As I watched CNN that Tuesday night, I was simultaneously saddened and frustrated.  The Facebook posts from my North Carolina friends opposed to Amendment One made me especially sad.  I grieved for my gay best friend and her fabulous partner who will not for the foreseeable future be able to experience the same equality that my wife and I enjoy.

I was angered by the triumphalism coming from some Southern Baptists on Twitter.  To rejoice over a political action stripping current rights and benefits away and removing the possibility of equal rights just rubbed me the wrong way.  Or, as my late WMUer grandma would say, it chapped my hide.

I grieved and moved on.  Well, I tried at least.

But then on Thursday I came across this column titled “Why I disagree with President Obama” from Dr. Jim Denison.  Denison is a former Texas Baptist pastor familiar here to many at ABP.  He writes a daily cultural commentary on his personal website.

Promoting a similar column authored by his wife, Denison tweeted: “What do you tell your children when their president teaches them a different lesson than their Bible?”

The obvious message from Denison’s column is that a commitment to “biblical authority” demands that Christians oppose legal recognition of same-sex relationships.  Denison implies that “Paul’s opposition to homosexuality” mandates this particular political position.  He suggests that the nation must be governed according to “God’s standards” and that laws must not be changed “on the basis of personal experience or preferences.”

Speaking of personal preferences, we thankfully have Dr. Denison to let us know what “God’s standards” look like in the political arena!

I strongly believe that we pervert actual “biblical authority” when we misuse that deeply theological idea to mean that “you must believe like me” and “you must vote like me” if you really believe the Bible.  Instead, we should band together to protect traditional “biblical authority” from the revisionists in our midst!

Carl F. Henry, the renowned conservative evangelical theologian (fellow Baptist too) famously said many years ago: “There is no direct line from the Bible to the ballot box.”

Amen a thousand times.

While Henry is no hero of mine, here’s a great word from Rev. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for a Religious Liberty, a Baptist that I do greatly admire: “People of faith…can come to different conclusions about what policies to support and for whom to vote.”

A simple truth indeed.

As I wrote in a recent Baptist Studies Bulletin column, “I do not see how it is ever helpful to use faith in a way which conveys that in order to be a ‘good Baptist’ that I have to support this or oppose that.”

Glad to get that off my chest.

In the last post, I revealed that Richard Land passed off as his own – plagiarized – two separate columns during his March 31st radio program.

I received more than a few e-mails asking whether I thought this was a one-time thing?  Did Land just get sloppy?  Or was this part of a pattern, a common practice  for Land?

It sure seems this is a common practice for the ethically-challenged Rev. Dr. Land.

Below you will find a transcription of the most of the first 10-11 minutes of the second-hour of Richard Land Live! from February 4, 2012.  The program title is Religious Freedom Under Attack.

During this 10-minute segment, Land passes off as his own commentary a Washington Examiner editorial titled “Obamacare regulation tramples on religious freedom.”

I have bolded the parts of Land’s radio commentary that are VERBATIM from the Washington Examiner cited above.  Here it is:

RICHARD LAND:   I want to return now to talk about the President’s proclamation that, his proclamation of new health care rules under Obamacare that will require Catholics and others who have moral and religious objections to, having to pay for abortifacients and morning after pills, medical services that cause abortions.  They have a year to kill their conscience and come into compliance.

The President has made a mockery of one of America’s most sacred constitutional principles, the right of individual to freedom of religious belief and practice without interference from government. On Jan. 20, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s secretary of health and human services, issued new regulations under Obamacare that require employers, including religiously affiliated organizations like hospitals and churches, to include coverage of contraception and abortifacients like the morning-after pill, in their employee health insurance plans.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Now, it’s not clear which part of “no law” Obama and Sebelius missed, but that is exactly what the new HHS regulation does because it forces millions of American Catholics and evangelical Protestants who object to abortion to support practices that violate their most deeply held religious beliefs.

Now, I’m going to be on a webcast Thursday night, 8:00 eastern time along with some Bishops from the Catholic Church and some Rabbis talking about this and how serious it is.  If you’ll monitor our website – Richard Land Live! – we’ll post the information about how you can see that webcast.  So if you would like to jot down richardlandlive.com and check with us.  We don’t have the information right now.  But when we do, we’ll put it up.

