The Southern Baptist Convention, Meeting in California in June, Could be on the Verge of Radical Change

The Southern Baptist Convention, which is the nation's largest Protestant and Evangelical denomination, has been down some rocky roads in recent years.  After a disastrous statistical report released last week, the membership in the denomination's churches has now shrunk by just under 3 million in about a decade, with the majority of that loss coming over the past five years.  Attendance is down, expected as a result of COVID restrictions, in spite of some bravado by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers and denialists among the membership.  But the total membership is a figure not affected by COVID, and that is tanking faster than just about any other church group in the country.  Even some of the more rapidly deteriorating mainline denominations aren't going down that fast. 

The convention will hold its annual meeting in June in Anaheim, California, right across the street from Disneyland, which it once boycotted because of its "pro-LGBTQ stance" reflected in days it holds at the park.  It's met in Orlando a couple of times, too.  But this time, there is a candidate for the denomination's presidency, which has appointive power, who represents a shift in the position of the denomination from what has been called the "Conservative Resurgence," to a more hard-line, Calvinist-inspired fundamentalism.  

A Huge Issue Awaits, The Sex Abuse Task Force Report

Just prior to the outbreak of COVID, Southern Baptists were hit with an expose in the Houston Chronicle bringing to light hundreds of cases of sexual abuse involving Southern Baptist pastors, church staff members and even denominational employees.  This had been going on for years, but the denominational leadership put off doing anything about it, claiming that its polity, which recognizes the independence and autonomy of its local church affiliates, does not permit it to intervene in local church affairs.  

What was happening was that abusers were able to leave a church where there was a question about their behavior and move on to another church to abuse, since there was little communication between churches and many search and personnel committees were reluctant to disclose anything about which they weren't absolutely certain.  The denominational headquarters, and the state convention bodies, do not ordain ministers and do not assign ministers to open church positions, that's left up to each local church.  

The Chronicle found information on hundreds of cases across the country, and reported everything it could verify.  I believe their series is available online without a paywall, at Houston Chronicle/San Antonio Express: Abuse of Faith  .  Now, the convention meeting in June will have to deal with a full report, conducted by a group called Guidestone, commissioned by the task force appointed by SBC President Ed Litton.  

I expect the report will have a major effect on the outcome of the denomination's election process.    

Litton won the presidency in a close race last year opposite Mike Stone, a candidate run by an opposition group called "Conservative Baptist Network," bent on gaining the power to appoint trustee boards and committees that control denominational entities like the six seminaries and two mission boards.  They claim that CRT and "liberal theology" has infiltrated the SBC and they're upset over the fact that one of the denominational executives, Russell Moore at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was an outspoken never-Trumper.  CBN thinks the SBC should be more aligned with right wing politics, and when Litton won, some within their ranks viciously attacked him on social media, claiming he "plagiarized" sermons in an attempt to force him to step down.  He didn't, so the SBC is now facing another contested race for the Presidency when it meets in a few weeks in Anaheim. 

The SBC is Looking More Like a Political Action Committee, Less Like a Christian Denomination

Tom Ascol, who is pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, and executive director of a group called "Founder's Ministries," which has been sharply critical of SBC conservatives and their leadership and theology for at least two decades, if not more, is the preferred candidate of a group known as the "Conservative Baptist Network," a group of disgruntled pastors and church ministry leaders who accuse the SBC's current leadership of "going woke," and drifting into "liberalism."  Ascol's blog sounds a lot like a peddler of conspiracy theories, and he's often been sharply and viciously critical of non-Calvinists in the denomination.  The common thread that has drawn him into the mix with CBN is their affinity for Trump support and Trump-style politics in the SBC. 

I never really paid much attention to the Calvinist-Non Calvinist debate in the SBC when I was a member of one of its churches.  Calvinists were a minority, the few people I knew who were aware of Ascol's presence and blog didn't say much, and what they did say was nice but not favorable.  And as much as CBN insists they are still in line with the "conservative vs. liberal" theological debate, claiming that liberals are now in control of the SBC, their rhetoric is almost purely political.  They seem to think that if they say that enough, people will believe it in spite of an almost complete lack of evidence.  

From the rhetoric of some of those connected with CBN, character assassination and false accusations are at the top of their list of tactics to attempt to win control of the SBC presidency and its appointive powers.  They've learned well from one of their favorite politicians, the failed former President 45.  At the heart of their accusations of "liberalism" and "wokeness" in the SBC is the fact that the former executive director of the Southern Baptists' public policy commission, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was an outspoken never-Trumper.  So the accusations of "wokeness" have been flying, nothing provable but truthfulness and integrity no longer seem to be Baptist values, at least among this segment of the SBC.  

They've also become enraged over a resolution, a non-binding statement, passed by the SBC in 2019 on Critical Race Theory, which declares it incompatible with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the denomination's doctrinal statement.  The problem with the resolution is that the committee took out the inflammatory language and the false assumptions that the conservatives wanted in it before presenting it for passage.  

