The Incipient Racism of Southern Baptists

Richard Land needs to be very careful. The incipient racism that flows so easily just beneath the surface of many southern baptists tries to rear its ugly head in his recent statement concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.  See Justice Sotomayor?—More for some, less for others?

He begins with a statement questioning the President's statement about most middle-class Americans not feeling particularly privileged.  Yet it does not take very much listening to black Americans living in the Bible-Belt or Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans living many places in this country to realize that racial discrimination is alive and well. And any time or place there is this kind of discrimination, more often than not, it is white middle-class Americans who benefit from it.

Next he parrots one of the major talking point of the right wing media about the president's pre-selection statements about wanting a judge with empathy and assumes quite erroneously that a judge cannot be both empathetic and impartial. Just for the record, a definition of empathy-the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling.  I can state from personal experience that you are much more likely to get justice from a judge who has some understanding of where you are coming from than one who doesn't have a clue about what goes on in your neighborhood.

Next he talks about the Ricci case as if she is solely responsible for it. When in fact, she was one of a three judge panel which unanimously upheld the decision of the district court and in the majority of a 7-6 decision that the case did not merit further review at the circuit court level. He also does not mention that the plaintiffs in the case were not all white, but white and Hispanic. If she is guilty of letting her "race" influence her decision, why did should rule against the Hispanics in this case. Maybe one should look at the Cabranes dissent as the one that was racially motivated.

And finally he continues to parrot the right wing talking points by taking her comments about "a wise Latina woman" totally out of the context. In fact he violates one of the clearest standards of interpretation by stringing quotes together to make his point. I have always given him credit for his bible study skills but wonder if maybe he also treats the biblical text so unfairly. For a brief discussion of what she meant in her 2001 speech, see Charles Savage's NY Times column, A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record.

I am not suggesting that Richard Land's objection to her nomination is racially motivated.  It is obvious that his objection comes from being in bed far too long with the radical right wing of the republican party. But the arguments he uses are certainly tainted by the underlying racism of the southern baptist convention. It began as a racist organization and, in spite of its proclamations to the contrary, continues to demonstrate that racism in the way it and some of its members relate to American society.

Far from being solid analysis as one reader commented, this is a hatchet job on an extremely well qualified judge.

A Sad Day in Louisville

No, inspite of what some of you think, I'm not referring to the upstart team that beat the Sooner women in the tournament.  Today I'm addressing a subject which may or may not (depending on your theological perspective) have more lasting significance. 

 I have many friends who attended the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who were proud of the quality of theological education that they received. But now like those of us who attended the institution farther West, have good reason to take their diplomas down from the wall, or as one friend told me, turn it around so no one can see where it came from.  Just read down through the "changes" that have taken place since the conservative insurgency in a recent article from the Associated Baptist Press,  "Mohler presidency marked by change."

Some highlights (or lowlights):

·         Caused the exodus of about 60 percent of the seminary's faculty, who left either by force or voluntarily.
·         Closed the School of Church Music and Worship
·         Fired Diana Garland as dean of the Carver School of Social Work and abolished the Carver School of Social Work.
·         Redirected its Christian counseling department, moving away from the model of "pastoral care."

 

You might also want to look at "Jesus couldn’t teach church social work at Southern Seminary."

This article comes from the Texas Baptists Committed. (I always thought that name was an ill-informed choice and yet somehow strangely applicable.) Since I have saved most of my rapier like wit for the swbts, I feel it only fair to give Mohler Mayhem equal time.

Baptist Leaders Backpedal After Palin Nomination

After years of using their interpretation of certain biblical teachings to beat women into submission-

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband" and "has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation." (Excerpted from the Baptist Faith and Message)

The current leadership of the southern baptist convention is rapidly backpedalling in order to support Sarah Palin for vice president. The uniquivocal voice of the SBC leadership in the past few years has been that the wife's first responsibility is to be in the home. One large church in Oklahoma went so far as to fire all of the church secretaries who were church members because they were not supposed to be working outside the home.

Now, however, that Sarah Palin, a mother whose home obviously needs attention, has been nominated by the republican party, they are claiming that that teaching was never intended to speak to women in secular leadership positions only to women in church and family where she is commanded to submit to the headship of her husband. Let me get this straight, according to this teaching there is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president or even president of the United States as long as she serves as Todd's helper in managing the household and nurturing their five children including a special needs baby.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with a woman trying to do that. I am just amazed that people like Albert Mohler and the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission can believe that anyone with half a brain will believe their illogical extrapolations. There is at least one southern baptist pastor who is sticking with his beliefs,

"I don't see this as a pro-family pick at all!" said Voddie Baucham, a popular author and conference speaker who serves as preaching pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas. "In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick."

"My point is simple," Baucham said in a blog. "The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul's admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking."

You can read a fuller account of Baucham's statement at Baptist Preacher Terms Palin VP Pick 'Anti-Family'

Another good source for analysis of this issue is Robert Parham's article, Politician Palin Forces Theological Revisionism at the EthicsDaily.com website.

