by Dr. Bruce Prescott
To comment on a blog, visit the Mainstream Baptist blog on Blogspot.
August 2004
The GOP is not a church, and America's not either (8-31-04)
BeliefNet has posted a story from Jerry Falwell in which he says "The GOP is not a Church." Falwell also says,
n the complex game of politics, we must work with people who have conflicting viewpoints on momentous issues in order to secure the greater good for the nation. While we must never compromise our Bible-based values in our churches, most conservative people of faith realize that we must work with a sense of cooperation in the political realm.I
It is truly astounds me whenever Falwell sounds reasonable. If he can recognize the value of living and working together with people of "conflicting viewpoints," why can't he recognize the value of the First Amendment? All the First Amendment does is recognize the value of living and working together with people of "conflicting worldviews" in order to secure the greater good for the nation.
That Falwell's reasonableness is apparent, rather than real, is revealed when he says, "as long as the Republican leadership remains chiefly pro-family, pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, we will continue to favor the party." In other words, he is saying, "l'll value diversity as long as it assists me in forcing my 'worldview' on everyone else."
If Falwell was really concerned about spreading "Christian values," he would get out of politics and focus on "the foolishness of preaching." For him, however, that would merely be "a correct premise. In reality, it doesn't work out that way." (See Episode 1 of the PBS Video, "With God on Our Side")
On Being Saved by a "Truly" Christian School (8-30-04)
The latest edition of the American Family Association's Journal has a story about the increased momentum among Southern Baptists to leave the public schools. Though T. C. Pinkney's resolution failed to be approved at the Southern Baptist Convention as it met in June, the Exodus Mandate movement appears to be growing.
Now we are being told that removing your child from public schools and placing them in a private Christian school is not enough. We must learn to distinguish "between Christian schools and 'truly' Christian schools."
"Truly" Christian schools are identified by their rejection of "secular" education and approval of religious indoctrination.
Such schools are vitally important because, as E. Roy Moore says, "If we save our children, we may save our churches. And having saved our churches, we still, at this late hour, may have saved our nation. So we feel this is an agenda for revival and renewal and the re-Christianization of America."
It appears to me that these Baptists are proclaiming a salvation by indoctrination. Whatever became of the gospel that was shared "by the foolishness of preaching?"
On Political Organizations of Clergy
(8-27-04)
Ethics Daily has posted a
RNS news report about a new political organization of
African-American clergy that has endorsed President Bush.
Appropriately, they call themselves the "National Faith Based
Initiatives Coalition" identifying both the issue and the source of
revenues that this administration has used to woo their votes.
I applaud the creation of political
organizations of clergy -- as long as they don't claim any
tax-exemptions for their political organization and they don't carry
their endorsements into the pulpits of their churches. Clergy, like
people in any other industry, have a right to organize and lobby for
handouts and special favors from the government.
Clergy have as much
right as any other citizen in this country to be involved in the
political processes of our country. It is good for clergy to find ways
to voice their political opinions and it be understood by everyone
that they are speaking as private citizens and not as spokespersons
for their churches.
The Abomination that Causes Desolations
(8-26-04)
Jesus said, "When you see
'the abomination that causes desolation's standing where it does not
belong -- let the reader understand -- then let those who are in Judea
flee to the mountains." (Mark 13:14)
Never have those words meant more to
Mainstream Baptists than they do today. Our seminaries ceased to be
temples of learning long ago. It has always been painful to watch once
fine institutions of higher learning gradually become indoctrination
centers, but the chapel service at Southwestern Seminary yesterday
made it clear that their desolation is utterly complete.
Baptist Press reports that, after the chair of the county
Republican Party Chair spoke, Jerry Falwell endorsed a candidate for
President during a chapel service at Southwestern Seminary. He is
quoted as saying, "The press is here today expecting me to get into
politics, which I'm not goig to do, except to tell you to vote for
the Bush of your choice." After Falwell spoke, Seminary President
Paige Patterson advised students that voter registration tables would
be set up at the door of the chapel all week.
