Montana Church Pledges to Leave SBC Over ERLC's Promotion of Social Justice at MLK Conference

Upon further reflection, I should have aimed my fiery comment about MLK50 at Anayabwile’s article, and those who agree with him. I apologize.

To zoom out to the larger issue which prompted the MLK50 conference (and J.D. Hall’s own virtue signaling, which prompted this post), my general disgust with this entire approach …

1. MLK50’s own framing of racial reconciliation in its promo materials,
2. some excerpts I’ve seen from this conference,
3. and the whole concept of corporate racial reconciliation in general

… is because I don’t believe it’s framed in a biblical or constructive way. My two main concerns, as I wrote before, is that this approach undercuts these two principles:

1. self-identity for believers is only in Christ, and
2. people are responsible and will be judged for their own individual sins, not the collective sins of their ethnic people group or nation.

No matter how carefully the MLK50 speakers nuanced their approach, and no matter how substantive and scholarly the authors are whom you mentioned (and I’ve no doubt they are scholarly and careful), Anayabwile’s article is representative of the popular face of this movement. And, I believe that approach destroys those two principles! There is a movement in evangelicalism which is caving into a cycle of perpetual self-recrimination for white Christians. For goodness’ sake, David Platt just preached a sermon at T4G in which he advocated for racial reconciliation on the basis of Amos 5:18-27. This is eisegesis gone mad.

The framing is the issue, Joel. There’s a foreign lens being employed here. How can I, personally, repent for racial sins in my ancestor’s past? How can I “build a multi-ethnic” congregation, as Platt says I ought to? Should I target my evangelism, in a way affirmative-action advocates would appreciate? What on earth should I do? We preach the Gospel to everyone, and let God call His people. What on earth does the skin color of the flock have to do with anything? How can I shape the skin color of my congregation, and why should I even worry about it?

I suspect this is an American aberration. I shudder to think what this kind of lens would do to small Christian churches in Israel, or in majority Muslim countries. Would this filter work in that context? Would it even be appropriate? Let’s step outside our American comfort zone, and consider the wisdom of this dangerous approach!

I appreciate your perspective, Joel. I just think Anayabwile’s perspective (which, I believe, is the popular face of what the MLK50 folks are advocating) is wrong. So very, very wrong. So very, very dangerous.

I wish we could have a conversation in person, Joel. I’d be so much easier than these comment boxes! If you’d consider turning your comments into an article about racial reconciliation (what it is, what it looks like, why it’s necessary), then I think it would make an excellent and substantive front-page article for Aaron to consider for publication. I’d personally be very interested to hear a substantive argument for this; I’ve never heard one.

I’ve lived overseas for many years, and attended international congregations that were far more multi-ethnic than any I’ve ever seen in the States. Based on these experiences, here’s my take on churches trying to make themselves more multi-ethnic:
The unvarnished though arguably lamentable reality is that people (with few but notable exceptions) seek out others that are like them in some way, esp. that share relatively similar experiences or cultural backgrounds. Thus, people largely tend to gravitate toward churches filled with people that are like them in those things they consider significant. Think of young people attracted to a church filled with young people, for example. etc.
I can think of only two sets of circumstances whereby this may be overcome.

1) If the range of acceptable churches from which to choose becomes narrowed (as in many overseas situations) and…
2) If the differences dividing the minority believer from those in more majority-homogenous congregations somehow lose significance (so those of us with English and Irish ancestry are freely mingling without hesitation, for example).
Given that neither of these options is likely to happen anytime soon in your typical American community, I think we need to be careful that a focus on building a multi-ethnic congregation remain a laudable but tertiary goal.

Andrew K’s previous post got me thinking. Are Korean, Hispanic, and African-American churches concerned that they are not multi-ethnic?

Ron, very often ethnic churches are primarily described among linguistic lines as much as along ethnic lines, especially Hispanic churches, but you would be correct that many ethnic churches continue to be a mostly mono-ethnic church even when they share a common language with the host culture.

