"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Charles H. Spurgeon and Southern Baptist Racism

Charles H. Spurgeon
In 2019, the Southern Baptist Convention continues to struggle with issues of racism. 

Some question its existence in the SBC, others wrangle over proper ways to confront it, and a few are offering meaningful steps for racial reconciliation within the SBC.

I remain amazed that there are some prominent conservative pastors and convention leaders who deny a spirit of racism in the Southern Baptist Convention. 

The dogmatic are never diplomatic because narrow perspectives are the children of ill-informed studies in history and culture

Christian George, the former curator of the C. H. Spurgeon Library and former assistant professor of historical theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, authored a 2017 published book entitled The Lost Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon Volume I: His Earliest Outlines and Sermons Between 1851 and 1854.

It's an excellent resource for contemporary Southern Baptist opinions of the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Mr. Spurgeon was a strong abolitionist and considered slavery based on race a scourge on humanity, not to mention Christianity.

Dr. George describes what happened to Mr. Spurgeon 140 years ago this month:
In 1859, an American minister named “Rev. H.” traveled to London to meet the famous pastor of the New Park Street Chapel. 
When Spurgeon discovered his guest was from Alabama, his “cordiality sensibly diminished.”
A six-month American preaching tour would expedite the construction of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, but could Southerners tolerate Spurgeon’s stance against slavery?
When Spurgeon asked his guest this question, the Alabamian said he “had better not undertake it.”
This advice might have saved Spurgeon’s life.
The same year, S. A. Corey, pastor of Eighteenth Street Baptist Church in New York City, invited the 24-year-old to preach at the Academy of Music opera house for $10,000. News of Spurgeon’s visit was met with anticipation in the North and hostility in the South.
According to an Alabama newspaper, Spurgeon would receive a beating “so bad as to make him ashamed.” On February 17, 1860, citizens of Montgomery, Alabama, publicly protested the “notorious English abolitionist” by gathering in the jail yard to burn his “dangerous books”:
Last Saturday, we devoted to the ames a large number of copies of Spurgeon’s sermons. . . . We trust that the works of the greasy cockney vociferator may receive the same treatment throughout the South. And if the pharisaical author should ever show himself in these parts, we trust that a stout cord may speedily find its way around his eloquent throat.
On March 22, a “Vigilance Committee” in Montgomery followed suit and burned Spurgeon’s sermons in the public square. A week later Mr. B. B. Davis, a bookstore owner, prepared “a good ore of pine sticks” before reducing about 60 volumes of Spurgeon’s sermons “to smoke and ashes.”
British newspapers quipped that America had given Spurgeon a warm welcome, “a literally brilliant reception.”
Prince of Bonfires
 Anti-Spurgeon bonfires illuminated jail yards, plantations, bookstores, and courthouses throughout the Southern states.
In Virginia, Mr. Humphrey H. Kuber, a Baptist preacher and “highly respectable citizen” of Matthews County, burned seven calf-skinned volumes of Spurgeon’s sermons “on the head of a flour barrel.” The arson was assisted by “many citizens of the highest standing.”
In North Carolina, Spurgeon’s famous sermon “Turn or Burn” found a similar fate when a Mr. Punch “turned the second page and burned the whole.” By 1860, slave-owning pastors were “foaming with rage because they [could not] lay hands on the youthful Spurgeon.”
His life was threatened, his books burned, his sermons censured, and below the Mason-Dixon Line, the media catalyzed character assassinations.
In Florida, Spurgeon was a “beef-eating, puffed-up, vain, over-righteous pharisaical, English blab-mouth.”
In Virginia, he was a “fat, overgrown boy”; in Louisiana, a “hell-deserving Englishman”; and in South Carolina, a “vulgar young man” with “(soiled) sleek hair, prominent teeth, and a self-satisfied air.”
Georgians were encouraged to “pay no attention to him.”
North Carolinians “would like a good opportunity at this hypocritical preacher” and resented his “endish sentiments, against our Constitution and citizens.”
The Weekly Raleigh Register reported that anyone selling Spurgeon’s sermons should be arrested and charged with “circulating incendiary publications.”
Southern Baptists ranked among Spurgeon’s chief antagonists. 
The Mississippi Baptist hoped “no Southern Baptist will now purchase any of that incendiary’s books.”
The Baptist colporteurs of Virginia were forced to return all copies of his sermons to the publisher.
The Alabama Baptist and Mississippi Baptist “gave the Londoner 4,000 miles of an awful raking” and “took the hide off him.” 
The Southwestern Baptist and other denominational newspapers took the “spoiled child to task and administered due castigation.”
More Distant Future
In 1860, an article entitled Mr. Spurgeon and the American Slaveholders offered the following words:
“Southern Baptists will not, hereafter, when they visit London, desire to commune with this prodigy of the 19th century. We venture the prophecy that his books in [the] future will not crowd the shelves of our Southern book merchants. They will not; they should not.”
In 1889, Spurgeon uttered a prophecy of his own:
“For my part, I am quite willing to be eaten of dogs for the next 50 years; but the more distant future shall vindicate me.”
The more distant future did vindicate Spurgeon. His sermons do crowd the shelves of Southern bookstores.
As Carl F. H. Henry rightly noted, Spurgeon has become “one of evangelical Christianity’s immortals.”
Throughout Alabama, Virginia, and the United States of America, the books of “the notorious English abolitionist” still burn—casting light and life in a dark and dying world.
The above narrative has been adapted from Christian George's preface to The Lost Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon Volume I: His Earliest Outlines and Sermons Between 1851 and 1854 (B&H Academic, 2017).

