Resolved: The SBC should stop wringing its hands about resolutions

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.