by Christine A. Scheller | Jun 19, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
HISTORIC ELECTION: Rev. Fred Luter has been elected as president of Southern Baptist Convention.
This afternoon, in a move that has been anticipated for at least a year, the Southern Baptist Convention elected the Rev. Fred Luter Jr. as its new president. Luter, the 55-year-old pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans and first vice president of the SBC, will be the first African American to head the denomination, which was founded in defense of slavery in 1845.
In a rousing nomination speech, the Rev. Dr. David Crosby, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of New Orleans, said Luter is “qualified in every way to hold this office.” Crosby described Luter as a “man of integrity” who has a “loving family” and an “unblemished, untarnished reputation” in his community. Crosby also said Luter “would likely be a candidate for sainthood one day if he were a Catholic.” The men got to know each other after Hurricane Katrina when they shared worship space and did ministry together, he said.
Because Luter ran unopposed and because of the historic nature of his election, all convention “messengers” were asked to rise to affirm his nomination, which they did. Wiping away tears, Luter simply said, “To God be the glory for the things he has done. God Bless you. I love you.”
The New York Times reported that there are “51,000 congregations with 16 million members” in the SBC. “Luter shares the Baptists’ firm rejection of abortion and same-sex marriage, but he preaches more about personal salvation than politics. Though he never completed seminary training, he is renowned for his rapid-fire sermons filled with wordplay and hypnotic repetition,” the article said. Luter told The Times that his first priorities will be “the traditional Baptist goals of evangelizing, serving believers and providing disaster relief,” but that he would “use his power of appointments to get more minorities on the governing boards.”
The Rev. Dr. Dwight McKissic, senior pastor Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, first advanced Luter for the presidency in 2010, according to an Associated Baptist Press article published earlier this year. Today, McKissic told UrbanFaith he thinks Luter’s election signals that the SBC wants to send a message that the denomination is ready to welcome African Americans.
“The next step I believe will be a real position of power in the Southern Baptist Convention. Unfortunately the president of the convention controls no budget, no personnel. It has influence, but it has no real inherent authority or power. … The jury is still out, but we’ll see when they get ready to hire an entity head whether or not they’re serious,” said McKissic.
“Symbolism has the capacity to make folks feel good about themselves without actually doing anything,” Robert Parham, executive director of Baptist Center for Ethics and EthicsDaily.com told USA Today.
“It is symbolism, but it’s major symbolism in the right direction that will open the door for full inclusion and empowerment of African Americans in the Southern Baptist Convention,” countered McKissic. Last year McKissic published two blog posts about egregious racism in SBC churches. UrbanFaith asked him if there has been any improvement in the situation since then. “The jury is out. Only time will tell. I don’t take this move to say that there is,” he said.
“This is not some tokenism. It’s symbolism with substance,” said Dr. Robert Smith, professor of divinity and Christian preaching at Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama. Smith spoke to UrbanFaith this morning. “Fred Luter pastors Franklin Avenue Baptist Church, which is the largest Southern Baptist Church in terms of membership in the entire state of Louisiana. … He is greatly beloved and appreciated—the keyword is respected—by the convention. Otherwise he wouldn’t be elected,” added Smith.
After Luter’s election, UrbanFaith talked to Parham about Smith and McKissic’s responses to his USA Today quote. “Southern Baptists sought for decades to address the issue of racism with symbolic acts, such as pulpit swaps with African-American Baptist pastors. That symbolism of racial reconciliation was encouraging and positive,” Parham said. “When the white power structure in those pews sought to maintain economic privilege and maintain racial inequality, then the symbolism of pulpit swaps was often of little earthly good. … A lot of folks, including those in the national media, are reacting to the election as if it represented immediate, substantive transformation. Casting a single ballot is not the same thing as denominational reformation.” Still, Parham, like many others, tweeted his congratulations to Luter.
Quoting French author Victor Hugo, Smith said, “There’s nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. [Luter’s] time has come. It’s the right time. … He’s a middle of the way kind of person, aggressive with tenderness and mercy and patience. Things will not be changed overnight. …. I think he is the kind of person who is willing to see it through and waiting to see it through.”
“He will not be a black president. He will be a president black. What I mean by that is that if you say ‘black president,’ that means black is the adjective, which, in a way, modifies his presidency. No, he will be a president who just happens to be black. So it’s the presidency that is crucial and blackness happens to be who he is ethnically, but he’s been called to be president of the entire convention,” said Smith.
