Resolutions for the SBC Annual Meeting (by Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr)

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Revmitchell, May 14, 2014.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,308
    Likes Received:
    784
    RESOLUTIONS ON:

    1. The NFL Same-Sex Kiss and Their Failure to Recognize Kenny Washington;

    2. The Washington “Redskins” Racially Insensitive and Racist Mascot;

    3. Amending “Stand Your Ground Laws” In States That Have Such Laws.
    By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

    Cornerstone Baptist Church
    Arlington, TX

    Whereas, the God of the Bible who is “the same, yesterday, today and forever more” is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore, keenly aware and concerned about the affairs of mankind (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6, Matthew 6:24-34),
    Whereas, “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” is assigned the task of representing the Kingdom of God on earth and to be His voice (I Timothy 3:14, Matthew 16:18-20, Romans 10:14-17),

    Whereas, the Church of the living God is to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, and a city upon a hill, in order to exalt righteousness, brotherhood, justice, and redemptive history (Matthew 5:13-14),
    Whereas, the Bible commands believers to prophetically address righteous, justice, and racial issues (Amos 5:24, Malachi 2:10, Matthew 28:19-20),
    Whereas Jesus warned His disciples concerning the dangers of adversely impacting the lives of children (Matthew 18:6),

    Be it resolved that we believe that it is inappropriate for children to be subjected to having to watch same-sex couples engage in public displays of affection while watching a sports-related event on allegedly family-friendly channels. We discourage any further televising of such events. While there is a missing airplane somewhere in the Far East, over 200 kidnapped girls from Nigeria, and high unemployment in America, we respectfully request the President of the United States to refrain from congratulating and extending well wishes to any future homosexual professional sports players, unless simultaneously he is going to make celebratory and well wishes calls to the likes of Tim Tebow, Prince Amukamara—the “Black Tim Tebow,” and AC Green, professional athletes committed to sexual purity.

    Be it further resolved that whereas, the NFL has not celebrated and heralded Kenny Washington, who broke the color barrier in the modern era of the NFL (1946), the Southern Baptist Convention wishes to acknowledge and celebrate the significance of Kenny Washington for paving the way for the NFL to be a diverse and inclusive sports league for players of all colors, just as Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in professional baseball,

    Be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention deplore and denounce racism in any form or expression by professional sports league management, as was recently expressed by Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers,

    Be it further resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention view the mascot of the Washington “Redskins” as racist and disrespectful in its origin and the mindset of George Preston Marshall, owner of the Boston Braves football team in 1932, which relocated the team to Washington, DC in 1937, and renamed the Boston Braves, the Washington “Redskins.”

    Time Magazine reported in 1940, “Considered by West Coast fans the most brilliant player in the US last year, [Kenny] Washington cannot play major league pro football because he is a Negro.” When the Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles in 1946, the commissioners of the Los Angeles Coliseum stipulated as part of the agreement that the team be integrated. Kenny Washington then signed the first NFL contract to play for the Los Angeles Rams as a Black man in the modern era. When Kenny Washington finished college at UCLA, having led the nation in the total offense, he caught the eye of legendary Bears Coach George Halas, who coached him in the College All Star Game in 1939. Halas kept Washington in Chicago for three weeks on his own dime as he tried to lobby the NFL to integrate the league, but he didn’t succeed, with Redskins owner, George Preston Marshall, the lone holdout.
    George Preston Marshall, who named the “Redskins” and whose players in 1946 held Kenny Marshall down, piled on top of him and poured chalk in his eyes, was without a doubt a racist, as evidenced by him denying Kenny Washington a chance to play in the NFL until 1946, along with other NFL owners, and allowing his players to pour chalk into the eyes of an African American player without any repercussions.

    Can you imagine Louis Farrakhan having owned the Dallas Cowboys in the ‘60’s, and having named them the Dallas “Whiteboys”? And having no intent to ever allow anyone who was White to play on the team? The man who named the “Redskins” did not allow a “Black-skinned” or truly “Redskin” player on his team until forced to by the Federal Government in 1962. The Washington “Redskins” were the last NFL team to integrate. Louis Farrakhan would be making a mockery of the name “Whiteboys” if he had no intent to place “Whiteboys” on his team; and this is exactly what George Preston Marshall did to the Washington “Redskins.” We plead and appeal to the current owner of the Washington team, Daniel Sayder, to change this racially insensitive and racist name.

    It is racist to make reference to a racial group (Native Americans) as a mascot. It trivializes the racial group to be referenced as a mascot. Again, the man who assigned this name was a documented racist. Donald Sterling would look like Branch Rickey, compared to George Preston Marshall. The Southern Baptist Convention denounce the mascot of the Washington Redskins as racist, based on the documented racism of its owner of the time—George Preston Marshall. “Redskins” was a colloquial, not so respectful reference to Native Americans during the period in which Marshall gave his team that racially repugnant name.

    Be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention views it as an unfit analogy that the St. Louis Rams—having recently drafted the first openly homosexual player and the Los Angeles Rams in 1946, having signed the first African American to an NFL contract in the modern era, is indicative of social progress or advancement. To compare the advent of a same-sex attraction player, to an African American player is to compare one man’s skin—to another man’s sin. The Southern Baptist Convention completely, absolutely, and unequivocally rejects the comparison. One’s racial identity is a by-product of biology. One’s sexual identity is a by-product of one’s preference or choice. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to compare skin color, with same-sex relational desires. It is also offensive and racist.

    Finally, be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention encourage State Legislatures who have adopted “Stand Your Ground Laws” to revisit those laws. The Southern Baptist Convention is requesting states to consider amending such laws to reflect the notion that one cannot be the aggressor in an altercation and then plead “Stand your Ground” as a defense.
    Because our God is a God of righteousness, justice and equality the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, June 10-11, 2014, resolve the aforementioned resolutions.

    - See more at: http://sbcvoices.com/resolutions-for-the-sbc-annual-meeting-by-wm-dwight-mckissic-sr/#comment-240267
     
  2. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    :sleep:

    Meddling ignorant idiots....
     
  3. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    These will never pass. They can introduce all the idiotic resolutions they want. SBC representatives will vote them down.
     
  4. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Non-binding resolutions on political issues from a convention that annually meets for no earthly reason...

    Well that's it.
     
  5. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Resolutions, embarrassing baptists since....well, far too long.
     
  6. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    One is given the impression that the deckchairs on the Titanic are being rearranged by persons and resolutions like these.

    There are elements in the resolutions I agree with, certainly. However, why do we, as Southern Baptists, insist on having resolutions and laws enacted to do our jobs for us? Why do we seek to engage legislatures to restrict individuals while ignoring that we are to engage individuals with the Gospel so that their heart is changed--something any "law" can never do.

    This is precisely why the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" people in the SBC are staying away and are having less and less to do with the SBC itself.

    Blessings,

    The Archangel
     
  7. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,926
    Likes Received:
    95
    Well yea....and praise God that the young have the eyes to see that! So how to rein them in I wonder? Ive got it.....shun them, exclude them, marginalize them, shame them...hahahaha. Yea that will work:laugh:
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,648
    Likes Received:
    223
    Quote feature seems to be bugged. (As well as the edit feature.)

    Anyway, I think these resolutions came up in a different form some time ago.

    We all are a part of God's great big family
    And the truth, you know,
    Love is all we need

    We are the world, we are the children
    We are the ones who make a brighter day
    So let's start giving
    There's a choice we're making
    We're saving our own lives
    It's true we'll make a better day
    Just you and me

    Send them your heart so they'll know that someone cares
    And their lives will be stronger and free
    As God has shown us by turning stone to bread
    So we all must lend a helping hand

     
  9. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,214
    Likes Received:
    611
    Yes, I don't understand why they even bother with this sort of thing.
     
  10. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Excellent question. One easily answered by the attitudes reflected on this board. Politics has become the god of many in the church and in the SBC. It's a stinging rebuke and one by which many will take offense. But it is what it is.

