Reflections on the Zimmerman Verdict

Tonight we learn the George Zimmerman has been acquitted in the death of Trayvon Martin. The verdict is just minutes old, and we now wait to learn how people across the country and around the world will react.

As for me, I cannot help but think about Habakkuk. Yes, perhaps it is a strange sort of place for a mind to go from Sanford, FL, but Habakkuk perhaps has something to say to all of my friends tonight. I have friends, you see, who will decry this verdict, certain that a man got away not only with murder, but further with racially motivated profiling and a hate-crime. I have other friends who will celebrate this verdict, confident that a man who was merely defending his home and his neighborhood from a criminal was not punished for standing his ground.

All of my friends have some ground to stand on in their speculations, because all of these things happen. People in our world commit crimes motivated by pure racial hatred. People in our world get away scot-free with murder. People in our world presume guilt or innocence based upon nothing more than a person's appearance. We stereotype. People in our world kill other people simply because they don't like the group of which they are a part. This doesn't just happen occasionally. Somewhere in the world it happens every day. We've probably all seen Mississippi Burning, and that film cannot be categorized as "fiction."

People in our world who are innocent get swept up into witch hunts. People in our world sometimes find the truth and save the day using politically incorrect means like profiling or yes, even waterboarding. We remind ourselves that the ends do not justify the means precisely because sometimes unsavory means lead to the right ends. People in our world sometimes find themselves, though they are entirely innocent, with neither a good alibi nor a handy corroborating witness nor—what you've seen on television notwithstanding—a grain of pollen in their coat collar from the betula papyrifera that only grows in a three-block range in this particular city. People get railroaded, or sometimes they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We've probably all seen The Shawshank Redemption, and although that film actually is a work of fiction, it is certainly not a work of fantasy.

Oddly enough, my groups of friends who will arrive at such different conclusions on this topic are actually searching for the same thing: justice. There are a few things that we all know about justice. And I mean all of us—every human being knows these things:

1. We know that, even if justice may cut against us from time to time, we have a mysterious desire and need for it.
2. We know our desire and need for justice is among the more compelling reasons why we endure having a government.
3. We know that, however well or poorly our government delivers justice, none of us always receive it perfectly, nor has anyone ever.
4. We know that, although all governments are imperfect with regard to delivering justice, they are not all EQUALLY imperfect. Our trial-by-jury system just may be the least-worst way out there.

But it seems to me that there is a fifth thing that we THINK we know about justice: We're pretty sure that we know what it is. That is, we tend to display a pretty strong self-confidence that we will know justice when we see it.

And that's why I'm thinking about Habakkuk tonight. If there's anything we ought to learn from Habakkuk, it is that we should be a little less confident that we would know justice when we see it. Oh, Habakkuk saw INJUSTICE clearly enough, particularly when perpetrated by others. Habakkuk was greatly perturbed by his observation that "justice comes out perverted." He came to God about it and asked the Lord to do something about it, right away, please.

"I'm right on top of that," the Lord answered. And then God outlined His plan for bringing justice to the situation. "I've got the Chaldeans warming up in the bullpen, Habakkuk. They're coming in next week to execute my justice upon Judah."

Well, I don't have to exegete the whole book here. Suffice it to say that God's justice didn't look like justice at all to Habakkuk. He did not like it one bit. Surely, we ought to be able to relate to Habakkuk's plight. After all, we live in a society in which God's plan for justice in marriage law looks like injustice to a lot of people. God's justice regarding forgiveness of debts in the Year of Jubilee looks like injustice to a lot of other people. God's justice on the subject matter of strangers and aliens among us strikes some people as unjust. God's justice on display in the substitutionary atonement of Christ is horrifically unjust in the eyes of the New Atheism. God's eternal justice in the twin realities of the New Jerusalem and the Lake of Fire is no justice at all in the eyes of Rob Bell.

Research seems to verify this idea that we're not very good at sorting out what is just. Whatever a leftist Berkeley professor will make of that, his conclusions actually validate the Word of God, which reminds us that our hearts are "deceitfully wicked" and warns us away from the "way that seems right" to us.

I don't know what happened in Florida that night, and so I don't know how to feel about this verdict. Other than sad, that is. A young man is needlessly dead. The question of whether you regard him as victim or assailant is merely a question of who played the greatest part in bringing his needless death to pass.

Habakkuk came to God on a quest for justice. He heard. He feared. He came back with a humbler appraisal of his own knowledge of justice. He learned. My prayer tonight is not so much that God will give us justice as that He will teach us what it is. But even that is not the most important thing. My heart longs for justice to be clearer to me and easier to find, but God told Habakkuk how we can survive that feeling. We righteous ones do not live by the timely delivery of perfect justice. No, but rather, we live by faith. I'm not entirely clear in my own mind about WHAT justice is, but I know beyond all reasonable doubt WHOSE justice is. This thing—my faith in Jesus Christ—is the most important thing. It is our Polaris on stormy nights of uncertain justice. We wait for justice; we live by faith.

I hope that we'll all make that clear in our conversations about this case, both online and IRL. Justice is found in the Way of Christ, as is mercy. That's where the living is. Cases of elusive justice down here below only make me all the more certain of that.

Pseudo-Congregationalism Is from Satan

The First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi, has become the pariah of the Southern Baptist Convention. On the eve of their wedding, Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson were forced to relocate their ceremony to another church's meeting house in order to placate the objections of racists within the congregation. Shameful.

The title of this post refers to James MacDonald's blog post from months ago in which he declared that "Congregational Government Is from Satan." Indeed, for all I know, MacDonald might be reading about FBC Crystal Springs and thinking that the situation in Mississippi is a prime example of exactly what he was talking about.

But the real problem with FBC Crystal Springs is that it appears that they are NOT practicing congregationalism. Rather, they are suffering from a malady that I call "pseudo-congregationalism." Pseudo-congregationalism is a system in which the official structure of the church's polity is congregationalist, but the church actually functions in a manner that avoids the key components of true biblical congregationalism: submission to the lordship of Christ, prayer, free collaborative discussion, strong pastoral leadership, and decisive congregational voting. From what we've heard about the decision to relocate the Wilsons' exchanging of vows, it appears that there was no vote taken, no call to corporate prayer issued, no congregational discussion held, no courageous resolve on the part of the pastor, and (consequently) a decision came forth that was contrary to the will of Christ. Pseudo-congregationalism really IS from Satan, and he uses it to dastardly effect.

Let me explain why these key elements of biblical congregationalism would have made a positive difference in Crystal Springs.

1. A Decisive Vote: I choose to doubt that this congregation would have actually voted to deny the Wilsons the opportunity to marry in the church's meeting space. Because there has been no vote, there is nobody to take responsibility for this decision. Because there is nobody to take responsibility for this decision, everyone in the church is under suspicion.

   The victims instinctively recognize the need for congregationalism. In this interview (Be sure to watch the video; don't just read the text) Charles Wilson responds to the suggestion that only a troublesome minority in the congregation raised opposition to his nuptials: "When you talk about the minority…How many is the minority? Was it half of the church? Was it three-quarters of the church? I don't know. Honestly, I don't know!" The witness of this church is sullied and unclear, and even the local TV station opines, "Many believe there would have been no controversy if there had been a vote within the church."

   Of course, there's the possibility that a vote within the church might have favored some racist policy to exclude the Wilsons and other black people from being able to get married in the church. I think that's unlikely (for reasons I'll mention below, I doubt the troublemakers would even have spoken up in such a meeting), but it is possible—would have even been PROBABLE a century ago in the preponderance of churches throughout our nation. But even if the vote had gone the wrong way, at least the people behind this horrible decision would have to take responsibility for it. As things stand at present, the culprits are the anonymous "some people" who always dominate churches governed by pseudo-congregationalism.

   In contrast, the Apostle Paul was able to state definitively that "the majority" (2 Corinthians 2:6) in the Corinthian church had enacted punishment upon an errant member (the offender in 1 Corinthians 5, perhaps?). Biblical congregationalism facilitates biblical accountability.

   This church needs to understand that they are not riding out a storm by faith. That's the wrong metaphor here. The storm is of their own creation. They're facing a decision. They need to decide it. By a vote. With no ambiguity remaining once the matter has been settled.

2. Free Collaborative Discussion: When the people of the congregation know that they make all of their decisions through voting, they also know that they'll have to persuade their fellow congregants if they want their viewpoint to prevail. In most congregationalist churches, somebody is going to have to make the motion. Somebody else is going to have to second it. For decisions that are controversial at all, people are going to have to rise in the midst of the congregation and make a case for or against the policy.

   The result is that, whether shameful racism would have prevailed in the vote or not, individual members of FBC Crystal Springs either would have had to go on the record in support of racism or would have had the opportunity to declare their principled opposition to this proposed travesty. As it stands now, every member of the congregation is under a cloud of suspicion. Am I the only one who watched that video and wondered how many of the people who are publicly decrying the church's action NOW were among the people who were PRIVATELY supporting racism before? People act differently when they have to take public responsibility for their views. Business meetings can provide this kind of accountability, or you can wait for TV cameras to provide it.

