Uncategorized


Will The Church Die On The Streets of Sodom?

Four Distinct Last Days’ Church Positions On Sodomy (Homosexuality) Rev. 11:8

Here is the link to the message I presented Wednesday, February 8, 2017 in Arlington, TX.

http://www.lifestream.tv/m/cbca/video.php?f=t5nq649p

 

WILL THE CHURCH DIE ON THE STREETS OF SODOM?

FOUR DISTINCT LAST DAYS’ CHURCH POSITIONS ON SODOMY (HOMOSEXUALITY)

“…the great city which spiritually is called Sodom…” (Revelation 11:8 NKJV)

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

A firestorm of controversy erupted surrounding a message preached by gospel singer, Kim Burrell, recently, because of biblical values and views she expressed regarding homosexual activity. I will address Sis. Burrell’s remarks later in this message.

Interestingly though, according to the Bible, the very last two witnesses in the history of the Christian Church are slain in the streets; and the issue that the fight is surrounding may be the spirit of sodomy. The very last two witnesses of the church—before Christ returns—will lay dead in the streets of a city called Sodom. The history of the Christian Church will come to a fatal end in a great city which is spiritually called Sodom.

NOTE: The text says, “the great city which is spiritually called Sodom.” The spirit of Sodom had taken over the city where the two witnesses were slain. These two witnesses were slain in a city that was ruled by a spirit of sodomy. Even those who didn’t practice sodomy accepted it, applauded it or approved of it. The spirit of Sodom will be dominant in the world and in many churches at the end of the age.

The city is called Sodom for a reason. The name indicates the dominate sin of the city and the dominate sin of the church in the era in which her witness will die. The church will cease when Sodomy is pervasive on planet earth. Why was this city named Sodom where the witness of the church ceased? What was the sin of the city of Sodom in the Bible? I’m glad you asked. In Jude 7, the brother of our Lord reveals the dominant sin of the city of Sodom:

“as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 7)

The Greek word for “strange” means “different” from the norm, outside of the normal.

To be sure, sexual immorality was not the only sin of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49-50 list other sins of Sodom:

49 Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.”

Jesus indicated that when He returned, the world would be reminiscent of the period in biblical history in the days of Noah and Lot, specifically as it related to marriage and the sins of Sodom (Luke 17:27-29).

America is on a bullet speed train ride to that “great city which spiritually is called Sodom” (Rev. 11:8).

Jesus said, “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: (Luke 17:26).” “It was the same as happened in the days of Lot…but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17:28-29 NASB). John, in Revelation 11:8, and Jesus, in Luke 17:29, clearly prophesied that sodomy and issues related to marriage—would be prominent and prevalent practices and issues before Christ returns. The spiritual state of the world could be summed up in one word: Sodom. Sodomy was a crime in the state of Texas and most of the South until about twenty years ago. What both Jesus and John are saying is, when we begin to see the acceptance and approval of sodomy, know that the end is near. This is the first generation in world history that is witnessing the approval of homosexuality in every sector of society including the church.

The Church of The Lord Jesus Christ must interact with individuals inclined toward homosexuality with compassion, yet without compromise. MY THESIS IS CONSENSUAL—HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IS A SIN—PERIOD. Just as adultery, fornication, drunkenness, gluttony, pride, laziness, racism, sexism, ingratitude and a host of other vices are also sin. By sin, I mean missing the mark; or falling short of the Glory of God; thinking or behavior displeasing to God. Yet, God loves homosexuals as He loves all sinners. God loves us while we are yet sinners, but He loves us too much to allow us to remain in our sins. He has called us to maturity, growth and holiness.

Just as the historic Black Church has stood strongly against the legalizing, normalizing and institutionalizing the immorality and insanity of racism, we must do likewise with homosexuality and with the same intensity and tenacity. Many have said that this is a battle that the church will lose or has already lost. And I must admit, viewing this subject through the eyes of prophecy, I’m not overly optimistic myself. But even if we lose the battle, there are some battles you fight simply as a matter of principle. We are living in an age where some men would rather switch than fight. With regard to this subject matter, I’d rather fight than switch. In the movie, Glory, a regiment of soldiers strategically decided in order for the Union to win the war, they would likely lose their lives in a strategic battle. Yet, they determined, if we go down, we’re going down standing up! I’m not convinced that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will even convince all of the Church, let alone the world, that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is displeasing to God. But if we lose this battle, we go down standing up. Standing for righteousness; standing up for holiness; standing up for truth; standing up for Jesus. And eventually, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” Amen!

We will see four distinct models of church in the last days on the position of sodomy or homosexuality.

I.  THE END TIMES APOSTATE CHURCH MODEL (1 TIMOTHY 4:1)

 flunder-and-miller

If you want to see where the Black Church may be in 40 years—if we don’t hit the brakes on this now—is to simply look at Yvette Flunder and Shirley Miller. They are legally married and pastor a gay church in the Bay area of Northern California. Yvette Flunder is the voice on Walter Hawkins “Love Alive IV” singing “Thank You Lord for All You’ve Done for Me.” Shirley Miller is the voice on Edwin Hawkins, “Oh Happy Day.”

While speaking at the American Baptist College in Nashville, TN, a National Baptist institution, in 2014, Yvette Flunder made a statement on the nature of Scripture:

“God will not be fixed; God will not be stuck; God will not be concretized.”

She made that statement while intentionally flipping both ends of the Bible, to symbolize that God could not be “concretized” in the canon of Scripture. She further stated:

“My theology is alive and shifting and it’s not stuck between the corners and the pages of a book. Just like God spoke to them, God is speaking to us. I’d like to see Martin’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” canonized one day…maybe in a Testament III—because God is still speaking…Thank God for theological evolution.” [Emphasis Mine]

Referring to the Third Testament, equivalent to the Bible, that Flunder proposes, because “God is still speaking” Flunder suggested that it could include “skype,” “in-vitro fertilization,” and…”somebody will write about me and Shirley in 30 years.”

And, of course, Flunder released a statement in opposition to Burrell’s statement:

“I will not reciprocate and attack or seek to diminish you, but you must know the injury of your words…” (http://blackchristiannews.com/2017/01/homosexual-clergy-members-are-coming-after-kim-burrell-for-her-sermon-condemning-homosexuality/)

swearingen-and-sarratt

Pictures of White Lesbian pastors: Maria Swearingen and Sally Sarratt: (historic Baptist Church (Calvary Baptist Church) (https://baptistnews.com/article/same-sex-married-couple-to-lead-historic-baptist-church/#.WJp8v1MrKM9)

dc-gay-pastors

DC Gay Black Church Celebrates 4th Anniversary with Gay Pastor (https://bossip.com/927303/jesus-approves-dc-black-church-celebrates-4th-anniversary-with-gay-pastor-his-first-gentleman/)

cincinnati-gay-pastors

Black Gay Church Opening in Cincinnati; Black Gay Church Opening In Cincinnati-Pastor Mike Heard And First Gentleman Leigh Set To Start The Good Life Church! (https://obnoxioustelevision.com/2012/10/15/black-gay-church-opening-in-cincinnati-pastor-mike-heard-and-first-gentleman-leigh-set-to-start-the-good-life-church/)

Their justification is that they say they were born that way. But science disagrees with them.

No Scientific Evidence That People Are Born Gay or Transgender, Johns Hopkins Researchers Say (http://www.christianpost.com/news/no-scientific-evidence-that-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender-johns-hopkins-researchers-say-168263/)

Another justification they use is that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. Wrong again! When Jesus affirmatively addressed the judgment of Sodom in Luke 17:29, He addressed homosexuality.

“ but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.”

Jesus taught that homosexuality is sin.

Mark 7:21, 23: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders…All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

Where is homosexuality mentioned in this verse? The word “fornications” in Mark 7:21 is the Greek word “porneia” from which we get the English word “pornography.” The word “porneia” means illicit, various acts of various kinds. “Fornication” or “porneia,” here, means “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.” This includes homosexuality. Jesus placed “homosexuality” under the broad category of “fornications.”

