As a proud son of the South, I agree, there are many, many great values, virtues, and customs embedded and inherent in Southern culture that I too celebrate and appreciate.

For some, the Confederate Flag (CF) is a symbol of Southern culture that affirms and applauds a strong work ethic, personal responsibility, fierce independence, state rights, faith, family, the right to bear arms, hospitality, congeniality, sharing, and a Bible-belt, church-going assumption. However, honesty also demands that Southerners admit that the CF—at least in part—represents “a slave society and a society bent on keeping Blacks living in the Jim Crow style.”

The above quote came from a member of an SBC church who requested that I consider withdrawing or modifying the Resolution that I proposed to the SBC eliminating the CF from public life. (https://dwightmckissic.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/resolution-on-the-elimination-of-the-confederate-flag-from-public-life/).  I appreciate the honesty and transparency of those who admit that the CF is complicit with racism, even while parsing out the positive aspects of Southern culture, that they maintain that the CF also represents. I feel and sense their pain and consternation, and I understand why they want to throw out the bathwater—the racist aspects of Southern culture—and keep the baby—the positive aspects of Southern culture. There are those who fly the CF high while repudiating the racist aspects of Southern culture, and simultaneously celebrating the positive aspects. My heart bleeds for those who compartmentalize in this manner and are sincere in doing so.

However, here is why the compartmentalization approach will not work. All will not agree with the illustration that I’m going to use to make my point, but it graphically explains my position. Rat poison is comprised of 90% corn meal and 10% strychnine. The corn meal is certainly not the problem. It is the strychnine that taints or poisons the whole bottle, once mixed.

To the extent that the current banner wavers of the CF intend to symbolize or celebrate the non-racist and positive aspects of Southern culture—I suggest to you that because of the racial animus also historically and currently associated with the CF, it is disqualified to fly as a symbol of Southern pride. You cannot separate the strychnine from the corn meal once mixed. At this point, you cannot separate the White Supremacy/Black Oppression values/views from the CF. It was birth in that atmosphere and to perpetuate racist causes.

Therefore, I cannot modify or withdraw my resolution. The move to remove the CF from public life is not a move toward political correctness. It is a move toward biblical righteousness (Acts 10:34, 17:26; Malachi 2:10; Revelation 5:8-9). Southern Baptists need to be viewed as continuously moving toward biblical righteousness and racial healing. This would be another—and in my judgment the most significant—step in the right direction on the subject of race.

Why Christians and African Americans Should Boycott Target

By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

To compare the plight of a transgender-person (one who chooses a gender identity different from the one on their birth certificate)—to the plight of the African American Civil Rights struggle of the 60’s is not only illogical, but is also racist.

It is illogical because you are comparing a matter of choice (transgender-ism) with a matter of consequence (racial identity). Racial Identity is not a matter of choice or feeling, but rather a matter of consequence. One cannot change the race; their race is not a matter of feelings, it’s an innate characteristic. Transgender persons choose to identify with a gender other than their birth gender; it’s a matter of choice.

The transgender person is telling God that He (God) made a mistake; therefore, I’m going to choose to be something other than what you made me to be. The African American is telling God no such thing.

Therefore, to compare the African American struggle with the transgender issue is racist because it connects the skin of the African American person with the sinful choice to be a transgender person. That is a slap in the face to African Americans and a grossly unfair comparison.

I personally believe African Americans and Christians should boycott Target until they change the wrong-headed and racist policy. I have not shopped at Target and do not plan unless they change their morally wrong policy.

I am humbly asking Target CEO, Mr. Brian Cornell, to publicly apologize to African Americans for making a gender identity confusion issue comparable with a legitimate racial discrimination issue. Again, to do so is racist, offensive, insulting, demeaning, illogical and wrong.