In light of the past history and culture of the Southern Baptist Convention, I would suggest three things need to occur within the Southern Baptist Convention to move forward in racial reconciliation and eradicate racism:
1. Officially and permanently change the name of the Convention, eradicating Southern.
2. Intentionally and emphatically elect many racial minorities into positions of leadership.
3. Repeatedly and collectively make racial reconciliation a major theme of annual Conventions.
It's time for talk to turn into action. 


everette said...

Thanks for being courageous enough to post this, Wade. Many people in your position wouldn't even consider talking about SBC history, much less propose some changes that are feasible and not just symbolic. Thank you for continuing to fight the good fight.

Rileydogbarks said...

It seems to me the battle in the Southern Baptist Convention has always been about authority....who controls it and what has to be done to keep it: my Bible, my interpretation, my way of doing things. Makes one wonder why revival seems to have not happened in the SBC.

Kelley Kimble said...

Clinging to first century cultural norms as though they are the will of God is going to do the SBC in. I am tired of hearing that concerns for racial reconciliation and justice are - what is it they say? - godless ideologies.

Mark Sims said...

Five presidential posts in the span of a year...five.
Mark Sims

Anonymous said...

Hmm. I think removing the word Baptist might be a better start, since the SBC doesn't seem to care much for the Baptist distinctives anymore.

I grew up under preachers that would gladly have strung up Spurgeon, but not for his stand on slavery. Rather, his rejection of whosever will for limited atonement was anathema to them.


Shawn said...

1. Officially and permanently change the name of the Convention, eradicating Southern.
2. Intentionally and emphatically elect many racial minorities into positions of leadership.
3. Repeatedly and collectively make racial reconciliation a major theme of annual Conventions.

I agree with 1 but it has failed often in the past.
I disagree with 2 and 3 in that 'race' is the qualifier, not qualification or Gospel.

The problem for the SBC at present is the Woke movement as exemplified by Danny Akin et al, folks who have all of a sudden determined that they are the experts on racial relations and require all to follow their lead, which, from what I have read, is more white guilt and not genuine knowledge of how folks of diverse backgrounds live and work together. They have determined themselves to be the experts much as had their 'father in the spirit' Paige Patterson knew how women should be treated.

Much can be observed by the fact that SEBTS's Kingdom Diversity page had to remove several of the videoes that were obviously over the line.

everette said...

Shawn, Wade's suggestions have very strong Biblical precedents. Note that in the book of Acts, the first conflict in church history had to do with racism: namely that Hellenistic Jewish Christians were being discriminated against by the Hebraic Christians.

In order to resolve the conflict, the Apostles--all of whom were of Jewish--asked the church to choose mediators who could resolve the conflict. The men chosen seem to have had at least some Hellenistic background, because they all had Greek names.

In other words, when the apostles realized that an ethnic minority in the church was suffering, they graciously backed out of the situation in favor of others who could be seen as impartial mediators. Even more graciously, the apostles accepted the fact that all 7 men were of Hellenistic background. (It would not surprise me if the racial hostility the Galilean apostles had faced from Judaean Jews in Jerusalem helped them better sympathize with the Greek Jewish Christians).

All of this serves to foreshadow the enormous contributions made by the Hellenistic Jewish Christian Paul later on in Acts.

But the appointment of the Seven was not the first time the apostles had to deal with racism; on the contrary, it is a continuing theme of Acts. Peter retained his anti-Gentile prejudices until God whacked him over the head in the dream at Cornelius' house (and even then, Peter later backslid into his old anti-Gentile habits until Paul confronted him as reported in Gal. 2).

By the same token, Paul circumcised Timothy before sending Timothy to preach to a largely Jewish-background congregation. Paul recognized that only a confirmed Jew would be able to successfully evangelize the Jews in the regions where they traveled. The absence of a foreskin did not make Timothy a better preacher or a more compassionate minister; it simply gave him an essential qualification for the job.

Furthermore, racism was essentially the subject matter of the first Church Council, which sought to compromise between Jewish purity laws and Gentile resistance to such legalism.

But finally, diversity is important in the church, as it has been since the days of Acts. Just as the Jewish apostles could not fairly deal with the specific needs of the Hellenistic widows, so too can an all-white, all-male executive committee fairly serve the needs of America's diverse population, to say nothing of the rest of the world targeted by the IMB. Adding a few token women or minorities won't help, either. Only genuinely diverse decision-making bodies can genuinely address the needs of an increasingly diverse American church and an increasingly diverse body of lost people.

Shawn said...

Everette, I appreciate your comments and observations but my criticism still stands. You are right to a point on the early church in that the issue seemed to be racial. But, as most translations treat the text, everyone is a Jew in the Acts 6 conversation. Hellenistic just means that they had adopted more Greek ways; but they were still ethnic Jews and the result of that discussion was the creation, most folks believe, of the diaconate. This is different than the chapter 15 council where actual Gentiles and their relationship with the Gospel and the Torah is the topic of discussion. Those weren’t ethnic Jews, unlike those under discussion in chapter 6. Plus, the apostles in chapter 6 didn’t look for those more culturally atuned, they merely wanted someone else to attend to the administrative aspects of running a church. Note, that there is no mention of ethnicity but only of work load and what they knew to be the work that they had to devote themselves to.

Acts 6.2 So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4"But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:2-4 NAU)

Verse three is the source of my criticism of Wade’s position – Wade said only that the SBC should ‘Intentionally and emphatically elect many racial minorities into positions of leadership’ with no mention of qualifications (he may have assumed it), as in Acts of them being ‘men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,’ and not for the purpose of ensuring ‘racial diversity’ but so that the apostles could “devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word" which is the source of my criticism of his third point; he didn’t mention ‘ministry of the word’ but rather to make ‘racial reconciliation a major theme of annual Conventions.’