   Wilson expresses his own frustration with the unavoidable uncertainty that hangs over this congregation now. He knows that the individuals responsible are extremely unlikely to identify themselves in an open vote: "How're they going to go in and have a head count? Ask the person, 'How are you going to have a head count? How are you going to stand up and say, 'Yes, I voted no."?'" Wilson's right: That's not likely to happen at this point. An honest discussion held among the full congregation would have provided the clarity he desires.

   In Acts 15, facing a strikingly similar question of race and the gospel, the Jerusalem church called a meeting at which full and free discussion took place. In the Jerusalem meeting, as far as we can tell from the biblical account, the opposition to Paul and the gospel, in spite of having caused so much trouble up to that point, didn't even have the courage to dare to speak their wrongful views before the apostles and the congregation.

   The first words of Acts 15 are "some men"—the anonymous "some men" of pseudo-congregationalism. The episode ends with an official letter endorsed by the apostles, the elders, and the congregation. Good congregationalism does that: It dethrones sinister cabals of "some men" and subjects them to the will of the Lord by the authority He has granted to His congregation. Light makes cockroaches scatter. Free collaborative discussion can be a balm to wage medicinal war against the sinful ills of human agenda in Christ's church.

3. Strong Pastoral Leadership: MacDonald's presumption is that congregational church government and strong pastoral leadership are mutually exclusive. Not so. In this case, a commitment to true biblical congregationalism would have empowered this pastor and would have bolstered his courage. Here's his mistake (and we all make them): He said, "I didn't want to have a controversy within the church." If we take Pastor Weatherford at his word, he was trying to avoid a messy conflict between racists and Christians in the church, knowing that each party had "strong feelings" on the subject.

   And let me say it, lest anyone be misled by my little article: Congregationalism is not the way to avoid controversy in the church. If you want to avoid controversy, you will avoid votes on anything but the mildest of questions. You will avoid public discussions unless everyone who speaks is guaranteed to speak on the same side of the issue.

   And yet, internal controversy is precisely what this church desperately needs if it will be healthy at all. Was there ever a better story to illustrate the truth of 1 Corinthians 11:19? "There must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." Sometimes it is a pastor's job to love holiness more than peace. Clearly this is about pastorally loving the Wilsons enough to take a courageous stand on their behalf. Clearly this is about pastorally loving the innocent member of FBC Crystal Springs whose reputation is unjustly besmirched by this episode. Perhaps less clearly to all observing, it is also about loving the racist members of FBC Crystal Springs, whose primary discipleship need at the moment is that it "become evident among them" that they are not among "those who are approved."

   In a pseudo-congregationalist system, these few members have purloined unto themselves the right and authority to intimidate this pastor without any congregational mandate. Pseudo-congregationalism shuns the formal in favor of the informal, for the informal is so much easier to manipulate. In a true system of biblical congregationalism, a pastor can have the confidence to tell troublemakers to take it to the church or shut their traps.

   That's not to deny that sometimes even the majority of the congregation stands on the side of wrong. But even in those situations, congregationalism can provide the right environment for strong pastoral leadership to take place. A good friend who is a pastor recently resigned his church immediately following a particularly baleful vote in the church's business meeting. An associate pastor of the church was confronted for wantonly carnal behavior. All of the lay leadership of the congregation (their personnel committee, deacons, etc.) supported the ouster of this associate pastor, who really needed to go. But he was able to play upon the sympathies of the congregation and won a close vote that would otherwise have required his termination. My friend knew that he could not lead a church that would make such an endorsement (and neither could I), so he immediately tendered his resignation.

   Some might point to such an episode as a failure of congregationalism. In a sense, it is, since the action of the church departed from the will of Christ, who ought to be her head. Nevertheless, the action of the church formed the setting for one of the strongest actions of pastoral leadership that my friend has ever taken, in my opinion. My pastor-friend taught the members of that congregation—especially the ones who had barely lost their attempt to do the right thing—the importance of taking principled stands, even at risk to one's own livelihood, for the sake of the gospel and the church. My friend wasn't afraid of controversy; he was willing to stand up in the storm and do the right thing. It is in controversy that pastoral leadership is proven and put on display—or revealed to be lacking.

   In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul exercised his strong apostolic leadership to tell the church precisely what to do. He did not, however, presume to do it himself. He would settle for nothing other than the action of the congregation to discipline its wayward member. It is, after all, supposed to be pastoral LEADership, not merely pastoral DOership. In healthy congregationalism, congregational decision-making is a benchmark of discipleship. The pastor must lead the disciples so well that they see for themselves the wisdom of following Christ at each step of the church's mission and they take positive action to embrace those steps and take ownership of them as the disciples they are called to be.

