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

WHAT JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTES

REVEAL TO AMERICA REGARDING RACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Respect the office of the President

Respect the Office of the President

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

By

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

RACIAL REASONING AND HEALING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

RACIAL REASONING AND HEALING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Setting The Record Straight

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

September 17, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Michael Steele, African American and Chairman of the

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

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

God help me! Here I stand!

 

Resolution on racial reconciliation and

the election of Barack Hussein Obama

 

Submitted by Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Cornerstone Baptist Church

Arlington, TX

Submitted to the Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention

June 24, 2009

Louisville, Kentucky

WHEREAS, the American colonists declared their independence from the British

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

the sweat of other men’s faces;” and

 

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

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

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

thenceforward, and forever free;” and

 

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

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

all American citizens regardless of race; and

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v. Patterson to declare segregation in transportation facilities as unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court to strike down racially discriminatory marriage laws; and

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

WHEREAS, since 1937 the Southern Baptist Convention has formally rejected

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

the adoption of resolutions denouncing racial prejudice, lynching, church

desecrations, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan; and

 

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

Resolution on Racial Reconciliation” that recognized the failures of some

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

Americans, apologized and sought forgiveness for these injustices and purposed

to “eradicate in all its forms;” and

 

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

demonstrated a renewed commitment to racial equality and justice by electing

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

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

deliver the annual convention sermon; and

 

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

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

 

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

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

wounds and scars of the past; and

 

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

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

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

commendable efforts to include the perspective of Southern Baptists by

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

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

 

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

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

of Holy Scripture; now

 

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

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

President Barack Hussein Obama as a significant contribution to the ongoing

cause of racial reconciliation in the United States; and

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

A Signature Without Caveats

A Signature Without Caveats

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Signature Without Caveats

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

May 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

WHY I’M NOMINATING LES PURYEAR TO BE PRESIDENT

OF THE

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

BY

WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 30, 2008, 3:00 PM

 

Why Antioch Network of Churches?

Dr. Sam Storms delivered a message entitled, “Why Antioch” on Monday evening March 3rd at the opening session of the Antioch Network of Churches Exploratory meeting.  Dr. Storms was kind enough to provide for us a manuscript of his message in its entirety.  What you’re about to read is the biblical philosophy of ministry of the ANC.  Enjoy!

Dwight McKissic

Dr. Sam Storms

Enjoying God Ministries

 Why Antioch?(Acts 11:19-30; 13:1-3) 

My single, simple question is: “Why Antioch?” What biblical reasons are there to launch and build this network of churches around the model that we find in that ancient city and church?

Antioch was approximately 350 miles north of Jerusalem and is located in what is now southeastern Turkey and is known as Antakya(pop. 40,000). It was the third largest city in the Greco-Roman world, behind only Alexandria and Rome. Its population ranged anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000. But what was most impressive about this city was the birth therein of a community of believing men and women whose zeal for God and the gospel is worthy of our close attention.

I would like to propose for our consideration a dozen characteristics or spiritual features of the church in Antioch, each of which is worthy of our imitation.

 12 Characteristics of the church at Antioch 

(1) The Christians in Antioch cherished and prized the gospel more than they did staying alive (Acts 11:19). We know this because the gospel itself was proclaimed in Antioch because of persecution. These persecuted evangelists would not have hidden this from the people in Antioch. They would have made quite clear that if you choose to follow Jesus you will suffer persecution and tribulation. The people in Antioch willingly and no doubt joyfully embraced the inevitability of persecution and suffering. Evidently the gospel of Jesus Christ was sufficiently precious to these people that no threat of persecution or oppression or deprivation could deter them from embracing him in faith and love.

  

(2) They were energetically and enthusiastically evangelistic (Acts 11:24). “And a great many people were added to the Lord.” This no doubt came about not only through the witness of Barnabas but also those of Antioch who immediately upon coming to faith in turn witnessed to others!

