Just the other day, in a masterpiece of bad timing, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention voted to disassociate themselves from the Confederate battle flag. I maintain this was a cloth-headed blunder for three basic reasons.
First, it was as though the second story of your house were on fire, and the fire department did in fact show up, but instead of hooking up the hoses and going after the fire, the chief decided to lecture you about the pile of oily rags he spotted in your garage. In the general cultural unstuckness that is going down, including, but not limited to, trannies in all our bathrooms, mandated rainbow marriages in all fifty, genocidal mania against the unborn continuing unabated, with black children particularly targeted, perverted sex ed grooming of children in the government school system, despotic rulings coming from the president’s pen, a gathering move to shut down Christian colleges, what do the Southern Baptists do? Why, they figure out a way to denounce the state flag of Mississippi. Glad somebody found the real problem.
Second, there is not one blessed thing in Russell Moore’s statement that does not also apply to the American flag. You strike the colors of a foe that was defeated a century and a half ago, and call it bravery and reconciliation, and refuse to do anything about the flag that is flying over a cluster of abominations now. When it comes to the American flag, you want to say, “oh, its complicated, not that simple, means more than one thing.” You see, taking a stand against the Stars and Bars enables Russell Moore to engage in some trendy virtue signaling, and taking a stand against the American flag would actually cost him a great deal. But explain this to me. If the Confederate flag “stands for” slavery, in what way does the American flag not “stand for” abortion? Roe has executed 13 million black children — what flag represents that? What flag flies at the Supreme Court that decided that?
If you want, you can find some additional thoughts, here and here. And if you haven’t read it before, please read the first one.
Third, we are talking about Baptists here, and so we should recognize that they are not very good at the semiotics of ritual. They are clueless about where they actually are, and have no real sense of timing. They are buying their first pair of bell bottoms in 1992. They just now purchased their lava lamps.
If they wanted to denounce old school racism, then they should have done it in the fifties, when it would have done some actual good. But now, just when the secular elites have decided we must abandon all biological givens for the sake of those who want to self-identify as whatever in tarnation they want, we have the Southern Baptists solemnly denouncing the sins of their great grandfathers. There is a time and place for that (Ps. 78:7-8), of course, but people in the middle of a hot grease fire ought not to be lamenting the cold iron of the frying pan in the cupboard.
You can’t really confess the sins of your fathers while stoutly clinging to your own. If Southern Baptists get all their kids out of the government indoctrination centers in the fall of 2016, then they might have something valuable to say about what their fathers should have done back in the day. Until then, excuse me for not getting choked up over meaningless displays.
He who says A, must say B, even if he is a relativist. This remains the case, even if he doesn’t like B very much, or even if he denounces the very idea of having B’s. Trannies can now compete anywhere, and so in principle there is no such thing as women’s athletics anymore. Race is a social construct, and that means there is no such thing as racism. Right? Sex is also entirely a matter of what you believe deep down in your heart, chromosomes be damned, and so it necessarily follows that there is no such thing as sexism.
The unbelieving world is running headlong after the gold medal of incoherence, and they are competing with a will. And professing evangelicals are running after them, our plump little thighs churning. “Wait up, guys!” They have lapped us three times now, but because we are in the same section of the track periodically, we can call it relevance.
Finally doing what the liberals demanded fifty years ago should make you wonder what your great grandchildren will be apologizing for fifty years from now.
One gets the feeling that after every white guilt (or straight guilt) inspired resolution, sermon, interview, or tweet, they sit back and say, “Maybe NOW the progressives will love us.”
Just yesterday I read a post from a Pastor in my own denomination (PCA) regarding the events of Orlando and discussing what should be the response of the Church. While there was much in the article that was helpful, one of his suggestions was to have churches volunteer to help provide security at Gay Pride parades. Now I wish no harm on anyone as they persist in their sin…certainly God has been most gracious to me in showing me more forbearance than I deserve in my pigheadedness. However, how can this possibly be construed as the means to reach out… Read more »
As jaded as I am, I still find it hard to believe that a PCA pastor wrote that Christians should help provide security at gay pride parades. Got a link?
You speechless. That’s saying something.
http://scottsauls.com/2016/06/13/lgbtq_orlando/?platform=hootsuite
Well, he hangs out with Keller, so wouldn’t it be more surprising if he didn’t say that?
He referred to “Dr. King,” which I assume is Martin Luther King, as if he was some kind of prophet. This Scott character is too caught up in the spirit of the age.
You may be jaded, but it is still nice to have you back again! I was convinced for a while that you were posing as an Indian gentleman who was upbraiding everyone for being insufficiently charitable, and I thought it was a wonderful impersonation. But, I think he was real.
Thanks, jilly. Yeah, it wasn’t me. When Doug went on vacation, and we only got old posts with closed comments, I pretty much lost interest. I’d planned to come back when he returned, but now I really don’t care all that much. So I’m not going to be commenting nearly as much as I used to. Unless something changes radically, and I’m pretty sure it won’t.
During the height of the AIDS crisis when people were dropping like flies, Mother Teresa sent nuns to care for dying American AIDS patients. I think that is a meaningful Christian witness. But this is simply lunatic on more levels than I can count. Has this pastor ever SEEN a gay pride parade?
Wouldn’t surprise me if he participates in them.
1) Mother Teresa was not a Christian.
2) To render physical aid to the dying may be kind, but it is not meaningful Christian witness without a clear proclamation of the Gospel.
3) To provide security or other support for unrepentant rebels reveling in their rebellion is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Hello, Steven. When I read your comment, I thought–until I looked at your photo–that you were the currently notorious other Steven Anderson, the one who has posted a youtube video saying that Mother Teresa is in hell. He also believes that the government should execute gays (I read some of your posts on Disqus). There is no point my disputing your belief that the Catholic church is not Christian. But surely you must accept the possibility that among the church’s billion followers, there are some who perhaps unknowingly cling to the doctrines of grace. There must be some who are… Read more »
My name is Stephen, not Steven. Spelling does matter. :-) I certainly believe there are genuine Christians who are in the Roman Catholic Church. What I carefully said is that Mother Teresa was not a Christian and that is based on her own writing. And that is as a Pastor warning God’s people, not her Judge. Roman Catholicism as a religion is not Christianity as it has another gospel, a gospel of works+sacrament+grace. In regard to visiting the sick and those in prison, as this is within the Church, not a requirement to visit the sick and prisoners outside the… Read more »
I am sorry, Stephen, I should have noticed how your name is spelled. As a retired English teacher, I agree that spelling does matter!
Do you think that the parable of the Good Samaritan encourages us to believe we must do good to those who are outside the faith as well as those who are in it?
Although I am Catholic, I haven’t read many of Mother Teresa’s writings. Are you referring to those in which she suggests a universalist view of salvation?
I have fun with people confusing me for Steven Anderson, esp. when I post comments on his videos as Pastor Stephen Anderson. The Samaritans were unorthodox half Jews. The parable was in answer to the question: “who is my neighbor?”. Let me answer your question with the answer I gave to some LGBTs that didn’t like a comment about Orlando: To all those LGBTs that hate God and despise Christians, to those who have told both God and myself to “go f— yourself”.: If you come to my door begging bread, I will feed you. If you are thirsty, I… Read more »
I appreciate your reply. There are quite a few Catholics who do read the Bible, and it is certainly encouraged. I am not as diligent as I should be, but it is an important part of a Catholic education. And, of course, there is a minimum of four Bible readings at each Catholic service. But I freely admit that Catholics in times past have have not focused on the scriptures as they ought, and that Catholic knowledge of scripture is inferior to that of most Protestants. We are taught that we must do good works in gratitude for what God… Read more »
I have attended quite a few Catholic services. The RCC in the United States is quite different than that in Mexico. Here it must compete with Christians that know the Scriptures and I have heard at least one Gospel sermon in a RCC church. I can recognize the Gospel where it still exists but it is buried under tradition. The mass is a testimony of the salvation found only in Christ, but its meaning is obscured. Read the Scriptures, John, Romans and Galatians would be at the top of my list. I would also recommend two books: Knowing God by… Read more »
Thank you. I know you speak from genuine interest and concern, and I appreciate it.
I meant to add that I know what you mean about the difference between the Catholic church here and in other places. I will patiently explain that, no, we do not worship statues, only to pick up a magazine and see pictures of Catholics in under-developed countries engaged in activities that kind of look like statue-worshiping! But God knows their hearts, and I don’t. I think the meaning of the mass is probably clearer to Catholics, although I recognize that the very concept of re-enacting Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is troublesome to many Protestants. For me, the Catholic church… Read more »
From living on the Texas/Mexico border for 10 years and having visited the Basilica de la Virgen de San Juan many times, I assure you that many, many Catholics do overtly worship images. But then many charismatic “protestants” do similar if less obvious things. The central problem for Protestants with the mass is that the Scriptures clearly make the death of Christ a one time sacrifice whereas Catholic doctrine (of which I am well versed in) makes it a continuing sacrifice of Christ and makes the wafer not only the literal body, but also the blood, soul and divinity of… Read more »
Hi Stephen,
I am a mere-Christian. In defense of that doctrine, consider that God is outside time and is always present everywhere at all times.
While we experience time as a progression from past to future, God experiences it all the time all at once.
If this is true, then it is reasonable to believe that God (Jesus) is still with Noah, still with Adam and is still on the Cross, and is still risen (not on the Cross)
A gentle acknowledgement, or symbol of that, could be the Catholic Mass.
Mere-Christianity is less than Biblical Christianity and does not save. Your idea of time is unbiblical and irrational. The atoning death of Christ took place in time and space. The Catholic mass is unbiblical and I am not interested in empty speculation.
Mere-Christianity is less than Biblical Christianity and does not save.
Christianity does not save, Christ does.
I am saved by the blood of Christ and resurrected with Him, I have the Holy Spirit living in me,guiding me and sanctifying me.
This is all given to me as a free gift from Him.
Good luck.
I do realize that. Syncretism is a fascinating problem for any church that emphasizes doctrinal purity. I have mentioned here before that I live almost next door to a street-front Protestant Latino church. But they pray the rosary and have pictures of Pope Francis and Our Lady of Guadalupe in their windows!
“To provide security or other support for unrepentant rebels reveling in their rebellion is to give aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Would you say the same if the parade was comprised solely of Orthodox Jews? After all, they reject the most fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, more so than even a liberal gay church.
Most of the parades are now a bit boring and very corporate. The exceptions are the few leather daddies and drag queens (which make up a distinct minority of the gay population). Yes, there’s some skimpy clothing, but you’ll find even skimpier attire at most public beaches.