4. Corporate Prayer: By "corporate prayer" I do not mean to signify, necessarily, the moments when a congregation gathers in the same room and somebody voices a prayer for them. Rather, I'm talking about those times when an entire congregation is praying, even if they are doing so individually in their prayer closets, with a united focus on the same question or matter of prayer. Pseudo-congregationalism makes rush decisions in the middle of the night to placate "some people" and avoid controversy. In contrast, true biblical congregationalism sets aside time for corporate prayer before addressing important or controversial decisions. At FBC Farmersville, we publish the agenda of our business meetings in advance for this very reason. Although a member may introduce any item of business in our business meetings, if it has not been placed on the agenda in advance (and any member can place anything on the agenda in advance), then our constitution prevents us from voting on it at that meeting, since we have not had time to pray about it.

   I don't doubt that Pastor Weatherford prayed about what to do in response to these graceless critics, whoever they were. I suspect that he prayed long into the night. But this is the key weakness of episcopal or presbyterial (or, worse, in this case, oligarchical) church polity: Even good, godly pastors sometimes can't pray enough when they're all alone in praying. We pray better for God's guidance when we all pray for it together than when the congregation is kept uninformed and denied the opportunity to seek the Lord for guidance.

   In the New Testament, the church was nimble to pray in moments of crisis. In Acts 12 the congregation convened on the very night that Herod was planning to bring Simon Peter forward to do him harm. God answered their prayers and miraculously freed Peter from the jail. When, after we kept what would have been our first adopted child for twenty-four hours, the birth-mother changed her mind and took him back from us, FBC Farmersville assembled for prayer on our behalf within a few hours. Even in times of crisis, when decisions must be made quickly or when circumstances are thrust upon us, we are better off when we all pray together before we act or react.

5. Submission to the Lordship of Christ: The goal of any worthy system of church polity is to have the church find and obey the will of the Lord. At this point it is important to clarify that the problem at FBC Crystal Springs is really only secondarily and tangentially a question of civil rights. Yes, wrong has been done to the Wilsons, but far greater wrong has been done to Jesus Christ. In pseudo-congregationalism, the need of the timid to avoid controversy, the need of the compliant to be liked by all, the need of the aggressive to dominate, the need of the marketer to project the right image, and the need of the financially dependent to safeguard the money supply all take a back seat to the RIGHT of Jesus Christ to be Lord over His church.

   It is here that congregationalism intersects with church discipline. If the membership of the church extends freely to those who are disinterested in the Lordship of Christ (not the same thing as those who just see things differently from me) because they have never submitted to His lordship by receiving the gospel or have demonstrated by their behavior that their carnality is leading them away from obedience to Christ as Lord, then gone is the one mechanism by which biblical congregationalism can work—the action of the Holy Spirit among genuine believers who are listening carefully to Him.

   Unless they repent, the members of FBC Crystal Springs who opposed this wedding on racist grounds need to be disciplined out of the church. So long as they remain in such a spiritual condition, they are not qualified to contribute to the mission of the church, to identify themselves as representatives of the gospel, or to aid the church in seeking the Lord's will. Congregationalism in which such people have ANY say is a recipe for disaster.

There are many victims of pseudo-congregationalism. Innocent members like the Wilsons are victims of it. Many suffering pastors are the victims of it. But among the greatest victims of psedo-congregationalism is true biblical congregationalism. So weakened is the wheat by the spread of this noxious weed that drastic measures are required to revive it. We cannot look too smugly in the direction of Crystal Springs. Pseudo-congregationlism holds sway in many congregations that haven't made this big of a blunder yet. May the tragic unfolding of this sin-drama in Mississippi awaken us all to the need to rise up and defend the Lordship of Christ against all challengers in our churches.

I Say We Kick Them Out. I'll Make the Motion

According to the Jackson, MS, Clarion-Ledger newspaper, the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, MS, has denied to allow a couple to get married in the church's meeting space because that couple is black. The pastor of the congregation acknowledges as much.

If something doesn't change between now and then, I personally will make the motion at our SBC Annual Meeting in Houston that we refuse to seat messengers from this church and that we declare them not to be in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Dave Miller has blogged about this, and I'm thankful for that. Our other officers should vocally lead on this one. I'm not saying that President Luter should not speak to the problem as well; rather, I'm saying that it is important for the world to see WHITE Southern Baptists standing up against racist churches.

This church is acting in violation to the clear teachings of the Bible and to the clear text of the Baptist Faith & Message. The Southern Baptist Convention needs to become a confessional fellowship in which actions like this one that are in violation of the Baptist Faith & Message constitute clear grounds for removal from the convention.

I am hopeful that I'll never have to make my motion. The fact that I promise to do so if this church does not formally repent of its actions will, I suspect, make that kind of repentance more likely. They know that they'll lose that vote if the motion ever comes to the convention floor. Perhaps the fear of national shame over this will become bigger than their fear of their racist members who caused all of this to begin with. I'd bet that those members aren't numerous within the congregation, but are just monied and influential.