He also said it should be noted that “Fred really is not Fred without [his wife] Elizabeth.” “He has such great love for her and she has great love for him that they have a duel ministry and she will bolster his ministry in a tremendous way, because she has the same ideals.” Elizabeth Luter has spoken to “many of the great Southern Baptist churches” with white congregations, Smith said. “She is a mediating presence as well and has the ability to mix and mingle with different people and to love them as people and to not have a prejducial regard.”
Smith and McKissic were in New Orleans for the SBC annual meeting. Smith described the atmosphere this morning as “placid, peaceful, and anticipatory.” He said he overheard white men and women talking about “how wonderful it is” that Luter would be elected. “Everyone is standing on tip-toe anticipation, expecting it, and many are saying it’s a long time coming and should have been sooner,” said Smith.
It seemed few African Americans were tweeting with the convention hashtags #SBC12 and #SBC2012 throughout the day, and Dr. Nathan Finn, associate professor of historical theology and Baptist studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, tweeted that “The #SBC12 is still a sea of white faces.” However, Smith said he saw “pockets of African Americans” at the convention, including a large contingent from the National African American Fellowship. This group will host a banquet tonight in honor of Luter’s election, he said.
McKissic may be cautiously optimistic about the significance of Luter’s ascendency, but he put forward three race-related resolutions that he said will be voted on tomorrow. One opposes connecting same sex marriage to the civil rights movement; another denounces racism in Mormon source documents; the third seeks recognition of Baptist minister George Liele as America’s first missionary.
The “skuttlebut” is that the first and third resolutions will pass, but that the Mormon one will not, McKissic said. “For some reason, the Southern Baptist Convention is declining to carry that resolution forward. I’m amazed by that,” he said.
He put forth the resolution regarding George Liele, a former slave who became a missionary to Jamaica, to “correct historical error,” he said. “They were not telling us the truth to say [Adoniram and Ann Judson] were the first missionaries.” Leile embarked in 1782, while the Judsons left for Burma in 1812, his resolution says. “I thought it would also be great in the year of Fred Luter that they are bookends, so to speak,” McKissic said.
“We need to look back and recognize the George Lieles … and other people like that who’ve paved the way so that we can rejoice over what God is doing and not forget about the individuals who have gone through the struggles and walked the stony road and shed the tears that we might enjoy what [has happened] today,” said Smith.
by Aja M. Carr | Feb 21, 2012 | Feature |
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20, KJV
Every week, millions of people all over the world attend some form of church service — whether it be at a historic inner-city building, a sparkling suburban structure, or a secret underground location. For many Christians, Sunday morning marks a time of reflection and acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord. It’s also a time to enjoy the fellowship and camaraderie of other believers. Among many African Americans in the inner city, “remembering the sabbath day” (Exodus 20:8) is a prerequisite to starting the week off correctly.
It’s true that many of us attend church out of tradition or a sense of obligation. However, anything worth practicing — and anything valued enough to perform repetitively — is worth understanding. Which leads me to a question that may seem unnecessary on the surface but that is fraught with meaning for the living of our faith: Why do we attend church?
For many, the question is superfluous — the Bible commands we go to church, so we do it. Hebrews 10:25 admonishes us to “not [forsake] the assembling of ourselves together,” meaning that we should often afford ourselves the opportunity to join with other Christian men and women. Some Christians agree with that notion and some do not; however, it is relatively easy to conclude that many of us attend church because it is a part of our family upbringing or because of what the church represents to our society and our communities.
Our Heritage of Faith
I believe the truth about our theology as churchgoers is deeply rooted in our upbringing. It is apart of our cultural matrix.
We attend church because our parents attended or because our families have been members of a particular church for years. It represents a place where we all come together in fellowship and worship. One could survey any given church and interview countless parishioners capable of testifying about the positive experiences afforded to their families because of their commitment to attending service.
Ultimately we can, throughout history, point to the church as a place that has allowed all of God’s children to be a family. Even during slavery, the church represented the one place where the slave family might be allowed to go together. Slaves attended the church of their masters, and as long as the family worked on the same plantation, they could generally be assured that Sundays represented a small space in time where they could be with their families and be encouraged through the singing of spirituals and the presentation of God’s Word, and particularly what it had to say about true freedom and justice.
Middle-Class Flight and Return
In the book Preaching to the African American Middle Class, pastor and homiletics professor Marvin McMickle writes: “What better way is there to view the ministry of churches in inner-city areas than as agents that both prolong life and help to avoid decay in communities where almost every other business and institution has abandoned the area?”