Um, when the Obama administration announced last summer that the Obamacare mandate would likely include this coverage requirement, a number of religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, requested exemptions. HHS granted an exemption in the regulation announced last week, but it is laughably narrow and brief. Churches donot have to provide the coverage to their clergy, but they must for all other church employees. The regulation thus makes all members of the church contribute to the provision of something alien to their religious faith and practice. Sebelius granted them an extra year to come into compliance.

As Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop and Cardinal-designate of New York said, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable.  It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically, this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.  In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Dolan said.

He was not a happy man.

America’s devotion to religious freedom has been so strong for so long that the country recognizes the primacy of religious principle even in areas like military service, with conscientious objector status for Quakers, and in civic rites such as saying the Pledge of Allegiance, from which Jehovah’s Witnesses are exempted. No wonder the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops has called the regulation “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty” because it forces individuals and institutions – listen to this, it forces individuals and institutions to sell, or purchase or um to sell, broker or purchase services to which they have a moral or religious objection.

Americans have a wide divergence of opinion on issues like abortion, but virtually everybody agrees that no man or woman should be forced to violate his or her religious beliefs by supporting practices he or she finds objectionable. This is a civil liberties issue that was resolved centuries ago by the First Amendment.

Land does link to the Washington Examiner editorial under “full show notes” on his radio show website.  He also links to columns by Peggy Noonan, Michael Gerson and E.J. Dionne.

Yet, Land made no mention of the Washington Examiner during the segment transcribed above.  Listeners did not know he was quoting the Examiner word-for-word.

In fact, during this segment Land cites both Gerson and Noonan.  At one point, he even reads aloud a lengthy quote from Noonan’s column.  He CLEARLY identifies those words as Peggy Noonan’s.

Land doesn’t do that with the Washington Examiner.  I guess stealing from names like Noonan and Gerson is a bridge-too-far for Land?  It’s much easier to pass off as one’s own an editorial from the Washington Examiner and Investor’s Business Daily?

Land takes calls from Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and other states.  Those listeners most certainly believe that the commentary Richard Land is offering is his own.

That’s fraud.  Maybe talk radio fraud is somewhat common.  I don’t know.  I’m not  a big connoisseur of talk radio.

But this practice is plagiarism.  It’s unethical and downright deceptive.

Remember that Richard Land is the chief ethicist of the SBC.  He’s the president of the SBC’s ETHICS & Religious Liberty Commission.

What an example!

A controversy began to brew on April 2 when Associated Baptist Press reported on Richard Land’s comments regarding the Trayvon Martin tragedy – “Land says activists using Trayvon Martin” –  on his Nashville radio program Richard Land Live (3/31 audio here).  Newspapers across the nation began to cover Land’s remarks.  Land’s hometown paper – The Tennessean – ran an article titled “Richard Land’s rant on Trayvon Martin case stings some Southern Baptists.”

That article featured a strong response from Rev. Maxie Miller, an African-American Southern Baptist in Florida and church planting expert.  Miller told The Tennessean:

At no time have I been embarrassed of being a Southern Baptist or a black Southern Baptist,” Miller said. “But I’m embarrassed because of the words that man has stated.

The latest article on this matter came out today (April 14) and is from the Associated Press titled “Baptist leader criticizes Trayvon Martin support.” The AP asked Rev. Fred Luter, who in June is expected to become the first-ever African-American president of the Southern Baptist Convention, about worries that Land’s remarks will hurt the SBC’s effort at achieving ethnic diversity.  Here’s Luter:

It doesn’t help. That’s for sure.

And here’s what another prominent African-American Southern Baptist had to say:

“I think his (Land’s) statements will reverse any gains from the rightful election of Fred Luter,” said the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a black pastor at the SBC-affiliated Cornerstone Baptist Church is Arlington, Texas.  McKissic said he plans to submit a resolution at the SBC’s annual meeting asking the convention to repudiate Land’s remarks.

“If they don’t, we’re back to where we were 50 years ago,” he said.

As this controversy continues over Richard Land’s rant continues to rage, I’d like to introduce a twist that thus far the media hasn’t picked up on.

Richard Land’s rant is not his.  It’s a plagiarized rant.

Many of the words that he uttered during his radio show were taken VERBATIM – yes, WORD-FOR-WORD – from a Washington Times column penned by conservative commentator Jeffrey Kuhner.  Kuhner’s column titled “Obama foments racial division” was published on March 29.