The CBN faction nominated a candidate last year, a Georgia pastor named Mike Stone, who had been the interim president of the SBC's executive committee and who had launched two investigations of the ERLC and Moore.  Stone lost on a second ballot after a third candidate was eliminated.  After that, the social media network of Baptist conservatives engaged in character assassination of Ed Litton, the Alabama pastor who won the SBC presidency.  They were determined to make a big enough stink to cause Litton to resign, so that Lee Brand, who was elected first vice president and was "their guy" would have those appointive powers.  Litton stood his ground.  

The Southern Baptists whom I know, and who I discuss this with on occasion, aren't quite sure exactly why CBN is gravitating toward Ascol, who is a polarizing figure because of his attitude and his narrow theological beliefs.  A few pastors, of whom Ascol had been highly critical in the past, have signed on because of the politics, but there are others who seem to be strongly committed not to go down that road.  With the convention being in Anaheim, a long way out west from the hotbeds of theological debate in the SBC, it's hard to tell whether there will be 15,000 messengers who show up, as they did in Nashville, or whether that will thin the ranks a bit.  

On social media, twitter and a few other places where Southern Baptists get together and fight publicly with each other, Ascol has apparently already made some controversial tweets and comments that don't seem to be sitting well with a lot of his fellow Baptists.  It's ridiculous, when you look at the facts and examine the rhetoric, to insist that the SBC is "going woke," or is "liberal."  It's nothing of the sort, but CBN's leadership seems to think that those are catchwords that will resonate with messengers at the convention who are not smart enough to think for themselves.  

CBN supporters are claiming that change is needed.  But what's interesting about that is that on their webpage, they feature the names and photos of their steering council.  Fully half of those listed there currently hold committee seats or board seats in SBC entities and some of them have a long list of both SBC and state convention leadership posts they've held.  Their supporters are already in positions of power and influence and if that's the case, how is it that they are not held accountable for the liberalism and wokeness that they claim exists in the SBC?  

It took a full decade for the "conservative resurgence," which began in 1979, to gain complete control of every committee and board in the SBC, so one or two years of someone like Ascol won't change much up front.  The case CBN is making isn't nearly as strong, and it has little to do with either the authority of scripture or its interpretation, it's mostly connections to right wing secular politics that they seem to be pushing and the consensus of the blogs I read is that even if the CBN manages to win a spot here and there, they can't sustain it with the lack of substance they are pushing.  

Southern Baptists Have an Image Problem and an Integrity Problem

The most recent data from the denomination's churches, released just a week or so ago, show the effects of COVID on attendance, down by a million from pre-covid levels.  But a more disturbing figure, one which goes beyond COVID as a cause, is that the total membership of the I3 million member denomination, declined by 400,000 in just one year, bringing the losses over the past decade to just under 3 million from a peak of I6 million.  More than half of that has occurred since 20I6.  

The impact of the SATF report, due to be released May 22, will be significant.  There are those within the denomination who expect that the information will confirm that things were far worse than imagined, and that this scandal will be equally as bad, and will be identified as having gone on as long, as the Catholic church's child abuse scandal.  Denominational leaders in the SBC, where getting into a prominent position with some power and a nice salary package requires using influence, pulling strings and knowing who the kingmakers are, are about to face their biggest crisis. 

If I Hear This One More Time I'm Going to Scream!

A Whole List of Recent Political Pet Peeves Which Make Me Scream When I Hear Them

1. The "failed" troop withdrawal from Afghanistan was Biden's fault.

Don't watch Meet the Press, Sunday edition, I keep telling myself.  It will make your blood boil.  Inevitably, one of Chuck Todd's remarks or one of his guests will make me angry and I'll yell at the television, which does no good, get upset and ruin my Sunday.  But I did it again this week.  

I'm not even going to acknowledge who the guest was that upset me, except to say it was a white, Republican woman who only seemed capable of spouting talking points and who could not intelligently carry on a real conversation.  I have to admit, Todd did actually ask a couple of direct questions that would make a Republican squirm and this woman managed to skillfully evade, change the topic and get her anti-Biden digs in her statement.  I hadn't been paying much attention when I heard her make a statement about the "failed withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan," blaming that on Biden.  

Have you ever heard of a thing called the "Doha Agreement?"  This disaster was negotiated by Trump, not Biden, ignoring the Afghan government and by extension, the army, negotiating directly with the Taliban and giving them the kind of recognition they needed to get the support for mounting an invasion to re-take what the US spend trillions of dollars trying to set free.   Par for the course, since Trump always prefers murdering dictators over democratically elected leadership.  All that did was send a signal which undermined the government, communicating to its military that it was about to be abandoned to its "enemies" and set the stage for the collapse of the Afghan Army.  Trump's refusal to participate in the peaceful transfer of power with the incoming Biden administration left the latter without a clear picture of the whole situation.  

The Biden administration managed to evacuate over 100,000 people in a few days.  I have no doubt that the incompetent Trump administration would have to consider itself lucky to have gotten a few hundred people out.  They wouldn't have tried for many more beyond just the Americans who were still there. 

So call it a failure, but blame it on Trump, not Biden.  Biden got it done.  Trump failed miserably. 