II. THE LIBERAL END TIMES CHURCH MODEL

reginald-sharpe-jr-blog

Any Pastor that affirms same-sex marriage is a liberal pastor—at least on the subject of homosexuality. A liberal church may adopt an “evangelical” or theological conservative doctrinal statement that I could embrace as opposed to the apostate church. But the liberal pastor would “liberally” interpret texts of Scripture that addresses homosexuality and respond with great opposition to Kim Burrell’s traditional, conservative position on this subject matter.

A brilliant, gifted, scholarly young preacher pastor (Vanderbilt Divinity School graduate), bursting on the national scene—Reginald Sharpe, who affirmed same-sex relationships in a chapel message at Morehouse ITC recently, responded to Kim Burrell’s traditional message on homosexuality with these words:

“And let me say a word to all of you secret supporters of Kim Burrell’s comments. You are a part of the reason the church is trouble! It was the secret supporters of Donald Trump that put a megalomaniac in office. She may be a wonderful person but what she said DID NOT represent the Jesus, the God, or the Holy Spirit I have come to know. God is love. Let’s look at ourselves in the mirror and find a way to heal our country with more love and wisdom. Hatred and ignorance has never helped heal anyone.”

Reginald Sharpe Jr. appears to embrace an extreme liberal view of homosexuality that would not declare homosexual activity as sin. He’s a generation younger than his Pastor, and my concern is that if the current patriarchs of the Black Church don’t sound the alarm, when we go in our graves—Reginald Sharpe’s theology will be the ruling theology of the Black Church on homosexuality. It will also spell the death of the Black Church as we know it today. To label Burrell’s views as “hatred” and “ignorance” is to deny the Bible and to deny her the respect and love that he’s anxious to give to gays. Sharpe’s pastor, Dr. Smith, was careful not to do that, and I appreciate him for that. If what Burrell spoke was hateful and ignorant, then what the Bible teaches is hateful and ignorant. Sharpe’s published statement reflects liberal theology and a denial of biblical truth on this topic.

III.  THE BIBLICAL BRIDGE-BUILDING END TIMES CHURCH

dr-smith

  • THE TRIANGULATION END TIMES CHURCH

dr-forrest-harris

Building bridges with the LGBTQI Community in order to establish grounds for friendship evangelism and to communicate and interact compassion, respect, dignity and respect is a strategy that Jesus employed in reaching persons outside the sheepfold (Luke 15:1-2; John 4). Liberal and Conservative churches find common ground in the deployment of a Bridge-Building Strategy to reach the homosexual community. My personal practice and by extension—our congregation—is taught to build bridges of respect and friendship with all people groups with the hope of winning some to authentic faith in Christ and citizenship in God’s Kingdom. E. Dewey Smith is a great example of a biblical bridge builder to this community, while affirming the biblical view of marriage between a man and woman, exclusively.

Many who adopt a Bridge-Building Strategy sometimes also attempt to engage in a Triangulation View of Homosexuality also as a matter of church policy. In other words—Liberal, Moderate and Conservative theological viewpoints regarding homosexuality are all given some level of respect; and neither view is declared the official position of the church. This seems to be the position taken by Dr. Forrest Harris and American Baptist College. For two consecutive years, Dr. Harris invited Bishop Flunder to American Baptist College. However, the official position of the National Baptist Convention is marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.  Dr. Harris’ statement:

“It’s sad that people use religion and idolatry of the Bible to demoralize same-gender-loving people,”

When asked to define “idolatry of the Bible,” Harris said:

“When people say (the Bible) is synonymous with God and the truth,” he said. “We can’t be guided and dictated by a first-century world view.” [Emphasis mine] http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2015/03/10/pastors-oppose-lesbian-bishop-at-baptist-college/24727465/

IV. THE BIBLICAL MODEL OF THE END TIMES CHURCH

kim-burrell-blog

Kim Burrell’s Biblical, Historic, Traditional Views on Homosexuality:

One could quiver with the tenor and tone of Kim Burrell’s speech; but the text of what she had to say is in line with Scripture and the traditional theology of the Black church on the subject. Burrell represented “The Old Landmark.” She spoke in graphic and no uncertain terms; but she captured the simplicity and summation of what the Bible teaches believers regarding engaging in homosexual activity.

“I came to tell you about sin. That sin nature. That perverted homosexual spirit, and the spirit of delusion and confusion, it has deceived many men and women, and it’s caused a stain on the body of Christ…

You as a man, you open your mouth and take a man’s penis in your face, you are perverted, and you cannot tell me ‘thus sayeth the Lord.’ You’re perverted. You are a woman and will shake your face in another woman’s breast, you are perverted.”  (http://www.dailywire.com/news/12057/gospel-singer-attacked-expressing-christian-views-frank-camp)

As I close, you ask what about those two witnesses lying dead in the streets of Sodom.

“Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet…And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here.’ And they ascended to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies saw them.” (Revelations 11:11-12)

In the end, the Church is going to win. Just like it appeared that the Super Bowl game was over, but in the end the best team won. I need to tell you that with all of the Church’s faults, she’s still the mother of the best in society. And in the end, we are going to win. Those of us who hold to biblical standards may be rejected and ridiculed; but hang in there, because on the third day, God is going to raise us up. In the end, we are going to win. He’s going to say “Come up here.”  Churches that maintain biblical fidelity on homosexuality may experience verbal, physical and legal abuse, rejection and ridicule from the world and liberal churches; but if we are faithful to God’s Word, on the third day He will raise us up and restore us to new life. Therefore, I shall not be moved.

“I SHALL NOT, I SHALL NOT BE MOVED”

“I AM GOING WHERE THE WICKED SHALL CEASE FROM TROUBLING AND THE WEARY SHALL BE AT REST AND ALL OF THE SAINTS OF THE AGES ARE GOING TO SIT AT HIS FEET AND BE BLESSED!”

FOUR EMERGING/COMPETING VIEWS OF THE BLACK CHURCH ON HOMOSEXUALITY

REPRESENTED BY:

KIM BURRELL, E. DEWEY SMITH, REGINALD SHARPE JR. AND YVETTE FLUNDER

BY WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

   e-dewey-smith600yvette-flunder

Are Kim Burrell, E. Dewey Smith, Reginald Sharpe Jr. and Yvette Flunder representative of the evolution and competing views of the contemporary Black Church on Homosexuality?

A Sunday morning sermon at the close of 2016 preached by noted gospel singer Kim Burrell in her Houston pulpit has erupted into a national controversy/discussion in the Black Church regarding various views that Black pastors and gospel singers hold on the topic of Homosexuality; and calling into question: What does this generation’s Black Church believe on the subject of homosexuality? Does the Black Church of today still hold a monolithic position regarding homosexuality?

No one would seriously dispute or debate that the absolute historic universal position of the Black Church regarding homosexuality has been and officially remains: Consensual Homosexual Sexual Activity Is A Sin—Period. Just as adultery, fornication, drunkenness, gluttony, pride, laziness, racism, sexism, pride, ingratitude and a host of other vices are also sin. By sin, I mean missing the mark; or falling short of the Glory of God; thinking or behavior displeasing to God. Yet, God loves homosexuals as He loves all sinners. God loves us while we are yet sinners, but He loves us too much to allow us to remain in our sins. He’s called us to maturity, growth and holiness.

However, in recent years—particularly since the declaration by the nation’s first African American President in 2012 affirming same-sex marriage and homosexuality—we have seen some cracks in the dam from high profile Black pastors and preachers who openly affirm homosexual marriage and by extension, homosexuality. The question before us is: Will the cracks in the dam become an avalanche and in short order crumble and crash the fortress of protection that has kept the act and lifestyle of homosexuality from being viewed as acceptable, normal, and approved as God-ordained behavior in the hearts and minds of most Black people in and outside of the Church? Historically, the Black Church has resisted homosexuality equally as strong as we have racism. With the bold affirmation of President Obama, we have lessened our resistance to homosexuality.

