty persons who are housed with church members or live in trailers on the church parking lot. I have nothing but praise for Life Action. Perhaps the greatest spiritual impact of any revival effort in the history of our church was led by Life Action and they were all Anglo, but one singer. Life Action leaders normally attend the SBC.

The only racial or cultural question that came up during their time with us was when I heard them practicing “Dixie” during the day, preparing to sing it that night. I hurriedly informed the Life Action team leader that “Dixie” is a reviled song to Black people. “Dixie” celebrates the ante-bellum South that is a very distasteful period for Black people. I told Bro. Steve Canfield, a great preacher by the way, that if they sang that song that night, I would be fired. He graciously asked the team not to sing “Dixie” at Cornerstone and I was certainly glad. However, we were the first African American congregation that Life Action had ever conducted a revival in. They sang this horrible song in SBC churches everywhere they go—not realizing how offensive this song is to African Americans. I am not suggesting that the SBC churches where Life Action leaders are members should not be seated, but I am suggesting that this is one among several cultural issues that I could name that keep the racial divide in the SBC alive.

The SBC is experiencing numerical, morale and spiritual decline in part because they don’t know how to diversify. The gnat they keep straining out is diversity. The camel they keep swallowing is racism, sexism and factionalism. However, if this convention is to grow and move forward, we must look past the gnat that have plagued us and we must reject the camels that have hindered us and pray for and embrace an eagle that can lift us to higher heights above the gnats and camels that have thwarted us.

I’m praying for President Bryant Wright as he leads us. I’m praying and believing that in New Orleans in 2012 the SBC will make a major step in the right direction and elect an African American as president. If the Lord says the same I plan to attend the New Orleans Convention, so that I can vote for our first African American president. When the SBC appoints a Black and other minorities to one of our entity heads, then I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that racial healing and progress in the SBC will have moved forward into the new millennium. Until such time we are operating under the old paradigm that Blacks in the SBC are a mission project—not mission partners. The fact that African Americans were overlooked as members of the original GCTF underscores the point that Blacks are viewed by the SBC as mission projects—not mission partners.  This must change.

Consequently, Black SBC churches give slightly less than 1% to the Cooperative Program. Anglo SBC churches give 6%. Why is it that Black SBC churches give less than 1%? The answer is simple. They feel disenfranchised and unrepresented. Many Black SBC churches are like our Church that faithfully tithe 10% to missions, year after year, but recognize that under the current practices of the SBC racially, to give 10% to the Cooperative program would be an exercise in self-hatred and the financing of institutional and systemic racism. The camel swallowers have made it impossible to give to the cooperative program without supporting racism, chauvinism, and cessationism. Many would add to that list, Republicanism. In order for any church to give liberally to the cooperative program, they would have to overlook these issues in order to give. It is difficult to give, in our case, over $400,000 a year to an organization that has allowed Blacks to be members for over sixty years, but has never elected one African American or any minority as an entity head. Again, this is tragic, sinful and shameful. However, we swallow this camel—hook, line and sinker—while we strain out the gnat of diversity. God help us!

When Dr. W.A. Criswell, the patriarch of the conservative resurgence, spoke so eloquently and powerfully regarding, “The Curse of Liberalism,” at the San Antonio Convention in the mid 80’s, we saw, “The way of an eagle in the air.”

When Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, the architects of the conservative resurgence led our convention back to a place where we, without hesitation or reservation, declare that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, we saw, “The way of eagle[s] in the air.”

When Dr. Adrian Rodgers preached so powerfully and persuasively for the need of our convention to appoint to boards and committee’s persons committed to the inerrant Word of God, we saw, “The way of an eagle in the air.”

When Wade Burleson risked it all and put everything on the line in a gallant effort to protect the right of missionaries to pray in private in accordance with their conscience and biblical convictions, that led to a modification of the controversial policy and perhaps saved the job of Dr. Jerry Rankin, who admittedly prayed in tongues in private, we saw, “The way of an eagle in the air.”

When one looks at the racial divide in the SBC that is very apparent at every annual session, what we need now is an eagle who will arise that can bridge this gap. I’m convinced that Frank Page’s and Bryant Wright’s hearts are in the right place on this racial divide. James Dixon’s, the able, efficient and eloquent leader of the SBC African American Fellowship, heart is in the right place. My prayer is that God will anoint one of these men or the next president to be an eagle and help our convention to heal the racial divide, so that the SBC will begin to look like the Kingdom of God.

Vance Pittman’s commitment to diversity is excellent. He is greatly respected by Las Vegas’ Black pastors because of his commitment to diversity. Pittman’s worship leader at his church is an African American that he pays a very generous salary and encourages him to be true to himself and his heritage as he leads worship. Consequently, there are many Blacks who are attracted to Pittman’s church. The SBC can learn from him. I’m impressed with his lineup of speakers for the Pastors’ Conference. If I have one concern, it is that I don’t see an African American Southern Baptist pastor in the lineup. Pittman’s commitment to diversity is what’s causing the backlash. Diversity without doctrinal compromise is what the SBC needs. Pittman has managed to do a good job with this. I commend him. From what I’ve heard about him, he may be the eagle that can help bridge the racial divide. However, I regret that he accepted Jamar Jones’ voluntary withdrawal from the SBC Pastors Conference. I respect the fact that Jamar Jones was Kingdom minded and concerned about the unity of the SBC; therefore, he decided to withdraw. In doing so, he displayed a greater commitment to Kingdom unity and demonstrated Christian maturity at a higher level than his critics. Pittman’s commitment to diversity is the “gnat” that many in the SBC want to strain out. If the SBC continues to behave like this, they will do so to their own peril.

While Bradd Whitt, Ed Stetzer, Nathan Finn, Bart Barber, Peter Lumpkins and others celebrate or bemoan the personalities at the Pastors Conference, I wonder if they have paused to realize that last year and this year—not one African American Southern Baptist pastor preached at the Pastors’ Conference. What you all are doing is “straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel.”

If I attend the Phoenix SBC, it will be to support James Dixon and his leadership of the African American SBC Fellowship. If Dave Miller and others choose to bring the racial discrimination amendment to the floor, I would like to be there to simply vote in favor. However, at this point, I’m ready to join the hundreds, or perhaps, thousands of other African American SBC who usually do not attend the convention, even if they are in town because to do so, you have to “swallow the camel” of the very noticeable absence of Black leadership and visibility of Black and minority platform personalities. I’ve decided that this is a camel that I can no longer swallow.

The excellent Annuity Board benefits, church planting and mission endeavors, seminary training, discipleship resources and Sunday school materials are reasons why Blacks join and remain with the SBC. Admittedly, the SBC provides a higher quality of these services much stronger than the National Baptist Convention. Therefore, many of us are committed to being a part of the SBC. However, if the SBC wants greater financial support and convention attendance from Black churches and pastors, they will need to be intentional regarding the inclusion and empowerment of Blacks at every level or nothing will change.

How could the SBC not see that the platform is generally all White at the annual session? How could the SBC not see that all of her entity heads are White? How could the SBC not see the potential for a major increase in giving to the cooperative program if they were intentional in empowering minorities? How could the SBC not see that if the Pastors’ Conference went two consecutive years without an Anglo SBC preacher preaching, there would be a revolt; yet they are blind to the fact that this is what African American SBC preachers are being asked to endure. The SBC is swallowing a camel without seeing it.

IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME THAT SBC persons would say that we cannot document racism in the SBC and we don’t need a racial discrimination amendment in the constitution. The truth of the matter is that the SBC is simply not sincerely and seriously opposed to racism to the extent that they seriously oppose homosexuality. Any other explanation is simply whitewashing a very serious issue.

The Bible says “The way of an eagle in the air” is a wonderful thing (Prov. 30:18, 19). If there is hope for the SBC, I pray that God will raise up an eagle among us who can help us soar to higher heights.

What African Americans in the SBC want is simply, Democracy. I close with this poem by the African American poet, Langston Hughes:

Democracy

Democracy will not come today,

This year nor ever through compromise and fear.

I have as much right as the other fellow has

To stand on my two feet and own the land.

I tire so of hearing people say,

Let things take their course. Tomorrow is another day.

I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.

I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.

Freedom is a strong seed planted in a great need.