B.H Carroll, L.R. Scarborough and all the
other deceased presidents of the Seminary must be spinning in their
graves. If ever there was a Baptist equivalent to the tables of money
changers at the Jerusalem temple, voter registration tables at the
door of a chapel service preaching partisan politics must be it.
Nothing could make it clearer that our Baptist birthright as champions
for separation of church and state is being exchanged for a bowl of
pottage.
Baptists are
advised to flee the Southern Baptist Convention. It's name should be
changed to "Ichabod" ("the glory has departed," 1 Samuel 4:21).
Would Jesus Win an
Election?
(8-25-04)
Kudo's to Raymond Bailey,
pastor of Seventh and James Baptist Church in Waco, Texas for his
guest editorial on "Would Jesus Win an Election?" It deserves wide
circulation. Here are some quotes and a link to the entire editorial:
Could Jesus win a national election in a nation so many like to identify as “Christian”? I suspect he would have trouble being elected mayor of our fair city, let alone president of these sovereign United States.
Can you imagine a platform with a point calling us to love our enemies, or for some cheek-turning to insults, let alone slaps across the proud jaw of Uncle Sam? What would Cal Thomas, the voice of Christian conservatives, who recently defended the humiliation and torture of prisoners, have to say about this “loving,” “blessing” and “turning the cheek” business?
The doctrine that the end justifies any means has been used to justify cruel and inhuman actions by Christians for a thousand years. One would be hard put to find in the New Testament any words or actions of Jesus to justify pre-emptive strikes or barbaric treatment of prisoners of war. Jesus might not be committed enough to a philosophy of "America, right or wrong.”
Maybe we could get Jesus to do what the disciples couldn’t — to rain down fire on Samaritans, Iraqis or whomever. A promise to put the Left Behind guys in charge of the military might overcome the concessionary policies expressed in the Sermon of the Mount. Perhaps they could persuade Jesus to get the Armageddon thing going to get the big war on and over.. . .
The truth is that those who want to wed church and state prefer Old Testament warrior kings to the Prince of Peace. They want “Christian values” to influence certain policies but not those with regard to the expenditure of public funds for health, education or the relief of poverty.
On Religious
Values
(8-24-04)
Thanks to Carlos Stouffer
of the
Jesus Politics
blog for his thoughtful
comment on yesterday’s post. These thoughts led me to reflect on the
values that are being reflected by the religious rhetoric of both
parties:
Many Christians appear to be persuaded that the Republican party represents better their Christian values. . . . Should Democrats imitate Republicans and shape a religious language that would serve their purposes?
Many Christians seem to look at politics in religious terms. So when the Republicans use religious language they will get their support. What is needed is political and religious education for Christians. This way Christians could challenge the easy assumptions of the Christian Right which are more interested in worldly political power than in following the message of Jesus.
In my personal experience,
I don’t find the left reluctant to talk about religious values. I hear
the left speaking about “universal” values and I hear the right
speaking about “exclusive” values. Universal values are values that
can be shared without being diminished. For example, mutual respect
and concern for others does not diminish as it is shared, it grows.
Exclusive values are values that diminish when shared. For example, if
I have ten dollars and the government takes one from me and
redistributes it to feed, educate and house those who have nothing,
10% of my wealth has been stolen from me. If the same government takes
a dollar from me and redistributes it to wealthy industrialists to
wage perpetual wars, my wealth (an exclusive value) has still been
reduced by 10%, but that is a necessary expense for the “defense of
property rights” (another exclusive value).
For most people, Democrats and Republicans alike, the value of mutual
respect and concern for others is most certainly motivated by
religion. These values however, are not exclusively Christian and in
our society only “Christian values” get credit for being religious.
The “exclusive” “Christian Right,” searching for a corner in the
market for virtue, has chosen to deride most universal values as
“bleeding heart liberalism” while championing tax-cuts for the wealthy
and “the defense of property rights” as “Christian values.”
The niche the
“Christian Right” has created for itself is, at its best, based on the
most elemental values, and, at its worst, blesses the vice of greed
and the sin of miserliness.
Was Jesus a
Democrat?
(8-23-04)
Someone asked, in an
e-mail that I’ve lost, if the TFN conference was overtly partisan.
