Featured On the incompatibility of structural racism and Oppression with the Baptist Faith and Message

I sincerely doubt you know much about my worldview. Please do not make assertions about it.

I said nothing of the sort.

Yeshua1 was being quite unclear with his assertions. I simply wanted to separate the truth of the statement, "Black Live Matter" from the organization that runs the website, Black Lives Matter (just like the person in the video you posted).

It is definitely a statement. It is also the name of an organization that has a website.

Funny, there's a website out there...

Supremacist? Not sure about that. They want to increase black power (social, political, economic, etc.), but that's not the same thing as supremacy.

Yes, there are some Marxists in leadership of the organization, but that doesn't mean people who use the phrase "Black Lives Matter" are Marxists, nor does it mean that those who marched last year are Marxists.

So we can't talk about or deal with systemic racism because some Marxists are also against systemic racism?

 

First, the statement specifically says Christians should support social justice lawsuits and social justice changes in the law. That changes the focus off the proclamation of the gospel.

Second, you stated Christians should be concerned with discipleship which no one denies.

You then change the definition of discipleship to include support of social justice lawsuits and laws. That is a common tactic from those holding radical liberal ideology.

They attempt to control the conversation by redefining words already accepted in the society.

peace to you

 

This may be mere semantics, but I see scripture as portraying salvation as a one-time instantaneous event and sanctification as a lifelong process for those who are saved. For me, discipleship is a necessary part of sanctification.

 

Too bad he wasn't more proactive. The issue of Marxist infiltration is front and center in both society and the church making it a fundamental concern with respect to his own. Ignoring it is akin to permitting it to wreak havoc and destroy whatever chances there were of moving forward rather than backward per his own ideas.

Instead of brushing it off with a bare mention, he should have made clear at the outset that he rejects it outright and given good reasons why. At best, his approach will be interpreted as a deep insult by those he should be trying to reach. Of course, your own attitudes toward it don’t make you the best representative either.

 

True. However, that doesn't mean a blanket, mindless support of whatever happens, but a reasoned, Christ-honoring support of appropriate legal challenges.

If you define the gospel as only atonement, then that would be true. But that's not the gospel Jesus preached. Jesus introduced and explained His ministry this way:

And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the scroll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. And He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”​

And He rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all the people in the synagogue were intently directed at Him. Now He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”​

The gospel of Jesus has all kinds of social/political implications. It is not a political movement, but it changes the way in which disciples of Jesus have to approach politics.

However, the gospel of Jesus was reduced down to a focus on atonement. It was designed to disengage the socio-political consequences of the gospel by focusing on "heaven" and getting ready to die, instead of having a message on how to live beyond some superficial elements of propriety. It was well-designed for a slaveholding society. In fact, there was even a Bible published for slaves that edited out whole passages and books that might make enslaved blacks think that God might think slavery is a bad thing. For instance, the whole account of the children of Israel's slavery in Egypt was removed. You can look at it for yourself.

Maybe, maybe not. There's a surprising amount of pushback on discipleship, with some claiming discipleship is adding works to salvation.

I'm not changing "the definition" of discipleship, since Jesus clearly told His disciples to love their neighbors and do good for others. Doing good for others includes defending them and being advocates for justice for those who are oppressed. Only persons who have an extremely narrow view of discipleship (more narrow than Jesus) can eliminate the social responsibilities of being a disciple. The famous parable of the sheep and the goats illustrates that point explicitly (see Matthew 25:31-46)

I don't know about "radical liberal theology," but I do know that someone who wants to be a disciple of Jesus has to take His words seriously. I can't do anything else if I am going to be faithful. Otherwise, I would be calling Him "Lord, Lord" but not doing what He says to do (Luke 6:46)

I'm not trying to control the conversation or control anyone. I'm trying to point people to Jesus. He's the One Who makes these demands.

 

I think there comes a place where we pass the threshold from death to life, but a person might not always recognize that moment. Baptists tend to emphasize a dramatic conversion experience, likely based on the experience of Saul on the road to Damascus, but there are many who grow up in a Christian home, with lots of Christian influence, and they naturally and gradually come to a faith that is there own by simply saying yes to God at every step of the faith journey. In denominations that do not stress an instant conversion, you will find lots of people who are clearly Christians, demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, who don't know if they crossed the threshold of faith when they were five years old in Kindergarten Sunday School class, when the teacher told them that Jesus loves the little children and they can trust him, or when they were in Middle School and they had an experience with the presence of God that moved them into making some changes to the way they interacted with others, or when they were an older teenager and set aside their childhood faith for a much deeper adult faith. The Holy Spirit was almost certainly working through all those experiences (and much more), and it was all part of a journey.