If the Black Church had not fought racism in America on her knees, in her pulpits and in the streets, the battle would have been lost. If the Black Church does not address homosexuality as a matter of spiritual warfare, demonstrating love and kindness, evangelizing and disciple-making—the battle will be lost.  My thesis is, just as the historic Black Church has stood strongly against the legalizing, normalizing and institutionalizing the immorality and insanity of racism, we must do likewise with homosexuality and with the same intensity and tenacity. Failure to do so may result in us seeing homosexuality mainstreamed in our lifetime.

Homosexuality is knocking hard, fast and furious at the door of the Black Church. And this generation appears to be the one that is attempting to pry the door open with all the strength they can muster in an attempt to radically alter the Black Church’s historic opposition to homosexuality. If homosexuality continues to infiltrate the Black Church, it will destroy it from within rendering it impotent and unable to fulfill her mission to exalt the Savior, evangelize sinners, edify saints and elevate society. Neither will the Black Church be able to combat racism if she’s destroyed from within because of homosexuality. Have we forgotten the lessons from Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19; Ezekiel 16:49-50). It is time for the patriarchs, matriarchs and gate keepers of the Black community to step up to the plate with the Word of God in our hand and the Holy Spirit as our guide and lovingly shut the door on allowing homosexuality to become unofficially and officially accepted, mainstreamed, and affirmed in our churches, communities and families.

By and large, we have been very effective as a church in fighting racism. God has used the Black Church and her leaders to bring about wonderful changes on the racial front in America. Will we allow God to use us to now fight and thwart the onslaught of homosexuality that seeks to ravish our churches, families and community? Do we have the character and courage to tackle homosexuality as we have tackled racism? Do we see homosexuality as a sin equally as evil as racism? Are we willing to fight it with the passion and reckless abandon as we have done with racism? It’s time for the Spiritual Adults in the Hood to come to the forefront and prophetically and lovingly address this issue. We need our denominational leaders to weigh in and take a stand on the Kim Burrell controversy.

The evolving and competing views of the Black Church can be illustrated with the published views of Kim Burrell, E. Dewey Smith, Reginald Sharpe and Yvette Flunder. They represent four distinct views:

I.  Kim Burrell’s Biblical, Historic, Traditional Views on Homosexuality:

One could quiver with the tenor and tone of Kim Burrell’s speech; but the text of what she had to say is in line with Scripture and the traditional theology of the Black church on the subject. Burrell represented “The Old Landmark.” She spoke in graphic and no uncertain terms; but she captured the simplicity and summation of what the Bible teaches believers regarding engaging in homosexual activity.

“I came to tell you about sin. That sin nature. That perverted homosexual spirit, and the spirit of delusion and confusion, it has deceived many men and women, and it’s caused a stain on the body of Christ…

You as a man, you open your mouth and take a man’s penis in your face, you are perverted, and you cannot tell me ‘thus sayeth the Lord.’ You’re perverted. You are a woman and will shake your face in another woman’s breast, you are perverted.”  (http://www.dailywire.com/news/12057/gospel-singer-attacked-expressing-christian-views-frank-camp)

Who would argue that what she spoke is essentially what the Bible teaches in the following Scriptures?

Galatians 6:16-20; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:8-10; Jude 5-7; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 1:18-32; Leviticus 18:22.

II. Dewey Smith’s Biblical-Bridge Building—Triangulation View of Homosexuality

One of the more interesting responses to the Kim Burrell’s message came from Atlanta pastor, Dr. E. Dewey Smith. Dr. Smith has made it clear in a previous message in July 2015 that he affirms marriage is between a man and a woman. Tiga Finn, Executive Assistant to Smith, released a statement saying, “by no means is Smith now, nor has he ever been a proponent of same-sex marriage. Smith has always believed and taught that marriage is only designed for a man and woman.” I have no reason to believe that Pastor Smith has changed his view at all on biblical marriage. The Negro Baptist Preacher Table Talk report that during his tenure as a pastor in Macon, before he became, internationally known as he is today, he preached a sermon against homosexuality and repeated the tag line—“Get the Punks Out of the Church.” Dr. Smith has clearly moderated his tone since then and seeks to build bridges and lines of communication with the LGBT Community by speaking of them with compassion, understanding, and respect. So-much-so, he has been mistaken to now be affirming their lifestyle.

In response to Burrell, Smith gave five points:

#1: Smith raises the question: “Do we believe that 60% of African American women have been given the gift of ‘celibacy’ and will live their entire lives without any sexual relations or intimacy, based on what their churches teach?” Atlanta has a high Black single population, as does the rest of America. Smith is correct—these are practical questions our churches must address. But we must also make it clear that statistics and sociology does not drive our theology; our theology dictates our sociological beliefs and practices. The Word of God does not bow to contemporary culture. Contemporary culture must bow to the Word of God.

#2: Smith affirmed Burrell’s right to share her message without stating agreement or disagreement with her message. He affirmed Ellen Degeneres’ right to cancel Burrell’s appearance without expressing agreement or disagreement with Ellen’s decision.

#3: Smith referenced biblical passages that address homosexuality such as Genesis 19, Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, and briefly highlights how opponents and proponents of homosexuality interpret those passages differently; and he does not give the readers his interpretation of those passages.

#4: Smith makes a case for peaceful coexistence with opponents and proponents of Burrell’s theology. I don’t find his emphasis here disagreeable, but I do find it interesting. No one argues for peaceful coexistence with proponents of adultery or “swingers”—not quite understanding why there’s a need to argue for peaceful coexistence with proponents of homosexuality—particularly within the Bible-believing churches.

#5: Smith asked eight questions that are critical and necessary in light of today’s changing views on homosexuality.

As I read E. Dewey Smith’s statement, it reminds me of Bill Clinton’s political philosophy which was “triangulation.” Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy; his “Three Strikes You’re Out” Policy; and his “Welfare” Policy all represent “triangulation”—where he combined conservative, liberal and moderate views on the issues in one policy. E. Dewey Smith has mastered “triangulation” as it relates to homosexuality in the Black Church. I find more in agreement with Smith than I find disagreement. Particularly, I support his non-negotiable view on marriage strictly being between a man and woman. I also agree that our tone and tenor in addressing these matters as the Bible says must be “truth spoken in love.” My concern in Smith’s approach, though, is that the truth that homosexuality is sin may get smothered in his effort not to offend. You cannot preach against sin without offending. Jesus, Himself, is a Rock of offense.

III. Reginald Sharpe’s Liberal, Bible-Denying View of Homosexuality

Whereas, E. Dewey Smith did not take a definitive position on Kim Burrell’s statement, his satellite pastor at his Macon location of House of Hope headquartered in Atlanta, GA, did.

Reginald Sharpe Jr. had this to say in response to Kim Burrell’s message:

“And let me say a word to all of you secret supporters of Kim Burrell’s comments. You are a part of the reason the church is trouble! It was the secret supporters of Donald Trump that put a megalomaniac in office. She may be a wonderful person but what she said DID NOT represent the Jesus, the God, or the Holy Spirit I have come to know. God is love. Let’s look at ourselves in the mirror and find a way to heal our country with more love and wisdom. Hatred and ignorance has never helped heal anyone.”

Reginald Sharpe Jr. appears to embrace an extreme liberal view of homosexuality that would not declare homosexual activity as sin. He’s a generation younger than his Pastor, and my concern is that if the current patriarchs of the Black Church don’t sound the alarm, when we go in our graves—Reginald Sharpe’s theology will be the ruling theology of the Black Church on homosexuality. It will also spell the death of the Black Church as we know it today. To label Burrell’s views as “hatred” and “ignorance” is to deny the Bible and to deny her the respect and love that he’s anxious to give to gays. Sharpe’s pastor, Dr. Smith, was careful not to do that, and I appreciate him for that. If what Burrell spoke was hateful and ignorant, then what the Bible teaches is hateful and ignorant. Sharpe’s published statement reflects liberal theology and a denial of biblical truth on this topic.

IV. Yvette Flunder’s “Third New Testament” View on Homosexuality

If you want to see where the Black Church may be in 40 years—if we don’t hit the brakes on this now—is to simply look at Yvette Flunder and Shirley Miller. They are legally married and pastor a gay church in the Bay area of Northern California. Yvette Flunder is the voice on Walter Hawkins “Love Alive IV” singing “Thank You Lord for All You’ve Done for Me.” Shirley Miller is the voice on Edwin Hawkins, “Oh Happy Day.”

