the author skillfully uses this note to respond to this obvious question that the reader might have.
Box 3.8
The change of heart, explains the author, comes in 1995 with the apology. This is the third and final shift in the narrative. As a good historian, the author is working both thematically and chronologically.
The SBC’s Change of Heart: The 1995 Apology
The problem of a racist reputation plagued the SBC even as it announced its 1995 apology for support of slavery and segregation and beyond. It had been stigmatized as being racist, an unusual description for a mainline American Protestant denomination. This negative perception has been underplayed by scholars not only because of African Americans’ outsider status but also because of their history of subjugation as a religious community. Rarely do we write about outsider perceptions of majority religious institutions. Only those who have felt the anguish of racial oppression, however, understand what it means to mistrust major institutions that have participated in their oppression (see Box 3.9).
Box 3.9
This entire article has explored the attitudes of one denomination and its attitude to racism in the light of the Golden Rule. As the author comes to a key moment in the narrative, the apology, she explains why this matters so much. A dimension of racism is the way a deep distrust can form of an institution or an organization or, in this case, a denomination. Racism is more than the sum of individuals with prejudice; racism can shape an entire denomination and the lack of trust can continue long into the future.
Ultimately, the SBC issued an apology to African Americans during its 150th anniversary in 1995. Entitled “Resolution on Racial Reconciliation on the 150th Anniversary of The Southern Baptist Convention, Atlanta, Georgia (1995),” it acknowledged its historic role in the support of slavery, racism, and segregation in the exclusion of African Americans from SBC congregations. It also recognized its failure to support the civil rights movement; how the SBC divided the body of Christ between whites and African Americans; how it promoted the distorted belief that racism and discrimination were compatible with the gospel; and its minimal commitment to eradicating racism. It concluded:
Be it further RESOLVED, That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27); and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake.43
This apology symbolized an evolution in attitudes that the SBC would have to prove was genuine through its work for racial reconciliation. The planning for this historic resolution occurred during a Race Relations Conference on May 22, 1995.44 The group consisted of eight white pastors and eight African American pastors. According to the Rev. Gary L. Frost, an African American Southern Baptist who attended the meeting, Albert Mohler and Paige Patterson, both presidents of SBC seminaries, also attended the meeting. Frost described how surprised those present were when Mohler and Patterson mentioned the problem of sin in the same breath as racism. Frost described individual reactions, as well as the general tenor of the meeting itself as one of regret, including the admission of sin in relation to racism and slavery.45 Frost also emphasized that “a part of the anguish of African-American Christians was during the sixties, when we needed a friend, the evangelicals weren’t there.”46
Some African American pastors who were a part of the resolution-drafting meeting no doubt realized that the 1995 resolution would be met with skepticism and mistrust by African American pastors. Frost mentioned that African American National Baptists were cool to the 1995 resolution for several reasons. The resolution was seen by many African Americans as an opportunity to steal African American Baptists and bring them into the SBC at a time when its white membership had plateaued. Frost was personally hurt by the National Baptists’ reaction because they were not willing to accept the possibility that the SBC had a changed heart toward racism. It would seem that the SBC’s stained reputation would be difficult to overcome immediately.
African Americans outside the SBC pointed to the history of racism and abuse that African Americans historically had endured. A test for many in the African American Christian community would be whether words matched deeds and whether the SBC transformed from its original roots of racism. According to the Rev. Arlee Griffin, Jr., who served as historian for the African American Progressive National Baptist Convention during the time of the SBC’s historic resolution, “It is only when one’s request for forgiveness is reflected in a change of attitude and actions that the victim can then believe that the request for forgiveness is authentic.” The proof, for the Rev. Griffin Jr., would be in the integration of the SBC’s institutions and churches, including seminary faculties and agency staffs.47
The SBC’s racist reputation was not limited to segments of African American Christian communities. SBC Pastor Jonathan Merritt discussed the problem of the SBC’s general reputation in an article some sixteen years later. He noted:
Then there’s the stigma attached to the name. A 2006 Center for Missional Research/Zogby poll found that many Americans have a negative impression of the denomination. More than 40% of 18- to 24-year-olds said knowing a church was Southern Baptist would negatively affect their decision to visit or join.48
The same article recounted that even the name, the SBC, was problematic and that it needed a break with its past to embrace a more culturally diverse American society. Merritt wrote, “I was reminded of this recently when an African-American friend asked me about the denominational alignment of our church. I saw pain in her eyes when I told her ‘Southern Baptist.’”49
After the 1995 resolution, the SBC’s public resolutions on race continued to reflect a change in tone, especially during the 2007 recognition of the 150th anniversary of the Dred Scott case. In this resolution, the SBC repudiated the court’s decision that declared that African Americans had no rights that whites had to respect. Instead, it wrote that it “wholly lament[ed] and repudiate[d] the Dred Scott Decision and fully embrace[d] the Lord’s command to love our neighbors as ourselves.”50
(See Box 3.10.) Its change of tone also was reflected in 2012 when the SBC elected its first African American convention president, the Rev. Fred Luter, Jr. of New Orleans. It was not something the Rev. Luter sought, but he believed that it was God’s will that he become president to assist the SBC’s efforts to become more diverse.51 It also must be noted that at the time it elected the Rev. Luter, the convention faced a decline in overall membership.52 This move toward more diversity came as the SBC grappled with a 2010 baptism rate that was down 5% from 2009 and a 0.15% drop in membership – the fourth consecutive year of decline.53 The work toward a more ethnically diverse SBC may have begun in earnest with the election of the Rev. Luter, but the work to evince trust with oppressed groups has been difficult. As a part of its work thus far, it has opened its congregations and has planted churches in African American and Hispanic communities.
Box 3.10
The author has sketched some of the understandable suspicion surrounding the apology among African American Christians. So here the author highlights the decision of the convention to elect its first African American president. However, she links this decision with the data around the decline of membership. She invites the reader to wonder if the passion for inclusion is mainly driven by declining attendance.
Stigma: A Reciprocal Process
The stigma and stain of African American inferiority developed over centuries of life in America, beginning with chattel slavery. The “curse of Ham” and other biblical arguments were early tools of stigmatization of African Americans and illustrated the meaningful role scripture played in promoting racism, slavery,