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
May 27, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Good amendment and resolution. I wish I could be there to vote for it. What will you do if it doesn’t pass? Personally, I think that would be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me and the SBC will have one less young leader in its midst. If the messengers decided not to affirm it that would be like asserting they want to proclaim cheap grace. I don’t think I could stomach that.
May 28, 2010 at 11:42 am
Thanks for visiting. Blake, if the amendment and resolution does not pass it would communicate to the SBC and the nation that Southern Baptists abhor homosexuality much stronger than they do racism. I do not believe that this is the message the SBC wants to send to their constituency or the nation. Therefore, I’m optimistic that the amendment and resolution will pass. I agree with you; to not affirm the resolution and amendment means that earlier statements regarding racial reconciliation were not very meaningful, since they carried no binding authority like the amendment carries. “Cheap grace” is to gracious of a term to describe a negative or non response to this amendment and resolution. Deception and insincere, I think would be more accurate terms. However, I’m convinced that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are genuine and sincere on the race issue. Again, therefore, I expect this resolution to pass.
May 27, 2010 at 6:04 pm
The SBC has a history of “referral” of such amendments to the executive board, and that usually means its death. If you recall, that is exactly what happened to the motion I made in San Antonio regarding private prayer language which, I believe, you seconded. In Indianapolis the next year, the EB did a little sidestep in reporting that they discussed it, and decided not to act on it. That was that, end of discussion. From a parliamentary standpoint, is there a way to keep this from getting thrown on the referral pile? BTW, if I’m able to go, I’ll second the motion.
I’ve been in enough Baptist meetings in the past couple of years where conversations about African American leaders in high political office has led to other discussions of what I clearly consider to be a racist nature. I’ve walked out of a couple of meetings because of it. The paragraph in your resolution that addresses that issue is going to be a very, very hard pill for some Southern Baptists to swallow. It’s an excellent resolution, and I hope it makes it to the floor in the form in which it is written.
I’ve become personally convicted in the past couple of years that it is not enough to simply avoid people who are making racist remarks or who are disparaging African Americans. It is time for Christians to stand up, shoulder to shoulder, and work to eliminate it from the church altogether.
May 28, 2010 at 11:45 am
Lee, what a stand up guy you are. It takes character and courage to take a bold stand against racism. I hope you can make Orlando. This motion will surely need a second. If Brent Hobbs is correct [#4] I hope someone from the floor will raise a point of order and ask if the convention would like to consider the question. If the amendment is referred to the EC, I would then follow Les Puryear’s advice and contact the EC and request permission to present the value of the amendment to the EC staff and trustees. In response to your question on my earlier post, I will make it a matter of prayer regarding hosting a conference related to RACE and the The SBC. At this point I feel no strong conviction to do so.
May 27, 2010 at 6:37 pm
These are both needed and well-expressed. I am pessimistic about their adoption, however, because many will see them as 1) supporting the President, or 2) disregarding a classic interpretation of scripture, or 3) being overly-critical of certain pastors, churches, or institutions, or all three. Plus, none of the leadership wants to detract from the Great Commission Resurgence report and adoption, which is another topic altogether.
My question to you is “What will you do if either or both of these are rejected or killed by parliamentary maneuvering?”
May 28, 2010 at 11:46 am
Chuck, your observations are interesting. I remain optimistic, although I understand your reasons for being pessimistic. My amendment and resolution does not “detract from the Great Commission Resurgence report.” It actually if enthusiastically adopted would enhance the GCRTF report. I answered your question regarding what would I do if this report is referred in my response to Lee. Thanks for visiting. I long to meet you and get to know you better.
May 27, 2010 at 8:31 pm
RE: Lee’s procedural question
I hope I’ll get this right…
If a motion is referred to the EC or other entity, then someone from the floor can raise a point of order and ask if the convention would like to consider the question. I believe at that point the convention votes on whether or not to consider the question and it must pass by a 2/3 majority. Then it can be considered, debated, and voted on.
I believe that’s the only method available when a motion is “thrown under the bus.”
I especially like the amendment to the SBC Constitution and hope it is implemented and acted on when necessary.
May 28, 2010 at 11:47 am
Brent, thanks for this information, I hope you’re right. I believe most Southern Baptists would be as yourself and see the value of this amendment. Thanks for visiting.
May 27, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Dwight,
I appreciate the spirit of your amendment. How would you propose the SBC enforce it?
Brent,
You’re right in that asking for a floor vote is an option. Unfortunately, I have been told by a staff member at EC that no amendment has ever received the 2/3 vote required for passage.
If the amendment is referred to EC, and it will be, perhaps a better strategy is for the person making the motion contact the EC and request permission to present the value of the amendment to the EC staff and trustees. That sort of request is normally granted.
Les
May 28, 2010 at 11:47 am
Les, I know this is your heart. What about the “letter of my amendment”? Do you not appreciate the letter of my amendment?