While speaking at the American Baptist College in Nashville, TN, a National Baptist institution, in 2014, Yvette Flunder made a statement on the nature of Scripture:

“God will not be fixed; God will not be stuck; God will not be concretized.”

She made that statement while intentionally flipping both ends of the Bible, to symbolize that God could not be “concretized” in the canon of Scripture. She further stated:

“My theology is alive and shifting and it’s not stuck between the corners and the pages of a book. Just like God spoke to them, God is speaking to us. I’d like to see Martin’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” canonized one day…maybe in a Testament III—because God is still speaking…Thank God for theological evolution.” [Emphasis Mine]

Referring to the Third Testament, equivalent to the Bible, that Flunder proposes, because “God is still speaking” Flunder suggested that it could include “skype,” “in-vitro fertilization,” and…”somebody will write about me and Shirley in 30 years.”

And, of course, Flunder released a statement in opposition to Burrell’s statement:

“I will not reciprocate and attack or seek to diminish you, but you must know the injury of your words…” (http://blackchristiannews.com/2017/01/homosexual-clergy-members-are-coming-after-kim-burrell-for-her-sermon-condemning-homosexuality/)

Kim Burrell’s words were only injurious if they were false or contradicted Scripture. And, they did not.

By 2040, I predict if the Black Church does not act with the same urgency and intensity by which she did with the Civil Right Movement, we will see open/ practicing homosexuals occupying our pulpits, serving on our ministry teams and in leadership in our churches. Flunder and Miller will be the norm.

The time is now. The crisis is apparent. Shirley Caesar is correct:  Someone should have spoken up in 2012 when President Obama came out in support of homosexuality. Nevertheless, the future of our families and churches hang in the balance. Will The Church of Jesus Christ Stand Up? And just for the record, my view is somewhere between Burrell’s and Smith’s; but I lean closer to Burrell’s view.

Anybody who does not believe that homosexual activity is sin is on the wrong side of the Bible. I’d rather be on the wrong side of history, than the wrong side of the Bible.

IF RUSSELL MOORE IS FIRED, “UNTO US” A TRUMP BAPTIST CONVENTION IS BORN

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

The first cabinet member that soon-to-be President Donald Trump will fire, may not be in his White House Cabinet. Russell Moore, President of the Ethics, and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC–a cabinet level entity head position within the SBC org chart–will be the first person fired by the direct influence of Donald Trump and his influential supporters within SBC circles, if they are successful in their unprecedented public attempts, to discredit and dismiss from office the most compelling and effective spokesman ever to hold that office in the history of the SBC. The lynch mob in SBC life who is going after Moore are taking their cues from Donald Trump who was among the first to attack Moore with one of his infamous tweets during the primary season:

“Russell Moore is truly a terrible representative of Evangelicals and all of the good they stand for. A nasty guy with no heart!”

What has Russell Moore done to generate such vitriol and hatred from Trump and his supporters and sycophants in SBC life? Moore dared asked the SBC if it is in keeping with their values to support a person for POTUS who mocks the disabled; engages in race baiting; owns strip joints and casinos; admits to sexual predatory behaviors; wants to create a Muslim registry, which violates the religious freedom beliefs of the SBC; and speaks of unlawfully targeting non-combatant in war acts. One would think that a person assigned to address the SBC regarding ethical issues is fulfilling their assignment in addressing these matters.

Future Supreme Court Judges and Reversing Gay Marriage were believed to have a better chance of lining up with SBC values under a Trump Administration. Therefore, many SBC personalities argued in spite of Trump’s misgivings and failures in the aforementioned areas, he’s still worthy of support because of who he might appoint to the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe vs Wade and Gay Marriage. To which Russell Moore responded, how can we count on Donald Trump to keep his word on these matters any more than anyone named Mrs. Trump could depend on him to keep his word to them? This was a brilliant and prophetic response.

Shortly after he was elected, Trump announced that Gay Marriage was settled law, and he would not revisit that matter. Ironically, Pastor Robert Jeffress at FBC, Dallas agreed with Trump on this. Go figure? He has already gone back on his word even before he took office, and many SBC persons voted for him under the delusion that Trump would somehow reverse or, at least, redress gay marriage. With a majority Republican House, Senate, soon to be Supreme Court—and of course occupying the White House–there is absolutely no reason why gay marriage can’t and shouldn’t be reversed; other than Trump doesn’t want to reverse it. Now, a prominent SBC leader is backing Trump in this bait and switch campaign tactic. Rather than holding Trump accountable for his pre-election position supporting traditional marriage, they’d rather spend their time attacking Moore. Again, Moore warned us that Trump’s history did not lend itself to counting on him to keep his word. You would think he would be given credit for his insight. Instead, they’re crushing him. If President Elect Trump—not candidate Trump—view is that gay marriage is settled law, why is it not his view that Roe vs Wade is settled law, using the same logic? Already Moore has proven to be 50% accurate in the lack of trust worthiness of Donald Trump on an issue important to Evangelicals—gay marriage. If and when Donald Trump says the same thing about Roe vs Wade, Moore will be 100% correct in saying that Donald Trump was not a trustworthy candidate in addressing matters important to Southern Baptists. On what grounds then are the ones calling for Moore’s dismissal upset?

Make no mistake about it. The union between the SBC and the Republican Convention is an unhealthy and unholy one, particularly with Trump as President. But that would be equally as true with anyone else as President and equally as true if such a union existed with the SBC and The Democratic Party. It is detrimental to our witness, evangelism, discipleship, church planting, race relations and the identity of our seminaries. This is a malignancy that must be excised from our Convention.

To fire Russell Moore though, cements and consummate the relationship between the SBC and The Republican Party. We shouldn’t give Trump that kind of influence over our Convention. We shouldn’t by default say to the public we value loyalty to the Republican brand over a critical evaluation of a Republican nominee for President.

It’s not enough to say that Russell Moore was speaking against the majority of the SBC and those who pay his salary, as a reason to silence his voice. The Bible is inerrant and infallible, the SBC is not. What’s been missing from SBC history to often was a Russell Moore.

When the majority of the SBC embraced the diabolical institution of slavery, we needed a Russell Moore, even if he was being paid by the SBC. When the majority of the SBC denied women the right to vote as messengers within the SBC annual meetings, and supported laws forbidding women the right to vote in the secular realm, we needed a Russell Moore. When the majority of the SBC voted to support Jim Crow laws and would not support Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, we needed a Russell Moore. When the majority of the messengers in the ‘mid ’70’s voted in a SBC annual meeting to support abortion, we needed a Russell Moore. When the IMB created unbiblical landmark baptismal policies and unbiblical policies restricting missionaries’ private worship in 2005, God raised up a Wade Burleson to prophetically address these matters; and he was publicly maligned and marginalized, and now the same attempt is being made toward Russell Moore.  In 2015, everything Wade Burleson was asking the IMB to do, they did: Return to the pre-2005 private prayer policies, and the prior baptismal policies. Now that they have done so, Wade Burleson is owed an apology, because their actions now prove he was right from the beginning.

SBC, are we going to now make the same mistake with Russell Moore as we did with all of the aforementioned matters that we later reversed policies on? Are we really going to place that much stock in Trump and choose Trump over Moore?

Honestly, a convention that would even consider this is a severely spiritually sick convention. If it were not for a great health insurance plan that I appreciate (connected to GuideStone), and a small life insurance and small retirement account that may be useful at some point, I’d seriously consider whether I could actually belong to a convention that’s so invested and identified in every way with the Republican Party and Donald Trump. To fire Russell Moore will have far-reaching consequences than most persons realize. It defines being SBC as also being Republican, or at least not publicly criticizing a Republican candidate. Minorities tend not to be Republican because they view Democrats as being more sensitive to social and economic justice, equality and fairness issues. They also view these matters as life issues and equally as important as abortion and gay marriage issues. Russell Moore is one of the few Southern Baptists that really have a heartfelt identification and understanding of social justice issues from a minority perspective. There are those who think that this backlash against him is rooted in his outspokenness on race issues and police brutality issues. Russell Moore really feels our pain. In many ways he is being treated as a racial minority by the Convention in this situation. So to fire Russell Moore is to say to minorities, you are only welcome in the SBC if you remain silent regarding your political views. Seriously? Is that what you really want? If so, continue with this lynch party and proposed firing. And Congratulations!!! You will have just birth THE TRUMP BAPTIST CONVENTION.