Resolution on The Elimination of The Confederate Flag from Public Life
Submitted to the Resolutions Committee of the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention
By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr., Cornerstone Baptist Church, Arlington, TX

WHEREAS, SBC President Ronnie Floyd has rallied Southern Baptists to “rise up and cry out against the racism that still exists in our nation and our churches,” recognizing we are in a “desperate hour” that calls us to “replace these evils with the beauty of grace and love;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has repudiated “historic acts of evil such as slavery” and committed “to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has repented “of any past bigotry” while bearing “witness to the devastating impact of racism;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has affirmed that “the race problem is a moral and spiritual problem as well as a social problem” and committed “to do all that we can to improve race relations among all races as a positive demonstration of the power of Christian love;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has gone on record as “strongly opposing” racist organizations that attempt to recruit members and promote “racial terrorism;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has urged “the members of the churches of the convention to refrain from association with all groups that exist for the purpose of fomenting strife and division within the nation on the basis of differences of race;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has called on “all Christian men and women to pray and labor for the day when our Lord will set all things right and racial prejudice and injustice will be no more;” and

WHEREAS, the Southern Baptist Convention has expressed continued grief “over the presence of racism and the recent escalation of racial tension in our nation;” and

WHEREAS, racial tensions and ongoing bigotries are inflamed by the continued use of the Confederate Battle Flag, also known as “The Southern Cross” or the “Battle Flag,” by groups that have been perennially repudiated and denounced by the Southern Baptist Convention; and

WHEREAS, the Confederate Battle Flag is utilized as a symbol of racial, ethnic, and religious hatred, oppression, and murder which offends untold millions of people; and

WHEREAS, on June 17, 2015, nine of our brothers and sisters in Christ were murdered at a mid-week Bible study and prayer meeting at the Mother Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, by a young man often pictured draped in a Confederate Battle Flag; and

WHEREAS, the State of South Carolina, under the leadership of Governor Nikki Haley and the South Carolina State Legislature – in response to the hatred and racial terrorism demonstrated in Charleston and often associated with the Confederate Battle Flag – permanently removed said flag from the South Carolina State Capitol; and

WHEREAS, the Confederate Battle Flag had flown over the State Capitol since 1962 as an act of protest over desegregation; and

WHEREAS, Oklahoma Baptist University President, Dr. David Whitlock, announced in February 2015 that the university would remove an image of the Confederate Battle Flag from the campus chapel; and

WHEREAS, these redemptive actions by elected officials in the State of South Carolina and the Oklahoma Baptist University deserve commendation; and

WHEREAS, the nine fellow believers murdered in Charleston are true martyrs of the faith and thus deserve commemoration; and

WHEREAS, while the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from public display is not going to solve the most severe racial tensions that plague our churches or our nation, it does symbolize another development in ongoing efforts to eliminate systemic racism that has divided our people for too long; now

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention, meeting June 14-15 in St. Louis, MO, acknowledges the controversial and necessarily divisive symbol of racism conveyed by the ongoing public display of the Confederate Battle Flag; and be it further

RESOLVED that we grieve over the ongoing racial tensions in the St. Louis area, specifically the pain and anguish that have afflicted the city of Ferguson, MO; and be it

FINALLY RESOLVED that we call on all persons, along with public, governmental, and religious institutions to discontinue the display of the Confederate Battle Flag and work diligently to remove vestigial symbols of racism from public life as evidence of the fruits of repentance that we have made for our past bigotries and as a step in good faith toward racial healing in America, to the end that we truly become – in word and deed – “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

###

JERRY JONES, GREG HARDY AND THE AFFIRMATION OF DOMESTIC PHYSICAL ABUSE

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Bill Clinton’s license to practice law was taken away from him by the Arkansas Bar Association because there was a zero tolerance policy in effect for lawyers who came before Arkansas Courts and deliberately lie, as he did.

LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling, has been eternally banned from ownership or involvement with a NBA basketball team because there is in effect a zero tolerance policy for a NBA Executive who is a blatant racist.

Bernie Madoff could never be appointed to lead the Federal Reserve Bank, because there is in effect a zero tolerance policy for persons who have demonstrated untrustworthiness with money; serving in a position of trust over public and private money and monetary policy.

Former Congressman, William Jefferson, could never be elected as POTUS because there is in effect a zero tolerance policy for a person who has been convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors serving in the highest office in the land.

You get the picture. There are some offenses that so violate the trust of the American public, that once found guilty, a zero tolerance policy sets in motion, to disallow that individual from ever occupying certain high profile positions of trust ever again. Why?

Because to allow Bill Clinton to practice law in Arkansas again is to say in effect, it’s permissible to swear to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth—and then tell a big fat lie.

To allow Donald Sterling to continue in ownership and operation of a NBA franchise is to say in effect that an open racist owning a NBA franchise is permissible.

To allow Bernie Madoff to be in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank is to give permission to a thief to impact and influence America’s economic policies.

