Southern Baptist State Conventions this year

[Jerome]

What a welcome trend!

Check out the recent headlines churned out by the SBC's Baptist Press:

Baptist Press • Colorado Baptists elect first African American president

highlight from the meeting was the election of new president John Moreland the convention's first African American president. Moreland is pastor of Denver Christian Bible Church

keynote speakers Ronnie Floyd, president and CEO of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee; Noe Garcia, senior pastor of North Phoenix (Ariz.) Baptist Church and SBC second vice president

Baptist Press • SBC of Virginia elects African American president

The SBC of Virginia made history...Allen McFarland...will be the convention's first African American president.

Baptist Press • S.C. convention elects first African American president

"on our 200th anniversary -- the oldest state convention in the Southern Baptist Convention -- our first African American will preside as president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention"

Baptist Press • Florida Baptists display unity, embrace diversity

Erik Cummings, reelected to a second term as president of the Florida Baptist State Convention

speakers during the two-day event were SBC President J.D. Greear, pastor of The Summit Church in the Raleigh-Durham, N.C., area; Fred Luter, pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orlean...Ronnie Floyd, president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee

Vice Presidents Vanessa Rodriguez-Cardona and Mike Wiggins join President Erik Cummings in prayer

 

[Rob_BW]

How to word this...

My African American friends and co-workers seem evenly split between the non-denominational "normal" churches in town, the charismatic-prosperity driven churches in town, and the liberal AME churches out in the country, with a few attending conservative FWB churches out in the country. I hope these elections will help families looking for a church home consider the SBC over the liberal or miracle money options.

 

[Jerome]

More from denominational organ Baptist Press, an editorial last week from a former SBC President:

RonnieFloyd: We have to become as diverse as possible — both in our churches and our leadership

"key to a healthier culture in the SBC is to empower...all ethnicities....This is one of the main reasons we are restructuring our staff at the SBC Executive Committee to include three separate positions for multi-ethnic relations and mobilization."

"It's also one of the main reasons I was so intentional about my presidential appointments in 2015 and 2016....making committee appointments...is one of the most significant long-term effects of the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. When I served in the role....I was determined to match or exceed [20 percent non-white] in our committee representation. In 2016, we had a Committee on Committees that was 22 percent non-white. At that time, this was unprecedented in our history, but it has now been surpassed by our current president, J.D. Greear, I am convinced that this intentionality is fundamental to a healthy future in the SBC."

 

[Shoostie]

My African American friends

They'll be pleased to know that the SBC's annual resolution against alcohol has been replaced by an annual resolution against racism, as the SBC has descended from taking moral stands into pandering.

 

[JonC]

If the trend is that race is not considered to be a negative factor it is a very good trend and hopefully it will change how some have characterized the SBC.

If the trend is that race is considered to be a positive factor it is an ungodly trend and needs to be addressed as racism has no place in the church.

 

[Jerome]

SBC President: We've Got to Go Beyond Racial Neutrality

The Gospel Coalition • JD Greear • From Racism to Embracism

"When you bring up the topic of racial diversity in most churches, many people think to themselves, Well, I’m not a racist, so I’m good! But God’s goal is not simply to have us stop looking down on other races....When the Holy Spirit confronted Peter’s racism, he didn’t just command him to quit looking down on other races. He commanded Peter to embrace Cornelius, to go in and eat with him. Peter did not go from 'racist' to 'non-racist'; he went from 'racist' to 'gracist'."

"Thus, if your metric for success is only 'have ceased to be racist', you haven’t fully realized the gospel’s goal. Christ is not after racial neutrality; he wants multicultural unity."

 

[Revmitchell]

So it seems the gospel is no longer sufficient in the SBC.

 

[Shoostie]

SBC President: We've Got to Go Beyond Racial Neutrality

The Gospel Coalition • JD Greear • From Racism to Embracism

"When you bring up the topic of racial diversity in most churches, many people think to themselves, Well, I’m not a racist, so I’m good! But God’s goal is not simply to have us stop looking down on other races....When the Holy Spirit confronted Peter’s racism, he didn’t just command him to quit looking down on other races. He commanded Peter to embrace Cornelius, to go in and eat with him. Peter did not go from 'racist' to 'non-racist'; he went from 'racist' to 'gracist'."

"Thus, if your metric for success is only 'have ceased to be racist', you haven’t fully realized the gospel’s goal. Christ is not after racial neutrality; he wants multicultural unity."

JD Greear is a fundamentally dishonest man, IMO, given many things he has said on various issues. Peter went to Cornelius without objection, he said so. If there was something to overcome, it was God's own ritual law concerning cleanliness. And, Peter didn't embrace Cornelius anymore more than Peter embraced anyone else, but rather announced God doesn't show partiality (i.e. just "non-racist", not "gracist").

For whites to treat blacks differently (i.e. "gracist") because of their race is itself racist. It's insulting and patronizing to blacks. It's the bigotry of lower standards (you're not good enough until I factor in your skin color). Greear's identity politics also implies every non-racist white person is actually a racist (if you're not showing preferences to blacks, you're not countering your inherent racism).

 

[JonC]

SBC President: We've Got to Go Beyond Racial Neutrality

The Gospel Coalition • JD Greear • From Racism to Embracism

"When you bring up the topic of racial diversity in most churches, many people think to themselves, Well, I’m not a racist, so I’m good! But God’s goal is not simply to have us stop looking down on other races....When the Holy Spirit confronted Peter’s racism, he didn’t just command him to quit looking down on other races. He commanded Peter to embrace Cornelius, to go in and eat with him. Peter did not go from 'racist' to 'non-racist'; he went from 'racist' to 'gracist'."

"Thus, if your metric for success is only 'have ceased to be racist', you haven’t fully realized the gospel’s goal. Christ is not after racial neutrality; he wants multicultural unity."

Perhaps abandoning racial neutrality is embracing racism.

 

[agedman]

SBC President: We've Got to Go Beyond Racial Neutrality

The Gospel Coalition • JD Greear • From Racism to Embracism

"When you bring up the topic of racial diversity in most churches, many people think to themselves, Well, I’m not a racist, so I’m good! But God’s goal is not simply to have us stop looking down on other races....When the Holy Spirit confronted Peter’s racism, he didn’t just command him to quit looking down on other races. He commanded Peter to embrace Cornelius, to go in and eat with him. Peter did not go from 'racist' to 'non-racist'; he went from 'racist' to 'gracist'."

"Thus, if your metric for success is only 'have ceased to be racist', you haven’t fully realized the gospel’s goal. Christ is not after racial neutrality; he wants multicultural unity."

Th8s is nothing more than attempting to reverse the Tower of Babel.

Let’s all sink to ecumenical swamp and swim in the stagnate.

Unity is found in agreement in doctrinal purity and holiness, noting how multicultural a group may be.

 

[agedman]

JD Greear is a fundamentally dishonest man, IMO, given many things he has said on various issues. Peter went to Cornelius without objection, he said so. If there was something to overcome, it was God's own ritual law concerning cleanliness. And, Peter didn't embrace Cornelius anymore more than Peter embraced anyone else, but rather announced God doesn't show partiality (i.e. just "non-racist", not "gracist").

For whites to treat blacks differently (i.e. "gracist") because of their race is itself racist. It's insulting and patronizing to blacks. It's the bigotry of lower standards (you're not good enough until I factor in your skin color). Greear's identity politics also implies every non-racist white person is actually a racist (if you're not showing preferences to blacks, you're not countering your inherent racism).

This would be great, but when race trumps character and Godliness, then it matters little the color. Blacks, Browns, yellows, white are all inherently racist. It is part of the fallen nature (dispute the liberal teaching).

The local assemblies should have not the least hint of care about color, but the greatest care for reaching the lost, supporting the saints, and pursuit of the high calling of God.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps abandoning racial neutrality is embracing racism.

I think that perhaps it may be the height of racism.

“Neutrality” inevitably leads to one grouping or another gaining the ear of authority. Humankind are not by nature neutral.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think that perhaps it may be the height of racism. “Neutrality” inevitably leads to one grouping or another gaining the ear of authority. Humankind are not by nature neutral.

Not sure what the point is here, but it seems inconsistent with your previous post (#11). Is someone saying neutrality is natural? Which is the height of racism, race neutrality or abandoning it? How does neutrality inevitably lead "to one grouping or another gaining the ear of authority?" Intentional neutrality would preclude it. Did you forget you said the following, which sounds very much like neutrality?

The local assemblies should have not the least hint of care about color….

 

[agedman]

Not sure what the point is here, but it seems inconsistent with your previous post (#11). Is someone saying neutrality is natural? Which is the height of racism, race neutrality or abandoning it? How does neutrality inevitably lead "to one grouping or another gaining the ear of authority?" Intentional neutrality would preclude it. Did you forget you said the following, which sounds very much like neutrality?

Not having the least care about color does not mean one is unaware of color and how outsider perceptions pressure for influence.

Neutrality obliges being subjected to outside influences.

For example: Neutrality supposedly does not take sides, yet what is more racist then not standing up against error, no matter the color?

