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.

Which Part of "NO LAW" Does He Not Understand?

Georgia does it again!

It never ceases to amaze me that people are smart enough to get elected to congress but not smart enough to read and interpret things like the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment clearly states 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .

And just for those who have to be hit over the head with it. Here it is set in stone-

But over and over both nationally and locally well-meaning government officials keep ignoring what it says.  The newest attempt is from Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a medical doctor and member of Prince Avenue Baptist Church in Athens, Ga.  (Why do these kinds of things come so often from Georgia and Alabama?)  As if to justify what he clearly knows to be "bs" the good doctor said in an interview with the Washington Post, "This doesn't have anything to do with Christianity . . ."  Just how stupid does he think the American people are?

If you are now feeling superior to the buffoons in Georgia who keep electing people like this here are the bill's co-sponsors:

Rep Gingrey, Phil -GA

Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. -GA

Rep Carter, John R. -TX

Rep Gohmert, Louie -TX

Rep Marchant, Kenny -TX

Rep Forbes, J. Randy -VA

Rep Goodlatte, Bob -VA

Rep Akin, W. Todd- MO

 Rep Bachmann, Michele -MN

Rep Franks, Trent -AZ

Rep Jordan, Jim -OH

 Rep Lamborn, Doug -CO

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. -MI

 Rep Pence, Mike -IN

 Rep Wamp, Zach -TN

That's three from Georgia, three from Texas, and two from Virginia.  Just so you can be well-informed, Rep. Westmoreland is the same one that made of fool of himself on the Colber(t) Repor(t) when, after sponsoring a bill to post the ten commandments in public buildings, could only name three of them and got one of them wrong. No matter how you grade it, 2 out of 10 is failing.

To read more on this story go to:

'Year of the Bible' resolution roils Congress

or

Lawmaker wants to make 2010 'Year of the Bible'

The Totaled Woman Is Alive and Well at SWBTS

The latest edition of the Latest News from Southwestern is just full of fun(dy) stuff.  It may take me awhile to comment on all of it, so check back for updates.

First, an update on the happy homemaker program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. My first post on this subject came back in 2007 when the program was announced.

http://sepherim.blogspot.com/2007/08/two-pictures-are-worth.html

Now the seminary is proudly showcasing the new home on seminary hill for the happy homemaker home.  You can see the proud parents in the press release,
 "Southwestern Seminary dedicates Horner Homemaking House"

Acccording to the press release, the building, named the Sarah Horner Homemaking House, will serve as an educational building but will look more like a house than a classroom, complete with kitchen and textile lab, as well as a large library, full of resources for classroom lectures. Upstairs, two rooms will house students in the homemaking concentration and another room will be available for guest housing.

Next, just in case you are wondering if they do still allow women to teach about children's ministry at Fort Fundamentalist, "Trustees elected Karen Kennemur as assistant professor of children’s ministry in the School of Educational Ministries."  I do wonder how they justify having a wife and mother of three children work outside the home like this.  What kind of example is that setting for all of the future happy homemakers?

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.

What's the difference between a Georgia baptist and a republican congressman?

Answer-

Nothing-neither of them has a clue.

Republicans in congress want to continue the totally failed policies of the totally failed presidency of gw and the Georgia baptists want to continue the totally failed policy of discriminating against those who refuse to discriminate.  I won't say much more about the repubs in this post. That will come later as the story plays out.  The short-sighted mysogyny of Georgia baptists (who are generally representative of southern baptists as a whole, but sometimes slightly less regressive than their Alabama neighbors) have waged a full-scale battle against First Baptist Church-Decatur for the last two years.  The church's sin was to call a woman as pastor.  They called Julie Pennington-Russell in 2007.   That, of course, is a clear violation of the Baptist Faith & Message (2000 perversion) which states: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Do the Bible study. How many times does the NT talk about the “office of pastor?” How many times does the word "pastor" even show up in the NT?The modern model of pastor as CEO is not biblical.  Look at the older versions of the BF&M. They are much more true to scripture than the modern perversion.

 

Ms. Pennington-Russell had been serving at a baptist church in that hot-bed of denominational rebellion known as "Jerusalem on the Brazos." For the uninitiated, that's Waco, TX. I have commented on the lack of biblical support for the sbc's position in other posts and on other blogs and will not repeat it here unless someone is interested. 