Media coverage emphasized that James C. Moore announced that
“Jesus was the original Democrat” and received applause. Moore did say
that. He did receive applause. It would be grossly inaccurate,
however, to view that one statement and response as characteristic of
the conference. Moore had a small part in a very large conference.
There was a lot of criticism of both the media and of the policies of
the current administration at the conference, but Moore was the only
speaker who was overtly partisan – and there was a feeling that he
crossed the line when he did so.
Undoubtedly, some of Moore’s remarks were ill advised. I did not
applaud or approve of his comment about Jesus and the applause he
received from others came with a laugh of surprise. It was neither
loud nor sustained. Other statements he made – comments that were not
overtly partisan – did receive loud and sustained applause. Overall,
his speech was well-crafted, very insightful and highly entertaining.
He also made one statement that fell completely flat. He said
something to the effect that Democrats should be talking about God as
much as the Republicans. I groaned "No" at that statement and so did
several others.
Moore’s remark about “Jesus being a Democrat” was both
inaccurate and out-of-place in my opinion. He was not, however,
making a statement as a representative of TFN. He was speaking to TFN.
Neither was he speaking as the leader of a non-profit. He was speaking
for himself, a journalist.
On Schools for "Biblical" Lawyers (8-20-04)
Newsday reported that Jerry Falwell is integrating his faith into the law school at Liberty University:
We want to infiltrate the culture with men and women of God who are skilled in the legal profession," Falwell said in a telephone interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. "We'll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left."
Lawyers as
"infiltrators." Is this more "Holy war" rhetoric?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary offers a couple definitions of
"infiltrate" that may be pertinent: "to pass (troops) singly or in
small groups through gaps in the enemy line" or "to enter or become
established in gradually or unobtrusively usually for subversive
purposes."
First
Pat Robertson created a Law School at Regents University to train 'Dominionist'
judges and lawyers. Now Falwell wants a Law School of his own. Could
Falwell be jealous of the success that Regents University graduates
have had at finding placement at high level civil service positions
and appointments in Washington, D.C. and in government offices around
the country?
Those
who understand
the role of "magistrates" in "Dominionist"
theology
might have reason for some concern.
Theocrats Among Us
(8-19-04)
Baptist Press
reports that the Barna Group's research reveals that
32% of the American public
are in favor of "a constitutional amendment to establish Christianity as
the official religion of the United States."
Two hundred and fifteen years
after the First Amendment prohibited the establishment of religion and
guaranteed that people of all faiths and people of no faith would be equal
citizens in the U.S., 32%
of the population think the founding fathers made a mistake. Despite
prodigious evidence that the U.S. is one of the most religious nations on
the planet, 32%
of the public think that the "lively experiment" to see whether a nation
founded on respect for the religious convictions of minority faiths will
flourish has been a failure. 32%
of the American public are fully prepared to return to the established
churches of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and risk fighting
another 30 years war to determine which religion will finally get to
"unify" our culture and civilization.
TFN Conference Finishes Strong
(8-18-04)
Helen Thomas was a tough act
to follow, but the second day of the Texas Freedom Network's
Conference on Religion and the Media truly was as good as the first.
There were many pleasant surprises at the forum on "How would Jesus Vote?"
Evan Smith, editor of
Texas Monthly Magazine, moderated the discussion.
Diane Connolly, editor of
ReligionLink, spoke first and mentioned the irony that Baptists, who
in the 1960's worried that Catholic politicians would be under the thumb
of the Pope, are now cheering Catholic Bishops for trying to influence
Catholic politicians by denying them communion.
James Moore, author of
Bush's War for Reelection, admitted that he voted twice for G.W. Bush
to be Governor of Texas and once to be President, but described himself
now as a "politically angry man." He said
Bush governed as a moderate when he was in Texas. He's
angry because Bush as President is not governing as a moderate and because
he did not fulfill his campaign promises to not be involved in nation
building, to not send troops into harm's way without an exit strategy, and
to not run up the deficit. He contended
that, "If ever there was a bleeding heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ."