Even for those of us who had a clear demarcation where we crossed the threshold of faith into the Kingdom of God, everything that happened before was used by the Holy Spirit to move us to that place, so it really didn't happen at an instant, but I know what you mean.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I would just point out that conversion is the first step of discipleship, and we probably shouldn't separate them in matters of practical theology.

 

That was not the purpose of the book I cited. He has written others, but I have not read them. He readily admits that there is much more to discuss beyond the focus of his book, which is simply exposing the problem of systemic racism. Until one understands systemic racism, they will see every attempt to confront systemic racism as some sort of competing political or religious ideology.

I have to fundamentally disagree with you. I'm guessing you haven't read the book, although you are trying to make a case for no one to read it. You are condemning something that would probably be helpful to you because it does not condemn a specific issue you want condemned.

That's like claiming the Bible is useless because it does not explicitly condemn high cable television bills.

I can tell you why he doesn't address it. It is irrelevant to his focus. He is talking about scripture and the history of evangelicals and systemic racism.

A person has to be ridiculously sensitive to feel a deep insult from an author he has never read, regarding a book that was never read, about a subject that is different from the one the potential reader might want to read.

I should note that he does mention "Black Lives Matter" in a chapter at the end of the book as a part of a survey of contemporary issues. He distinguishes the phrase, "Black Lives Matter," from the organization, and suggests that "the national presence of Black Lives Matter, as both an organization and a concept, should prompt critical engagement rather than reflexive rejection." He notes that the Black Lives Matter organization is not a religious organization at the top level, but that many religious people are involved in the local expressions of the group, with local Christian ministers setting the agenda for local work. He also notes that the national leadership has an emphasis on LGBTQ+ causes (my phrasing) and abortion that are opposed to the values of most evangelicals.

But again, The Color of Compromise is NOT a book on CRT or BLM, but on the reality of systemic racism as shown through scripture and easily accessible history. To condemn it because it doesn't cover your pet issues is to completely miss the point.

 

So again, you change the definition of discipleship by focusing on “social justice” and claiming Jesus was in favor of a Marxist, secular, political movement.

Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world. Jesus told us to reject the things of the world. Jesus said to seek first the Kingdom of God.

Paul said he determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Apparently Paul isn’t “woke” enough for you.

You claim His message was changed by Christians to be focused of salvation and heaven. Utter nonsense.

You are changing His message to “don’t focus on salvation and getting to heaven”, but rather focus on social justice lawsuits and secular laws.

Peace to you

 

That really missed the point of my post, but that seems all too typical. I’ll just drop it and let Tisby be right in his self-fulfilling prophecy that people will reject his ideas because they align with worldly views.

Supporting BLM “at the local level” would be akin to supporting government funded pro-abortion Planned Parenthood while claiming one is personally pro-life.

 

Nope.

Discipleship is not 'focused' on social justice, but social justice is a part of discipleship. Why is that so hard to grasp? Perhaps because it is something you don't want to acknowledge?

Nope. Never said any such thing. That would be like me saying that if one opposes abortion, then you must support bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors who perform abortions.

You have really gone off the rails in your attempt to misrepresent my position.

That's right. It is not powered by the same things this world is powered by. We don't use violence or the sword to expand the Kingdom of God. At the same time, we are IN the world, and THIS world is to be TRANSFORMED by the Kingdom of God. That's part of our discipleship, to do the work of God in the world. Did the Samaritan say to the man beaten and bloody on the side of the road, "God's Kingdom is not of this world. Better luck in heaven!" Nope. He got personally involved. He was the one who loved his neighbor, which is one of the most fundamental commandments of Jesus. Social justice is the love of one's neighbor, and that happens IN THIS WORLD, but it is empowered by the Kingdom of the heavens.

You are making a fundamental error that could be made clearer in English translations. The world most often translated "world" is κόσμος (transliterated as kosmos or cosmos). There are at least three different meanings.

(1) It literally refers to the planet earth.
(2) It refers to the inhabitants of the earth, both God's people and those who reject God.
(3) The activities, affairs, systems, advantages, and accumulated assets of the worldly persons.

We are not to love the cosmos in the third sense, but we are to love the world in the first and second sense. In the first sense, because it is God's creation that we are supposed to steward, and in the second sense, because God loves the people of the world -- “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him." (John 3:16-17).

We are to love what God loves, so we love the inhabitants of this world -- we love our neighbor -- and work for justice. This is ridiculously simple, unless you don't want to understand.

