My first point has to do with question of "nationalism". As a reminder the resolution proposed by Dwight McKissic said in part:
RESOLVED, that the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, AZ, June 13-14, 2017, denounces every form of “nationalism” that violates the biblical teachings with respect to race, justice, and ordered liberty;
I know that he qualified his proposal with the caveat of only denouncing nationalism that violates the biblical teachings with respect to "race, justice and ordered liberty" but that is awfully vague. What exactly is "ordered liberty" and who decides which forms of nationalism are just or unjust? I hate stuff that is imprecise and vague because that sort of thing gives an unwanted opening for people to commit all sorts of mischief under the guise of opposing "unbiblical nationalism".
As I pointed out in a prior post, it seems odd to denounce "nationalism" at an annual meeting that is opened with a singing of the U.S. national anthem and a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States. I would like to see someone point out that for a lot of non-Americans, the Star Spangled Banner is not something they see positively and that for Christians to pledge allegiance to a flag of all things is deeply unseemly. That concerns me a lot more than the "alt-right". While I absolutely affirm that there is racism in the Southern Baptist Convention, just as there is racism in all groups of people as well as legitimate forms of ethnic and national pride, I have yet to see anything other than pretty vague anecdotal "evidence" that the alt-right is a significant problem in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Some would cry "But the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention was racist!" which is true but it also happened in 1845. By my reckoning that was 172 years ago. The men that founded the SBC are dead. Their kids are dead. Their grandkids are dead, I assume. The Civil War ended in 1865 and the 13th Amendment was ratified that year, also over 150 years ago. The last slaves are long dead as are the last slave owners. There was certainly widespread racism in the century that followed and it still exists today but I don't think it is right or just to label the SBC as specifically liable for racism based on the founding of the denomination 172 years ago. Furthermore, flogging modern contemporary Southern Baptists for something that happened a century and a half ago that I assume most Southern Baptists don't even know much about is preposterous. My position is simple.
If you didn't own slaves or support the institution of slavery, you have no obligation and no need to apologize for slavery.
I am partly of German ancestry but that doesn't obligate me to apologize for the Holocaust.
I would also note that lots of manifestations of national and ethnic pride were on display at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. Here is a list I pulled from the official webpage, sorry about the all caps but I am too lazy to do anything but copy and paste:
ASIAN AMERICAN FELLOWSHIP
CHINESE BAPTIST FELLOWSHIP
FELLOWSHIP OF NATIVE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS
FILIPINO INT'L MISSION BOARD
HISPANIC AVANCE MEETING
KOREAN AMERICAN ENGLISH SPEAKING PASTORS' CONF
NAAF (NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN FELLOWSHIP) BUS MTG
NAAF (NAT'L AFRICAN AMERICAN FELLSHP) 22ND ANN. BANQ.
NATIONAL HISPANIC FELLOWSHIP
So if you are Asian, Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Hispanic, Korean or Black you get separate events during the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to celebrate your heritage, your ethnicity and/or your nationality. I have no issue with that, none whatsoever. But I wonder who will be in charge of determining which forms of nationalism are "biblical" and therefore permissible and which are not. I don't think I would like the answer to that question.
Nationalism is kind of a slippery fish to get a grip on. In general I think the SBC has a whole bunch of issues and nationalism or infiltration by the "alt-right" isn't in the top 10, or 20 or 30 or...I do think that the revised resolution that passed is a far sight better than what was originally proposed. I don't think that the way it was passed, in a panic and under enormous external pressure, was helpful or healthy longer term. We will see.