SBC=GOP As If There Was Really Any Doubt

It has been obvious for some time now that the southern baptist convention (sbc) has sold-out to the conservation/reactionary wing of the republican party. This was never more apparent than yesterday (March 3, 2008) when I received the following erlc (ethics & religious liberty commission) action alert.

America's National Security At Risk

Dear Friends:
Americans are less safe today from terrorists than two weeks ago.

On Feb. 16, a critical law authorizing our intelligence community to monitor foreign terrorists’ communications expired.

That’s why the modernized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA—which amends the 1978 law—is urgently needed. Since the horrific 9/11 attacks, many telecommunications companies have helped keep us safe from another attack on U.S. soil by cooperating with our intelligence agencies to intercept phone conversations of foreign terrorists placed into our country.

Now, without an amended FISA, our intelligence agencies are hamstrung from intercepting foreign communications unless they have a warrant, and phone carriers lack retroactive immunity from lawsuits leveled against them at the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for admirably protecting you and me. Meanwhile, our national security is continually placed at greater risk as our foreign enemies can easily pass information into our country without us knowing it.

Liberals in Congress appear more interested in empowering the lawyers to sue the telecommunications companies than they are in providing for the security of United States citizens.

The Senate passed an update to FISA last month with strong bipartisan support, 68-29. But the House leadership has failed to give it a vote, despite its broad support in the House.

If this is a concern to you, please tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge your representative to support the bill.

You can call them by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Thank you for your doing your part to help keep America safe from those who wish us harm.

In His Service,

Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

One of our privileges at the ERLC is to help you take a stand for Biblical values in your community, in the marketplace of ideas, and in the public policy arena. This Action Alert is one tool we use to keep you informed and call you to action on the important issues of the day.

Many people in both political parties will have different opinions about this action. What troubles me, is just what "biblical value" is Richard Land taking a stand for her. He obviously thinks doing his part to "keep America safe" is somehow connected with being "in his service." I think this ought to trouble anyone who gives any part of their offering to the cooperative program of the SBC. It is a very clear case of using funds given for relgious purposes to further a specific political cause. Since I quit giving any of my offerings to the SBC a couple of years ago, that is not my problem. But it ought to be a big problem for any of you who still think giving to the SBC is somehow helping to spread the kingdom of god. Some of you need to start holding Richard Land's feet to the fire on this.

We DO NOT Torture

If you accepted the "big lie" technique that allowed George Bush to get us into a war in Iraq, this one should be no problem for you. It's obvious that he really thinks that if he just keeps saying, somebody will believe. The sad thing is that he is right. And the worst offenders are those who should be working the hardest at defending the rights of the the poor, the sick, and the prisoners, so-called Bible-believing Christians. I do not understand how people who claim the Bible as their "only" guide for faith and practice, can so totally ignore what it actually says. They work their tight little (or not so little) fannies off to make sure that everyone has a chance to be born, but don't give a damn about what happens to them after that.

--Let's be sure that we don't use a little piece of embryonic tissue that will never be born, to help relieve the suffering of someone who is already born.

--Let's fight as hard as we can to make sure no child of moderately well-off parents gets government paid health care. Forget about the millions of poor children who will suffer because of it.

--Let's support that godly man, George W. Bush no matter how many times he lies and how many people he gets killed because somehow he fits into our poor, befuddled idea of what a Christian is supposed to be.

--Let's fight with all our might to stop campaign finance reform so that we can be sure that no one restricts our right to say what ever we chose in Jesus name.

--Let's kill a commie for Christ (oops, reached a little too far back for that one)

Where are the "Real" Baptists?

. . . every true Baptist understands that any attempt to “baptize” the faith with the imprimatur of the state – whether it’s the Ten Commandments or faith-based initiatives or public prayer in public schools – ultimately diminishes the integrity of the faith. Roger Williams warned us about that nearly four centuries ago. Those warnings were prescient then.

Today, they’re urgent.

That comment in a speech last week By Randall Balmer at The Religious Liberty Council Luncheon in Washington, D.C., addresses the same problem I have been trying to raise at every venue that I have access to. The so-called baptists who are leading the SBC today have not concept of what it has meant historically to be baptist. Their hunger for power and caused them to throw away the one thing that really made baptists distinctive, their absolute commitment to a "Free church in a Free state." I urge you to read the entire address at "In Search of America's Baptists"

Land Watch

Bruce Prescott has given us additional insight into the ethics?/theology? of Richard Land at
Richard Land -- Court Priest for a War Denomination
He cites an article at EthicsDaily.com, "Southern Baptist Leader Terms Premature Troop Withdrawal Immoral", which reports Land's statements on a PBS broadcast. As he has done in the past, Land twists Just War theory to make it fit his ideas. If you read the article and wonder about Robert Parham's statement, "Having demanded a wedding ring from the Republican Party, Richard is now so wed to the president's failed war than he is a court priest for a pro-war denomination." He is referring to the following statement Land made in 1999 when meeting with a group of conservative religious leaders about their strategy for the up-coming election. He said, “The go-along, get-along strategy is dead. No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.”