SBC Chief Parliamentarian in Flap Over Racially Offensive Photo

Without seeing the image, I'm not sure, but I will take Dr. Patterson at his word. Dr. Patterson grew up in the same place I did and he knows about racism in both mild and extreme manifestations.

Full Disclosure: I know one of the professors involved and he is generally quite clueless about things like this. That's not to say he is a bad person, but he is not terribly wise about other cultures or people groups.

 

Just found the photo.

Not as bad as I feared. I can see how some sensitive people might be offended (primarily because of the gang signs and pistol) or might interpret that these very white bread middle age guys have appropriated a subculture's style of dress for a humorous photo.

I don't think it is wise, but it is not as bad as I feared.

 

I find this statement very offensive and can't believe you would use a term like this on a public forum.

What do you have against middle aged guys?




God bless.

 

I really do not care. If people want to be offended, they will find something to get up in arms about.

 

We can be quite lame.

 

Here's another report of the story: Seminary professors’ rapper photo roils social media – Baptist News Global

I think the idea was stupid and in bad judgment, but I think "racially offensive" is sort of an overstatement. Re rap, both the genre and the culture exist beyond racial boundaries, as JonC points out, and I think there are also people of all races who are offended by it. So I don't think the photo was in good taste, but also think playing the "race card" is overkill.

 

Here is Dwight McKissic's take on the affair:
THE ABSENCE OF A DIVERSE FACULTY AT SWBTS, CREATED AND ENLARGED THE CURRENT CULTURAL CHASM

 

Thanks for sharing this resource.

 

I really have to question a guy who speaks from a cultural standpoint rather than a Christian standpoint.

Either he's not a believer, or he's not at all mature.

"Black community" is nonsense coming from the lips of a Christian, and that "leader" should know that. There is no distinction in Christ. Male, Female, Jew, Greek....

Colossians 3:10-13

Maybe he doesn't have a "new self" from which to speak? Or he has quenched the Holy Spirit?

 

We are Christians. We also live in at least one culture. We need to be wise about the cultures we live in so that the cross-cultural message can be heard on its own terms.

As much as one can know about another, he is a believer. He appears to be also mature in Christ. This is not his first rodeo.

He pastors a church that has an ethnically diverse congregation. Probably more ethnically diverse than 90% of Baptist churches. In the United States, there is a long history of segregated worship that arose after the Civil War as a result of the new realities of the African-American experience, cultural pressures, and various traditions that developed to compensate for lack of political and social power, and the poor state of education for many newly freed slaves. As Jim Crow laws developed and persisted, Protestant "white" and "colored" churches developed separately for more than 100 years before there began to be some cross-pollination. Even 50 years after Jim Crow laws faded away, the traditions have remained largely separate, although there is a lot of fellowship between congregations - at least in my experience.

I think you are making false judgments in ignorance. I am not accusing you of malice, racism, or anything of the sort. I just think you are overlooking historical realities. Churches should be ethnically diverse, just as we should be spiritually and emotionally healthy places where every church members is discipled, all are growing in grace, evangelism is a natural lifestyle, and each church grow by at least 10% every year. But most churches are not there yet.

It is my hope that churches will become more ethnically diverse in the coming years, but for most, it will be a slow process.

 

First, what does being wise entail?
Second, what scriptures teach what you're saying?

He's absolutely not mature if his Christianity revolves around ethnic/social/economic philosophy. Or if be thinks the world's opinion is as important as what scripture teaches.

So what?

Again, so what? This one issue could turn into a book.

Scripture gives no promises (nor sets any goals) of social equality, political voice, monetary success or influence, educational access, nor any other humanitarian "me-ism" for Christians

I've stared at this section for a half-hour trying to discover the pertinence....I got nuthin'

Of course I am. There's nothing in the NT which teaches us to develop or beliefs, structures, or expectations in harmony with a culture around us

Should be?
What do you base that on? I don't see any scriptural teaching that one way or the other is inherently good or bad.

I believe a good scriptural case can be made that ethnic segregation is sinful, if done so that "we" don't have to have "them" around us. And that would relate to any ethnic group who counts their brothers in Christ as less.

I don't see anything wrong with ethnic "huddling" (for lack of a better word) because of language barriers, etc.

I'm in agreement with this.

Like I said already, scripture doesn't speak one way or the other on ethnic diversity, unless ethnicity becomes as important (or more important) than one's standing in Christ. Then it's shameful and immature

 

Conducting oneself with care, being careful not to give unnecessary offense.

I'm thinking about the ways that Paul engaged the cultures he confronted. His approach to his reasoning with the Athenians in Acts 17 is a beautiful example of picking up cultural issues and presenting Christ in a context where He could be understood more easily.

It is insane to offend a culture that you are trying to reach with anything other than the gospel.

I'm just giving you some context for the person you are condemning. You don't have to have context to condemn, so I'm sure that's useless information to you.

History and cultural context is not a "so what?" issue for those who are interested in reaching a culture.

Of course not, but the African-American church community of faith became a place where broader concerns and struggles were managed. It was one of the only places where groups of former slaves could gather together in large numbers for meetings without the white population getting nervous.

I'm just giving you context though. You don't need that if you have already condemned it all.

It is irrelevant information to you, but something that many of us understand.

Except you do it every day. You most likely present the gospel in an extrabiblical language, operated from a Western post-Enlightenment point of view (even if you know what that is an reject it, you are being influenced by it), you are living in a certain culture that has expectations about time, responsibility, virtues, initiative, social obligations, etc. To claim you are free of those influences only confirms that you are unknowingly captive to them.

Churches are expressions of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom should be drawing people from every tribe and nation, so the church should reflect the community it is planted in.

I won't cast it as wrong, but I do think it is an incomplete expression of the Kingdom of God. Even The Twelve that walked with Jesus were a cross-section of society that featured a diverse group, including a former tax collector (Roman collaborator) and a zealot (Roman opposer). The women who walked with Jesus ranged from a former prostitute to a member of Herod's household (see Luke 8:3).

You aren't going to find many verses that explicitly teach it, but in practice, it's all over the book of Acts and Paul's letters. Acts shows people of all known nations coming to faith and receiving the Spirit - even Samaritans. Paul greets leaders in the church that are an diverse as those in slavery and persons in Caesar's household (Philippians 4:22).