To allow William Jefferson to serve as POTUS would cause us to lay to rest the old adage “Crime Doesn’t Pay.” None of the aforementioned persons could continue to serve in the capacities mentioned because they would stigmatize and poison the brand of the entities they represented.

This brings us to the primary reason why Jerry Jones should immediately cut Greg Hardy from the Cowboys’ roster. If the bruises and wounds that Hardy inflicted upon Nicole Holder had been inflicted upon his dog, he would have been arrested and found guilty of animal endangerment and abuse. The pictures of the dog’s wounds would have been enough to convict him.

Michael Vick inflicted wounds upon a dog. Some will disagree with me; but because it was a dog, I believe a zero tolerance policy should not apply to Michael Vick.

Greg Hardy inflicted wounds upon his girlfriend. Rather than being the protector, he became the predator. There ought to be a greater punishment of wounding a domestic partner than for wounding a Doberman.

If Greg Hardy had inflicted that level of pain on Jerry Jones’ daughter, he would not have on a Cowboys uniform today. God is no respecter of persons, nor should Jones be.

Rather than take responsibility for his evil actions, Hardy is hiding behind double standards, racism and public misinformation. He adds to the physical abuse, mental and emotional abuse with his not-so-artful denials and obfuscation of the truth. If Jerry Jones allow Greg Hardy to remain on the team, he is endorsing the evil practice of domestic violence.

Jerry Jones is sending the signal to every existing and aspiring NFL player that if you physically abuse a woman, and your skill sets are at a superior level, it’s all right; we’ll make room for you. It may be all right with Jerry Jones to place money over morality, but that’s not the Jesus way. As of this writing, the Cowboys have not won one game with Hardy in uniform.

Finally, the University of Missouri football team and head coach exhibited a great deal of courage and character by making clear that they would not tolerate or passively cooperate with a lackadaisical response toward racist allegations. On Mizzou’s campus they agreed to not practice or play until their concerns were addressed.

It is time for someone in the Cowboys organization/team—Jason Garrett or Jerry Jones—to step up to the plate and follow the Mizzou Model. Some Cowboys players who would not want their mother, sister, or daughter treated like Hardy treated his former girlfriend—and be celebrated and heralded by Jerry Jones as if domestic abuse is permissible—needs to come forth and declare—“I will not participate in a Cowboy event unless and until Hardy has been dismissed for stigmatizing the Cowboys brand and sending the wrong signal to future Cowboys.” Every high school and college football player needs to understand, to strike a woman is a death blow in the NFL. The Cowboys have a great opportunity to make this statement, which so desperately needs to be made.

Domestic abuse is equally as evil as racism. Which Cowboy will pony up and make this statement?

If the Cowboys won’t take responsibility to signify the value of women in relationships, then the fans need to take responsibility and boycott the Cowboys if Greg Hardy is re-signed by Jerry Jones. I am already hearing of persons who will not attend or watch a Cowboys game until Hardy has been released. At the end of the day, it’s not Greg Hardy’s fault that he is allowed to play as a known domestic relationship abuser. Jerry Jones must take ownership and responsibility for presenting a “wife beater” to the nation each week. At this point, only Jerry Jones can correct this error. This is a matter worthy of fasting and prayer.

HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION:

“ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?”

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

“Are you a Christian?” was the question that the gunman in the recent Oregon community college shooting asked many of his victims. The individuals who answered “Yes,” were shot in the head. The ones who did not answer, or answered “No” were shot in the legs. Why did the gunman deliberately target “Christians” for the severest punishment? The Bible indicates that the world would be hostile toward people whose faith is centered in Christ in the last days.

Paul, Peter and Jesus did not write or speak prescriptively, but rather descriptively, concerning the end times. They had been shown by Divine insight and foresight what would happen futuristically. Amazingly and accurately they described, what’s unfolding before our very eyes. In 1 Timothy 4:1-2, the Apostle Paul stated:

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,” [underline and bold print mine]

The Oregon gunman, the Charleston shooter (Dylan Root), the Roanoke, VA, shooter and the ISIS beheaders, all had their “conscience seared with a hot iron.” You cannot commit the heinous crimes that they committed unless you have a seared conscience. While writing this post, eleven followers of Christ were beheaded in Syria because of their faith.