I am all for racial diversity but not as an end in and of itself, and I am very concerned and skeptical of those who are leading the charge; they appear more to me as Virtue Signaling and demonstrating how Woke they are and are going about it in the wrong way, using folks and methods that are more headline grabbing and heavy handed and will not ultimately serve the church but will repeat, by their methods, mistakes of the recent past on other issues which Wade has well raised here. They have learned too much from their ‘spiritual father’ and teacher!

Thanks for the conversation!


Anonymous said...

Perhaps less story telling and more inward reflection as to what you have actually done in your lifetime to contribute, or not, to racism in this country and convention is warranted.

Dec 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"

May 2016, a human being, a US-born Citizen judge, cannot be impartial because of his "Mexican heritage" (skin), Trump states

August 2016, human beings from Mexico are "rapists" says Trump.

November 2016, Wade Burleson decides these are not deal breakers and votes for Trump anyway.

August 2017, Trump calls white supremacists "very fine people"

December 2017, Trump says all human beings from Hati "have AIDS" and the same month said Nigerians wouldn't go "back to their huts."

May 2018, Trump calls undocumented human beings "animals."

June 29, 2018: "I am a political conservative who voted for Donald Trump and think he's doing a pretty good job as President."

Wade Burleson said...


You make a good point.


"Less storytelling and more inward reflection..."

Thank you for the advice.

Wade Burleson said...


Senator Norman Lamb once told me, "Emmanuel will not be racially diverse as a congregation until you intentionally make the staff racially diverse." We are not where we need to be - yet, but we are getting there!

Rex Ray said...


Your August 11 post stated: “Jeffery Epstein, the owner of a $44 million Upper Eastside mansion, a private island, an ocean yacht, a party jet, and access to the worlds’ rich and elite is dead…In the end, Jeffrey knew his life wasn’t worth living, and that he would be a tragic stub on Wikipedia. That’s why Jeffery Epstein took his life.”

I believe in his mind he was still doing when a jury found him guilty of in 2008; being paid a lot of money for furnishing rich and famous men with young girls.

Besides Bill Clinton, the link below tells of another famous man.


I believe Epstein is dead because he knew too much.

Wade, I believe people become ‘bigger’ when they learn and admit they’re wrong.

Bob Cleveland said...

ANONYMOUS 8:14 ... 9:42PM: Could you please cite the references for the statements you attributed to President Trump?


Bob Cleveland said...

Wade: A well-known client of mine told me, perhaps 25 years ago: "America will never get a handle on racism until it recognizes that preferring to worship with people of your own race is not racist." The gent was Sy Erskine, a black gent who owned a Barbecue Restaurant in Hueytown, Alabama.

I also asked a young black couple, who were members of a SS class I led, if there were a lot of black people (a term they said they preferred) who wanted to worship in white churches. They both laughed, and said "Your music alone is enough to keep us away".

RB Kuter said...

Shawn proposed:
1. Officially and permanently change the name of the Convention, eradicating Southern.
2. Intentionally and emphatically elect many racial minorities into positions of leadership.
3. Repeatedly and collectively make racial reconciliation a major theme of annual Conventions.
I think those are good. Not sure why we continue to use "Southern" other than it being traditional. But sadly, our origins and traditions are not particularly something to which we would be proud. So given those connotations, maybe discontinuing its use would be good in addition to eliminating the appearance of our Convention being a "regional" entity.

But #"2" is the point I like most and agree would be effective in our transition from being an all-white church. I have heard before, and agree with, that if a church enlists members of its staff that are diverse in culture and color the church itself will be diverse in culture and color. Noticed on Wade's church's website that one of the eight members shown on his staff is a person of color, the student minister.

I wonder if our church's staff was made up of people whose ethnicities and color reflected the community if our church would evolve into congregations that mirrored the people around us. Why not more Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans and women? Most Southern Baptist churches, including my own, do not.

Christiane said...

It is hard to imagine going to Church and not seeing people from many ethnic group represented among our parishioners. I guess you move into a 'diocese' and you find a parish Church and join and then you can visit other Churches and that's okay, but it is hoped that you will support your parish Church if you are able to do so . . .

so are you all talking about a 'cultural' segregation rather than a racial one when you talk about a 'white Church' and a 'black Church'? The comment about music preference might indicate a desire to attend the Church where the music mattered a great deal, and that is a cultural feature.

we don't have any 'black parishes' around here, except if you go down to St. Mary's in town, many of the parishioners come from the projects nearby, but that doesn't 'matter' and it is not something that is even thought about . . . you go to St. Mary's to pray and it is much less of a casual 'social' event than it is the gathering of people together to form a Christian liturgical community in the same way that all parishes have their people gather in order to pray following the liturgical tradition . . . the focus is kept on Christ

my guess is that history must be 'overcome' by people who are READY to do it, and that is a difficult thing for people as the history of segregation has been so brutal in our country . . . it takes time for people to gain trust and to see the image of God in 'the other' so patience is needed and real mutual acts of kindness rather than any forced effort that might be interpreted as the insult of condescension. But people need to begin to move forward in a good direction, yes.

Shawn said...

R.B. Kutler,

Those are Wade's proposals. My critique of them is above.


Rex Ray said...

Anonymous Aug 9:42 PM

1.Cartoon in newspaper of a family of four asking to be seated at a restaurant. The father is wearing a Trump Tee-shirt.
2. “We will call you over the loudspeaker when your table’s ready.”
3.“Party of Four Racist White Supremacist Latino Exterminators, your Table’s Ready!”

Rex Ray said...

We just returned from our once a month “Civic club” meeting of about 13 people. We ate at a popular place. I noticed many blacks eating, but we were ushered to another room where there were only Whites.

On the other hand a 60 year old Home Health White nurse who is caring for my ankle, attends a Black church.

Jeffery Epstein’s autopsy revealed his neck was broken.


The link above demonstrates how a neck can be broken in a split second.