John Moyers, editor of
TomPaine.com, quoted his good friend and mentor, James Dunn, as
saying, "The media are so cowed by this (President's) Administration that
you can hear them moo." He also quoted
James Forbes as saying, "God will not revitalize America by a religious
crusade. It will be an interfaith movement." He
advised progressives to take back morality from the religious right and
asserted that, "morality does not equal sexuality." He
offered Micah 6:8 as the definition of morality.
Kudos again to Samantha
Smoot and her team at the
Texas Freedom Network. Every workshop, forum, session and speaker at
the conference was top notch.
TFN Conference Off to Great Start
(8-17-04)
Kudos to Samantha Smoot and her colleagues at the
Texas Freedom Network
for putting on a great conference.
Dr. Stewart Hoover kicked the conference off
with an outstanding presentation on religion and the media.
The author of
Religion in the News
spoke to the subject "The Apocalypse will be Televised: Religion in the
Media Age." Most valuable were his
suggestions for how moderate and progressive religionists should respond
to the media. His first suggestion is that
we insist on a separation between religion and government.
He contends that religion should have a
prophetic, not a collusive relationship with government.
I talked with Dr. Hoover after his
presentation. Look for interviews with him
and with Samantha Smoot on the "Religious
Talk" radio program in the near
future.
The highlight of the
conference was Helen Thomas' speech. She
pulls no punches. Her critique of the
failures of journalists over the past two and one half years is
unflinching. Her response to a question at
the end of her speech was most revealing. When
a man lamented that the Republican Party has been the subject of a "right
wing religious right" and paused, Helen finished his sentence for him with
a word that Mainstream Baptists understand well -- "takeover."
Religion and the Media
(8-16-04)
I'll be doing a little "Event
Blogging" for the next two days from Austin at the
"Religion and the Media"
Conference sponsored by the
Texas Freedom Network.
I've signed up for Dr. William Martin's
workshop on the "History of the Religious Right and the Press."
Dr. Martin is professor of Sociology at
Rice University and author of one of the definitive books on the religious
right. His book,
With God on Our Side,
is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the rise of the
religious right in America. A companion
six episode
video series
by PBS provides additional information that
is very valuable.
I'll post more after
I've attended some sessions.
Voting for a Reason (8-13-04)
Thanks to Ethics Daily for calling my attention to a book being sold in the SBC's LifeWay Christian Stores. More than anything else, the book tries to scare Christians into the ballot box. According to the authors, if Christians don't vote, or if they don't vote right, "we may well behold God's heavy hand a judgment crashing down upon our nation in ways we have never imagined before."
The more you are around Fundamentalist Christians, the more you see that they only have one arrow in their quiver. There are a number of reasons why Christians should be informed about political issues, be engaged in civic processes, and cast their votes in general elections, but fear of Divine retribution ranks so low that it is not worth mentioning.
The more you are around politically active Fundamentalists, the more you see that there is only one thing that concerns them. Why they are so fixated on biological processes related to reproduction deserves some thoughtful analysis and interpretation. At times, I see more similarities between them and the Taliban, as depicted in the film Osama, than differences.
A Breath
of Fresh Air
(8-12-04)
Kudo's to Ken Hall, President
of Buckner Baptist Benevolences, for declining to seek a second term as
President of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
"It's time to enlarge the tent,"
Hall says. "We need to
make space for more diversity in our highest office. Hispanics, African
Americans, other ethnic groups, women and laypersons need the opportunity
to have the honor to serve and to exert leadership."
This is truly a breath of fresh air for
Baptists.
It's a shame such magnanimous
leadership suffocates in the SBC. Imagine what could have happened over
the last twenty-five years if those elected as SBC presidents had a spirit
like Ken's.
Does EKG have a heartbeat? (8-11-04)
In a BP story yesterday Ken Hemphill says "EKG (Empowering Kingdom Growth) is a process of spiritual renewal," not a program. I find that hard to believe.