The rest of the participants are company associate groups, politicians, liberal churches and companies looking to make money by selling their products at the following festivals.
You do realize that even mainstream media tends to highlight the most outlandish participants of these parades, right?
Yes, I do. And my experience with Pride parades was in San Francisco quite a few years ago. I can well believe that corporate sponsorship has changed the events,
Since Klan members have been violently attacked in recent rallies, why not protect them as well? Same argument–the PCA/SBC doesn’t endorse their beliefs/lifestyle, but they “could reach out in love” to the unloved in our society and protect their 1st Amendment rights.
But I’m guessing the PCA (emphasis on “PC”) pastor would never propose this. They wouldn’t protect Trump supporters in hostile territories, either.
The ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march through the heavily Jewish neighborhoods of Skokie, so the idea is not without precedent. It makes me feel sick, but I think they were probably right in principle.
The ACLU isn’t the same as the SBC. And while the ACLU has occasionally defended the rights of such groups, they’ve never provided them protection. Overall, however, the ACLU has been heavily biased towards the Left. If that makes you feel sick, what do you think about BLM groups marching and screaming “Die pigs!” or militant Latino groups proclaiming that they’re the only ones who belong in the U.S. Are the neo-nazis worse, or have we just been conditioned to think so? And for the record, they’ve been attacked very violently in some recent protests in CA and SC. The… Read more »
No, I realize that the ACLU threatened to sue the city to force the police to provide protection for the Neo-Nazis. I don’t like any group that threatens or encourages violence against innocent citizens or law enforcement officers, or that expresses solidarity with groups whose purpose is to incite hatred. They all make me feel sick. Peaceful protest, even if I disapprove of the cause, is a different matter. I find the Latino militants a little puzzling. I realize that my part of California used to belong to Mexico, but looking around my LA barrio, anyone would think that it… Read more »
All this fluff talk about “hatred”. The hatred comes from the Left, Marxist and the Synagogue of Satan against White people. Not being tolerant of repugnant behavior, such as sodomy, is not “hate”, it is merely enforcing one’s standards in the face of abnormal and harmful behavior.
What is the synagogue of Satan?
PCA or PCUSA?
PCA. “I don’t know about you, but to me this provocative comment from Kate feels like something Jesus would affirm.” Referencing churches offering security for Pride events. See link above.
Come back, Rev. Dabney, your people need you :-[
Ask and you shall receive. Wait, who said that?
CT had a nice article on essentially this very idea a few months ago, by a para-church worker lamenting that Vanderbilt kicked her group and many other Christian organizations off campus even though she had assiduously said and done things to connect to the campus. They hate us and we are are for them was the lesson.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september/wrong-kind-of-christian-vanderbilt-university.html
One day they’ll even throw Rachel Held Evans under the bus.
Will the ERLC join in and blame Christianity for Orlando?
I mean, if “Make America Great Again” means longing for a Mayberry with strange fruit in the trees, then it must also mean longing for a time when homosexuality was socially repressed and not met with loving, open arms.
So, Christian Trump supporters are latent racists who support lynching and latent “homophobes” who support Omar.
In fact, a quote in the Baptist Press from SBC Prez Merrit: “Today, we can say loudly and clearly to a world filled with racial strife and division that Southern Baptists are not in the business of building barriers and burning bridges,” he said. “We’re about building bridges and tearing down barriers.”
“Barrier” and “bridge” talk could be perfectly innocuous, and perhaps it is, but it has at least some resemblance to how others have spoken in regards to Trump.
“But explain this to me. If the Confederate flag “stands for” slavery, in what way does the American flag not “stand for” abortion?” The difference is that a substantial number – a minority but a substantial number – see the stars and bars and immediately think slavery, racism, oppression. It is an automatic representation of those evil things to them. There is almost no one who sees the stars and strips and immediately thinks baby-killers. Now I generally agree, however, that this was a worthless display of slacktivism. I have been in a lot of country baptist churches in the… Read more »
n8tdo66, yes, but why does it mean that for so many now? Left to itself, for many years, it had a range of meanings. As did the American flag, see below.
Sorry. Thought a picture would appear — it was of an American flag at a KKK rally in Washington D.C.
I dont disagree with what it SHOULD mean. It has little meaning to me, just the flag of a country that fought a war against the USA. My understanding of why it regained its meaning to so many was that it was used as a symbol of segregation in the 50s and 60s. So it fell out of use for roughly 100 years and then came back as a symbol of racism. Back during the SC hoopla – I guess that was close to a year ago – there was a lot of discussion about the flag – most of… Read more »
It depends on whether the people bringing it back are also those offended by it. If it is a dead symbol so be it. If it is an independence symbol that is what it is. If it is used by a few to represent racism that may not be helpful. But are the offended crowd finding a rare use of the flag and maximising it’s identity as a racist flag for everyone then calling for its banning? then they are in part to blame. The flag’s opponents have contributed to its association with racism in the eyes of others that… Read more »
Or maybe they just hate early 80s action adventure TV shows.
Forgiveness is hard to earn. But for some reason we just keep trying.
Here you go.
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/tbacig/studproj/is3099/jazzcult/20sjazz/Klan.jpg
The symbolism of the confederate flag is now and likely forever slavery and racism. By a mile. It is not a symbol of ‘benign ‘states rights’ anymore than the swastika is a symbol of good fortune. Shall we fly the red nazi cross over present-day hasidic Brooklyn and huff and puff about hindi good tidings to all?
I would mind this a lot less if people would be direct. For example: “I fly the confederate flag as a statement of my defiance towards a nation in which I am required to treat black people as my equals. I fly this flag to express allegiance to a social order in which blacks were enslaved, oppressed, lynched, and terrorized by whites. I fly this flag in solidarity with the southerners who murdered unarmed civil rights workers in the 1960’s and with the Klansman who carry this flag at the meetings of their Klaverns.” It would be repulsive, but it… Read more »
Yes, agreed jillybean. And adjacently, this most recent outgrowth of the Wilson’s ‘southern slavery as it was’ position is despicable. I understand the biblical literalist need to rationalize slavery in the abstract; the relationship of the reformed christian to their god is similar enough. But even so, the willfully dishonest reframing of the enslavement of another human being as ‘mutually beneficial’ is nauseating.
Strongly disagree. I do know people who fly the confederate flag, and they are no more racist than you are. Many are flying it in opposition to our government which is attempting to limit our rights, kill the unborn and support open sin.
Hi Vic. I have to confess first of all that I probably am a bit racist. It would be difficult to have had my upbringing (i.e. the sun never sets on the British Empire, the white man’s burden, etc.) without having a sense of racial superiority that pops out when I least expect it. But I do try to keep it under control. And I believe you that not everybody who flies the confederate flag is consciously racist. I understand people opposing our government and believing that it represents and promotes wicked ideas. But I don’t understand why flying the… Read more »
Not true. The confederate flag was a symbol of a group of states that felt the federal government has overstepped its constitutional limits and was taking rights guaranteed to the states. That said, confederate soldiers and the southern people were no more or less honorable than their northern brothers. Today – far more people are apposed to America than were ever apposed to the southern states. Today – most people are flying the confederate flag due to their being unhappy with the way our government is being run.
You may not want to believe that the the south was fighting to preserve a morally repulsive institution-but too bad. There is no other reason. And the states’ rights huh. States’ rights to what? To continue to maintain slavery. The south was preoccupied with states’ rights because it was preoccupied first and foremost about continuing the practice.
Any tone-deaf moron ‘opposed to america’ who wants to fly a confederate flag with all it’s historical connotations deserves the ridicule that free speech will bring him.
RandMan wrote:
Is RandMan running for tolerance sheriff this fall?
RandMan wrote:
As a professed atheist, it is hilarious to watch RandMan carry on as if symbols have objective, fixed meaning.
But that’s why the SBC did it. No pain, all gain. They can suck up to the world while not offending members and then congratulate themselves on taking a stand against racism.
I will be buying that confederate flag to fly on my pickup.
If I still educate my kids in public school I have no business speaking out about the confederate battle flag, huh?
Correct.
I think it depends on your level of awareness and engagement with the educational process. I think too many Christians treat the schools as either a battlefield for little soldiers (which strikes me a deeply disturbing metaphor for children) or daycare. I know, however, that many other Christians are intensely concerned with their children’s worldview and education in the public schools (and that private and home schooled children are not guaranteed faithfulness). However, I do think that the educational establishment is not, as a whole, a healthy environment for many students. I will also admit that I have never been… Read more »
The issue is not that public schools aren’t Christian, at least not mainly. The issue is parents and others don’t have a choice in which education system they support, and government education gets to make competition impossible. A Christian feels sending kids to a non-Christian school is their Godly choice? Fine. Great. But to say if you don’t want that option, or don’t want to support it (as someone who isn’t a parent yet) that’s too bad, you have to, and maybe if you have some left over you can support education you believe in, is just cruel. It would… Read more »
Competition isn’t impossible – it’s just very hard work. But what are we called to? I support candidates who want to reduce the vice grip the teacher’s unions and their love of the world (abortion, sexual perversion, the ridicule of God, the idol worship of libertinism and “science” and trends) – it’s one of the things that’s really important politically to me – but I think that, like abortion, educational reform is a long haul, not a sprint. In the meantime, we must render unto Caesar the tax dollars for their broken schools, and render unto God our children that… Read more »
I have only a Canadian perspective on this, but I was a teacher there for many years and of course I belonged to a powerful union. It may be different here, but many of the inappropriate, time-wasting, or downright silly topics we had to cover did not originate with the union but rather with the provincial ministry of education. The MOE, not the union, sets the curriculum. It was long enough ago that sex ed was just beginning and fortunately did not affect English teachers. However, to illustrate my point, the school board of one of British Columbia’s largest districts… Read more »
Very true, jilly – I mention the unions because they are the most powerful force in preventing educational reform politically, in their donations and lobbying. But in terms of curriculum, I completely agree that they aren’t, to my knowledge, that influential compared to governments, local and federal.
I know “render unto Caesar” what is Caesar’s is biblical, but so is “render unto God what is God’s.” If Caesar can take any realm of authority not reserved for him and make it his own, the phrase “render unto God what is God’s” would be meaningless. We owe Caesar what is due him, we do not owe him what is due to God, and I highly doubt that it simply means Caesar has a right to as much time, work, and finances from believers as he wants and God has no claim on any but only on their hearts.… Read more »
Ummm…and I also quoted the second half of Jesus’s words. I think reform is urgent and worth fighting for, but I also think that Jesus was speaking to people in the Roman Empire, which was at least as bad or worse than America in its use of tax money. So I’m not entirely certain what point you’re making.
