A Twitter Hashstorm: The Alt-Right Controversy at the Southern Baptist Convention

from: http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc17/photo/271/
"Southern Baptists overwhelmingly pass a resolution June 14 condemning
the racism of the alt-right movement. Photo by Adam Covington"

The Southern Baptist Convention first rejected then resurrected a resolution against the alt-right and white supremacy. This occurred at their annual meeting held in Phoenix, AZ, a couple weeks ago in June, 2017. Click here for a sequence of events. There are many different ways to understand this process, and it stirred quite a controversy.

An Outsiders Perspective

It was a roller coaster ride of emotions for me. I stand not as a member of the SBC but as a very interested observer from the Catholic Church who cares deeply about race. My colleague (a Roman Catholic priest) and I attended the Convention as representatives of the US Catholic Bishops in Christian friendship.

I spent much of the Convention glued to my Twitter feed, and I'm not typically an avid Twitter user.

News of the proposed resolution against the alt-right and white supremacy broke before the Convention. Twitter was chock full of some of the nastiest, most vile messages against it. Yet, I sensed something was awry. SBC pastors and leaders, as well as most church folks, are some of the most polite people I have ever met. They have a very Southern way of being indirect about grievances and disagreement. While they are also not shy about engaging in debate, what I saw on Twitter did not match the tone or timbre of what I have come to know as the SBC.

I suspect the #sbc17 hashtag was being rigorously trolled by alt-right activists. The vile, pornographic language and level of aggressiveness in the tweets signaled the work of outsiders. The language was so consistent in these tweets, actually, that it could have been the work of just a few (or even a single individual) using continuously new, anonymous accounts making it seems like the outcry was bigger than it really was. 

However, there were also few voices competing with these, before the Convention started. The glaring silence of others in the SBC worried me. Were there no contrary opinions? Were feelings against racism too weak or afraid of the alt-right to speak out? Was the SBC so weary from backlash against repudiating the Confederate Flag last year that it no longer had will to stand up to white supremacy this year? I wondered.

A lot has happened in one year. The campaign of Donald Trump has been associated with a significant increase in violent actions and rhetoric along racial lines. Trump received 81% of the white Evangelical Christian vote--which would soundly describe most SBC members. In the wake of Trump, many in our culture--like myself--were left wondering where do white Evangelicals--like many in the SBC--really stand on racism? Were all the apologies in the past just lip service? Most Americans understand that voters had only a couple choices for president and complex political issues had to be boiled down to a single vote. We get that. But what has been noticeably absent is  white Evangelicals holding Trump accountable since the election. They could be saying to Trump: "Yes, we voted for you, but that was in spite of--and not because of--the racist rhetoric, and we condemn that rhetoric." That outcry has been pretty minimal from the white Evangelical community, which comes across as an endorsement.

When the alt-right resolution failed to be brought to the floor on Day one of the two-day Convention, and when the messengers failed to keep any semblance of it alive after that, Twitter just blew up. It blew up in a way that raised my spirits.

I was so wound up I could barely sleep that night as tweets poured in.

I was so encouraged by the groundswell of support. SBC members simply did not want to leave Phoenix with the world unsure about where their denomination stands on the alt-right and white supremacy. It wasn’t just one Twitter account leading the charge, although there were key leaders in this effort. It was dozens and dozens of formerly silent Twitter accounts erupting all at once. At least one group organized a meeting to draft a new resolution with the resolution's original author, Texas pastor Rev. Dwight McKissic. The Resolutions Committee itself sought to find a way to remedy this. Russell Moore, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, had a hand in drafting the revised version.

I was grateful to witness this.  It was a pure blessing to see both the Twitter messages appearing one after the other in rapid succession and being part of conversations in the convention center hallways. Dozens and dozens of pastors and SBC members entered the fray.

It will be hard to walk away from SBC 2017 without at least a shadow of a doubt as to where the membership stands. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, remarked that the SBC has indeed gotten a "black eye."  