And the result—as anyone who grew up near Chicago or Detroit might be aware—is that these mono-ethnic churches wither as soon as the host ethnicity gets a bit more prosperous and moves to the suburbs. That’s why the Catholics have closed so many churches in inner cities—they never transitioned from being the Polish/Italian/German church to being the community’s church. I’d argue it’s a very regrettable consequence not just of chance, but of the European practice of the state supporting the church.

In the same way, many evangelical and fundamental churches (e.g. 4th, South Baptist of Lansing, MI in the 1980s and 1990s) find themselves doing OK, but with little connection to the neighborhoods they supposedly serve.

So far starters, I’d argue that needlessly maintaining a mono-ethnic or racially homogeneous church in a heterogeneous community is a waste of resources. It’s also hard to reconcile with the fact that the original deacons were chosen as a result of a squabble between two groups (Judean and Grecian Jews), the fact that the church rapidly moved from a solely Jewish context to a mixed Jewish-Gentile context, and the like.

And for that matter, let’s try to imagine whether John Perkins would have gotten the snot beaten out of him if he had been at the same church as those jailers. The simple reality of the matter is that when we’re around people who look and think differently than we do, they show us our blind spots.

I agree with Tyler’s point about the folly of repenting for the sins committed by people who lived and died before we were born. If the underlying principles leading to such repentance are accurate and in force, then the applications go far beyond racial dynamics in America.

In 1939 Nazi Germany invaded Poland and their U-boats started sinking British ships. Nazi atrocities over the next 6 years would shock the world.

I have not yet had the DNA ancestry test, but based on my known family history I am roughly 45% German, roughly 40% British, with some Dutch and French mixed in.

So do I need to apologize to myself?

If I get the DNA test and my German share turns out larger, do I need to apologize twice?

[Darrell Post]

I agree with Tyler’s point about the folly of repenting for the sins committed by people who lived and died before we were born. If the underlying principles leading to such repentance are accurate and in force, then the applications go far beyond racial dynamics in America.

In 1939 Nazi Germany invaded Poland and their U-boats started sinking British ships. Nazi atrocities over the next 6 years would shock the world.

I have not yet had the DNA ancestry test, but based on my known family history I am roughly 45% German, roughly 40% British, with some Dutch and French mixed in.

So do I need to apologize to myself?

If I get the DNA test and my German share turns out larger, do I need to apologize twice?

Andrew, you are right. Some of the articles I have read indicate how surprised many people are when they get the test (granted, it is in the financial interest to push surprises so more will want to pay for the test). But often people wrongly assume a grandparent is 100% Irish based only on the fact the grandparent has an Irish name and came to America from the emerald isle. But digging further back, ancestors may have moved from a different European country to Ireland.

I know from someone who took the DNA test that their database is still very much a work in progress. So they repeatedly send out updates showing how your estimated ethnicity has changed based on the latest research.

[Darrell Post]

Andrew, you are right. Some of the articles I have read indicate how surprised many people are when they get the test (granted, it is in the financial interest to push surprises so more will want to pay for the test). But often people wrongly assume a grandparent is 100% Irish based only on the fact the grandparent has an Irish name and came to America from the emerald isle. But digging further back, ancestors may have moved from a different European country to Ireland.

I know from someone who took the DNA test that their database is still very much a work in progress. So they repeatedly send out updates showing how your estimated ethnicity has changed based on the latest research.

True, but most geneticists agree that on the continental level, they are quite accurate. National is where it gets tricky. English, Dutch, and Scandinavians, for example, are pretty much genetically the same people. Thank you, Vikings. :O

…..it was in the distant past, Darrell. Again, BJU’s interracial dating policy persisted until 2000, Wilson’s pamphlet came out first in 1996 and was then reissued in 2005 under the name “Black and Tan”, and quite frankly a lot of the arguments I’ve seen for older music in the church more or less boil down to “white Protestants’ music prior to Elvis is OK, other peoples’ music not so much.” Check out Anthony Bradley’s twitter feed (and other public sites) for more examples. Check out J.D. Hall’s site “Pulpit and Pen.” (quite frankly, Hall inadvertently makes Anyabwile’s point for him, but isn’t smart enough to realize he’s done it) Ask Joel about the DWB (driving while black) citations he’s seen. Even if we are not aware of racist things we’ve done personally, the sheer volume of idiocy over the past four centuries and continuing into today means we are going to have to make some adjustments.