Endorsements, Part 2

Dwight McKissic's Resolution on Mormon Racism

I'm giving an entire post just to this resolution. We need to support this resolution. Here's why.

1. It puts secular politics into its proper place.

   It took me a few years to escape the Democrat upbringing that I received in Northeast Arkansas, but since the Democrats succeeded in convincing me that they were making no place for a pro-life Christian in their party (during the Bill Clinton administration), I have never voted for any kind of presidential candidates other than Republican presidential candidates. I want Mitt Romney to win Barack Obama to lose in November. That really needs to happen.

   But, doggone it, if we won't say something negative about Mormonism just because the Republican presidential hopeful is a Mormon, then we've sold our souls and God help us! This resolution will not affect the electoral outcome in November one tenth of a percentage point. We need to speak the critical truth about this lethal cult right now—precisely when it is embarrassing to a GOP candidate—just to prove to ourselves, to the watching world, and to the GOP that we're committed enough to the truth over politics to do so.

2. It puts denominational politics into its proper place.

   Dwight McKissic and I have squared off against one another in denominational politics. More than once. But, brothers and sisters, Dwight McKissic is not my enemy. He's just wrong in public more than his fair share. ;-) But I manage to wind up in the same situation with some frequency, so I suppose I'm the pot calling the kettle black here.

   And so, it's important to note it, folks, that even if you've generally fallen on the other side of things from Dwight McKissic with some regularity, an idea is not bad just because Dwight McKissic was its originator. Whatever feelings of denominational politics Dwight's resolution might engender in you, his resolution about Mormonism is a good idea. The committee should expand it, I think, and make it a full-fledged resolution against the many offenses and errors of Mormonism. Certainly there is no denominational dust-up we've ever had that is as important as telling the truth about this insidious, damning heresy called Mormonism.

3. McKissic has his facts straight and the resolution is historically solid.

4. Playing kissy-kissy, nice-nice with Mormonism is idiotic as an evangelistic and apologetic strategy. The Mormon strategy is to try to build respectability and to try to keep people from knowing about Mormon racism and Kolob and the fact that Mormonism is built upon a fraudulent book telling tales about a fictional civilization that obviously never inhabited this hemisphere. If one would advance the idea that our apologetic strategy should center around being sure not to be so unkind as to get in the way of the Mormon proselytization strategy, then everybody associated with drafting and implementing that strategy needs to be demoted to some department where the most harm they can do is in the area of teaching children what crayon to use to color Moses' hair.

So, if Dwight's resolution doesn't come out of committee either pretty much intact or strengthened, then I hope that he'll try to bring it out from the floor. Either way, we need to be sure to vote to adopt it or something like it.

Stars, Bars, and Wars

Tuesday, April 12, 2011, will be the sesquicentennial of the Battle of Fort Sumter, the beginning of the War Between the States. The lingering effect of that war in the South is remarkable. Most people whom I've asked can name more battles from that war than from any other American conflict except World War II, which has the double benefit of being a much larger and more significant conflict and having taken place recently enough that a great many participants in World War II are still living.

Not only do we remember the War Between the States after all of this time, but we also continue to fight its battles. The Anderson County Courthouse in Palestine, TX, has been in the Dallas area news for the past week. First, the courthouse agreed to raise the Confederate Flag along with the flags of the United States of America and the State of Texas on the flagpole at the county courthouse. Then, the county decided to remove the Confederate Flag. For video coverage of the controversy by one of our local television stations, click this link.

The question of the war and the Confederate Flag continues to arise and to generate controversy because it stands at the intersection of three R's: Racial tension, Regional pride, and Remembering history.

• Racial Tension: The Confederacy fought to preserve the institution of slavery. In saying so, I am not denying that other issues were involved (for example, the nature of the relationship between our federal government and our several states). Historians can quickly recite a list of reasons why the Confederacy went to war. I'm not, in this post, seeking to argue for the removal of anything from that list. I'm merely saying that, however long that list is, the continued enslavement of black Americans is on the list.

  I'm also not saying that the North was clearly fighting to end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation came late in the war, and provoked angry demonstrations in Northern cities even then. I'm not saying that racism was then (or ever has been) the peculiar possession of Southerners. I'm merely saying that, among other people and institutions, the Southern government opposed the emancipation of the slaves.

  Furthermore, I'm not saying that each individual Confederate soldier was motivated by a desire to preserve slavery. As Shelby Foote noted in the classic Ken Burns series The Civil War, a great many individual Confederate soldiers were fighting "because [the Yankees were] down here [, that is, invading the South]." Granting that the motivating factor for a great many Confederate soldiers was something other, I'm merely saying that the effect of their military services was (among whatever else) the defense of slavery.

