The Southern Baptist Convention - my “denomination” – is wringing its hands
about racism. In 1995 the Convention
officially apologized for its racist roots and racist past. Yet, for some reason the Convention can’t let
go. The most recent issue arose when a
member proposed a resolution condemning the “alt right.”
I saw comments by Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, Steve Gaines
and Danny Akin, all prominent leaders, lamenting how badly the whole thing was
handled by Southern Baptists.
Let’s just settle down a bit here.
First, most rank and file Southern Baptists still probably
know little about what the “alt right” is.
I would guess many had no clue prior to the convention. I spend plenty of time reading current events
and trying to keep myself aware and I’m still not exactly sure what the “alt
right” is at this point other than a hodge-podge of political activists who
generally coalesce around white identity.
To get all riled up because Southern Baptists weren’t keen to condemn an
ideology with which many were likely unfamiliar speaks more to a concern for
understanding what they were being asked to condemn, rather than some sort of
undertone of racism.
Second, the resolution was properly offered to the
Resolutions Committee but had been properly rejected because the Committee
believed it was not well drafted. This
is the Resolution Committee’s job. I
read the original resolution and it is broadly worded in places and contains
rhetorical language that denounces in a tone which echoes the very tone it
claims to denounce. I would have
rejected it as too harsh and too political.
To suggest, as Dr. Mohler did, that this was almost a “black eye” I
think misses the mark. Had the original
resolution made clear, as the current one does, that Southern Baptists were
condemning “white supremacy” it would have been accepted and would have passed
with little fanfare (as it rightly did when re-worded).
Third, I am concerned it appears the person who offered the
resolution got angry instead of, perhaps, rethinking the wording and
determining to bring it back the next year.
Righteous indignation is rarely righteous and most often just indignant.
So he ginned up support, obtained help
from some folks to figure out how to get the resolution onto the floor through
the convention’s rules and stomped his foot loud enough and long enough that he
got the resolution re-submitted (after it was re-worded). Yes, it was all done according to the rules,
but does that necessarily mean it was the right way to do things? Don’t we regularly preach that
“rules-following” doesn’t necessarily translate into “good Christian?”
Fourth, I understand that the strange brew of support Donald
Trump received was a big part of the rationale for this resolution. Evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump,
as did members of the alt-right. Thus
the concern that everyone would be painted with the same broad brush. I get the desire for a Southern Baptist
pastor wanting to distance the convention from white supremacists and I agree wholeheartedly with that desire. Why not say that in the first place? The original resolution was something of a
political screed instead of a simple, clear, theological position about the
wrongness of the white supremacy movement.
Finally, part of the reason this looked bad was because the
Convention got all wound up about appearances and worried about what the world
was thinking.
The pastor who offered the original resolution is black.
This became a public relations issue instead of a
theological issue. The very reason the
first resolution was likely rejected (I am not on the Committee and can’t read
minds, but I can read words) was its inflammatory and, frankly, less than kind
tone. White supremacists are wrong – case closed. However, are we not, as Christians, to pray
for our enemies? Are we not, as
Christians, to love our enemies? Should
we not offer prayers as we acknowledge that we, too, can become overly critical
and harsh in our assessment of other sinners?
Do we not still find ourselves sometimes sinning and in need of prayer? Inflamed rhetoric hardly advances the gospel.
The truth is Southern
Baptists already condemn racism because it’s theologically inconsistent with Scripture and we care about what the
Bible says. We should not care one
bit whether the world likes us, thinks we’re right or wrong, respects us, or
hates us or likes the way we conduct our business.
So to Dr. Mohler, Dr. Moore, Dr. Akin, Dr. Gaines and other
leaders I say stop the hand wringing and
do what you do best – present the gospel with clarity and conviction. Stop thinking about public relations. We cannot undo the past with words and we do
not shape the future with our words. Let us shape the future with the words of
Scripture, not the words of Rules and Resolutions. As my wife and I tell our teenage son all the
time – the reality is that no one is really paying attention to you
anyway. The world won’t care about this
resolution tomorrow – but people will care that the next time there’s a
disaster the SBC will be there to help them – love your neighbor (Matthew
22:39). The world won’t care about the
public relations “failure” tomorrow but a friend will care that I’m there to
weep with him over a lost loved one – love your neighbor. The world won’t care tomorrow that the SBC
followed its rules but prisoners and widows and orphans will see the love of
Christ when we care for them and teach them regardless of the color of their skin
– love your neighbor.
Talk, as the old saying goes, is cheap. The SBC can pass all the “appropriate”
resolutions it wants – no one will care unless they see action.
Let’s pray what the world sees from us tomorrow is Christ’s
love in action – not resolutions about it.