Epstein was found hanging which would indicated he died from suffocation.

I believe they broke his neck and then hung him to look like suicide.

RB Kuter said...

Christiane asked, "so are you all talking about a 'cultural' segregation rather than a racial one when you talk about a 'white Church' and a 'black Church'?"

That brings up a valid point to be debated. Personally, I think it is both. By the way, it is not only Southern Baptist churches that are segregated and certainly not only in the south. Go to most churches anywhere and you will find them attended by one predominant race or ethnic group, so perhaps that points to it being more of a cultural preference.

I can believe your description of the Catholic church having congregations that are more diverse and that begs the question, "Why?". I have never attended Wade's church but I imagine that if a person of ANY race or ethnic group did visit, they would be warmly welcomed by the people there. Still, Wade and the leadership has to be very intentional and creative to come up with ways to evolve into a more diverse congregation mix.

I don't imagine that Catholic churches have to be that intentional about being diverse. So maybe this is something that you can shed some light on, Christiane. Just why do you think this is less of an issue in the Catholic church than virtually all Protestant churches regardless of the region in which they are located?

RB Kuter said...

Rex Ray, I bet there are a LOT of people glad that Epstein is dead no matter how it occurred and for a LOT of different reasons, don't you?

RB Kuter said...

Shawn, I see now and re-read your response to Wade.

I like that new term being used these days, "virtue signaling". Guess that's a new and improved term for what I think was "posers", which was a good un' too but "virtue signaling" seems to have a more direct reference to those "posing" as "do-gooders".

But what does "Woke" mean as you used in "demonstrating how Woke they are"? Is that a misspelling or just another new term for an old man like me to learn? Hard to keep up.

The world is rapidly changing, kind of like my church frequently changing the term for "Sunday School" class from that to, "BFG" ("Bible Fellowship Group") and now changed to "Connect Groups". I guess the old label, "Sunday School" is just antiquated and seems silly. Makes my head spin but I am so old that I was around when most churches in our region had a version of "Sunday School" every Sunday night that we called, "BTU" ("Baptist Training Union")! Wow! That DOES go way back!

But then again, I STILL wear a dress shirt, tie, coat and even a hat to church on Sundays! Gotta say that I am one of few that does. Can you even imagine what a sight that is??!! But maybe I just kind of get off on being different; kind of rebellious.

Rex Ray said...

RB Kuter,

The word, YES, answers your question. But not all wanted Epstein dead, especially the devil. Someone lowered the flag half way on his island. Could it have been a girl? No one has mentioned their feelings.

The link below tells in a song how a mother, desperate for money to keep her baby alive, had named her 18 year old daughter “Fancy” and “be nice to the gentlemen, and they’ll be nice to you.” (mother and baby died, but in Fancy’s mind, she came out a winner.)


Christiane said...

Good Morning, Mr. Kuter

I'm smiling because my good father, of blessed memory, always wore his only suit to mass every Sunday, and he shined his shoes and made sure that we were dressed 'respectfully'. It's a generational thing, maybe, the clothing that is worn, and my immigrant father did not have a lot of 'dress casual' clothing anyway. He had his work clothes, and that suit, and some old clothing he wore to garden in and to work on the car. That suit was a bit worn and a bit shiny from years of wear, but he was faithful to wear it every week, and that is a memory I treasure.

I may have confused you a bit about the mix of ethnicities in my Church. When my father immigrated from Canada, the family spoke only French. There was an uncle already in Aldenville and there was a 'French' parish, where the nuns taught French half-day and English half-day. So my father learned. Across town, there was a Polish parish, and same thing, the nuns taught Polish half-day and English half-day. These were 'enclaves', but they were 'cultural' rather than 'racial', in that soon my Aunt Rhoda marries Polish Uncle Charlie and the next generation was born and it didn't matter where my crazy cousins Ronald and Larry attended mass . . . they were 'American' kids. And so it went.

We have in our parish people with all the ethnic names, and also various races represented: Filipino, Latin American, African American, Asian . . . no one thinks anything about it, this mixture. And sure, there are people of Italian appearance and them what has faces that have the whole map of Ireland imprinted on them. :) That's my parish. Father Brian has an Irish name, but he is more German he says than Irish, so there you have it. We are a mixed ethnic community of faith. But two generations ago, there WERE enclaves were ethnic people settled and the parishes helped them to assimilate, yes . . . and sheltered them in sanctuary for a time of adjustment that had to be, for them, an enormous change.

As to Protestant Churches, I have visited some of the local ones and there are representatives of different races present, although the white people outnumbered the others, so maybe things are changing??? I thought they were. I hope they will. It's about Christ, the Church. And in His Incarnation, He assumed ALL of humanity to Himself in order to be able to heal it. I guess the importance of 'healing' human divisions begins with Him, in Him, and through Him. Where He is the focus, people will be able to recognize their 'neighbors' as Christian brothers and sisters.

Christiane said...

“a New Commandment: ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’

“Love your enemies.
Love those who hate and persecute you.
Love those who have become outcast
and those who are excluded from the group

. . . Love not just those
of your own tribe, your own class, family or people,
but those who are different,
those who are strangers,
who are strange to your ways,
who come from different cultural and religious traditions,
who seem odd,
those you do not understand.

Love as the Samaritan loved the man he found
beaten up by robbers
somewhere on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho ”

(from ‘The Body Broken’ by Jean Vanier)

Christiane said...

Good Morning, REX RAY

Finally, you have a great current conspiracy theory to work on: how did Epstein die?

His 'hyoid' bone in his throat was broken. That IS very strange indeed. Here's some ammunition for you:

Go for it, we need all eyes and ears to help solve this mystery . . . was he strangled first? And by whom? And why? What are the facts? What is known?

