June 15, 2006

for your reading...

Secretary of State Rice meets the SBC. Why am I confused?

GREENSBORO, N.C. (ABP) -- In an address that was received like a campaign stump speech, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting, exhorting her listeners to support the United States in spreading freedom around the globe.
This is the link to a NY Times Editorial about W's "extra-legal" doings.
On Monday, the Bush administration told a judge in Detroit that the president's warrantless domestic spying is legal and constitutional, but refused to say why. The judge should just take his word for it, the lawyer said, because merely talking about it would endanger America. Today, Senator Arlen Specter wants his Judiciary Committee to take an even more outlandish leap of faith for an administration that has shown it does not deserve it.
I find the political landscape in this country more and more confusing as I explore it. There are more layers of engagement and alliance than I can begin to count. The SBC in places still holds on to some racist attitudes...some sexist attitudes, but it would seem the leadership has come beyond that. Who can say? And the amount of trust that is shown any person in office is a great befuddlement to me. I blog amazed.

Posted by tripp at June 15, 2006 09:24 AM
Comments

I am, predictably, confused by your statement:

The SBC in places still holds on to some racist attitudes...some sexist attitudes, but it would seem the leadership has come beyond that.


Would you elaborate?

Posted by: Megan at June 16, 2006 02:00 PM

The SBC will not ordain women...will not even send women as missionaries or allow them to teach in Sunday School. Sexism.

My experience of SBC congregations...not as a whole...is they can still reflect a culture where races were not encouraged to blend on Sunday. This is less and less the case, but it is still a problem in places. Racism.

Dr Rice was met with a standing ovation when she alluded to past racism and not a current racism. And having her serve as leader of the free world (You have my vote, Conde!) is not a problem...even if she can't be a missionary? I don't understand. It is a confusing mess of messages to me.

Posted by: Tripp at June 16, 2006 03:45 PM

So what gives you the impression that the SBC leadership has moved beyond the racism and sexism that has marked SBC culture?

Posted by: Megan at June 16, 2006 05:41 PM

I am not, really, but the partisan loyalty (?) that was expressed in the cheers etc fvor Conde surprised me. Does party loyalty supercede theology? Has the theology changed? Or are there different standards now for church leadership and political leadership?

These are open questions. I really don't know what the SBC is doing anymore. Well, the media reports are confusing at the very least.

Posted by: Tripp at June 20, 2006 08:29 AM

It isn't party loyalty. It is fervor for retribution and justice on the part of the SBC. The US government is the sword of God in the hands of W and his minions. Condi isn't black to them. Or, if she is black, it is an ideal of what black should be. If all those other blacks had Condi's attitude, they'd be fine. Never mind the oppression of poverty that deadens ambition.

You would know better than I, being from VA and all, but I don't think that stereotypical Southerners see themselves as biased against blacks because of their color. They are biased against people living on the dole because they're lazy. It just happens that most of the people they see in that predicament are black. They see a connection, but they can't verbalize it anymore. My experience is that they aren't fond of poor white people either. It almost seems to be more of a class war than one of race, but race allows them to jump to conclusions.

Anyhow, I really think that conservative movements like the SBC look at anyone waging war in the name of Christian ideals as if they were truly God's messengers in the world. That's why I have a little trouble with the concept of God as judge. Which God? Which laws? Which set of values? Who are we to presume that we can be God's instrument of vengeance? But how far is it from dealing death in God's name to making those decisions about inclusion in the kingdom of God? If one is not to be included, then death really is death.

I guess I had too much free time today. Sorry.

Posted by: Rich at June 20, 2006 09:23 AM