2.  Any effort at racial reconciliation or social justice reform is "CRT".  

Injustice that results from racial bigotry and prejudice is a very real problem.  Creating an awareness of it and providing resources and actions aimed at resolving it goes well beyond the parameters of Critical Race Theory, which is just one among many attempts at explaining and resolving racism.  But most conservatives lump all social justice and racial reconciliation efforts into their definition of CRT, creating a "straw man" argument against something that does not exist.  It would be difficult to be completely informed about issues of racial and ethnic injustice without a good look at all of the associated sociological theories available to try and explain it, but using all or part of a social theory as a means of understanding the bigger problem of injustice associated with race does not equal acceptance or endorsement of CRT.

Critical Race Theory is just that, a sociological theory which has emerged from within a segment of the population which struggled to have the same kind of liberty as those around them had because of circumstances due to racial prejudice, social inequality and economic disadvantage caused by slavery and the problems and issues that resulted from the failed attempt to assimilate five million former slaves into the culture.  It's one of many sociological theories in a marketplace of ideas, based on observation and open to the influence of other theories and ideas.  

Most of those on the extreme right who dismiss CRT outright are largely ignorant of what they are dismissing.  Their criticisms are based on false assumptions, misinterpretations and on their own bigotry, perpetuated by ignorance, which still runs deep in this country when it comes to racial equality.  What racial "equality" means to many white conservatives is that "they", meaning African Americans, must adopt white culture in order to assimilate, and if they act and behave accordingly, then problems like racial profiling and unequal treatment by the police and the justice system, poverty and lack of economic opportunity and higher unemployment, will somehow just go away.  

Overcoming bigotry requires getting well beyond yourself into the culture at large, making oneself uncomfortable while opening up the mind to understanding.  It requires education and understanding, which theories like CRT provide, because their origins come from decades of oppression and persecution of the ethnic or racial group that develops it.  

White Supremacy and a sociological "theory" called White Christian Nationalism are also out there in the marketplace of ideas, and have made significant inroads into the white, Evangelical churches on the coattails of its marriage to right wing politics.  I would suggest that neither of these theories are consistent with Biblical theology, in the same way that critics of CRT claim that it is not consistent.  They are theories based on a fascist, racist perspective that is anti-Christian, at least according to what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossian church about race and ethnic identity: 

In that renewal (conversion/salvation in Jesus Christ) there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.  Colossians 3:11, NRSV

Churches that believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible should be integrated and color blind.  

3.  The 2020 election results in many states need to be audited and re-counted because they do not accurately reflect the will of the voter. 

Do these people making these claims realize how monumentally ignorant they are?  To achieve the kind of "massive voter fraud" it would have taken to actually change the outcome of votes in any of the states that were challenged would have required one of the most duplicitous, outrageous conspiracies ever devised.  Republicans, many of them Trumpies, were in charge of the voting and counting process in almost all of the states where grumbling and griping about the vote was a problem.  These people would have to be either the most naive, unobservant, inattentive people in the world, or they must have had their bribery price met. 

Even the heavily biased pro-Trump groups that formed and claimed to be "auditors" hired by state legislators couldn't find enough evidence on which to build a made-up case.  I thought for sure that, in spite of the fact that they essentially had to ask for help from everything to determining how to use a vote-counting machine to figuring out the county voter registration data base, the Cyber Ninjas who spent $6 million of Trump campaign contributor money in Arizona would submit a report claiming massive voter fraud, whether they found any or not.  I would have loved to have been in the room when, after they finally figured out what they were doing, they saw that the votes had been accurately counted, all votes accurately vetted and accounted for, and one of the cleanest election counts in Arizona history.  

It got so much attention, and focused so much attention on the state legislators who pushed for it, that after their muted results were finally released, which, in a bunch of convoluted language, conceded that Maricopa County had accurately recorded the votes and that there was no voter fraud, that it put the senate president who pushed it into weeks of silence on just about anything. 

And here's an update on the Cyber Ninjas, who lied through their teeth when they told the Arizona Senate the cost would be $150,000, but spent over $8 million on their botched failure, and are now declaring bankruptcy.  Apparently they were not about election honesty, they were about grabbing the bucks while they could. They have still not complied with a standing judicial order, and in the process of completely botching what was not an audit, but an attempt to convince mindless, ignorant people that there was election fraud, even though they found absolutely nothing.  The whole group should be in jail, along with Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, who pushed for it, and the state senators who voted for it.  

Arizona Partisan "Audit" Group Declares Bankruptcy 

In Georgia, the claims of the "big lie" turned out to be a disaster all the way around for Republicans.  Attacks and accusations against two election workers, Wandrea Moss and Ruby Freeman, turned into death threats and intimidation.  The accusations against them, pushed by the insane, demented Rudy Giuliani, turned out to be provably false and made the Trump campaign look like the lying, racist thugs that they are, completely undermining the claim of massive voter fraud and leading to the confirmation, by audit, of the accuracy of the vote counts in Fulton County.  The Senate runoff two months later did the same.

Anyone who still believes the "big lie" is an idiot.  Trump supporters are the election stealers, and the insurrectionists, not Democrats.