THE HYOID BONE? a very unusual fracture, yes . . . and possibly, a CLUE !!!
What a mess.

I keep my prayers and focus on the victims, whose lives have been tragically altered by those who hurt them. I hope justice will done for their sake. And to deter others from such evil predatory behaviors against minors. Very tragic case, all the way around.

Christiane said...

Dear Anonymous who disparaged Wade Burleson,

I think Wade could vote for Godzilla and he would still be one of the most Christian people in this country who works actively to help those of other ethnic groups, especially reaching out to former prison inmates.

Now I hope Wade votes for a good person, but if you want to know who Wade is, look at those he has helped, and you will find that it has cost him a great deal to support many who have been persecuted over the years. So I don't mind if he votes for Godzilla even, I look to how he (and his good wife Rachelle) have worked so hard to help those who need Christ.

To me, his character is unimpeachable. Wade is on the side of the angels. Please know this.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks, Christiane, for the kind words! :)

Patrick Mead said...

Yes and Amen!

Anonymous said...

Wade's own blog evidences your anecdotal argument as folly. The SBC is filled with pastors who do great ministry but hide sexual perversion.

Doing good doesn't mean total absence of anything evil. Your argument is nothing but fallacy.

Voting for evil and even calling it good (what Wade has done) is still supporting evil.

Both Donald Trump and Epstein sexually assaulted people.
One of these men, Wade wrote a blog post condemning.
One of these men, Wade wrote a blog job saying "good job."

On issues of race, the silence is deafening...

In the last two weeks:
One man shot and killed dozens because of race, inspired and verbally crediting the man Wade voted for and said is doing a "good job."
One man, in a job requiring partiality, admitted he was racist. Wade defended this man's position.

The issues you opt to take up, and the issues you decide to defend (or be silent on) speak volumes.

Christiane said...

Dear Anonymous,

I hear you about the troubles our country is seeing and I do blame the 'hate-mongers', yes.
I blame them for inspiring weak people to go out and commit atrocities, and then for saying that the weak people were 'mentally ill and we are going to lock them all up in institutions', thereby washing hands of all responsibility for 'the evil tongue' that sets the hatred in motion until it kills . . . .

but I also know that our country is divided and people live in 'bubbles' where the information they are counting on may not be accurate . . . . and it is true that the Russian attacks on our country have involved pitting 'sides' against one another, so that the divisions deepen and will continue to deepen until our country is no more as a viable entity in the modern world . . .

I am not a Trump supporter, no. But I have friends who do support him. And I'm still friends with these people because I feel that they are mis-informed, not that their hearts are bad. And I care about these people. I hope for better for all of us soon, but in the meantime, I don't see the need to attack people who have themselves stood between those who have suffered from abuse and those who are committing that abuse. Wade has tried to help abused people. He has suffered for it. In my faith, that counts for someone, that they gave of themselves for the sake of others, yes. How can I explain this better?

I don't know. There is a quote from a favorite author, Flannery O'Connor that says something meaningful to me, this:

"“I love a lot of people, understand none of them...”

(Flannery O'Connor)

something about the people I care for is that I know they have good hearts, even if I can't agree with their politics, or share all of their specific religious doctrines, but I have lived a long time, and I CAN promise you this wisdom is true:

"you can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time;
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Pray for the little ones in the 'camps' who are suffering. Make phone calls, Write letters, blog, do what you can that is positive for their sake . . . in hurting those children as an administrative policy, our country has put itself under conviction and we must repent for this great sin, yes . . . you can't do something like that to innocent people and not hurt yourself worse, far worse

don't worry, Trump is 'under water' in the polls and the negatives are increasing for him, so you can have hope for better to come. I do. But I will not turn on the people I care about who see things differently, no. They matter more to me than any vote.

Bob Cleveland said...

Suicide vs Homicide: Hanging death, as I understand it, was normally caused by a broken neck. That's why you'll always see a drop of two or three feet when the trap door under the victim opens.

And the coroner just this minute ruled it a suicide.

Rex Ray said...


You said, “THE HYOID BONE? a very unusual fracture, yes . . . and possibly, a CLUE !!!”

YES, a clue indeed! Epstein was found with a sheet around his neck, and the other end tied to the top bunk. Now if he was two feet tall, that might have broken his neck.

Another mystery is how did the film in the hall mounters vanish? Who had access? That film would have identified who went in his cell. And who gave orders to have his roommate removed the day he arrived?

RB Kuter said...

Politics are crazy. Amazing how we can perceive those siding with someone we oppose as thinking totally absurd and they think the same of us. I was thinking that if I ran for President as the Democrat candidate against Trump I would see that side as being smarter. Didn't work. The Democrats still seemed absurd.

I guess the only way I can not think of Christiane and Anonymous as being absurd is to not think of them in terms of their political affiliation.

Anonymous said...

RB--it may be just a geographical thing, but where I have lived SS was where you went to learn what the Bible says. A Connect Group is where you go to make friends, find a surrogate family, or emote. It isn't at all about Bible Study.

No wonder we've gone from "what is right and what is wrong according to God's Word" to "how does this make me feel and how can the church make me feel better about me."


RB Kuter said...

Maybe when we're all communists and party affiliates and there is NO opposing party we all will be buddies! I mean, "comrades"!

Equally poor (except for the "Party" bosses), but still, "comrades"! Isn't that the New Testament model? Wonder if Paul and Barnabas called each other, "Comrade" in Greek?

σύντροφος suntrophos??

RB Kuter said...

Hey, Linda, I think you have something there. I think the intent IS to make it more like a social thing in the sense of bonding, etc. But I know the folks in our church that continue to make the changes and their hearts are good and sincerely seeking to enhance The Kingdom growth in our midst, so I have to be careful to not be too cynical and critical.

