Whew.
I suspect this author is going to get a lot of hate mail.
James Heflin looks at the marriage of politics and religion in this article that puts into words what many of us outside the US don’t grasp. Now I have a bit better understanding.
Its fans call it the “conservative resurgence.” Its detractors call it the “fundamentalist takeover.” The astonishing fact is that many, perhaps most, Southern Baptists are unaware that the foundation of their faith has been officially pulled out from under them through systematic, long-term political manipulation. The people of God trust each other; when someone breaks the rules, they pray, they try to reconcile. But the abandonment of civil behavior always trumps good will.
This is written by a Baptist. If some of the things he said are true, will his critique and analysis be accepted or will he be villified?
The tactic was simple: Recruit like-minded pastors to scare people about the evil of liberalism which, they assured their flocks, was quietly taking over their institutions and diluting their theology. Those who did not endorse the literal truth of every word of the Bible – “Biblical inerrancy” – were on the slippery slope to unbelief. You’re with us or you’re against us.
It gets even more interesting.
The Bush administration’s tactics and policies marry religious and patriotic fundamentalism. It’s an unholy union.
Bush is in the White House despite losing the popular vote; that has not stopped him from pursuing a black-and-white vision of the world that ignores those who did not elect him. The administration’s reasoning is classic fundamentalism: They know best. Those who dare to question their vision are “irrelevant.”
Oh yeah, and he goes deeper than the fundamentalists.
Rove’s real trick was getting the Christian fundamentalists to dance with someone besides the one what brung them. Most dubious business practices are at odds with Judaeo-Christian ethics, but the fundamentalist camp was seduced into trafficking with big business by access to money and political power. The best example is Karl Rove’s securing of a $10-20,000 per month Enron consultancy for Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition and senior advisor to the Bush campaign. Reed is the embodiment of Rove’s brand of Republicanism: a man who can simultaneously endorse Christian and Jewish fundamentalism and hop in bed with the purely profit-driven, secular business world.
There is a lot more.
I’ve often been puzzled by the political and religious alliances I’ve seen in the US. I’m not quite as puzzled now. A bit more leary and troubled perhaps, but not as puzzled. I know very little about this denomination and it’s alliances. There were too many aha! moments while reading this to post all the main points.
And, like I said, I suspect this guy will get a lot of hate mail from the main camp. He gets my thanks.
Link via Jordon Cooper
Published 5 years, 4 months ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
It’s interesting that this author singles out Southern Baptists as an example of a denomination drifting away from “faith” and into political religion. The denomination itself was formed (in part) as a result of disagreement over a political issue–the issue of slavery. “Northern” Baptists were mostly abolitionist; Southern Baptists disagreed with this view and split off to form their own “sect”.
Wow. We’re all gonna die.
Hm, as an American who’s not remotely Baptist, allow me to say “Huh?” I’m not certain exactly what he’s talking about and the evident skew of his bias (revealed in the manner by which he speaks of the un-”popular” president) renders the rest of his coloured. I’m really not at all certain what a nation’s agreement or disagreement with a president has to do with anything (especially with religious affiliation) as presidents are hired to lead, not to be led. *shrug* I’d like to see thoughts on the matter from someone who ain’t a rabblerouser.
Agreed Dane. The piece is also troubling because it suggests Baptists are a mindless “flock” that doesn’t really think for themselves. The fact that Baptists support Bush is indicative, according to the author, of Bush’s deception and not of a rational conclusion made by Baptists. I think Christians deserve more respect than what the author gives them.
Heflin’s got the general history of the conservative-moderate fight within the SBC fairly accurate, as seen from the left side of the fight.
He’s working more with basic liberal stereotypes when he turns to American politics. More on that later today.
Hi Debi:
This might make a good post from someone who knows the history of Baptists. Thanks.
Hi Dane: Since I and many others know very little about this, why don’t you share some none rabble-rousing thoughts and history in a post? I’m interested.
Dr. Byron: Thanks. It would be really helpful if you could explain some of the terms to the rest of us…are they political or religious?
Hi Laura: :^) Blog on!
I was reading a book (the title was “Stealing Jesus”, the author’s name escapes me at the moment) about this recently and one of the things that stayed with me (regardless of what your view is about this article) was his observation that in the US political commentators step around the issue of religion insofar as it relates to politics. That is, you have a pastor or a religious group as a candidate, a party or a lobby group and the secular press will evaluate them politically, but their issues of faith, which are the self-confessed motivation for their involvement in politics are off limits to general scrutiny.
I can’t comment on the issue as I don’t live in the US, but I do observe a US political scene in which religion plays a much more visible role than in Oz. Our PM would never say “God bless Australia” for example.
Poll numbers seem to indicate that Americans value faith more than most other countries, definitely among developed countries. If this is true, and from my world travels I could believe it, it seems only natural that this would spill over into the public arena more than it does in other countries.
I’ve been tracking the progress of this piece, and was so intrigued by all your commentary that I wanted to enter the discussion. Remarkably, I’ve only gotten a little bit of hate mail — it’s almost all been positive. Just a little clarification: I’m not trying to be hard on Christianity or the Baptist denomination, because I consider myself a member of both those camps — just the Southern Baptist fundamentalists. I merely think a well-meaning Christian in the White House is being handily manipulated by those around him. A man who was not elected with a majority, in my opinion, has a duty to pay more attention than this to the majority of Americans who did not elect him. Instead, he’s employed remarkably deceptive PR to further an aggressive military agenda that’s been in the works at neoconservative think-tanks for a decade or more. Brand me a liberal if you wanna, but I don’t think Bush is doing his countrymen any big favors.
Thanks for reading –
Mr.Heflin:
Thank you for you comments, and appreciate you taking the time to stop by.
I didn’t perceive any hardness toward Baptists or Christians in your article, and was interested in seeing whether there would be a strong reaction.
I didn’t see any undue criticism of your President either, but I come to your article as an outsider.
Interstingly enough, the only hate mail I’ve ever received at this blog has been from a Southern Baptist. I’ve been inclined to think they may in the the minority of fundamentalists.
I’m still unclear about some of the labels bantied about… so how about I ‘brand’ you a good writer!