OK… this is a 25,000 word blog post that most people won’t want to read. Please don’t, if you don’t. This is more of an exercise in pulling my thoughts together and getting them off my chest than anything else.
I’m not trying to argue with anyone or pick a fight… there’s just been some promenant departures and high-profile criticisms of late of the Southern Baptist Convention, to the point that it’s starting to pop-up in my Facebook feed and people are asking for my opinion… so now I can give the short version and point people here.
When we hear of prominent former Souther Baptists decrying the SBC because of issues like sexism or racism or white nationalism, it should cause us to pause and evaluate, is that true? How pervasive is it? Are these outliers or examples of systemic problems in the SBC?
One of my favoriate (although secular) authors and thinkers is Thomas Sowell. It is good, especially from a Christian perspective, to always be seeking the truth. We all know: John 8:32 “know the truth…” referring to Jesus as THE truth… however getting to the core of the truthfulness, the correspondence with reality, on every issue is a noble pursuit as well. I see this on nearly every page of the Proverbs, for example Proverbs 18:15 “The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.”
One of the things that Thomas Sowell is famous for is his “3 Questions”
(1) Compared to what?
(2) At what cost?
(3) What hard evidence do you have?
I hope you can see the genius of these three simple questions to cut through the superfluous information and practically get down to the truth of the matter.
The claim is that the SBC is sexist and racist as a whole. Many, such as Ed Stetzer, have expressed this sentiment in quotes like: “Southern Baptists need to do some soul searching of why so many African-American leaders have left and now why their most prominent woman leader has left.” As I said above, I agree we should pause and evaluate the situation, though I think calling it “soul searching” describes the process in more subjective terms with an element of implied guilt, which skews objectivity.
In an organization consisting of 45,000+ autonomous churches, there’s bound to be incidents of bad behavior and stupid things people say that don’t reflect the organization as a whole, I hope people will accept that premise.
So, I want to quickly filter this idea that “the SBC is a sexist and racist organization,” because I don’t believe that’s true of the SBC today.
“Compared to what?”
The SBC’s theology is complementarian, meaning we believe men and women are inherently different yet equal in value. God’s plan is for the husband to be the head of the household, thus this genuinely patriarchal organization of the family should rightly be reflected in the church family as well. As such, the lead office of Pastor (also called “Elder” or “Overseer” in the Bible) is reserved for qualified men only. People want to get “into the weeds” on a handful of particular verses… but for me, that’s the best overall explanation of the position.
This does not mean a woman cannot speak from the pulpit, or even preach on a Sunday morning as a Southern Baptist. In Acts 21:9 we see an Evangelist named Phillip who’s daughters also preached about Jesus “This man had four virgin daughters who prophesied.”. 1Corinthians 11:5 also describes how “every woman prays or prophesies…” in church should conduct themselves.
It’s true that some people who are Southern Baptists do have far more restrictive views, like Owen Strachan, but this is not the view of “Southern Baptists,” it’s the view of A Southern Baptist.
The Baptist Faith and Message simply says: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” (Article VI. “The Church”)
To claim that the SBC doesn’t allow women to preach is simply not true.
As much as it might be a defining factor to someone’s faith to allow women to preach, this is not a defining factor for the SBC. Churches are free to allow or restrict whomever they wish to preach from their pulpits. As a church, you can be a member of the SBC if you allow women to preach, and you can be a member of the SBC if you don’t allow women to preach. That issue literally doesn’t define the SBC. SBC churches can be on any side of that issue. Some may define the SBC by the fact that some member churches don’t allow women to preach, but I don’t accept that as a fair representation of the SBC as a whole.
For example, the president of the SBC’s church does not unilaterally restrict women from preaching from the pulpit on Sunday mornings.
So… I ask… “compared to what?”
What other expressly complementarian denominations have a “less sexist” position on women? What about the SBC’s position on women, within the context of complementarianism, reveals a leaning towards “sexism”? I don’t know. I have heard many people say and do things that are sexist… but I don’t know why these individuals are considered representative of the whole SBC.
What about racism? Black churches and individuals are leaving the SBC, such as Dwight McKissic, or at least that’s what we’ve been told, so the SBC must be racist.
McKissic’s own words describe his issues with the SBC starting over a theological disagreement between himself, Jim Richards and Page Patterson in August 2006. However, in 2015 he admits those issues were reversed by David Platt and Jeffery Bingham. There was a change and the issue which he was upset about was corrected. It had nothing to do with race. So when I ask “compared to what” sometimes that means compared to our own past.
If we are going to hold people to the things they said and did 15+ years ago who can survive? If someone is simply “anti-denomination” and thus against the SBC as a denomination, then I think they are giving up more good than bad (see: “at what cost”).
In June 2019 the SBC adopted Resolution 9 which affirms (yes, read this word again “AFFIRMS”) the use of “critical race theory an intersectionality” as something that can be “employed as an nautical tool…” providing it is “subordinate to Scripture – not as transcendent ideological frameworks”
This caused a brouhaha in SBC life. So, the Council of Seminary Presidents (all 6 presidents of the SBC Seminaries) got together and crafted a statement regarding the theological underpinnings of CRT and Intersectionality.
Part of that statement reads:
In light of current conversations in the Southern Baptist Convention, we stand together on historic Southern Baptist condemnations of racism in any form and we also declare that affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and any version of Critical Theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.
The beliefs of the SBC are incompatible with CRT. SBC Seminaries are uniquely equipped to speak to the theological convictions of the SBC. When all 6 Seminary Presidents agree, I think there’s a lot of weight to their statement. They affirm (again, think about that word “AFFIRM”) all the existing statements condemning racism in all forms.
CRT divides people by race and attributes negative attributes to people based on race. That’s racist and should be condemned.
McKissic, however, has stated his church is still affiliated with the SBC, which leads me to think his headline: “We Are Getting Off The Bus” is intended more as a kind of “click bait” than a substantive disagreement. They switched between the two Texas Southern Baptist conventions, but remain aligned with the national Southern Baptist Convention.
“Compared to what” leads me to compare the SBC of today to the SBC of bygone eras, that should improve anyone’s opinion of the SBC. We do change, we do grow, we get better… we are getting better.
Was the SBC formed because Baptists in the South wanted their missionaries to keep their slaves? Yes. Did Southern Baptists use the Bible to try and justify slavery? Yes. Has the SBC supported this view in the last quarter century? No.
Is the SBC of today the same SBC of 1845? No.
So, not only history, but what about comparing the SBC demographics to the United States population in general? Here’s the breakdown according to an article by SBC President JD Greear:
The general population of the US is:
12% African-American (I believe this stat includes black people of non-African origins such as West Indians, etc.)
16% Latino
4.7% Asian
Thus: 67.3% “White”
The SBC population is:
7.4% African American
6.7% Latino
3.9% Asian
Thus: 82% “White”
I’m not going to try to find the ethnic makeup of the SBC in 1845. Can we just agree there has been progress towards the SBC reflecting the population of the United States as a whole in the last 175 years, most of which has been in the last few decades?
So, is the SBC improving? How can you say we are not? “As compared to what?” As compared to where we’ve been, we’re on the right track. Besides this, are the majority of people in their own churches, such as historic black churches, unhappy with their church and just waiting for the SBC to change so they can join us? I don’t think so. It’s almost as if people think if the SBC was just perfect, then everyone would join us. That’s an untrue vision of what the world “would be” if everything was corrected. Comparing any organization or set of statistical data to some theoretical “ideal” that doesn’t exist anywhere nor could exist here on earth isn’t helpful, practically speaking.
“Compared to what” compels us to think about the SBC, not in a vacuum sealed snapshot of data, but within the historical context of our own trajectory as well as within the current context of other mainline denominations.
American Baptist Churches (the closest historical descendants to the group the SBC broke from in 1845, though they have split multiple times since then) are more diverse with 73% white and 10% black.
The Anglican Church is 83% white and 12% black. The same percentage of white people with more representation from black people, however less representative of Asian and Latino Americans than the SBC.
The Episcopal Church is 90% white and 4% black.
The Lutheran Church (ELCA) is 96% white and 2% black.