Plus, before I got old, I used to really be hard on old people for being judgmental, rigid and narrow-minded. Now that I AM an old geiser, I really do try to have a "let it be" attitude in regard to things that really aren't that critical in terms of an eternal perspective. Know what I mean?

Things like, "What we're going to call the church group?" "Should we have concert music at worship time?" "Should we have Starbucks in the atrium?" "Do away with steeples?" "Have preachers and worship leaders wearing blown-out jeans, t-shirts and leather jackets?" etc. I mean, why should it disturb me? My time is too short.

Speaking of which, one of the neat things about getting old and life getting short is that it seems everything you buy lasts a lifetime! Get a new crown on your tooth and you figure its the last one you'll ever need! We just bought a new refrigerator and based upon how long our old one lasted, this one will probably be the last refrigerator I ever have to buy! The way they are making cars these days, I probably will only buy one more new car and it will last the rest of my life (Here on earth, that is).

Which reminds me, I better get worried about telling more people about Jesus than arguing about Donald Trump. I don't think God will mention how many times I talked about "The Duck" or "Bernie" when I enter heaven, do you? Can you imagine lying on your death bed and reflecting on things you wish you had done with your life and saying, "If I could have just convinced one more person to be a Democrat and vote for Liz Warren or Joe!"

Victorious said...

Speaking of which, one of the neat things about getting old and life getting short is that it seems everything you buy lasts a lifetime!

LOL! I loved your comments about being old, RB! Made me laugh because those are my feelings exactly. I always say (about things I purchase)...."it will last as long as I do."

For example, my Hyundai Accent is a 2005 and hasn't yet got to the 20,000 mi. mark! Every time I have the oil changed, the Hyundai personnel tries to talk me into a new car. Why would I want to have car payments again after having none for 10 yrs.???

Your question about convincing one more person....reminded me of Desmond Doss asking God to let him save "just one more person" and at the end had personally saved 75 soldiers without using a weapon during the war and received the congressional Medal of Honor. He gave God the credit. He died in 1991. If you haven't seen the movie, you will be blessed.

Victorious said...

The movie about Desmond Doss is Hacksaw Ridge. :)

RB Kuter said...

We did see the movie, Victorious. It was impressive to see how he could maintain his devotion to God while at the same time not compromising his devotion to his country.

Keep that Hyundai!

Rex Ray said...


This link describes three types of hanging.

1.Hanging is a common method for suicide. Full suspension is not required, and for this reason, hanging is especially commonplace among suicidal prisoners. This type of hanging may be obtained by self-strangulation using something around the neck and the partial weight of the body to prevent breathing. They will have their feet touching the floor.

2.The short drop is a method of hanging performed by placing the prisoner on something, then removing it, leaving the person dangling from the rope. This typically takes between ten and twenty minutes.

3.The standard drop involves a drop of between 4 and 6 feet. It was considered a humane improvement on the short drop because it was intended to be enough to break the person's neck, causing immediate unconsciousness and rapid brain death.

If Epstein wanted to die, he would have done the first type of hanging. But his neck was broken.

I would think many pictures would be taken by anyone with a cellphone. Where are the pictures?

And the conclusion of the autopsy report? I want a second opinion that gives their reasons.

Yes Christiane, something smells to high heaven.

Shawn said...

RB Kuter,

Shane, best western on film! The Searchers is a close 2nd. Been to Africa 3 times meownself!

Woke is one of those new terms (especially for we semi-old guys) that goes hand in hand with Virtue Signalling. It means that that person 'has woken up' to the specific issue they are virtue signalling. My observation is that they are folks who weren't paying attention in the first place and did it all wrong all along and now they are Woke and they consider themselves the experts and everyone had better catch up to their High Spiritual State, even those who have been living and dealing with what ever that issue is all of their lives and have lived it. Getting to be rampant among some of the children of the old oligarchy. One leader has threatened to throw under the bus (to borrow one of his buddies's favorite phrase) those under him who don't acknowledge his leadership of Wokeness and follow his lead.

For an example, on the race issue, unlike many of us who have served for most of our lives in the military or as missionaries, they have been for the most part in a mono-cultural bubble and have now emerged. Pretty much they ignore those who have lived the multicultural life all along.

Christiane said...

Hello Mr. Kuter,

I was thinking about what you wrote, and I'd like to try to explain a little bit about 'the other point of view':

it's like this:

people condemned the Democrats for supporting 'choice' and the argument was that it was the same thing as supporting the murder of unborn children

and now,

people condemn the Republicans for supporting trumpism and the argument is that it is the same thing as supporting the open policy of the torture of small immigrant children

so you can see the problem: people DON'T WANT CHILDREN HURT IN ANY WAY, and we humans can't understand the 'disconnect' that (Democrats who may be Christians) make between 'choice' and the hideous act of abortion of an unborn child;
and we humans can't understand the 'disconnect' that Republicans make between 81% of evangelicals supporting trumpism and the hideous act of Trump's open policy of discouraging asylum seekers by letting it be known publicly that little children in 'the camps' are not being properly cared for and are suffering . . .

so there it is:

and what a mess

and what do we do, who value our human friends above all their 'disconnects' and their strange ways and even foolish ways . . . they are still beloved friends more important to us than any trouble they manage to get into in our own eyes, yes


I'm not one for dividing people who care about each other. Let the Russians try that ploy, and they apparently are pretty good at setting 'sides/tribes' against one another.

But when it comes down to it, are not human persons to be respected BECAUSE they are made in the image of God, for that reason alone? We Americans need to work together, and stop paying court to those who are the dividers, who promote division and hatred for 'the others'. I hope this makes some sense. There's always hope, when things seem dark, if you know that 'the darkness is a passing thing' :)

Christiane said...