Neutrality does not disengage opinion, nor does it remove personal agenda. During WWII, Spain, Ireland, Sweden were supposedly neutral. But, they each were controlled by special interest groups.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Not having the least care about color does not mean one is unaware of color and how outsider perceptions pressure for influence. Neutrality obliges being subjected to outside influences. For example: Neutrality supposedly does not take sides, yet what is more racist then not standing up against error, no matter the color? Neutrality does not disengage opinion, nor does it remove personal agenda. During WWII, Spain, Ireland, Sweden were supposedly neutral. But, they each were controlled by special interest groups.

Avoiding answering the questions contextually accomplishes nothing good, but does serve to cloud the issue. Who, except you, said anything about neutrality other than race neutrality? The issue is race neutrality. What the OP seems to be depicting is race activism, intentional selection based on race rather than merit. Perhaps try again.

 

[agedman]

Avoiding answering the questions contextually accomplishes nothing good, but does serve to cloud the issue. Who, except you, said anything about neutrality other than race neutrality? The issue is race neutrality. What the OP seems to be depicting is race activism, intentional selection based on race rather than merit. Perhaps try again.

And you suppose race “neutrality” is any different than any other “neutrality?”

Neutrality - any form used - is not really “neutral,” but is agenda driven.

From the microscopic to the most complex, neutral is not sustainable.

Using the easiest scenarios to show that being a foundational principle, using the term “neutral” is as saying, “People should treat each other the same way.”

Such is the most unfair, and most agenda driven which has little to do with equality.

The problem is “neutral” is not equal, nor is equality neutral.

Neutral is completely a false presentation, for there is nothing neutral concerning the believer, nor the believer’s attitude and interactions with others.

It is as if one is proclaiming they are intentionally neutral.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

And you suppose race “neutrality” is any different than any other “neutrality?”

Neutrality - any form used - is not really “neutral,” but is agenda driven.

From the microscopic to the most complex, neutral is not sustainable.

Using the easiest scenarios to show that being a foundational principle, using the term “neutral” is as saying, “People should treat each other the same way.”

Such is the most unfair, and most agenda driven which has little to do with equality.

The problem is “neutral” is not equal, nor is equality neutral.

Neutral is completely a false presentation, for there is nothing neutral concerning the believer, nor the believer’s attitude and interactions with others.

It is as if one is proclaiming they are intentionally neutral.

Though you again avoided the point entirely, your semantic arguments make it clear that your statement, "The local assemblies should have not the least hint of care about color…," cannot be practically applied according to your own rules, if for no other reason than that it mentions "color," which is more than a "hint of care," or else you have no idea how it could. You needn't reply in order to dig the hole deeper.

 

[agedman]

Though you again avoided the point entirely, your semantic arguments make it clear that your statement, "The local assemblies should have not the least hint of care about color…," cannot be practically applied according to your own rules, if for no other reason than that it mentions "color," which is more than a "hint of care," or else you have no idea how it could. You needn't reply in order to dig the hole deeper.

"hint of care" does not imply neutrality.

See, I think you are attempting to build an opposition upon trying to show I have avoided the point, when at each post I have not.

I was responding to JonC's post (#9) which you liked and I agreed by posting #12 in which JonC agreed.

But you seem to want to dive deeper, which is fine, but it doesn't change what I have posted about neutral thinking.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I was responding to JonC's post (#9) which you liked and I agreed by posting #12 in which JonC agreed.

Perhaps abandoning racial neutrality is embracing racism.

I still agree with this statement: "Perhaps abandoning racial neutrality is embracing racism." But your own comments seem to indicate the very opposite.

By application, you convey that you are abandoning racial neutrality, which could lead you to embrace racism. Is that what you are intending to mean?

 

[JonC]

I still agree with this statement: "Perhaps abandoning racial neutrality is embracing racism." But your own comments seem to indicate the very opposite.

By application, you convey that you are abandoning racial neutrality, which could lead you to embrace racism. Is that what you are intending to mean?

I mean that when race drives our action it is racism, regardless of whether it is to give someone a job based on race or to deprive one of a job based on race. Race is an obsolete factor in the identity of a person. The person does not control their color. The person has no choice of their race. The person has no right to demand something because of their race, and the person should not be discriminated against because of their race.

In terms of the SBC, I suspect that they are simply moving towards a different kind of racism - not because they have chosen people of color as leaders but because they (we, I'm SBC) highlight race in the choices they have made. It discredits the people who were chosen (it gives the impression that they were chosen because they were qualified and a minority, but not that they were the most qualified). The reason I have this perspective is that I've attended SBC churches for over 50 years and for the past 20 years people of minority have been a part of our churches (holding positions, not based on their race but on their gifts).

If this was the only issue that could be seen as social appeasement I probably would not have thought twice about it. But with public stands for Muslim rights, against the "rebel flag", involvement in "Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality" (to name a few) it is hard for me to see this as anything but a PR move. I hope it is not, and the men are certainly qualified for the positions.