Yes, the SBC stumbled and fell here. It may be hard to wash all the dirt off.  But the stumble created a moment that allowed the SBC to mobilize to make it right.  That movement was pure blessing to watch. I am not a voting member, but as a fellow Christian who cares deeply about what happens here, my heart was with the SBC every step of the way. I am optimistic about the health of the SBC after this.

My assessment: Those who want to put racism behind them are sincere and passionate. There is also a gap between SBC leadership and the membership as well as a generational gap among pastors. When the SBC messengers voted last year to repudiate the Confederate Flag, once person spoke on the Convention floor that it was a fine resolution for pastors but it may be difficult to explain to churchgoers back home. A lot of people want to believe that the SBC has put its racist past behind it, but its rank-and-file membership seems divided as to the necessity of these resolutions and the relevance of symbols like the Confederate Flag.

Some members of the SBC were upset with the headlines coming out the Convention. Those headlines may--or may not--have been unfair. Still, I would urge the SBC not to spend a lot of energy feeling like victims of sensationalistic journalists trying to exploit a controversy for juicy headlines. The hesitation of the SBC over this issue opens real wounds and makes real people wonder where the SBC really stands.  I saw African-American pastors and families shed tears on the Convention floor in shock over what they thought would be a routine denouncement of racism that was instead killed in committee--at a time when our nation cannot afford to be neutral on race.  These are sincere questions that deserve answers.

While I believe SBC senior leaders are sincere in wanting to put racism behind them, they may be guilty of tone deafness here. They underestimated what message it would send by avoiding this topic. Case in point: Alt-right groups were initially declaring this a victory for white supremacy. Perhaps SBC leaders simply wanted to avoid a difficult topic, but sometimes the best way to attract controversy is by attempting to avoid it. Still, those fighting passionately for racial equality and reconciliation are an impressive bunch, and they give the SBC a bright future.

Is Healthcare a Right or Privilege? Wrong Question.

The question comes up all the time: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? Pope Francis has even weighed in.

I don't think this is the right question.

When people ask whether healthcare is a right or privilege, they are basically asking whether healthcare is either an act of charity or a luxury. And then if it is an act of charity, they ask whether others are entitled to that charity or not. Furthermore, this question implies that the benefits of healthcare go directly to individuals and not to society as a whole.

Sometimes the questions we ask have more power than the answers. A question can frame the debate and imply assumptions about the topic. Without realizing it, most of us answer the question only within the categories that the question gives. The way questions are asked can exert a powerful control over us if we are not aware.

Once asked, the discussion quickly gets derailed in debating the nature of charity itself and whether anyone is entitled to it. These are hot-button issues in US culture that usually promise nothing but gridlock.

I'll use an event from my life to illustrate another way to look at this issue.

My Story

Several years ago, I helped establish the Columbus Catholic Worker (CCW), a center for charity and justice efforts. It was a wonderful experience feeding the hungry, providing clothing to the less fortunate, teaching ESL and offering hospitality to immigrants. Ministry was blossoming in a part of town that was thirsty for Christian love in action. The organization was growing and putting down roots. While it took a village to birth these efforts, the CCW eventually fell under my care and direction. I loved it and felt God's grace pulsing through it.

Today, the doors to this organization are closed. A multitude of reasons converged to bring it to that point, but an often unnamed reason lurking in the background was healthcare. Because of a cancer diagnosis, I needed a "regular" job that came with health coverage. It might have taken several years before the CCW could have grown large enough to offer a salary with health benefits, if ever. I was okay with that. I could live lean for a while. I could wade through and wait out other problems. But I could not wait for health coverage. This organization could have served all of Columbus for many years. It was already having a positive impact on many people. It could have been my life's work. It took a lot of effort from a lot of people to start it, and it's not something that can be re-started so easily. It was hard to walk away from it. 

While I have no regrets about where my life is today, this story illustrates an important point:

I am a citizen who had ideas and energy. I was willing to try out new ideas and take risks. The same could be said of my friends and partners who worked beside me in this ministry. The CCW benefited not just me but dozens of individuals and (dare I say) the whole city. But this work is no longer being done. 

Just imagine how many other people have to scale back--people with ideas, new inventions, innovations and business ideas. They have to limit how much they share these gifts because they are squandering their time and energy securing health coverage. 