4.  The Mexican border is a disaster.

What "disaster" means in conservative language is that they are actually considering allowing people into the United States for political asylum.  Imagine that.  People wanting to come to America to escape persecution and political turmoil in their home country.  Who gave them that idea?  

Local newspapers and news media in the southern part of Arizona and New Mexico along the border in  that part of the country are fanning the flames.  They are digging up and reporting every instance of an "illegal sighting" anywhere.  The numbers are about the same as they were during the Trump administration, more than they were during the Obama administration when the Border Patrol had the money to fix their surveillance equipment and boost their personnel numbers, less than they were under Bush.  But now, what your local newspaper would never bother to print, you'll find in there just about every day.  

There's a local daily newspaper in Sierra Vista, Arizona, called the Herald Review, which has a new section marked "Border." It contains a few stories entered on the website in chronological order which, in spite of some sensationalist language, actually show how routine and how small the problem really is.  You have to get past a paywall to read most of it, unfortunately, but the few stories that are there don't support the conservative political hysteria about "the border."  Maybe that's their point.

There is a "wall" along the border between El Paso, Texas and Nogales, Arizona, in the vicinity of the border crossings.  But once out in the open country, it becomes a double barbed wire fence, and some kind of bumpers designed to keep vehicles from crossing.  There's really not a lot of wide open country in that area, there are several small towns with border crossings and there are ranches and small communities scattered around.  Most of the ranchers have regular crossers who do seasonal work for them and then go back across.  

I was in a border community back in December, expecting the whole town to be over-run by people from across the border.  There were no real signs of any "disaster."  There was a processing facility about a mile outside of town, where, according to local reports, there were over 1,200 people waiting to be processed.  Most of the people who were visiting the customs station were being housed in Mexico.  When I crossed the border, I did see a line outside the customs office on the US side of the border, maybe a hundred people or more.  No one was actually coming into the United States.  

Most of these people are fleeing some sort of political or criminal oppression in their home countries, mainly warring drug cartels or oppressive dictatorships.  What in the world made them decide to come to the United States as a refuge from oppression?  Where in the world could they have come up with that idea?  America, welcoming the tired, poor huddled masses yearning to be free.  Where did they hear that rumor?

A Political Rut of Talking Points and Scare Tactics

There are some Democrats who still believe in the art of political debate, reasoning, compromise and negotiation.  One of the reasons I minored in English in college was to sharpen my communication skills in order to engage in productive dialogue and debate.  And I picked up this commitment to the value of integrity as part of my Christian upbringing.  I'm very well aware of the effects and consequences of being dishonest, having learned from experience and lack of perfection. I have a need to be aware of what's happening around me and how it affects what I do.  

We're falling short, as a society and as a nation, in providing our citizens with critical thinking skills.  The political fallout is clear evidence of this failure.  I don't know whether technology that provides us with mindless entertainment and which is a major overload of information, is part of the problem or part of the solution but I don't understand how someone with intelligence and free will can go through life not paying attention to what's going on around them.  I won't be manipulated, as long as I can read, hear, write and think.  Unfortunately, that is becoming a disadvantage.

Could This be Why Most Evangelical Churches are Declining and Dying?

How Politics Poisoned the Evangelical Church  from The Atlantic by Tim Alberta

"Having grown up just down the road, the son of the senior pastor at another church in town, I’ve spent my life watching evangelicalism morph from a spiritual disposition into a political identity. It’s heartbreaking. So many people who love the Lord, who give their time and money to the poor and the mourning and the persecuted, have been reduced to a caricature. But I understand why. Evangelicals—including my own father—became compulsively political, allowing specific ethical arguments to snowball into full-blown partisan advocacy, often in ways that distracted from their mission of evangelizing for Christ. To his credit, even when my dad would lean hard into a political debate, he was careful to remind his church of the appropriate Christian perspective. “God doesn’t bite his fingernails over any of this,” he would say around election time. “Neither should you.”"  --Tim Alberta

UPDATE 5/13/2022

The nation's largest Protestant, Evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, released its annual statistical data yesterday, reporting "expected" attendance declines due to COVID, including an "online" participation figure of 1.4 million, and a one-year decline in overall membership of over 400,000.  That's 2 million members lost since 2015, 2.9 million since it reached its peak in 2005.  Can this decline in membership, which is greater than even some of the more rapidly declining "mainline" denominations, be connected to the poison caused by the invasion of right wing politics which push the gospel of Christ out the door?  

This article starts out with a description of a worship service in a Michigan church where the pastor announced to the congregation he was going on a "diatribe" and then proceeds to tell them that a "nurse" who works in the local hospital told him they had just 2 patients with COVID, but 103 patients who were "vaccine compromised."  There's no possible way that was true.  Was the pastor intentionally lying to prove his point?  Maybe, and I would not be surprised if he were.  Was the anonymous and unnamed "nurse" giving him false information that he didn't bother to check out before passing it along?  That, too, is possible, though he should have verified it before he said it.  Or was there even such a nurse?  