McMickle goes on to observe how in the wake of middle-class flight from cities, churches survive as some of the few institutions left in blighted communities, often next to barbershops, beauty salons, currency exchange centers, and liquor stores. “Almost everything that inner city residents need in order to have a meaningful life is located outside of their community,” he continues, “ranging from medical care to adequate shopping facilities to employment beyond minimum wage jobs at fast-food restaurants.”
But, for the most part, the church remains.
In cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and St. Louis the African American church is often the only legacy institution that has not uprooted itself from the inner city. While the quality of life for many of the parishioners has increased — allowing them to relocate to suburban areas — the church has not relocated. I believe many African Americans continue to attend churches in our cities for that reason. The church has always been there as a part of the community, and it is viewed as an entity that will remain. It is a prototype of the nature of Christ in the community; its presence will remain steadfast and unmovable.
As we have changed and grown, so have our churches. The emergence of the African American middle class brought with it the emergence of the African American megachurch. Chicago, for instance, is home to several megachurches located in predominately African American urban neighborhoods. Congregations like Rev. James Meeks’ Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, which boasts some 15,000 members, sits in the heart of the Roseland community (largely African American and partially Latino). The Apostolic Church of God, pastored by Dr. Byron Brazier, and the Trinity United Church of Christ, pastored by Rev. Otis Moss III, are both situated on the Southside and are predominantly African American.
Many scholars committed to the study of church growth and trends would argue that the birth of the American megachurch came as the result of suburban sprawl, social disconnectedness, and a rejection of traditional Protestant denominations and church models. However, I would argue that in the African American community the expansion of the middle-class and its members’ ability to participate as valuable consumers in society (meaning that we could now shop at the megamalls) also gave Black people the resources to support and become a part of larger church ministries.
We continue to attend church because it has managed to adapt to a changing culture, becoming more contemporary in its worship and diverse in its membership to reflect the surrounding society. But we also attend church to be rescued emotionally and spiritually from that very same society.
Jesus Is the Answer
Any number of sociological arguments about the church’s role in society can be made. Certainly the economic incline of the parishioners and the rise of mega-entities have caused the church to change, and we can relate to the fluctuation. But because these arguments are easily debated, they do not carry as much weight as this argument: We attend church because of our love for Jesus Christ.
Countless scholars have harvested mounds of information regarding church membership, trends in church growth, and the theology of churchgoers, but none can easily refute the idea that many Christians simply love the Lord and desire to experience His Spirit in the presence of other faithful and desirous believers.
Church represents the one place in society where we can worship and praise God in our own way and with few inhibitions. While we might acknowledge the role of our families in our relationship with God, and might identify with the consistent and conversely changing roles of the church, it is beyond debate that Jesus is the number one reason that Christians continue to gather on Sunday morning (or Saturday night) to demonstrate our need for spiritual renewal and our commitment to God’s Word as the guidebook for our daily lives.
This article originally appeared in Precepts for Living, UMI’s annual Bible commentary.
by Anthony B. Bradley | Feb 10, 2012 | Feature, Headline News |
One of the realities of being a white Protestant in America is the historic freedom from needing a theological framework to confront structural and institutional forms of injustice due to race. Race continues to be a heavy burden for people of color in America. As such, a theological framework primarily oriented toward issues of personal salvation and morality is sufficient to address the questions of the dominant white culture. However, for blacks and Latinos, who not only have to wrestle with personal questions regarding sin and salvation but also evil from the outside because of their race, they need the Cross to provide hope that God intends to relieve the burdens and liabilities of being a subdominant minority. These burdens range from stereotypes and racial discrimination to issues of identity in light of Anglo-normativity and sociopolitical wellbeing. Blacks and Latinos need a comprehensive theology that deals with the cosmic scope of God redeeming every aspect of the creation affected by the Fall through the work and person of Christ.
Dr. Vincent Bacote, associate professor of theology at Wheaton College and an UrbanFaith contributor, presents a comprehensive theological framework in his chapter in a new book I edited titled Keep Your Head Up: America’s New Black Christian Leaders, Social Consciousness, and the Cosby Conversation. Bacote introduces the themes of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Renewal (CFRR). CFRR reminds us of the following: God created the world good, it was corrupted by the Fall introducing sin and brokenness into the world, but God has a unique plan to renew the entire creation through the work and person of Jesus Christ. That is, the entire creation formed and shaped by Christ will also be renewed by Christ and reconciled unto Him (Col. 1:15-23).
