A Progressive Theo-Political Blog Bringing You The Best and Worst of Baptist Life.

Monday, July 25, 2005

SBC, Roberts, and the BWA

Have you heard any outcry by Southern Baptist leaders about the proposed new Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts? Sure, Roberts is very much a conservative. But Bush didn't give any assurance with his nomination that Roberts would one day vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Exactly the opposite. Bush said he had no litmus test. But can Southern Baptists get behind and support someone that they don't completely agree with on one issue? Sure they can.

I guess its OK for the SBC to compromise in political arenas but it's not OK to work (and thus compromise themselves) with the CBF! I guess that's why the SBC isn't in Birmingham England for the 100th anniversary of the Baptist World Alliance. They can't compromise their faith.

Well, let's see if they are consistent if Roberts doesn't toe their line.

6 Comments:

Blogger Jim said...

Thanks for your post. I really enjoy discussing politics.

You said,"Bush didn't give any assurance with his nomination that Roberts would one day vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Exactly the opposite. Bush said he had no litmus test."

Saying there is no litmus test is not "exactly the opposite" of giving assurance that Roberts would vote to overturn R v.W. It isn't a positive or negative comment toward the issue.

What Bush is saying is that he's not going to pick and choose different issues that he likes/dislikes. He chose Roberts because of his judicial philosophy and qualifications.

As for the SBC and the issue of supporting Roberts. It isn't absolutely known what Roberts would do on the vote. It is assumed (because of some of his previous statements and because he is a Catholic) that he would support overturning R. v. W.

But, if he doesn't then the SBC should not support him. It would be a direct contradiction to their belief in the sanctity of all human life.

8:59 AM

 
Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

I agree - it isn't "absolutely known" how Roberts would rule on the issue of abortion. But his past comments don't seem to give an inside look into how he WOULD rule. Even if you THINK they did - can the hardline pro-life community really run the risk of "assuming?" From their perspective, it seems to be too much of a risk to take.

I agree, the SBC should not support Roberts if he didn't vote to overturn Roe. I'm not sure that will happen though.

My question: what if a pro-choice Republican wins the nomination in '08 or were to win the Presidency? How would the SBC respond? Would they support him?Richard Land and the ERLC have a policy to only invite pro-life speakers to their events. Will they make an exception?

10:39 AM

 
Blogger Jim said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:56 PM

 
Blogger Jim said...

Sorry, made a couple grammatical errors. Here's the correct version of the comment.

Good comment.

I have thought a lot about the dilemma I may have to face in '08 with a possible Hillary v. McCain matchup.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary, but I wouldn't want to support McCain either.

What do you think about voting for a third party candidate? I've gone back and forth with myself on it for quite a while.

4:59 PM

 
Blogger Big Daddy Weave said...

If you're a single-issue voter and abortion is THE issue - then why let the system force you to vote for a Pro-Choice candidate? I've always wondered when the Religious Right will wake up and smell the roses. They've been getting jerked around by the GOP for years. Has the GOP and the President helped to further their agenda? What happened to those Faith-Based Initiatives? Maybe if the Religious Right in a concerted effort voted Third Party - the GOP would stop talking and really come through for the RR.

7:28 PM

 
Blogger D.R. said...

I agree with your last comment, but as far as your post is concerned, I would say that the basis for it is wrong. The SBC as a whole wouldn't support any candidate for Supreme Court (though many individual leaders would) and now that the convention is past, they won't be able to even be tempted by it.

As for the consistancy issue, many of us die-hard SBC'ers are growing tired of all the politicizing going on with the convention. I don't think any Christian can be a wholesale sell out to a political party without a great deal of compromise. Maybe it's time conservative AND liberal Christians got out of the political business and started focusing on doing the work of the kingdom.

As for the BWA issue, I supported the pull out not because the BWA is horrible, but because they are questionable in regards to policies and committment to theological positions that we as traditional Baptists hold dear. I think the SBC could use the extra $400,000 more efficiently and would be more accountable to people like me who provide that moeny from our tithes and offerings. And besides apparently the BWA hasn't lost a step and it actually made others step up and make up for the difference. So missions overall is supported with more money. Isn't that a good thing?

9:26 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
eXTReMe Tracker