Russell Moore has spoken as a prophet. The late Professor Jack Gray defined the spiritual gift of prophecy as the ability to communicate a particular truth, to a particular people, at a particular time. This is what Moore has done. To fire Russell Moore is in effect to make the statement that the gift of prophecy is unwelcome among Southern Baptists if it conflicts with our politics. Russell Moore would have gotten the same kind of treatment in SBC life had he spoken prophetically against slavery in 1845-1863 as he is getting now. Southern Baptists can and should do better than this. I pray that we drop this vendetta against Russell Moore. He has asked for an apology if he was misunderstood or crossed over a line. Let’s forgive him and move on. Threatening to withhold funds over a critique of Donald Trump is too small of an issue for us to divide over. During this yuletide season, let’s practice our faith and seek peace on earth and in the SBC and good will toward all men. Brethren, let’s drop our swords and be The Southern Baptist Great Commission Convention and not the Trump Baptist Convention.

ONE BLACK EVANGELICAL METAMORPHOSIS ON THE 2016 ELECTION

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Like most Americans, I’m not enamored with either of the major parties’ presidential nominees. Furthermore, I have burdens in my bosom about both parties’ platforms and actions.

The Democrats have totally abandoned God’s definition of marriage and the protection of life in the womb. The Republicans have abandoned President George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism and Daddy Bush’s 1000 points of light philosophies.

President George H.W. Bush spoke out against the unwarranted beating of Rodney King by the Los Angeles Police Department. President H. W. Bush traveled to Los Angeles and met with Pastor E.V. Hill and other Black pastors in order to identify with the pain Blacks were feeling over the Rodney King verdict. Today’s Republicans primarily remain silent or supportive of unarmed Black men being shot in the streets by policeman. The life of the people being mistreated by policeman—regardless of the color of the police or the victim—is just as much a quality of life issue as abortion. The Republican Party should not be silent while Black men and women are being killed by policemen—unarmed, with hands in the air, while serving autistic persons; college students being told to get their license, and being shot in the process of doing so; unarmed man in the middle of the street with car trouble being killed while threatening no one; Tamir Rice, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Eric Garner and Sandra Bland are all unjustified police killings, in my opinion. Any one of them could easily have been one of my four children or grandchildren. I cannot reconcile my Christian Faith with the silence, seemingly consent, or justifications/defense given by Republicans for these and other unjustifiable cases of police brutality. Where is the Daddy Bush of the Republican Party?

I’ve identified in the past and voted in my early adult years, as a Democrat. While yet a young (but older) adult, I also converted and identified as a Republican. When once asked by a news reporter if I was a Ronald Reagan Republican; I answered No!!!  I am a Jesse Jackson Republican.  Why? Because I so strongly disagreed with a strong pro-gay rights message—and strong “women’s reproductive rights” message—that Jackson delivered to the Democratic National Convention in 1984, it forced me to evaluate and rethink my relationship to the Democratic Party. Later I read their platform and discovered the Democrats strongly supported gay rights, “gay families” and abortion. I found it impossible to reconcile the Democratic platform positions with my Christian Faith.

I hold strong views regarding Pro-Life, Natural Marriage, Social Justice, Providing an economic Safety Net for the least among us, Strong Defense, School Choice, Pro-Affordable Healthcare, Fiscal Responsibility, the defunding of Planned Parenthood and government-funded abortions, and smaller government. As you can tell, my values don’t so easily fit into a Democratic or Republican box. Consequently, I now consider myself a political independent.

Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic Presidential Candidate that I voted for. I have consistently voted for Republican presidential candidates since then for the aforementioned reasons. The only one I didn’t vote for was Mitt Romney, because he would not distance himself from beliefs in his Mormon Bible(s) that teaches that dark-skinned people are inferior to Whites and other derogatory remarks regarding dark-skinned people recorded there. I voted down line that year but did not cast a vote for President.

While voting Republican to try and protect traditional marriage since the ’80’s, we’ve witnessed gay marriage become the law of the land. While voting to try and reverse the abortion laws back to a pre-Roe V. Wade posture, we’ve watched the expansion of abortion to a great degree. Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Republican presidents, congressmen, senators and judges have failed to protect America from same-sex marriage and the expansion of abortion. One has to stop and ask himself/herself: Is it wise to continue to vote for these ideals and principles, and the Republican Party if they are not delivering on your vote; and settled law has ruled in favor of gay marriage and abortion?

Many people are quick to make clear and take pride in the fact that they are not one-issue voters. I am quick to make clear and take pride in the fact that I can be and often am a one-issue voter. Some issues are just that important to me. Life as it relates to abortion is one of those issues. Redefining the definition of marriage in this Country is one of those issues that I proudly would be and have been a one-issue voter on. If I had any reason to believe that casting a vote for Trump would reverse the same-sex marriage laws or abortion laws within the next four to eight to twelve years, Trump would have my vote in a heartbeat. If I had any reason to believe that Trump held deeply rooted convictional values regarding same-sex marriage and abortion that he was willing to fight for to change—he’d have my vote in a heartbeat.

However, I must accept the dark, grim, stark, cold, and cruel reality this year, that…Republicans have absolutely no chance of making any headway toward reversing Roe V. Wade, defunding abortions or Planned Parenthood, reversing gay marriage, or reversing transgender public school bathroom issues with Donald Trump in the White House. I am not convinced that Donald Trump holds any convictions regarding any of these positions that he’s willing to really fight for. I’m not convinced that Donald Trump will appoint SCOTUS Justices that will make the right decisions regarding these issues. Donald Trump has been all over the map on these issues. When asked if he’d ever financed an abortion, he wouldn’t answer the question. If Gov. Huckabee, Gov. Jeb Bush, or Dr. Ben Carson were the Republican Presidential nominees waving the flag to lead the charge to address these issues, I would be on board. Donald J. Trump? Never in a million years.

There is simply no track record to justify the confidence the Party has placed in Trump. I’m amazed at the confidence that certain evangelical leaders have placed in Trump to champion these aforementioned righteous causes, while he currently owns a strip club and casinos. The delusion these evangelical leaders are under staggers the imagination. They have forfeited all moral authority in the future to ever attack a Democratic candidate on the basis of morality. Furthermore, I should never have to answer another question about how Black Christians could vote for Democrats, if White evangelicals find Trump vote worthy. Unfortunately, the issues we all agree upon aren’t on the ballots. It’s the candidates’ names on the ballots. Therefore, the argument that you are not voting for a person but a platform or principles—does not resonate with Trump as the face of the platform and principles.

Given my propensity to be a one-issue voter; and given the fact that the one-two issues that have primarily driven my voting the past 30 years seem to be at this point settled issues; and given my complete lack of confidence in the character and competence of Donald Trump to serve as POTUS; I watched the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump with great interest and intensity.

Prior to watching the debate, it was my intent to vote for a write-in or third party candidate. When the debate moderator asked both candidates a question regarding “racial healing” in America, my listening antenna rose to an all-time high.

As I listened to two radically different answers the two gave to questions regarding racial healing and police brutality issues, I begin to think about how one of these two persons will shape the world that my 12 grandchildren grow up in over the next 4-8 years, and beyond considering the Supreme Court appointments.

The priority voting issue for me has always been LIFE and quality of life. Donald Trump’s answer to the question of “Racial Healing” was “Law and Order” and “Stop and Frisk.” I thought to myself: you’ve got to be kidding me. That spoke volumes to me. He saw Black people as criminals. In order to heal the racial divide, his solution would be to stop and frisk my 12 grandchildren and, upon sight, see them as in need of law and order supervision. His answer was horrifying to me. And how his administration would address these issues are very much as important as life issues in the womb from my vantage point. Listen to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump answer the question “So how do you heal the [racial] divides?” in their own words: (Reported in The Washington Post)

“HOLT: Well, we’re well behind schedule, so I want to move to our next segment. We move into our next segment talking about America’s direction. And let’s start by talking about race.

