The SBC and Racism: It’s Time to Take a Stand!
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
Last year at the Southern Baptist Convention, I made a promise. I told Pastor Dwight McKissic that I would use whatever platform I have been given to advocate on behalf of the motion he made to exclude from participation in the SBC those churches that practice or approve of racial discrimination or bigotry.
Here is Pastor McKissic’s motion.
I hereby move to amend Article III, Section 1 of the SBC Constitution to read: “1. One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior or racial discrimination and bigotry in any form.
The motion was referred to the Executive Committee by the convention president, Johnny Hunt. That was a proper procedural decision. A motion which changes the governing documents of the convention and the procedures by which we operate should be referred.
Unfortunately, the Executive Committee has decided not to recommend McKissic’s motion to the convention. I’m not sure why they made that decision. There was little rationale given in the BP article to explain their decision. I think it was a mistake.
I was thrilled in 1995 when the SBC repented of its racist past. It is time we take the next step. We must state publicly and unequivocally that the SBC will not sanction racism, will not permit discrimination, and will not tolerate its presence anywhere in SBC life. Can we completely root out racism? No, that is a heart condition that with only be fully solved when Jesus returns. But we can take a stand that says that racism has no place among us.
Today, I’m beginning to fulfill my promise to Dwight McKissic. I’m not even sure he will be there to ask that the convention vote on his motion contrary to the EC recommendation. But whether he is there or not, we need to take this stand. Forcefully. Unequivocally. Clearly.
I published a similar article today at SBC Voices. I have never, in over 2 years of posting here at sbcIMPACT, published a reprint. This is a first for me. Technically, this is not a reprint, but a slight revision. But this issue is important to me, so I thought a dual posting was worth it.
A Question
If you were at the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando last year, and are as pasty white as I am, I have a question for you. Dwight pointed out to me that every person on the podium at the convention last year was white. Every single one. I’ll take his word for it, because I wasn’t paying attention. I didn’t notice.
Did you?
Does that make us racist? I do not believe that in our hearts most of us are racist. We do not intend to discriminate. But we simply do not understand the effect that nearly universal whiteness of our leadership has on our African American brothers and sisters. Whatever we intend, we are giving them the idea that we are complicit in a decision to exclude people of color from leadership positions in our convention.
There’s a lot about this I just don’t know. But here are some things that I know or believe:
The SBC was planted in racist soil
That is a harsh statement, but I think that history bears this out. There was a time when Baptists, even in the South, stood against slavery. But as time went on, Baptist preachers began to accomodate themselves to the cultural norm and even found biblical justification for slavery. When the national Baptist organization enforced a policy that slave owners could not serve as missionaries, the split began which culminated in the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I wish it were not so. But the fact is that racism is a genetic defect in the SBC. Our founders were good men who loved the Lord and wanted to proclaim the gospel. They loved the Word and believed it. But they had this giant hole in their convictions that allowed them to be good Christians and still believe that racism and slavery were okay. How? I don’t know? We all have blind spots, but this was a big one.
The SBC has been a haven for racism
Even when slavery ended, the SBC remained a place where one could serve Jesus and discriminate against black people. My first pastorate was in a Deep South church in the late 80s and early 90s. I was shocked when I saw the deep-seated racism that existed in the hearts of “fine Christian people” in that area.
Our youth ministry put up a basketball goal in the church parking lot so that we could have some “fellowship” games. One day, the goal was gone. It was a crisis. One of our men had seen some black teens playing basketball in a street and invited them to come down to our parking lot and play. They did. When some of the folks saw that blacks were playing basketball on the church parking lot, they removed the basketball goal that day. At next Sunday’s business meeting they “sent the pastor a message” by voting down a close friend as a deacon and taking away my raise for the year. Why? Because some black teenagers shot hoops on our parking lot.
And these people constantly told me that they were not racists! One man, a pillar in the church, told me a story that “proved” that he was not a racist. He and some friends used to go hunting and they would give the black lady who worked for them some of the meat (after she cleaned it of course). His wife gave me a history of the county we lived in. It mentioned the good race relations in the county and attributed this to the fact that the blacks there knew their place and stayed in it!
In the next county to the north, the courts had mandated integration in 1959, and instead of obeying the order, they shut down the public schools rather than integrating them. A whole generation of African Americans grew up without schools because these folks were so committed to segregation. And a majority of the folks that made that decision and enforced it were likely members of Southern Baptist churches. They believed that God wanted their educated separately from black children. Good Baptist folks and racists – at the same time.