I live here, too. I want freedom just as you.

The following quote from Ergon Caner spoken recently to an audience that gave strong verbal affirmation to his sexist sentiments documents why we need to apologize and affirm women in SBC life for a history of sexist attitudes and actions.

“Dr. Caner, do you believe in women behind the pulpit? My answer is well, yeah, of course, how are they going to vacuum back there unless they get behind it….[laughter, and hoots and hollers]…..and that’s going to be in half of your pulpits next Sunday. FEEL FREE!!! I LOVE THAT LINE!! But you know one line like that shuts it all up, ’cause they’re not going to talk about it, and they’re not going to talk to you for a while, which is good, which is good.” 

A number of other examples could be cited.  However, SBC history also documents and demonstrates sexist sentiments much more egregious that the Caner comment.  For those who say I should not repent for the sins of others, my response to you is, SBC Corporate sins require SBC Corporate Repentance (Nehemiah 1:6).  Consequently, I will offer the following resolution in Orlando concerning women in the SBC.

 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE MINISTRY ROLES OF WOMEN AND APOLOGIZING FOR DELAYS IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR MINISTRY CONTRIBUTION

Submitted by Wm Dwight McKissic, Sr.
Cornerstone Baptist Church  -  Arlington, Texas

WHEREAS, the Scripture teaches that God made male and female together in his own image as the crowning work of his creation, both possessing the sacredness of human personality and equally deserving of dignity and respect as God’s special creation; and 

WHEREAS, God also created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics (Gen 1:27), declaring them good (Gen. 1:31) so that male and female in relationship constitute a complete expression of the divine order for humanity, yet without blurring or denying the significance of gender distinctions that God designed for them; and 

WHEREAS, the equality of male and female as to dignity and worth follow from their creation in the image of God, including but not limited to their special and respective roles; and 

WHEREAS, these roles are generally defined as leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector for males (Ephesians 5:25, 1 Peter 3:7) and as helper, nurturer and life-giver for females (Genesis 2:18 and 3:20); and 

WHEREAS, these distinct roles do not justify neglect on the part of men when it comes to nurturing and caring for their families; nor do they prohibit women from serving in roles traditionally understood as exclusive to males, including service in combat (Judges 4:4-23), prophesying (Exodus 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14; Acts 21:8), evangelistic proclamation (Philippians 4:2; Romans 16:7), deacon ministry (Romans 16:3), public prayer (1 Corinthians 11:2-5) and teaching ministry (Acts 18:26); and 

WHEREAS, the Holy Spirit of God has been given in full measure to both men and women since the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17); and 

WHEREAS, women were excluded from full participation in Southern Baptist Convention life from its inception in 1845, and were refused seats as messengers in 1885 when the convention voted to seat only “the brethren;” and 

WHEREAS, due to their exclusion from voting participation in the Southern Baptist Convention, women were prohibited from serving in most roles in convention life, including service as trustees of convention entities; and 

WHEREAS, women were not officially recognized and seated as convention messengers until 1918, though it was many years later that they began serving in elected office as entity trustees; and  

WHEREAS, in recent years, Southern Baptists have recognized the equal worth and dignity of women both as homemakers and in their professional lives; and 

WHEREAS, in 1983, Southern Baptists affirmed all women who work outside the home by urging their “employers, including those Southern Baptist churches, institutions, and agencies which employ women, to seek fairness for women in compensation, benefits, and opportunities for advancement;” and 

WHEREAS, in 2000, Southern Baptists adopted the revised Baptist Faith and Message, which affirms the legitimate place of women who serve in every area of church, home, and work life, excluding only the office of pastor; and 

WHEREAS, Southern Baptist churches, institutions and agencies often employ women who serve in vital ministry equipping roles, including senior leadership positions; and 

WHEREAS, Southern Baptist seminaries currently employ many godly women in teaching, administrative, and supportive roles that serve to advance the Kingdom purpose of theological education; and 

WHEREAS, the ministry of godly women in Southern Baptist life has been an incredible spiritual asset to the Kingdom work we conduct together; and  

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT, the messengers of annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, gathered in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, affirm without qualification the women who serve in our churches, agencies and institutions for their godly character, faithful service, and vital ministry roles; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, we recognize that some religious organizations both within and without Southern Baptist life continue to struggle to recognize, equip, and commission the women whom God has gifted and called to Kingdom service; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, we repudiate any theology, policy, or administrative practice among Southern Baptist churches, agencies and institutions that fails to safeguard fairness for women in compensation, benefits, and opportunities for advancement, and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, we apologize to all women for the delay in recognizing their full value and ministry contribution to Southern Baptist life; and we genuinely repent of the sexism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, we express our deep sorrow and remorse for any offense that has been caused to our sisters in Christ on account of unbiblical gender bias and employment restrictions that do not reflect the positive spirit and precise language of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT, we earnestly pray for the hand of God to raise up more women in our midst, to give them every available spiritual gift, and through their public ministry and service to nurture godliness, faithfulness, and obedience in the lives of all people.

The oil spill in the gulf coast, the factionalism, sexism and racism in the history of the SBC, the apathy and lethargy in our churches and the moral decline in our nation should compel us to call a solemn assembly and seek God’s face, repent of our sins and ask Him to pour our His mercy, grace, strength and power upon this SBC family, her churches, and our country, once again.  Consequently, I will offer the following resolution in Orlando.

 A RESOLUTION ON A SOUTHERN BAPTIST SOLEMN ASSEMBLY

Submitted by Wm Dwight McKissic, Sr.
Cornerstone Baptist Church
Arlington, Texas
 

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention, as a people committed to the authority of God’s Word and dependent on the power of God’s Spirit, have come to a time of profound decision concerning the future structure, ministry vision, and cooperative framework of their shared obedience to the Great Commission; and 

WHEREAS, since its founding in 1845, the Southern Baptist Convention has faced the conflicts and challenges wrought by instances of theological compromise, moral infidelity, and fiscal irresponsibility in its churches, associations, and entities; and 

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention, must remain eternally vigilant lest the errors of the past – provincialism, liberalism, racism, and the like – return to distract us from our priority commitment of reaching the nations with the gospel of Jesus Christ; and 

WHEREAS, all across the Convention, churches, pastors and laypeople are awakening to the need for a resurgence of Kingdom priorities, a renaissance of gospel-centeredness, and a revival of spiritual fervor in our individual lives, our churches, and our Convention entities; and 

WHEREAS, the Scripture teaches that “unless the Lord builds the house, the builder labors in vain” (Psalm 127:1); and that “without [Christ], you can do nothing” (John 15:5); and  

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists are now engaged in a great effort to reaffirm our biblical foundation, to reinforce our Baptist witness, and to reengage the lost world around us; and 

WHEREAS, this effort, which has been appropriately called a Great Commission Resurgence, is of such monumental importance to the future vitality and guiding vision of the Southern Baptist Convention that it requires the exponential spiritual resources of all Southern Baptists to consider thoroughly, implement prudently, and pursue courageously as the Spirit leads; and 

WHEREAS, throughout Scripture God has enjoined his people to seasons of fasting, prayer, and solemn assembly when their focus had been averted from the Lord, when their obedience to God’s commands had fallen short, and when the fresh winds of God’s Spirit were needed to restore a Kingdom purpose and perspective (Joel 1:13-14); and 

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention is seeking the forgiveness, restoration, and empowerment of God’s Spirit to obey God’s call, whatever the consequences; now 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT, the messengers of annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, gathered in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, do proclaim a solemn assembly among all Southern Baptists, a time of intense spiritual discipline, fasting and prayer, for the purpose of seeking God’s face in the midst of the important decisions we must make about our future; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, such a solemn assembly is to occur in all Southern Baptist Churches at such time as the SBC Convention President shall proclaim, and specifically in the town of Augusta, Georgia, where the Convention was founded in 1845; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the we request all state conventions, associations, and entities of the Southern Baptist Convention to invest their full resources to plan, promote, and convene a solemn assembly for the purposes outlined herein; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT, we earnestly pray that the spirit of cooperative missionary zeal that first marked the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention and carried it through more than 150 years of ministry will attend this renewed effort of a Great Commission Resurgence, and that those spiritual, theological, and ethical encumbrances which have heretofore weakened our cooperative efforts will be prevented by God’s Spirit and our faithful resolve from undermining the good plans that God has in store for the Southern Baptist Convention.

