The Blue Voice

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Condi-Condi to Southern Baptists: God loves war; especially Bush's wars

Condi-Condi showed up at the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) to tell the delegates about the virtues of war: Rice: no guarantees in Iraq by Anne Gearan and Tim Whitmire Greensboro News-Record/AP 06/14/06.

I guess all that sissy nonsense about "blessed are the peacemakers" is now as "quaint" for the SBC as Abu Gonzales says the Geneva Conventions are. We could do a "literalist" interpretation - which often resembles stock Republican comma-dancing, anyway - and say that when Jesus said that, he was referring only to peacemakers who were standing there listening to him at that moment.

Before I say more about that, I should say that Frank Page won the presidency of the SBC. Since the "moderates" of the 1970s and 1980s - who now call themselves "traditional Baptists" (the labels can get complicated) - were effectively purged from the SBC leadership, you can't say Page is a moderate. But he was less radically conservative than his competition.

One of Page's partisans, Wade Burleson, posts about Page's victory in A Historic Day in the Southern Baptist Convention 06/14/06

He writes:

We had a good conversation and I reminded Dr. Page of his pledge not to exclude from service godly, conservative Southern Baptists who affirm the Baptist Faith and Message [BF&M, the official SBC doctrinal statement], but yet differ in areas of doctrinal interpretions not addressed by the BF&M.

Frank graciously reiterated that pledge and then said he was looking to open up the appointments to people throughout the SBC that had a sweet spirit, a commitment to [Biblical] inerrancy, and a willingness to serve. (my emphasis)

It appears that Baptist blogging is becoming a significant influence in church matters.

This could be unexpectedly good news for rank-and-file Southern Baptists, who may have a lot to say about the convention's emphasis on fringe doctrinal issues like Biblical inerrancy and their radical departure from the long commitment of Baptists to separation of church and state. If that turns out to be the case, we can all say, "Hallelujah!" over that.

Burleson writes:

When Frank's election was announced I was walking around the arena and just happened to be stopped by a reporter in the undergound hallway. He wanted my reaction. Soon other reporters stopped and by the time all was said and done probably over 25 media persons from around the nation stood four deep and asked questions for forty minutes. One of the questions that kept being repeated over and over again is whether or not I believed blogs played a role in this election. I said, "Absolutely." Baptist bloggers in 2006 may well go down in history as the first time bloggers actually determined the outcome of a national religious/political election.
...

After the last business of the evening a very large, informal group of bloggers, young leaders and messengers from my church met in our suite at the Sheraton. Frank Page came and we gathered around him and laid our hands on him and prayed. Wiley Drake, the Second Vice-President came by with his wife and his wife's mother and we prayed for him as well.

What's the laying on of hands thing about? Don't ask.

Back to Rice's speech, from the AP article cited above:

She got repeated standing ovations for her call for continued U.S. engagement across the globe.

"We're standing together with people everywhere who desire these fundamental freedoms," especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rice said in a speech to the annual Southern Baptist Convention.

In those two countries alone, "We have given more than 55 million people an opportunity to flourish in freedom," Rice said. "Not a guarantee of success, but a chance."

This is an example of why other Christians who would like to find some common ground on practical issue with Christian fundamentalists find it so hard to do so. One of the things that even the toughest critics of the Christian Right usually say these days is that they've done a good job in calling attention to the violation of the human rights and freedom of religion of Christians in countries like the Sudan where they are persecuted.

But look at the realities in Afghanistan and Iraq. See Afghanistan: On the Brink by Ahmed Rashid (05/24/06; 06/22/06 issue) for a recent report on the former.

The national government barely exercises effective authority outside of Kabul. Most of the country is run by warlords. The Taliban (or similar Sunni Islamist groups that Western commentators code as "Taliban") ars coming back strongly and exerting effective control over larger and larger areas of the country. Even the official government is under shaira (Muslim relgious law). That's not necessarily as grim as it might sound on the surface; some varieties of sharia can be consistent with a full recongnition of human rights and freedom of religion, at least in theory.