I don’t believe Jesus was saying Caesar had a right to all he was taking, but that we should yield that which he did have a right to. For example, the audience Jesus talked to lived when Caesar demanded to be worshiped. They are not to render this, because it was not “Caesar’s.” I don’t think, than, that Jesus was saying we need to Render worship or money to Caesar’s that are not rightfully his.
Are you taking that text to mean that whatever Caesar Demanded in Taxes only should be rendered unto him?
I think the balance between what the state is right to take and what Christians have a right to resist is a difficult one to discern. Jesus’s famous dictum about taxes is not the only time the New Testament instructs Christians to obey the government of Rome. So no, I don’t take the text to mean that only taxes are owed the government – I believe that our leaders deserve respect – but not always obedience.
I believe Jesus began with a coin and asked, “whose name and image is this?” If Caesar didn’t create it, it doesn’t belong to him. Children don’t belong to him. The family doesn’t belong to him. The church doesn’t belong to him. Our lives don’t belong to him. The land doesn’t belong to him. Our allegiance doesn’t belong to him.
Didn’t the Iranians send children out into Saddam’s minefields to act as human minesweepers (martyrs)?
Public schools are a God free zone.
That is untrue. I know many teachers and children and parents in the public school system. I think they are wasting time on a rear-guard effort, but they are faithfully guarding.
That’s correct.
Why does it matter if your kids are in the Lord’s house one day of the week if they’re in the temple of Moloch another five?
just a wee bit hyperbole perhaps?
No.
Talk to your Doctor I think you may have to adjust your meds
Would you please ask your new PM to fix the dollar? My Canadian money is not happy!
Daaaaannnnnnggggg…..
Talk about a smack down.
Brother Doug, I’m a “r”eformed Baptist who follows your blog, uses Reforming Marriage for pre-marital counseling in my church, and is sitting at #SBC16 right now. I’d like to share a couple thoughts in response to your post concerning this issue. Southern Baptist churches are fully autonomous and are in now way bound by any of the decisions of the SBC. The bread and butter of the actual convention is our international and Noryh American missionaries. When we come together for two days each year it is basically a glorified business meeting. We hear committee and entity reports, vote on… Read more »
I appreciate this comment Sam. Doug, as do many others on the internet was once again tempted to weigh in on something without actually being a part of the conversation. His words on this particular blog – like so many on the internet – are just noise.
t was much needed in an association of Baptist that still had not shaken it white Southern roots.
Southern Baptist.
You guys need to disband; maybe move to NY.
We will keep the South.
Yeah, why don’t we have the group responsible for the largest international missionary task force on earth, the third largest disaster relief organization in the United States, and 6 out of 10 of the largest seminaries in North America just disband. That’s a brilliant idea. Maybe someone will bring it up at next year’s meeting.
Co op program really just makes the SBC like any other multinational corporation. Come on, you know the SBC is really a pyramid scheme in disguise.
That’s why entities like the ERLC get so in step with the globalist agenda.
Because it is associated with Racism and Bigotry; those are your rules; live by them.
Now you’re just confusing me. The SBC is bad because it’s racist. but it’s also bad because it taking action to denounce racism?
No, its very existence is associated with racism and bigotry. Yes, you apologized but so what? Your very existence is a testament to your hatred of America and black people.
Your very organization is a symbol of oppression.
An apology is not enough. Disband.
Is the SBC pulling in bucks for helping to implement the refugee resettlement program?
Praise for all the good that the SBC does, the fine men within it, and the sound theology the usually have should not mean they can’t be critiqued. Nor that when they are critiqued on a certain issue, one has to pad it by stating how much good they do. Unhealthy elements in the SBC are especially noxious BECAUSE the SBC is a strong force for good, and we who love it (and are considering joining it) want it to keep that and improve.
I’m not saying that the SBC is beyond critique, even from those outside it’s streams. But ignorant remarks like “The SBC should disband” don’t qualify as critiques in my book. Some of the asinine remarks made could be applied to every denomination and they would be just as ignorant and those cases as well.
Okay, so were you defending it against Doug’s critiques or the other attacks? If the latter I agree with you for most of them, they are dismissing the denomination not looking at certain issues.
My original comment was for Doug. All further comments were in response to others.
My sarcasm missed the mark. It is an example of the sort of thing you will be facing within a month and you clearly lack the tools to recognize, much less fight, the spiritual war that you are in. Having disarmed in this instance, you are not equipped to fight the next battle. SBC is shooting its own troops. Stop it. To surrender to these people is to encourage them. They will never quit until you are gone. The time of capitulating to and working with Social Justice Warriors is over. SBC did not get the memo. While the SBC… Read more »
Doug Wilson for President of the SBC*.
*this does not constitute an endorsement of Federal Vision :-)
Doug- I agree with much of what you said, except for point three. I am a baptist, I attended SBTS, and even had Dr. Moore for a few classes. I believe your critique of him is spot on, I had him my first semester of seminary for two classes, and never went back. But there are plenty of baptists, even Southern baptists, who are sick and tired of Moore’s antics, and there are many who were sick of him at SBTS before he left. This is not a uniquely Baptist problem, rather Moore represents a wing of Evangelicalism which exists… Read more »
James, thanks, and I take your point. I think my joke fell flat there.
Gotcha. Maybe I missed the joke, which is far too easy to miss in online discussions. Keep up the good work, your voice is very much needed, especially to us baptists!
I got it….you sprightly baby spritzer.
Also had a class with Moore, and only one like you. Worked in the bookstore when he and his baby ducklings would come trotting in. Disgusting, self-aggrandizing, sycophants. Got my degree and my baggage.
Maybe an active flag of a shifting political culture (like ours in the US) is different from the dead flag of a slaver rebellion. If the last national use of a flag was flown by its people fighting to the death defending slavery before it was taken down… Maybe it shouldn’t go back up? And maybe that argument doesn’t make the entire SBC guilty of the cynical charge of ‘virtue signaling’ or going soft on an unrelated issue. I get the sensitivity that Wilson has but this is cranky, unneeded and callous. Bringing up 8 other areas of possible disagreement… Read more »
“Maybe an active flag of a shifting political culture (like ours in the US)..”
Go with the flow….
no thanks.
We will keep Christendom and our civilization. you go gently into that good night. We have been charitable enough.
Why don’t you just be done with it and fly the rainbow flag in a show of solidarity with Sodom and Gomorrah?
“fighting to the death defending slavery”
Are you suggesting the South seceded in order to defend slavery? If so, how do you think slavery was threatened?
Of course they did, you can find the original documentation that says that exact thing. They thought that with Lincoln’s victory their institution was doomed. They were also fighting for states rights and such, but you can’t take slavery out of the equation.
What threat do you think Lincoln posed to slavery?
It has nothing to do with what I thought about him, they thought they had lost the long-term political battle and secession was their only choice.
I’m not sure the difference matters, but I’ll ask it this way then: what threat do you think the southern states thought Lincoln posed to slavery?
I imagine that the election results made them think that they were going to start losing politically and to them it seemed inevitable.They saw that with more non-slave states joining the Union, and they couldn’t expand their agrarian businesses in those states (since their slaves would then be freed). I couldn’t speak to all the details of their thought process, but that was what prompted them to secede (which happened before Lincoln even took office).
It sounds kind of like you’re saying the South didn’t really secede in order to defend slavery so much as it seceded over issues of interstate commerce that were unfavorable to slave states. In any case I’m not hearing much of a case for your assertion that the South seceded in order to defend slavery, particularly no evidence of the threat you’re implying they were defending slavery against.
[Edit] Just went ahead and wrote a longer version of this here if anyone is interested: http://jeffwright.exaltchrist.com/dw-sbc-cf/ It would seem the conclusion to the point about the flag is that if you haven’t done it in more timely fashion you shouldn’t do it at all. That doesn’t strike me as particularly compelling. Furthermore, the implication that making this decision will lead to renouncing certain culturally offensive from our day in a fifty-year future is a well written slippery slope fallacy. What is more, it is profoundly healthy for the SBC to say “We move to take steps to stop offending… Read more »
I think you don’t know what a slippery slope is. Let’s discuss, shall we? When an integrationist tells a segregationist in 1964 not to worry, that racial integration will not necessarily lead to the mingling of the races, that this fear is a “slippery slope fallacy”, they are not being more logical than the people who have those concerns. They are doing something else entirely called lying, and disguising their mendacity with condescension. Nowadays, interracial marriage is commonplace and to express qualms is demonized as sinful when it was exactly the reverse to our grandfather’s generation. When suffragettes told the… Read more »
Sure I do. I read The Amazing Dr. Ransom’s Bestiary of Adorable Fallacies after all.
None of the words you wrote, accurate as they may (or may not) be, prove that the SBC addressing the Confederate flag here in the name of Christian solidarity will necessarily lead to some kind of capitulation to culture in the future.
Neither you nor Doug have proven this link and, thus, are still on that ol’ slippery slope.
John Piper dutifully and tearfully apologizes for his ‘racist’ fathers. Even though ‘racism’ is a highly ambiguous category, utilized only for the purpose of political aggrandizement, and not provable from the Bible to be a sin.
His grandchildren will, like him, dutifully and tearfully apologize for their famous Minnesotan ancestor’s homophobia, no matter what the bible says.
Their grandchildren will not even wait around to throw their dead relatives under the political bus. They will jump right ahead to turning in their own living mothers and fathers to the state.
You need to come to grips with this, Baptist.
You need to come to grips with the reality that your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
And yes, I’m a Baptist.
Let all reasoning be silent when experience gainsays its conclusion.
Mr. Wright, you are outside the OODA loop looking in on a culture war that has passed you by. You gentlemen have lost moral authority among Christians because of your ineptitude.
Fortunately, tomes of intellectual work has been done by the Body of Christ on this, but it has been done outside the “organized” church;
I hope you stick around to learn a bit before you get us all killed.
Great argument! Can really see the logic there, totally mind changing. You can have your moral authority outside the organized church. Best of luck!
And do you not see that plenty of Christians do not hold the Confederate flag in derision? So it, by definition, CANNOT be done in the name of “Christian solidarity”. What else could be motivating it, I wonder?
Uh, capitulation to culture. Past, present, future.
So it, by definition, CANNOT be done in the name of “Christian solidarity”.