CFRR not only tells us who we are, it also gives Christians a vision of the implications of the kingdom of God. Christians are not passive bystanders but are called to be leaders in the business reconciliation until Christ returns to bring finality to the renewal process inaugurated at his death and resurrection in ways never before realized in human history (Rom. 8:12-25).
For those seeking to preach the Good News of what was accomplished in the work and Person of Jesus Christ to blacks and Latinos, the application of biblical texts cannot be limited to personal issues of salvation and sanctification. Subdominant minorities who are immersed in a world of white privilege need to hear hope that God also intends to relieve them of the complex burdens of being a minority — burdens that whites do not encounter in their day-to-day lives in America. This is one reason why minority teachers are vitally important in ethnic church contexts. Otherwise, applying the gospel to the realities of white privilege will likely not be addressed regularly. Now, by white privilege I simply mean the privilege, special freedom, or immunity white persons have from some liability or burden to which non-white persons are subject in America.
A team of authors led by Fordham University psychology professor Celia B. Fisher provides an excellent list of issues that blacks and Latinos need to reconcile with the Truth. In an article titled “Applied Developmental Science, Social Justice, and Socio-Political Wellbeing,” Fisher and her team remind us that when evil entered the world it created a context for the following burdens experienced by Native Americans, blacks, and Latinos in America: (1) societal structures, policies, and so on that limit access to minorities, (2) the persistence of high-effort coping with the reality of marginalization that produces high levels of stress, (3) psycho-political wellbeing and validity concerns which address the ways in which minorities apply human dignity to themselves within a context of Anglo-hegemony, (4) communities that accept dysfunctional behaviors as behavioral norms in the shaping of one’s personhood, (5) institutional racism which examines the “institutional structures and processes passed on from generation to generations that organize and promote racial inequity throughout the culture,” (6) proactive measures intended to dismantle racism, and (7) contexts to provide healing for those who have experience major and minor encounters with racist attitudes, beliefs, or actions.
The revivalist impulse by many evangelicals rightly understands that ultimate social change comes when members of society become followers of Christ. However, American history has clearly proven that personal salvation does not stop people from being racists nor from setting up social institutions and policies that deny others access to the means of liberty and human dignity. If evangelism alone were effective for social change, Christians would never have participated in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, been slave owners, created apartheid in South Africa, or allowed Jim Crow laws to come into existence.
Theologians like Abraham Kuyper remind us that, because of God’s common grace, evangelism is not necessary to persuade people to treat others with dignity and respect — after all, the law of God is written on the heart (Rom. 2:15) even though it merits them no favor with God. Therefore, work at both. We must morally form individuals and dismantle cultural norms of racism that become structural.
I suspect this is one of the major reasons why many whites are unsuccessful at reaching blacks and Latinos. If the gospel is not being applied to issues of the heart and issues that require outside, structural justice, we will miss areas in need of biblical application. Blacks and Latinos in America do not have the privilege of not talking about the issues addressed in the Fisher article, because all minorities experience aspects of those issues in various ways.
If we believe the Bible speaks to the questions of the day, then we have to do a better job of developing the cultural intelligence that applies the Truth to issues of the heart and to the cultural spaces minorities inhabit as subdominant races.
by Christine A. Scheller | Jul 11, 2011 | Feature, Headline News |
What’s worse: signing a potentially racist statement about traditional marriage, or relentlessly attacking a political candidate’s faith?
Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has drawn a barrage of criticism since July 7 when she signed a conservative group’s traditional Marriage Vow. The document’s preamble made the outrageous claim that a slave child in 1860 was more likely to be raised in a two-parent household than a black baby born after the election of the first black president.
Osha Gray Davidson of Forbes quoted Indiana University sociologist Lorraine Blackman about the pledge’s slavery claim, given that her 2005 study, The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans, was cited as its source.
“That’s just wrong,” she said. “It is a serious error.”
At Jack & Jill Politics, Cheryl Contee had this to say:
Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive. … When will Republicans inquire with actual Black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points?
Zerlina Maxwell added a heap of hyperbole at The Loop 21, but used the misstep to attack Bachmann’s faith.
If Michele Bachmann is a “submissive wife” as she claims to be based on biblical teachings, then how can she be President of the United States? How can Bachmann be the leader of the free world when she is not the leader of her own household?
The Grio piled on:
If idiocy needed a spokesperson, look no further than Minnesota congresswoman and GOP presidential hopeful, Michele Bachmann.
Politico reports that Bachmann and the group have backtracked.