I’d love to know what percentage of KKK membership through history has been Southern Baptist. Actually, I don’t want to know.
The SBC has repented of our racism
Things have changed. Even back in the heyday of segregation and discrimination, there were courageous men who took a stand against this blight. And the light began to dawn on us. Finally, in 1995, at our Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, the SBC formally repented of our racist past. You can look here to read the resolution that was passed. I was there and I was thrilled to stand on behalf of our forbears and repent of the institutional sin that had so marked our existence.
I think we have made great strides. A few years ago, I was sitting at a table with some pastors from our association and a pastor told a racist joke. Every one of those white pastors was offended at the joke. A few decades back, we would have laughed and told another one, perhaps. But, on the other hand, we did not move to disfellowship the pastor who told the joke. Maybe in another decade we will be at that place.
But the SBC has taken steps to repair the damage our racism has done. That is probably why men like Dwight McKissic are affiliated with us today.
The SBC is still a white man’s haven
But the simple fact is that the SBC is still a convention run by whites. SBC presidents. Entity heads. Key administrative positions. There have been so few blacks or people of color in any of these positions. And there are still Baptist churches in certain parts of the country that discriminate in less open but nonetheless heinous ways. It is shameful.
We have, by our actions, told people of color that we now want you on the bus, and you can sit anywhere you please. That’s progress, yes. But, the white folks are still the only ones with drivers licenses.
I do not believe that this is intentional. I do not believe our leaders are intentionally exclusionary. We just don’t see the problem, as I did not even notice that the convention podium was an all-white thing last year.
The SBC has not done enough to demonstrate our commitment to racial equality.
Dwight McKissic seems to think that there is institutional racism in the SBC. I’m not sure I agree. But I do think that we have NOT DONE ENOUGH to prove to men like Dwight that we are not racist. Since we have such an undeniable racist past, it is our duty to do everything we can not only to repent of racism (which we’ve done) but also to prove that we will not tolerate it in our midst any more. We have to prove ourselves and demonstrate the genuineness of our repentance. If we did not have the past we have, that might not be the same. But with our past, we have to go the extra mile and prove it! Our words are not enough.
Here are some suggestions:
1) We need to adopt Dwight McKissic’s motion! I don’t even know if Dwight will be there this year. He’s had it. But we need a motion to bring the referred motion to the floor and have a vote. Folks, we have to tell the people of color in the SBC that we are going to be as intolerant of racism as we are of perversion. We took a stand about homosexuality. Let’s take a stand about racism. Let’s tell the world that we are adopting a ZERO-TOLERANCE policy toward racism.
Our past dictates that we must take an aggressive approach in the future. In my humble opinion, the Executive Committee blew it on this one. We need to correct their mistake.
2) Let’s get some driver’s licenses for some of our black leaders. I hate quotas, but we need to instruct the committee on committees that they need to increase black and other ethnic representation on our boards. The next time there is an entity head search committee, could we at least consider some non-white candidates? I would love to know if either the IMB or NAMB search committees ever gave serious consideration to anyone but white candidates.
3) We must be personally intolerant of racism. If I had it to do over again, I would tell that pastor that his joke was not appreciated. Instead of just fuming, and talking about it later with other fuming pastors, I’d say, “There is no place in a Christian organization for racist jokes.” We need to be willing to confront racism.
So, I believe two things:
- Since we have a clearly racist history, the burden on us is much greater to demonstrate clearly that we will not tolerate racism in any form in our convention in the future.
- We have made progress in the last 20 years, but we have NOT done enough.
We can do better!



I believe when Pastor McKissic originally blogged about the motion he would make I said I would likely leave the SBC if it did not pass. If the messengers can not overturn the Executive Committee’s decision I promise I will request my church membership be ended. This is the 21st century. There is not one reasonable excuse in the world why encouraging greater accountability to basic Christian love should not be a part of our expectations toward each other. It’s a shame that a convention as large as ours has done so well at retaining solid biblical confession, but can’t come to confront one of the most outrageous and destructive sins in the history of the world.
I think part of the issue behind the SBC still being a white man’s haven is due to geography (at least in part). We are predominantly in the south and in rural to suburban areas which happen to be predominantly white. Part of the issue has to do with us needing to expand into the city and further out of the south. Often times when we do move into the city or out of the south we simply transplant our southern rural mindset which most multi-ethnic cities don’t replicate easily.