From my vantage point, there are three spiritual matters that the SBC Messengers need to address as we prepare to embrace a Great Commission Resurgence in the life of our convention. Consequently, I plan to offer the following resolutions and an amendment to the SBC Constitution in Orlando.

The amendment I plan to offer is as follows:

I hereby move to amend Article III, Section 1 of the SBC Constitution to read:  “1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work.  Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior or racial discrimination and bigotry in any form. And, (2) Has been a bona fide contributor to the Convention’s work during the fiscal year preceding. “

I have posted the first resolution below. My next two posts will contain the remaining two resolutions.

Dwight McKissic

RESOLUTION OF REPENTANCE FOR RACIST THEOLOGY AND AN AFFIRMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

Submitted by Wm. Dwight McKissic

Cornerstone Baptist Church Arlington, TX

Whereas, the Scripture teaches that “God is no respecter of persons,” and that the gospel of Christ is the “power of God unto salvation to all who believe, the Jew first and also the Gentile,” and

Whereas, Christ commanded that his disciples preach the Gospel “to every nation,” and

Whereas, the Holy Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost to men and women of many nations, tribes, and tongues, all of whom shall appear together before the Lord at the end of the age, and

Whereas, the Book of Acts records the apostolic expansion of the Gospel to people of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth, and

Whereas, enumerated among the earliest disciples were men and women of color and racially mixed ethnic heritage, and

Whereas, the Apostle Paul instructed the churches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that there was neither “Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free,” thereby establishing the eternal truth that the Kingdom of God recognizes no inferiority and countenances no gender bias, racial bigotry, or socio-economic disparity among the followers of Jesus Christ, and

Whereas, through generations, and because the law of sin wages war against the law of God, the people of God have fallen short of his glory, particularly in reference to the full acceptance, affirmation, and recognition of the totality of God’s Kingdom in its intrinsic, multi-racial perfection, and

Whereas, aberrant theologies and false doctrines that attempt to account for ethnic superiority of one race or the other have been allowed to fester from time to time among those who call themselves followers of Christ, whether in the form of white or black supremacy, and

Whereas, among those heresies that have challenged the churches are those that locate the origin of racial diversity in narrative texts of Scripture that in no way pronounce God’s curse upon any person or group of persons either because of the color of their skin, or resulting in the color of their skin, and

Whereas, those who have taught contrary to this truth have been tolerated from time to time to hold professorships, pastorates, and other positions of teaching and administrative authority in Southern Baptist life, and

Whereas, the residual effects of this deplorable breach of Christ’s commands within the history of the Southern Baptist Convention are not easily obliterated from our cooperative missionary efforts, inasmuch as we cannot fully estimate the degree to which latent bigotry and soft racism continues to compromise our thoughts and actions toward all members of God’s family, and

Whereas, while tremendous efforts have been made to distance Southern Baptists from an impeachable record of racial unity, we have not yet fully realized the full participation of our vast ethnic diversity in convention life and leadership, and

Whereas, careless statements regarding persons of color who hold high elected office have been allowed to go publicly unchallenged, causing tremendous disappointment and frustration for those seeking to enlist and encourage greater participation among ethnic minorities in Southern Baptist life and leadership, and

Whereas, the purposeful inclusion of ethnic minorities in Southern Baptist life and leadership is far too often an afterthought instead of a strategic vision designed to affirm and increase rather than merely accept and allow persons of color who bring a rich tradition and robust partnership to our convention work, now

Be it therefore resolved that, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Fl, June 15-16, 2010, recognize and embrace with enthusiasm the challenge before us to more proactively include and affirm the full participation of all ethnic groups in the work, witness, life and leadership of our convention, and

Be it further resolved, that we detest any residual racism or latent bigotry in our cooperative work or among our churches, for we recognize that these cancerous theologies and perspectives are capable of spreading if tolerated, and

Be it further resolved, that we repent of the “curse of Ham” theology that has provided a theological and sociological cover for mistreatment of persons of color, and further amplify our 1995 statement on racial reconciliation to include this penitent resolve;

Be it further resolved that, we commit our full financial and spiritual resources to equip and encourage all Southern Baptists to serve in every area of convention life and leadership regardless of their ethnic heritage, and

Be it finally resolved, that we diligently pray for God to raise up pastors, professors, evangelists, teachers, missionaries, and laymen and women from all ethnic groups, for the responsibility of the Great Commission weighs heavy upon us, and we know that our ability to reach this nation — indeed the world — for Christ is inadequate and anemic without the witness and work of all God’s children: red, yellow, black and white.

UPDATE: REVISION AND EXPLANATION OF RACIST THEOLOGY RESOLUTION May 28, 2010

After a phone conversation and email exchanges with Chris Rodgers, an employee at Lifeway Christian Resources, I have removed two paragraphs of the above resolution dealing with a quote in Smith’s Bible Dictionary that was made available through Lifeway up until today.

I purchased a copy of Smith’s Bible Dictionary from Lifeway Christian Store in Arlington, Texas in the early to mid ‘90’s. This copy was published by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, TN., 1991. While researching Noah’s sons, I found the quote cited in the original resolution. Needless to say, I was shocked.

About a year ago I was curious to know if Smith’s Bible Dictionary was still available at Lifeway. I discovered it was and purchased another copy that was published in 2006 by Hendrickson Publishers. This copy contained the exact same quote and material. I purchased the second copy in order to document the fact that it was being made available at or through Lifeway some 10-15 years later. I can’t remember if my secretary ordered the book or not, but I know I personally went to Lifeway in Arlington and purchased it. Therefore, I assumed that Smith’s Bible Dictionary was available at all Lifeway Stores. I’ve since learned that they are only available when someone orders a copy but don’t pick it up. The store manager will then sell it from Lifeway shelves. I perhaps purchased a copy the second time that was available because someone else didn’t pick it up, or it’s possible that my secretary at the time ordered it, and then I went down to pick it up.

Nevertheless, I think that it is highly inappropriate for Lifeway to make available by special order or have on her shelves material that affirms racism. Therefore, I applaud and appreciate Lifeway for making the decision today to no longer make Smith’s Bible Dictionary available. Consequently, I have removed the reference to Lifeway and the Smith Bible Dictionary quote from my resolution.

With Chris Rodgers permission, I am publishing an email exchange between us regarding this matter.

Dear Brother Dwight,

Thank you for taking time to talk to me on the phone today.   I appreciate your gracious spirit.   LifeWay’s reputation and integrity are very precious to us and I wanted to make sure you knew firsthand our stand on this.

I apologize for the problem in our Arlington store and I assure you that is absolutely not the norm.   If you ever see anything stocked in our stores that you think is a problem please let me know.   Below is a statement per your request.    I do not have any exact dates; only what I remember.    Sorry I can’t be more specific.

A few years ago a LifeWay Christian Stores product buyer discovered the problem stated in your resolution concerning Smith’s Bible Dictionary.   We immediately removed them from our stores.   They have not been stocked in our chain for a number of years for the same reasons you pointed out.    Our goal is to carry products that are consistent with the Christian values set forth in the Bible   We will never knowingly carry any product that could be conceived to be racist or bigoted in any form.

I hope you have a great weekend and Memorial Day.    May God continue to bless your ministry in Arlington.

Sincerely,

Chris Rodgers

LifeWay Christian Stores

Dear Chris,

Thanks for your prompt response. Do I have your permission to post your email on my blog?

I also want to point out that Smith’s Bible Dictionary is still available to Lifeway Customers through special order. Would that be an accurate statement? It is my opinion that Lifeway should not make this publication available, because some readers may not be aware of the fact that the majority of Southern Baptists no longer reflect the racial view reflected in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. For the same reason that it is not available at the store, it should also not be available through special order.

I appreciate your phone call. The update and clarification is a significant one. If you grant me permission, I will place your email on my blog.

Tell Tom Rainer, hello. Thanks for the wonderful work Lifeway is doing.

