Does the SBC Still Have a Stain on It?

by | Jun 23, 2017 | Adult Christian Learning | 0 comments

 In 1995, leadership in the SBC apologized for, repented of, and issued a statement repudiating, racism in all forms. Twenty-two years later, instigated by William McKissic, the SBC leaders once again had to apologize and issue not just another statement affirming its belief that racism in all its forms is a sin, but a resolution that decries racism in every form. So, apparently repentance and repudiation of racism by SBC leaders is not enough. Apparently, apologizing for someone else’s sin isn’t enough either. And this demand is coming, not from the non-Christian world, but from a Christian pastor nonetheless. I think racism in all its forms ought to be repudiated and treated as a form of hatred, a practice that no true child of God with genuine faith can actually perform (1 John 2:9 & 11). Here is a serious question for you: can you repent for a sin that you didn’t actually commit? If Bill offends you, wrongs us, treats you unjustly, how is it possible for me to repent and apologize for Bill’s behavior? I find it all very confusion and I am very curious to know what is really going on here. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. There almost always is.

The original resolution can be found here: Original Resolution. The resolution that passed can be found here: passed resolution. Now that the SBC has passed a resolution, I suppose that settles it. This is what done looks like. There, we killed racism with one document, one resolution. It’s over. Next issue please! Yes, I am annoyed. I am already wondering how the next apology for racism will take shape at next year’s convention, or the one after that. I am not annoyed that the church preaches that racism is a sin and is inconsistent with true faith and life in Christ. That should be part of our preaching and teaching the same as any other sin we peach and teach about, like, you know, adultery, or fornication, or lying, or drunkenness. Right? I am going to go out on a limb here and risk it all: I bet you that adultery, fornication, drunkenness, and lying are far bigger problems for people in SBC churches than racism. I bet if you add the numbers up, it would be embarrassing. So what are we to do? I know, let’s pass a resolution condemning these things. That will fix it!

What exactly are the SBC leaders doing? What exactly is William McKissic doing? Are we to think that unless the SBC adopts a resolution condemning something as obviously sinful as white supremacy that our members and churches may be deceived into adopting it? I find even the hint of such a suggestion outrageous. I hate politics. I hate even the smell of politics. The church entered into a long, dark period when it embraced Constantinianism. This comingling of politics and Christianity was devastating from beginning to end. And I cannot help but wonder if what I am seeing now is simply political pandering. We want to be “seen” as condemning racism. So we issue this resolution for the appearance it gives. What other reason could there be? We don’t have a problem with white supremacy. If there are those in the SBC who have embraced it (if you can actually define what this alt-right-white supremacy thing actually is), issuing a resolution is going to produce repentance. Scripture already condemns it. If Scripture won’t convince them, what change does a resolution have? So, what are the leaders doing? What is William McKissic doing?

Does McKissic think that it is the mission of the church to end racism? Should we actively work to eradicate the sin of racism from our culture? Why? Why that sin? Why not adultery? There are a lot more adulterers than there are racists! Go ahead, bet me! Why pick this one? Is it someone’s pet? Is it someone’s cause? It isn’t the mission of the church to eradicate sin. The only sin we are called to eradicate is our own as we grow in sanctification! We have real problems in our churches…big ones. We have a biblically ignorant membership who would rather spend a 1000 years in purgatory (if there were such a place) than to expend an ounce of REAL energy attempting to understand Scripture, to study doctrine, to be absorbed in these things. And this problem is on such a massive scale that it is immeasurable. Fix that problem, and you won’t have to bother with another resolution at the SBC convention…I promise!

Just stop it, SBC leaders. Stop talking about the past. Stop talking about sins of other people who have been dead for years now. They are not us and they never were us. If they were racists, as racism is defined, then they never knew Christ. And God has extended just recompense upon them. Preach the word! Thunder divine truth. When you condemn racism, don’t forget to condemn all of it – black, white, yellow, brown. In case you didn’t realize it, white people are not the biggest racists on the planet.

White People are not the biggest racists in the world

Please Share...

Latest Posts

Provision: A Summary Critique

Provisionism: A Summary Critique In this episode, I close out my rants on Provisionism with a summary critique. If Leighton Flowers and his provisionists followers want to object to provisionism being compared to Pelagianism, they need to specifically outline the...

Provisionism: On Free Will

In this episode, I rant about Provisionism and its view of free will. I conclude that it is exegetically bankrupt, theologically baseless, logically incoherent, and a philosophical non-starter....

Provisionism: An Incoherent View of Divine Sovereignty

In this episode, I rant about Leighton Flowers and the Provisionist's incoherent view of divine sovereignty. No one should hold to a system that is internally inconsistent with itself. Irrationalism is antithetical to Christian belief. ...

Provisionism: An Incoherent Doctrine of Grace

It is difficult if not impossible to get the gospel right if you get grace wrong. Provisionism gets grace terribly wrong.

Provisionism’s Incoherent Doctrine of The Atonement

Provisionism claims to affirm the penal-substitutionary view of the atonement. On the other hand, Provisionism claims that Christ atoned for the sins of people who will not be saved in the end. These two propositions are contradictory to one another and reflect a...

Share This