Rev. Wade Burleson, a popular yet controversial Baptist blogger and former SBC International Mission Board trustee, opened up a session at the Oklahoma Senate with this prayer:
“Richard Dawkins, the biologist, Oxford professor and outspoken atheist who wrote The God Delusion, was recently invited to speak at Oklahoma University in celebration of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. My good friend, Dr. John Blanchard, a resident of London, England and author of the award winning book Does God Believe in Atheists? has publicly debated Dr. Dawkins on several occasions.
One particular radio debate between Dr. Blanchard and the atheist Dr. Dawkins was titled Believer vs. Unbeliever. John Blanchard began the debate by challenging the title of the program, saying, “There is no such thing as an unbeliever in this world; everyone has a belief system.” When Dr. Dawkins insisted that no, he truly was an unbeliever in God, my friend John Blanchard then brilliantly challenged Dr. Dawkins to give to the radio listeners five reasons for his belief in the non-existence of God, which Dr. Dawkins managed to do in record time.
The issue we face as citizens of the great state of Oklahoma and the United States of America is not whether or not people should be granted the freedom to believe, speak or write according to the dictates of their conscience. Those freedoms are guaranteed by our Constitution, upheld by our courts, and cherished by all freedom loving citizens. The issue we face is far more serious and complex. Who shall lead us? That question throughout history has been posed and answered by politicians with the either the word Federalist, or Whig, or Democrat, or Republican. May I suggest that the true answer to the question “Who shall lead us?” transcends all political parties, all government ideologies and all denominational loyalties?
Only those with a belief in the Creator God, the moral ruler of this universe, from whom all life springs and all life will return have the proper moral foundation and ability to lead citizens of this great state and our United States of America. Others, those with secular or atheistic belief systems are free to seek election, but it is incumbent upon freedom loving people to elect those of you who live by the principles which spring forth from a fountain of faith in God. Let the secular humanists lead the socialists, let the atheists lead the totalitarian governmental regimes, but may only believers in God lead our democracy.
My brief prayer this morning is from the closing paragraph of Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, believed by many to be the greatest political speech delivered in this modern age. I offer this prayer with my eyes open, directed at you our beloved Oklahoma Senators, with an encouragement to unashamedly live out your faith as you lead us:
‘With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds . . . to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all peoples. Amen.’”
First, it’s amazing that so many Oklahomans continue to have their panties in a wad over the presence of renowned atheist Richard Dawkins on the OK U campus.
I support Wade Burleson’s right to vote only for Christian candidates on Election Day. We all have our personal (though usually private) litmus tests. While I do not impose a firm religious test on myself when I enter the voting booth, I’m probably not too inclined to cast a vote for some folks. Vote your values. Wade apparently does it. I do it too. But I’m not overly concerned with the foundation of those values. If you share my principles and my convictions (which for me are undoubtedly religious convictions and religious principles), great. Unlike Wade, I’m not obsessed with where those shared principles/convictions spring from. That’s fine. We can all agree to disagree here. If Wade wants to impose on himself a religio-political creed, that’s his decision.
But to suggest that “it is incumbent upon freedom loving people to elect those of you who live by the principles which spring forth from a fountain of faith in God” is absurd. From the floor of the Oklahoma Senate, Wade continues with this:
Let the secular humanists lead the socialists, let the atheists lead the totalitarian governmental regimes, but may only believers in God lead our democracy.
Folks, that’s religious intolerance at its finest. It’s sad to see yet another Christian minister, another Baptist minister, out in the public square demeaning those with different convictions. Clearly, in Wade Burleson’s world, those who do not share his specific Christian faith - particularly atheists - are second-class citizens. Linking all of America’s atheists and humanists to evil totalitarian regimes of years past (obviously with Stalin and Hitler in mind) is pathetic.
I think a good What Would Jesus Do is in order at this point. Not sure that Wade Burleson is going to “win to Christ” many non-Christians with such a militant message.
Wade Burleson is scheduled to speak at the Midwest Regional Meeting of the New Baptist Covenant in Norman, Oklahoma. The New Baptist Covenant is an informal alliance of various Baptist groups which seeks to promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity. After his speech from the floor of the Oklahoma Senate, I’m not sure that Wade Burleson has much respect for religious diversity….