Hemphill is the official "strategist" for the SBC's EKG. "Programs" need strategists who create a "vision" and work to implement them. Spiritual renewal, on the other hand, depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, like the wind, "blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes." (John 3:8)
Perhaps SBC leaders wouldn't feel so abandoned spiritually if they had not turned a deaf ear to God's Holy Spirit. In the 2000 BF&M Southern Baptists presumed to tell God how the wind of His Spirit should blow, where it must come from, where it ought to go, and that it better sound masculine.
On the Ethics of Stem Cells (8-10-04)
Differences over the ethics of stem cell research is becoming one of the major issues in this presidential election. ABP is reporting that the Kerry campaign is focusing on their candidate's support for embryonic stem cell research. AP is reporting that our nation's First Lady is bashing Kerry for his stem cell stance.
Southern Baptists have already weighed in on this issue, though most do not realize it. The 2000 Baptist Faith & Message says Baptists should "contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death" and supports the view that fertilized human eggs are "Children, from the moment of conception."
What SBC leaders have not done is reveal the full implications of their doctrine. Consistently applied it would also prohibit Baptists from using birth control pills because, at times, this form of contraception prevents fertilized human ova from implanting in a uterus.
More troublesome are the implications of this doctrine for our understanding of God. As Robert Francoeur, a Roman Catholic embryologist and theologian wrote,
“If every human egg fertilized is immediately a ‘fetus’, ‘baby’ and ‘person’, then God and nature play a mean trick on us. Scientists estimate that in the five-six days following union of egg and sperm, between one-third and one-half of all ‘persons’ spontaneously degenerate and are reabsorbed or expelled. In the second week, 42 percent of the implanted ‘persons’ abort. In the fetal period one-third of the remaining fetuses spontaneously miscarry. Thus out of every 1000 ‘persons’ ‘conceived’, only 120 to 160 survive to be reborn!” (Christian Ethics Today, April 2000, p. 26.)
God declared all his creative work to be “very good.” (Gen. 1:31) Would He do that if the natural process for conception itself was wasteful of human life and potential?
Valuable Reading for Church-State Activists (8-9-04)
Ruth Murray Brown, formerly professor of political science and sociology at Oklahoma University, wrote a book that is essential reading for Oklahoma AU activists. In 2002 Prometheus Press published Brown’s history of the religious right under the title For a “Christian America”. The title is apt.
The book summarizes three decades of interviews with and observations of religious right leaders — mostly Oklahomans. As Brown tells the story, the tap root nurturing the rise of the religious right in America was planted in Oklahoma.
She traces the rise of the religious right to evangelical women in Oklahoma who were opposed to the ERA. Oklahoma’s anti-ERA activists were the first group to lead a successful campaign to defeat its ratification in their state. “After Oklahoma women showed the way,” Brown wrote, “women all over the country, most of them with no previous experience in politics, did what no one thought possible — stopped the Equal Rights Amendment cold.”
After this initial success, Brown traces the growth of grassroots activism by the religious right through the decades of the 1980’s and 1990’s. While the issues changed from decade to decade and from administration to administration, the theme uniting all of their political efforts is the religious right’s unwavering support for a “Christian America.” Christian, that is, as defined and legislated by conservative evangelicals.
Brown makes it clear that dissolving church/state separation is the central goal of the religious right.
The glaring lacuna in Brown’s research concerns Christian Reconstructionism and its theocratic agenda. Though Dominionists are politically active in Oklahoma and very influential in right wing circles throughout the nation, she totally ignored them.
On Standing the Heat (8-9-04)
Apologies to the Kerry Campaign and thanks to ABP for their story clarifying whether the new religious liaison was encouraged to resign.
The actions of the former liaison still leave me mystified. Any chef that signed up to make a salad out of faith groups in this election should have expected Bush supporters to turn the heat up in Kerry's kitchen.
Kerry and Religion (8-6-04)
Kerry's campaign is beginning to look like an old episode of Keystone Cops on the issue of religion. First his campaign hired a religion advisor to help it appeal to religious people. Now she has resigned because religious conservatives don't like her stance on the "under God" loyalty oath in the pledge of allegiance.
The Democratic party acts more like the SBC every day. With the Republican party acting more like the Massachusetts Bay Colony every day, where will people who believe in separating church and state go?