Good Morning REX RAY,

I see that you are hard at work on 'the case'. :)

I have many reservations myself, as do a lot of people, because the powers-that-be who knew Epstein was suicidal also were answerable to other powers-that-be whose names are connected up with Epstein socially. A lot of power there, and a lot of reputations at risk, and TOO MANY irregularities in the decisions made concerning Epstein's incarceration prior to the suicide/murder/whatever.

It looks like there will be a lot of conjecture for some time to come. Yep.
And we have seen politicians who had honorable names cave to 'power' and we have seen men in high positions of authority cave to 'power' and they had no problem losing their good names in the transactions they entered into (unless there is some kind of coercion or threatening to harm their families or worse) . . . .

so if such great men can fall down and shill and grovel, I wonder if lower level authorities might also fall victim to intimidation and/or to the lure of favor from the powerful who have something to hide?

I'm not sure what happened, but too many strange departures from professionalism have taken place and of course, it breeds 'scandal', which in itself is a great dis-service to the nation and our American way of life that has and I hope will continue to be under a system of laws. What's next? A public inquiry? A congressional examination of the 'case'?
A host of 'conspiracy novels' followed by some 'documentaries' and a movie or two?
I wouldn't mind all of this publicity IF the proceeds went to help Epstein's victims, then some good might come from it, I suppose.

Keep your eyes and ears open. There are SO many unanswered questions.

Rex Ray said...

I agree to keep my eyes and ears open because of many unanswered questions.

All the news on TV today was talking about Epstein’s death. One doctor who was experienced in autopsies said other parts of his body should have been examined besides his broken neck. If he had hurled himself head first from the top bunk with a sheet around his neck, his knees would have been injured.

Also, his lawyers were shocked because two days before, when they talked with him, he was in a joyful and optimistic mood.

So far, the warden has been fired and two guards are in trouble.

Anonymous said...

The need for conspiracy theories around Epstein only arrives out of a refusal to admit that "yes, government workers are really this inept"

These same people at this same location accidentally released a serial bank robber.

The most obvious answer here (ineptitude) is the most probable answer.

RB Kuter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RB Kuter said...

Shawn, my efforts to reply to you are not working, apparently due to the address.

RB Kuter said...

Christiane, I had written a long diatribe proposing the opposite perspective from yours regarding things going on at the border and my opinion about the response of both political sides to that. After I reviewed my posted response, I saw I was getting too personal and that what I was writing would likely be considered offensive by those holding an opposite opinion so I deleted it. Should you insist on being tortured and want to see what I wrote I might put it back, but probably not.

Let it suffice to say that we on the opposite side of your position and that of the more "leftist" politicians view that position as being a more cruel and inhumane approach than the President's.

The "left" scratches their heads and ask, "How could Christians support a political agenda that is so cruel to children of illegal intruders at the border by keeping them contained?"

We who are proposing our maintaining strong border security and compliance with immigration regulations are befuddled as to how anyone could continue to propagate the impression that if people can only get to the border with their children in hand they will be allowed entry without having gone through the proper process, thereby creating massive mobs pushing to cross the border and increased chaos and misery.

The "left" asks, "How could Christians support a President with such bad language and who is so unpolished in his personal demeanor and tweets and who does not have a sense of political decorum and diplomacy?"

We ask about the "left", "How could they continue to support politicians with an agenda that accommodates the casual execution of millions of babies, socialist ideology and undermines the integrity of our national borders?"

And it goes on and on. As I had concluded in my original, now deleted, diatribe:
"So, who are the most inhumane? Whose position is the most 'absurd'? Apparently, it depends more upon who is in Office, your side or my side, with no consensus as to what is the reality."

Christiane said...

Hello Mr. Kuter,

please post what you feel you NEED to say and do not worry for me as I am not one to want someone not to have a voice when they need to speak. . . . there is too much of people trying to silence other people in this world, and I believe that if you need to speak your mind, I will support you in doing that, even though I may likely disagree . . . I can say that I will also read it and think about it if you feel so strongly as to write it.

I'm not worried about being 'absurd'. I'm not worried if people don't agree with me. And, my goodness, I am probably one of the few people you will meet who isn't 'offended' easily by criticism, when I am the one being criticized. So fire away. And then be peaceful.

I don't know about 'labels' so much anymore, Mr. Kuter. I don't trust 'labels' to replace human persons, although isn't it easier to 'point the finger' when we can label someone in a way that indicates that we have contempt for them? I don't see it helps anyone, this labeling and name-calling, no.

My point in writing previously was that I cannot 'dismiss' a person who votes for Trump as someone who wants to see innocent children suffering because I believe that Trump has ordered this policy so that its cruelty will 'discourage' asylum seekers from coming here.
And if I refuse to dismiss these voters, it must mean that they don't see things the same way I see them, and I can ONLY focus on the suffering of the little ones, I admit this.

So, if I were to vote Democratic (and I do like Biden very much), it might be also better is someone were to understand that it doesn't mean I 'support' the murder of innocent unborn babies. I don't. But in my case, I know that 'changing the law' won't stop abortions. I remember before Roe v. Wade how girls from university would get their moms to pay for a plane to another country in order to get a medical abortion elsewhere, and one of these girls didn't make it back home again alive, and we all knew her, and you don't forget something like that, no.

So what DO I believe that might help prevent abortions? Changing hearts and minds. Giving practical support to young women who need help. Having a national program of paid leave for new parents. There are many 'changes' I can foresee that will 'encourage' the welcoming of new life in our country but right now, our country is the ONLY civilized nation in the world that does not provide paid leave for a new mother. We got it wrong.
For me, change will be time-consuming, expensive, long-term, and will mean a kind of commitment that most will not have the 'patience' to want to deal with . . . so maybe I am 'absurd' and 'foolish' but I do not see stopping abortions to be a matter of changing a law, no. The answer is something far more complex and I don't know if our country has the maturity to do what is needed to BEGIN the process of 'welcoming' new life . . . other countries have done it. Successfully.