  For these reasons, anything that has to do with the War Between the States necessarily has to do with race. Those who object to the display of the Confederate Flag in a venue like the Anderson County Courthouse generally make their objection on the basis of racial offensiveness. I know of no credible argument suggesting that the flying of the Confederate Flag does not offend great numbers of black Americans. All sides would acknowledge, I think, that an enormous percentage of black Americans will indeed be offended whenever the Confederate Flag is displayed by a governmental entity in this manner. Perhaps someone would argue that they should not be offended in these circumstances, but one hardly could (and consequently nobody really does) argue that blacks could not possibly be or are not offended by such displays. The topic of the War Between the States and the Confederacy is a racial issue.

• Remembering History: In Palestine, TX, the offered defense of the display was partly historical in nature. Texas was part of the Confederacy. men from Anderson County died in the War Between the States. The Sons of the Confederacy argued that the display of the Confederate Flag would serve to honor those brave soldiers who died in the war and would commemorate a portion of Anderson County's history.

  Certainly they are accurate in their understanding of history, at least on this point. The Confederate States seceded. A war ensued. People died in the conflict. Then came Reconstruction. These events befell the Southwest when the development of the region was barely begun. Coming at just that moment, the historical significance of the War on the Southern States was so profound as to remain one and a half centuries later.

  And yet, I think something else is afoot here. Six flags have flown over Texas, after all, and yet I doubt seriously that the French flag will soon be hoisted in Palestine. The periods of French, Spanish, and Mexican rule are just as much a part of the history of Anderson County as is the Confederate period. Prior to the conquistadors, the area was generally the possession of various tribes of American Indians. So why is the Confederacy singled out for so much attention?

• Regional Pride and Heroes: Some people support the display of the Confederate Flag because they are KKK-nutjobs—virulent racists who would gladly enforce racial discrimination as a function of their ideology of white supremacy. But this does not tell the whole story. Another broad category of people who either support the display of the Confederate Flag or do not oppose it are those who sympathize deeply with Southern Pride. They play Alabama and Bocephus, watch "Dukes of Hazzard" and display the Confederate Flag. In doing so, they're not so much trying to offend their black neighbors as they are trying to offend Yankees and Carpetbaggers. These are the Proud Southerners. They would not fly the French flag because, although Palestine, TX, was indeed once French, the French heritage of the region is nothing from which they derive their identity. Few symbols are iconically and universally Southern as is the Confederate Flag, and so even some people who are not racists either support or merely do not oppose the flying of the Stars & Bars from the Anderson County Courthouse.

  Seemingly unfettered expansion of the size, scope, and presumptive authority of the Federal Government fuels such sentiments, as some Texans discuss secession from the United States (most solely as an exercise in Texas Pride rather than as a serious domestic strategy) in rhetoric not dissimilar from that of the 1850s. Unionism, social liberalism, socialism in medicine, and other major contributors to our national debt crisis are generally perceived as Northern ideas either transplanted into or forced upon the South.

  In such contexts, some Southerners wish to assert the distinctiveness of the South as a region; to derive their identity more from their region than from their nationality, at least in some regards; and to resist Yankee encroachment and the resulting erosion of distinctively Southern culture. "Song of the South" and "A Country Boy Can Survive" pretty easily morph into "If the South Would've Won We'd Have Had it Made," and the Confederate Flag becomes as much a statement about North-South relations at present as it is any sort of a thoughtful interaction with the antebellum South.

  Consider the lyrics of the aforementioned Hank Williams Jr. song:

  If the South woulda won we'd a had it made.
  I'd probably run for President of the Southern States.
  The day Elvis passed away would be our national holiday.
  If the South woulda won we'd a had it made.

  I'd make my surpreme court down in Texas
  And we wouldn't have no killers getting off free.
  If they were proven guilty then they would swing quickly,
  Instead of writin' books and smilin' on T.V.

  We'd all learn cajun cookin' in Louisiana
  And I'd put that capital back in Alabama.
  We'd put Florida on the right track, 'cause we'd take Miami back
  And throw all them pushers in the slammer.

  Oh, if the South woulda won we'd a had it made.
  I'd probably run for President of the Southern States.
  The day young Skynyrd died, we'd show our southern pride.
  If the South woulda won we'd a had it made.

  I'd have all the whiskey made in Tennessee
  And all the horses raised in those Kentucky hills.
  The national treasury would be in Tupelo, Mississippi
  And I'd put Hank Williams picture on the one hundred dollar bill.

  I'd have all the cars made in the Carolinas
  And I'd ban all the ones made in China.
  I'd have every girl child sent to Georgia to learn to smile
  And talk with that southern accent that drives men wild.