Jesus described a world that would be hostile toward His followers in the last days.

“But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11).

The Apostle Peter wrote, “But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.” (1 Peter 4:7)

In light of the fact that the end time is near, my thesis is:

Believers are to be devoted to prayer and depend on the Holy Spirit to inspire answers to end- time persecution.

Jesus said that He “was hated without a cause” (John 15:25). Jesus taught that the world hated Him before they hated His followers (John 15:18). Jesus declared that His followers would be hated by the world (John 17:14). In Luke 21:17, Jesus said one of the signs of His coming would be “And you will be hated by all for my name sake.” “…and they will put some of you to death” (Luke 21:16b).

In Charleston, in Oregon, the beheading of the Coptic Christians in the Middle East, the church burnings and in the arrest of Kim Davis, we are seeing these Scriptures fulfilled concerning the persecution of believers in the last days.

Kim Davis exhibited the courage, character and biblical values of Rosa Parks and Bree Newsome. Newsome took down the racist Confederate flag in South Carolina. All three ladies paid a sacrifice for standing up for the values and faith of the Lord Jesus. Kim Davis is being asked to deny her faith in order to maintain her job. No one in America should be asked to do that. I applaud and appreciate Kim Davis with every fiber of my being. Indeed, her stand is analogous to Rosa Parks’ stand.

In Oregon, the shooter asked, “Are you a Christian?” Is “Christian” the correct word to label Christ’s followers? The word “Christian” is found only three times in Scripture: Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.

In Acts 11:26c, “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” [Underlines mine]. The disciples were “called” Christians by the people who lived in Antioch. Antioch was largely a Gentile city. One of the meanings of the world “Gentile” is “people without God.” The disciples were called Christians by people without God in Antioch.

In Acts 26:28, Luke records, “Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.’” Who was Agrippa? He was a Gentile king and a non-believer. Paul said to Agrippa, “I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become…such as I am, except for these chains” (Acts 26:29). Paul did not call himself a “Christian” here. It was a pagan king who invoked the term “Christian.”

In 1 Peter 4:16, Peter recorded, “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.’’ The language used in official indictments against believers, referenced the believer as a “Christian.” Peter lifted this term (“Christian”) from the indictment papers. Peter referred to believers as a “chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people…the people of God…” (1 Peter 2:9-10). The word “Christian” originated with pagans, who used that term as a term of derision and disdain toward authentic followers of Christ.

What words were used to describe Christ’s followers in the Bible? The primary word used to describe Christ’s followers was “disciple”: Isaiah 8:16, Matthew 13:51-52, Matthew 28:19-20. Believers were also called “saints” (Romans 1:7). Christ’s followers were also known as:

  • “members of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10)
  • “fellow citizens with the saints” (Ephesians 2:19)
  • “members of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19)
  • “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20)
  • “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20)
  • “brother in the kingdom of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:9)
  • “people of the way” (Acts 9:1-2)

Major Point: neither Jesus nor the biblical writers called Christ’s followers—“Christians.” Jesus did not say “go make Christians.” He said “go make disciples.” Disciples are referenced over 200 times in Scripture; “Christians” only three times. Even if one views the 1 Peter 4:16 reference as affirming the word “Christian,” the preponderance of evidence still weighs heavier toward our identity being that of a disciple. The Oregon gunman may have shot no matter how one answered the question; so that is not my point here. My point is, the Bible does not teach that followers of Christ were to be labeled “Christian”; so, why should one feel obligated to answer a demon-filled maniac who ask you to identify yourself in a way the Bible never affirms such a moniker for believers.

How should a believer or follower of Christ have responded to the Oregon shooter?

  1. There was no biblical obligation to answer his question.
  2. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit will direct you in that hour as to what to say. One would have to trust the Holy Spirit to give him or her exactly what to say at that hour.
  3. From a biblical point of view, a believer could have responded with any of the above biblical answers if you so choose.
  4. In no way, shape, form or fashion would I have denied Christ.
  5. If I chose to answer the Oregon gunman, I might have answered, “I am a disciple of the Kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:51-52). “I am a disciple of Christ”; “I am a brother in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.”