Sincerely,

Wm. Dwight McKissic

Dear Dwight,

Yes, posting my statement will be fine.    It is correct that Smith’s is still available if a customer wants to place a special order although in reality customers show very little interest in ordering this product.    A great part of our ministry is to pastors and ministry staff, who may wish to order a product for critical study.   Out of the minute amount ordered annually, I would have serious doubts that someone would order Smiths because they agree with the racial statements.   I think those ordering Smiths would know what they are ordering and would be ordering if for reasons similar to yours.

However, I understand your point.   So our position is very clear, I will have our system set where Smiths will no longer be available even for special order.   The only exception would be if I find there is a revised version that has removed the objectionable content.    (Also, there is one type of special order that is rarely used where an order could possibly go through because we are using a distributors database.)

I hope this information is helpful.   Hope you have a great weekend.   Let me know if I can help you in any way.

Blessings,

Chris

Answering the Supporters and Family Members of Evangelist Jimmy Davis

The questions and comments that I will address in this post were all raised by persons whom are Anglo and share the concern, “Is there a way to challenge an African American President policies without being accused of racism?” The persons who raised this question and other President Obama related questions are all to some degree sympathetic to or totally supportive of Evangelist Jimmy Davis. Evangelist Jimmy Davis made some controversial remarks and prayer requests concerning President Obama at the Southern Baptist of Texas Evangelism Conference in February 2010 that you can find here and here. I’m specifically responding to questions generated by my post entitled, “ATTITUDES TOWARD RACE IN SBC LIFE” and a CBS Channel 11 local news story addressing current racial concerns in the SBC, that featured a quote by Bro. Davis.

Dennis Thurman and Charity Davis Melchor, the daughter of Evangelist Davis, both raised the question in my blog post, “Is Anglo Criticism of President Obama’s Policies Racist?” I’ve chosen that question as the topic of this post. This is a valid and legitimate question that was alluded to by all of Evangelist Davis’ supporters. I’m anxious to answer the question.

 Anybody who really knows me is aware of that fact that in my pulpit and other public and private settings, I make it very clear that I strongly disagree with several of President Obama’s policies. I’m in total disagreement with President Obama’s gay rights, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, same sex civil unions, and gay pride promotion policies. Does that make me a racist? I disagree with President Obama’s appointing Supreme Court and Federal Judges who support Roe vs. Wade, the federal funding of abortions in the recently passed health care legislation, and his abortion policies in general. Does that make me a racist?  I’m in disagreement with his bailout policies; stimulus package spending policies, and health care tax increase and any other tax increase policy. Does that make me a racist? Notwithstanding the current oil spill in the Gulf. My oil drilling exploration philosophy can be summed up with these words: “Drill Baby Drill!” Does that make me a racist? Because of policy differences, I did not vote for President Obama. Does that make me a racist? NO!

 Any American citizen who criticizes the Office of the President – no matter who holds that office – needs to make sure that the criticism is policy and principle driven, and not pigmentation or personality driven. This premise holds true for any American, of any color, particularly Christians, who for whatever reasons choose to criticize the President. IT IS NOT RACIST FOR AN ANGLO TO CRITICIZE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLICIES, nor for an African American to criticize President Obama,  President Bush, or any other President’s policies.

 Here is the problem. In his message to the Southern Baptists of Texas Evangelism Conference, Evangelist Davis argued from the premise that President Obama is not a Christian, fully aware that the President claims to be a Christian. To argue that the President is not a Christian and to ask for prayer requests for the salvation of the President is not stating a policy difference. It is pronouncing a judgment and communicating an assumption (that was not shared by all of his audience) without providing one iota of evidence to support his assumption or judgment. Brother Davis, in boldly proclaiming that President Obama was not a Christian, I repeat, was not expressing a policy difference; but rather a personal judgment difference. Bro. Davis and President Obama have a difference in judgment about the President’s Christianity. This is a major issue in our dispute over this matter. The vast majority of African American Baptists and many Anglo Baptists would not agree with Evangelist Davis’ assessment of President Obama’s Christianity. If Evangelist Davis had presented his belief and prayer request at the National Baptist Convention (Black Baptists) maintaining that President Obama is not a Christian, he would have been “booed” or ushered off the stage: Not because President Obama is African American, but because Evangelist Davis provided no evidence for his premise that President Obama is not a Christian. And no, it is not apparent to all. Admittedly, President Obama is a liberal Christian. Are we saying that liberal Christians are not Christians at all?

 Brother Davis is well within his right to call into question, doubt, or disbelieve the authenticity of the Christian testimony of President Obama. However, to do so raises a series of questions in the mind of an objective believer. Questions such as; By what standard did Brother Davis discredit the Christian testimony of President Obama? Did he apply the same standards to the Christian testimonies of Presidents Bush, Clinton, Daddy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy and the President whom my mother named me after, President Dwight D. Eisenhower? Did Brother Davis ever ask a group of Southern Baptists to pray to God that one or more of the above named Presidents be sent by God into “exile” or be “providentially” removed from office if they didn’t repent?

 The burden of proof is on Brother Davis to explain why he believes President Obama is not a Christian. The burden of proof is on Brother Davis to explain why he considers President Obama the most wicked President in American history. The burden of proof is on Brother Davis to explain why he considers President Obama more wicked than the slavery/segregation promoting Presidents. The burden of proof is on Brother Davis to explain why he considers President Obama to be more wicked than President Clinton, President Nixon, or a host of other American Presidents. The burden of proof is on Brother Davis to explain why he believes it is exegetically accurate to compare a theocratic King-Manasseh/Israel, with a secular President – Obama/U.S.A., and hold them to the same standard and judgment.

 These are not policy questions. These are personal and spiritual questions. Consequently, this then is why the issue of race or double standards is raised.

Lonnie Massey, an Anglo brother, makes it clear and I agree with him, that Evangelist Jimmy Davis is not a racist. However, he described the “exile” quote as “intemperate and inflammatory.” Brother Davis’ statements may not have been race based. They could have been simply personal preference and personal judgment based. Nevertheless, they were clearly inappropriate and without foundation. Bro. Massey made another relevant and insightful statement; “Anyone who speaks for a living should always consider his or her audience.” I believe Bro. Jimmy failed to give full consideration to the diversity of his audience. There were Anglo persons in the audience who disagreed with Bro. Jimmy’s statements as well. To call President Obama’s Christianity into question using a different standard than what is used for Southern Baptist Pro-Choice advocates, Baptist slaveholders, Presidents Clinton, Bush I and II, and to call for prayer requests for God to send President Obama into “exile”, or “providentially” remove him from office – are personal judgments not policy differences.

The Bible teaches us to pray for those in authority so “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life” (I Tim. 2:2). When Paul wrote this, Christians were under great persecution from a pagan Roman Government. However, Paul did not instruct them to pray for the Roman Emperor’s or Governors “exile” or “providential” removal from office. I agree with my friend Tim Rogers, who is certainly not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination; “I agree we should not call for the providential removal of our Nations leaders as it speaks clearly that we are asking God to kill them.” Well spoken Bro. Tim. Therefore, the prayer requests that Evangelist Jimmy Davis offered for President Obama can either be labeled, intemperate, inconsiderate, inflammatory, inconsistent, ill thought, unrighteous, unbiblical, race based, or simply wrong. Pick one. I accept the testimony of his family members that Bro. Davis is not racist nor was his prayer request race based. So that leaves one or more of the other categories to choose from. Again, pick one.

 The issue of race, not racism as it relates to Southern Baptists and Bro. Jimmy Davis, was raised on my blog post, because, quite frankly, many of us have never heard imprecatory prayers prayed toward a sitting President in our lifetime. Why now? Why President Obama?

 If anyone can prove with a recording that Brother Davis has made identical remarks or prayers toward any other President, I will immediately publicly release a statement of apology to Evangelist Davis. Until Evangelist Davis provides a biblical rationale that can be applied to all of the other Presidents and all Southern Baptists, that invalidates President Obama’s testimony, I stand by my blog post and public remarks. These are not policy questions, they are judgment questions. Therefore, the call for evidence and questions about the motivation of these unusual prayers are based on a lack of documentation that this has been done in the past.

 If President Obama’s abortion policies invalidated his salvation, we must disqualify all Southern Baptists who claim to be Christian, but are pro-choice, including the majority of the voting messengers to the 1971 SBC Annual Meeting.