Land stole from Kuhner two days later on his March 31 radio show.

Below is my transcript of Land’s radio show.  I have bolded the parts of Land’s radio rant that are VERBATIM from Kuhner’s Washington Times column.

RICHARD LAND: Welcome back to Richard Land Live.

The um, this this situation is getting out of hand.  And it’s going to be violence.  And when there is violence it’s going to be Jesse Jackson’s fault.  It’s going to be Al Sharpton’s fault It’s going to be Louis Farrakhan’s fault and to a certain degree it is going to be President Obama’s fault.

Um, Rev. Jesse Jackson says “blacks are under attack.” Really?  Louis Farrakhan vows “retaliation.”  The Rev. Al Sharpton has organized massive protests, demanding Mr. Zimmerman be arrested and sent to jail.

Who made Al Sharpton judge, jury and district attorney?

The New Black Panthers have placed a $10,000 bounty for the shooter’s capture. The poster says “Wanted Dead or Alive.”  This is racial demagoguery – pure and simple.

But it was Mr. Obama who turned this tragedy into a national issue. He should have learned from the Cambridge, Massachusetts police incident to stay out of these issues until the facts are clear.  But he urged Americans to engage in “soul searching.”

And then he said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.”  The president’s aides claim he was showing compassion for the victim’s family. In reality, he poured gasoline on the racialist fires. Under pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Obama gave them what they wanted: He put the presidential spotlight on Trayvon Martin’s death – and thereby bolstered the burgeoning protests.

I believe Mr. Obama’s comments were misguided and I think they are harmful.  No one knows what his son would look like.  The statement was meant as a sign of racial solidarity.

Martin is black and by extension Mr. Obama shares the victim’s racial identity.

Also, shootings take place all over the country on a regular basis. If Americans are required to search their souls every time someone is killed we will be meditating ceaselessly.

Here’s what makes this case so different. The answer is simple.  The victim’s skin color and the perpetrator. Race hustlers such as Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sharpton, Mr. Farrakhan have made their careers and lucrative fortunes by fomenting racial grievance and demonizing the “white power structure.”  In their eyes segregation has never been truly repealed it has just become invisible.

They need the Travyon Martin’s to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation.  For them is always Selma Alabama circa 1965. Notice that the Nation has changed.

If guilty, Mr.  Zimmerman should be held fully accountable. But here’s some things you don’t know about Mr. Zimmerman unless you dig.  This narrative of white on black violence circa the Klansmen of 1965 has major problems. First of all, Mr. Zimmerman is Hispanic.  He has black relatives and close friends. He is a registered Democrat. That’s right, George Michael Zimmerman born October 5th 1983 registered as a Democrat in Seminole county Florida in August 2002.

And this idea that he’s a white Hispanic. I still want to know what a white Hispanic is. Um, in addition to the fact that he registered as a democrat, we don’t whether he voted for Mr. Obama, or not, um, his mother has alleged Zimmerman…. has acted as a mentor to a black single mother and her two children and he has helped them raise money for their all black church.

Now does that sound like a racial bigot to you? Sound like some proto-klansman to you? Of course not. If he is guilty he should be held fully accountable. But this mob mentality and rush to judgment from the President on down is disgraceful.

And the way in which the media has been largely silent about it and has aided and abetted it is also disgraceful. We do not know the full circumstances regarding the shooting. No one does. This has not prevented Mr. Zimmerman from being smeared as a murderer, racist, vigilante.

Floridas governor has appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case.  FBI and Justice Department lawyers have been assigned as well. Instead of letting the legal process take its independent course racemongers are anointing theselves judge, jury, and executioner. The rule of law is being assaulted by racial demagogues and it is disgusting and  should stop.

END OF COMMENTARY. LAND TAKES LISTENER CALL.

At no time during this segment does Land reference Jeffrey Kuhner.  Plain and simple, Land stole from Kuhner.  He passed off Kuhner’s words as his own.

Folks, that’s fraud.

From Plagiarism.org:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to “plagiarize” means

• to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own
• to commit literary theft
• to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In closing, let’s remember that Richard Land is the president of the ETHICS & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

**UPDATE (4/14): Land links to the Kuhner column under “show notes” on his radio show website Richard Land Live!  Again, Land made no mention of Kuhner during the segment transcribed above.  Listeners did not know that he was quoting Jeffrey Kuhner word-for-word.  Even in the show notes, Land does not indicate that much of his commentary drawn from Kuhner’s column, word-for-word.  To readers, the show notes will be understood to be “sources consulted” or “additional resources.”