The share of Americans who say race relations are bad in this country is the highest it’s been in decades, much of it amplified by shootings of African-Americans by police, as we’ve seen recently in Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap.

So how do you heal the divide? Secretary Clinton, you get two minutes on this.

CLINTON: Well, you’re right. Race remains a significant challenge in our country. Unfortunately, race still determines too much, often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they’re treated in the criminal justice system. We’ve just seen those two tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte.

And we’ve got to do several things at the same time. We have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they’re well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law.

CLINTON: Right now, that’s not the case in a lot of our neighborhoods. So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform. I’ve laid out a platform that I think would begin to remedy some of the problems we have in the criminal justice system.

But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform. So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that as a mutual goal. And we’ve got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we’re seeing today.

HOLT: All right, Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. How do you heal the divide?

TRUMP: Well, first of all, Secretary Clinton doesn’t want to use a couple of words, and that’s law and order. And we need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.

And when I look at what’s going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments, when I look at what’s going on throughout various parts of our country, whether it’s — I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long — we need law and order in our country.

I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just — just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very — I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States.

We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.

In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I’m saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over — almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order.

Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.

We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they’re illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant.

We have to be — we have to know what we’re doing. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated.

HOLT: Your two — your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.

TRUMP: No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.

HOLT: The argument is that it’s a form of racial profiling.

TRUMP: No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn’t have them.

These are felons. These are people that are bad people that shouldn’t be — when you have 3,000 shootings in Chicago from January 1st, when you have 4,000 people killed in Chicago by guns, from the beginning of the presidency of Barack Obama, his hometown, you have to have stop-and-frisk.

You need more police. You need a better community, you know, relation. You don’t have good community relations in Chicago. It’s terrible. I have property there. It’s terrible what’s going on in Chicago.

But when you look — and Chicago’s not the only — you go to Ferguson; you go to so many different places. You need better relationships. I agree with Secretary Clinton on this.

TRUMP: You need better relationships between the communities and the police, because in some cases, it’s not good.

But you look at Dallas, where the relationships were really studied, the relationships were really a beautiful thing, and then five police officers were killed one night very violently. So there’s some bad things going on. Some really bad things.

HOLT: Secretary Clinton…

TRUMP: But we need — Lester, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what’s happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it’s very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen.

HOLT: Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I’ve heard — I’ve heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it’s really unfortunate that he paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country.

TRUMP: Ugh.

CLINTON: You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids.There’s a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up.

But we do always have to make sure we keep people safe. There are the right ways of doing it, and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do.

Now, I believe in community policing. And, in fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don’t want to see it creep back up. We’ve had 25 years of very good cooperation.

But there were some problems, some unintended consequences. Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we’ve got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say — we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little.

We need to have more second chance programs. I’m glad that we’re ending private prisons in the federal system; I want to see them ended in the state system. You shouldn’t have a profit motivation to fill prison cells with young Americans. So there are some positive ways we can work on this.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/)

Police brutality is one of the most pressing, unresolved social issues of our time. It certainly is a life and quality of life matter. It will certainly impact the environment my grandchildren are raised in. Therefore, I must ask myself which candidate will do a better job and be more objective and fair in making sure the citizens and the police are being treated fairly? Who best understands and empathize with both sides of this issue? Whose justice system and attorney general’s office would I rather see be involved in these matters? Whose answers to Lester Holt’s questions will set the trajectory for a better quality of life for my 12 grandchildren growing up in a climate where the criminal justice system and police brutality discriminate against them based on color?

So after much soul searching, I have reached the conclusion that the Life issues that I’m voting to protect this year will be my grandchildren. The racial healing atmosphere and the level of accountability that police know that will be expected from a Clinton administration, suggests to me that police persons will be slightly more cautious in pulling the trigger in the future than they have been in the past.

Blacks comprise 15% of the population; but we are involved in 29% of the police shootings. Certainly there are police shootings that are justifiable. Conversely, there would be some unjustifiable. To resolve or reduce the number of police shootings, the one being shot must take responsibility and try not to put him/her in this position. The one doing the shooting must exercise restraint and use a Taser, patience, wait for backup, or whatever it takes. Hillary Clinton mentioned establishing National Standards to help guide and govern these issues.

These matters will happen with more frequency and with less accountability under a Trump administration and justice system. Just as attorney General John F. Kennedy intervened and delivered Martin Luther King from racist injustice systems in the South in the ‘60’s, Hillary Clinton will make sure that these matters are handled objectively. Facts and truth will prevail wherever they fall in favor of the police or the citizens under Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s history on race is atrocious. He was raised by a man who was arrested for marching with the KKK and who refused to rent to Black people. Trump was sued by the Federal government for refusing to rent to Black people in the ’70’s and settled out of court. One, of his employees reported that he never wanted a Black man to count his money. Trump thought an American judge of Mexican heritage should be disqualified from a case involving him because of his Mexican heritage. Trump refused to apologize for lying on the first Black President in America’s history regarding his birthplace. After five young Black men were exonerated for a rape crime they did not commit in New York, Donald Trump placed an ad in a New York newspaper decrying the overturning of their conviction and asking for the return of the death penalty. Given the offensive comments Donald Trump has made regarding Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans, and women, I’m thoroughly convinced, the quality of life for all persons, will be better under Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. I’m voting for the highest quality of life for all Americans.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SBC REGARDING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG

From “Hearty Support” 1863 to “Discontinue the Display” 2016

BY WM. DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

At the near beginning of the 21st Century, The Southern Baptist Convention recently made the decision to address a heretofore unaddressed aspect of her history, and that is the SBC’s historic identity and complicity with the Confederacy. A vote was taken to ask Christians to discontinue the public use of the Confederate Flag (CF), in order to show solidarity with other Christians, including African Americans.

Perhaps this was one of the most heart wrenching and gut checking decisions ever made by the SBC. Why? Because the SBC and the Confederacy were connected at the hip historically, emotionally, psychologically, philosophically, geographically, politically, and even genetically. This connection is deep, intertwined, and multi-layered. Many in the SBC literally have the blood of Confederate Soldiers running through their veins.  That made it a thorny and testy issue. This, inevitably, had to be a tough decision for the SBC to make. It was a seminal moment in the life of our Convention, having taken 253 years to arrive at the point of radically departing from and denouncing, a heretofore proud symbol of Southern heritage.

The emotional response exhibited on the Convention floor, to the passing of the CF resolution, is indicative and evidence of the emotional upheaval some would experience in processing and coming to grips with the decision to renounce the CF.

The greatest influence in the outcome of the vote was the blood of the Charleston Nine. Their pictures and brief bio’s had been presented to the convention earlier that day. Dylann Roof’s intent was to start a race war when he murdered the Charleston Nine. The irony is, his actions have led to a greater unity of the races within the SBC and the Charleston community.  Roof’s actions led to the SBC repudiating the Confederate Flag. It was the spirit of the Confederate Flag that demonically drove Dylann Roof to murder nine Kingdom-citizens. What Roof meant for evil, God through the SBC is turning it around and using it for good (Romans 8: 28).

The SBC was not being asked to vote on this resolution to prove that they were not racist. They were being asked to vote on this resolution to identify with the pain of those grieving the murders of the Charleston Nine, to help heal the hurt, and to honor The Charleston Nine, by renouncing the CF. In the process of addressing this issue and making the right decision, the SBC would be cleansing and clearing her own conscience.

The messengers cast a vote looking futuristically, rather than to affirm seeds of division and White Supremacy sown by their forefathers.

The messengers’ affirmative vote, in effect, confessed and rebuked the sins of their forefathers.

The messengers’ courageous vote brought healing, hope, forgiveness, restoration, and wholeness to the Convention.

The messengers exonerated an ugly stain on the legacy of the SBC. From a legacy and spiritual perspective, they removed the guilty stain, by disavowing The Confederate Flag.