  I'd have all the fiddles made in Virginia,
  'Cause they sure can make 'em sound so fine.
  I'm going up on Wolverton Mountain and see ole Clifton Clowers
  And have a sip of his good ole Arkansas wine.

  Hey, if the South woulda won we'd a had it made.
  I'd probably run for President of the Southern States.
  When Patsy Cline passed away that would be our national holiday.
  If the South woulda won we'd a had it made.

  I said if the south wouda won we would a had it made!

  Might even be better off!

  There's nothing in that song about slavery or race. The most significant implication of a victorious South (a different outcome for race relations) is entirely absent from a song speculating about the implications of a victorious South! Perhaps, one might argue, Williams is of the opinion that the South would have abandoned slavery by now even if it had been victorious. That's an interesting point for speculative discussion and debate, but I don't think it really has a thing to do with Williams's song.

  That's because Williams's song isn't about 1865 at all—it's about 1988. It reflects an opinion that, on the questions of music, law and order, cuisine, drug use, quality of whiskey (Hank apparently didn't see the contradiction between the preceding two items), horses, industrial quality and international trade policy, and the allure of women, Southern culture was superior to non-Southern culture in 1988. Southerners want to be proud of the South. Many Southerners are proud of the South. In order to accomplish this, the number one item of shame for the South—our history of violent racism—we expunge from the story of our region.

  Frankly, I believe that Williams is wrong about 1865 and right about 1988. The nadir of Southern cultural distinctiveness is corresponding with a decline in morality in the South, at least by my own perception of our region. National media are exporting Los Angeles and New York into Little Rock and Nacogdoches, and worse cultures for export would be difficult to find in this country.

  For multi-generational Southerners, entangled with this program of regional pride is the matter of family pride. Many Southerners have ancestors who wore the Gray and fought Mr. Lincoln. Many Southerners have ancestors who told them racial jokes or harbored racist views or participated in the defense of Jim Crow in their younger days. Will we vilify our own parents and grandparents for their sins? Clearly some have done so, but is this even the right thing to do?

The central tension here is between the racial and regional questions. What is the best way forward? I believe that regional pride, within limits, can be a valuable asset for the South, but it must be based upon more positive aspects of the South. If we are proud of the South, then what particular things about the South have made us proud? By the "we" I mean to signify those of us who are Southerners but are not racists. I think that we would do well to place greater emphasis upon a fourth R: Religious Faithfulness.

Were it not for the South, I believe that the United States of America would be as secular as Europe is today. Even the Christian health of the North is greater than it would otherwise be because of the influence of the South and the deliberate efforts of the South to evangelize and disciple the North through church planting in "pioneer areas." An enormous percentage of Christian ministries outside the South and possessing evangelical vitality have their roots, within two steps, in the South.

Consider rates of church attendance. Of the top ten church-going states, only one lies outside the South, and that one (Utah) is only in the list because Gallup doesn't know the difference between a church and the institutions that people attend in Utah. Of the bottom ten church-going states, none of them lie within the South, and six are among the formerly-pious New England states. (See the statistics for yourself here.)

Christian Southerners, why not be proud of that? There is nothing in that reality that would be offensive racially. Black churches and white churches, their cultural dissimilarities notwithstanding, have been partners in preserving the relative spiritual health of the South. The spiritual vitality of the South is no opponent to racial reconciliation, for Christian theology provides the best foundation in the world for racial harmony and Christ is the major source of unity bringing together many black and white Southerners today. The Confederate Flag is not a very good icon of the spiritual South, permeated as it is with small congregations whose platforms are festooned with the American Flag and the Christian Flag, with the Stars & Bars nowhere to be seen. What we need is a flag decorated with a scene of a country vale with a white clapboard church meeting house nestled in the trees.

Emphasizing the legacy of leaders like J. M. Pendleton could help in this regard. Pendleton was the only member of the Great Triumvirate of Landmarkism who was a native Southerner, and yet he was also the only member who was vocally anti-slavery and who opposed secession. With many of our other ancestors or heroes, we will need to honor the good in them while refusing to preserve their weaknesses. The goal here is to continue to carry forward to completion our region's remarkable advance toward racial reconciliation without being absorbed into the secularism that dominates other regions of our nation.

I'm thankful to have been born in Arkansas. Count me as a Proud Southerner who sees our past sins all too clearly, but who also sees the unique positive contributions of the South to our nation and the world. To commemorate Tuesday's anniversary, I will soon dig out my VHS copies of the famous Ken Burns documentary, remembering where we have been and how far we have come, and hoping for the better angels of our nature to lead us forward, after all.

A Southern Baptist's Pilgrimage from Racism

…and the great MLK Day posts keep coming. I give you Malcolm Yarnell's A Southern Baptist's Pilgrimage from Racism.

