A Portrait of Inconsistency: Cal Thomas on Obama

Baptist Press - the PR arm of the Southern Baptist Convention - in a not so surprising move decided to run Cal Thomas's much talked about op-ed titled Obama is no Joshua. Baptist Press reprinted this Thomas op-ed with permission from Tribune Media Services.

The gist of Thomas's article is this: Obama ain't a real Christian. He is a false prophet.

Cal concludes that Obama don't know Christ because, during a 2004 interview, Obama stated:

"I'm rooted in the Christian tradition." "I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."

Here's a snippet from Brother Cal:

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called "false prophets."

Now, let's go back nearly four years ago. President Bush is being interviewed by Charlie Gibson of ABC. Here's the dialogue (video here):

Charlie Gibson: Do we all worship the same God, Christians and Muslims?

President Bush: I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty.

Charlie Gibson: Do Christians and non-Christians, do Muslims go to heaven in your mind?

President Bush: Yes, they do. We have different routes of getting there.

So what exactly is the difference between Obama and Dubya's view of salvation?

I don't see one.

It's doubtful that President Bush has ditched his pluralism in the past few years. On October 4, 2007, Bush made this comment:

I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God.

Despite Bush's "different routes" view of salvation, Cal Thomas continues to describe George W. as the "most openly evangelical Christian and faithful churchgoer since Jimmy Carter" to hold the office of President of the United States. In responding to Bush's pluralism, Cal Thomas handled Bush with kid gloves. Thomas concludes:

President Bush is wrong - dangerously wrong - in proclaiming that all religions worship the same God.

Thomas doesn't call Bush a "false prophet."

Thomas doesn't declare that Bush is not a Christian.

Instead, Thomas glowingly describes Bush 43 as America's "most openly evangelical Christian" since Jimmy Carter.

Ah, the inconsistencies of fundamentalists.

I guess Cal is still Blinded by Might. Poor fella.

As a PR organization for the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., Baptist Press is always trying to push an agenda. With so many recent articles on Obama's theology, it's quite clear what agenda is being pushed. Where was this type of coverage back in 2004? Why has Baptist Press never highlighted Bush's universalism? Stupid question. We know the answer.

After Bush espoused a little universalism in 2003, Richard Land - the SBC's political guru - gently reminded readers that President Bush is "commander in chief not theologian in chief."

No such reminder from Baptist Press or Richard Land in 2008.

For the sake of consistency (and much more), both BP and Land would do themselves a favor and take a look at the blog of Mainstream Baptist leader Bruce Prescott who wisely observed that "Obama's running for President, not pastor or prophet."

This entire post serves well to buttress the thesis of my Guest Commentary in the July 2008 issue of Baptists Today titled The Consummated Marriage

You get the picture.

Baptist Press and Fred Shuttlesworth

Last year, I wrote about the atrocious "reporting" of Baptist Press reporter David Roach. His reporting of the New Baptist Covenant in January was almost as horrific. Back in July, Roach made the trek to Washington D.C. to cover the CBF/ABC-USA joint gathering. One of his columns was titled "Why Care about the CBF?" Roach concluded:

With all of the responsibilities I have in life as a husband, pastor, student and employee, it seems like I have enough to occupy my time without worrying about a group of moderate Baptists with which I am not even affiliated. And with all of your responsibilities in life, it may seem at first glance like reading about such a group of moderate Baptists is not the best use of your time.

Apparently his duties as husband/pastor/student weren't too much to keep him from attending and "reporting" on yet another CBF General Assembly.

Instead of providing a thorough overview of the dozens and dozens of workshops held at the General Assembly and trying to present a fair and accurate picture of the CBF, Roach followed around liberal theologian John Killinger on both Thursday and Friday. I have no intention of linking to Roach's drivel. But I must say - after closely reading his coverage of moderate Baptists for the past two years - I've concluded that David Roach is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed version of Roger Moran. Are there any available "research positions" with the Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association these days?

Roger, you've found your successor.

What's most humorous (pathetic?) about Roach's "reporting" are his attempts to get into the heads of those in attendance at the various workshops. During one of the workshops led by Killinger, Roach writes that the audience "seemed fully convinced of his claims." His nickname over at BaptistLife.com is RoachBoy. That may explain things a bit.

I am curious though as to why Baptist Press gave more coverage to some gender-neutral hymn than to keynote speaker Lauran Bethell who is a well known human rights advocate and minister to vitims of sex trafficking?

One of the most influential civil rights leaders of the 20th century was presented an award during the General Assembly. Instead of reporting on Alabama Baptist minister and civil rights icon Fred Shuttlesworth, Roach was busy trying to paint the CBF in a negative light.

I'm not Roachboy and I can't read his mind. Maybe the subjects of racism, civil rights, the need for racial reconciliation and all that jazz just does not interest Roach. Such subjects have definitely not received a plethora of attention from Southern Baptists in recent years.

And some might think what I'm about to say is crossing the line.

Fortunately, this is my blog and not yours.

But, honestly, I'm left wondering - to echo Kanye West post-Katrina - whether Baptist Press Cares About Black People.

Perhaps if they did, they would have recognized Fred Shuttlesworth as an American Hero. They would have recognized Shuttlesworth's achievements in their extensive coverage of the CBF General Assembly. Heck, they covered everything from all uses of inclusive language to a pamphlet on homosexuality at the Baptist Peace Fellowship booth. But no Shuttlesworth.

How does a ceremony honoring one of the most famous and influential Baptist ministers go unnoticed by Baptist Press? I'm sure at least the African-American readers of Baptist Press would have appreciated the coverage. Meanwhile, EthicsDaily.com, Johnny Pierce of Baptists Today, and Marv Knox for the Associated Baptist Press covered Shuttlesworth.

Typical. Shameful.

Baptist Press Spins Again...

Here is a snippet from a recent Baptist Press article compiled by Gregory Tomlin...

Carter and former President Bill Clinton announced their initiative Jan. 9 to unite moderate and liberal Baptists along issues that align with the Democratic Party’s political agenda. A proposed 2008 confab, “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant,” will coincide with a U.S. presidential election year when Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D.-N.Y.), is a possible candidate.

First, the New Baptist Covenant seeks to unite more than just "moderate and liberal Baptists." The purpose of the Covenant is to unite Baptists in North America regardless of where they lie on the theological spectrum. Mr. Tomlin and the Baptist Press fail to mention that theologically conservative denominations are part of the North American Baptist Fellowship.

Present at the recent Carter Center gathering included representatives from denominations including the Seventh Day Baptist Conference, North American Baptist Conference USA & Canada, General Association of General Baptists, National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, and the Baptist General Conference (John Piper anyone?). Should I list more?

Tomlin and the Baptist Press staff suggest that the purpose of the New Baptist Covenant is to "unite moderate and liberal Baptists along issues that align with the Democratic Party's political agenda."

So, apparently the environment, sexual trafficking, racism, freedom of religion, poverty, and HIV/AIDS are not issues of concern for the Republican Party?? Shouldn't these worthwhile causes be at the top of any political party's agenda???

One can only hope that the Republican Party cares about the plight of the poor and for those suffering from AIDS both home and abroad.

And what does Hillary Clinton got to do with anything? She won't be attending - she's not Baptist. In fact, President Bill Clinton is not even listed as a speaker for next year's Celebration. President Clinton admitted that he attended the Carter Center gathering only as a "cheerleader." Keynote speakers to date include President Carter, Bill Moyers, and Marian Wright Edelman.

Again, what does Hillary Clinton got to do with anything???

It should be mentioned that George W. Bush addressed messengers to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention less than 5 months before the 2004 Presidential Election.