And the fact that I am speculating on all of the possibilities here, including the absolute remotest outside chance that his statistics, which do not match any facts about either COVID or the vaccinations, might be accurate for that one hospital on that particular day, is an indication of just how far Evangelical Christianity has fallen.  That a pastor is willing to deliver false information to his congregation from the pulpit in order to make his political point is a sign that the spirit has departed from the church.  

Growing up in an Evangelical denomination, I saw this coming.  As a high school student, I could not understand why most of the adult members of the church in which I grew up did not like Jimmy Carter.  Most of the older people did, but the median adults in the church, most of whom grew up in the south somewhere, did not, even though he was an openly faithful Evangelical Southern Baptist.  And that's really where my eyes were opened to the dependence of white, Evangelical churches on political influence and power rather than on spiritual power.  It was a confusing message they sent, "don't be worldly," out of one side of their mouth, but "except when it comes to getting political power," out of the other.  

But is it Really As Bad as All That?

But as bad as it was then, it has become a cult that has completely overtaken many Evangelical churches now.  In 2016, in the middle of a sermon in an Evangelical church, I'd had enough.  I'd been a member there for five years, but patience had been wearing thin with references to extremist right wing politics, and then, as Trump entered the Presidential race, efforts to paint him in a more "Christian" light.  This sermon featured an outright endorsement.  I looked at my wife and at that moment, decided that courtesy was not required.  We got up, gathered our stuff and walked out, and I noticed one other couple doing the same.  That was the tipping point.  But beyond that, we never returned, but not a single person with whom we had shared fellowship in church for five years called to see what was wrong.  That confirmed we'd made the right decision. 

In finding a congregation in which to worship, we discovered just how bad it had become.  After observing a decades long fight in our denomination over the words "inerrant and infallible" being applied to the Bible, we found churches in which scripture passages were either distorted beyond recognition and out of context, or simply set aside in favor of a political diatribe.  And I don't use the term "diatribe" in an exaggerated manner.  Right wing politics is so much a part of the culture of most white, conservative Evangelical churches that the members cannot distinguish Biblical truth from political propaganda in the pastor's sermon.  The "conversion" experience that is being sought is to convert members of the congregation to cast their ballot for right wing politicians.  

Yes, it is that bad.  

A Measurable Change 

We are part of a congregation where the pastoral staff has made a commitment not to dilute the preaching or worship with a right wing political agenda.  They are taking heat from some members of the congregation for not bringing the right wing social agenda into the church.  On the other hand, there have been individuals who have joined because the leaders refuse to bow to pressure, and refuse to dilute and change the church's mission and purpose at the expense of a right wing political and social agenda.  In my mind, I've started to think in terms of Evangelical congregations being either "confessing" churches, remaining committed to the gospel message of Christ, and "political" churches, which fit the definition of a cult, and are, in their own descriptive language, "apostate" from the true church.  

It may well be that, over a period of time, those who recognize that a paradigm shift has occurred will find their way into "confessing churches" that remain faithful to orthodox Christian theology and doctrine, while those in the political cult find congregations that feed their prejudices.  There is statistical evidence that a shift like this is occurring.  The Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest Evangelical Protestant denomination in the United States, has lost two million church members in a decade, and their weekly attendance is down by more than a million during the same period of time.  The loss has been getting bigger each year since 2016.  That can't be blamed on poor record keeping or on churches not turning in their annual statistics.  In fact, the SBC keeps churches on the roll for five years after they've stopped reporting, so the actual losses are likely much greater than reported. 

The Biggest Grievance

It's sad to see churches rendered virtually ineffective in evangelism and ministry.  But what's even worse is the lying from the pulpit.  In the piece by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic, the pastor parrots themes from extremist media sources without any discernment or scrutiny, because it's what he wants to believe.  And he wants his congregation to believe it to.  He's replacing God with himself, putting himself in the position to control the thinking and the lives of the members of the church, using his influence and authority as a pastor to lend credibility to his false narrative.  

The church is being hijacked.  A verse that I memorized in Vacation Bible School when I was a kid keeps coming to mind as I read about these horrific sins, 

"You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come.  For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding on to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.  Avoid them!  

For among them are those who make their way into the households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.  As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these people, of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith also oppose the truth.  But they will not make much progress, because, as in the case of those two men, their folly will become plain to everyone.  2 Timothy 3:1-9, NRSV. Emphases mine

Written two thousand years ago, that is an apt description of what right wing politics is doing to the Evangelical church.  I hope that people are wise enough, observant enough and educated enough to see their folly.   

 

On Abortion, and Abortion Rights

Please read through the whole post with an open mind.  You'll get it.  

As a Christian, I believe that abortion is a wrong choice.  Medical advance has made it relatively safe physically, and so it has become a birth control option among many.  I consider life as a gift, sacred and precious, and the birth of a child, something planned, prepared for, and welcomed. My belief is rooted in the Christian scripture of the New Testament, around the teaching of Christ regarding marriage. 