I propose that the SBC would enforce this amendment the same way that they enforce the amendment on churches that affirm homosexuality. Have I answered your question?
Dwight
May 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Dwight,
I’m not sure about the “letter” of your amendment. I hope you know that I have fought against racism all my years of ministry and will continue to do so. I’m just not sure about the wording of this motion.
I think, perhaps, there will not be any misunderstanding of the phrase “racial discrimination.” However, I can see a potential problem with the phrase “bigotry in any form.”
Here’s where I see the potential problem. Today, politicians and the politically correct folks are using the words “bigot” and “bigotry” to describe people who do not agree with gay rights and same sex marriage. Also, many people compare the gay rights movement favorably to the civil rights movement. Personally, I believe that sort of comparison is an insult to the civil rights movement, but perhaps you can see the potential for misinterpretation.
Also, I see a potential problem in that those who support women in ministry might say one is a “bigot” because one does not believe that women should be pastors. These are just two examples of how the phrase “bigotry in any form” might be misinterpreted.
If I might make a suggestion, I think you cover what you mean by “racial discrimination.” I would recommend you put a period after the word discrimination and eliminate the rest of the sentence.
My love to your family,
Les
June 1, 2010 at 10:38 am
Les,
I think you’re right. The phrase “bigotry in any form” is not a reference to women in ministry or the gay rights/civil rights comparison debate. However, the phrase (now that you’ve caused me to think about it) does leave room for misinterpretation. Therefore, I will follow your advice and put a period after the word discrimination and eliminate the rest of the sentence. Great advice, I hope you will now second the motion (smile).
Blessings,
Dwight
June 1, 2010 at 11:42 am
Brother Dwight,
With that change you plan to make, I will gladly second the motion and vote affirmatively for its passage.
Regards,
Les
May 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I’ve become personally convicted in the past couple of years that it is not enough to simply avoid people who are making racist remarks or who are disparaging African Americans. It is time for Christians to stand up, shoulder to shoulder, and work to eliminate it from the church altogether.
So good to read this. I also think that Dwight, your way of enforcing this is Biblical, and right. It’s so good to be reading things like this. Even if it does not pass(which I pray it does) the message is out there and that message either way it goes is not going to be ignored. Kudos.
June 1, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Debbie,
Thanks. If it passes it will be the most powerful statement the SBC has made concerning race.
Dwight
May 30, 2010 at 8:42 am
Powerful resolution, ain’t nobody mad but the devil!
June 1, 2010 at 2:28 pm
George,
The devil will be mad when it passes. Because this will document beyond measure that the SBC has made tremendous progress in the area of race relations.
Dwight
June 1, 2010 at 2:40 pm
How about adding “racial and ethnic discrimination”? There is a difference and I’m not a fan of people using loopholes to excuse their bigotry. I think if we can find helpful ways to say what bigotry we’re interested in preventing in our ranks that will be the best. Are their things beyond race and ethnicity that could be added to further clarify without running into problems similar with the general bigotry?
June 2, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Blake,
I understand the distinction between “racial and ethnic discrimination,” but I’m inclined to believe that the fewest words possible, that does not easily lend themselves to misinterpretation, is the best approach to increasing the odds of this amendment passing. If we add a “bigotry list” to this amendment we run a greater risk of defeating the whole in my opinion. I trust I’ve answered your question. BTW, Great Questions.
June 2, 2010 at 7:54 am
Pastor:
Who will define “racism?” Does it include churches that are predominately black or white, or churches that reach-out primarily to one race? What denomination has more missionaries to Africa than the Baptists?
How does Black Liberation Theology (Can I oppose this and not be labeled a racist? Are those who support it racists?) and the friction between Blacks and Jews fit into the discussion? What about cultural effects on worship style? Your churches “Honey Child” program? What about the treatment of whites in predominantly Black nations?
Was 98% of blacks voting for a President because he is black a sign of racism? Where does simply preferring to associate with folks of similar background, culture, language, fit in? What about Hispanics/Latinos? What about folks illegally entering a nation and then insisting that they have the right to demand acceptance of their desire to change the culture of the nation they are invading?
What about Muslims and Islam? Should Christians accept Muslims into their communities as equal even when they state they are here to change America, bring about a Muslim State, create Tax Funded Islamic Charter Schools?
Is it only the White Christian Majority in America that you see as Racist that must be neutralized and legislated against?
While I support the passage of a resolution regarding Racism, perhaps it could be a little more inclusive of all racism and better define the term.
Thanks and God Bless
June 2, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Phil,
“Who will define racism?” The same appointed committee that will define “homosexual behavior” in the current SBC constitution.
Any church can practice or engage in an act of racial discrimination, regardless to the color of the majority race that attends the given local SBC church. I’m not sure that there is another denomination that has more missionaries to Africa than the Baptists, but neither am I sure of what does that prove.