The sbc elite pride themselves on taking a stand against the demands of culture. One pastor, Bobby Braswell Jr. of Guyton, Ga., wrote that the convention's action is "not a popular position in today's cultural climate, but we are following the dictates of Scripture, not culture." What is abundantly clear is that rather than taking a stand against culture in their objection to women in church leadership positions, the sbc is actually supporting the same culture that brought us racism and slavery.  

If you have not followed this story, I have provided a series of links to Associated Baptist Press stories.

18 June 2007

Pennington-Russell set to make history as pastor of large Decatur church 

2 February 2008

Regain respect by rejecting exclusion, author Grisham urges fellow Baptists

13 November 2008

Opinion: Georgia Baptists isolate themselves 

14 November 2008

Georgia Baptists reject church with woman pastor 

27 January 2009

Church with woman pastor expects further rebuke from Georgia Baptists 

And I Thought Oregon Was Progressive Maybe Even Liberal

I am indebted to Andy at The Cool Justice Report for calling my attention to this story. I try to keep up with book-banning/burning events but I missed this one.

Helen Jung reports in the Oregonian: "The Crook County School District has temporarily removed a book from classrooms after one parent complained to the school board that the National Book Award winner was "trashy" and "inappropriate."

Her article is Crook County removes book from schools after parent complains

What is wrong with a parent who would make this kind of a complaint about a book described as "deeply funny, politically incorrect, slightly naughty, and heart-wrenching, . . . a glimpse into an unfamiliar culture and maintains a balance between the bleak reality of reservation life and the stunning beauty of a loving family and friendship" in a review in School Library Journal. I know there is probably not grounds for a charge of child abuse here, but maybe there ought to be.

Baptists Put An End To Tolerance

The fundanazis in charge of various southern baptist organizations continue to demonstrate that lack of concern for historic baptist distinctives. Among the things that baptists of the sbc type have claimed as deeply held spiritucal convictions is the idea of the autonomy of the local church. The moderates who were run out of the sbc over the past few years were always strong supporters of this doctrine even when it led to them being verbally abused by those who felt called to judge the behavior and belief of some congregation other than their own. Among the big issues back in the 70s that got the moderates in trouble, was allowing churches that practiced the more controversial spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues, to remain members in good standing. But the current leadership has consistently just given lip service to this historic baptist doctrine. This is nowhere more apparent than in today's press release from the Associated Baptist Press, an alternative to the sbc's official mouth organ, the baptist press. The first article which demonstrated this lack of concern for local church autonomy was about NC baptists who will no longer allow cooperating churches to funnel their gifts through the convention to anyone but "approved" baptist concerns. Particularly targeted with the gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a splinter group formed by some of the aforementioned moderates. The statement which reveals the somewhat lack of Christ-like spirit from those opposed to the open giving plan came from Eric Page, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus, who said "that refusing
to take a strong stand would promote "tolerance" of a group with which most North Carolina Baptists disagree. (We certainly wouldn't want any church to promote tolerance now would we?)
Page illustrated his point by saying the cartoon character Popeye took abuse only so long before he "popped out" a can of spinach and put an end to it."

Are you ready for this line?!?!

"It's time for us to pop out a can of spinach and put an end to tolerance," he said.

Farther down in the same ABP release we find baptists isolating themselves even more.

"On Nov. 12, in a front-page story, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke the news that the Georgia Baptist Convention has approved a new policy giving GBC executives the freedom to refuse donations from churches it finds to be out of step with Southern Baptist beliefs. The policy move is aimed (for now) at First Baptist Church Decatur, because it called a woman, Julie Pennington-Russell, to serve as pastor."

So now Georgia baptists don't even have to vote on it. Their executives can decide for them which churches are "out of step." This is even more tragic when you consider the number of times Georgia baptists and other "good" southerners refused to censure churches for blatant racism because of local church autonomy. If you want a a good example of this just google "racism beyond the grave."

You people out there who have remained in your southern baptist church with its connection to the sbc better be aware. It is only a matter of time before "they" find some reason to come after you.

Jesus-A Bleeding Heart Liberal?