For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  Matthew 19:5, NRSV

I believe the "choice" in this issue is responsible behavior based on knowledge, commitment to following principles of faith regarding the sanctity of marriage as well as the sanctity of human life, and also based on knowing the potential consequences of a poor choice.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with making the choice to follow Christian principle, abstain from sex until marriage and be faithful to a marriage partner.  Millions of people make those choices all the time and are successful in sticking to them.  Making those choices increases the chances of having a fulfilling, long-lasting marriage, a clear conscience, and having children that are wanted.  

No one is perfect, everyone is tempted, but there's a spiritual strength provided to overcome temptation, a principle of the Christian faith found in the writing of the early church apostle Paul.  Along with references which teach abstinence from sex as a discipline of the faith, and references which support the belief that life begins at conception, making the choice to be responsible and to be obedient to faith principles precludes the need for a "choice" after a pregnancy has occurred because the right choice avoids the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. 

No testing (temptation) has overtaken you that is not common to everyone,  God is faithful and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.  I Corinthians I0:I3, NRSV

So I believe that faith in God provides both guidance and strength to make the right choice. I have the right to believe this, and  I have the right to talk about it and live by these principles.  I have the right to try and convince others that this is the right path and that it will lead to their own spiritual fulfillment. These are points to be considered.   The decisions I have made are mine alone, though there were multiple influences involved in convincing me it was the right thing to do.  

Please keep reading.

No principle of Christian faith, or acceptance of it as a personal faith, can be coerced or forced.  It must be accepted freely and it is a matter of personal conscience and conviction.  At virtually any time in history when becoming a particular kind of Christian was made into law, it weakened and undermined the gospel message of Jesus Christ.  Essentially, it disrupted the natural formation of churches, the "ecclesia," the called-out believers in Jesus, by filling church buildings with non-believers who were only there because they would be arrested and persecuted if they weren't.  Likewise, it corrupted the church's leadership, filling it with those who had political ambitions and used it as a pathway to power.  

In churches that are infected with politics, no gospel message is preached, no spiritual conversion experience occurs and there is no trust, because everyone has an ulterior motive.  The Biblical principles drawn from the text are interpreted with a political meaning rather than a spiritual one, and the salvation message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is distorted by political rivalry and upheaval.  The church cannot identify its mission and purpose and thus cannot justify its existence.  It is no longer a Christian church, it has become a cult.  

As I said before, I believe in the sanctity of human life, and I believe that life begins at conception.  But that is based solely on my faith, and my belief that this is a consistent teaching found in the Bible.  I am free to exercise that belief anywhere and everywhere I want to.  But I also recognize the fact that a majority of Americans don't go to any kind of religious service and are less inclined to accept the belief that life starts at conception.  But as Americans, they are entitled to their belief in equal fashion to the way I am entitled to mine.  

For those who believe that the sanctity of human life extends to the point of conception, it is difficult to accept someone else's belief in terminating a pregnancy.  But the Christian faith that is at the root of that belief cannot be imposed, it must be accepted by conviction.  The law under a constitution that declares that the government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" must take into consideration the perspective of the sanctity of human life, and the point where life begins, of those whose religious beliefs or personal convictions aren't in agreement with a distinctively Christian perspective.  

In all honesty, while I may say that I am disturbed by the availability of abortion, the fact that it is legal, and that there are people who have them does not infringe on my rights at all.  And the bottom line is that as a Christian, there are multiple ways to lower the abortion numbers that don't require making the procedure criminal and arresting those who have one.  If I believe in the spiritual transformation that I claim is what converted me to Christianity, there isn't anything stopping me from talking to someone and encouraging them to experience the same.  

There's also nothing stopping me from supporting some kind of program or ministry that offers resources to women considering abortions, but which might tip the balance of their decision in a different direction.  If there were enough of those kinds of resources available, it might help lower the abortion totals.  Those kinds of things cost money, which many conservatives seem loathe to spend, but if they were truly interested in the unborn, instead of the political outcome, they'd be doing it now.  

I do not accept what has become a popular, manipulative technique in the preaching of many Evangelicals when it comes to abortion, and that is the idea that God will judge the United States for allowing it, and that the financial riches we have as a country, which they believe are blessings from God himself because we are a righteous, Christian nation (wrap your mind around that for just a minute)may be taken away from us because of it.  Now they have God bribing us with money.  God never offered a covenant arrangement with the United States and we never asked for one.  

But if the rights of some individuals who are not Christian, or who do not practice any religion, can be taken away, so can the rights of anyone else the majority doesn't particularly like or favor.  That's tyranny, by definition.  Who's to say that a future congressional majority down the road might not have much of a liking for Baptists, or Episcopalians, or Hottentots or tongue-talking Pentecostals?  The number of Americans who worship in a church of any kind on any given Sunday has now dropped into the mid-30% range.  

Justice Alito claims that the right to an abortion is not specified in the constitution.  But freedom of conscience is closely tied to it, and as distasteful as we may find it to be, there is a boundary that separates, and equalizes, the conscience of every American.  We don't like the Ku Klux Klan or all of that ugliness but we don't advocate for its demise.  Conspiracy theories emanating from Q Anon are demonstrating a level of ignorance and stupidity in America that is a shocking abuse of free speech.  But we tolerate its existence, avoiding it as much as possible, because we see the value in protecting the principles of the constitution.  

And no, none of the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at these words. 

 

  

An Educated Electorate is the Key to a Successful Democracy

And here's another example of why.   

Herschel Walker Says John Lewis Doesn't Stand for The Bill Named After Him

I know this has been out there for a while, but there are a couple of aspects of this that indicate the high level of risk of our ability to keep our democracy.  I can understand that people might actually cast votes for this guy, by name and reputation and for no other reason. But we need to have a government that works, and people who are committed to making it do that.  

This isn't the first time Herschel Walker has said something that indicated a level of inexcusable ignorance for someone who spent the kind of time he did at the University of Georgia.  His football skills got him there and kept him there.  The NCAA has class attendance and grade requirements, though Walker would not be the first person to get good enough grades, never go to class and never be noticed for it.  But that doesn't qualify him to serve as the people's representative in the Senate. Nor does the fact that he's rich, set for life and doesn't have the first idea about the real world his constituents live in.  Someone like that isn't going to represent his constituents, especially if he is this ignorant about John Lewis and voting rights. 

He doesn't have a clue.  And he shouldn't be elected.  

It's a sign of just how desperate the Republicans have become, that they need a big name rather than skills, experience and intelligence, in a candidate in the state of Georgia.  The question would be more about who is actually calling the shots with him than about any political decisions he would make.  He'd just be an automatic robot vote, which is exactly what Mitch McConnell wants, though it appears that it would be possible to goad or trick him into voting a different way.  

It is inexcuseable for a senate candidate from the state of Georgia to be clueless about John Lewis. I know there are variables all over the place here, and Senator Warnock has to be careful of his approach but this guy just gave him some of the best campaign material he's ever going to see.  It's worthy of more attention, especially nationally.  

There are some things that can't be fixed, and stupid is one of those things.  

And there are some voters who need an education in what a democracy is and does, and why you don't vote for stupid.  

As Senator Collins Gets a Lesson in Trust, There are now Questions About the Honesty and Integrity of Two Supreme Court Justices

 Senator Collins Says What Kavanaugh, Gorsuch Told Her About Roe Was Inconsistent With Their Opinion Reflected in Leaked Draft

During the confirmation hearings for Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the news media did an excellent job of covering the "cautious" approach taken to the nominees by Maine Senator Susan Collins.  Collins is a pro-choice Republican who is probably as vocal an advocate for that position as many Democrats.  Conservatives in the state she represents are not dominated by the religious right, and it leans toward a more moderate Democratic perspective on many issues, including this one.  She appears to be pro-choice by conviction.  To be as much of an advocate as she is, it would take that, rather than political expedience, to hold that position and continue to get elected in Maine.  

So when failed President 45 started nominating justices to fill seats, Collins became actively engaged in the process, pointing out that she would not confirm a justice who would be committed to overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.  Her activity got a lot of media attention, as you might expect to happen when a Republican senator starts to question judicial nominees from a pro-choice perspective.  Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh publicly assured Collins that they believed, as Chief Justice Roberts has stated, "The Roe v. Wade decision is the 'settled law' of the land."  They used that phrase.  

So this leaked brief, which appears to show the court overturning the Roe decision, raises some questions about the honesty and integrity of two Supreme Court justices.  

What Are the Implications of Two Supreme Court Justices Lying to a United States Senator and Member of the Same Party as the President who Made the Nomination?

The record is clear on both Justices.  They did indeed tell Collins that they believe Roe was settled law, and that the landmark decision was safe.  That's all she needed to hear to vote for their confirmation.  

To have two justices on the nation's highest court who were duplicitous, being dishonest to gain personal advantage, undermines the whole justice system and every value on which it is built.  If they were uncertain about decisions they would make, which would be understandable given the nature of everything the Supreme Court does, they should have been honest with her, knowing that she met with them specifically over this question.  If there was any doubt at all that they could not take that position, or that they wouldn't take it, they should have said so.  

It's water under the bridge at this point, except that it is just one more example of the duplicity and mendacious nature of being a Republican in America in the 21st century. Conservative critics of those who wore masks and got vaccinated during the pandemic like to call them "sheep" in derision of their opinion.  I'd suggest that those who ignore the lies and the corruption and continue to support Republicans like this in office are cattle, waiting for the next person to come along and tell them what to think and do, and how to vote. 

How do you trust an opinion or a ruling from a judge who is willing to lie about what he will do on the bench to get put there?  And once that threshold is crossed, with justices appointed who are underqualified and dishonest, and politically motivated, how do you restore the integrity and respect for the court on which they serve?  

After the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh were substantiated, which is the standard required by the judiciary for proof, his nomination should have been rescinded and the President told to go back and nominate someone else.  And the previous administration was in favor of upsetting the system.  Knowing that older, more experienced judges, even though they may have been Republican or nominated by one, were likely to abandon personal loyalty to the president and respect the rule of law, they got bypassed in favor of guys like Gorsuch, who weren't steeped in those traditions.  Of course, Clarence Thomas, given the evidence against him, should never have been put there either, but they did and the court has paid a price in losing some respect and credibility ever since then.  