We all suffer when we make it difficult for our neighbors to share their gifts.

Americans often live in a Hollywood fantasy that celebrates--and even expects--that others overcome every bit of adversity and still come out on top. After all, it happens in the movies and sometimes in the history books. It does work for some people, and those people deserve to be celebrated. The problem with those stories is that they don't reflect a fair expectation. In real life, real obstacles take a real toll on real people. It's not because people don't have the character, skills or faith to overcome them. Rather, it's just simple math: Someone who runs with a 50 lb weight strapped to his back is not going to run as far or as fast as if he did not have that weight. Yes, the weight may build extra strength and character and force innovation, but it may also come with significant delays, setbacks and failures in the meantime. If someone has a great business idea, I would rather she begin when  she is 25 years old rather than 45. She will bring more wisdom at age 45, but she will also lose 20 years of experience during which she could have been refining her craft rather than working side jobs in an unrelated field.

Everyone loves a good story where people pull themselves up by the bootstraps, fight all the monsters and win.  But it is pure insanity to make the lives of our neighbors as difficult as possible as a game to see who is able to turn that into a heroic quest and win. We are all too quick to assume that if a business venture fails, that it "wasn't meant to be" or that the people just did not work hard enough or have a good enough idea. It could simply be that an environment that is unfriendly to new ideas and ventures is going to result in, well . . . fewer ideas and ventures.

In this country, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. People get angry because a dime of their tax money might benefit someone else. What they don't realize is that when their neighbors are better off, so are they. It's a safer, healthier, smarter, more advanced country we are building. It is a more competitive nation in the world market. Consider my story and multiply it by a thousand. Think of all the businesses, church ministry efforts, nonprofit organizations and other new ventures that are not happening because people either need to either get health coverage or are crippled under medical debt.

If I want to start a business, I don't have to go out and cut trees down to build a road to transport my goods and services. I don't have to build water or sewer lines. I don't have to train employees in basic math, reading or problem solving skills, because we have public education. The only thing missing is that I can't expect the people I hire are healthy enough to work. It is one glaring piece that is missing.

Universal health care means that our country can be more competitive as people take less time off work due to illness, that communicable diseases are treated before they can spread, and that a major obstacle is removed for my fellow citizens who want the space to innovate. 

To me, it's not a "right" or a "privilege" that I can leave my house and take my car on any road I want. I don't think you are mooching off the government because you drive on the freeway or public city roads. It's just common sense that roads are open and available to all, including businesses. I don't spend any time at all upset that my tax dollars might pay for a road to a remote town in Montana or California that I myself will probably never use. For the same reason, I would not be upset at all that my tax dollars would pay for my neighbors to get the healthcare they need to stay alive, healthy and productive (in that order).

It would be so complicated if roads were only for certain people. Imagine if you bought a "road plan' where you could only use certain roads and had to drive extra miles across the city to use the roads in your "plan." Yet we do that with our complicated medical plans that exclude us from so much.

Charity is great. I wish we could make the decision on healthcare based solely on humanitarian reasons and not take into account whether it makes our neighbor more productive. But this is not going to melt the ice in this discussion in this country. Whether healthcare is a right or privilege is not the only question when we go to the voting booth. Providing universal healthcare is simply what a smart country does that wants to stay competitive and advance as a civilization. Like public roads and public education, it provides a basic infrastructure so that we can all share our God-given gifts more broadly and without reservation. It's the next logical step in the growth of a healthy society.

The Love Affair Doesn’t End With a Few Apologies: The SBC and Racism

Imagine the worst of the worst happens: You cheat on your spouse.

Thankfully, you are fully willing to end the extramarital affair and repair the damage. Both you and your spouse want to put it completely behind you.

You confess your transgressions and give an extremely sincere and tearful apology.

This apology is wonderful, important and absolutely necessary—but there is no way you could possibly pretend that it is going to fix everything. One apology is crucial, but it is only the first step on a long journey of reconciliation.

From this point on, it’s not enough to simply be faithful—you will have to go out of your way to demonstrate that you are faithful beyond any reasonable doubt. Trust is hard to build, but it is even harder to rebuild. Wounds take time to heal. They need love, tenderness and patience. You have to prove to your spouse that you are sincere and that your heart is in the marriage.  

For example, you generally wouldn’t spend time alone with another single person and certainly not your former love affair. You may have absolutely no intention of anything beyond friendship, but why would you put your spouse in that position? Old wounds can be triggered. Your spouse could be at home anxious experiencing PTSD, going through a series of mental exercises trying to relax with the situation. You are the one who transgressed; therefore you are the one who should go out of your way to reassure your spouse. Don't put your spouse in that position.

You are going to have to prove yourself over and over—perhaps daily. But that’s okay because you love your spouse. People screw up. Repair and reconciliation are both possible. You may even grow stronger in your marriage. Trust may always be at least a little bit fragile, but major healing is possible. However, healing is going to be impeded if you drag your feet over having to "apologize too much" and complain that your spouse "just can't get over it already."

This analogy fits the Southern Baptist Convention and it’s longtime love affair with racism.

The SBC and racism have a long history. The denomination formed in 1845 when it split from other Baptists over its pro-slavery stance. Later, many of its members were deeply embedded in Jim Crow segregation and were often on the side resisting the Civil Rights struggles of the 20th century. 

The SBC has done much in recent years to leave racism in the past. Public apologies and resolutions have been forthcoming denouncing racism and all its trappings. Milestones include the 1995 apology for its complicity in slavery, the enthusiastic election of an African-American president, Fred Luter, in 2012, and the 2016 repudiation of the Confederate Flag. So this year, when a resolution was proposed to denounce the recent resurgence of white supremacy and the alt-right movement in US culture, it seemed like the stage was set for a routine—but deepening—commitment by the SBC to distance itself from racism in all its forms.

However, that is not how it played out at the Convention this week. The mostly white Resolutions Committee first rejected it from even being brought to a vote. The reasons given were technicalities over topical redundancy and awkward verbiage, but it was all too easy to wonder if there was not another backstory to consider. Voices from the floor tried to resurrect the resolution, but these attempts failed to achieve the needed 2/3 majority. Alt-right groups on Twitter celebrated this as a victory for white supremacy.

Let's consider what this would look like going back to the extramarital affair analogy:

Your spouse admits to some friends that there had been an affair, but tells them it is over and you are healing the marriage. Your spouse asks: “Honey, tell the people that you don’t spend any time with your former mistress anymore.”

A simple "of course not" is all that would be expected to pass through your lips, but to everyone’s amazement, your response is “well . . . it’s complicated . . .”

The trust that had been slowing getting repaired is suddenly put into jeopardy.  What do you mean, ‘it’s complicated?!’

For a denomination whose very origins are steeped in pro-slavery ideology, who members include those who lived and breathed Jim Crow, even two or three apologies will not be sufficient. 

The issue is timely. The campaign and election of Donald Trump has been associated with a surge of racist rhetoric and violence in the USA. 81% of white Evangelical Christians—such as those in the SBC—voted for Trump. This would have been an ideal time for the SBC to make it clear that whatever support its members may have for Trump is in spite of—and not because of—the association with racism. 

The official story may very well be true. This resolution may simply have gotten tangled up in parliamentary procedure and rules of order. But to play games with technicalities with such a sensitive issues, especially given your past history, only lends credence to what so many may have already been suspecting—that perhaps this rodeo with racism is not quite over.

African-Americans have been lured by the promise of racial reconciliation many times and places only to find the door slammed in their faces yet again. It’s hard to open up and attempt to trust again.

Some people ask:  Why yet another resolution?  Why can’t we just let this go? We repudiated the Confederate Flag last year, why go through that again?

Those aren't the questions of people bending over backwards to make sure there is no doubt about where they stand on this crucial issue. 

It’s going to take time and sincerity. White people are going to have to prove themselves on this issue over and over again. 

If all you want to do is spit out a quick apology and then go back to doing whatever you have always been doing, perhaps you weren’t as sincere about reconciliation as you’d like to believe. Reconciliation means that things are going to be different going forward. It means not just your words but your actions will to be different, and this needs to be demonstrated consistently over time.

