Black Pastors Protest Homosexual Speaker at Historically Black College

American Baptist College (Photo credit: The Peep Holes)

American Baptist College (Photo credit: The Peep Holes)


The course of history changes at special moments when courageous individuals step up to take a stand, often at personal risk, on issues burning in controversy.

One of those moments was just celebrated with the commemoration of the historic civil rights march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in March 1965.

Another such moment is unfolding before us today.

A group of some 150 black pastors, the National Baptist Fellowship of Concerned Pastors, is standing in protest against an invitation from the American Baptist College, in Nashville, Tennessee, to Bishop Yvette Flunder to speak at the college’s annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 15-18.

These pastors are protesting because Bishop Flunder is an open lesbian, legally married to another woman, and a proud and aggressive advocate of this lifestyle. In a press release, the pastors called this invitation “irresponsible, scandalous, non-biblical, and certainly displeasing to God,” and requested that Dr. Forrest Harris, president of the College, rescind the invite.

Both the National Baptist Fellowship of Concerned Pastors and the American Baptist College are affiliated with the National Baptist Convention USA, which, with a reported 31,000 congregations and 7.5 million members, is the second largest predominantly black denomination in the Untied States.

The American Baptist College was founded almost a century ago and recently received designation as a Historically Black College and University. Many leaders and activists in the civil rights movement matriculated there, including renowned civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).

In addition to Bishop Flunder, two pastors who are advocates of same-sex marriage have been invited to share the platform with her.

The National Baptist Convention USA states with crystal clarity as positions on its website that “National Baptist endorsed chaplains, although serving in a pluralist environment, are not to participate in any activity that implies or condones same sex marriage or same sex union.” And, that “the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., affirms that marriage is a sacred biblical covenant between a man and a woman.”

The co-coordinators of the National Baptist Fellowship of Concerned Pastors, Reverends Dwight McKissic and Randy Vaughn, say that the invitation from American Baptist College President Forrest Harris to Bishop Flunder “trampled on the beliefs of the school’s founders.”

The pastor group expresses legitimate concern in their press release that no notice was provided to parents of the student body about the presentations that these advocates of same sex unions will make.

ABC President Harris has pushed back, defending his invitation of Bishop Flunder and criticizing the group of Concerned Pastors for “idolatry of the Bible,” which he defines as viewing the Bible as “synonymous with God and truth.”

But if Christianity is about eternal principles and truths, to where exactly does President Harris turn for these principles if not to the Bible? The New York Times? The Washington Post? MSNBC?

Particularly powerful about the Concerned Pastors’ press release is its focus on the whole country and not one particular ethnic group.

They expressed concern for “the state of our nation, our families, our churches, and our schools.”

Data overwhelmingly shows the correlation of family breakdown with poverty and social pathology.

Yet the percentage of American adults today that are married has declined to around 50 percent compared to over 70 percent in the 1960’s, at the time of the civil rights movement. Along with this we see dramatic increases in out-of-wedlock births and single parent households.

These pastors know that blacks are paying a particularly high price for the havoc that the moral relativism that has hijacked our national culture has wrought.

Now pastors are taking a stand. Enough. No more sitting quietly by as those posturing moral chaos as religion hijack our nation and our children.

These courageous black pastors are standing tall with truth so our nation may have a future.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay. Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine.
Star Parker
View all articles by Star Parker
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • Thisoldspouse

    “Gay” isn’t the new black. Rather, it’s the new slave owner.

    • franklinb23

      Slavery generally involves taking someone against their will, isolating them from their family, forcing them to endure long hours of hard labor for little or no pay and subjecting them to cruel and inhumane treatment. You know … kind of like the practices that the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention believed was “God ordained”:

      Paying someone a competitive rate for supplying a cake is hardly “servitude” (not that I agree with making *anyone* do something they don’t want to do).

      • Bob Ellis

        You mean the kind of slavery Democrats literally went to war to maintain, then played every dirty trick in the book for the next 150 years to return to?

        Yes, that’s definitely slavery.

        Slavery can also come from duping people into surrendering their God-given freedom to do a number of things, even when they still technically had the free will to refuse to surrender that freedom.