So, while we knew what we were getting, and this is no surprise from failed President 45, the unreliability and lack of integrity on the Supreme Court is now affirmed.  

Accountability is Disappearing

Our judicial system relies heavily on trust, so there is no after-the-fact accountability for something like this.  If it turns out that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch ignore their promise to a United States Senator, then trust has failed.  I'm glad the Senator went way beyond a single issue and considered all aspects of the nominee in her most recent vote for a Supreme Court justice, ignoring the political craziness--and the bigotry--of her fellow Republicans.  

Abortion is a very complicated issue.  Justice Ginsberg was never really happy with the Roe decision, she thought it was to broad and sweeping and opened up too many possibilities at the time it was rendered.  She was an opponent of abortion on demand, but she recognized that the belief that life begins at conception is wholly religious in nature, and that not all Americans accept that as true or believe it is immoral, Americans who have the same rights as those who do believe that principle.  In fact, a clear majority of Americans, well over 60%, believe a woman has the right to decide.  

Frankly, I'm a little bit shocked that Senator Collins stepped up to remind the country today that she had those conversations with the two nominees, and their very public answers.  I know some conservatives who were very confused and very upset over a couple of SCOTUS nominees who publicly came out against overturning Roe prior to their nomination.  There were some insulting, angry, vicious tweets and social media posts, which is the way Christians on the far right respond to things they don't like these days.  Failed President 45 was interested in personal loyalty, and he didn't give a rip about abortion rights.  This was quid pro quo to a supportive political interest group.  So, it was entirely possible that he might nominate a judge who didn't care either.  

But the bottom line in this little sidebar isn't abortion.  It's integrity and the fact that two Supreme Court Justices may be about to demonstrate their lack of it.  

The White House Correspondents' Dinner is More Evidence of the Competence of the Biden Presidency

 First of all, he showed up.  His predecessor's temperament would have never been able to take the atmosphere.  Nor would his view of the media's role have permitted him to make jokes and spend a lighthearted, entertaining evening with people he clearly looked down on and despised.  And the feeling was mutual, which most definitely would have darkened the atmosphere.  

But President Biden was as comfortable and natural in that setting, as any President who understands what constitutionally guaranteed free press means, supports it, and who does not interfere with them.  That's the way it should always be, regardless of who is in the White House.  And for the first time since President Obama left office, freedom of the press was on public display in the quirky kind of way that it happens at this particular event.  

That being said, I think that President Biden is being more fair and gracious to the media than they currently deserve.  The right wing accuses the "main stream media" of a liberal bias, tough to prove at any time, certainly now.  No doubt, 85% of the people gathered in that room last night voted for Biden in the general election, but after four years of "a plague" as the President referred to the previous administration, expectations were high.  A Democrat, especially an experienced one, was destined to win this election..  It's not like this President and his political direction is unknown.  Quite the contrary, he's been pretty predictable and he's followed the agenda he laid out during his campaign.  

He's handled economic policy affected by a pandemic, which no one had ever really done before, and in the government's handling of the pandemic, made a night and day difference over what was going on before, responding in a way that has been successful in dealing with the problem, as much as can be so where protected free speech permits false information and conspiracy theories to be disseminated.  

Events like this one make one thing clear, and its something the news media needs to make note of and change their coverage.  We don't have a President with dementia, or reduced mental capacity, or cognitive disfunction.  He's always struggled with stuttering, a speech impediment that has been a setback for him, which he's acknowledged.  And every President has had those moments when words failed them, they lost their train of thought, got ahead of themselves or stepped out of the moment.  The 45th occupant of the White House rarely finished a complete sentence and had a very small vocabulary, over-using phrases and words, losing his train of thought and rambling on to the point where the main point got lost in the verbiage.  

In the critical moments of this Presidency, when the stress is at its highest point, President Biden has been firm, clear, articulate and direct, and there's no sign of any diminished mental capacity.  The Presidency carries a lot of stress, but this President has picked advisors who know their stuff and have the ability to do their job, and he relies on them, so things get done.  We expect that, and that's one of the reasons why I voted for him, along with the fact that he listens to people and considers their perspective.  

He is, above all else, trying to protect and preserve American democracy.  He's very clear about that, and we're about to see how that's going to take shape here, very soon.  

President Biden has been the Democrat most active in working toward bi-partisan cooperation in government, throughout his career.  He has had friends on both sides of the aisle, particularly before the big lie and conspiracy theories set the GOP agenda for them.  But frankly, I'm not big on bi-partisan cooperation anymore.  If the Democrats can keep their majority, and get enough votes in the Senate to bypass the obstacles, then I don't care if all the bills they pase have no GOP support at all.  The GOP has, for the most part and with few exceptions, abandoned any bi-partisanship and it is hypocritical of them to whine about it when the Democrats pass bills without any of their member votes.  Joe Biden's example just makes that look as bad as it really is.  

Thank you, President Biden, for one of the most entertaining evenings of television I've had in a long time.