One of the surprises in Rashid's article was this:

There are, Jones writes, numerous codes of law - penal, legal, customary, and religious - that women have to conform to in each tribe or ethnic group. The question of women's rights is never raised. If they don't obey orders, or resist being abused, the men in their lives can have them arrested. As in many Muslim countries there is no specific law against rape - an Afghan woman who reports being raped is usually charged with adultery. Despite a new constitution that guarantees women's rights, many judges are barely literate and know only Sharia or Islamic law.

In Iraq, anyone who doesn't make the mistake of thinking that FOX News is describing the real world can find out with minimal effort how grim things are there. Insurgency, civil war largely on religious lines, rampant crime, virtually non-existent security in much of the country. The national government is controlled by Shi'a fundamentalist parties. They may not want clerical rule exactly like in Iran. But they want Islamic law enforced. And in Basra, local Shi'a Islamist are implementing a grim, authoritarian form of sharia. Christian churches and Christians themselves are increasingly becoming targets of attack. Christian missionaries, including some foolishly sent there by the SBC's mission operation, have been killed. Women's rights are less respected in the New Iraq than under Saddam's regime.

One of the grim ironies of the Iraq War is the pressure being brought to bear by Islamist against the Christian community that is the only remaining group for which Aramaic is a living language. Aramaic was the language that Jesus himself spoke. Many of them are fleeing Iraq altogether. It could turn out that George Bush's Christian crusade against the heathen in Mesopotamia, the one cheered so warmly by the SBC messengers this week, could wind up destroying the language that Jesus spoke as a living language. Heckuva job, Bush and Condi-Condi!

I'm sorry, I know that the "messengers" attending the SBC convention would mostly see supporting the Republican Party as a Christian obligation on a par with defending "Biblical inerrancy".

But shouldn't telling the truth count for something at the national convention of America's largest Protestant denomination? Especially when the Republican Party has transformed itself into a Christian sectarian party that largely endorses much of the SBC's program? Shouldn't someone be speaking out for the Christians in those countries? Doesn't anyone there object to the crushing of women's rights in those places being described as "freedom"?

Or are all 12,000 "messsengers" at the SBC so enthusiastic for war and killing that they can't be bothered with such things? Do they really think Jesus would want them all to be props for the most shameless war propaganda? Even to the extent of entertaining an illegal preventive-war attack on Iran, a country that is no imminent threat to the US? (Although the AP doesn't mention Condi-Condi touching on Iraq.)

The AP reports:

Although the three-year-old war is increasingly unpopular at home and President Bush's public opinion ratings have sunk as a result, there was little sign of flagging support in the huge convention hall where Rice spoke.

So, these 12,000 messengers of the Prince of Peace are more enthusiastic for the Iraq War, for torture and corruption, for Unilateral Executive government, than the ordinary unwashed masses?

One of the songs George Jones performs says, "The on-ly difference between sinners and saints/Is that one is forgiven and the other one ain't".

That doesn't seem to be the case for the messenger-saints at the SBC convention. They're distinctly more enthusiastic for war, killing and torture than the average American.

And these are interesting observations from further down in the AP article:

Just 67 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of conservatives, and 57 percent of white evangelicals believed a stable, democratic government is likely.

Only 68 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of white evangelicals and 51 percent of self-described conservatives - key groups in Bush's base of support - approved of his handling of Iraq.

The concept of "evangelicals" isn't defined there, but in theory those are "born-again" Christians like the mostly white SBC. In other words, the delegates are distinctly more enthusiastic for Bush's war in Iraq than a substantial portion of other white evangelicals.

And they seemed satisfied to assume that was God is on their side:

Rice, the daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, was introduced by outgoing Southern Baptist Convention President Bobby Welch as "a woman of faith and not ashamed to testify to that."

She referred often to God and prayer, and cast U.S. work overseas, from Iraq to Sudan to the attempts to stem the trafficking of human beings for forced labor or sex, in religious terms.

As she left the podium, delegates in the upper arena began to sing "God Bless America." The whole arena joined in the spontaneous anthem.

Yeah, "blessed are the peacemakers" is just a stodgy, quaint idea for this crew. Our God is bigger than their God, so let's bomb some more Muslims.

posted at 12:46:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |