President's Messages
2009

The Heavenly Vision and the Mission of the Church
Dr. William J. Shaw, President

[Submit your tribute to President Shaw]

Greetings to all Convention Members and Friends,

For better than two years now, the Convention has been focusing specifically on how its various components can so align themselves one with the other that the steps forward as purposed by any administration and ratified by the body can be efficiently and effectively done.  I want to hand to the incoming administration the tools and a mindset that will enable not hobble.  I am prayerful and hopeful that we will move forward, NOT BACKWARD, in the years ahead.

Deep gratitude is felt and expressed to all who have worked so diligently to the ends stated above.  It has been and continues to be a marvelous experience.  The words of First Corinthians have been confirmed over and over through these years, "A great door for effectual service is opened unto us, and there are many adversaries."  The juxtaposition of the opportunities and adversaries is perennial.  It is of the very nature of the movement of the spirit of God and warfare against that movement by the forces of the Evil One.

We move forward still looking to the great things that God will do.

Yours in the Cause of VISA,

William J. Shaw, President
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

For instance, is it "the law" that defines morality?  The law surely sets standards for conduct-specific prohibitions and sometimes prescriptions for actions.  But law is rarely comprehensive enough to cover all areas AND deals really and only with actions, not attitudes.  It is possible, therefore, to be lawful and yet immoral.  Current national discussions about the questions of the legal limits of way the US Government uses to extract information from captives illustrates the point.  When does interrogation methodology become torture?  Is torture alone immoral?  The law prohibits killing.  Killing is wrong.  It is unacceptable. But is maiming then legal and therefore moral?

Does current culture of any age define the standard of moral attitudes and actions?  Cultural norms are certainly constraining.  But these norms only reflect the prevailing standards of the "...majority" and/or of "...the most influential" forces of a period.  For instance, television and other avenues of communication certainly are often the prevailing shapers of style, speech and of ways of behavior for the young (and the not young?) but are the styles, speech and ways of acting moral or immoral?

Yet again, much of current religious and popular culture in America defines morality as dealing essential with issue of abortion, same sex behavior, and babies born outside of marriage.  But are these the only arenas of moral attention?  These are areas for the most part of personal decision.  Are the arenas of justice, of economic securities and sufficiency of corporate or individual greed outside the domain of morality?  How does the faith of the church speak to theses matters, informing our conscience and guiding our behavior?

As Baptists, we believe that the Bible is the Word of God and the Jesus is the Word made flesh.  We believe that the Bible is the norm for faith and practice and that Jesus is the full revelation of the heart and mind of God towards and for all.

Jesus presented the love ethic, "love the Lord your God with the totality of yourself and love others as yourselves" as the greatest and summary imperative of all righteousness.  The love ethic becomes the lens through which we see more clearly the totality of scripture, of how we relate to God and to one another in a fashion that affirms the primacy of God in our lives and His presence (we are made in His image) in the lives of others.  This is the basis of moral decision-making.  It makes morality to become more than a matter of lifeless limited legality.  It becomes a powerful dynamic that keeps us alert to the connectedness, the relatedness of all of our lives and decisions.  In that connectedness and relatedness we experience true and full life, a growing expansive life.  The supreme model of God's love for us is revealed in the crucified Christ.  How does Calvary and the resurrected Lord then direct our thinking?

I pray that we will be challenged to look at the moral life through the lens of God's love.  As we do so, we confess that we see through a glass darkly.  But we do see!

(Note:  these messages were written in response to the media flap concerning Senator Barack Obama and his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright during the Democratic Presidential Primary season of 2008.)

(You may view and/or print both of these messages in their entirety by clicking on the corresponding links below.)

In the "storm" surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama one has to ask who was "The Source" that examined the sermons of the Reverend Wright and excerpted, snippets from some of them, played them out of their context and then challenged Senator Obama to disassociate himself, not just from the words/sentiments of the snippets but from the Reverend Wright himself?

 What was the intent of that "Source" in so doing?  It would be reasonable to conclude that the intent was not to aid the Senator but to raise questions about his integrity and patriotism on the one hand and/or to cast a cloud over the authenticity of his faith background and faith commitment on the other.

That "Source" has accomplished its/their purpose.  This was done by  again placing out of context the words and functions of Reverend Wright's sermons of reference and then by holding Senator Obama responsible for the references in the context of his stated political agenda to move the nation towards an embrace of her more noble ideals and declared sense of self. 

Let's try to step back and see things in context.  First, look at Reverend Wright's sermons in context.  Preaching, sermons, are to be guided by and pronouncements of/from the scriptures, the Word of God.  That Word has a number of major streams or themes.  Sometimes they are streams/words of instructions.  Sometimes they are words/streams of comfort and sometimes these streams are words of challenge, of rebuke to both religious and secular powers.  The words of instructions are sometimes discomforting.  Words of comfort are always welcome.  Words of challenge, of prophetic condemnation/rebuke are stinging and are most often met with retribution.

Neither stream is the totality of the biblical message.  But the biblical message is grossly distorted if it is reduced to just one stream or dimension, if the totality is not embraced/accepted.  Pastors, preachers, and prophets are called upon to proclaim the total word of God.  But also people of faith are called upon to hear and embrace the whole council of God.  They/we can not selectively hear. 