Related posts:
- Wade Burleson and Religious Intolerance, Take Two Yesterday, Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics (and...
- Review of Wade Burleson’s Hardball Religion John Pierce, Executive Editor of Baptists Today, has posted a...
- Cole & Duren Review Wade Burleson’s Hardball Religion When I first surfed over to Associated Baptist Press and...
- Wade Burleson Takes On Russell Moore In his latest post, Can We All Agree to Disagree...
- A Fundamentalist Attack on Wade Burleson Wade Burleson - A Flaming Liberal? No, not quite. But...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I have news for the Rev. Burleson. One can be a believer and still run a totalitarian regime. One would have to question the beliefs of such a ruler, unless he/she were a benevolent ruler of some sort. Certainly a truely socialist government could be run by a believer. It is a shame that the Rev. Burleson and those of his ilk cannot allow an institution of higher learning to be a place of free thinking with a true learning environment.
Some of the worst possible legislation, in terms of denial of our civil rights, including freedom to practice our faith as we feel led by the Spirit, has been proposed by politicians who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. While I do not hold that against Christians in general or against Christian legislators in general, we must be careful in our voting, even when only one of the candidates is a professed Christian.
In the comment stream for the article, Burleson has written this:
“Of course, “whose” God is the question. That’s why the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God whose moral law is engraved above the heads of our Supreme Court justices.
Not the god of Mohammed.”
Apparently, no only are atheists unfit for office, so are Muslims.
What was the rationale for inviting this guy to speak at the New Baptist Covenant? To provide an example of religious bigotry?
This raises an interesting question: what to do with the opportunity to lead a ‘devotion and prayer’ before a governmental body. Pretty daunting.
Was there a devotion or prayer here?
What was the aim; was it achieved?
Burleson is on the NBC follow-up meeting’s speakers list because of his “dissident” status with SBC establishment–a hero of sorts to NBC’ers.
I imagine the organizers were eager to have an “acceptable” or “palatable” tie-in to the SBC.
Looks like he’s not acceptable to some after all.
You will likely not be surprised to find that I disagree with Wade Burleson.
Well, I mostly disagree. I do think that some correspondence exists between one’s religious convictions and one’s political convictions. Although I disagree with his application of the sentiment, James Stuart was accurate, I think, in concluding that “a presbytery agreeth as well with a monarchy as God with the devil.” In other words, a person’s religious viewpoint predisposes one to think in certain terms about authority, and there is an observable phenomenon in history of substantial “bleedover” between one’s view of religious authority and one’s view of political authority.
So, I’d be willing to say that if the preponderance of the American people were to adopt religious beliefs incompatible with the authority structure of our national government, this would be a lethal prescription for our way of government. But so long as the predominant “civil religion” of the American people remains consonant with our system of governance, I think it not politically necessary to have any personal religious test for voting.
This is clearly a matter of controversy among Southern Baptists. Several last year stated unequivocally that they could not vote for a Mormon. I demurred at that time, as I do today with Burleson’s sentiments.
I think this shows why prayers before legislative bodies are unwise.
Speaking of unwise: Aaron, today I lost my mind and actually blogged on why I am no longer “pro-life” on abortion. I wonder how many death threats I will get.
Michael,
I know of no way to say this that doesn’t have a high potential of coming-off wrong, but I’m going to try anyway.
I don’t think that you need worry about the “lost my mind” and “death threats” situation. If somebody like ME were to write that post, it would be scandalous and generate a lot of Internet heat. But for you it merely confirms a stereotypically liberal set of beliefs that I presumed that you held all along by extrapolation from the other things that I know about you online.
I’d say that you can safely hang the Kevlar back in the closet.
Bart,
I’m afraid that DID come off wrong. I try to avoid stereotypes and, as my blog post relates, have belonged to “seamless garment” “consistently pro-life” groups most of my adult life.
And I still believe that MOST abortions are wrong.
Nor am I a “liberal” theologically or politically. Politically, I am a progressive populist and democratic socialist. Liberals give me a pain–almost as much as conservatives.
And theologically, I come from the evangelical (NOT-fundamentalist) tradition and from Anabaptist and Neoorthodox influences. Although my Baptist aversion to creeds is strong, I consider the Apostle’s Creed a good summary of basic Christian belief and can affirm it without finger-crossing and with very few mentle footnotes.