 President Obama and President Bush hold the exact same position on gay marriage and civil unions. Their positions are: Gay marriage? No. Gay Civil Unions? Yes. I’m totally against both. However, if you disqualify one’s salvation based on same sex civil unions, you also have to disqualify the other. Presidents Bush and Obama are both Universalist and President Bush says he believes that there are errors in the Bible. I disagree with both Presidents on Universalism and I strongly disagree with President Bush’s beliefs that there are errors in the Bible. However, I do not question whether or not either is a genuine Christian.

 An Anglo or any other American can question President Obama’s policies without being accused of racism. However, one must stick to policy issues and not delve into imprecatory prayers and judging any President’s salvation without offering evidence. I share Bro. Jimmy’s heart for righteousness and revival. Other than the Obama portion, I agreed with the entirety of Bro. Jimmy’s message.

Sister Lori Mulkey, I share your belief that “supporting homosexuality and the murder of children is not producing Christian fruit.” My question to you is this: Since, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton held these same views do you also maintain that they were not Christians? Do you believe that the Southern Baptists were Christians who voted in 1971 in their Annual Session – to use your vernacular- support “the murder of children.”? Do you believe that President George Bush, who believed that there were errors in the Bible, believed in Universalism and same sex civil unions, is a Christian? In order for me to address your concerns about President Obama, I would have to know how you feel about these questions. Please provide definitive answers for me.

Sister Lori, you asked, “Could you tell me exactly what it is that you agree with the President on?” I agree with him that the Executive Cabinet of our Government should look like America. The SBC, CEO positions are all held by White Males. In that regard, President Obama’s practice of the Christian faith exceeds Southern Baptists (Acts 10:34). I agree with him that family life and commitment is of utmost importance. He far exceeds John McCain in the family department. I disagree, as you do, with many of his policies. But, I’ve read his Christian testimony. In spite of his policies, his testimony is clearer than most Southern Baptists. I agree with him, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and that He was buried and rose again on the third day. President Obama has expressed his faith on these matters many times. Unfortunately, many Southern Baptists don’t believe him. Consequently, the questions of a double standard and race-based criticism are inevitable. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were Southern Baptists with views identical to President Obama. I don’t recall the prayers for “exile” and “providential” removal from office when they were in office. Was Obama really more wicked than Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and a host of other Presidents?

Bro. Jake Davis, I loved my father; he is in heaven now. I can tell you loved your dad. I celebrate the loyalty and love you all have for each other. I have not called your father a racist. I’ve never met him. I’m sure he’s not a racist.  From what I’ve heard, he sounds like a great man. He must be a great father.

Please point to the written verbal statement where I called your dad a racist.

Do you believe that it is proper that prayers are prayed asking God to send into exile and providentially remove any President who believes in abortion or same sex civil unions? I don’t question whether or not your daddy is a racist. I question the appropriateness of the two types of prayers he mentioned to pray for President Obama. I question his evidence for his belief that President Obama is not a Christian and the most “wicked President in the history of America”. What is Evangelist Davis’ answer to these questions:

(1)   Were the Baptists slave owners Christians? (2) Were the SBC Messengers who voted in favor of abortion in 1971 Christians? I’m questioning whether or not your father prayed these identical prayers for other Presidents with President Obama’s views on abortion and homosexuality. If so, where’s the evidence? (3) Where is the evidence that President Obama is the most wicked President in history?

Evangelist Davis may simply be guilty of applying a different standard to President Obama or he may have made subconsciously race-based remarks. It is possible that neither is true. I will be glad to apologize if you offer me evidence to the contrary. Please provide a copy of the tape of your Dad praying “exile” and “providential” removal prayers for the other Presidents.

I applaud your support for your dad and I don’t believe your daddy is a racist. Remember, being racial is not the same as being racist in my original blog post, “Attitudes On Race In SBC Life.”

Bro. Casey Harrington, I trust I’ve answered most of your questions by answering the questions of others. I’m unaware of the report that President Obama actually “knelt and bowed down in a Muslim Mosque”. Before I could address this issue, you’ll have to point me to the source of your information on President Obama allegedly kneeling down at a Muslim Mosque.

Bro. Harrington, I would also ask you to answer the questions that I asked Bro. Jake Davis.

Bro. Harrington, your “exile” question deserves far more attention than I have space or time to answer. Suffice it to say at this point, there is no biblical precedence for “exile” prayers (I Timothy 2:1-8) and where were these prayers for other Presidents with similar views to President Obama?

Sis. Margaret Bouman, I believe that I’ve addressed your questions in my response to others. If not, ask a clear, specific question and I will give you a clear specific answer.

Sis. Darla,

Thanks for visiting. I hope I’ve addressed your concerns in my comments to others. If not, please ask a specific question and I will give you a specific answer.

Sis. Lori,

Thanks for visiting. I’m concerned about your “exile” comment but I respect your right to your belief.

Finally, please forgive the length of this post. I enjoy company. I love each of you with the love of the Lord.

Dwight

The Augusta Vision- “that the world may believe”

John 17:21d

The Southern Baptist Convention is arguably the greatest missionary, evangelistic, church planting, discipleship training and Christian Education enterprise, in the history of Christianity. Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, where I am privileged to serve as pastor, is a product of the missionary zeal and efforts of Southern Baptists, for which I am grateful.

However, in recent years the SBC is experiencing significant and measurable decline. The key questions many Southern Baptists are asking are: Why the decline and what should we do about it? The purpose of this post is to address these valid questions.

Against the backdrop of racism, sexism, and factionalism, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in Augusta, Georgia in May of 1845. These three “isms” are no longer dominant in SBC life, but neither are they dormant. If Southern Baptists are going to win the world to Christ, we must biblically, honestly and redemptively address our history, image and current reality as it relates to these three issues. We simply cannot expect to have a Great Commission Resurgence that God anoints and blesses, until we first have a Great Repentance Resurgence specifically related to these three “isms”.

Reconciliation, healing, and a coming together in the “unity of the spirit” is vitally important if we are to move forward with the Great Commission Resurgence from our current state of affairs. What is our current state of affairs? Imploding from factionalism, rather than explosion from evangelism.

The greatest threat to the fellowship of the SBC, the funding of the Cooperative Program, and the success of the GCR initiative, is not racism or sexism in the life of our convention. Factionalism is the greatest sin and threat that our convention is currently facing. Baptist factionalism is the reason Cooperative Program giving is declining. Six hundred missionaries were not funded recently and baptismal and Sunday school growth is decreasing. The SBC vital signs are trending and tracking in the wrong direction because of factionalism. Factionalism is not inherently a sin. Pride, a party spirit and the desire for preeminence and power that often accompanies factionalism, is what makes it a sin or weight.

When one stripe of Baptist conservatism attempts to dominate, marginalize, disenfranchise or demonize another stripe of Baptist conservatism, the end result is factionalism. Jesus said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:25).

The Hebrew writer admonished believers to, “lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us” (Hebrews 12:1b). To the extent that I’ve participated in factions in SBC life, and have contributed to the divide in our convention by actions or attitude beyond God’s perfect will for my life, I openly repent and apologize. We must come together as a convention and rally around one purpose and that is, “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Colossians 1:27). The division and factionalism in the SBC must soon cease and be laid aside for the sake of the Great Commission. I want to set an example.

In August of 2006, I preached a sermon at Southwestern Seminary Chapel that Paige Patterson deemed “harmful to the churches.” In the aftermath of Dr. Patterson’s statement I battled with the emotions of disappointment, hurt, anger, surprise and confusion. I’m sure he experienced similar emotions in response to my message. Neither one of us intended to hurt the other. We simply didn’t fully understand each other’s theology on the subject matter that I addressed. Nevertheless, I deeply hurt Dr. Patterson and because that was not my intention, I publicly apologize to him. Not for the content of my message, but for not being more conciliatory toward him and not seeking to understand his position and response. Rather, I chose to publicly argue and defend my position. In the process, I contributed majorly to factionalism in the life of our convention. Again, to the extent that I’ve played a role toward the division and factionalism in our convention, I apologize. There was “collateral damage” to SWBTS and Conerstone that I’m responsible for as a result of my response to Dr. Patterson’s public statement. Our entire convention is suffering because of the factionalism that’s running rampant. It is extremely difficult to maintain unity in the life of our convention in light of our autonomous church structure, and the fact there are a host of issues that the B, F, M does not address.    

The 1845 Augusta SBC could not have envisioned itself, with Fred Luter as President, Dwight McKissic as a member and women having voting privileges as well as serving on entity boards. Additionally, women serving in all levels of ministry within the parameters of the 2000 B, F, and M and the autonomy of the local church would have been far beyond the mental grasp of the 1845 SBC. Korean fellowships, Hispanic fellowships, Founder’s fellowship, Baptists Convictional Association, African American fellowship, B21 fellowship, Nine Marks and a host of others would have been totally unimaginable to the 1845 SBC.  Is the SBC’s success also the cause for her slide? Is SBC evangelism in part responsible for our current factionalism? How does God want us to move forward from here?

How can we achieve unity in SBC life amid so much diversity? Has the SBC grown and gone beyond the point where unity is even desirable or achievable? Has the missionary and evangelistic success of yesteryears been our undoing, because it brought into our ranks many who are culturally, socially, racially and theologically different from the 1845 Augusta, Georgia core group?

Conservatives in the SBC are made up of a coalition of people who are inerrantist, but have great diversity beyond that. The question that the SBC has to answer is, will we affirm our diversity within the parameters of the Baptist, Faith and Message 2000 or will we continue to politically posture for control by one stripe or ilk of conservatives dominating the others? Each faction or “click” fights for controlling interests, or majority status. Those who oppose the group, who seem to be gaining ground or control, are often called dissidents or the disgruntled.

How does the SBC handle dissidents or the so-called disgruntled? Dissidents are either marginalized, disenfranchised or demonized, and this I believe is the primary cause why the SBC is in decline. Asking for increased giving from a shrinking number of local churches affiliated with the SBC will not solve the problem. Reconciling with dissidents and the various factions of the SBC who feel as if they have no voice or seat at the table will resolve the funding problem in the SBC. We must remember that Jesus not only commissioned an outreach ministry, He also commissioned an inreach ministry (Luke 15:4). Perhaps, the SBC also needs to launch A Great Inreach Resurgence. I’m absolutely convinced that if the SBC allows God to heal her “tribalism spirit”– her treasure and funding problems would heal simultaneously. How shall we proceed toward healing the tribalism, division and factionalism in SBC life?

We need to formally acknowledge that there are ideological, theological, and preferential differences among us that are not outside of the scope of the Baptist, Faith and Message 2000. We need to formally declare that our goal is unity in achieving the Great Commission, not uniformity in secondary and preferential matters.

Jesus prayed for unity among His followers, because He recognized that evangelism was hindered where there was a lack of unity (John 17:21). Jesus taught that unity was a prerequisite to world evangelism. The day of Pentecost illustrates this truth (Acts 2:1). If unity was absolutely necessary for the original Great Commission Surge – shall we attempt another without first seeking corporate union with God and unity with each other? If God did not allow the early church to succeed with the Great Commission without unity, why would we think we could succeed without unity? Even the group that met in Georgia in 1845 was unified. Unified around some ungodly social beliefs, and sound doctrine, God honored and blessed their spirit of unity with Great Commission success (Psalms 33:1). Agreement is powerful, even when there are some negative and sinful components included. Back to the question: How shall we heal the divide; factionalism and disunity in the life of the SBC? The vision is simple, scriptural and doable.

 THE AUGUSTA VISION

We need to “lay the axe at the root of the trees” (Matthew 3:10). By May 2012, the SBC needs to “go back to her future”, in Augusta, Ga., and “convene a solemn assembly” (Joel 1:14). The vision would be for our convention to come together under God, at the place where God first blessed this convention. We need to corporately repent of our sins, and ask God to restore health, unity and wholeness to our convention.

In Augusta, Ga., we need to fall on our faces before God and repent that our convention was birthed and rooted in racism, sexism and factionalism. We need to ask God to heal the current disunity and factionalism in the SBC. We need to ask God to birth within us a spirit of unity as it was on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1). We need to ask God to pour our His Spirit afresh and anew upon our churches and convention. We need to ask God to allow the wind of His Spirit to blow across our land one more time as He did in the first and second great awakenings.

The party spirit in SBC life must cease (1 Corinthians 3:3-9). The unity and praise spirit in SBC life must begin (Ephesians 4:3). Certain people who are part of the SBC today would not have been welcomed in Augusta in 1845. Thank God, we can come now; red, yellow, black and white, male and female, northerners and southerners, as one body in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Quite frankly, Anglo Southern Baptists need to go to Augusta to make peace with their past as it relates to race, sexism and factionalism. People of color in the SBC need to go to Augusta to experience our SBC history and repent of any racist, sexist and factional attitudes and actions towards others that we’ve been party too. What better place to begin with a fresh start than Augusta, Ga.?

In Augusta, the Southern Baptists of the Charlestonian Tradition, would come together in the unity of the Spirit with the Southern Baptists of the Sandy Creek Tradition. The Baptist Identity Southern Baptists would come together in the unity of the spirit with the Baptist Irenic Southern Baptists. The Calvinist Southern Baptists must come together in the unity of the Spirit with the Non Calvinist Southern Baptists. The cessationist/ anti-tongues Southern Baptists must come together in the unity of the Spirit, with the continualist/ little “c” Southern Baptists charismatics, in the Jerry Rankin tradition. The minority people of color Southern Baptists must come together in the unity of the Spirit, with the majority Caucasian Southern Baptists. The complementarian Southern Baptists must come together in the unity of the Spirit, with the “complegalatarian” Southern Baptists in the Sandy Creek Tradition. The contemporary church practioner Southern Baptists must come together with the cultural warrior Southern Baptists. The Fundamentalists Southern Baptists must come together with the Orthodox Evangelical Southern Baptists including moderates who believe in inerrancy.

We must endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). We must allow for disagreements on nonessential matters and allow dissidents to fully function within the life of our convention within the parameters of the B, F, and M 2000.

This must be done for the sake of the Great Commission. I’m not asking that anyone change their belief system, but rather that we respectfully, lovingly and intentionally join together, in spite of our belief systems, for the Kingdom’s sake.

If God breathed on our solemn assembly, we could depart from Augusta, fired up and ready to go. You ask, ready to go where? Ready to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” We could depart from Augusta as “one body”; empowered by “one Spirit”; with only “one hope”; in the soon coming return of “one Lord”; committed to “one faith”; having all received “one baptism”; worshipping “one God”; serving Him with at least “one” gift He’s given us (Ephesians 4:3-7); and filled with His “one” Spirit (Ephesians 5:18); and ready to minister as one people (1 Peter 2:9-10), so “that the world may believe” in our one God and His son, Jesus Christ.

If all SBC entities policies and personnel reflected the spirit of this vision, the Cooperative Program giving and consequently Great Commission sending, would esponentially increase almost immediately. If we come together in a solemn assembly under this vision, we can do in Augusta this time, what should have been done the first time. And that is, let the world know we are Christians by our love.

Lord, let it come to pass, according to your will for the Kingdom’s sake and the Great Commission, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

The Southern Baptist Convention needs to call a solemn assembly and repent for passive and intentional acts of racism in SBC life since the ‘95 apology statement.

I coincidently happened to see Frank Page at the Louisville Airport in June ’09 at the close of the Annual SBC meeting. This gave me an opportunity to respectfully point out to him that not one Black person was appointed to the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force at the Louisville Convention. Dr. Page assured me that this was an unintentional oversight by President Johnny Hunt. Frank Page contacted Dr. Hunt and he quickly appointed an African American Pastor from Georgia to the GCRTF.  I applaud Johnny Hunt for immediately rectifying this situation.

Is Johnny Hunt racist? Absolutely not. His unintentional oversight is just symptomatic of the problem. Systemic, institutional and individual racism in SBC life is usually passive, not intentional. Yet, it exists. Therefore, it must be biblically addressed by our leaders if we are serious about the Great Commission. 

Dr. Danny Akin prophetically, positively, and profoundly addressed the race issue in his signature message in chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, concerning the Great Commission Resurgence. Rarely, do we hear of this type of statesmanship and leadership on this issue from anyone in SBC life. Much respect to you, Dr. Akin. I wish the GCR report to the annual meeting in Orlando would include Dr. Akin’s initial remarks on this subject.