Catholics are 59% white, 3% black, and 34% latino
Presbyterians are 88% white and 3% black
United Church of Christ are 89% white and 8% black
United Methodists are 94% white and 1% black
There are denominations that are the “opposite” in terms of inclusion as well, not only do they reflect at least the same percentage of black Americans in the general population, they exceed it.
Church of God in Christ is 84% black
The African Methodist Episcopal Church is 94% black
and the National Baptist Convention is 99% black.
But what about non-Christians, how do those religions fair? Is this a specifically Evangelical Christian problem to represent a lack of proportional diversity?
Seventh-day Adventists are 37% white, 32% black, 15% latino, 8% asian, and 8% other.
Muslims are 36% white, 28% black, 4% latino, 28% asian, and 8% other
Buddhists are 44% white, 3% black, 12% latino, 33% asian
Atheists are 78% white, 3% black, 10% latino, 7% asian
Agnostics are 79% white, 3% black, 9% latino, 4% asian
Mormons are 85% white, <1% black, 8% latino, 1% asian
Unitarians are 88% white, <1% black
Jews are 90% white, 2% black, 4% latino, 2% asian
Hindus are 4% white, 2% black, <1% latino, and 91% asian
Are buddhists racist because there are only 3% black people? Or do people make choices as individuals based on their own reasons, some of which have to do with cultural background and thus will show statistical similarities in various groups depending on how you define them?
“As compared to what?” What “ideal” are we comparing to?
If everyone was 100% free to choose with absolutely no racial bias in some theoretical utopian land… would every faith exactly represent the ethnic makeup of the country? I think it’s bordering on silly to suggest that is the case. Yet, to suggest racism is the primary reason for a lack of ethnic diversity within faith groups necessitates some form of how it “would be if not for” thinking that uses the general population as “the ideal.”
Groups that involve personal choice, such as professions for example, never fall into nice neat representations of various groups along the lines of ethnic or gender identities anywhere in the world. So why would we expect something as deeply personal as one’s faith to be so evenly distributed? People make choices and that’s not always a negative reflection upon the group, sometimes it’s just an individual’s preference or belief. Maybe there aren’t a lot of black people who’d be buddhist if Buddhism were only more welcoming.
“as compared to what” is not a question of whataboutism but is making a comparison to alternatives. “The SBC isn’t perfect…” seems to me to be an obvious statement. So “who is?” Can a denomination be perfect? I don’t think the argument that the SBC isn’t improving in the area of racism can hold up to the empirical data (see: “show me the evidence”), but perhaps someone would say we’re not improving fast enough. For an organization founded as the “anti-abolition” denomination to now be more inclusive of black people than most mainline denominations cannot be denied as monumental progress.
Further, the SBC has made it a specific focus in recent years to combat racism within and to affirm people of all ethnic backgrounds:
In 1993 the National African American Fellowship was started as a subgroup of the SBC to help organize the 4,000+ predominately black churches who are members of the SBC to give those churches a clearer voice within the convention.
In 2009 the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention created a study group to examine “how ethnic churches and ethnic church leaders can be more actively involved in serving the needs of the SBC through cooperative partnership on the national level.” In 2011 the EC released that group’s report. These recommendations, including that the SBC president “give special attention to appointing individuals who represent the diversity within the convention, and particularly ethnic diversity” have been and continue to be followed for the past decade.
The first African-American President of the SBC was elected in 2012 which was noted by Russell Moore who said “A descendant of slaves elected to lead a denomination forged to protect the evil interests of slaveholders is a sign of the power of a gospel that crucifies injustice and reconciles brothers and sisters. The election of Fred Luter doesn’t mean the question of racial justice is settled for Southern Baptists, but it is one small step toward our confessing that Jesus Christ and Jim Crow cannot exist in the same denomination, or in the same heart. One has got to go.” Have we arrived? No. Are we making progress, undeniably.
in 2020 Rolland Slade was elected as the first African-American to be board chairman of the Executive Committee of the SBC. This is THE controlling entity of the SBC which sets the annual budget and makes decisions on behalf of the convention between annual meetings. While the president is a good figurehead, the EC is the actual directional leadership of the convention. This was last year.