    Democrat vs Republican. Conservative vs liberal.

    We won't go out on visitation, but we'll canvas the neighborhood for a political candidate.

    We won't open our mouths to speak that Jesus died and rose on the third day so that people could be redeemed. But we can't seem to shut our mouths when it comes to speaking against all things abortion, Obama, homosexual, Clinton or politically non-conservative.

    God help us.:praying:
     
  11. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    76
    Nobody is making our kids watch anything. But furthermore, be it resolved that desiring to isolate our kids from the "ways of the world" has an Amish ring to it. Those kids get a weekend away and they never look back.

    My son is 8 years old, and has seen minor homosexual activity (like kissing and holding hands) just walking down the street, or at McDonald's, or at the park.

    Maybe we should "resolve" that the government build gay sidewalks and city parks, or mandate that McDonald's have a gay section, or that Wal-Mart has gay check out lines so our kids don't have to see it.

    That way we can entrust our moral persuasions to government mandates and such instead of taking the personal responsibility to teach our own kids right and wrong.

    Good grief.

    My son knows nothing about sex, but he knows that there are some boys who have boyfriends and some girls who have girlfriends, that they kiss and hold hands, etc, and that God doesn't approve.

    I teach him. The church teaches him. God teaches him. I don't try to pretend that the world isn't evil by demanding that they hide it from him.


    It's hypocrisy at its worst, because those same moral police who are on the bandwagon against open immoral sexual activity are also advocating a free market, which has its own potential for moral failings when we fall headlong after it

    Maybe we should also resolve that our capitalist society hides their successes so our kids don't get tempted to become materialistic.



    So what? If that's the sentiment, then the convention can refrain from propping up a racist mascot to represent it (us).

    But who really considers it racist anyway? A bunch of backward Indians?

    And before anyone hurls an insult at me for that one, I am Indian. My grandfather was on the rolls of an Indian tribe (Blackfoot/Blackfeet). My father would have been, except that it was more acceptable to be white back in the 30s and 40s, so his mother wouldn't do it. She kept him off the Indian rolls and enrolled him in school as a white.

    I get sick and tired of my fellow tomahawk swingers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep their isolated patches of land so that they can run high-profit casinos, have tax-free everything, houses for $1.00 and get monthly payments for going to school...

    then engage in stirring up just enough dust to make everybody else think they're downtrodden and humiliated - All the while laughing their way to the bank.

    And believe me. I am intimately acquainted with some of this, as some of my own family engages in it.

    My brother's ex-wife is a Creek Indian and remarried a fellow Creek Indian; and they are both on the rolls. They bought a house for $1.00, get cost of living subsidies out the wazoo, and my nephew gets paid $980.00 per month for going to school - over and above the free tuition and books. One grand a month, just for spending cash because he's supposedly been mistreated. Baloney

    And that is what is at the heart of sentiments like this. They get unsuspecting idiots on their pitiful bandwagon of outcry so they can get paid. Nothing more, nothing less.



    These first two resolutions are garbage, and whoever wrote them is retarded.


    BTW, I know nothing of "Stand Your Ground", and have no comment one way or the other
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,622
    Likes Received:
    158
    Watch out, you are making very truthful statements and for some here that will get you in trouble.

    The moral policemen will never condemn sins they like ... i.e. gluttony is a prime example in our society.





    "Stand Your Ground" are laws giving you the right to murder and claim innocence by saying I felt my life was threatened.
     
  13. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm quite conservative theologically. Politically, I refer to myself as a "Conservatarian;" a conservative with some libertarian leanings.

    But, many churches have equated political action with preaching the Gospel. As you say, why would you speak out against those who are liberal/progressives and their policies with great fervor and yet you won't share the Gospel with your neighbor? (The generic, plural "you" being used in this case)

    I think abortion should be opposed. I think the homosexual agenda should be opposed. I think certain things in the historically-conservative agendas should have been and still should be opposed.