“In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible and economic enslavement is also horrible,” said [Bachman] campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart.
“We agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man,” the group’s statement said.
The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates isn’t buying it.
The group never acknowledges that they offered no factual basis for their claim. They just are sorry that it “can be misconstrued,” and may have caused “negative feelings.” No one’s actually wrong anymore. They’re just sorry that you can’t handle the “truth.”
At The Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg zeroed in on her underlying concern:
Those who follow Bachmann’s career know that her evangelical commitments are even stronger than her fierce hostility to government. On Thursday, she demonstrated that once again.
Urban Faith wholeheartedly agrees that implying that black children were better off under a system of slavery displays a gross level of historical ignorance and insensitivity. On the other hand, Michele Bachmann’s personal ignorance should not give her political detractors a license to lambast her Christian beliefs. We should be able to call out her prejudice — no matter how unintentional — without resorting to prejudice ourselves.
by Christine A. Scheller | Jun 22, 2011 | Feature, Headline News |
CHANGING HISTORY: Rev. Fred Luter's election as first vice president puts him in line to possibly become the SBC's first black president.
Fred Luter Jr., pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans, was elected first vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention on June 13, a milestone that many believe may eventually lead him to assume the denomination’s top position. UrbanFaith news & religion editor Christine A. Scheller spoke to Luter by phone Monday. The conversation focused on Luter’s historic ascent to leadership in a denomination that was founded, in part, as a means of preserving a religious justification for the institution of slavery in America. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
URBAN FAITH: Have you always been a Southern Baptist?
Fred Luter: Franklin Avenue at one time was an all-white Southern Baptist church, but in the late 1970s, there was a white flight. Whites moved out of the neighborhood; blacks moved back in. The white congregation literally turned the building over to the local Baptist association, so that it would be used for the people in this community. I’ve always given them credit for that. They could have torn it down or sold it to the highest bidder. They knew the neighborhood was changing, so they wanted it to be used for the people in this community. I came in 1986, so the church was already a Southern Baptist church.
The initial New York Times report on your election noted a Southern Baptist connection to slavery. Were you aware of that when you became pastor at Franklin Avenue?
No, to be honest, I was not. I had no idea at all. … When I found out, I was already too deep in it. I doubt if a lot of people who are part of our churches are aware. … Back in 1845, the convention was started as a split between the American Baptist Convention. They started the Southern Baptist Convention based on the issue of slavery. That’s part of our dark past.
What is the significance of your election?
I didn’t realize how significant it was until I started getting all these requests for interviews. It has been incredible. I’ve been a part of this since ’86 and … I never thought it would get this much notoriety. I guess if something happens to the president, you it. … We lost over 4000 members in Katrina who were displaced all over the country and I started getting calls from people all across the country saying, “I saw you in this paper. I saw you in that paper. I saw you on CNN.”
Your church lost 4,000 members from Hurricane Katrina?
We had grown from 50 members back in ’86 to about 8,000. We were the largest Southern Baptist church in the state of Lousiana, white or black. God had blessed us in a mighty, mighty way. But then Katrina came and destroyed all of that. Our church was flooded with nine feet of water.
The Baptist Press report on the convention noted its emphasis on ethnicity, and unity. Was there a concerted effort, in the pursuit of diversity, to elect an African American?
Honestly, I don’t think it was, because this report involving ethnicity was really a resolution that came forward in our convention last year in Orlando … that this convention was going to vote on. I think it just so happened that my election came at the same time that this was a major resolution. … I think the background of it, honestly, is that next year the convention is going to be in New Orleans, and I got some calls saying, “Hey man, it would be really nice, since the convention is going to be in New Orleans, that you be in a position of leadership in your hometown.”
What is the value of the diversity resolution?
I think it’s critical. Back in [1995], the convention made a public apology for their beginnings, for their founding on slavery, and they apologized to all the African American pastors in the convention. … That was the start of what’s now becoming something we’re beginning to see, because in this convention there are other ethnicities. Of course, it’s predominantly Anglo, but now we have African Americans, we have Asians, we have Hispanics, and so many in the leadership roles are saying it doesn’t make any sense to have all these different ethnic groups at our convention and the leadership role is lily white. Those in leadership said, “Let’s start doing something about this.”
I think it’s great. It says to those of us who are part of the convention that, yes, this is a part of our past, but we have been talking about including other ethnic groups for a while; now it’s time to start putting our money where our mouth is. Let’s start walking it instead of just talking it. I think it’s now finally coming together.