Prophetic words are intended to provoke to self-examination, to a change of course.  They are not nice.  They are often spoken metaphorically, in graphic descriptions where truth is not in the details of the description but in the intended impact of the description, of the metaphors.  Most of the time prophetic words are denied and rejected by the intended hearer.  More than rejected, the prophet is put upon.  Elijah had to flee Ahab and Jezebel's wrath and Micah Ben Emlah was placed in a dungeon.  John the Baptist was beheaded.  Jesus was crucified.  The scripture does not confuse the prophetic personalities.  They are all different.  They all function at different times.  What they have in common is the burden of speaking the unpopular and unacceptable and the lot of rejection when that is done.

Second, Senator Obama as a parishioner should not have been called upon to publicly judge the prophetic word of Reverend Wright.  He does not have to like them.  They were not spoken to/ or about him.  They were spoken to/or about government.  Should he be called upon to reject the words and dimensions, the messages of ministry that have been of comfort and affirmation to people?  These are a part of the whole. 

Senator Obama seeks to head the government as President.  As the head he would seek to lead the government into paths that make for the wholeness, the better character that the counry's ideals espouse, but which in the eyes of all she has not fully or even in some matters intentionally sought to realize. 

Senator Obama is not trying to preach the word of God.  He has offered himself as a person who can be a catalyst, a point of healing and advancement to the nation.  Reverend Wright is not attempting to lead the government.  He's a preacher who must respond to the call of the whole word of God.  That God calls to righteousness, (Covenantal positive relationships between himself and His people and between people and people), condemns all unrighteousness and summons to life beyond feelings "...come let us reason together says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

The sphere of political leadership and prophetic speaking need to hear each other.  The leaders/voices of the sphere, however, are not interchangeable. 

The total Word should be embraced and not just by the black preachers in the black church.  The Word is for all who would claim the God of the bible fully revealed in Jesus Christ as their God. 

Of course, the "Source" that researched Reverend Wright's sermon did not have in mind any thing positive.  The source was probably unfamiliar with the feed bed of preaching, the nature of preaching or the aims of preaching.  But the intention of throwing Senator Obama off message and diverting the focus of the nation from fateful issue, the intention of causing the Senator to become a person feared and not trusted has become abundantly clear.  Whether the source succeeds depends yet upon the prevailing or no prevailing of the better soul of the country. 

What is abundantly clear is that there needs to be honest discussion within the faith communities of the function of faith within national life.  Is that to be affirmed only when this action/ tendencies and directions of the country are affirmed?  Is there a legitimate place for the faith community to challenge, to counsel, to work for realization of the Nation's constitutionally pronounced ideals?

Dr. William J. Shaw, President

April 22, 2008 Press Release of the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

"I am pained!  Many of the media and political pundits have attempted to call into question the patriotism and character of Senator Barack Obama by repeatedly highlighting sound bites from sermons preached by his pastor and by focusing on a small portion of the Senator's remarks made at a fundraising event; remarks about what he termed bitterness felt by middle class America over the loss of their jobs through the closing of manufacturing plants and/or their exporting to other countries.  These attempts have unintentionally exposed some deep and dangerous flaws in the soul and character of our political process and have revealed a perversion of the integrity of the Christian faith by some of its professed believers through a selective hearing of the words of the bible, the central book of the Judao Christian Heritage...

"I spoke to the head of the United Church of Christ on Friday night and expressed my gladness when the leadership of the church stood to affirm the Trinity Church in Chicago and to minister to its ministers.  I also expressed my pain that few if any other voices of understanding and support came from the Mainline Protestant dent, Pentecostal and Evangelical Churches in the US.  The prophetic word should not have resonance only in parts of the black church...

"Senator Obama is not prophet; he should not be called to condemn the prophetic voice in order to be affirmed as a patriot.  I am pained that the political process should cause him to choose the words of condemnation in order to offer himself as a viable candidate for the nation's highest office.  I am pained that he was put off message of calling our country to live into the fullness of her possibilities and promise.  That calling is true patriotism.  That it is the voice of true Americanism.

"I am pained that the political process has become so flawed that character destruction is the top news worthy matter rather than sound, substantive policy proposals and direction settings.  I thought that Senator Clinton had so much going for her that she would likely become the democratic candidate for president and that she might win.  I  thought that she would make an excellent president.  But it appears that she and her strategists did not figure on nor plan for the caliber and promise of the candidacy presented in Senator Obama.  Why this failing?  Is it revealing?

"Now she is fighting for the life of her candidacy.  I am pained that she finds it politically necessary and/or advantageous to play the game of personality destruction. 

"I am pained that Senator Obama feels forced to flaunt with the same tactics.

"I am pained that current disputations may so muddle the distinctions of the two political parties that the clear choice needed for the general election in November may be blurred and even lost in the washout of low and vile political practices. 

"Even so, I urge you to go to the polls and vote your convictions regarding the candidates.  And pray that the political process will not leave as a casualty in its wake the better character of the country." 

Click on the document of your choice to view or download.  The Adobe Reader Program is needed, available as a free download at: