Earlier this week, Evangelical Dark Web reported on the surprisingly well-composed response to the Charlie Kirk assassination by the Southern Baptist Convention. This was notable as a contrast to other major Evangelical responses. Evidently, this attracted the ire of Julie Roys who published an article attacking the Southern Baptist Convention for eulogizing Charlie Kirk, even generically.
Enter Dwight McKissic, one of the most prominent woke pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention who not only supports Critical Race Theory but openly supports female pastors. His criticism of Charlie Kirk’s views on race are the driving force behind a controversy that Julie Roys manufactures in an article titled, “SBC Statement on Charlie Kirk Exposes Racial Divide in Denomination“
The gist of the article is that the SBC statement was too White.
McKissic is not alone in his concerns.
In a Tuesday post, historian Jemar Tisby excerpted Sunday sermons from three Black pastors — Virginia Baptist Pastor John Howard Wesley, Dallas-area pastor Frederick Haynes, and Georgia minister Jamal Bryant. Each of them condemned the assassin’s violence along with rhetoric “rooted in white supremacy,” to quote Haynes.
“I respectfully disagree with those brothers,” Darling told TRR. “I didn’t agree with everything Charlie said or every single way he said it. But that’s not the point at this moment.”
Karen Swallow Prior, a best-selling author who recently left the SBC after two decades of affiliation, commented to TRR about the lack of diversity among those who drafted the denomination’s statement.
“It is lamentable that almost all of the initial signatories on this statement are white men,” she said. “Especially as Christians, we must be a body in which each part recognizes and honors the other parts. It is essential for majority peoples to listen to and learn from the experiences of minorities.”
So, because only White men wrote the statement, the statement is lamentable.
McKissic put a finer point on it, referring to the top leaders of official SBC entities.
“These entity heads, none of whom are Black or Hispanic, crafted and approved this statement, telling all Black Southern Baptists how they ought to think about this issue,” he said.
The pastor also stated that Kirk’s views on racial issues “conflict with every resolution the Southern Baptist Convention has adopted since the 1950s on race.”
Recent notable resolutions include a 1995 statement on racial reconciliation, a 2016 resolution repudiating displays of the Confederate battle flag, and a carefully worded 2019 statement on how critical theory must be subordinate to Scripture.
He concluded: “I don’t think the statement as it is, an unqualified endorsement of Kirk, would pass an SBC convention vote.”
McKissic is correct that the Southern Baptist Convention has passed woke resolutions at the convention, but the SBC rarely rejects a resolution presented to it. If said statement were formatted in a resolution, it would likely pass with little debate, or if McKissic’s woke comrades pithced a fit, their amendments would have been rejected because Kirk’s views were dynamic.
Before Charlie Kirk died, he pointed out that Iryna Zarutska was killed, in part, for being White and discussed Black criminality. McKissic highlights Kirk’s opposition to affirmative action.
Julie Roys did not write the piece, but she did publish and promote it. In media, outlets often highlight a figure saying what they want to say in order to drive a narrative, in articles that promote a controversy or “backlash” where none really exists. Dwight McKissic is a gadfly in the Southern Baptist Convention, but his opposition to Kirk was loud enough for Julie Roys to use as her mouthpiece in the debate over Charlie Kirk’s legacy.
2 Responses
Jesus said He didn’t come to bring peace, but division. What He meant by that is simple, people will have to choose whom they serve and follow. Clearly, some people have made their choices. In my experience, the ones who squawk the most about a given topic prove themselves to be the biggest transgressors of the thing about which they squawk.
Frankly, I thought Pastor McKissick had already left the SBC. He’s threatened to do so many times. I thought he did it.
First, the statement regarding Kirk and his assassination do not contradict the resolutions on race as written. But if you interpret those statements as Pastor McKisick does and have a vision for the SBC saying some other things on race, the SBC statement is a disappointment.
Second, Pastor McKissick should reconsider what he’s asking. He’s basically inviting the SBC to pass a resolution approving of that statement at the Convention. The SBC will do that if it’s advanced. That would disappoint Pastor McKissick further.
Or perhaps give him the opportunity to threaten to leave the SBC again.