For the record, I agree with Kerry's old religion advisor on this issue. The Ceremonial Deism that permits Americans to trot Divinity out as though he were our national mascot violates the commandment to not take God's name in vain. Why aren't those "conservative" ten commandments advocates up in arms about this?
Progressive Baptists Seeking Justice For Muslims
(8-5-04)
In stark contrast to the rhetoric of Holy War against all Muslims that has been streaming from the mouths of Southern Baptist leaders for the past two and a half years, Progressive National Baptists are encouraging the U.S. to intervene in Sudan on behalf of Black Muslims.
Kudos to Major Jemison, pastor of St. John's Missionary Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, for the prophetic voice that he raises on behalf of both American soldiers and Sudanese Muslims. Such voices were conspicuously absent on the platforms of both the Southern Baptist Convention and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship this summer.
Faith-Based Initiatives: Easy Money and Loose Accountability (8-4-04)
Ethics Daily posted an RNS story yesterday about Call to Renewal urging retention of the Faith-based office. To say that I am disappointed in Jim Wallis would be to put it mildly, but this is not the first time that Wallis has left me deeply disappointed.
The first time Wallis left me disappointed was in April 1996. Memory of that disappointment counts double because my leaving Houston and going to Waco to a conference gathering key evangelical leaders to discuss the implications of welfare reform and "Charitable Choice" left my wife deeply disappointed with me. The conference was held on her birthday. By conference end, it was apparent that Jim Wallis was virtually alone in his support of "Charitable Choice." The conference ended with Wallis saying, "I'm not worried about separation of church and state, I'm worried about the poor. I'll leave it to you to worry about separation of church and state."
The second time Wallis left me disappointed was in the fall of 1999. He came to Oklahoma City to speak and I arranged to have him as a guest on my radio program. During the radio interview we discussed "Charitable Choice" and I raised most of the standard objections (here's a link to an article by Melissa Rogers that I think expresses those concerns most succinctly). It was obvious that Wallis had prepared an answer to all the standard objections. He gave plausible arguments against some concerns and deflected the most cogent arguments with humor. So, after discussing with him the need for the Church to provide a prophetic voice that challenges social injustice (a core value of Call to Renewal), I asked him, "What could undermine the integrity of the Church's witness more than easy money and loose accountability." Wallis was speechless.
"Easy money and loose accountability," that is what faith-based initiatives are, in essence. If the devil himself designed a government program to encourage corruption and undermine the integrity of the church's witness, could he devise a more effective plan?
Religious Liberty: America's Sacred Ground (8-2-04)
Barbara McGraw in her recent book, Rediscovering America’s Sacred Ground: Public Religion and Pursuit of the Good in a Pluralistic America, does a magnificent job of explaining the morality underlying the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
She traces the roots of religious liberty back to John Locke, uncovers his theology, highlights the value of social contract theory, underscores the role of individual conscience, and emphasizes the need to find “just bounds” between religion and the state. She provides a much needed corrective to the thought of Alsdair MacIntyre and others who view Locke’s thought, and the First Amendment, as products of “autonomous individualism” and an outmoded “enlightenment rationalism.” McGraw’s critique of the thought of church-state accomodationists like Stephen Carter is equally valuable.
Most valuable is her conception of a two-tiered public forum and the distinction she makes between civic and conscientious morality. The morality of the civic public forum preserves by force of law the “sacred ground” that is necessary to preserve a just and equitable pluralistic society with religious liberty for all. The morality of the conscientious public forum is preserved by persuasion, not by force of law, as diverse individuals and groups promote their competing visions of the common good.
The book’s shortcomings derive from neglect of religious liberty advocacy prior to Locke, mostly Baptist, which probably influenced him. Neither Roger Williams’ and John Clarke’s acquisition of religious liberty for Rhode Island nor John Leland and Virginia Baptists role in securing the First Amendment were mentioned. Much is there that could strengthen valuable arguments she made relying on other sources.
I heartily recommend McGraw's book. She explains Locke's influence on our nation's founding fathers, as well as the step beyond Locke that they took when they granted religious liberty to atheists, better than any author I know.