Dave,
Great article. One thing I would add. We need to work to get more minorities into our seminaries. One of the challenges I’m facing in the Hispanic ministry where I’m involved in is questions of doctrine.
I find that much of my one-on-one discipleship consists of going over the basics with frequent detours to correct false teachings that our people picked up from past religious influences (Mormon, Adventist, Catholic, etc.).
Another challenge is liberal theology, which has made headway in many African-American churches and Latino ones as well. I’m not saying predominantly white churches don’t have these problems too, but seminary helps alleviate it, and the makeup of our seminaries will in part determine the makeup of our denominational leadership.
I also think that we, like all people, have the propensity to point out the vileness of sins we don’t personnally identify with. I grew up in Michigan. Since slavery wasn’t part of my cultural background and I didn’t harbor any ill feelings towards the few minorities in my community, I don’t identify racism and slavery as part of my cultural baggage. I’m not saying people in the South aren’t opposed to racism, but I think that a lot of the people wanting to address this sin at the annual convention are from the North, people like you and me.
So regarding the SBC, why so much rhetoric about homosexuality and so little about racism? Because we, collectively, have far fewer people practicing the former and many more practicing the latter.
Maybe Article III, Section 1 of the SBC Constitution should be amended first with “politically driven leadership” between “homosexual behavior” and “racial discrimination and bigotry”. Those in the upper leadership of the SBC are covered with a political agenda and I don’t mean Democrat/Republican. It’s all about favoritism and partiality. If the following verses happened to be a black man with the gold rings entering the church Dave’s article wouldn’t have been written.
“My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool”, have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? James 2:1-4 & 9 as follows: “but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”
The partiality was already shown in the whites on the stage at the Convention. It is unfortunate that this takes a racist turn when it is really all about politics. Get that out of our SBC system and the Great Commission Resurgence will be Spiritually driven rather than the gimmicks I have been seeing.
Thanks, Dave
Bruce, I’m not sure I’m quite as negative about the motivations of our leaders. I certainly think there is some of what you talked about. But I think these are (at least mostly) honorable men who see the world from a certain perspective (megachurch mentality) and think they are doing the Lord’s work.
I disagree with what they do often, but I am not willing to simply say that they are all politically motivated as you have described.
You may be right. I’ve just not seen that evidence yet. I disagree with their actions often, but until it is proved otherwise, I think that they are men of good will with a perspective with which I do not agree.
Andrew said, “So regarding the SBC, why so much rhetoric about homosexuality and so little about racism? Because we, collectively, have far fewer people practicing the former and many more practicing the latter.”
Anyone hear the hammer hitting the nail head? Yep!
We like to revel in condemning Other People’s Sins.
The Baptist Faith & Message already includes the following lines:
Section III. Man
“The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.”
Section XV. The Christian and the Social Order
“All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.”
The “About Us” page on sbc.net includes this line:
“You become a Southern Baptist by uniting with a Southern Baptist church, one in friendly cooperation with the general Southern Baptist enterprise of reaching the world for Christ.”
There has been, and, I suppose, always will be, a tension regarding how specific we should be in defining what it means to be “in friendly cooperation with the general Southern Baptist enterprise of reaching the world for Christ.”
I agree that if we are going to single out acceptance of homosexuality from among this list as a reason for exclusion, there is no good reason to not also include racism. But that opens up a can of worms. What about every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, and pornography? What about those churches who don’t “work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick”? What about those who don’t “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death”? What about those who claim they do, but, in actuality, only give a half-hearted effort, if that?
Also, it is hard to define exactly what constitutes “acting to affirm, approve, or endorse racial discrimination and bigotry in any form.” But, by the same token, it is hard to define exactly what constitutes “acting to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexuality.”
How do we avoid letting precedents like this carry us down a slippery slope to full-blown creedalism?
Dave, in the final analysis, I agree with your post. But I can also understand the reticence of the committee to open up this can of worms. I don’t think it necessarily means they are any more interested in taking a lenient stand toward racism than anyone else. But, I think it would require some serious thought regarding what philosophical precedents such a ruling would set for our traditional stand as Baptists in regard to creedalism. But, then again, we probably already crossed that bridge when we started singling out homosexuality from among the broader list of sins and taboos among us.
My argument: The special circumstances of our past as a convention requires a more direct and forceful response now.
My admission: the definition of what constitutes violation of this concept would be the fly in the ointment.
Dave,
It always sounds bad or wrong when a person has to point out the elephant in the room. You are accurate when you indicate there are some, if not a majority, who are honorable. I do think we need honorable men who would be like the prophet and say, “Thou art the man” among those in their circles who show favoritism and partiality characteristics. At least question their motives if something just doesn’t sound right. One reason I said what I said is, if I am on a committee or part of leadership, specifically within the Church, and a decision was made that contradicted the right thing to do I would not just speak out against it, I would separate myself from that group if they chose to proceed with what they were doing. Honorable or not, you are bound to the group’s decision if you remain. Most Christians today are influenced by Robert’s Rules more than God’s Word. The principle of having “one purse” in Prov. 1:14 speaks of everyone in the group being agreeable to the decision. “Cast in your lot among us, Let us all have one purse”— and the answer is Prov. 1:15 “My son, do not walk in the way with them, Keep your foot from their path;” It is either right or wrong and we must begin on that premise before moving forward into any lower form of acceptance. That has been a tough road to travel in my lifetime because it does not win friends and influence people. I know it has kept me out of the political circles of the church, and that is ok, too. Try to mix those actions with love and you begin to know what Jesus had to put up with. Hope you understand what I mean.
Thanks for your comments, Dave. :]
The big question behind all of this is: how do we police this and hold each other accountable? We should not have a de facto position of tolerance so long as the sin isn’t publicized.
Andrew,
That is a great question. It seems that a Christian should police the same way they execute the Great Commission; as you go and to those you are associated with where you are. It is easy for me or anyone to point at the SBC leadership expecting biblical results. It is yet another thing if they were my associates and I had to call one down that I am friends with. Sometimes the most honorable men look the other way and they still appear honorable even though their close associates have compromised. I think I can only police those I have covenanted with in the local church and close friends. To me, it is more about individual spiritual discernment rather than the written code. Really, we do not have to list the type of sinners in the Articles and Sections except that the liability laws may require it.
David Rogers has endorsed Ginny Brant’s book about the pilgrimage of her Father. As former advisor to Strom Thurmond and Ricbard Nixon, Harry Dent’s race pilgrimage has been interesting.
Until the SBC can produce an honest history of Jesse Helms and Paul Pressler on the race issue, I will question their sincerity in these matters.
What was Pressler saying when Carlyle Marney was pastor of FBC Austin. What is the legacy of the Texas Regulars for Pressler and the SBC? In what ways is the Tea Party movement a strategy for the GOP now that racism of Jesse Helms white hands ad in his 90 race against Harvey Gantt no longer palatable?
Ask those kind of questions and we’ll see just how serious the SBC is on this matter.
Stephen, please either commment on topic or move on. Thanks.
Andrew, relating to what you mentioned, I think that we just need to continue to push.
And I think it is the responsibility of the white majority to open the doors and not expect the minorities among us to push their way in.
Good discussion, gentlemen.
Dear Dave: In the case of Steve’s response to your blog, I must say he was right on target. You will pardon those of us who have had rather deep experience and/or training in the area of race relations and the Old South. As much as I love Southern Baptists, and why not since my roots go back in this denomination clear to the beginning of Baptists in the South, I have to admit that they drag their feet, they will not work with those who differ with them often in slightest degree, that they want to walk with a lock step. I noted the son of Adrian Rogers above and am aware that he can not or will not sign the BFM 2000 as he differs with it on some points (I do not know which ones) and the SBC is beginning to develop a mind set of absolute requirement tht one must totally agree with whatever the SBC adopted which is always the work of a minority. The race issue is very much a part of this, and we will not succeed to well with Black Folks if we do not allow for differences…as they had to learn that the hard way. You might want to reconsider some of the anger in Steve’s remarks as reflective of deep seated frustration with hypocrisy, a hypocrisy as old as the SBC. I know of Blacks who think the apology is just face-saving fluff. I try to be positive, but there is a question of substance about the whole affair.