Clearly, Land’s intent was to pass off Kuhner’s words as his own.  That’s the definition of plagiarism.  As you can see, Land attempted to make Kuhner’s words his own by adding extra comments and using different adjectives.

As an author and student,  I can’t write a 500-word essay, pull 250-300 words verbatim or nearly verbatim from someone else and simply include a short footnote at the bottom.  That’s still plagiarism.  Jeffrey Kuhner as a Washinton Times columnist can’t do that either.  Nor should Richard Land, the ethicist, get away with it.

Several of Land’s comments from this particular segment of his radio show have been quoted in media outlets across the nation from The Huffington Post to The Tennessean.  When asked about his remarks, Land told media outlets including the SBC’s Baptist Press that he stood by his words.  He didn’t say those words were actually someone else’s.  Land – the SBC’s chief ethicist – stood by his words, his plagiarized words, words that he made his own in an extremely deceptive and thoroughly unethical way.

***UPDATE (4/15):  Another instance of plagiarism has been discovered.  During what appears to have been the third-hour of Land’s March 31st broadcast on the Trayvon Martin tragedy, Land passes off as his own an editorial in the Investor’s Business Daily.  The editorial is titled “Trayvon Shooting Facts Vs. Left-Wing Racism Storyline.”

Land does provide a link (without explanation) on the Richard Land Live! website under “Full Show Notes.”

However, at no point during the segment did Land mention that these words were not his own.  At no point did he mention that this commentary was published on March 27th by the editorial board of the Investor’s Business Daily.

Below is the transcript of Land’s radio show.  I have bolded the parts from Land’s commentary that are VERBATIM from the IBD editorial.  See the radio audio here and read the IBD editorial here.

Welcome back to Richard Land Live.

Today, we’re talking about the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

At first blush, this shooting certainly appears troubling. A 17-year-old African American carrying nothing but a bag of skittles and a bottle of iced tea is shot by a Hispanic Neighborhood Watch volunteer.

That was enough for the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, most of the mainstream press and even President Obama to jump on the story as fresh evidence of ongoing racism in the U.S.

Sharpton charged that “Trayvon represents a reckless disregard for our lives that we’ve seen too long.” Jackson said Martin was “murdered and martyred,” adding for good measure that “blacks are under attack. … Killing us is big business.” MSNBC political analyst Karen Finney charged that GOP-fed stereotypes about blacks “had lethal consequences.” Obama volunteered that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon.”

All of this was before anyone knew much about the people involved or the facts of the case at hand.

It turns out that alleged shooter George Zimmerman is hardly some kind of white supremacist. He’s Hispanic on his mother’s side. His mother is Peruvian. He has black family members. He has mentored black children and is a registered Democrat.

And Martin isn’t exactly a saint.  He’d been suspended three times for vandalism, truancy and carrying a baggie with pot residue.

The real problem for all those hoping to exploit this case for their own political ends are the details surfacing about what happened that night.

An Orlando Sentinel story on Monday revealed that after Zimmerman followed Martin around the neighborhood, Martin reportedly attackedZimmerman, punching him to the ground and slamming his head against the sidewalk. The Sentinel added that much of Zimmerman’s account “has been corroborated by witnesses.” A 911 tape may yet confirm that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who was crying for help.

As CBS News politely put it, this “new information is putting a twist on the Trayvon Martin case.”

Not that the facts matter to people like Al Sharpton. Even if it turns out that Zimmerman really did act out of fear for his safety, and not racial animosity, don’t expect anyone stoking the racial fires to start issuing mea culpas.

They’ll be too busy looking for next racial ambulance to chase because they’re race hustlers who’ve made their careers and made their fortunes exploiting racism in the United States.

We’re going to go to Roy now in Richmond, Virginia.  Roy, what is your question or comment?

Note that Land again adds his own comments and own adjectives.  He takes the IBD editorial and tries to make it his own.  Is this a common practice with Richard Land?

We began as a dissenting voice in Baptist life 25 years ago. Today we are the many voices of progressive Christians around the world seeking to respond to the continuing call of God in a rapidly changing world.