Yes, and the Kingdom of God is inextricably linked to social justice. As NT Wright has put it:

...the whole point of the Gospels is that the coming of God's kingdom on earth as in heaven is precisely not the imposition of an alien and dehumanizing tyranny, but rather the confrontation of alien and dehumanizing tyrannies with the news of a God -- the God recognized in Jesus -- who is radically different from them all, and whose inbreaking justice aims at rescuing and restoring genuine humanness...

Yes, Jesus did, as Paul says, die for our sins, but his whole agenda of dealing with sin and all its effects and consequences was never about rescuing individual souls from the world but about saving humans so that they could become part of his project of saving the world. "My kingdom is not from this world," he said to Pilate; had it been, he would have led an armed resistance movement like other worldly kingdom-prophets. But the kingdom he brought was emphatically for this world, which meant and means that God has arrived on the public stage and is not about to leave it again; he has thus defeated the forces both of tyranny and of chaos -- both of shrill modernism and of fluffy postmodernism, if you like -- and established in their place a rule of restorative, healing justice...​

If you are going to quote Paul, please respect him enough to quote him honestly and fairly, in context, so you don't distort his meaning:

1 Corinthians 2:1-5
And when I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come as someone superior in speaking ability or wisdom, as I proclaimed to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I also was with you in weakness and fear, and in great trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of mankind, but on the power of God.​

Just a glance at that passage shows that it does not mean anything like you claim. Paul was speaking about a particular situation in Corinth, having them recall his manner in which he approached them, quite different than the way Paul preached in other places. Paul had quite a bit to say, even in this same letter to the Corinthians that went well beyond "Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

Actually, Paul is too "woke" for YOU. If you read him carefully -- not just misquote memory verses -- you will see that he had quite a bit to say about the way Jesus opening up the Kingdom of God has changed the way everyone must relate to each other. In his writings, Paul lays a time bomb at the feet of slavery and patriarchy, which will cause both to be challenged by contemporary and future generations of Christians, but I know you can't handle that right now and it goes beyond the most important points here.

Then how do you explain that the emphasis on the "if you die tonight, will you be in heaven?" theology that permeates evangelicalism? It is nothing like the message Jesus, Paul, and the New Testament writers teach.

The shift began during the First Great Awakening in the United States, with George Whitefield (slave owner) and Jonathan Edwards (slave owner), among others. The preaching and teaching tended to focus on the heaven vs. hell dynamic instead of a fuller gospel message. Feel free to try refute that with facts, not bluster and accusations.

Please show me all the passages in the Gospels where Jesus talks about getting to heaven (not the Kingdom of heaven/God, but getting to heaven). You won't find much. That's when you have to wonder why Jesus talked about so many other things, and then you notice that He focuses on the Kingdom of God. When He sends the 12 out by themselves (and the 72 later), He empowers them to heal and proclaim that the Kingdom of God has come near. The Kingdom of God is not just about the future and "spiritual" things, it is about restoration of health, justice and life.

You don't understand the message of Jesus.

 

The "point" of your post was based on your imagination, not what the book is about.

It's not "self-fulfilling," you are the one fulfilling it. Despite my efforts, you insist upon it.

The Beatles sang, "All You Need is Love." They didn't really understand true love or the need for God to empower it, but does that mean you should reject the teaching of Jesus on loving one's neighbor, just because both the Beatles and Jesus talk about love?

That's essentially your thinking process.

You refuse to make the distinction between the organization BLM and the principle of "Black Lives Matter" (which often has no connection to the organization -- even locally).

 

We’ve addressed this before. The principle of “Black Lives Matter” is that only black lives matter or that black lives matter more than other lives. One cannot alter the formulation “Black Lives Matter” without incurring serious, even dangerous pushback. Having to formulate it precisely that way is a sign that it is a Black Supremacist Marxist cult and anyone using the formulation is in league with it. Christians should not allow themselves to be deceived into supporting it.

Here are some examples of much better formulations that would help distance true non-racists from the “Black Lives Matter” cult: Black lives matter too. Black lives matter as much as other lives. Black lives matter, because all lives matter. All lives matter, therefore black lives matter.

 

Nope, that's incorrect. "Black Lives Matter" because it seems to many African-Americans that the US law enforcement and legal culture doesn't seem to recognize it. It is a cry for people to pay attention to what is happening, not because black lives are MORE valuable than others, but that they are AS valuable as others. But moreover, Jesus is pointing out God's focus. God's focus is on the persons in need, not the ones that are in good shape.