I don’t see where Black Liberation Theology fit into this discussion, maybe you can enlighten me. If a Black SBC church engages in an unrepentant act of racial or ethnic discrimination against Jewish persons, this amendment would apply to them as I envision it. I would welcome an inquiry from SBC representatives regarding our “Honey Child” program as it relates to possibly being an example of racial discrimination. Again, wherever there is racial or ethnic discrimination unrepentant of by an SBC congregation, even if it’s the “treatment of whites in predominately Black nations,” this amendment would apply.
98% of blacks voting for a President of any color would not apply to this amendment, because SBC congregations don’t vote for a President; American citizens do. How anyone votes for a President would have absolutely no relationship to this amendment. This amendment only addresses unrepentant acts of racial discrimination as determined by an officially appointed SBC committee empowered to investigate such matters. This amendment would be inclusive of all races. I’ve never suggested otherwise. I hope I’ve answered your questions.
Blessings
June 3, 2010 at 7:06 am
Thank you for your response. However, it would appear that defining “Racism” would be much more about opinion or point of reference than defining “Homosexuality.” My mention of “Honey Child” is an example of race specific ministries that could be seen a racist in that they could imply inferiority in some ways of the targets as opposed to a unique cultural need.
I would be very interested in your opinion on the topic of how to handle those who enter the USA illegally who happen to be primarily of a race different from the majority of Americans. Do you see it as racism for Americans to oppose this?
What about Muslims and Islam? Is it racism to oppose the establishment of masses of Muslims in the USA when the historical evidence is that in any nation where their presence has grown, they attempt to establish their own legal system. Should our constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion apply to those who neither support our constitution nor believe in Freedom of Religion?”
Defining Racism could prove to be as difficult as defining conservative, liberal, moderate, patriotism, and other terms. Come to think of it, each of these would likely define racism differently.
All the best,
June 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Dr. McKissic,
Words cannot begin to express how disappointed I was at learning your resolutions, especially this one about racism, was referred to a committee, no doubt to die there. Why the majority of Southern Baptists cannot see the blatent racism which exists in too many of our churches AND the need to deal with it is simply beyond me.
BTW, I am a white, anglo, Southerner. I am 57, which means I am old enough to remember segregation and the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s–and God forgive me, I was on the wrong side of it back then. I cheered for George Wallace, I used racial slurs as part of my everyday speech, and I believed in “the lost cause” as fervantly as any Alabama redneck did. What changed me was several things: my conversion of course, an African-American police officer I came to know and love in my small home-town (my father was police chief in Talladega, home of Talladega College), and seeing overt racism in the churches I have served. I regret that I was unable to be in Orlando; finances was a part of that decision, but my own disenchantment with things SBC was another. May God bless you and the church you serve.
John Fariss
June 27, 2010 at 9:36 pm
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/06/25/our-golden-opportunity-lets-make-a-clear-statement-on-racism/
Thought you might enjoy the discussion – the comments are pretty positive.
June 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm
[…] Buried Resolutions and a Referred Motion at the SBC Jump to Comments https://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/three-resolutions-and-an-amendment-to-the/ […]
December 9, 2010 at 11:22 pm
[…] recently McKissic proposed amending the Southern Baptist Convention’s constitution to exclude churches that support “racial […]
May 9, 2017 at 2:39 pm
[…] and actions that still residually occur in various pockets throughout the SBC. I offered the SBC an opportunity to repent of their White Supremacist Theology a few years back, but they refused. […]
May 10, 2017 at 8:32 am
[…] the racist attitudes and actions that still residually occur in various pockets throughout the SBC. I offered the SBC an opportunity to repent of their White Supremacist Theology a few years back, but they refused. Inevitably, a racial […]
May 11, 2017 at 12:41 pm
[…] and actions that still residually occur in various pockets throughout the SBC. I offered the SBC an opportunity to repent of their White Supremacist Theology a few years back, but they refused. […]
May 11, 2017 at 1:38 pm
[…] the racist attitudes and actions that still residually occur in various pockets throughout the SBC. I offered the SBC an opportunity to repent of their White Supremacist Theology a few years back, but they refused. Inevitably, a racial […]
February 14, 2019 at 5:12 pm
[…] recently McKissic proposed amending the Southern Baptist Convention’s constitution to exclude churches that support […]
February 18, 2019 at 8:44 pm
[…] recently McKissic proposed amending the Southern Baptist Convention’s constitution to exclude churches that support “racial […]
February 18, 2019 at 8:44 pm
[…] recently McKissic proposed amending the Southern Baptist Convention’s constitution to exclude churches that support “racial […]
February 18, 2019 at 8:57 pm
[…] recently McKissic proposed amending the Southern Baptist Convention’s constitution to exclude churches that support “racial […]