James,
Just a few clarifications: While I was a missionary with the IMB, I did sign the BF&M. However, I did so with one caveat. I understand the following line from Article VII on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to require what Baptist have traditionally referred to as either closed communion, or close communion: “Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.” However, I believe a consistent adherence to the principles of Scripture would lead us to what I call a modified open communion position (which I have defended here: http://sbcimpact.org/2010/04/19/discerning-the-body-a-biblical-defense-of-modified-open-communion/)
Other than this one line, I have no further disagreement with the BF&M 2,000. I am glad for the de facto lenience on this particular point in the BF&M, as I do not believe it truly reflects the views of the majority of Southern Baptists. However, I do think it is a good idea to have some standard of doctrinal accountability for SBC employees, and the BF&M is the most legitimate one we have.
However, it is one thing to disqualify someone as an SBC employee, and another thing to disallow a church from identifying itself as “in cooperation with the SBC.” I agree with Dave (and Pastor McKissic) that, if we are going to single out acceptance of homosexuality as a motive for exclusion of churches, it would be inconsistent (and therefore, hypocritical) to not take the same position with racism.
However, since we have not historically defined so specifically what being in friendly cooperation with the SBC means, it does entail opening a can of worms. It could easily imply, in the name of consistency, outlining a long list of reasons for exclusion. This is, no doubt, part of the rationale of the Executive Committee in not recommending the motion, as far as I can tell.
Given the current situation, though, if Pastor McKissic’s motion were brought to a vote in the SBC, and I were a registered messenger, I would vote in favor of it.
James,
Also, in relation to Stephen’s comment, if Dave has not read Ginny Brant’s book, or is not familiar with the political pilgrimage of her father, Harry Dent, it would be easy for him to see it as off-topic. I have read Ginny’s book, and wrote a short endorsement for it. Though, from Ginny’s testimony, Harry Dent was never, at heart, a racist, early in his political career he found himself aligning with politicians and positions that were considered by many to be racist. However, his own convictions, especially as renewed and transformed by his conversion to a personal faith in Christ, helped him to eventually see the problems in some of his earlier positions and to be a strong voice against racism within the Republican Party.
The most important aspect of Ginny’s book, however, from my point of view, in addition to the powerful testimony of the grace of God to change hearts, is the change of emphasis in Harry Dent’s later life from a priority involvement in politics to a priority involvement in the Great Commission as a means to make a positive impact in the world.
David Rogers:
Thanks for these thoughts on Ginny Brant’s book. I am toying with doing a review of the book; will kind of take up where you leave off with the statement above and cover some territory Marty Duren stops shy of covering. His blog review is linked at her website ginnybrant.com
I don’t find anything I disagree with you about in your thoughts above; I do find it interesting she doesn’t say much if anything at all about what was happening in the SBC that got to the place she and her Dad were in positions of influence in the 90′s; he as a Southern Sem Trutee and with the Executive Committee; and she an IMB trustee.
Though minor it is also interesting that as late as 1975 Ed Young found no fault with Baylor, as Ginny mentions in the book over Supper one night Ed and her Dad both tried to convince her to give Baylor consideration.
While there is much to admire in her version about racial transition in the South, there are other lense to view the era through. One I have brought to her attention is a George Packer article in New Yorker last year, that talks about a Nixon event in 1966 at the Wade Hampton Hotel in Columbia, S.C. about Dent’s 2nd year into the Southern Strategy.
My larger point is any honest look at the SBC and race would include an unflinching look at Duke’s Curtis Freeman’s report on Criswell and the 56 SC SBC Pastor’s Conference; the role of Jesse Helms and his extended network in the Conservative Resurgence; and a thorough look at Steven Miller’s book Billy Graham, Race, Nixon and the Rise of the Southern GOP.
Ginny like yourself, has been most gracious in her exchanges with me to date, and I look forward to continuing the conversation.
I don’t think I exhibitted any kind of anger in my remarks; just trying to figure the nuances of this matter out.
Again Steven Miller’s book on Graham and Nixon and the Rise of the Southern GOP is one of the one more fair minded, civil unflinching looks at it I am aware of.
And Sunday this legendary grandson of Southern Baptist Missionaries to China–His folks were there about the same time as Ruth Bell Graham’s people in China–had this incisive look at one aspect of the genetic code of the Tea Party Movement.
Not saying Tea Party is Direct Descendant, other factors come into play; but Ayers makes pretty strong case for it being stepchild of George Wallace and Jesse Helms strain of Baptists:
http://www.annistonstar.com/view/full_story/12171664/article-H–Brandt-Ayers–I%E2%80%99ve-seen-this-play-before?instance=home_opinion