What Killed Racism in Conservative Christianity

I enthusiastically recommend to you Russell D. Moore's MLK Day post. I am thankful for his insight demonstrated in this post. Click the link now; don't miss it.

In Half-Hearted Defense of Harry Reid

We're so childish in the way that we deal with racial issues in this country.

Race ought not to be a factor in politics. Race is a factor in politics. I don't cast my vote because of a candidate's race. Many people do.

Because so many people will be influenced by race in casting a ballot—because race indeed is a factor in politics—people who analyze politics are going to analyze the racial factors in politics. It is just that simple.

I guarantee you that Harry Reid voted for Obama. Were I a betting man, I'd bet money that Harry Reid would vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Mike Tyson or [insert African-American person here] before he would vote for any Republican. The subject matter is not Harry Reid's personal feelings about the candidates.

If he's opining that Obama's light skin color and refined diction make him more electable than Black candidates who lack those features, then Reid is analyzing OTHER PEOPLE'S racism, and not demonstrating his own. Reid's having to apologize is silly; calls for his resignation are outright ridiculous.

I think that even Michael Steele and my own Senator John Cornyn probably even think the same thing (although each is calling for Reid's resignation). They've just been overcome by the temptation to engage in a little tit-for-tat. Certainly, any Republican who uttered anything vaguely resembling Reid's comments would have been interred in Guantanamo already (Remember President Carter's "analysis" of Joe Wilson's comments?).

But two wrongs don't make a right, and somebody has to show the way forward in race relations in the US. Democrats are obviously and demonstrably incapable of doing so. The more opportunistic that Republicans become in their attempts to hasten the inevitable Ides of March for Democrat control of the Hill, the less optimistic I become that they, either, are willing to lift race-rhetoric in this country to someplace higher.

Disagreement Does Not Equal Racism

There's an interesting story over at Fox News's website in which former Law & Order starlet Angie Harmon rebuffed those who accuse others of racism because of their public questioning and criticism of President Obama. Some of those who accused Republicans of questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with President Bush are now busy questioning the racial tolerance of anyone who disagrees with the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Angie Harmon and Fred Thompson give me occasional hope for Hollywood!

The Incredible Spiritual Power of Apology

A sitting Republican president launched a sweeping program of socialism. His Democrat successor, not to be outdone, is pushing for even more. All of these efforts to "fix" the American economy have driven the stock market down in a free-fall, with a precipitous drop coming upon the news that "help" was on the way from the U.S. Senate. I'm not sure how much more help we can stand!

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some GOOD news. And among some of the most encouraging and inspirational news of the past fortnight, in my opinion, has been the apology received from and forgiveness given to former Klansman Elwin Wilson by the man whom he beat during the Civil Rights Movement, now-Congressman John Lewis.

It's a story that shows the power of the gospel (I hope). Wilson reportedly took this action upon the realization that he was bound for Hell. Being advanced in years has apparently helped Wilson to start thinking about his eternal destiny. Published reports give very little more in the way of details. I hope that Wilson is not under the (false) impression that his reconciliation with Lewis will change his eternal destiny. What Wilson needs to realize—what every person needs to understand—is that he sinned against God by rejecting the personhood of a human being made in the image of God. He therefore needs to ask for God's forgiveness and salvation for Wilson's rebellion against God. I'm hopeful that this is precisely the message the Wilson received, that he did seek God's forgiveness and find his salvation, and that he went to Lewis in contrition because his heart has been changed.

If this is indeed the case, then it just goes to show the power of the gospel to transform the lives and hearts of those whom society has written off as beyond hope of redemption. It also reminds us of the continuing importance of the doctrine of Hell to evangelism.

It's a story that reminds us of the importance of seeking and giving forgiveness. This is the key to so many problems plaguing our world today. An amazing number of families could be saved merely by the practice of asking for forgiveness when we're wrong and granting forgiveness when we're asked. Imagine how inner cities would be transformed if this were the ethic of urban gangs. I believe that this simple principle is also the great hope for racial reconciliation in our country, and that now is a great opportunity to exercise it. Here's hoping that Wilson starts a trend of white apologies toward victimized blacks. And then, I hope that black Americans, if they have falsely accused any white Americans of racism, will also begin to seek the forgiveness of those whom they have wronged.

It is not a panacea, for substantive differences separate Republicans and Democrats, pro-life people and pro-abortion people, opponents of the family (feminists, homosexual activists, etc.) and defenders of the family, as well as conservatives and liberals in many areas beyond secular politics. Nevertheless, there is incredible power in an apology, and for those who know Christ as Savior, an incredible spiritual power in the discipline of seeking and granting forgiveness that honors our Lord greatly.