    That being said, in the political-action churches, this often degenerates into opposing and ostracizing those who have had an abortion, especially those who did so before coming to faith in Christ. Homosexuals are opposed as "boogy-men" and "boogy-women" when we ignore the serial divorce and heterosexual cohabitation in our own churches.

    When politics reigns as "Ultimate" so many things get lost--and the sharing of the Gospel in order to see changed and regenerated hearts is one of them.

    Rather than outlawing casinos and strip clubs, wouldn't it be better if we preached the Gospel and shared the Gospel in such a way that the casinos and strip clubs went out of business for lack of interest? Unfortunately, many of the old-line SBC people think changing behavior is sufficient and they ignore the heart. It's nothing more than a works-related salvation repackaged in a much more damaging way....

    Blessings,

    The Archangel
     
  14. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If someone breaks into my house, I should have the right to defend myself, my wife, and my children with deadly force.

    I never want to kill an intruder; I simply never want to be in the situation. Killing an intruder will, in some measure, ruin the rest of my life (even though the laws in my state allow me to do so, and the law also protects me from civil claims). But, my life would be far more ruined if something happened to my wife and/or daughters and I didn't do something to protect them. So, I don't want to kill an intruder, but I'd do it in a heartbeat--my wife and daughters who are minding their own business are far more important to me than the thief who is breaking in to steal and destroy.

    If I'm driving my car and am at a stoplight and someone puts a gun against my window and tells me to get out, I should have the right to defend my life and property with deadly force.

    HOWEVER... I should not (and do not) have the right to kill someone walking toward me on a dark sidewalk simply because I feel threatened by the color of his or her skin or by what he or she is wearing. But, if this person proves to be a threat by assaulting me in some way, I should have and do have the right to defend myself.

    Blessings,

    The Archangel
     
  15. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know what's real interesting? Here on this thread we have CTB speaking against laws designed to protect the use of weapons by citizens to protect themselves ...
    ... while here we have this same CTB defending the right of the government to arm civilian federal agencies with those same weapons, without having any specific authorization from Congress to do so.

    Do those conflicting agendas strike you as odd? Not to mention, disturbing?
     
    #15 thisnumbersdisconnected, May 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  16. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Only Crabby's world this is the way things are supposed to work. "Excuse me Mr. Home Intruder but could you please wait while I dial 911 and then wait for the police to arrive?" If you do shoot the intruder then you have committed murder. No, you are supposed to be a cooperative victim and allow the thug to rob you of possessions, rape or harm you because you don't have the right to defend yourself. Only the police, who are never there until well after the crime has taken place, are qualified to protect you. Or, if you are walking down the street and a thug comes at you and hits you then you are supposed to just lie down and take it. After all he or she may not kill you. And, after all is said and done you can call the police and file a report from the hospital bed or your relatives can call them for you while you are being transferred to the morgue. But, if you shoot and kill the thug it's murder. Only in the world of a bleeding heart are thugs given the benefit of the doubt while the victim criticized or even jailed if he or she dares to put up a defense.
     
    #16 sag38, May 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2014
  17. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,648
    Likes Received:
    223
    Politics is religion in practice.
     
  18. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    AMEN!!!:thumbs:
     
  19. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    We call it an "extremely late term abortion"...not murder....
    you should have no moral qualms with it whatsoever.
     
  20. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,622
    Likes Received:
    158
    I have no problem with your reply. The examples I gave were of people knocking on doors, turning around in driveways ... not breaking into houses. They were murdered, but the shooter got away with murder by saying, "I thought my life was in danger."

    Frankly, and I do not put you in this category, I believe many who defend the "stand your ground laws" most vocally are cowards who are afraid of life and people outside their little circle. Their comfort zone is very small. I would love to take them to some of the places where I traveled alone, with no weapon, where I was the only Westerner within who knows how many miles, hundreds of miles at times, and see how they responded. It would be most interesting. I spent a week in one location and saw only one other Westerner, the day before I flew out, and that was at site that draws many visitors. The most frightening places I have walked at night have been in a number of American cities.

     
    #20 Crabtownboy, May 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2014

Share This Page

Loading...