I would not have answered, “I am a Christian,” because I really don’t know how the gunman defined “Christian.” Mormons, Ku Klux Klan and Louis Farrakhan all call themselves “Christians.” I certainly share none of their belief systems or Christology. Again, not knowing what the Oregon gunman meant by “Are you a Christian,” I would have had to rely totally on the Holy Spirit to know whether or not to answer or what answer to give. After all, Jesus said the Spirit would provide us with the answer in the hour that we need it (Mark 13:11).

A REPLY TO DR. DELMAN COATES FROM PASTOR DWIGHT MCKISSIC,

CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP OF CONCERNED PASTORS

APRIL 15, 2015

Dr. Coates, grace and peace to you in the Name of our Great King, Jesus Christ. Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response to the National Baptist Concerned Pastors Press Release regarding three pro-gay marriage speakers who recently appeared on the campus of American Baptist College, Nashville, TN. The tenor and tone of your response posted at “Many Voices:  Black Church Movement for Gay and Transgender Justice” seeks to communicate truth, wrapped in a veil of tenderness. As you know, with regard to same-sex marriage, you and I don’t share agreement on what the truth is. Nevertheless, it is my desire to “speak the truth in love” in reply to your response, just as you sought to do. When and if an opportunity presents itself, I too would welcome an opportunity to dialogue concerning this matter.

The National Baptist Fellowship of Concerned Pastors (NBFCP) believe that the Bible teaches that all sex outside of God’s plan for marriage, and sex between same-sex partners, married or unmarried, is sin. This is the historical tradition held by the Church and most societies on the planet for more than 5000 years. Therefore, if there is anyone pushing a divisive agenda, it would be those who are seeking to undermine and overturn 5000 years of established tradition. Dr. Forrest Harris, President of American Baptist College, in extending an invitation to three proponents of same-sex marriage that contradicts the published positions regarding marriage on the NBC website—is the one responsible for fostering division. Blaming those of us who are “currently contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints” “for the potential division,” is simply a dishonest response to the facts.

Allow me to address your concern that our request to ask American Baptist College to rescind the invitation to Bishop Flunder “seems contrary to what one would expect from an institution of higher learning that seeks to encourage the free exchange of ideas.”  You are correct, Dr. Coates:  Colleges are historically places where “free exchange of ideas” is encouraged.

Just as there are limits on free speech, there are also limits on a “free exchange of ideas” even in a college setting. As you know, one cannot yell “fire, fire” in a movie theater or any similar gathering place, unless there really is a fire. One can’t articulate language that’s designed to incite a riot, while addressing an emotionally charged audience. These are well-known exceptions to the idea and principle of “free speech.”

Likewise, there are limits and parameters that contextually a Baptist college speaker must honor, respect and not violate. Prostitution is legal in certain cities in Nevada. Yet, it would be inappropriate to affirm prostitution on a Baptist College campus. Payday lending loans that carry exorbitant interest rates are legal in many states, and some are owned by Black investors. But, it would be inappropriate to affirm payday lending loans in a message at a Baptist College, with young impressionable minds having to sort through the pros and cons of such a loan. Consenting sexual relations between an adult male and a sixteen year old male is legal in some states. Again, it would be inappropriate to affirm that “legal” act in a speech at a Baptist college. Same-sex marriage is currently illegal in the state of Tennessee. It is inappropriate to affirm same-sex marriage that’s in violation of the laws of Tennessee. Currently, on the NBC website, chaplains are only authorized to perform heterosexual marriages. You get the point. Even on a college campus all “free exchanges of ideas” are simply not wise or appropriate. I’m sure that you would agree with me on this.

Dr. Coates, you are correct that National Baptists permit a wide range of views on many different doctrinal topics, to repeat some that you’ve named: “Speaking in tongues…whether women can be deacons or ordained to preach, the return of Christ, whether there should be Baptist Bishops; the list goes on and on.” Honestly, I love the diversity of theological views permitted by National Baptists. I find this compelling and attractive, more so than any other existing Baptist denomination that I am aware of. However, we don’t offer a “range of views” on the applicability of the Ten Commandments, the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth of Jesus, the sinless life, the bodily resurrection, and the return of Christ. We don’t offer a “range of views” on “For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Historically, we have not offered “wide range of views” on the sanctity of marriage, and marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The same holds true for each individual Commandment. There is no wide range of views regarding “Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not lie. Thou shall not covet. Thou shall not commit adultery.” Dr. Coates, it is simply not true that National Baptists offer a “range of views” on any and all theological subject matters. And when it comes to same-sex marriage, you know and I know, National Baptists have offered only one view…just as there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:6).