  

(3) They were hungry for and obedient to the whole counsel of God (Acts 11:25-26). From Acts 20:17-30 (esp. v. 27) we see the focus of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, which no doubt would have been true also in Antioch. He refused to shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God and those in Antioch would have heartily embraced this as well. No cutting of doctrinal corners. No accommodation to the values of the prevailing culture. No selectivity in what they proclaimed based on what would enhance their status or increase their financial wealth.

  

(4) They were a compassionate and generous people. (Acts 11:27-30). Note well that this monetary gift was from Gentiles to Jews! They refused to let any past wounds or offences or lingering prejudices to hinder their love.

This display of generosity may well have been connected with their practice of fasting (Acts 13:1-3). In Isaiah 58:1-3 God issues an indictment against his people for giving every external appearance of godliness, especially as seen in their fasting. But it was not the sort of fast that God approved. True, heartfelt, godly fasting entails compassion and generosity for those in need:

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?” (Isa. 58:6-7)

Evidently the Christians at Antioch believed that the gospel of salvation in Christ required that they devote themselves to the alleviation of hunger and poverty. They did not fear social justice. They pursued it with self-sacrificial abandonment.

  

(5) They were thoroughly and wholeheartedly Christocentric (Acts 11:27-30). When the surrounding community in Antioch sought to identify these people, what word did they choose, and why? They were not merely “theists” or “believers” or “brethren” or “disciples” or “saints” or even “Baptists”! The key was Jesus Christ. This title was probably given to them by the people of Antioch as they no doubt heard little else from this band of people than Christ! He was the foundation of their identity: not any particular doctrine or church structure or denominational program or theory about private prayer language.

They would never have identified themselves as white Christians, black Christians, or Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians or male Christians or female Christians or continuationist Christians or cessationist Christians. They were simply and solely and sufficiently Christians: partisans of Christ and Christ alone.

  

(6) They were committed to a convergence of word and spirit (Acts 13:1). If only teachers had been present they would never have known who was to go or what they were to do or where it was that God was sending them or when they should depart. No Scripture could provide such answers.

On the other hand, if only prophets had been present they wouldn’t have known that going was a good thing. They wouldn’t have known how to test the voice or how to judge the leading of the Spirit; they would have had no one to instruct them about what to say once they got there!

Word and Spirit were not rivals in Antioch. Teachers and Prophets did not compete but cooperated in the work of God.

  

(7) They were sincerely, and not merely theoretically, multi-ethnic (Acts 13:1). Simeon, called Niger, was probably a black African and may have been the same Simon who carried our Lord’s cross to Calvary(cf. Luke 23:26). Lucius of Cyrene was from North Africa, probably present day Libya.

When I say they were “sincerely” and not merely “theoretically” multi-ethnic I mean that this was not just a principle of doctrine they embraced but also something that was implemented in the life and leadership of the church. There must be a reason why these names are listed and not others, and the likelihood is that they constituted the senior leadership of the church, elders and pastors, as well as teachers and prophets.

  

(8) The diversity in Antioch was not merely racial but also social and economic (Acts 13:1. Manaen, described as “a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch” was either raised as an adopted brother or close companion of Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. He obviously came from a high social standing and was probably quite wealthy as a result of his royal connections.

  

(9) They were a thoroughly God-intoxicated and theocentric. Note their “worshipping” (lit., “ministering”) in Acts 13:2. Their conscious and deliberate focus was on exultation in God and the exaltation of God.

  

(10) They were passionately committed to the enjoyment of God. In other words, the people at Antioch were Christian Hedonists (Acts 13:2-3). I base this on the fact that they were given over to regular fasting, combined with prayer. But how is this evidence of Christian Hedonism?

The key is to remember that fasting is always motivated by deep desire. Whereas there is certainly a measure of physical pain that comes with fasting, I want to insist that, contrary to popular opinion, fasting is not the suppression of desire but the intense pursuit of it. We fast because we want something more than food. We say no to food for a season only to fill ourselves with something far more tasty, far more filling, far more satisfying. That is to say, if one suppresses the desire for food it is only because he or she has a greater and more intense desire for something more precious. Something of eternal value.

