Been following the Southern Baptist Convention goings-on via twitter. Really started when I noticed an explosion of #sbc17 coming across my feed re: one particular resolution that was not passed. There was a resolution to condemn nationalism, racism, and specifically white nationalism and the alt-right movement. Sadly, the resolution failed to even make it out of the resolutions committee.

Ed Stetzer nailed it when he started in on twitter expressing his disagreement with the fact that the resolution wasn't passed (should read the entire twitter thread of his after that initial tweet):

The text of the resolution:

Quote:

---

WHEREAS, Scripture teaches that from one man God made every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation (Acts 17:26); and

WHEREAS, the prophet Isaiah foresaw the day when the Lord would judge between the nations and render decisions for many people (Isaiah 2:4); and

WHEREAS, the Psalmist proclaims the Kingdom is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations; and

WHEREAS, the promise of heaven includes the eternal blessings of the Tree of Life for God's people, which includes the healing of the nations that comes from the leaves of that tree; and

WHEREAS, the supreme need of the world is the acceptance of God's teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love; and

WHEREAS, all Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society, opposing all forms of racism, selfishness, and vice, and bringing government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love; and

WHEREAS, just societies will order themselves as free men and women and organize at various times and for various purposes to establish political order and give consent to legitimate government; and

WHEREAS, the liberty of all nations to authorize such governments will, at times, allow for the rise of political parties and factions whose principles and ends are in irreconcilable conflict with the principles of liberty and justice for all; and

WHEREAS, there has arisen in the United States a growing menace to political order and justice that seeks to reignite social animosities, reverse improvements in race relations, divide our people, and foment hatred, classism, and ethnic cleansing; and

WHEREAS, this toxic menace, self-identified among some of its chief proponents as "White Nationalism" and the "Alt-Right," must be opposed for the totalitarian impulses, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that infect the minds and actions of its violent disciples; and

WHEREAS, the roots of White Supremacy within a "Christian context" is based on the so-called "curse of Ham" theory once prominently taught by the SBC in the early yearsechoing the belief that God through Noah ordained descendants of Africa to be subservient to Angloswhich provided the theological justification for slavery and segregation. The SBC officially renounces the "curse of Ham" theory in this Resolution; now be it therefore

RESOLVED, that the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, AZ, June 13-14, 2017, denounces every form of "nationalism" that violates the biblical teachings with respect to race, justice, and ordered liberty; and be it further

RESOLVED, that we reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so-called "Alt-Right" that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society, and infect our political system; and be finally

RESOLVED, that we earnestly pray, both for those who lead and advocate this movement and those who are thereby deceived, that they may see their error through the light of the Gospel, repent of their perverse nationalism, and come to know the peace and love of Christ through redeemed fellowship in the Kingdom of God, which is established from every nation, tribe, people and tongue.

---

I have no real issues with the wording, although it could probably be a little more encompassing of all race-based nationalism movements.

From what I've heard, it will be reworded, reintroduced and voted on again.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no real issues with the wording

---

You don't? The whole resolution assumes legitimate national borders and governments.
"just societies will order themselves as free men and women and organize at various times and for various purposes to establish political order and give consent to legitimate government"

"the liberty of all nations to authorize such governments"

---

I realize that we can have disagreement on issues such as that within the body. The purpose of the resolution isn't about national sovereignty vs anarchism, so why get hung up on something that's not the purpose of the resolution?

JJMt said:

---

Wait, I thought that you didn't like the Southern Baptists getting involved in politics?

---

Our faith is inherently political. "Christ is King" is a political statement. I don't think we should get involved in partisanship though.

But, this isn't about me. This is about the failure of the SBC to pass a resolution that should be a no-brainer. White nationalism, or any concept of racial supremacy, has no business in the church.

RetiredAg said:

---

I have no real issues with the wording, although it could probably be a little more encompassing of all race-based nationalism movements.

---

Not only race-based nationalism movements, but all movements that fit this criteria:

Quote:

---

WHEREAS, there has arisen in the United States a growing menace to political order and justice that seeks to reignite social animosities, reverse improvements in race relations, divide our people, and foment hatred, classism, and ethnic cleansing

---

When I read that, I immediately thought of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and Alt-right.