Dr. Coates, you are right again: the autonomy of the local church is a cherished Baptist freedom. American Baptist College is an institution whose charter clearly indicates that its Board of Trustees is to be appointed by the NBC and her President. Therefore, ABC should reflect the beliefs of the NBC.

If National Baptists allow any and all theological viewpoints, as your letter suggests, that literally means that a National Baptist pastor and church could embrace polytheism and bigamy; and based on your argument, the NBC should tolerate such a pastor based on local church autonomy, and the four “freedoms” referenced in your letter. Dr. Martin Luther King said “Freedom must always be within the framework of destiny.” What you are arguing for is an abuse of freedom in the name of Baptist autonomy.

With regard to the NBFCP not addressing other sins that clergy sometimes commit, my question to you is this: Of all the distinguished lecturers in the history of the Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, which one has publicly announced their sin, affirmatively preached their sins, and the congregation applauded their sin? I submit to you, Bishop Flunder is the only one that has come in and “worn her sin as a badge of honor,” to borrow language from Dr. Randy Vaughn. But to this extent I agree with you; when or if a lecturer comes to ABC and wear their sin “as a badge of honor” the NBFCP will be compelled to address that sin with the same tenacity that we’ve addressed Bishop Flunder’s. Please notify us if that happens, and we’ll get right on it.

At the heart of what it means to be an evangelical is to believe that the Bible is inspired and infallible. In my judgment, it is impossible for one to label himself or herself an evangelical while rejecting Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus clearly taught the exclusivity of marriage between a man and a woman.

I don’t quiver or disagree with your distinctions regarding “civil law” and church law as it relates to marriage. In a Democratic society—as we see unveiling before our very eyes—indeed the democratic, legislative, and judicial  processes may eventually redefine marriage in every state in the Union. It’s at that point that for the believer, God’s laws ought to trump man’s laws (Acts 5:29). There is a moral law for the believer that should supersede man’s law. And what you consider to be “marriage equality” the Bible would consider that to be moral insanity and gender identity confusion (Romans 1:14-32). It is baffling to me why preachers would quote and cite the Constitution in juxtaposition to the Bible.

Finally, “there may be indeed strong perspectives on all sides,” but ultimately the Word of God does not bow to contemporary culture; contemporary culture must bow to the Word of God.

I do not question whether or not one can be a Christian, and because of civil law, affirm same-sex marriage. I do question whether or not one can be an evangelical, and hold to a belief in same-sex marriage.

Regardless, though, I receive you as a Christian brother, I respect your success as a pastor, and your scholarship achievements. I respect your preaching/teaching gift. One of my members heard you deliver two messages at the ABC Lecture Series and was greatly impressed. She placed you in the tradition of C.A.W. Clark, E.K. Bailey and other great lecturer/preachers who’ve lectured at ABC.

I also humbly submit this reply in hopes that it will engender open dialogue and reflection. Compassionate faith and understanding are important traits for believers. I share your quest for these traits. If at any point that Bishop Flunder and/or yourself wish to dialogue further, I will gladly host. Dr. McMickle has offered to do the same at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School. I’m in Arlington, TX, in the DFW Metroplex. I will even provide first class hotel accommodations and meals, if you all travel here for a one-two day dialogue. We know going in, none of us are going to change our minds; but the understanding, love, “exchange of ideas” and various understanding of text, would certainly be informative. And I believe that we all are committed to mutual respect and compassion.

By the way, Bishop Flunder boldly stated that the press conference held by the NBFCP was “paid for by people who do not have our community’s best interest at heart.” For the record, Black pastors and Black Christians who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage in the Black community as being between one man and one woman, have paid for all expenses in total related to the travel, press conference and public relations firm. I would appreciate it if Bishop Flunder would retract this totally untrue misrepresentation.

Dwight McKissic

817-468-0083, ext. 205

dmckissic@cbcarlington.org

WILL LEE DANIELS, BISHOP YVETTE FLUNDER AND DR. FORREST HARRIS CONVINCE THE BLACK CHURCH/COMMUNITY TO AFFIRM HOMOSEXUALITY?

