A Marriage Made In Heaven?
By Al Staggs, Chaplain and Performing Artist
Bedford, TX

That the Religious Right and the Republican Party are political allies is incontrovertible. The strong ties between these entities began to emerge during the late 1970s, the last years of Jimmy Carter's presidency. By the summer of 1980, during the height of the presidential campaign, leaders of the Religious Right were making public statements regarding their collective political views. At a meeting of the Religious Roundtable in Dallas that summer, evangelist James Robison stood before a large number of well-known pastors and introduced Ronald Reagan as “God's Man” for the nation. The Republican Party, its platform and candidates were thus ushered in as the “moral party” for America.

The wedding ceremony was completed and it has been a blissful and harmonious marriage during the intervening twenty-three years.

Today the Religious Right exerts powerful political influence in this nation, and Southern Baptists make up the bulk of that organization. The two bodies have almost become synonymous. One of my long-time friends remarked years ago that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) should understand that the word “God” is spelled GOD and not GOP. When one studies the platform of the Republican Party during the last two decades and compares it with the stated moral concerns of the SBC there is an amazing similarity.

The SBC leadership and many churches have virtually dismissed the Democratic Party and its candidates. This assertion can best be seen in the Voter Guides that appear in many SBC churches just prior to major elections, in Jerry Falwell's TV promotion of the book How to Beat the Democrats, and in the book Other Subversive Ideas by David Horowitz.

A close examination of the Voter Guides reveals an obvious bias for the Religious Right and for Republican candidates and ultra-conservative positions. What is noticeably absent in these guides is any reference to economic justice, racial equality, and a Christian view of war and peace.

The fact that these issues are seldom raised in Southern Baptist sermons, convention resolutions, Baptist Press news stories, and voter guides can most certainly be attributed to a recent shift in the SBC view of morality. During the last two decades the denomination’s ethical emphases have focused on personal morality, coupled with a growing silence regarding racial issues, lingering apartheid, anti-Semitism, nationalism, ecology, economic justice, and war and peace.

Nothing is more demonstrative of the political marriage between Southern Baptists and the Republican Party than the tax cuts proposed by President Bush and the war on Iraq. It is common knowledge that George Bush's tax cuts favor the wealthiest Americans while overlooking the poor. Leaders of some Christian denominations have expressed dismay over this economic injustice. Where do Southern Baptists stand on tax cuts? Apparently they stand with the Bush administration, for their silence regarding this inequity speaks volumes. Not to speak is to speak.

What is so pernicious in moral statements set forth by Religious Right leaders—pastors, SBC executives, key churches, convention agencies, resolutions committees—is that their statements are accompanied by an air of biblical authority. It seems the SBC deems certain issues to be of primary importance to God, while other issues are not worth God’s or their concern.

Do the SBC leaders, agencies, and key pastors speak with biblical authority? It is certainly difficult to find any references in SBC statements to the Hebrew prophets’ concern for justice in the courts and in the marketplace. Have Baptists ever asked how Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Micah might prophesy against our nation's growing disparity between the rich and the poor? In addition, one would be hard pressed to hear a sermon on Matthew 25:31-46 (the passage in which Jesus identifies with those who are thirsty, hungry, naked and sick) from many pulpits. Although most Baptist churches have small scale mission projects that benefit a few of the needy in their communities, the SBC regularly endorses political candidates whose goals are to drastically cut or privatize government programs that are vital to the poorest Americans. What would Jesus say about preaching and practices that fail to address the needs of “the least of these” among us?

Clarence Jordan, co-founder of Habitat for Humanity, was once admonished by a Baptist minister about his outspoken views regarding economic justice. The minister complained, “Why, if I said the things you are saying, I would lose my influence!” Jordan retorted, “It's not your influence that you're concerned about, it's your affluence that you’re mighty concerned about losing.”

For example, regarding the war on Iraq, SBC President Jack Graham and ethics concerns executive Richard Land gave their wholehearted endorsement of the attack on Iraq in March. Indeed, the SBC was the only major Christian denomination to lend support to this policy. Now the Bush administration’s proclaimed justification for the invasion of Iraq is in serious question since no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered to date. The issue of misinformation does not seem relevant to these Southern Baptists, as they now have changed their tune to comply with that of the administration and assure us that the “liberation” of the Iraqi people was sufficient justification for the invasion.

While some might commend the SBC leaders for their sudden beneficent interest in the welfare of Iraqis, their statements in this regard are, at best, ambiguous. They, like the Bush administration, blithely ignore the fact that over 5,000 Iraqi civilians have thus far perished as a result of the war  (www.iraqbodycount.net). Thousands more sustained injuries and/or lost their homes and employment, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of Iraqi children who have died as a result of the twelve-year sanctions. The SBC concern for Iraqis also does not apparently extend to the thousands of young soldiers who were killed, although they had not committed a first aggression against our nation. Nor has there been any concern expressed about the devastation being caused by the multitude of unexploded cluster bombs and other munitions, “souvenirs” of the invasion that continues to kill and maim the Iraqi people—mostly children—who are unfortunate enough to come in contact with them.

And what about our American troops who remain in grave danger and are still dying in the occupation of Iraq?

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the main result of the war is going to be the necessity for a prolonged occupation of Iraq by American forces, with the price tag for such occupation continuing to soar. This is more bad news for the neediest of our nation, who comprise a majority of our troops. One consequence of the war, combined with the tax cuts, will shake down to ever greater reductions in social service programs.

Tolstoy stated, “And the misdeeds of our rulers become our own if we, knowing that they are misdeeds, assist in carrying them out.” Southern Baptists stand morally culpable for their support of policies which have destroyed the lives of over 500 American troops and thousands of Iraqi citizens and economic policies in this nation which have created a living hell for those who are desperately trying to make ends meet.

Updated Sunday, March 07, 2004