I am frequently reminded how wrong we can be when we stereotype people based on their religious convictions, or based on just about anything else. I am guilty of thinking of people I know (with a few very notable exceptions) that attend the Alexander Campbell type of Churches of Christ as being conservative reactionaries when it comes to politics. The following letter, written to a Tulsa newspaper by an elder in one of the local churches is just such a reminder.

You can read the full letter on the Morning Rush blog at http://terryrush.blogspot.com/2006/12/being-salt-and-light.html.

I will just give you his final paragraph:

"If Jesus were walking the Earth today, from his actions and his words, some might understandably describe him as a bleeding heart liberal. But in truth, he is more accurately described as a bleeding hands, feet and side compassionate. And so must we be if we intend to bear his name. "

I have been told that the author of the letter went beyond words to actions when he contributed to the Obama campaign.

An Open Letter To Barack Obama

If anyone with any connections to the Obama campaign reads this letter, please pass this on to somebody who can influence campaign strategy.

Dear Senator Obama,
I watched the debate last night with friends who are mostly Obama supporters plus a couple of independents who have not made up their minds. Unanimously, the consensus of the watchers was that you wasted valuable time repeating the attacks you made in the previous debate against John McCain. Everybody knows McCain is tied to Bush. Everybody knows McCain supports the war in Iraq. Everybody knows McCain supports tax cuts for the rich. What all of us were looking for were specific answers to questions that concern us all, particularly on the economy. We all thought you were better than your opponent last night, but you did let McCain steal the headlines for coming up with something new that might help the average American, the buy-up of mortgages. Please stop wasting time attacking McCain. Spend more time convincing the independents that you really are the one that can help them.

Let the bloggers do the attacking. They really are better at it than you are anyway. Don't get down in the gutter with Palin/McCain. Take the high road, talk about the issues, refuse to be sucked in to the character debates. The main reason swiftboating hurt John Kerry was because people remembered him throwing his medals over the Whitehouse fence. It resonated with them. There is nothing in your background that can cause the same reaction. Just shrug off the attacks saying, "We don't have time for that kind of campaigning. There are too many problems to solve and too little time to solve them, so here's what I'm going to do . . ."

You have our support. My family, which is large, is 100% behind you. Now show us your are worthy of our support.

Thanks,

Manny Tomes
An evangelical Vietnam Vet from Norman, OK

Famous Last Words

"I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war." When John McCain made this memorable statement it was an obvious attempt to disparage his opponents motives. Now, because of his ill-conceived selection of Sarah Palin as running mate, we clearly see that he did not mean he wouldn't endanger the country in other ways just to try to win a political campaign. Carl Bernstein, as astute an analyst of the political scenc as anyone writing today, says it well in his article, The Palin Pick -- The Devolution of McCain. Berstein says,

Indeed, no presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country's security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running mate. He is 72 years old; has had four melanomas, a particularly voracious form of cancer; refuses to release his complete medical records. Three of our last eleven presidents (and nine of all 43) have come to office unexpectedly in mid-term from the vice presidency: Truman, who within days of FDR's death was confronted with the decision of whether to drop the atom bomb on Japan; Lyndon Johnson, who took the oath in Dallas after JFK's assassination; Gerald Ford, sworn in following the resignation of Richard Nixon. A fourth vice president, George H.W. Bush, briefly exercised the powers of the presidency after the near-assassination of Ronald Reagan.

Given that history, what does John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin -- the cavalier, last-minute process of her selection and careless vetting; and her over-briefed, fact-lite performance since -- reveal about this military man who has attested to us for years that he is guided by his personal code of honor? "Two things I will never
do," McCain told me, "are [to] lie to the American people, or put my electoral interests before the national interest" -- an obvious precursor of "I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war."

He then answers his own question:

It does not take a near-death experience to know that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be commander in chief, or that -- in choosing her -- McCain has ignored his own oft-avowed code of conduct. "McCain made the most important command decision of his life when he chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee," noted David Ignatius in the Washington Post. "....No promotion board in history would have made such a decision."

I having no problem praising Berstein for coming to this decision because he now agrees with me. Of course I came to this same conclusion almost a month ago. See my post McCain Throws the Election on August 29, 2008.