+1
You can make a call to Christian brothers on a subject there is disagreement over in the name of Christian solidarity. Can be done. Is done all the time. Check out the current debate over submission within the Trinity.
Yes. Debates ooze solidarity.
Debate certainly helped, in God’s providence, the early church arrive at solidarity regarding the right understanding of the central doctrines of the faith.
Hmm, let’s see. Has the Southern Baptist seminary ever capitulated to culture before in its own illustrious history? Let me think…
I have no idea whether Mr. Wilson shares this commenter’s disdain for integration and women voting, but the existence of people like this is why this seemingly empty gesture matters.
It would have mattered 20 years ago. The number of people who can’t be discouraged or cowed by the label “racist” is increasing; it’s an overplayed meme.
Now would you like to actually begin to debate those things? Y’know, like, all biblically and whatnot? But no Old Testament allowed. That’s cheating.
Agreed.
Homeschooler, you speak much and say little.
1) Yes, I do have a tendency to verbosity. It’s part of my education.
2) Your contempt, it stings.
Dabney, do you not see a huge difference between racial intermarriage and sexual deviance? Sexual deviance and casual divorce are sinful. Racial intermarriage may be unpalatable to some people, but wherein lies the sinfulness?
Pretty sure he doesn’t see it. People from cultures which are steeped in God-hatred cannot marry people from cultures which are steeped in God-honoring virtue. That’s a sin. (To him, just to clarify.)
Great contribution.
You are just full of the palpable hits today!
I agree Jill. Nothing wrong with interracial marriage, but his point holds, the man claiming it will not lead to that is lying.
Miss Bean, Because your view on this matter is the predominant one today, it is certainly understandable that you would have the Bible meet your unreasonably high threshold of proof to demonstrate what I can only call the non-normative nature of exogamy. But are you aware that the predominant view today, your own, would have placed all of its holders unquestionably in the group of the raging liberals before the 1960’s? This arrogance towards our forebears cloaked as humble inquiry gets tiresome very quickly. Doug likes irony. Me too. It is ironic to me that everybody reads and loves C.S.… Read more »
I still see a distinction between that which is indisputably sinful and that which is simply socially frowned on. I agree with you that one hundred years ago almost everyone disapproved of interracial marriage. I do not concede, however that this disapproval was scripturally based. My own dear father found intermarriage deeply troubling, but his reasons had nothing to do with religion and a lot to do with a belief that people do best with their own kind. If racial intermarriage is in itself forbidden by scripture, why was it never legally prohibited in the vast majority of Christian countries?… Read more »
Good for you.
Without in the least meaning to be offensive, I find that sometimes you remind me of another person who posts here, sometimes under multiple identities and sometimes using obscure historical names. Could you possibly be related to 40 Acres and a Kardashian?
Kardashian being the obscure historical name? No, I hate ‘father Abraham’.
That’s not me.
This would have been a better response if you hadn’t mixed non-sinful things like interracial marriage with sinful things like feminism and redefining marriage.
It is hilarious that you don’t see the same spirit behind abolition, integration, feminism, and homopologists.
That spirit being, egalitarianism, which is nowhere in the bible. And it is also hilarious that Doug tries to be a Calvinist while putting off as much as he can the social ramifications of such a doctrine.
Redivivus was invited to demonstrate the sinfulness of interracial marriage from Scripture. He declined and sidestepped that invitation at least twice. I conclude it’s because he can’t.
What? When did I sidestep? I pride myself on direct confrontation. Let’s see…how to boil down an entire theology to a pithy comment for katecho…wait. Is that “Kate” and “Cho” ? You don’t have a big ol’ dog in this fight, do you? And there is a real issue of who accepts what burden of proof here. I haven’t yet called interracial marriage a sin, but I have called it non-normative, which you would surely grant me, right? In doing so I am only denying the chorus of voices that do declare: 1) racial reconciliation is a “gospel issue”, and… Read more »
Redivivus wrote: What? When did I sidestep? I pride myself on direct confrontation. Jillybean directly challenged Redivivus to Scripturally justify his suggestion that interracial marriage was a sin. Rather than give a straight answer, he evaded and resorted to ad hominem against her by accusing her of being in the liberal camp by 1960’s standards (a complete red herring). Instead of answering, he scolded her for even asking for a biblical case. Leaving his rant about interracial adoption aside, Redivivus wrote: I haven’t yet called interracial marriage a sin, but I have called it non-normative … Redivivus leaves himself a… Read more »
Well said, Jeff.
One huge problem with your “worth doing even with warts” argument is bethyada’s comment above, which I hope I can appropriately quote in full here: “It depends on whether the people bringing it back are also those offended by it. “If it is a dead symbol so be it. If it is an independence symbol that is what it is. If it is used by a few to represent racism that may not be helpful. “But are the offended crowd finding a rare use of the flag and maximising it’s identity as a racist flag for everyone then calling for… Read more »
See, that’s just the thing – I *don’t* think that – the cultural signaling and need-to-be-offended forces in our culture – is what is driving the SBC resolution. Were it I would be much less supportive and, in fact, as a Southern Baptist, I think the argument you are referencing, if valid, would eat the entire SBC venture (we’ve got lots of Confederate sympathizers’ names on the buildings of our most cherished institutions). I think, as I mentioned, there is a difference in the SBC’s action and what you are describing in the broader culture. It is an exegetical argument.… Read more »
You seem to imply, but I don’t really understand how your comment is a response to what I said, specifically that the “problem” the SBC is responding to is a leftist meme. What stands out to me from the “resolved section” you copied is that the SBC totally assumed the premises of the leftist meme, for example, that democracy, the rule of law, and decentralization of power have no place where one’s opponent can be (rightly or wrongly) labeled racist. It’s surely no coincidence that the Confederate flag is being fought so hard at the same time that these same… Read more »
But that’s just the thing – this clearly isn’t a response to some leftist project. The wording of the text makes that clear. This is an attempt to meet brothers (you can decide which is the weaker and which the strong) in a Christian posture of self-restraint ala 1 Corinthians 8:13 (as I mentioned). To import all the cultural baggage is to fail to consider the resolution as it presents itself. Really, that “are you willing…” sentence of your demonstrates the failure to give an honest reading; the resolution itself (as I pointed out) specifically says that there is more… Read more »
Failure to give an honest reading? Where in the “resolveds” is there any mention or suggestion of anything other than racism and associated “heritage”? The flag wasn’t brought back (to the degree it was) in the 50’s as a symbol of people’s racism; it was brought back as a symbol of resistance to the assumptions of power of the moral know-it-alls in Washington. If the people that displayed the flag happened to have particular moral failings is the least significant of facts.
“RESOLVED, That we acknowledge both the importance of remembering family heritage and sacrifice…”
IMPLIED, That we acknowledge both the importance of remembering family heritage and sacrifice for no articulable (even disputably) purpose other than racism, broadly defined.
That’s simply not consistent with what the text actually says. It would be just as legitimate to read in “IMPLIED, aliens have landed in San Francisco” as the additional meaning you are attempting to cram into the text.
The text recognizes nothing other than racism and nebulous, meaningless “heritage.” Isn’t that a simple fact?
It recognizes the importance of heritage and family sacrifice when considering the Confederate flag, according to the text.
Wasn’t that the point I just made? Are you agreeing with me now?
And I would add that the failure of the “resolveds” to suggest any fault whatsoever with any of the leftist assumptions about the flag is as close as one could come to proof that this is a response to the leftist meme and not to any observed sins.
That is an argument from silence. And you continue to add more freight to the document that is justified. It is an attempt to encourage self-restraint on liberty in the name of gospel unity. To expect it to address the cultural baggage you have in mind, again, fails to consider the document as it presents itself.
That’s precisely the point: the “resolveds” assume and support the leftist meme and otherwise remain silent… then proceed to their conclusions.
As to encouraging self-restraint on liberty, what other regional and cultural symbols do you plan to attack and condemn in the name of unity (all while continuing to display American flags IN SANCTUARIES!)?
No, they don’t. The text states, counter to the notion, that heritage and family sacrifice are also important considerations when considering what is commonly known as the Confederate flag. Well, to identify “other” symbols to attack and condemn there would have to be an initial symbol attacked and condemned – which hasn’t happened in this resolution. And I’m not sure you are caps-lock screaming at there; I’ve been an SBC church member for multiple decades and it has been at least 20 years since one of those even brought an American flag into the building, let alone displayed it. You… Read more »
Are you suggesting that a nod to “heritage and family sacrifice” is somehow inconsistent with the leftist meme? How about recognizing any good and valuable principles, applicable to today (and nebulous “heritage” certainly doesn’t count) that the Confederate flag has represented or any of the bad things that the Confederate flag has stood against?
The text about heritage and family sacrifice are inconsistent with the notion that this resolution is a capitulation with leftist talking points. And as for recognizing more, well, as I’ve mentioned, this is beyond the aims of the resolution as it presents itself. No where is there an indication that the resolution is an attempt to make a comprehensive statement on race relations, contemporary culture, or the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Confederate cause.
Nebulous talk about heritage and historical sacrifice are entirely consistent with the leftist meme. As far the flag’s present day applicability, all that remains is racism: that’s the SBC’s message and that’s precisely the left’s meme.
That most certainly isn’t the SBC’s message and that assertion cannot be proven from the text or actions of the messengers seated in the annual meeting. You offer only naked assertion, contrary to objective data.
It’s not naked assertion when anything more than racism (or present day applicability) would undermine the conclusions the SBC came to.
Does the resolution address that other Southern Baptism pastime: mosque building? http://www.trunews.com/southern-baptists-help-build-mosques-in-interfaith-coalition/
Jeff – thanks for you rejoinder to Pr. Wilson’s points in this post. I don’t quite follow your point regarding Robert Lewis Dabney. Seems (to me) it was weaker than the preceding points which served to put forward your case well. Anyway, your response to this post was a Manly one which served to push forward the discussion. Thanks brother!
Yeah, you are the only one offering that criticism. I have to assume that where there is smoke there is fire. I should have been clearer (and that perhaps wouldn’t have saved the point either) but what I’m working with is that Dabney, moving from chaplain (which is much more reasonable) to adjutant after Alexander Stephens gave the Cornerstone speech (specifically, where Stephens said, “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the… Read more »
“more dubious…than prior to that point”
What changed?
The shift from a states rights emphasis to a more explicitly racist aim codified in Stephens’ speech.
And the fact that one could find ten speeches emphasizing states’ rights without any directly racist content whatsoever for every one even roughly comparable to Stephen’s is irrelevant?
Perhaps even more to the point, wasn’t Stephen’s speech only push-back against the point on which states’ rights had been attacked? How does that make it foundational (any more than slavery was foundational in 1776 and 1789)?
Yes. Irrelevant in the sense that the comparative number wouldn’t mitigate or change that Stephens’ speech signaled a shift in Confederate aims.
Stephens might be read as pushing back. He very well might have been. But that doesn’t change that the push-back came in the form of moving away from states-rights aims and toward explicitly racist aims.
So I suppose the dissenting votes on the SBC’s resolutions can be deemed more significant than the majority votes, too? Comparative number is irrelevant? How does that make any sense? Where was there any “shift in Confederate aims”? Was the South not racist before the war? (For that matter, was the North not racist before and during and after the war, too? Not just racist, but broadly and institutionally racist?) You present a speech from one racist southern politician and you claim there’s a shift??? And you claim that one is shifting away from “states’ rights aims” if one defends… Read more »
Thanks for the clarification. The point was weak due to my lack of understanding context. And again, I appreciate the spirit in which you have engaged the debate.
While I tend to agree with Wilson about the nature of the resolution itself (even when considered in an exegetical light), I am very appreciative of your hits back. Very helpful for me Jeff.
I was an old-school racist before it was cool.
One small “stickler” item for you. The Confederate battle flag is not the same as the “Stars & Bars”. the Stars & Bars flag was the first national flag of the Confederate states, and consisted of 13 white stars in a circle over a blue square (stars), and 3 horizontal (red-white-red) stripes (bars). I mention this now as an illustration of the larger problem at hand in the discussion of what to do with symbols of the Confederacy, and really with all of American (and more!) history – in layman’s terms: the problem ain’t the flag, it’s ignorance. This country… Read more »
Hi Doug: I truly appreciate the vast majority of your articles. In this case, besides your condescending statements about your Baptist brothers (on which I won’t dwell in the good-faith assumption that they’re at least partially in jest), I would disagree with you on all points. First, the obvious. We’re not just talking about Baptists in general. We’re talking about the SOUTHERN Baptist Convention (Disclaimer: I formerly attended a Southern Baptist church and still love both that church and the larger convention). This is the convention that was conceived by Southern slave-holding Baptists who were upset that their northern brethren… Read more »
Well said.
A masterful reply, Gabe.
“what the Stars and Bars represents and has ALWAYS represented”
Your whole argument seems to rest on side-stepping that question like a modern leftist.
Edited to add: if you want to seriously speak to these questions, I would invite you to try to address what the “Stars and Bars” represent in such uncomplicated fashion that it can all just be assumed without addressing.
I’m sorry, Doug Wilson, but as an outsider, I think you missed it completely on this one. The SBC adopted the resolution on the confederate flag and racism to address the SBC and NOT the culture. We are addressing our own sins and it has been a long process of confession. If you will watch the entire clip of the presentation of the resolution, the debate, the amendment, the approval, and the “point of order” afterwards you will see that racism has been, and still is, an in-house issue–one that we (Southern Baptists) want to repent of. That’s why it… Read more »
You nailed it. I want to grant, charitably, that a lot of this bluster is rooted in a lack of understanding of SBC polity.
I’m a member of an SBC church, idiot. SBC polity is Robert’s Rules of Order.
That’s both inaccurate and aggrandizing, one because you equate SBC polity to RR and because you take up as a comment to you one that was about Wilson’s perspective.
Forgive me, sir. I am but a poor man who has sat through many a members’ meetings. As you’ve heard tell, democracy is a farce.
There’s no such sin as racism.
God is using your avatar.
You’d better be careful.
God is using his avatar.
Or else… what?
Or else he risks being guilty as a false prophet. It was a well meant warning.
What did God think about Moses’ Cushite wife? (Numbers 12:1 and following)
What did God think about Peter’s refusal to eat with Gentiles? (Acts 10:15-16, 28)
Will God have to show you 3 times in a vision for you to get the message? Is Scripture not enough?
God thought that Miriam and Aaron shouldn’t presume to speak for God — a lesson a lot of people could benefit from these days.
Peter’s refusal to eat with Gentiles was sinful because he did not acknowledge the covenant bond was now between members of the church and not based on membership in the old Israel. So yes, it’s sinful to claim that one people group or another can’t be Christians or aren’t in fellowship with other Christians. Fortunately this has never been the substance of any accusation of “racism”.
OK, as a follow up, do you think that God has a problem with interracial marriage? (based on Numbers 12:1 and following? Or does God have a problem with ethnically diverse congregations? (based on Acts 10) What does it mean when God called Abram and said “in you all families of the earth will be blessed.” Gen 12:3 What does it mean when Jesus said, “make disciples of all nations (‘ethnos’ in Greek)? Mt 28:19 I could also point out the passages in Revelation that point out people from every tribe, tongue and nation worshiping God but my point is… Read more »
Interracial marriage is often imprudent but obviously not sinful per se. Why bring it up?
I said “there’s no such sin as racism” because “racism” is a term that refers to nothing definite, it’s merely a term to express negative emotions.
Negative emotions like these?
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” from Matthew 5:21-22
Please elaborate? I don’t see any reference to “racism” here.
Are you saying that the Bible does not address “racism” because it does not use the specific term “racism”? The verses I have shared with you have addressed different aspects of what most people would call “racism” and I felt the passages were very clear. Even using the definition you gave of racism being “merely a term to express negative emotions” I replied with Matthew 5:21-22 where Jesus warns against such things with the language of hell fire.
So you’re saying this passage is Jesus warning people that calling their brothers racist puts them in danger of hell? Interesting.
Let me tweak the Matthew passage slightly and perhaps you will understand what I meant originally. (paraphrase) “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not [lynch]; and whoever [bombs churches] will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his [immigrant] neighbor will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You [n-word]!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” My interest in having a dialogue with you is not to call you a racist, but it… Read more »
Bringing race into the question seems superfluous. Not loving your neighbour is a sin. Why is ‘racism’ a useful word when we can already use the language the Bible does for the issues you’re addressing? My point is that ‘racism’ is a blank canvas upon which anyone can project their dislikes, and distracts from the actual commands of Scripture.
What is your definition of racism that you deny is sinful?
is “All Cretan’s are liars” Racism?
Is noticing that the sons of Almek (?) (Deut people) where tall racist?
Noticing that certain peoples behave differently, have radically different, non-compatible cultures is not racism, is it? Yet, noticing that those cultures correspond with race is.
Racism is noticing certain facts and speaking about them.
Other way around. I deny that there is a definition of racism that qualifies as a sin.
Well said.
In all this discussion, I don’t think you’ve ever mentioned how closely the American flag is associated with the U.S. empire and the military industrial complex to both friends and foes abroad. I think this is an even more appropriate association than the things you mentioned, as the imperial conquerors always carry and wear flags to demonstrate on whose behalf they are acting.
https://twitter.com/C_Boggus/status/743129330880905216
Historic convention: labeling confederate flag as racist and calling all
Southern Baptists to welcome, embrace, and care for refugees #SBC16
What’s next guys? There is no god but Allah?
As a Southern Baptist in Exile, let me confess something for my brethren, such as they are: they are right on-time for 30 years ago. They are always right on top of the cultural trends from when we were kids. And they are incontrovertably always right there when someone is advocating for Prohibition in whichever form it took 4 presidents ago.
Excellent points, excellent post.
The problem is Moore doesn’t think racism of the sort you describe is that cold pan in the cupboard. He sees everything through the lens of racism. For him we’re forever in Selma, Alabama circa 1955.
I have a soft spot for St. George’s Cross. If I fly that, will I irritate the SB?
It’s about time they did this. Evangelicals might be advancing up to mid-20th-century level now, or at least some of them.
You appear to be stuck there as well — racial discrimination is coming back into fashion. (Notice for example how LA’s Compton neighbourhood has been emptied of blacks with zero outrage in the press.)
Racial discrimination was never out of fashion. It’s only the right wing that believes it disappeared.
But the SBC just voted to take down the flag!
What else should they do?
How can they ever apologize?
Well yes, and you all strenuously oppose even that mildest and most symbolic of moves. Taking down the flag of a 150 year old rebellion costs you absolutely nothing, but you fight it tooth and nail as though it were the soul of the country. It should be a red flag to you that even Doug Wilson can’t come up with any actual defense of the flag, and instead resorts to misdirection. Why was it even worthy of an essay? Just say “good job” and move on.
How many Black Americans were raised by both parents in 1860? How many were raised by both parents in 2010?
“can’t come up with any actual defense of the flag”?
Isn’t it obvious that it represents the rule of law, the democratic process, and self-governance/decentralization of power? What do you think it represents that it should require any defense?
It represents rebellion and slavery. It always has.
As to slavery, slavery was a significant part of the United States more or less since the states were first founded as colonies, and it was protected by the Constitution (recognized by the 3/5 clause and protected by the 10th amendment) against any moves by DC to change it (with far more than enough slave states to vote down any hypothetical anti-slavery amendments), and although there were lots of moves by the North to undermine the interests of slave owners particularly and slave states more generally, there was no imminent existential threat to slavery when the South seceded and when… Read more »
Symbols matter; that’s why Marxists destroy them and replace them.
To give up that symbol is to capitulate . The fools at the SBC think it is repentance.
The war ain’t over son. You don’t lead us. Round two is here.
Ahem. “Disappeared” and “out of fashion” are rather different. You can still buy lava lamps and bell bottoms, of course. (Perhaps some conservatives thought racial discrimination had ended — there are plenty of people to their right that know it’s about as likely to end as death or taxes.)
“And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
Doug, please do not throw all Southern Baptist under the bus. I enjoy your blog. I agree with a lot of your posts. Your ministry is no doubt God-honoring. Just be careful not to generalize all Southern Baptists. Thank you for all you do to the glory of God!
Faithful are the wounds of a friend.
That Cross is awfully offensive symbol of divisiveness and hate and bigotry to all sorts of people.
Will you SB guys be addressing that at your next confab?
The American flag example would work if the declaration of independence called abortion God’s will and the natural order of things, similar to how the declarations of succession speak of slavery. Buuuuuuuut it doesn’t. So perhaps the reason Russell Moore isn’t combating the American flag is because it’s foundations aren’t rooted in an atrocity such as abortion.
It is rooted in White, Western Patriarchal society and it is an affront to many. Give Moore and the SBC a month, they will capitulate on that too.
It’d also help if owning slaves was a sin. But these guys are pretty good and won’t let inconsequential details slow them down.
While owning slaves is not intrinsically sinful, the US laws around slavery were often extremely sinful.
I bet you haven’t hardly investigated at all this myth of “declarations of succession” that you’re basing your argument on. I also bet you can’t spell out what led the southern states to secede, certainly not in any way consistent with your implied argument.
“God bless you, Planned Parenthood” — Barack Obama (maybe a paraphrase)
Even if this corresponding portion of American culture still remains unrepentant, it’s still good to see the SBC acknowledge their repentance regarding honoring this political robber’s or insurrectionist’s battle flag — just as the SBC ought to if they were guilty of honoring the Rainbow Flag of homosex, for insurrection is likewise deserving of death implemented by one’s society (Ro 13:2; Dt 17:12; Ro 13:4; Dt 17:13; Nu 15:30-31; Lk 23:41). Honoring our fathers & mothers doesn’t include at any time our refusal to repentantly confess their shared sins in thought & deed (Ezr 9:7; Lv 26:40; Ps 78:7,8; Jer… Read more »
The revolutionaries of 1776 were robbers and insurrectionists too. Should we honour them?
We shouldn’t honor anyone for such guilt/sin (or any guilt/sin, just as we don’t honor David for his murder & adultery).
I find that an incredibly difficult question, ashv. All my years growing up in Canada, I was taught that the American colonists were a bunch of whiny malcontents who were unwilling to contribute to the cost of their defense and that they were disloyal to king and country. I was taught that the good ones became Empire Loyalists and hightailed it off to Canada. Now that I am studying to become a U.S. citizen, I am expected to view the events of the revolution in an entirely different light (and, pretty much, I do–although if they had been willing to… Read more »
I recommend The True History of the American Revolution by Sydney George Fisher as an introduction to this topic. (Capsule summary: they were indeed whiny malcontents, and got away with it because they had significant political support from the Whig party in England… and for some reason General Howe, who was also a Whig MP, somehow could never catch that pesky Washington.)
Well this should make the SBC SJWs happy. Take down the cross and help build mosques! http://www.trunews.com/southern-baptists-help-build-mosques-in-interfaith-coalition/
You can’t make this stuff up.
I think there have been some good responses to Doug here, but they don’t address part of the issue. The Devil is an accuser. He wants men to sin then he wants to accuse them of their sin. But any accusation will do including accusing a senstive soul of his non-sinful sensitivities. So men should repent, but they should repent of their sins in response to God’s probing, not Satan’s jeering. White supremacists frequently use Nazi regalia. But the Zeitgeist is up in arms about the confederate flag which is used by many a person not interested In racial purity… Read more »
That’s the problem with you all, you make everything into an us-vs-them battle. The end result is that even reasonable actions cannot be taken when it means acknowledging that the “wrong sort of people” are right about something.
No Matt, I wrote above that we should repent of sin regardless of how it makes us look.
I’m not fan of the confederacy or the flag, in fact when debates come up I’m usually the one scoffing at those who make it more complicated. But the fact that this was an Islamist terrorist action and all the press is trying to avoid that having any factor in the discussion, and that a condemnation of a flag many view in respectable ways while Moore and others ride the Zeitgeist disturbs me. The actions of people I trusted in the SBC and the TGC and especially CT, labeling anyone as racist who lives in suburbs, assuming that if you… Read more »
L’, it’s ok to hunger and thirst after righteousness. It’s even ok to hate what is evil and cling to what is good!
A Luke Pride “parade” is not the worst parade I have ever seen!
????
Must it necessarily be either/or rather than both/and? Does this sort of stance on the stars and bars logically exclude defending the unborn and religious liberty while resisting radical transgenderist ideology? And while I have taken plenty of flack from liberals for speaking out against “open bathrooms,” is calling a group of people “trannies” really the most loving Christian response?
Would you prefer “perverts” instead?
Thabiti would say “yes,” no? Isn’t he for the openly abortion-supporting woman against the supposedly racist man who has at least some form of a Christian-friendly view of abortion and PP?
I find “trannies” gratuitously offensive. I believe that people who believe they are trapped in the body of the wrong gender are suffering from a serious delusion. I do not believe they are choosing or enjoying “perverted sex” or thumbing their noses at their Creator. Like emaciated people who think they are fat, like able-bodied people who believe they need their legs amputated, those who suffer from this particular bodily dysmorphic disorder need our sympathy. I am not sympathetic to those who, not having this illness, use its existence in other people to promote their own social/sexual agenda.
Here are my thoughts, which I left under Jeff Wright’s post: With all due respect, I think you’ve misunderstood a number of Wilson’s points. First, he was not making the point that Southern Baptists ought “never act at all” with regard to sins of long ago. Nor was recommending “never taking appropriate action” or staying “silent” on sins of the past. Rather, he is suggesting that this recent Confederate flag vote signifies a problem with priorities. This brings me to the second point about which you seem confused: Wilson’s reference to gender dysphoria. He was not conflating that issue with… Read more »
Hey Laurie, I didn’t see that on my blog and it wasn’t caught up in my comment filters so I can’t reply over there. Hope it is cool if I do so here. For sure Mr. Wilson doesn’t say those things explicitly but I think his section about buying bell bottoms and lava lamps works out, practically, to those things. Criticizing that it’s too late (or not soon enough to be meaningful) leaves us with disincentive to address what we really should. The problem I have with your understanding of his mention of gender dysphoria (I agree that is the… Read more »
Hi Jeff, I didn’t see my comments either. I thought they were awaiting moderation. More likely I did something wrong, so I’m glad you responded here. Regarding the gender dysphoria issue: I was simply disagreeing with your claim that Doug was conflating “transgenderism” with the Confederate flag. Rather, he was saying that trannies on our restrooms is a far more pressing issue than apologizing for the Confederate flag. I also don’t think he was making the point that the SBC has said nothing about gender dysphoria. I think his central point is let’s address the most pressing assaults on truth,… Read more »
I asked a couple of black friends of mine what their reaction was when they saw the Confederate Battle Flag. They both indicated some misgivings, and feelings they’d rather not have. That’s enough reason for me never display the flag, myself. I don’t want to cause them any discomfort by showing a flag that has no purpose other than tradition.
There is every reason not to allow our freedom to cause others to stumble. God told us something about that, in fact.
We need to act like it.
Yes Bob, for the sake of charity that is a good response.
But if the men who won’t eat meat start demanding that the gospel requires all abstain then perhaps it is time to fire up the BBQ.
“Cause discomfort” and “cause to stumble” are very different things. Paul talked about abstaining for the sake of someone with a weak conscience, who believed that partaking would (for himself) be participating in sin. Who’s the party with the weak conscience in view here? If we had Christians coming forth and explaining how flying the Confederate flag makes them want to go lynch some Blacks and Yankees, then I’d consider that this admonition from Paul applies.
“no purpose other than tradition”???
Legalists and weaker brothers are two different people. Jesus dealt with them quite differently. So how can we tell them apart? Legalists use their own conscience to define sin in others. Legalists cast themselves as the stronger brother, with higher moral constitution. They cast others as the weaker brothers if they don’t go along with the new rule. But the true weaker brother does not use their own conscience and temptation to define sin in others. Weaker bothers don’t cast themselves as having higher moral constitution. They recognize that they must avoid certain situations that others are free to partake… Read more »
It was announced today that the confederate flags will be removed from the Jackson and Lee stained glass windows at the National Cathedral in DC. The windows will remain but the flag portions will be replaced by plain glass.
Telling people to stop talking about the Confederate Flag because it’s not the “real problem”.
From the person who recently made multiple blog posts about tattoos….not to mention one who often speaks on this very subject, the Confederate Flag!
But talking about the Confederate Flag is only a waste of time when you’re talking about getting rid of it, not when you’re lambasting those who decided to get rid of it.
He couldn’t come up with any reason to actually keep it, so that’s all he had.
It’s one of the flags flown along Chesterton’s fence.
This whole kerfuffle – again! – has bothered me on a number of levels. It’s not just the SBC, either; since they are the largest of the Evangelical denominations, I believe, they are emblematic in many ways of the whole. I thank God they are a very decentralized denomination, though, because I believe this and other pronouncements will be greeted with the scorn and dismissal they so richly deserve among the smaller churches throughout the republic that just don’t see the relevance of all the virtue-signalling the higher-ups are going on about. I’ve been to some fine SBC churches, and… Read more »
I don’t agree with all that you posted above, but you write so well, I can’t even argue. Bell Bottoms and Lava Lamps. You are a great writer, period.
You might want to distinguish between Southern Baptist. All Baptist don’t think in the way they do.
I see it as an action that sacrifices nothing, goes against no Biblical command or decree, while also works to live peaceably with everyone, making it a good choice.
Being behind the times is no reason to not act when you finally get around to it. I applaud them. The Confederate flag does stand for racism in the mind of an extremely large portion of the US public and there’s absolutely no reason to hold on to it.
Live peaceably with everyone? The peace of the grave, perhaps.
I honestly have no idea what point you’re making. Can you please clarify?
Are you insinuating that getting rid of the confederate flag is directly going to kill the churches? If that’s the case, then whether or not they got rid of the flag would be irrelevant because there are much bigger issues.
I see no reason to hold onto a symbol that represents true evil to a large portion of the population that the church is trying to serve when it serves no purpose for the church, what-so-ever.
The USA flag represents true evil to a large portion of the world’s population. So what? Are we bound by the emotions of others?
As a Christian, yes, we are somewhat bound to respect the emotions of others. We are supposed to work for God’s kingdom, not the US kingdom. There’s a reason we are not to be a stumbling block, even when what we’re doing isn’t inherently wrong. We are to do everything we can to live peaceably with everyone as much as it depends on us, within the bounds of God’s word. Nothing in God’s word says that we must use or respect the flag of a nation, especially one as hateful as the US south during it’s existence as a separate… Read more »
In case anyone ever wonders what I mean what I say “culture is downstream from power”, this is it.
I reject your claim that the US South was or is “hateful” and note that by making this claim you’re promoting division within the church.
I have no problem with dividing the church between those who agree with and promote evil and those who abhor evil, just as Paul told us to do.
Slavery, in itself, isn’t necessarily evil, but the slavery committed by the US south was most definitely evil. It relied on theft of people from their homeland, chattel like denying of basic human rights, separating of families, and so on. Without those things the slavery in the south wouldn’t have been possible.
“Human rights” is a fundamentally anti-Christian concept. I agree that kidnapping/enslavement is wicked but the African practice of this neither started when slaves were first brought to America nor stopped when their importation ceased (and, I should note, the secessionists forbade importing slaves — and it had already been illegal for 50+ years in the USA at the time of the war.)
As for separation of families — how many Black Americans were raised by both parents in 1860? How many in 2010?
You seem to be doing your best to justify evil behavior. Whether the US slavers directly kidnapped the slave or not doesn’t change the fact that the institution of slavery depended on kidnapping and the brutal capturing through tribal warfare. Bad behavior of today also doesn’t justify bad behavior of the past.
About human rights: there are most definitely basic human rights given in the Bible, such as, your right to property, your right to life, etc. These were defined for all people by their very nature of being people.
No, your beliefs about rights are something you brought with you when you read the Bible; they are an Enlightenment concept that we’d largely be better off without.
Anyway, I needn’t justify enslavement at all; as I said, it was not carried out by American Southerners, and would not have stopped or even appreciably slowed if no slaves had ever been imported to the American South.
The South may not have participated in the original act of kidnapping, but they certainly perpetuated it, and profited from it. That makes it something the South should have repented of before they were provoked into a civil war by the aspiring Lincoln. We don’t do any favors by pretending the South had nothing to repent of.
As if the North didn’t profit from it! This is a particularly mendacious argument.
Tu quoque is not a moral defense.
The question isn’t whether the North should have prosecuted war on the South. It’s whether the South should have repented of their participation in and profiting from man-stealing. Should they or shouldn’t they have?
If importation of slaves to the American continent was halted in 1707 instead of 1807, who would have benefited?
I notice that ashv still hasn’t addressed my point about the South’s need for repentance, or Dunsworth’s direct and simple question. As Dunsworth pointed out, tu quoque is a fallacy of misdirection.
Ashv needs to clear the air with a straightforward answer. The silence is getting quite loud.
You’re the one who brought up profit. (My ancestors were probably among the only group that didn’t profit from it — poor farmers who had to compete with slave labour.)
I’m glad to hear that ashv’s ancestors were the exception, but does asvh seriously expect us to believe that the South didn’t profit from kidnapped African slaves?
Even if the South didn’t make any profit, they still kept kidnapped people as their slaves. Does ashv still deny that they should repent of that?
“The South” should “repent”? Do you believe in some sort of collective, inherited guilt? Who should do this “repenting”? All former slave owners have been dead for a long time. If “the South” “repents”, what will then happen?
Evangelicals seem to enjoy “repentance” even for sins committed by others.
If you take down every monument on Monument Avenue, it won’t help the black population of Richmond in any meaningful way, even if you cry the bitterest of bitter tears over what someone did to someone else a 150 years ago.
Blankenship wrote: Do you believe in some sort of collective, inherited guilt? Absolutely. See the Fall. God judges (and vindicates) along federal, representative lines, not just individually. Blankenship wrote: Who should do this “repenting”? All former slave owners have been dead for a long time. If “the South” “repents”, what will then happen? Repentance nearer to the sin is much more helpful in terms of reconciliation, however, even if the original slaves were long dead, our sin is ultimately an offense against God and His image, and we can always repent before Him. Our God loves to forgive, and to… Read more »
Whose sin? Name it, and name the sinners.
The sin of purchasing and keeping kidnapped people is the sin I’m naming. It is a participation in kidnapping. Many nations have been involved in this wicked practice, and the sin calls for repentance and reconciliation. In the U.S., the North was also involved, but the South even more so. Not everyone participated in buying and keeping kidnapped people. Even in the South I believe it was between 5 and 20%, at most. Those are the ones who particularly needed to repent. However, we seem to have some who are cannot allow the heritage of the South to come under… Read more »
Cho does not seem to wish to name the sin, nor identify the sinner.
There is no such person as “Cho.”
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/katecho.html
Kate, then?
I believe it is a Greek word meaning steadfast.
A pseudonym in any case.
I took a break from the blog to enjoy worship, family and Father’s Day. I’m not avoiding the question, and I’ve responded in another post.
Let’s stipulate that some, perhaps many, of the imported slaves were kidnapped. By the 1850s when this became an urgent issue, what do you believe the appropriate response would have looked like?
ashv wrote: By the 1850s when this became an urgent issue, what do you believe the appropriate response would have looked like? Given that the problem of kidnapped slaves was widely recognized a half century before, and the importation of kidnapped people was banned as “piracy”, the South (and the North) should have already acknowledged that they were the recipients of stolen people, and worked to find a system to gradually free them (I’m no abolitionist). I don’t suggest that this would have been easy, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary. If Israel could have a jubilee, the South… Read more »
As I hope I made clear from the outset, I agree that kidnapping is sinful and you make a persuasive case that repentance of involvement with it via trade is sinful. I am less convinced that the African slave trade involved people that could be easily classified as “kidnapped” vs “prisoner of war”, etc., given the uncivilised nature of sub-Saharan Africa. Either way, ending the practice was good. That said, I don’t believe that emancipation was wise or just. By the 1850s the general understanding was that a master didn’t own the slave’s person, just his labour (hence the law… Read more »
It would seem to me that at the very least, all the women and children could be easily classified. Seventeenth and 18th century Sub-Saharan Africa, whatever else it was, was not a feminist society.
The law against murder implies a right to life. The law against theft implies a right to one’s property. Etc. A right simply means that no man can rightfully take it from you without good justification.
Southern US slavery wasn’t possible without the things I mentioned. The kind of chattel slavery found in the south would never have started if it weren’t for imported slaves and racist, money-hungry, plantation owners who put their profits above the love of Christ.
The law against murder implies a right to life. Again, this is a very particular way to look at it, and you have to qualify “right to life” in a lot of ways to cope with the authorization of the king to bear the sword. One can comprehend the entirety of biblical law without resorting to idolatrous rights-talk. Your understanding of slavery was written by the men who profited from its demise and ignores a great deal of facts on the ground. It has quite a resemblance to those who want us to feel guilty about drinking non-fair-trade coffee or… Read more »
Yes, wanting to drink fair-trade coffee is exactly the same as being opposed to chattel slavery. The same exact thing.
This will be my last response. You clearly have no interest in actual discussion.
Since you’ve chosen to let feelbads untethered to reality control your reactions to things, then that’s for the best. Your very selective flavour of guilt by association can’t be addressed logically.
John, thanks so much for your wise, Christ centered, words. So grateful!
Even is that is completely accurate, it does not exonerate those who bought or kept slaves. The cocaine trade will continue will continue whether or not I buy coke, but the fact that I buy it or use coke paid for by someone else (if I did) makes me complicit in a dirty, destructive business.
This goes off into rather less well-defined territory. Pawn shops often receive stolen goods — should Christians never buy things from them? Do Christians have a duty to not do business with companies that donate to Planned Parenthood?
A lot of people have emotions I can’t possibly respect, which makes me want to reframe your statement (with which I agree). I think we are called on to be tender-hearted, even–especially–when we don’t really see what the fuss is about. If my flying the flag of St. George on April 23 lacerates the feelings of my Irish friend whose ancestors were murdered by Cromwell, I will not fly it. It doesn’t matter that I think she should just get over it. If even one gentle old black lady is reminded by the Confederate flag of terrifying racial incidents in… Read more »
I agree entirely! We respect the emotions of others as far as it depends on us and doesn’t go against the word of God.
But you see, if the SBC ditches the confederate flag, then “they” win, and above all “they” must be kept from winning.
Definitely food for thought, even though I agree with the S. Bapt action
What a stupid piece. You can truly be a pompous, arrogant ass, as evidenced in the paragraphs above. What was done needed to be done, and I am grateful this action was taken. Don’t be such a jerk. The body of Christ needs less of this.
Barry Joslin
Barry Joslin, as in professor of theology at Boyce College? Tsk, tsk. I think the school has a code of conduct and surely profanity in a public forum is covered?
Just add it to the pile of things to apologize for.
Boyce was an honorable man, but I do wonder how long his name can stick around at SBTS. If flying a Confederate flag ties you to owning slaves, then I would think that owning slaves would also tie you to owning slaves, but I’ll have to check my logic.
Once someone agrees to being played like a guilty fiddle, they may have to endure the humiliation of continuing to be played, or else repent, in the first place, of being suckered by progressives with an agenda.
Doug Wilson is right about the monumental bad timing of the SBC.
BLM is going to have their butts for Broadus Chapel.
So Barry, do you hope against hope that someday Big Al will call you up to the big leagues?
Remember also, as one prominent blogger put it, when making moral judgements about the Civil War “… to judge the Union, not the Confederacy, because the Confederacy is a ghost whereas the Union still wants your money.”
Agreed. It would have shown much more courage to make this resolution back in the fifties/sixties when people like Doug still had the power and influence to make us pay.
True story here from a member of an SBC church. Had a softball game with my good ol’ brothers in the Lord last night, and the recent Convention was the topic of the night. This comes from somebody who was actually present at the convention: Paul Pressler was slated to speak, either in defense of the Confederate flag, or attacking the motion to condemn the flag (not that it makes a difference). And alas, due to some procedural crap, Robert’s Rules of Order, or whatever, he was denied his chance to speak and he was hopping mad. This, of course,… Read more »
And in the midst of the world we live in today, what does Doug Wilson do, he writes about the unbiblical tattoo…now that is wisdom folks. What morons like Russell Moore, Al Mohler and the SBC do with a silly symbol of racism, murder and hatred is so silly.
Today reminded me why I seldom read this nonsense anymore. Especially given you never know who actually writes the stuff.
…JP said sardonically, embarrassing Douglas.
Don’t they know that people are violently tweeting (((echos))), repressing the free speech of those who are doing the Lord’s work of informing the Church that Christians created the environment that encouraged a Muslim to shoot up a gay bar?
…That damned flag must come down.
…WILL come down
JP assembled The Gospel Coalition. There’s work to be done here.
Given how many people have regrets about the tattoos of their youth, the subject is closely related to Christian maturity, not to mention the skill of parenting and the honoring of parents as children progress to adulthood. Sather is not one to lecture us on what is wisdom. If Sather is unable to permit any other meaning of the Confederate flag besides “racism, murder and hatred”, then how does he explain this campaign button? Note carefully the caption under the Confederate flag, which reads “Heritage – Not Hate”. it seems like progressives in support of Hillary Clinton believe that the… Read more »
This wasnt a political issue, this was a gospel issue. The SBC nailed it, and showed more concern for the gospel than any half baked, idealistic, glossed over history of what our African American brothers and sisters have had to endure in the context of that flag. You can try and make it a different issue, in so doing you sound like one of those “pro-choice” folks who would rather not label themselves as “pro-baby murderers”. To all the rest of you and your comments, you remind me how thankful I am to not engage with your nonsense. And you… Read more »
Ryan Sather wrote: The SBC nailed it, and showed more concern for the gospel than any half baked, idealistic, glossed over history of what our African American brothers and sisters have had to endure in the context of that flag. Sather appears to be completely ignorant of the fact of entire black regiments that fought for the South under the Confederate flag. How does he explain them? He is not one to lecture us about half-baked glosses of history. Notice that Sather failed to explain the campaign button. He glossed over that too. He is not one to lecture us… Read more »
I’m shocked you think those with liberal persuasion are exempt from racist vainglory and hate. I think liberals are some of the worst. That button only highlights that reality.
Sather wrote:
I don’t think liberals are categorically exempt from racism, however, they clearly weren’t displaying the flag in an attempt to advertise and out themselves as racists. Sather just chooses to ignore the disclaimer they put below the flag. Sather apparently can’t be honest enough to admit that even some progressives think the flag has other meanings besides racism.
And other progressives think abortion is about a woman’s right to choose. Reality is it’s not what someone thinks reality is that matters. Reality should be defined only by the truth. Something that seems to be escaping many around here.
And other progressives think abortion is about a woman’s right to choose. Reality is it’s not what someone thinks reality is that matters. Reality should be defined only by the truth. Something that seems to be escaping many around here. There it is! Killing a baby and flying some flag are analogous! It’s a real shame that those who should be appeased by the SBC’s resolution won’t be–no, to them, flying some flag is much, much worse. And the first black president, voted in by many a well-meaning white evangelical, made sure the righteousness and virtue of killing babies was… Read more »
You think abortion is on the same level as the confederate flag flying? You are crazy.
But I will say, the systems and structures of racism that the sick confederate flag stood for, set up the sick way Sanger and the planned parenthood ghouls kill babies, a huge % African American.
It most assuredly ties together, this country, regardless of flag flying, has always devalued life. Especially of the non majority cultures in this country.
But don’t be silly. If you think me a progressive you are a fool.
That Tabhiti(?) pastor that debated Doug is voting for Hillary because race is more important to him than life.
He does this in full knowledge that it means more dead babies.
The use of “race” to shame is a dead tactic. We will keep our flags.
“He does this in full knowledge that it means more dead babies.”
If I remember correctly he belives the number of dead bablies will be the same either way.
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/thabitianyabwile/2016/06/07/on-abortion-and-racism-why-there-is-a-greater-evil-in-this-election/
He says as much in the middle of the essay and then the final paragraph gives the game away.
I am done.
Nice try, but lying about a brother in Christ is really pathetic. You know and I know Pastor Thabiti is doing more for the cause of the unborn with what they are doing in DC at Anacostia than anything you are doing. But keep up the slander, it’s a common tactic around here that some keep trying to use.
Voting for someone as pro-abortion as Hillary is unconscionable. There was no slander in his post. And if there were, it would properly be called “libel.” Thabiti has dodged questions about abortion before: http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/02/10/sbc-pastor-thabiti-anyabwile-suggests-unborn-babies-arent-living/
And call it slander if you want, but I still wonder why Thabiti insists on keeping his Mulsim name.
How do you see Thabiti as being a Muslim name? It is neither Arabic nor specifically Muslim in its meaning.
I agree with you. If I moved to Spain, I would not re-christen myself Julia Herrera, even though I think it sounds a lot prettier.
Seriously, please inform me, what is a “Christian name”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_name?wprov=sfla1
In which case if he was Thabiti at his baptism, it IS his Christian name, and no longer his Muslim name.
As I’ve already stated, he was born with the name “Ron Burns” and according to an interview, his family was at least nominally Christian and somewhat involved in church.
But I believe he’s a Baptist, which means he would consider his actual baptism to have been after his conversion to Christianity, so he was Thabiti at that time.
I’m not saying that’s the choice I would have made, either, but I think you can make a good faith argument for why not changing his name at that point could be legitimate choice — even if I disagreed with that argument.
So, am I understanding this correctly? Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile was born of Christian parents who called him Ron Burns? Then he became Muslim and changed his name to the one he has now, but retained it on converting to Christianity? This is too hard for me to resist, especially at this time of the morning. ‘Tis but thy name that causes us confusion; Thou art thyself, though Burns or Anyabwile; What’s Thabiti? It is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name– A name we can remember… Read more »
In my case, it was the name given to me at my christening. The celebrant turned to my parents and said “What namest thou this child?” to which they replied “Jillybean” along with a middle name which I would rather not disclose but which is definitely poetical. My mother was a huge fan of Tennyson’s Arthurian idylls. Whereupon, they handed me (dressed in flowing white baptismal robes) to the clergyman (suitably garbed in a cassock and cotta) who said, “Jillybean L_____, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” while sprinkling holy water… Read more »
It’s sad that you had to educate a pastor on this, but well done, Jilly.
Thank you, mkt. I was really hoping that somebody, noticing the allusion to holy water, would ask me what that was. Then I could have replied that it is plain tap water with the hell boiled out of it. It seems I am feeling very silly today.
Pardon me for interrupting, Jillybean, but wouldn’t the Spanish translation be Julia Frijole?
Herrera = Smith. I suspect Bean is not her actual last name. :-)
And if there is a more prosaic combination of names, chosen as if for the purpose of conferring anonymity and inspiring disbelief, I can’t imagine what it is. My dear parents, in proud possession of a somewhat ornate surname, believed they should err on the plain side in bestowing a Christian name.
You are quite right, but I am not willing to be that person. On the other hand, my inability to trill my R’s would give me a lot of trouble with Herrera.
:) Understood. I am attempting learn some Spanish and find the word “frijole” enjoyable–probably due to an extended adolescence.
It’s not Arabic, but he took the name early in his Muslim conversion. His real name is Ron Burns. Given his semi-obsession with race, support of BLM, etc., maybe it’s not surprising. However, I can’t fathom not going back to my Christian name after deconverting from that filthy religion.
Ah, okay, that makes sense. I did not realize he took it as a part of his conversion to Islam.
But Ron Burns isn’t a particularly Christian name (Ron means nothing at all and Ronald is a pagan Scandinavian name), so maybe given the choice he had reasons for not changing his name yet again. If he already had a family, and so forth.
Let’s look at what Thabiti wrote: Let me conclude by asking, “So what if I did ‘care more about race issues than abortion’?” What if I did think a situation or system of constant racial antagonism or outright oppression were a daily existential problem for African Americans that needed redress? Why would caring about something that affects your entire life and daily living be idolatry? And why would the white evangelical who cares about abortions that in many cases touch conscience but not their actual lives not be idolatry? Who decides that? Tab declares that his race –his Nation–his more… Read more »
It most assuredly ties together, this country, regardless of flag flying, has always devalued life. Especially of the non majority cultures in this country.
But don’t be silly. If you think me a progressive you are a fool.
Nice, did you use your 2nd grade grammar on that one? It was so hard to read I almost missed the smoke screen you were attempting to put up for the reality that you think abortion and confed flag flying are similar offenses?!
Oh no, most assuredly dear Ryan, the problem is your poor reading comprehension and inability to discern sarcasm and understand vocabulary of an intermediate level. The point of the post is that you were the one drawing the analogy between flag-waving and baby-killing, but your remarkable lack of comprehension skills and self-awareness meant that any point I made about that, no matter how elementary and simple, was going to fly clear over your head and out the window. The point of my little meme, if I must ruin the joke by explaining it to you, was that while you claim… Read more »
“This wasnt a political issue, this was a gospel issue. The SBC nailed it.”
As I said when discussing the removal of the flag from the civil war monument, this is not a step forward, it is a step sideways.
Ryan Sather wrote:
Let’s see, … insults, scarcasm, condescention, unmerited accusations, … is that what you want people to think of when they hear the name “Ryan Sather”?
It’s rather late to change that mental association, in any case.
I don’t see how this helps people living in the projects in Norfolk or Birmingham in any tangible way. Perhaps it makes some SBC members feel good, but it does not do a thing to address unemployment, broken homes, gang violence or any of the other real issues people face.
Perhaps they should also repent of the grave idolatry which was the Pet Rock craze.
It appears that these Baptists have “gotten their mind right” and are in agreement with present day Federal thinkers. This, in spite of the larger point of this post, but, they also are in agreement with the current state of Jim Crow-esque thinking and the resultant laws. That is, having laws making one race protected over another, for instance: Affirmative Action. When the Feds make you free, you are free to pay their fee, that’s all.
So, slavery is outlawed?
The Southern Baptist Convention is a rudderless ship moving about in the sea of modernity. The convention does not push against the issues in America today that are solid biblical issues, but rather makes popular statements because they do not think out the end results. They still think that abortion is a women’s right. They still agree that working on Sunday is not a problem. They still think that sending children into the government schools is a ministry rather than the disaster that it is. They still support stealing from grandma in Iowa to support those who won’t work even… Read more »
“The Southern Baptist Convention is a rudderless ship moving about in the sea of modernity.” I’m not sure if that’s a fair statement. I think Moore’s compass has a pretty accurate reading on “Progressive Utopia” and they generally steer the ship in that direction.
I was being generous to my Southern Baptist friends. The SBC is a huge mess and it is moving away from scripture quickly. The move is more than just progressive utopia. They go where the winds blow especially when those winds blow away from the Bible.
The SBC talks big but fails to follow up in the fight against national sins in America.
Whatever the convention says you can find Southern Baptist Churches taking stands against all the issues you mentioned.
Yes, but on the national level, the SBC has sold out since the 60’s on every hard core Christian issue. That is the problem. If the SBC had said no to welfare as it is today, it never would have been implemented by Johnson. If the SBC made a solid statement against abortion, Roe v Wade would have fallen the other way and we wouldn’t be using federal and state tax monies to fund abortion. If the SBC made a statement against 7-11 staying open on Sundays, we wouldn’t be working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and… Read more »
People today forget that slavery was in all parts of the world, even in recent history, and was accepted and practiced in every state in the U.S. at the time of our founding. We are the only ‘civilized’ nation that did not end it peacefully. The North continually forgot that a large portion of its wealth was the result of the slave trade. When the colony of Virginia outlawed the importation of slaves, who went to King George and asked him to overrule those pesky Virginians? Why New England, who could not bear to lose so much money. So the… Read more »