***

As a Roman Catholic attending the SBC as an outside observer, I was personally moved by how members resolved this issue.  A groundswell of support arose to make certain that the convention did not close without righting this wrong. A resolution against white supremacy and the alt-right movement did ultimately pass a day later, and it was nearly unanimous. I will be writing more about this in the future. I was immeasurably blessed to witness the movement of the Holy Spirit in the SBC in this.

This post is meant to address those—both inside and outside the SBC—who are still not convinced about what all the fuss was about. I hope the analogy of an extramarital affair helps to put it in perspective.

As Southern Baptist Jared C. Wilson writes on Twitter:  How long do we keep repenting for the same ol’ sins? Until they’re all gone.

And that’s it, brothers and sisters. It is ultimately not the job of the white community to decide when enough has been done to treat this wound.

Why Do Americans Keep Saying "We Can't"?

Why do we keep telling ourselves that we can't do things?

I keep hearing it over and over again: We can't have . . . Universal health care. Public education that includes college. Higher minimum wage. Sustainable energy. Humane immigration reform. Safe harboring of refugees.

We can't. We can't. We can't.

Every doomsday scenario is predicted by these naysayers:  The economy will be ruined, taxes will go through the roof, terrorists will destroy this country and the poor will be worse off than ever before! It echoes like a chorus of lions, tigers and bears, oh my! If you believe all the hype, death panels will decide who gets to live and zombies will eat our brains out.

There are a lot of things that are difficult. There is much we haven't yet figured out how to do. But if we value something--and if we want to do it--we should set it as our goal and work towards it. We should at least try our best before coming to the conclusion that it can't be done. 

In his May 25, 1961, address to Congress, President John F. Kennedy said:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

President Kennedy gives us an example that we should model today. It is empowering to name a goal and make a commitment to it. On July 16, 1969, the first human being stepped foot onto the moon. Had JFK not made a public commitment to this goal AND then put resources behind it, it is unlikely that it ever would have been achieved. This is what leadership looks like. 

We can apply Kennedy's words to our current national debate on health care, poverty, immigration reform, environmental sustainability and any number of other issues: We should say what we want to do, set a timeline, then focus our attention and resources to achieve that goal. I'm sure many people said Kennedy was ridiculous and that travel to the moon was impossible. Those are the same kinds of folk who today say that universal health care is impossible and that environmental sustainability can never be achieved.

Some of these challenges may be difficult, but most Americans like to believe they are good at doing difficult things. We went from horse & buggies to cars, airplanes and a-man-on-the-moon in a few decades while also fighting two world wars and pulling out of a great economic depression. In light of all that history, it's more than a little embarrassing when our first response today is "we can't."

The problem standing in the way is not a lack of technology. The real crisis is a lack of vision. We can figure out the nuts & bolts of a problem. What we need first is to have the courage to name our goal and make a commitment to it with specific numbers and dates.

When I'm faced with a problem, I don't waste my time whining and moping around saying "it can't be done" without even attempting to put a plan together. Yet, that is exactly what Americans are doing. We should be embarrassed that we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking we can't do so many things that are, in fact, very do-able.

We know they are very achievable because most of these have, in fact, been done before. Other nations around the world are far head of us in transitioning to renewable energy and have long ago settled the universal health care debate. We know it is possible to significantly reduce, if not downright eliminate, poverty: Over a century ago, the vast majority of our citizens wallowed in industrial revolution-era sweatshops, but their descendants enjoyed a middle class lifestyle. Dramatic change in a short span of time is very possible, even though many people said it could never be done.

There will always be naysayers. People who have power and money tend to be conservative by the simple fact that they like things the way they are now. They are hesitant--if not downright hostile-- towards change, simply because they are doing well now. Their power and money gives them a big soapbox with a huge megaphone to project their message. They want us to believe that change is impossible. It's our job not to fall for it.

Let's save "we can't" for things like time travel, light sabers and crisscrossing galaxies at the speed of light. But who knows, maybe some day in the future those will be possible, too. These other challenges are, in fact, very much achievable.