Featured Show Me Diversity

People today want to say the Dred Scott was wrong, but was it?
Consider:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. [US Constitution, Article 4, Section 3]

I haven't read the decision for quite some time, but I don't recall Scott was "denied legal personhood," as this articles says. Obviously this has long been superseded by the 13th and 14th Amendments, but in the absence at the time of anything to supersede this clause, how was the case ruled wrongly?

Now, go ahead and hurl those names at me for even pointing this out. Names and words certainly don't hurt me, no matter what oversensitive people also say today.

 

Here is the reslution that was submitted, according to the Missouri Baptist Convention web site:

Resolution No. 8
On the Missouri Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision and Racial Reconciliation

WHEREAS, the Missouri Baptist Convention adopted a resolution in 2007 on the 150th Anniversary of the Dred Scott Decision wholly lamenting and repenting of any active or passive support of this decision; and

WHEREAS, the Scriptures teach that God has made all people in His image (Gen. 1:27) and He made from one man and one woman all peoples to live on the earth (Gen. 3:20; Acts 17:26); and

WHEREAS, God sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2), and, in Christ, is reconciling to
Himself people from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 5:9); and

WHEREAS, God desires to reconcile sinners to Himself through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross
(Gal. 1:4, 3:13-14), and reconciling sinners to one another (Gal. 5:13-14); and

WHEREAS, the prevailing demonstration of love for neighbor is to show mercy (Luke 10:29-37); and

WHEREAS, racism is a plague on society that has repeatedly caused people to fail to demonstrate love
to their neighbors; and

WHEREAS, racism can exist both inside and outside the church; and

WHEREAS, one of the most egregious demonstrations of the plight of racism was the Dred Scott
decision by the Missouri Supreme Court on March 22, 1852, which was affirmed by the United States
Supreme Court on March 6, 1857; and

WHEREAS, the Dred Scott decision’s assertion that people of African ancestry were “unfit to associate
with the white race,” and that “they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” was sinfully
wrong and a reminder that courts are capable of errors; and

WHEREAS, we are guilty of the same kind of prejudice if we treat a fellow image bearer of God as
if they are less than us or have any attitudes toward them that fail to reflect God’s redemptive love; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that we denounce the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision of March 22, 1852 denying
personhood to Dred Scott and all attitudes of racism that contributed to the decision then, and can create
societal rifts today on the grounds that such attitudes are deeply unscriptural; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Missouri Baptist Convention call on the Missouri Legislature to formally denounce
the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court of March 22, 1852, in that it contradicts the principle that “all
men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”; and be it
further

RESOLVED, that we commend our churches to continue to reach out to all persons regardless of
ethnicity showing mercy to all for whom Christ died, and look forward to the day that we will gather as a
diverse assembly in Heaven; and be it finally

RESOLVED, that we pray for and work toward the day when the sin of racism is eradicated from
the Body of Christ so that our state and world see the love of Christ demonstrated in and through the
churches of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Resolution submitted by Michael York, messenger from First Baptist Church of Salem

 

Diversity: The Great Apostasy.

 

???? How so?

 

Because a full open-arms definition of "diversity" would include LGBTQ folks.

No doubt the LORD wants LGBTQ folk to be saved.

The issues involve their acceptance and/or membership in the church.

The major issue - after conversion is a lifestyle change/witness required of LGBTQ people to be active serving members of a given local church.

No change - apostasy.

Is this correct Aaron?

Thanks

 

Its not good enough to limit "diversity" to race.

What this does is allow those who believe the scope of diversity goes beyond race and oppose it to be called RACISTS or WHITE SUPREMACISTS!
A liberal/marxist type tactic.

Any "diversity" group should make it clear as to the full scope of their view of "diversity" and the repercussions of the promotion of such "diversity" in the local churches.

My opinion of course.

 

Well, I don't think they were addressing that particular issue, but I understand your concerns.

Diversity, rightly understood, is certainly biblical and beautiful.

Differences of race and culture tend to devide us. As Christians, those devisions should be set aside in favor of unity in Spirit and purpose for the cause of Christ.

 

Indeed Canada. yes concern but sooner or later (the sooner the better) He will return and purify His Church...

 

Come Lord Jesus!!!

 

Christ never preached diversity. What He preached was repentance, and faith toward God. That is the message of the Gospel.

Diversity is a political ploy, and is an end to itself. What? You think your candlestick stands because you have a black man on your church council?

Christ, and Him crucified. That is the message, and that is the mission. Don't pollute it with worldly philosophies.

 

Scripture says there is neither Greek or Jew, male or female, slave or free. All are part of God's kingdom. That is diversity. People of all races and cultures accepted.

 

Scripture is true, but natural man has a way of perverting its intention and thus its application. Paul clearly addresses real differences among believers, differences that matter and determine function and relationships. And what if he said something specific about Cretans? Should that change our understanding at all?

 

Yes of course, but actually this is a scriptural argument against diversity - we are all the same in Christ - not diverse.
Our former diversity is no more.

Also, we must be careful not to blend the world's view of diversity (which includes people of an LGBTQ active lifestyle) as acceptable in Christ and His churches.
This does not mean that LGBTQ Folks cannot be saved but that there is an expectation of repentance or at least an attempt at the abandonment of a sinful lifestyle.

 

Paul addresses differences and stresses unity in Christ.

No. Paul's comment about a Cretan philosopher doesn't address this issue at all.

I really don't see what MO Baptists are doing as perverting the intention of scripture. If fact, it's just the opposite.

 

I'd say we're sorely behind in our slave quota.

 

When the focus is the racial mix of any church or council, then the focus is not on Christ, and Him crucified.

 

Who are the "we" that are behind in their qouta?