ORTHODOX CHURCHES MUST ADDRESS AND ADJUST TO THE NEW REALITY OF A GAY AFFIRMING AMERICA

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

April 1, 2015

Most churches in America were birth in an era when consensual sex between two persons of the same sex was a criminal offense; same-sex marriage was illegal; and homosexuality was viewed as deviant behavior. Until 1974, the American Psychiatric Association literally classified homosexuality as a mental illness. The old adage is true; however, “Time brings about a change.”

In the dawning of this new millennium, homosexuality has burst out of the closet and into the mainstream of American life and society. Satan has strategically and successfully sought to secure sanctioning for same-sex marriage in every sector of American society. The same-sex marriage quest for success is now knocking at the door of God’s sanctuaries, seeking a seat at the leadership table, under the banner marked “justice” and “equality.”

Along beside Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Mainline Protestant Liberals—the LGBTQIA wants to be recognized, respected and seated at the table of Christian brotherhood under the banner of “Welcome and Affirming Churches.” To deny the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Allies—allies are persons like President Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton who passionately support the LGBTQIA community—a place at the table is considered discrimination, bigotry, homophobic, theologically and biblically ignorant; and practicing Bible idolatry. Interestingly, when President Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Jesse Jackson said before the 2008 Presidential elections that they believed marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman, none of them were called or viewed as bigots. If today you hold such a view, you are considered by the LGBTQIA and—“welcome and affirming churches” as discriminating toward homosexual couples.

There are many denominations, churches, affinity groups, and divinity schools, who have granted the LGBTQIA community a seat at the table. The orthodox, traditional Bible-believing conservative, evangelical wing of the church has not recognized the LGBTQIA community as a valid social category, or denominational—similar to “welcome and affirming churches”—for three primary reasons:

  1. We believe that the Bible teaches that all sex outside of marriage is sin.
  2. We believe that the Bible teaches that no person is born a homosexual or with a homosexual orientation.
  3. We believe that the Bible speaks clearly, unequivocally, and eternally regarding homosexuality and strongly condemns same-sex relationships, married or unmarried, and condemns fornication and adultery as well.

Therefore, in the words of the old Negro Spiritual, “Just like a tree planted by the water, I [we] shall not be moved.” For evangelicals, to change the Bible would have to change; and obviously that’s not going to happen.

The lines are being drawn fast, hard, and irrevocably among church groups and denominations surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage. Historically and currently, the Black church has held to biblical standards on the subject of homosexuality, but we are now being tested from within and without. In the past 40 years, how did we move from homosexuality being a “mental illness” and a felony and same-sex marriage being illegal, to it being “justice” and “equality,” “welcome and affirming” and approved of by every sector of society, except the evangelical church?

Reportedly, major high profile charitable foundations, have donated several million dollars to gay-friendly, Black-led, non-profit educational, ecclesiastical, and “social justice” entities, in order to persuade the Black Community to accept homosexuality. Lee Daniels—the creator of “Empire,” who is also Black and gay—was bold and brazen enough to admit that the purpose  of “Empire” was to “blow the lid off homophobia” in the African-American community, with a depiction of the show’s lead character’s hostile relationship with his gay son. “Empire” is phenomenally popular and shows on Wednesday nights—going head to head with mid-week worship, and winning.

Lee Daniels is quite transparent about his goals as it relates to converting African Americans to accept and affirm homosexuality. In a response to the question regarding a gay character in “Empire,” Lee Daniels offers the following in Time Magazine:

“There are so many themes, but part of [my goal with Empire] was really to address homophobia in the African-American community and in the impoverished community. To educate people. Not that this is a gay show, but it’s one of many subject matters we hit on. There’s so much homophobia in the hip-hop community. It’s the civil rights of our time, and I think I am making a little bit of a contribution, because I’ve seen people change who were homophobic, after seeing this. “

Slowly, but surely, we are beginning to see leaks in the dam in the Black Church as it relates to compromising on same-sex marriage. We recently witnessed Bishop Yvette Flunder—the face of the:  I’m Black, I’m Gay, I’m a Christian and I’m Proud Movement—introduce her legal female spouse in a worship setting at the headquarters of the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., in the Baptist World Center, on the campus of American Baptist College, to an enthusiastic applause from a primarily “welcome and affirming” audience. This was truly a historic hour in a Black Baptist worship context—one that I’d thought that I would never, ever see. It would be my guess that no same-sex couple has ever been presented publicly in a traditional Black Baptist Church setting before.

The objection to Bishop Flunder’s coming was based on her same-sex marriage and practicing, proud lesbian lifestyle which was/is in violation of the Bible. Dr. Harris does not deny what the Bible says, but makes it relevant only for the First Century. Dr. Harris’ adamant stand in support of gay marriage is in defiance of the accrediting agency that has accredited ABC for the next ten years. The Association for Biblical Higher Education—the accrediting agency—requires that schools that they grant accreditation to affirm the following statement:

“We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”

For a college president whose accreditation requires that he believe the Bible is “infallible,” his invitation and defense of the Flunder invitation is simply incomprehensible and impossible to reconcile with a belief that the Bible is “infallible.” The Bible cannot be “infallible” and irrelevant simultaneously. Harris’ view of intolerance must bow to the infallibility of Scripture.

It is impossible to reconcile the above requirement confession of the ABHE with Dr. Harris’ view of the Bible. Dr. Forrest Harris, President of ABC, defended Flunder’s appearance as a matter of not tolerating intolerance (“The Tennessean” article):

“What does Harris define as ‘idolatry of the Bible?’ ‘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.’”

Reported by The Associated Press supporting Dr. Forrest Harris:

“In a phone interview, Harris noted the college’s long commitment to social justice. ‘We will not tolerate intolerance,’ he said.’”

It is a high, high probability that by late June of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States will sanction same-sex marriage in every State in the nation. Currently, it is approved in 37 states. The only hope that same-sex marriage does not become the law of the land this calendar year, is that the church comes together across racial and denominational lines, and hold a solemn assembly, seeking God’s face to Divinely intervene and prevent this from happening. Nevertheless, the Church needs to be prepared to address our position on homosexuality regardless to the decision that the Supreme Court takes.

Every Evangelical church needs to be prepared to provide rational and biblical answers for the following questions before 2015 ends:

  1. Are acts of homosexual behavior sin?
  2. Is it discrimination to fail to perform a wedding ceremony between two people of the same sex?
  3. What will we do if a same-sex married couple seeks to join our church next Sunday?
  4. What will we do if a same-sex engaged couple wants to rent our facility for a wedding?
  5. What would we say/do if we are asked to perform a wedding for a same-sex couple?
  6. What would we do if the legal spouse of a same-sex partner wants to be recognized by name in a funeral program because they are related to a deceased family member?
  7. What would you do/say if you are asked to allow your facility to be used to hold a funeral service for a same-sex married partner?
  8. What if you’re asked to perform a dedication ceremony for a same-sex couple who adopt a child?
  9. Do you already have policies in place to address these inevitable scenarios that are going to become real life, real soon?
  10. What are the legal ramifications of the decisions that we make, if any?

Orthodox evangelicals who hold to a biblical view of marriage are going to have to answer these questions soon, and very soon.

The major social question that had spiritual, theological, ecclesiastical, and political ramifications that America faced the first 200+ years of her existence—that took a war to partially resolve—was the question of civil rights for people of color.

The next major social question that America and her churches will face the next 200+ years if the Lord tarries His coming—is the question of should the LGBTQIA community be recognized by churches and in every realm of society as a distinct social category deserving the same kind of constitutional and ecclesiastical rights that people of color are entitled to? Resolving this question will not result in another civil war, but I predict it will produce a social/ecclesiastical war the likes of which we’ve never seen.

The difference between the rights of the people of color, and the non-rights for the LGBTQIA is this: This is not a color issue, it is a character issue; this is not a justice issue; it is a righteous issue. The Orthodox Church has to decide if she is going to view the act and sin of homosexuality as a “skin color-like” issue, or a character issue? Will we view it as a “justice issue” or a righteousness issue? Dr. King not only talked about his four children not being judged by the “color of their skins…he also talked about them being judged by “the content of their character.” Dr. King not only sounded a clarion call for justice, but also for righteousness. On this issue, the Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian Church ought to be able to stand together across color and denominational lines. What we didn’t do together during the Civil Rights Movement, we have an opportunity to do together now. Let’s pray that God raise up some anointed men and women of God who would call the Orthodox Churches of this nation to a solemn assembly. May God’s hand be upon His Church as we must now address and adjust to the new reality of a gay-affirming America! Will we let Lee Daniels, Bishop Flunder, and Dr. Forrest Harris change our minds? HEAVEN NO!!!