And put bluntly, if we’re blind to this, it is going to kill our ministry among people who see it all too clearly. And let’s be blunt about the matter; didn’t God tell us to minister first in Jerusalem, then Samaria, then the rest of the world? What, then, is to be made of a situation where we drive right past the neighborhoods surrounding our church buildings to do ministry somewhere else?

“we are going to have to make some adjustments.”

Who is ‘we’ and what adjustments? I attend a diverse church that reflects the immediate community and race is not an issue. We have families whose ancestry comes from Asia, Africa, and Europe and the warmth and fellowship among all the people is apparent every time we assemble. I don’t know that we have any members who originate from South America, but we did send missionaries there. But it is truly refreshing to be in a place where we are all one in Christ regardless where we came from.

For those who are interested in seeing your church develop into a multi-racial congregation, we have seen positive results from the following.

1) Genuinely and warmly invite people “of color” to your church services. 2) Invite sound preachers from minority races to preach from your pulpit. 3) Encourage families in your congregation to adopt multi-racial children. (We have at least five families who have adopted black children.) 4) Encourage families to host foreign exchange students who are racial minorities in America. 5) Preach on the sin of racial discrimination. 6) Begin an ESL ministry. (English as a second language.)

I’m sure there are others, but those are the ones that come readily to mind. It took several years of working at it before we successfully saw black Christians become members of our congregation, but we now have Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in our church. It seems so natural now that we rarely give it a second thought. One of our black men is a deacon and Sunday School teacher. I see other promising minorities that I hope to see become involved in ministry soon.

[Bert Perry]

…..it was in the distant past, Darrell. Again, BJU’s interracial dating policy persisted until 2000, Wilson’s pamphlet came out first in 1996 and was then reissued in 2005 under the name “Black and Tan”, and quite frankly a lot of the arguments I’ve seen for older music in the church more or less boil down to “white Protestants’ music prior to Elvis is OK, other peoples’ music not so much.” Check out Anthony Bradley’s twitter feed (and other public sites) for more examples. Check out J.D. Hall’s site “Pulpit and Pen.” (quite frankly, Hall inadvertently makes Anyabwile’s point for him, but isn’t smart enough to realize he’s done it) Ask Joel about the DWB (driving while black) citations he’s seen. Even if we are not aware of racist things we’ve done personally, the sheer volume of idiocy over the past four centuries and continuing into today means we are going to have to make some adjustments.

And put bluntly, if we’re blind to this, it is going to kill our ministry among people who see it all too clearly. And let’s be blunt about the matter; didn’t God tell us to minister first in Jerusalem, then Samaria, then the rest of the world? What, then, is to be made of a situation where we drive right past the neighborhoods surrounding our church buildings to do ministry somewhere else?

Bert, I don’t think it matters how long in the past something was — it matters what we have done, approved of, or encouraged. There were plenty of us at BJU in the 1980’s, a good 15-20 years before BJU’s apology, who thought the interracial dating policy was stupid, wrong-headed, and just flat-out wrong. Having attended there does not make us responsible for the policy any more than anyone else who has attended or worked for an organization that has policies they disagree with (and who hasn’t?).

BJU was right to apologize corporately for a corporate wrong, and if my current church had encouraged racism in its policies, leadership, or even attitudes fostered among the congregation, then a corporate apology would make sense. That hasn’t happened, and even though our church is largely (but not completely) white in composition, we don’t need to apologize for what others have done, or how others have been treated historically, though we would happily express our disagreement with and opposition to such wrong actions and attitudes. We do have families who have adopted children of other races. We have one black/white couple at our church. We welcome and are friendly to anyone who attends, no matter what culture or race (or level of piercings, etc. that might be considered “outside the norm”). We have had speakers from other races. We strive to act biblically, in every way we can.