Please don't worry that I will 'get angry' because of some 'diatribe'. I value your right to speak your mind to me freely about those things that have great meaning for you, and I will read what you write and consider it carefully and respectfully.

Rex Ray said...

What has this world come to?
At one time my father said America was going to hell with a football under its arm. I wonder what he would say today.

Two events happened this Sunday.

1. During the church invitation a girl that was sixteen came forward. The pastor asked all the women to gather around her. He asked Judy to pray for her as she was pregnant. Her father was present. In the group of women was a mother that never married. Her daughter never married but had a funeral for a miscarriage.

2. A couple of hours after church, a 60 year-old White lady who works for Home Health, told Judy and me her story. She had a child when she was six-teen. The father was her uncle who had molested her for many years. She had two ‘failed marriages’. She’s a Christian that believes in not having sex outside of marriage. She recently joined a Black church and is engaged to one of the deacons.

Shawn said...


You wrote, 'So, if I were to vote Democratic (and I do like Biden very much), it might be also better is someone were to understand that it doesn't mean I 'support' the murder of innocent unborn babies. I don't. But in my case, I know that 'changing the law' won't stop abortions. I remember before Roe v. Wade how girls from university would get their moms to pay for a plane to another country in order to get a medical abortion elsewhere, and one of these girls didn't make it back home again alive, and we all knew her, and you don't forget something like that, no.'

Here's your problem and the problem with voting for pro-abortion candidates - as a legal activity here we lose 1,000,000 children each year. Voting in someone who recognizes that abortion is an unscientific (how does killing our young help our spieces?) and un-biblical abhorrent practice will cause us to continue to lose 1,000,000 each year. Yes, if illegal there will be some who find a means no matter what. Same thing happens with just plain old murder - despite it being illegal many people are murdered each year. People find ways to destroy other people. But, shall we make murder legal because people will find a way to commit it any way?

Christiane said...

Hello Shawn,

Thank you for your comment.

I also wrote something else that represents my own thoughts on this issue, this:

"So what DO I believe that might help prevent abortions? Changing hearts and minds. Giving practical support to young women who need help. Having a national program of paid leave for new parents. There are many 'changes' I can foresee that will 'encourage' the welcoming of new life in our country but right now, our country is the ONLY civilized nation in the world that does not provide paid leave for a new mother. We got it wrong.
For me, change will be time-consuming, expensive, long-term, and will mean a kind of commitment that most will not have the 'patience' to want to deal with . . . so maybe I am 'absurd' and 'foolish' but I do not see stopping abortions to be a matter of changing a law, no. The answer is something far more complex and I don't know if our country has the maturity to do what is needed to BEGIN the process of 'welcoming' new life . . . other countries have done it. Successfully."

even now, as we speak, it is KNOWN publicly that the present administration persecutes living children in a way to make them suffer, and the policy of cruelty TO CHILDREN who are living is then used supposedly to 'deter' asylum seekers from coming to our country.

So if you had a young relative who KNEW what this country had become in regards to its contempt for children, would you think they would take 'comfort' in voting for anyone who supported the publicly-known policy of the open torment of little children in 'camps'? And do you think these young relatives might also be delighted to support a government with a national policy of NO help for new parents in the ways of paid leave and a guaranteed job to return to after maternity leave, as is now done in, for example, the Scandinavian countries, that have a full system of 'welcoming new life' by giving parents time off with their newborn and paid leave?

We now have this problem: Our country does NOT have active national policies of 'welcoming new life' nor does it now have an honorable reputation for treating living children kindly and compassionately. That is how I see this at present time, and I am heartbroken.

I think the ONLY good way forward is to do everything possible to 'welcome new life' by giving HOPE to people who now may not have hope for any help or compassion for their situation . . . and these people may look to 'abortion' as a 'solution', and you had better believe that for many women who feel they must do this, it is done out of hopelessness. . .
and that is something that the Church must minister to with all compassion.

I do think the Church, not the government, should lead in the welcoming of new life with tremendous support and that means a commitment and expense far beyond our present service;
instead of the Church seeking for 'Caesar' to pass a law as a 'quick fix' where we go to vote power to a political party who 'promises' to change things and never does, and then, having 'voted' 'against abortion', we then wash our hands and say 'we did our duty' . . .
and the political party? Oh my goodness. Please.

Christiane said...

Hello, Shawn,
this is the rest of my response to you. Sorry for length:

So there it is. We have SO many good people in this country taking an active part in welcoming new life, and they should be the ones setting the example for all of us . . . not some 'annointed one' in the White House whose 'camps' for little asylum children won't give them the kindness and care we would want for our own loved children . . . you see, Shawn, those little 'alien' children belong first and last to Our Lord. We can't not act and not speak on their behalf now, because 'not to act IS to act; not to speak IS to speak, and we must do what is right for the children who cannot help themselves and who now suffer.
Currently the Republican Party owns the treatment of those little ones. Please don't sign on to their suffering, please.

Whatever way forward, we need to do better on all fronts. The helpless always were dear to the heart of Our Lord. And so we, who follow Him, must reach out to them in their suffering now.

Thank you for communicating. We see things 'differently', and we both want good for children. I know that. God Bless.

Christiane said...

there is hope, thank God


Anonymous said...


"What has this world come to?


She recently joined a Black church and is engaged to one of the deacons."

Thank God that Jesus sees both of these people as people created in His image, in spite of church people like you struggling against it.

Shawn said...


'I do think the Church, not the government, should lead in the welcoming of new life'


And the welcoming of new life comes first in the form that the taking of the new life is wrong, evil, despicable, and should be, without hesitation and in all cases, illegal. Period.