There have been at least two prominent resolutions on racial reconciliation, one in 1995 and the other in 2015, 20 years later. These are the resolutions, the only way the convention can truly speak with one voice as a people, that were referenced by the 6 Southern Baptist Seminary Presidents which universally condemn racism in every form, while holding open the possibility of finding redeeming qualities in CRT and Intersectionality though it is itself incompatible with Southern Baptist beliefs.
The former SBC President Ronnie Floyd, who now is the President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the SBC, has spoken passionately about the need for Southern Baptists to “rise up and cry out against racism that still exists in our nation and our churches,” and to “replace these evils with the beauty of grace and love.” This prompted the SBC to pass a resolution in 2016 which includes the statement: “we call our brothers and sisters in Christ to discontinue the display of the Confederate battle flag as a sign of solidarity of the whole Body of Christ, including our African American brothers and sisters.”
For someone to claim that the SBC has not emphasized improving in the area of racism or that we are somehow disinterested in doing our best to reach out to all peoples, including African-Americans, is either ignorant of the last quarter-century of SBC life or dishonest.
I can’t understand how someone can be aware of the facts and still think the SBC isn’t making progress in this area or that we, as a whole, somehow don’t care about racial reconciliation.
“At what cost?”
Do I think the SBC is perfect? No. But I do believe we are working on getting better… and not only that, God has and continues to use us to do great things.
Is there a denomination who sends more missionaries into all the world to spread the gospel? Is there a denomination who join together and in their collective efforts see 75,000 per year come to faith in Jesus? Is there a denomination who does more in the area of relief when natural disaster strikes an area? Do people not realize those people in the yellow shirts in the background of every news story going to herculean efforts to show love and compassion to people at their lowest point are SOUTHERN BAPTISTS!
This is where I ask “at what cost.” Sure, you can say you disagree with everyone so you’re going to found your own independent church which will be theologically pure and not have the baggage of a denomination like the SBC… but at what cost? The SBC cooperative program educates tens-of-thousands of students through SBC Seminaries and Colleges every year. The SBC sends thousands of people loaded with the love of the gospel into the darkest places on earth every year. The SBC gives food, clothing, shelter, and helps rebuild thousands of peoples lives and homes every year. The SBC supports countless orphans and widows through orphanages, hospitals, and other physical/medical efforts around the world. You give all that up when you “get off the bus.”
I know people think the fact 2/3 of the SBC identify as either “Republican” or “Republican-leaning” is some kind of nefarious alignment with former President Trump, but is it? Is that the only, or even best explanation for this level of Republican affinity?
“What hard evidence do you have?”
I don’t discount the fact individuals have had bad experiences with people and groups who claim the name “Southern Baptist,” in fact it not only breaks my heart, but makes me angry at the jerks who would give the amazingly helpful and beneficial to the kingdom Southern Baptist Convention a bad reputation. I also admit from time-to-time that includes myself.
However, anecdotal stories from a unique perspective can’t be a rational basis for a fair evaluation of the SBC as a whole.
63% of the SBC are “Generation X” or “Baby Boomers” Also, Former President Trump received his highest support from people in their late 40s to early 60s. Do Gen-X and Boomers in the United States support Trump because they are SBC? As in, if they simply changed their religious beliefs to become Lutheran or Catholic, this age demographic would begin to support President Biden? That doesn’t make sense to me. Do a majority of Southern Baptists end up voting Republican most of the time, yes. That’s what the statistics say, but 1/3 of them don’t. How can you say the SBC as a whole is zealous in their “Trumpism” when there’s not even a supermajority who even “lean Republican”?
Show me the evidence of widespread Trumpism? Sure, of the 50,000+ active pastors in the SBC, you’re going to have individuals say things which I would not want to associate myself with… but is that indicative of their “SBC-ness”?
Are there more rational explanations why a majority of SBC members would prefer the Republican party to others such as the Democratic party?
Article XVIII. “The Family” in The Baptist Faith and Message says “Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.” Of the two major parties, the Democratic Party Platform expressly supports the LGBTQ agenda.
This same article states “Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.”
In Article XV. “The Christian and the Social Order” expressly states the Southern Baptist belief that “We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. “
It is not surprising or somehow incomprehensible that Southern Baptists would oppose abortion, it is our stated position. The surprising thing would be for Southern Baptists to support those who do not oppose abortion.