        And slavery also involves forcing someone to perform labor for you against your will. Some slaves of the 18th and 19th Centuries were actually treated quite well, lives in comfortable quarters, were given nice clothe and plenty to eat…but they were still forced to render their labor against their will.

        Compensation, even “fair” compensation” does not negate the fact that forcing someone to labor for you against their will is still slavery.

        Which reveals clearer than we’ve ever seen before the truth that the homosexual agenda has virtually NOTHING to do with “tolerance” or “equality,” but rather has to do with forcing people to accept (even if it is only with their enslaved bodies) something they find morally objectionable.

        • franklinb23

          Again, I want to reiterate: personally, you won’t see me attempting to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do. It’s just not my thing.

          Let me pose a scenario: is an internet service provider complicit in racism by allowing the KKK to host a web site, or are they just upholding their legal right to freedom of speech? Are these ISPs profiteers without conscience, or are they brave for allowing those who hold repugnant views to air them to the general public?

          A slightly different scenario: Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, has come out in favor of gay marriage. As a retailer, should he be free to decline to offer products such as this when asked to do so?

          Lively’s book is perhaps one of the most inflammatory of anti-gay propaganda: it asserts that the entire Nazi regime was run by homosexuals, presumably to draw the reader to conclusions about America’s gay men and women.

          I don’t like Lively’s book, but I also don’t think Amazon can refuse to offer their services to Lively merely because they disagree with the ideas presented in it. That would be discrimination, IMO.

          Perhaps you guys think the rights of the business always trump the rights of the consumer, regardless of the nature of the service being provided, I don’t know …

          • Bob Ellis

            I’m glad it’s not your thing. It shouldn’t be anyone’s thing in a free country.

            An ISP is entitled to allow the KKK to host a website…and as a private company, they would be within their rights to prohibit the KKK from doing so through the use of their resources. Personally, I’d say they were enabling immoral behavior if they allowed it, but it’s their call as a private business.

            And yes, Jeff Bezos, as the owner of a private company, should be free to decline to offer anything whatsoever that he doesn’t want to sell. It’s his business.

            For Amazon to decline to sell Lively’s book is sad and indicative that Amazon obviously embraces immorality, but that’s their right as a private business.

            Every single person and entity in the world discriminates. Discrimination is nothing more than choosing one thing over another. Beyond simple matters of preference (I discriminate in favor of burgers over escarcot), the question is whether that discrimination is logical (i.e. to embrace good things and reject bad things), and whether one is entitled to discriminate. As the owner of a business (that you put your money and hard work into), you have the right to discriminate in any way you choose.

            And customers have the right to discriminate with their business, either by giving it or withholding it, based on whether they like the business owner’s discriminatory choices or not.

            That’s how things are supposed to work in a free country.

            • franklinb23


              Perhaps if our nation had not had the embarrassing history of denying reasonable access to basic services (like food and clothing) to people because of the color of their skin, this discussion would be different.

              That is still in our consciousness as a nation, and I think that’s what’s driving some of this.

              Now I understand the passage that says “the sins of the fathers are visited upon their children”. It’s not that children are morally responsible for their parents’ flaws. Rather, a generation may see the negative consequences of decisions made by people of prior generations.

              • Bob Ellis

                I have no doubt that a huge number of things would be different (and better,closer to the founding principles) had we never embraced slavery or even gotten rid of it sooner and without a bloody war.

                And your final comments show tremendous insight.

              • Bob Ellis

                In fact, all of your comments just now show great depth of insight-more even than most card carrying conservatives aspire to.

              • Bob Ellis

                Your comment about the sins of the fathers got me to thinking, and I remembered a panel in the Lincoln Memorial from his second inaugural address that sort of deals with that subject. Speaking of the bloody Civil War that had cost so many their lives:

                Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

                Those sins of the fathers that are visited on subsequent generations are often nothing more than the simple law of consequences being played out. For example, on a much smaller scale, some of my sins in my youth that consequently led to poor financial decisions caused me to spend a lot of years making up for those mistakes financially, which means there were not as many financial resources for my children to have opportunities as they otherwise would have.

                Sadly, more often than not, those sin consequences that get visited on subsequent generations of children involve not so much lessons-learned, but mistakes that went unacknowledged with no effort to repair and repent.