Quote:

---

Not only race-based nationalism movements, but all movements that fit this criteria:

---

Absolutely agree. I don't know why only the Alt-Right movement was singled out. My first assumption was because, at least within the SBC, I would imagine the Alt-Right is the only such movement actively infecting and spreading throughout their convention. I don't see Antifa and BLM infecting SBC churches, so perhaps that's why they weren't mentioned. That's just my assumption though, so I can't say for sure.

JJMt said:

---

Depends on why they didn't pass it, doesn't it? Perhaps they don't want to get involved in that political issue, or they want to lower their political involvement? How does this particular Resolution fit into the SBC's mission? Other than the fact that you agree with the Resolution, why should the SBC pass it?

---

Why should they pass it? Because the body of Christ should always speak against those things that are anti-Christ, especially if they start infecting the body. Not to mention, given the reasons behind the SBC's founding and history with regards to race-related issues, this is a great opportunity to distance themselves from that.

Oh, and considering they regurgitated the pledge of allegiance, sang the national anthem, and passed a resolution on Planned Parenthood funding, I doubt the issue is that they want to lower their political involvement.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

You are upset it didn't pass even though it's entire foundation is built upon something you disagree with. Something tells me that if the "resolution" was something you disagreed with, you would be claiming the SBC should not be involved in politics. That you would attack all of the WHEREAS establishing the fact that there are legitimate national borders, biblical forms of nationalism, legitimate governments established by God and Christ rules them, etc.

---

Again, this isn't about me, no matter how much you wish to make it so. I wish the resolution would have passed because it's a condemnation of racism and race-based nationalism. We should be condemning those, as Christians. But this incessant and immature need for you to make every single thread about me is tiresome. This will be my last post to you. You can stomp your feet in the corner and keep trying to turn this thread into one about me, but I'm done taking your bait.

Quote:

---

Is the "alt-right movement" or white nationalism a big enough issue to justify a resolution?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

I mean, gosh, the Southern Baptists just elected a black pastor as their first black president in their history. Can't you celebrate that without finding something to attack them on?

---

This wasn't me just looking for some reason to attack them. I came across this because other influential Christians and SBC members, like Ed Stetzer and Albert Mohler, were condemning the refusal to pass it.

Quote:

---

If they passed a resolution condemning the racism inherent in affirmative action and many government programs targeting black communities, I suspect that you would oppose that.

---

Why would you suspect that? I oppose government programs of all types. I believe those programs tend to be counterproductive and lead to division as a misguided attempt to make restitution for past wrongs.

JJMt said:

---

Yes, opposing the "alt-right" and "white nationalism" is one of the many cause du jours of the left. Why should an organization like the SBC be required to react to every passing fancy of the left and RetiredAg? What has the alt-right or have the white nationalists actually done that deserve any attention from the SBC?

---

Perhaps it was introduced because people see this evil mindset infecting the SBC. I don't know. You'll need to ask the author of the resolution. I'm not saying they should be "required" to do anything, but when they have a chance to condemn racial supremacy movements, they should.

I'm not a member of a Southern Baptist church anymore, but when men like Ed Stetzer and Albert Mohler are critical of the resolution not being passed, it's noteworthy. Or are they just part of the "left" now?

Quote:

---

Yes, opposing the "alt-right" and "white nationalism" is one of the many cause du jours of the left.

---

BTW, this shouldn't just be a "cause du jour" of the left. It should be one of the church as well. Opposing anything that's anti-Christ should be a "cause du jour" of the church.

Quote:

---

Yes, but they didn't bring it to this board, you did.

---

Because it's something that's causing a large amount of dialogue regarding one of the largest Protestant denominations in America. Considering this is the Religion & Philosophy board, it seemed relevant.

Quote:

---

You seem to always be looking for reasons to criticize established Protestant denominations, especially the Southern Baptists. I'm not a Southern Baptist and recognize their many faults. However, they have many wonderful characteristics, too (for example, their relief trucks - staffed entirely by volunteers - are almost invariably the first to arrive at any natural disaster).

---

I'm part of a Protestant denomination. And yes, there are countless great followers of Christ in Southern Baptist churches. My parents attend a Southern Baptist church. That doesn't mean that they are above criticism. We are to judge those within the church, right?

Quote:

---

You seem to hold them to a standard of perfection that none of us would be able to meet personally. You seem unwilling to extend to them the grace that we all claim so eagerly from Christ. In what possible way does it help the SBC or the cause of Christ to be blasting them on this Board?

---

Saying they should condemn beliefs in racial supremacy isn't trying to hold them to some "standard of perfection". If that's perfection, I don't know what else to say. I'm not blasting anyone, but simply bringing to the board a developing story of one of the largest Protestant denominations in America. Do I agree with their refusal to pass this? No, and neither do many great people within the SBC, which is why it's causing a lot of discussion.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

BTW, this shouldn't just be a "cause du jour" of the left. It should be one of the church as well. Opposing anything that's anti-Christ should be a "cause du jour" of the church.

---

That's ridiculous. We all have to pick our battles, especially organizations. Don Quixote is not a good role model. We can oppose many things without making them the subject of a Resolution.

And if we did make everything that's anti-Christ the subject of a Resolution, then the sheer number of Resolutions (thousands, hundreds of thousands?) would make them all more meaningless than they already are.

---

So, "picking their battles" means affirming Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but not condemning racial supremacy. Go figure.

Here's the other resolutions:

BTW, clearly you're fine w/ this resolution not passing. That's your prerogative. I wish it had passed, especially given the history of the SBC. I've seen countless of these alt-right people also claim the name of Christ, so clearly this is something that many believe is infecting the church. Someone in the SBC clearly felt the need to address this. I would assume it's based on what they've seen in SBC churches. But the "picking battles" argument, IMO, doesn't hold any water given the resolutions that were passed.

As I'm no longer a Baptist, I will defer to those in the SBC that I respect, such as Mohler and Stetzer. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree and hopefully move on still united in the Spirit. Sound good?

You respect Albert Mohler? The Calvinist who thinks yoga is a sin?

The revised resolution has been edited to remove the section on the "curse of Ham". Here's a good thread on it:

The head of the resolution committee said the "curse of Ham" line was removed because it was redundant. Russell Moore (another I respect) was brought in to help w/ the revision.

RetiredAg said:

---

BTW, clearly you're fine w/ this resolution not passing. That's your prerogative. I wish it had passed, especially given the history of the SBC. I've seen countless of these alt-right people also claim the name of Christ, so clearly this is something that many believe is infecting the church. Someone in the SBC clearly felt the need to address this. I would assume it's based on what they've seen in SBC churches. But the "picking battles" argument, IMO, doesn't hold any water given the resolutions that were passed.

As I'm no longer a Baptist, I will defer to those in the SBC that I respect, such as Mohler and Stetzer. You and I will simply have to agree to disagree and hopefully move on still united in the Spirit. Sound good?

---

It was introduced by a black pastor (which to me is unsurprising). And apparently many more felt this wasn't something that needed to be addressed, hence it was defeated.

If we're calling out movements certainly BLM and those that believe in critical race theory and intersectionality need to be added.

Quote:

---

It was introduced by a black pastor (which to me is unsurprising).

---

Not sure why that's necessarily relevant, or "unsurprising". Can you elaborate?

Quote:

---

And apparently many more felt this wasn't something that needed to be addressed, hence it was defeated.

---

Fair point, although the reaction since has made it clear that it is something that will now need to be addressed, hence bringing in Russell Moore to create a revised version of it.

Quote:

---

If we're calling out movements certainly BLM and those that believe in critical race theory and intersectionality need to be added.

---

I think these were covered in a general sense with the language of the resolution, but also a fair point if for no reason other than to avoid the charge of bias.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

You respect Albert Mohler? The Calvinist who thinks yoga is a sin?

---

Yoga is dumb and sycretism. It is not necessarily sinful, but it certainly can be

RetiredAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no real issues with the wording

---

You don't? The whole resolution assumes legitimate national borders and governments.
"just societies will order themselves as free men and women and organize at various times and for various purposes to establish political order and give consent to legitimate government"

"the liberty of all nations to authorize such governments"

---

I realize that we can have disagreement on issues such as that within the body. The purpose of the resolution isn't about national sovereignty vs anarchism, so why get hung up on something that's not the purpose of the resolution?

---

Because poorly written law is bad law.