Now, we no longer have to look at our Baptist forefathers with contempt. The vote of the messengers reconnected and reconciled some of us to their significant spiritual heritage and contributions. Their wrongs were philosophically corrected by their descendants.

The messengers voted to cleanse and clear the collective conscience of the SBC by voting to discontinue the display of the Confederate Flag. In one felt-swoop, the messengers’ vote reduced the CF from a symbol of pride, to a symbol of scorn and shame.

Allegations that the SBC would be moving down a slippery slope by renouncing the CF are totally baseless. The vote to denounce the CF also, by extension, addressed and negated the earlier resolution of support of the Confederacy. This vote also, by extension, renounced and rebuked all Southern Baptist churches and personalities who were complicit with The Confederacy in any manner.

It serves no good purpose to go down the trail of singling out historical figures for rebuke. I read somewhere, “Never pick a fight with a dead man; you’ll lose every time.” The vote, itself, rebuked and philosophically corrected their errors as it relates to support of the Confederacy and slavery.

God be praised! The SBC connection to the Confederacy was officially severed on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, in St. Louis, Mo. at approximately 4pm. The SBC made the statement in that meeting to choose Kingdom over Culture. They chose Hope over Heritage. They chose Righteousness over Race. The SBC and the resolutions committee should be commended for this.

As stated so eloquently by Dr. James Merritt, “All the confederate flags in the world are not worth one soul of any race.” And whenever God’s people seek His Kingdom first, addition of some kind takes place (Matthew 6: 33). I have never in my life been more thrilled to be a part of the SBC as I am today.

The resounding, joyful, and celebratory response to the decision made to affirm the amended version of the resolution was powerful. It indicated the healing of the hearts of the messengers and the hope of a positive racial future. The only other time that I’ve experienced that kind of exuberant joy, clapping, verbal praise, and a strong sense of God’s presence in a SBC gathering, was when Dr. Fred Luter was elected President of the SBC in New Orleans.

As Dr. Floyd stated, “The church can’t call the nation to repent ’till the church repents.” As the SBC continues to flesh out the will of God and obey it, racially, it has the potential of changing the nation. Thanks to Dr. Floyd, the ’95 apology, the election of Fred Luter, and the renouncing of the CF; the SBC is beginning to gain the credibility to address the nation regarding race.

Because of previous commitments and a scheduling conflict, I was not able to attend the meeting; but, I watched some of the events via live stream.

The response to James Merritt’s amendment and commentary will forever be etched in the memory of the SBC.  The power of that moment transcended the screen. It could be felt by observers who were live-streaming the Convention. Truly the presence of The Lord was in that place. The impact that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and MLK’s “I Have A Dream” speech had on the nation, James Merritt’s amendment speech had on the outcome of the vote and, consequently, the redemption of the SBC. The SBC is beginning to gain the credibility to address the nation regarding race.

In a way, that vote and the response to it were like a new start, or rebooting of the convention, from a racial perspective. We have to be in unity, before we can reach our nation and world. The Lord blessed the SBC with a baptism of unity on June 15, 2016, almost in an unprecedented manner from my observations.

I shed the same tears Russell Moore was shedding for the same reasons as I watched the proceedings on the Convention floor through the live stream. God is healing our Convention and correcting the only previous statement made by the SBC concerning the Confederacy, and that was to proclaim the SBC’s “hearty support.” The SBC entered into that auditorium on Flag Day—and coincidentally, my birthday—officially in support of the Confederacy—and by extension—the CF. But they departed the auditorium, having decided to “discontinue the display” of the CF. What a mighty God we serve!!!

The beauty of the passing of this resolution is that it was not a victory for any one person or group. The major leaders and entity heads in the SBC supported this resolution, even the stronger amended version. The resolutions committee, who obviously had a tough job, brought to the floor a great proposed resolution, although I obviously preferred one much stronger, similar to what The Merritt Amendment proposed. The fact that no one on the resolutions committee opposed the Merritt amendment indicates to me that they too were in favor of a stronger resolution, but, for peace and unity sake, had no doubt crafted a resolution that they’d hoped would please the multitude. I thought the resolution committee performed exceptionally well, especially given the controversial and multifaceted layers to the CF resolution. But this was not a victory for The Resolutions Committee, the entity heads, James Merritt, or certainly not for William Dwight McKissic, Sr. This was not even a victory for the messengers. This was a victory for The Kingdom of God and The SBC’s vision to reflect the Kingdom of God in all aspects.

By voting to renounce the CF, the messengers laid the axe at the root of the tree. I use to think it was necessary for the SBC to formally repent of the “curse of Ham” theory, once prominently taught in the SBC, to provide a biblical/theological covering or rationale for slavery, the Confederacy, segregation, and systemic, institutionalized racism. However, because of the decision to renounce the CF, and by extension the Confederate States of America (CSA), the SBC also denounced in St. Louis the false theology that undergirded the CSA/CF—the formation of the SBC—and the noted leaders in the SBC who were also slaveholders and CSA sympathizers/supporters.

The dialogue between the SBC and NBC is also groundbreaking and incredibly important. The St. Louis decision gives the SBC more credibility. I’m already hearing how respect for the SBC has gone way up in many, many circles. The reality is, everyone on both sides of this resolution is in agreement, we are surprised that the Merritt Amendment passed at all, and with over 90% of the vote. That had to be God.

Finally, it’s important that the construct of the resolution represented a collaborative effort of the Resolutions Committee, Merritt, me, and others who Merritt and I consulted with in preparing our content. Merritt and I had absolutely no discussion with each other about this matter prior to the vote. The Holy Spirit orchestrated all things relative to the passing of this resolution. The beauty of this resolution is that it represents the collaborative efforts of Blacks and Whites working together. No one can legitimately call the outcome pandering to a certain constituency, or to an attempt to be politically correct. This was a move of the Holy Spirit. And to make it anything other than that, may border on blasphemy.

Arguably, the strongest statement ever made by a SBC personality on the subject of race, was made by Dr. Ronnie Floyd:

“I believe the issue of racism is from Satan and his demonic forces of hell. Why do I believe this? Racism is an assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since the essence of the Gospel is spiritual adoption that releases us from our prior state, anything contradicting that must be a lie about Christ and subversive of His finished work on the cross. Racism is completely opposite of the message of Christ. Racism is completely opposite of the message of love. Racism is completely opposite of the message of reconciliation. While our nation is being divided across racial lines, uniting His people across racial lines best reveals God’s heart for all the nations.

In this desperate time in our nation when the racial tension is building rapidly, our Southern Baptists churches must rise together as one and decry this atrocity and lead through it in the gospel way. Southern Baptists, silent denominations die and their message dies with them. Let’s be clear and not be silent.

We are not black churches. We are not white churches. We are not Latino churches. We are not Asian churches. We are the Church of Jesus Christ. We are members of the same body. The hope for all racism to end in America is in Jesus Christ and in His triumphant church. This is why we are having in this morning’s session, A National Conversation on Racial Unity in America. Let the church rise. The stakes couldn’t be higher!” (Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ronnie-floyd-2016-presidential-address-sbc-southern-baptist-annual-meeting-165260/#mxK3LvMuvmEFTuJf.99)

These are exciting times that the quest for racial inclusion and empowerment is being championed by White leaders. God can’t help but to bless that! May our land, our churches, our families, and each of us experience revival! And may the Lord use the SBC as a catalyst! Our hearts and hands are now clean. God is preparing us for something special. I’m glad I’m on board the ship for this ride.

THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION AND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG

BY WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.

I love the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC has had a direct or indirect impact upon me, all of my life. What was then called The Baptist Student Union on college campuses—particularly in the South—greatly impacted my older siblings, providing discipling, ministry and mission opportunities. In Arkansas, Camp Paron (SBC affiliated) always had a week set aside for the National Baptist Churches’ young people to attend. Dr. Robert Ferguson, who led the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, National Baptist work (SBC affiliated) made sure Black Seminarians and college students at SBC affiliated schools, received scholarships. Two members of my family were blessed to have their college and seminary training subsidized with Cooperative Program (SBC) dollars. In my formative years we would occasionally hold joint services with SBC churches. There were at least two gatherings comprised of Southern and National Baptists held at War Memorial Park, Little Rock, and at Immanuel Baptist Church, Little Rock. Those are fond memories. There was a special dynamic present in those joint services that was radically different and unique. God would kiss those services with His presence.