Jesus gave an illustration of this principle:

Matthew 18:12-14
“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains, and go and search for the one that is lost? And if it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray. So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.​

I imagine that someone thought about saying to Jesus, "All sheep matter!" You have 99% of them, and that one sheep 'went astray.' Whose fault was that? Let the sheep die and take care of the 99%. How do you think Jesus would respond?

When I say "Black Live Matter," I am pointing toward the value of the one sheep that is in need of rescue. They are beloved in the sight of the Great Shepherd.

I find it quite interesting that almost none of you are quoting scripture, just giving arguments and making accusations. The one person who quoted scripture misquoted it... Why can't you bring me an argument based on scripture?

People get pushback because they are misrepresented what is being said and demonstrating that they are more concerned about their place than the welfare of their neighbor.

So you are part of the "All sheep matter" group?

That's what it means, if you would actually listen to what persons who claim that saying. It was not originally written to a white audience, but it took off virally and persons of all ethnic backgrounds embraced it because they understood the meaning.

It is congruent with the teaching of Jesus. The one lost sheep matters.

 

I realize that is the fantasy, but it is not the reality. The BLM slogan "Black Lives Matter" is not a Christian concept.

I’ll believe black lives matter to those spouting the slogan when black lives matter to blacks, that is, when the black on black crime rate goes way down and when blacks stop having abortions, in other words, when “All Black Lives Matter.” Until then, they’re not fooling anyone but themselves.

 

No, it is something less than Christian, but it is congruent with the teachings of Jesus.

If the evangelical church and Baptists had their acts together and were involved in social justice advocacy, there would be no need for the "Black Lives Matter" movement. But since so-called Christians refuse to do it, non-religious people are trying to do the right thing. It is scandalous to the church, but not for the reasons you think it is. It is the scandal of the Samaritan being a true neighbor to the injured man beside the road instead of the religious people who passed him by.

In other words, 'I will love my enemies when they become a good person like me.'

That's the motto of anti-christ.

You've fooled yourself.

 

I understand well enough to be certain Jesus would not want Christians to focus on supporting a Marxist, secular political agenda instead of making disciples that love God and their neighbors.

You are changing the meaning of discipleship that includes support of a Marxist, secular political agenda that robs the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified of its primacy in a Christian’s life.

I find your arguments to be intellectually dishonest. Therefore, I see no reason to continue this conversation with you.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

I agree. I’ve never advocated such a thing.

Disciples that love God and love their neighbors/enemies, will also be advocates for justice for their neighbors/enemies BECAUSE they love them.

Nope. If that’s all you understood, you have not been paying attention.

Your focus on the atonement is a reduction of the gospel to atonement theory, not what Jesus taught.

I have come to you with scripture, reason and history and asked you to engage. You have done more than most, but you fundamentally refused to actually take what I am writing seriously. You simply repeat the “Marxist” mantra.

 

I understand and partially agree with your arguments concerning our relationships with others and scriptural support for such.

Where I disagree is the leap you make to claim “social justice” is a focus of the gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ.

This “social justice” movement we have today is a Marxist secular ideology that does not resemble the teachings of our Lord Jesus. To argue this “social justice” movement is supported by the teachings of Jesus is intellectually dishonest.

Back to the OP.

This resolution by the SBC takes the focus of the gospel of Jesus Christ and places the focus on a Marxist secular political ideology.

peace to you

 

Thank you for circling back and making these comments. This is quite helpful.

I’m glad to see this. I could not understand why you, a reasonable person, didn’t seem to agree with that emphasis.

I disagree, but I see where you are going.

For the most part, this is correct. What we have with BLM national leadership and with much of CRT is a secular attempt to do something that the church should have taken care of a long time ago.

But instead of attacking people who, according to their own understanding, are trying to do the right thing, we should engage with them and redirect the conversation and focus (like many Christians who have participated in BLM marches) since social justice (not the Marxist way) is a concern of the gospel.

Part of Kingdom work is to redeem social movements and use our influence for good.

I certainly don’t believe the gospel of Jesus is congruent with Marxism, but it is congruent with statements like Black Lives Matter.

I read it simply as a call to engage with social justice advocates, not to uncritically just jump on the bandwagon. Instead of the old-fashioned “cancelling” (boycotts) that the SBC has tried for years, it seems like a good change of pace to actually engage in our culture as Christians.

We need to keep in mind that these resolutions are not binding, but are used to help Baptists think more deeply about ways to engage our culture.

How would you modify the wording of the statement to resolve your concerns?[/quote]