We don’t fast because we hate our bodies and look to punish them. Whatever immediate discomfort we may experience, it is a sacrifice that pays immeasurable long-term benefits. We do not fast for pain, but for the pleasure of experiencing still more of Christ Jesus and the revelation of his powerful presence. In other words, fasting is perfectly consistent with Christian Hedonism!

Observe the connection here of fasting with prayer. Fasting sharpens and intensifies our intercessory prayers. Arthur Wallis has noted that

“Fasting is calculated to bring a note of urgency and importunity into our praying, and to give force to our pleading in the court of heaven. The man who prays with fasting is giving heaven notice that he is truly earnest . . . . Not only so, but he is expressing his earnestness in a divinely-appointed way. He is using a means that God has chosen to make his voice to be heard on high” (42).

 Fasting, therefore, is feasting! So what do you eat when you’re on a fast? God! The ironic thing about fasting is that it really isn’t about not eating food. It’s about feeding on the fullness of every divine blessing secured for us in Christ. Fasting tenderizes our hearts to experience the presence of God. It expands the capacity of our souls to hear his voice and be assured of his love and be filled with the fullness of his joy.  

As strange as it may sound, fasting is all about eating! It is about ingesting the Word of God, the beauty of God, the presence of God, the blessings of God. Fasting is all about spiritual gluttony! It is not a giving up of food for its own sake. It is about a giving up of food for Christ’s sake. As Jesus himself made clear in Matthew 6:16-18, either we abstain from food for the praise of men or for the reward of our heavenly Father. The point is, we are always driven to fast because we hunger for something more than food. Fasting, therefore, is motivated by the prospect of pleasure. The heart that fasts cries out, “This I want more than the pleasure of food!” And “this” can be the admiration that men give to people with will power, or it can be the reward we seek from God alone without regard to the praise of men.

  

(11) They were sensitive to and discerning of the Spirit’s voice (Acts 13:2). There were no cessationists in Antioch. They were not afraid of the Spirit’s supernatural voice. Far from legislating against it, they set aside time in worship, prayer, and fasting to tune their spiritual ears to whatever he might say.

How did the Holy Spirit communicate this message? He likely revealed his will to one or several of the prophets who in turn submitted the revelation to the teachers and apostles to be judged. Was it by a strong impression, a vision, a word? Cf. 8:29; 10:19; 15:28; 16:6-7; 18:9; 20:23. Note well that the Holy Spirit spoke in complete sentences!

It’s important to note when the revelation occurred: while they were “worshipping the Lord and fasting”! There is a special sensitivity and openness during such times. Fasting opens our spiritual ears to discern God’s voice. The gentle words of the Spirit are more readily heard during times of fasting. During times of fasting God often grants insights and understanding into his will and purpose, or perhaps new applications of his Word to our lives.

Their fasting became the occasion for the Spirit’s guidance to be communicated to them. Don’t miss the obvious causal link that Luke draws. It was while or when they were ministering to the Lord and fasting that the Holy Spirit spoke. Indeed, it would not be too much to say it was because they ministered to the Lord and fasted that He spoke. I’m not suggesting that fasting puts God in our debt, as if it compels him to respond to us. But God doespromise to be found by those who diligently seek him with their whole heart (Jer. 29:12-13). People who are merely “open” to God rarely find him. God postures himself to be found by those who whole-heartedly seek him, and fasting is a single-minded pursuit to know, hear, and experience God.

  

(12) They had a heart for the nations. They were a missions-minded church (Acts 13:3).

Here we see Saul (Paul) and Barnabas, together with leaders of the church in Antioch, seeking direction from the Lord as to where they should go as a church, in terms of ministry. Their desperation to hear God’s voice and follow God’s will could find no more appropriate expression than through bodily denial. As they turned away from physical dependence on food they cast themselves in spiritual dependence on God. “Yes, Lord, we love food. We thank you for it. We enjoy it as you want us to. But now, O Lord, there is something before us more important than filling our mouths and quenching our thirst. Where would you have us go? Whom shall we send? How shall it be financed? Lord, we hunger to know your will. Lord, we thirst for your direction. Feed us O God!”