When I planted the church that I continue to serve as pastor, it was a SBC congregation, Tate Springs Baptist Church of Arlington that sponsored our plant. Over a course of a three-year period, CP dollars and TSBC dollars combined, provided our church plant with approximately $200,000 to help us get started. Additionally, TSBC (SBC affiliated church) co-signed for a $330,000 building loan to finance our first church building. When we outgrew that facility, after 14 years, the Baptist Church Loan Corporation (SBTC/BGCT affiliated) provided my congregation with a $3 million loan, enabling us to relocate and to more than triple our membership. Oh yes, I forgot to tell you that the first 10 months of our church’s existence, we met rent-free in the Chapel of the Tate Springs Baptist Church, Arlington. We were ill-equipped to handle our own Sunday School at the outset; so they provided the Sunday School to our children and youth. Without the SBC and her affiliates, including predominately White churches, Cornerstone Church, where I pastor, simply would not be where we are today. I would be an ingrate, to not honor and give God praise, and express appreciation to the SBC in my heart and to anyone who would listen. I thank God for the Southern Baptist Convention.

Even when the SBC has disappointed me, I’ve watch them make course corrections. In the ‘70’s, the SBC adopted—by way of resolution—a liberal view of abortion. But, God be praised! A few short years later, they reversed their course. In 2005, the SBC/IMB adopted Landmark-like baptism policies, and exegetically indefensible cessationist/praying in tongues in private policies. However, in 2015, under the able and affable leadership of Dr. David Platt, the SBC made a course correction and reversed those indefensible policies that simply could not stand in a Convention that prides itself on doctrinal truth/orthodoxy, and the inerrancy of Scripture. William Cullen Bryant was right:  “Truth crushed to the ground will rise again.” Those controversial policies at the IMB had to eventually fail, because as the late Rev. John H. Nolen would say, “The universe was built on truth…therefore, a lie ultimately cannot stand.”

Our church increased our CP giving when these baptismal/tongues policies at the IMB were changed to line-up with the Scripture, as opposed to lining up with a certain ilk of Baptist traditions. When the SBC employs Blacks or other minorities as an entity head, our church will increase our CP giving again, because at that point the SBC will actually model the racial inclusion and empowerment that they preach. This brings me to the elephant in the room whenever the SBC meets—and that’s racial division and disparity.

Tremendous progress has been made on the racial front in SBC life, perhaps more so than any other mainline denomination in America. I applaud and appreciate the progress made in SBC life when it comes to racial matters. The SBC is probably better poised for revival to come to our denomination, more so than any other, because of the widespread racial and ethnic diversity that exists among SBC affiliate churches.

What we have not seen historically or currently in SBC life is the Convention entity heads and elected leadership reflecting consistently, the racial and ethnic diversity of the SBC membership. Could it be that the SBC is having a difficult time escaping the racial and racist vice-grip in which she was birth?

In Savannah, Georgia, 1861, the SBC adopted a resolution that stated, “RESOLVED, That a committee be appointed to recommend such vital changes in the Constitution and Minutes as may be necessary, growing out of the recent formation of the Southern Confederacy., “

In Augusta, Georgia, 1863, almost two years before the Civil War ended, the SBC passed a resolution declaring “hearty support to the Confederate Government in all constitutional measures to secure our independence.” This resolution also “acknowledge[d] the hand of God in the preservation of our government [Confederate Government] against the power and rage of our enemies…we confidently anticipate ultimate success…we justify ourselves in this conflict with our enemies.”

Clearly, the SBC supported the Confederacy and was emotionally and philosophically attached to the Confederacy. The SBC, to this day, has never corporately repented for her allegiance to the Confederacy. The Dylan Root love affair with The Confederate Flag (CF) and his murdering of nine innocent Black Kingdom-citizens (Christians) has brought this matter back to the forefront. The SBC has an opportunity to get it right this time. Blanket apologies, and broad, generic repudiation of racism does not suffice for specific declarations of support for the Confederacy (racism) unrepentant of. Especially, when there is an element in SBC life that yet justifies and supports the CF, as they did in 1861 and 1863.

Billy Bearden Stated:

June 2, 2016 at 12:24 am

“As a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, part of my obligations and duty is to place Confederate flags on graves of Confederate soldiers every April. If this resolution is passed, SBC churches whose cemeteries include Confederate graves will forbid this sacred honor to American Veterans.”

Edward H. Sebesta, in a letter to Dr. Ronnie Floyd (dated October 27, 2014), stated:

“Dear Dr. Floyd:

I regret to report that the Ashley River Baptist Church, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, hosted an event for the 2014 National Reunion of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). It is reported in the July 30, 2014 issue of the Times Examiner.  I enclose a copy, and the article can be read online athttp://www.timesexaminer.com/historical/1914-2014-national-reunion-of-sons-of-confederate-veterans.

“I did not write any organizations of Southern Baptists in South Carolina since I thought Southern Baptists wouldn’t do such a thing. The Southern Baptist church had seemed to be moving forward on the issue of race with such notable actions as the 1995 apology for slavery. It had seemed that the Southern Baptists comprehended that Christianity was a global effort with no one race or nation privileged over another. Yet this doesn’t seem to be the situation.

“The Southern Baptists may have apologized over slavery in 1995 but in 2014 it is aiding and abetting an organization that is promoting pro-slavery theology and a neo-Confederate ideology that condemns the Southern Baptist Convention.”

The spirit of the Confederacy is not dead in the SBC. Alexander Stephens delivered his “Cornerstone Speech” which would be the Confederate States of America equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech.” This speech was delivered by Stephens in Savannah, Georgia, in March 1861. Stephens served in the cabinet of the Confederate government:

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.”

You would think repudiating the blatant racist’s ideology and symbolism of the CF would be a “no brainer.” Yet, some in the SBC, yet support the unrestricted usage of the CF. Others proudly display the CF. Whoever reads Alexander Stephens’ quote above and still maintains that the Civil War was not about slavery, and the Confederacy was not organically racist, that person is a very dishonest person. And a Convention who denies it is also very dishonest. So how then can the CF be innocent?

The blood of the Charleston Nine, are crying out for racial healing and unity. The survivors, in the Spirit of Christ, readily forgave their transgressor. The least that we can do is to repudiate the symbolism (the CF) of the spirit that drove his diabolical actions. I’m confident that the majority of the SBC messengers will side on the right side of history, truth and the Bible. But, just as the SBC has made wrong decisions before (previously mentioned) they are capable of making a wrong decision again. It’s my prayer though, that just as the SBC is on record supporting the Confederacy, and they will now go on record disavowing the CF. What a great honor that would be for the Charleston Nine!!!

Regardless to the outcome though, I’m encouraged. Russell Moore has been a jewel of a champion in taking stands on the right side of racial issues during his tenure at the ERLC. I have much respect and appreciation for him. Dr. Fred Luter addressed the Trayvon Martin tragedy with compassion, balance, and prophetic truth in a way that I thought I’d never live to see an SBC President speak to a racial issue in the manner Dr. Luter did. Much love, much respect, much appreciation for Dr. Luter. Dr. Ronnie Floyd is charting new and needed ground in the dialogue he has opened up with the National Baptist Convention and her President, Dr. Jerry Young. I’m thrilled and excited about the racial progress I see in the SBC. We’ve come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. I am praying for Dr. Floyd, Dr. Young and the SBC as they have the courage and character to tackle this issue head on. May God bless the SBC!

The way Ronnie Floyd, Russell Moore and Fred Luter have addressed the race issue, makes me proud to be SBC. May their tribe increase! The way Dr. Platt led the IMB to move toward adopting a biblical position on those IMB policies makes me proud to be a Southern Baptist. To not repudiate the CF, though, would be extremely difficult for many Americans to comprehend.

Next Page »