Featured Southern Baptist State Conventions this year

How to word this...

My African American friends and co-workers seem evenly split between the non-denominational "normal" churches in town, the charismatic-prosperity driven churches in town, and the liberal AME churches out in the country, with a few attending conservative FWB churches out in the country. I hope these elections will help families looking for a church home consider the SBC over the liberal or miracle money options.

 

They'll be pleased to know that the SBC's annual resolution against alcohol has been replaced by an annual resolution against racism, as the SBC has descended from taking moral stands into pandering.

 

So it seems the gospel is no longer sufficient in the SBC.

 

JD Greear is a fundamentally dishonest man, IMO, given many things he has said on various issues. Peter went to Cornelius without objection, he said so. If there was something to overcome, it was God's own ritual law concerning cleanliness. And, Peter didn't embrace Cornelius anymore more than Peter embraced anyone else, but rather announced God doesn't show partiality (i.e. just "non-racist", not "gracist").

For whites to treat blacks differently (i.e. "gracist") because of their race is itself racist. It's insulting and patronizing to blacks. It's the bigotry of lower standards (you're not good enough until I factor in your skin color). Greear's identity politics also implies every non-racist white person is actually a racist (if you're not showing preferences to blacks, you're not countering your inherent racism).

 

Th8s is nothing more than attempting to reverse the Tower of Babel.

Let’s all sink to ecumenical swamp and swim in the stagnate.

Unity is found in agreement in doctrinal purity and holiness, noting how multicultural a group may be.

 

This would be great, but when race trumps character and Godliness, then it matters little the color. Blacks, Browns, yellows, white are all inherently racist. It is part of the fallen nature (dispute the liberal teaching).

The local assemblies should have not the least hint of care about color, but the greatest care for reaching the lost, supporting the saints, and pursuit of the high calling of God.

 

I think that perhaps it may be the height of racism.

“Neutrality” inevitably leads to one grouping or another gaining the ear of authority. Humankind are not by nature neutral.

 

Not sure what the point is here, but it seems inconsistent with your previous post (#11). Is someone saying neutrality is natural? Which is the height of racism, race neutrality or abandoning it? How does neutrality inevitably lead "to one grouping or another gaining the ear of authority?" Intentional neutrality would preclude it. Did you forget you said the following, which sounds very much like neutrality?

 

Not having the least care about color does not mean one is unaware of color and how outsider perceptions pressure for influence.

Neutrality obliges being subjected to outside influences.

For example: Neutrality supposedly does not take sides, yet what is more racist then not standing up against error, no matter the color?

Neutrality does not disengage opinion, nor does it remove personal agenda. During WWII, Spain, Ireland, Sweden were supposedly neutral. But, they each were controlled by special interest groups.

 

Avoiding answering the questions contextually accomplishes nothing good, but does serve to cloud the issue. Who, except you, said anything about neutrality other than race neutrality? The issue is race neutrality. What the OP seems to be depicting is race activism, intentional selection based on race rather than merit. Perhaps try again.

 

And you suppose race “neutrality” is any different than any other “neutrality?”

Neutrality - any form used - is not really “neutral,” but is agenda driven.

From the microscopic to the most complex, neutral is not sustainable.

Using the easiest scenarios to show that being a foundational principle, using the term “neutral” is as saying, “People should treat each other the same way.”

Such is the most unfair, and most agenda driven which has little to do with equality.

The problem is “neutral” is not equal, nor is equality neutral.

Neutral is completely a false presentation, for there is nothing neutral concerning the believer, nor the believer’s attitude and interactions with others.

It is as if one is proclaiming they are intentionally neutral.

 

Though you again avoided the point entirely, your semantic arguments make it clear that your statement, "The local assemblies should have not the least hint of care about color…," cannot be practically applied according to your own rules, if for no other reason than that it mentions "color," which is more than a "hint of care," or else you have no idea how it could. You needn't reply in order to dig the hole deeper.

 

"hint of care" does not imply neutrality.

See, I think you are attempting to build an opposition upon trying to show I have avoided the point, when at each post I have not.

I was responding to JonC's post (#9) which you liked and I agreed by posting #12 in which JonC agreed.

But you seem to want to dive deeper, which is fine, but it doesn't change what I have posted about neutral thinking.

 

I still agree with this statement: "Perhaps abandoning racial neutrality is embracing racism." But your own comments seem to indicate the very opposite.

By application, you convey that you are abandoning racial neutrality, which could lead you to embrace racism. Is that what you are intending to mean?