For years I’ve asked many of my Black Baptists and evangelical Pastor friends, who would not question one word of the B, F, and M, 2000, why won’t you join the SBC? Their response would be, because it is “southern and racial”. Note: not racist, but “racial”- meaning, the DNA of the SBC is White, and geographically and culturally southern oriented. Therefore, it cannot comfortably or willingly accommodate or assimilate as equals, African American Baptists input, involvement and influence. For years I’ve disagreed with my friends’ analysis. But I’ve since reached the conclusion, they are right.

Ten years after the ’95 racial reconciliation and apology statement, there has not been one African American appointed to a position as the Chief Executive Officer of a SBC entity. There are three entity executive positions currently vacant. I pray that a qualified African American will be appointed to one of them.

If you think I’m unnecessarily fixated on race, tell me how you would you feel if you were a part of a convention that claimed to be inclusive of all people groups, yet without exception, all executive level cabinet positions are occupied by males of only one people group? Would you think that’s fair? You watch the full GCR report and none of the four presenters ethnically resemble any of the people groups that the report is challenging us to reach except for Anglo males. Do you agree with that approach?

One of the objections that I’ve often heard from minorities concerning SBC missions efforts is that the approach is paternalistic rather than a partnership approach. Viewing it from the perspective of a minority, that’s how the GCR report came across, paternalistic. Nevertheless, I plan to vote for it because I have huge respect for the GCRTF members that I’m acquainted with.

Is the GCR report racist because none of the presenters are persons of color? No! It does mean that persons of color were once again an oversight, which again is symptomatic of the problem. I trust that when the GCRTF report is made in Orlando, representatives from other ethnic groups will share in the reporting.

In February, I attended the Southern Baptists of Texas Evangelism Conference where the SBC Evangelist Jimmy Davis, preached a message comparing President Obama to the wicked King Manasseh. Davis clearly communicated that President Obama was not a Christian, being fully aware that the President claims to be a Christian. He challenged the conference to pray for the President’s salvation. As Davis sees it, if the President doesn’t repent of certain social policy positions and his spiritual condition, then he encouraged the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention to “pray that God providentially remove President Obama from office”.

On the heels of Davis’ message I called him to make sure I understood his message correctly. Not only did he make it clear that I understood his message correctly, he further added his belief that President Obama is the “most wicked President in the history of the United States”. Evangelist Davis, at the conclusion of his message, asked the audience to join him on his knees and they did. He then prayed for the President’s salvation and that he be “providentially” removed from office if he doesn’t repent.

The picture of hundreds of Anglo Southern Baptists on their knees praying that God “providentially” remove the first African American President of the United States from office is not a pretty picture to African American Southern Baptists or biblio-centric fair minded Americans of any color. It’s a horrible witness to the world and a poor testimony of Southern Baptists. The SBTC officials are very much aware of this message and have remained publicly silent. Does silence equal consent? If Evangelist Davis’ remarks and prayer that God “providentially” remove President Obama is not repudiated by SBC and SBTC officials, Wiley Drake is owed and apology (2010 Empower Evangelism Conference, Southern Baptists of Texas , February 15-17, 2010). I’m publicly asking Dr. Jim Richards and Johnny Hunt to publicly disavow and repudiate the portion of Evangelist Davis’ message that dealt with President Obama.

Read this Baptist Deacon’s comment about President Obama posted on his blog:

“In a year, two at the most, the government will collapse on itself with no outside assistance due to a shortage of taxpayers. When that happens, China will sue for possession to recoup its losses in the World Court and win. Since no one trusts a liar, the Chinese will not permit Barack, the Tragic Negro, or congress to remain in power. Few will be willing to shed their blood to protect and defend Obama’s America”.     [Bill Fortner, Tuesday, March 30, 2010, Picayune Poltroons]

 

This Anglo Baptist deacon has a right to his political opinions. However, to refer to the President of the United States as, “the Tragic Negro”, is clearly racist and beyond the pale. Our convention will never experience genuine racial reconciliation and ethnic church growth as long as Baptists harbor and air views like Evangelist Davis and Deacon Bill Fortner.

A Black Baptist Arkansas Pastor who disassociated himself from the SBC in recent years visited our church this past March. I asked him why he was no longer Southern Baptist. He reported to me that his congregation went on a missions trip to Mexico with an Anglo Southern Baptist congregation. During this trip his people heard one of the Anglo mission team members use racial slurs toward their pastor. When he confronted the Anglo who allegedly made the slurs, he didn’t deny it nor did he apologize. Consequently, he left the convention.

Ergun Caner made condescending and stereotypical remarks concerning the Black Church in a sermon preached at First Baptist of Jacksonville, FL. Caner’s observation certainly would not be true of the Black church that I pastor and the majority of Black churches that I’m aware of. Yet, his remarks were met with approving laughter. I don’t believe that he would have made those same remarks in a Black church. Caner essentially said Black churches do not put the preacher up to preach until about 1:00 p.m. That’s not true. Black churches, according to Caner, take up “twelve offerings”. That’s untrue. Caner further stated:

“… you go to a Black church gentlemen, you are not going to have on a blue suit, you are going to have blue shoes to match, and your handkerchief is going to match your tie, and your whole outfit is going to match your car. It’s BEAUTIFUL. And ladies: when we talk about black church, we’re talkin’ about hats. And I’m not just talkin’ Easter hats as some of you may wear, I’m talkin’ ’bout satellite dish hats. [laughter]. Big enough to receive a signal, with a curtain rod goin’ down the front that you can just pull the curtain across”.   [Ergun Caner, The Warrior Church, June 14, 2009]

 

By the grace of God, I’ve been privileged to preach over the past thirty six years in twenty seven states, at least seventy five cities, and in over one hundred and eighty pulpits or public venues across the length and breadth of America. The vast majority of those preaching assignments were in Black Baptist pulpits. My point is, Ergun Caner may have had a better opportunity to judge the social mores of the Black church more so than I, but it’s doubtful. I can truly say that what Ergun Caner stated is simply, generally not true. As a matter of fact, I’ve never witnessed what he described. If I stated that White preachers preached in Hawaiian shirts and encouraged married couples in their churches to have sex seven straight days, and wore toupees; that may be true in isolated cases but it would be unfair, inaccurate, and racially stereotypical, without foundation, for to me make such a claim.

This is what Caner has done and he owes FBC Jacksonville an apology. I honestly don’t believe Caner meant any harm. I think that he was simply speaking off the cuff and exaggerated grossly. Most public speakers, including myself, have made similar mistakes. However, his remarks were damaging to the reputation of the Black church in the minds and hearts of his hearers. One would expect better than this from a Seminary President. This caricature must be corrected. Jim Richards, Richard Land, Wade Burleson, Ronnie Floyd, and Tim Rogers have all preached in my pulpit. They know Caner’s description of the Black church is absolutely false. It is certainly not the norm. I know Mac Brunson personally. I have great respect for him. Mac owes it to his people to set the record straight.  

An Anglo SBC church in Louisiana refused to let Anglo missionaries whom had adopted children of color speak in their church because of the color of their children. This church should be investigated and disciplined by the SBC just as the churches that reportedly are affirming and welcoming of homosexuals. Although the SBC claims thousands of African American members, the highest ranking Black at the SBC Executive headquarters is the head custodian. This is certainly reminiscent of the Antebellum South.

All of the above incidents took place since 1995. The SBC needs to hold a Great Repentance Resurgence that precedes a Great Commission Resurgence, so that we can be cleansed of unbiblical and ungodly attitudes toward women and race. Unfortunately, my pastor friends who refuse to join the SBC are right. The SBC is “southern and racial” and this must change if God is to breathe on our Great Commission Resurgence.

I personally like changing the name of the SBC to THE INTERNATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION. A new name gives us an opportunity for a new start in a new millennium. It’s an idea we truly ought to consider.

Why do the patriarchs of our convention need to call a solemn assembly and lead us in prayers of repentance? Because the SBC has a history of displaying attitudes and actions toward women that fall short of biblical standards (Acts 2:17-18).

 The SBC was formed in 1845 when women were not allowed to vote in the vast majority of  SBC churches. Consequently, women by and large did not attempt to register as delegates/messengers to the annual SBC meetings. In 1885 women were excluded by the vote of the convention from being seated as delegates. The convention voted to only accept “brethren” as representatives from churches to the annual meetings. Josiah Lawrence made a motion to seat women as “messengers” in 1917 and the vote actually occurred in 1918 with overwhelming approval.

A friend of mine, well versed in SBC church history, says he cannot recall any formal apology that was ever made to the women of the SBC for denying them a vote. I am calling for the SBC to formally apologize to women and  go before God and ask His forgiveness for devaluing and dishonoring women of the SBC.  The SBC in 1995 voted to repent and apologize to African Americans for harboring similar attitudes and actions toward them. Wouldn’t it also be biblical and right to formally repent and apologize to the women of the SBC for denying them voting privileges and consequently the opportunity to serve on entity boards for a period of time?

 Sheri Klouda, Karen Bullock, and Wendy Norvelle are poster personalities for how many females have been unfairly treated in SBC life, only because they are women. After having been appointed, Wendy Norvelle was not allowed to serve as Vice President of the IMB simply because she’s a woman. Ken Hemphill’s forced resignation at Southwestern Seminary was largely in response to him allowing Dr. Karen Bullock to be a chapel speaker and recommending her for tenure. The late Dr. Raymond Spencer, a Black Professor of Preaching at Southwestern during Hemphill’s reign, boldly stated in a preaching class, where I was a student, that he affirmed women preachers, but not female senior pastors. He then introduced a lady to preach to our class and she did an excellent job. Dr. Spencer went home to be with Jesus before Dr. Patterson became President. What’s most unfortunate is that Dr. Spencer would not have been allowed to affirm women preachers under Patterson, nor would he have been allowed to present a woman to preach in a preaching class.

According to my wife, who was a student at Southwestern while both men were President, the way the subject of women in ministry was addressed or not addressed, noticeably changed from the Hemphill era to the Patterson era. The Hemphill philosophy of women in ministry was preferred by most Anglo and African American women I’ve dialogued with. If you were a woman who studied at Southwestern under Hemphill and Patterson, you were sent mixed and confusing signals about the role of women in ministry. From what women have shared with me, they were affirmed by the Hemphill philosophy of women in ministry, while the Patterson philosophy of women in ministry made many of them feel alienated. All of these Baptist women affirm the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and have no desire to be Senior Pastors, nor feel called to be a Senior Pastor. Our SBC entities and many churches are restricting women beyond what the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 allows and addresses. Either the conservative inerrantist trustees who hired Dr. Klouda or the conservative inerrantist leadership at Southwestern that fired her, owe her an apology. One of them was clearly wrong. Dallas Theological Seminary champions the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture and allows a woman to teach Hebrew. The Patterson era at Southwestern does not. To the extent that women and men are sent confusing and mixed signals regarding women in ministry in SBC life, we need to repent, clarify, or apologize.

The opposition to Troy Gramlin as President of the SBC Pastor’s Conference is largely due to him embracing female preachers/speakers. Beth Moore has been labeled as one of the most dangerous persons in the SBC in some circles of Baptist life. She was labeled this way simply because she is a woman who exercises proclamation gifts.

SBC personalities sat in a business meeting at Concord Baptist Church in Dallas, TX by invitation of the late Dr. E.K. Bailey, Senior Pastor at that time, and listened to twenty-five African American Baptist Women say that they were violated by Daryl Gilyard. Yet, the SBC officials walked away disbelieving and disregarding the testimonies of those ladies and continued to embrace and support Daryl Gilyard. They assisted him in securing two other full time ministry posts in predominately Anglo or mixed congregations. It was not until three White ladies made similar allegations that SBC officials and leaders withdrew public, moral, monetary support, and preaching invitations. I sat in shock and disbelief as he related this story to me over lunch one day. Dr. Bailey died with excruciating emotional pain in his heart over how Southern Baptists discounted and disregarded the testimonies of twenty-five ladies from his church and only took action when three White ladies testified to their counselors. What would have happened if the SBC officials who heard the testimonies of the twenty-five ladies, joined Dr. Bailey in repudiating and denouncing Daryl Gilyard in the late eighties? Perhaps teenage girls and adult ladies who were victims of Gilyard in the nineties and the new millennium, might have been spared.

Surely, repentance is in order to all women whom have been sexually exploited by certain Baptist preachers. To whatever extent leaders have enabled preachers to exploit those women, the SBC needs to call a solemn assembly and repent to God and ask His mercy and forgiveness.

THE NEED FOR A GREAT REPENTENCE RESURGENCE

BY

WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

Can the Southern Baptist Convention experience a Great Commission Resurgence without first engaging in a Great Repentance Resurgence? In order for the SBC to experience a Great Commission Resurgence her leadership will need to reflect representatives of the people groups that she hopes to reach. Electing Fred Luter as President of the convention would give the GCR a great boost. This feat would make a declaration that the SBC is serious about reaching all of the people groups in the world. Paige Patterson is referenced in the book, UNEASY IN BABYLON (p.270, published in 2002), as supporting the idea of an African American President of the SBC by 2005. I know for certain that this is the heart of Dr. Patterson, to see an African American President of the SBC. WHY NOT NOW? WHY NOT FRED LUTER?

Troy Gramlin is the Pastor of the Flamingo Road Baptist Church in South Florida. The Flamingo Road Church has baptized 5,015 people in the last five years and led the state of Florida in baptisms for the past four years. They currently average 11,000 people in weekend worship services. What a great example of a Great Commission Pastor. As of this writing, he’s the only declared candidate for the presidency of the SBC Pastor’s Conference and I plan to enthusiastically vote for him.

I pray that Southern Baptist Pastors will not be distracted by those who want to derail Gramlin’s election as President of the Pastor’s Conference by misrepresenting and distorting his views on women in ministry. I challenge Peter Lumpkins, Gramlin’s most vocal critic, to a debate anytime and anyplace, defending the fact that Gramlin’s views on women in ministry are not in violation of the Bible or the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Furthermore, Gramlin’s views are in keeping with the Sandy Creek tradition in Baptist life. Whether Gramlin wins or loses the presidency of the Pastor’s Conference, he’s committed to increasing his financial commitment to the Cooperative Program. The election of Luter and Gramlin would positively change the image of the SBC and enhance our Great Commission efforts.

The primary reason I’m addressing this subject is because I want to appeal to the patriarchs of our convention (Johnny Hunt, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Ronnie Floyd, Frank Page, and others) to call a solemn assembly and invite Southern Baptists to pray, seek God’s face, repent and turn from our wicked ways. Joel 1:13-15 reads,

Gird yourselves and lament, you priests;

Wail, you who minister before the altar;

Come, lie all night in sackcloth,

You who minister to my God;

For the grain offering and the drink offering

Are withheld from the house of your God.

Consecrate a fast, 

Call a sacred assembly; 

Gather the elders

And all the inhabitants of the land 

Into the house of the Lord your God, 

And cry out to the Lord. 

Alas for the day! 

For the day of the Lord is at hand; 

It shall come as destruction from the Almighty.

The SBC must repent of systemic, institutionalized, and historic negative attitudes toward women, races, and dissenters. When we repent of our sins and turn from our wicked ways, then God will forgive our sins, heal our convention, and anoint us to go forth with power in carrying out the Great Commission.

In three following separate posts I will address SBC attitudes toward women, races, and dissenters in Baptist life, as well as document and delineate why corporate repentance is absolutely necessary for restoration, renewal, and resurgence in Baptist life.

An Apology To Rush Limbaugh

 

 

          I wrote an opinion article that was published in the Ft. Worth Star

Telegram and on my blog that quoted Rush Limbaugh in effect endorsing

slavery. This quote was circulating around the internet.   Rush Limbaugh

denies ever having made the statement. No one has come forth with any

proof that Limbaugh indeed made the affirmative slavery quote. Therefore,

I must repent and apologize to Mr. Limbaugh for having repeated this quote.

I’ve been under conviction since Rush denied this quote and I feel

compelled to publicly apologize, just as I publicly unintentionally misquoted

him. Please forgive me Rush.

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

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

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

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 5th 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 21st 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
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

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.