What we are NOT going to do, is to try anything artificial to try to get the church to be more multi-racial, and it’s not specifically one of our goals. We want to reach the people around us (and there are a lot of people from different cultures and backgrounds in the greater Research Triangle area here). We do want our church to reflect those around us, but we are not going specifically after people from any one race or culture in order to get our church to “diversify,” though we will certainly welcome diversity that comes naturally through God adding to the church those he chooses to. We won’t be talking about “white privilege,” “racial reconciliation,” or any of those concepts. What we will do is, as Tyler said above, preach the unity of all Christians in Christ, reach out to people from every people, tribe, language, and nation, and we certainly will firmly preach against and put down any racist attitudes or actions by anyone in the church. We have a hard enough job preaching and teaching what is in the Word. Crusading for racial justice is not on the agenda, though justice that comes by changing lives through preaching the Gospel is always welcome.

Having read Anyabwile’s article along with the push backs from WIlson and White and Anyabwile’s responses, I am not in agreement with Anyabwile’s view of corporate repentance. It is way too broad and actually undermines the value of corporate repentance. I think if everything is corporate repentance (including Christians corporately repenting for MLK’s death from 50 years ago) than nothing is corporate repentance. As much as I’ve liked many of Anyabwile’s other articles concerning race, this was one where he went off the rails.

An example of how I think corporate repentance can be appropriately handled was when the GARBC over 20 years ago corporately repented of refusing to allow a group of Black fundamental Baptist churches join the GARBC back in 1960 or 1961. So in response to being rejected by the GARBC, this group of black churches formed their own association (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association) The sinful decision to refuse these black fundamental Baptist churches was not only made by powerful individuals within the GARBC , but it was made representing a non-profit corporation fellowship of over 1000 GARBC churches. Individual sin from powerful individuals in this situation affected a religious system of churches, and the sinful religious system affected individuals within the GARBC. By the early 1970’s, the GARBC began to open its doors for fellowship to all churches (not just white churches) and with the focus by GARBC approved agency Baptist Mid-Missions planting African-American congregations and the development of Crossroads Baptist Bible College, as black and white Baptist Christians and Churches were intersecting with each other, many realized that there was a giant elephant in the room (which was that the GARBC as an entity had sinned against those who are part of the FBFA). So the GARBC leaders (board members/national representative) publicly repented of the past GARBC’s sin against this group of black Baptist Churches and the FBFA publicly forgave them at a GARBC national conference (it may have been a joint conference with the FBFA….my memory is hazy). This also led to reconciliation where there is no harbored resentment between both groups. In fact, several of the FBFA churches now hold dual memberships between both the GARBC and the FBFA. They’ve had joint conferences together and have been enriched by fellowship with each other. Dr. Charles Ware (President of Crossroads Bible College) has been a key figure through the whole process of both repentance and reconciliation. I recommend his books “Prejudice and the People of God: How Revelation and Redemption leads to Reconciliation” and a couple books that he co-authored with Ken Ham, “Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots” and One Race, One Blood.” And I think Ham is at his best when he argues against the sociological implications of evolution.

Although many on Sharper Iron believe that Anyabwile’s view on corporate repentance is the popular view by those who attended the MLK conference, I would encourage everyone to withhold their assumptions about the secular influence on identity politics of the attendees and become listeners first. Yes, you will hear about systems of sin/racism that still exist today, but also you will hear some surprising things as well. I had to chuckle to myself when people were getting worked up about this conference and its “liberal/progressive” leanings and I had heard live one of the African-American speakers (can’t remember which one right now) publicly denounce in his message at the conference how certain churches (within his SBC denomination) were hiring black associate pastors at mega-churches that weren’t qualified. That doesn’t fit the “politically-correct” narrative of those who oppose this conference have assumed. At the same time, because evangelicalism (even among conservative evangelicals) are not monolithic in its theological and social-political beliefs, there are probably some that are more secular in their approach and back up their arguments with eisegesis. I haven’t had time to view Platt’s sermon from the T4G conference, but preaching about racial reconciliation from Amos 5 is off the rails as well, when he easily could’ve gone to several passages in Paul’s epistles and even a few passages throughout Acts. I have a few thoughts about diversity and multi-ethnic churches to share, but I will have to wait a little bit because of my time limitations.

Tyler, I may take you up on writing an article about Racial Reconciliation on Sharper Iron, although I won’t be able to start on it for a few months.