 What God said to them in the course of their fasting changed history. This revelatory word was spoken in a moment of spiritual hunger for God’s voice to fill the void left by mere human wisdom. The results, both immediate and long-term, are stunning, for prior to this incident the church had progressed little, if at all, beyond the eastern seacoast of the Mediterranean.  

Paul had as yet taken no missionary journeys westward to Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, or Spain. Neither had he written any of his epistles. All his letters were the result of the missionary journeys he was to take and the churches he was to plant. This occasion of prayer and fasting, it would seem, “resulted in a missions movement that would catapult Christianity from obscurity into being the dominant religion of the Roman Empire within two and a half centuries, and would yield 1.3 billion adherents of the Christian religion today, with a Christian witness in virtually every country of the world. And thirteen out of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (Paul’s letters) were a result of the ministry that was launched in this historic moment of prayer and fasting” (John Piper, A Hunger for God, 107).

  

 

Press Release – Antioch Network of Churches

 

Diversity, Unity Characterize Formation of Antioch Network March 4, 2008 

Texas – March 4, 2008 – - Representing diverse denominational and racial backgrounds, 42 senior pastors, 7 staff ministers and 1 layperson gathered for a two day season of prayer and reflection concerning the formation of the Antioch Network of Churches. The group gathered at the invitation of area pastor, Dwight McKissic, Sr. of Arlington’s Cornerstone Baptist Church. 

Several presentations were made during the meeting to help guide the conversation about forming the network, which McKissic characterized as a “vehicle to help mobilize and resource churches to fulfill the Great Commission.” 

Evangelical theologian and prolific author, Sam Storms, opened the meeting with an exposition of the biblical pattern for church planting found in the New Testament Book of Acts. Listing twelve descriptive components of the church in Antioch, Storms articulated the biblical rationale for intentional efforts to network churches in collaborative efforts to reach the nations. 

Oklahoma pastor, Wade Burleson, moderated a lengthy discussion about the parameters of doctrinal fellowship that will characterize the Antioch Network.  Recognizing the need for simplicity and clarity in a confessional framework, Burleson moved the meeting toward what he labeled a “consensus statement.” “A consensus doctrinal statement is needed to affirm our passion for Jesus Christ and the good news about His person and work,” Burleson noted. “Because we treasure church autonomy, we respect churches that go further in their doctrinal statements, but it unnecessary for a network of autonomous churches who desire to cooperate in ministry to expect conformity on tertiary doctrinal matters.” 

The group affirmed the following statement: 

“The Antioch Network of Churches will serve Jesus Christ by encouraging fellowship and ministry cooperation between churches of diverse denominational heritage and by affirming the autonomy of local churches to partner with like-minded believers as the Spirit leads. We are thankful for and intentional about retaining our preexisting identities, yet we do not suppose that those identities preclude our joint ministry with others who share our passion to proclaim the gospel.” 

Paul Littleton, pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Sapulpa, OK, presented a paper on emerging church theory to familiarize the group with strategies and ministry philosophies of other church networks who are seeking to pursue the same goals of cooperative ministry. Citing the great need for racial reconciliation between churches, Littleton observed that few existing networks have experienced success in planting churches “whose DNA is multi-racial.” “As far as I know this would be among the first formal associations of churches that demonstrates the reconciling power of Christ from the outset. This isn’t a call to forsake our other associations.  Perhaps the foundation we lay today will lead our respective associations to awaken to the reconciling power of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Littleton noted. “If nothing else, may a world that increasingly lives at odds with people who are different, see a very real and powerful expression of the oneness that is ours in Christ. The power of that witness will speak more loudly of the beauty of Christ than a million tracts, dozens of media advertisements, or ten thousand sermons.” 

Ralph Emerson, pastor of Rising Star Baptist Church in Fort Worth, led the conversation about an organization structure and strategy for the network, which will aspire to share resources and nurture relationships among churches that result in planting churches committed to bold gospel proclamation and application. 

No formal organizational chart was adopted, though the group elected an exploratory leadership team to finalize the confessional framework and coordinate long range planning. The twelve member exploratory leadership team will be comprised of 6 African-Americans and 6 Anglos and will include men and women. The exploratory leadership team will meet in April to plan the future direction of the network. 

The rudimentary doctrinal statement drafted by the Antioch Network follows, though its final form will be presented by the leadership team at a later date. 

“We affirm the authority, sufficiency, reliability, and consistency of God’s infallible revelation in both the Words of Holy Scripture and the Person of Jesus Christ. 

We affirm that the one true God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these, being one God, are equal in deity, power, and glory. We also affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ. 

We affirm Christ’s virgin birth, His substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, His second coming, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith alone. 

We affirm that God has ordained the proclamation of the gospel message by His people in the power of the Holy Spirit, who is both the Gift of God to the church and the Giver of diverse spiritual gifts. We also affirm baptism as the public testimony for those who have come into covenant with Jesus Christ in Lord and Savior. 

We affirm that persons apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.” 

The Antioch Network is also looking to explore relationships with the Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention and the Global Connection Partnership Network. The Lott Carey Foreign Mission Convention was established in 1897 by a freed slave, to help churches extend their Christian witness to the ends of the earth through education, health and ministry. The GCPN is a community of churches partnering with churches worldwide to reach all peoples for Christ. With a commitment to have “all things in common” Acts 2:44, they seek to share strategies, resources, people, knowledge and the responsibility of the Great Commission.    

For Information Contact:         Veronica Griffith – 817.468.0083 ext. 203

                                                   Email:  vgriffith@cbcarlington.org    

                                                                               # # #

 

An Open Letter to Rev. Wade Burleson Concerning His IMB Tenure

Dear Wade,

“To Whom much is given much is required.”  The sovereign God was responsible for your almost three year appointment to the IMB Board.  I believe that God had a strategic purpose for your time served at the IMB.  You already have been greatly used of God to gain the admission that there was no anecdotal or any other evidence to suggest that there were abuses of missionaries speaking/praying in tongues on the field.  Therefore, there was no need for the new policies forbidding missionaries to speak in tongues which as you know directly contradicts the Scripture (I Cor. 14:39).  This admission alone made your service on the board purposeful and impactful.

The modification of the “tongues” policy that moves toward making a decision about missionary candidates on a case by case basis as it relates to private praying in tongues would not have happened without God using your voice and keyboard to nudge the IMB Board to this position.  The revised policy was a step in the right direction and we have you and other board members to thank for that. 

Some of us are still members of the SBC because of your voice and others on the Board who opposed the unbiblical policies of the IMB.  God used you to encourage and promote missionaries around the world and to take a meaningful trip to China.  I believe the Lord will say to you one day face to face (specifically concerning your tenure at the IMB) – “WELL DONE, THOU GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, WELL DONE.”  The future of the IMB, and the “tongues policy,” Dr. Jerry Rankin –(who admittedly prays in tongues in private)- and the many missionaries who also pray in tongues as well are in the hands of the same sovereign God who appointed you to the IMB.  The baptismal policies (that I know are even more important to you) you also addressed biblically, tactfully, and courageously. I will simply trust God to do what He wants done in His timing as it relates to any changes toward these policies. 

Because of your wonderful service to our Lord, the IMB and the SBC, when I think of you Bro. Wade, I’m reminded of what the Apostle stated to Philemon, “I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, because I hear of your love, and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all the saints; and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.  For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you brother” (Philemon 1:4-7).

Brother Wade, I’m sure you will follow the leading of the Lord as it relates to writing a book about SBC issues.  This Scripture came to mind as I am pondering your decision and praying about the book: Mordecai said to Esther, “For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”  If you choose not to write the book, I know you’ll be driven by a pure heart, determined to do what you believe is the will of God.  If you choose to write the book, I know you’ll be driven by a pure heart, determined to do what you believe is the will of God.

God has given you much, you have given the SBC and the IMB much.  Know this that your labor has not been in vain.

 You Are a Brother Beloved, 

Dwight McKissic