I’m not here arguing against abortion, though I’d be happy to, but what I am saying is widespread opposition to the Democratic party is in no way indicative of some wide-eyed zealotry for one particular candidate in the Republican party.
The Democrat party platform not only supports the expansion of abortion, but he further funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood who are the number one provider of abortions in the United States.
Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion. We will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides vital preventive and reproductive health care for millions of people, especially low-income people, and people of color, and LGBTQ+ people, including in underserved areas.
This position is not compatible with the stated beliefs of Southern Baptists, and yet over 1/4 of Southern Baptists identify as “Democrat” or “Lean Democrat.”
I cannot in good conscience support or vote for anyone who would in any way advocate for the kinds of affirmations stated in the current Democratic Party Platform. That doesn’t mean I necessarily wouldn’t support someone who’s technically a Democrat who is in opposition to the foundational issues of her party, or that I wouldn’t support some other candidate who is neither Democrat nor Republican… but it does mean, being a “good Democrat” makes you a “bad Southern Baptist.”
Just ask the “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden” how that worked out for them.
Theologically speaking, it makes sense that a people who believe life begins at conception could not support candidates from a party who say they want to increase people’s ability to end those lives.
On the other hand, it makes no sense to paint an organization as so inherently crazed to the core that they can be described as driven by “Trumpism” politically when more than 1/3 of them can’t even say they lean toward’s the Republican side.
I’m open to learn. I want to improve. I’m grateful the SBC appears to be growing and improving too.
In the area of sexism and sexual abuse, the SBC is also working hard to improve. The SBC did a 10-month study and produced a 52-page Sexual Abuse Advisory Study where the president of the Convention described this kind of thing “pure evil.” It is not being “swept under the rug by the good-ol boys” en masse.
Currently, 34% of the 68 member “Committee on Committees” is female, 50% white, 24% African-American, 15% Hispanic, 7% Asian, and 4% other. More than 1/2 of these members come not from the mega-churches with high-profile celebrity pastors, but from churches with 250 or fewer members. 1/4 are from churches with fewer than 100 members. This Committee is the group who nominates people to be in leadership positions all throughout the convention. It’s the most diverse committee in SBC history. Is this not progress?
The President of Southwestern Seminary (my alma mater) and the President of the Executive Committee were replaced amid sexual harassment allegations. These kinds of sexist actions are not simply tolerated within the SBC as we turn a blind-eye to such injustices. What’s the alternative? Should these men never have acted that way, of course, that’s why they were fired… but if you’re going to require that every person be a sinless angel otherwise the entire organization is sexist… then you’ve got a recipe for a group of ZERO people.
What, reasonably, should the SBC do when a prominent elected leader is caught behaving badly? Flog them publicly? I think these men being replaced is evidence of progress in this problematic area. It’s an issue that affects all of mankind and in no way is restricted to the SBC. More and more, this kind of thing is not acceptable within the SBC.
Are we perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Are we improving? Unquestionably.
One final evidence that the SBC is not as “sexist” or “racist” of a group that some are portraying us as…
At the June 2019 SBC annual meeting in Birmingham, Ala., messengers approved two changes to the SBC constitution. These two amendments explicitly add “sexual abuse” and “discrimination based on ethnicity” as grounds to declare churches “not in friendly cooperation” – the SBC way of kicking a church out.
These amendments were to be voted on in 2020, but because of COVID-19 the convention did not meet last year, but we are this year. I fully expect these amendments to pass because the SBC is currently and actively seeking to improve in the vary areas people seem to think we are ignoring.
So there you have it.
Let’s think about things clearly and with reason…
(1) Compared to what?
(2) At what cost?
(3) What hard evidence do you have?
I’m not trying to pressure anyone to love the SBC, but I am very frustrated when people mischaracterize my denomination and sometimes even suggest if someone supports the SBC they’re somehow a racist sexist bigot who’s blinded by “Trumpism.” That’s a gross misrepresentation of millions of Christians and I had to get some of my thoughts about it off my chest.
“May the Lord bless you and protect you;
may the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
may the Lord look with favor on you
and give you peace.”’Numbers 6:24-26