So, Bart, I suggest that what you know about me online is very little.
But I get “internet heat” for my views regardless of what kind of reputation I have or not have. And discussing abortion is always likely to draw that heat.
But now I have hi-jacked this thread. Sorry, BDW. Any other comments can be on my blog.
I STILL think public prayers before legislative bodies are not only suspect in light of the First Amendment, but unwise and a civil religion watering down of true faith.
Granted, what I know about you online is very little. It is just that, of that small set of things that I know about you online [the passivism thing, the Alliance of Baptists thing, the anti-death-penalty thing], they all pointed me in a direction to expect this sort of position from you on the abortion question. That’s all.
For whatever time period that you were pro-life, I’m thankful for that. I didn’t know that you were until you weren’t.
Had I happened upon a post from you back then articulating your opposition to abortion, then I would have been pleasantly surprised.
And having visited your blog to look at the post in question, I see that the tone of the comments towards you seems to support my analysis rather than yours (not much hate mail there).
That’s really disappointing and demonstrates that Burleson apparently lacks a good understanding of the kind of government the Founders wisely created. Since one of the very few mentions of religion in the text of the Constitution is the clause stating that there shall be no religious test for holding public office, it seems pretty clear that they believed anyone, regardless of faith background, could be qualified to lead this republic.
As you say, Burleson is free and should vote for whomever he likes. But to wholesale dismiss the possibility that someone can’t be a good leader in a democratic system if he or she doesn’t believe in God is completely inappropriate. Quoting Lincoln’s speech - in which it’s clear that Lincoln believes there is a place for everyone in our society - immediately thereafter is beyond absurd.
If the New Baptist Covenant is as tolerant and open to freedom of the exchange of ideas as they say they are, then there should not be an objection to Wade Burleson giving an address at their meeting, regardless of his views as expressed before the Oklahoma senate.
Leaders from the Baptist organizations that comprise the informal alliance known as the New Baptist Covenant have affirmed a set of basic yet broad principles. Featured speakers at future New Baptist Covenant Celebrations should be able to generally affirm a few broad principles such as religious freedom and respect for religious diversity.
We’re not talking about affirming a BFM creed. We’re talking about affirming the notion of freedom, the core values of soul freedom, bible freedom, church freedom, and religious freedom.
Wade Burleson has articulated a view that is incompatible with the traditional Baptist understanding of religious freedom. His view of an institutional separation between church and state has more in common with the view articulated by John Calvin than it does with Thomas Helwys, John Clarke, or George Truett.
So, yea, I think there are dozens of other Baptists, Black and White, Male and Female, who are more suited to speak at the New Baptist Covenant….
Again, Burleson’s been cozied-up to by NBC’ers because he and a couple of other young SBC dissenting bloggers accepted the invite to visit Carter prior to the NBC and talked nicely about him, and positively about the NBC.
Burleson overlooked Carter’s pluralism tendencies, and Carter overlooked Burleson’s conservatism. It’s a great example of compromising your principles in the pursuit of a false unity.
New Baptists and orthodox Baptists will not find unity on some issues.
Apparently, diversity in the minds of some does not extend to those of Wade Burleson’s ilk, of which there are many.
The NBC can couch it in whatever language they want to, they are not “tolerant” of the views of all Baptists.
I don’t see that expressing a preference for government leadership who claim a Christian faith and the influence of Christian values in their life is “intolerance.”
Lee,
I think Wade did a little more from the floor of the Oklahoma Senate than just express a preference for Christians and the influence of Christian values. Read the comment thread on his blog and see the many conservative Southern Baptist dissenters who commented…
How exactly is the New Baptist Covenant not “tolerant” ? What’s that assertion even based on?
[...] It must be noted that Burleson’s anti-Muslim attitude is part of his broader intolerance towards other people of faith and those with no faith. Back in April, Burleson opened up a session of the Oklahoma State Senate with a “prayer” demeaning a broad group of folks with different convictions - particularly atheists who Burleson characterized as second-class citizens. In this prayer, Burleson even made an attempt to link America’s atheists and humanists to evil totalitarian regimes (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). You can read my post titled Wade Burleson and Religious Intolerance here. [...]