With about 3000 individuals, 150 endorsed chaplains and pastoral counselors, 29 local and global mission partners, 2 theology schools and 135 congregation partners the Alliance is committed to ecumenism, partnership in mission, radical hospitality, and social justice. Learn how to be a part of this vital denominational movement today.

For more background, see my history of the Alliance of Baptists featured on their website.

This week, the Alliance will consider nine separate statements on various social issues.  Here’s a sampling of those proposed statements:

A Statement on Stopping Violence and Injustice Against Transgender Persons

We need further to acknowledge that many of these persons are our brothers and sisters in Christ and that all are part of creation loved by God.  Finally, we need to remember that Jesus told us that as we do to the least, we also do to Him.  Consequently, when we stand in solidarity with the transgender victims of violence and injustice, we also stand in solidarity with the Christ who suffers with them.

A Statement on Lifelong Sexual Education, Sexual & Reproductive Rights, and Opposing Sexual Injustice and Violence

God rejoices when we celebrate our sexuality with holiness and integrity.  We invite our colleagues and faith communities to join us in promoting sexual morality, justice, and healing.

Statement Regarding the Unjust Killing of Trayvon Martin

The disturbing events that led to Martin’s death should serve as an eye-opening moment for all of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus.  Trayvon’s death raises serious questions about gun violence and how justice is administered in our nation – questions that must be addressed.

A Statement Against Gun Violence

We encourage Alliance of Baptists members and congregations to discern how God may be calling us to reduce gun violence in our home communities.

Statement on Justice in Palestine and Israel

We encourage our members and congregations to pray for peace with justice in The Holy Land and partner with Jews, Muslims, Christians, and other people of conscience working for corporate accountability, human rights and an end to Israel’s illegal occupation.

A Statement Against Torture

*A proposal to endorse “A Statement of Conscience of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture” (see here)

Statement on Cuba

To our beloved partners in the Fraternity of Baptist Churches of Cuba, we pledge our commitment to strengthen ties by every means at our disposal, including our continuing prayers for their well-being and our untiring efforts as citizens of the United States to effectuate the needed changes in our nation’s policies toward Cuba.

Priorities for a Faithful Budget

*A proposal to endorse the Faithful Budget Campaign document

Moderator Colleen Burroughs recently told the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Coordinating Council that she had hoped to “have a conversation” about the CBF’s policy that prohibits the hiring of gays and lesbians and prohibits the funding of pro-gay organizations.  Burroughs called the policy “divisive, unenforceable and probably not Baptist.”

There’s no doubt that Burroughs’ comment in the context of the upcoming CBF-sponsored sexuality conference stirred some up.  Her comment stirred up some with legitimate worries and seemed to stir up some looking to get stirred up!

Some Baptists – as we know – enjoy a good drama.  Others, neglecting their own backyard-issues, anxiously and not-so-silently have their fingers crossed that the CBF will implode.  An implosion in this fundamentalist fantasy, of course, provides an opportunity to lob the L-word and offer a self-serving “I told you so.”

Moving on to the actual issue at hand: CBF’s hiring/funding policy

Forget whether the policy is divisive or “Baptist,” the policy itself has real problems.  It is an extremely broad policy that could be interpreted in any number of ways.  For example, what does it mean to “condone” homosexual practice?

The vagueness of this policy has allowed it to be applied rather inconsistently over the years.  While the CBF might not directly fund an organization that “affirms homosexuality practice,” it certainly has allowed and accommodated welcoming & affirming Baptist groups to have a visible presence at the annual General Assembly in recent years.

Most people bothered by Burroughs statement heard the “divisive” and “probably not Baptist” part of the comment but perhaps didn’t hear the rest.  They might not have heard Burroughs say that the “fattest inbox” on her computer and thickest folder in her office contained correspondence from people with serious and sincerely objections to the CBF’s homosexuality policy.

A good leader gives voice to the concerns of his/her constituents.  Right?

Rather than ignoring these concerns, Burroughs spoke out.

Colleen Burroughs should be commended.

How many Baptist leaders in the past have failed to give voice to the concerns of average Baptists?

Considering our polity and focus on the conscience of the individual, it’s refreshing to see an elected Baptist official embrace the conviction that all deserve to be heard.

We need more Baptist leaders – not less – willing to speak openly, honestly and even bluntly about the issues that we Baptists are currently confronting.

There’s been a great deal of talk – much of it rumblings and rumors – in the broad moderate Baptist world about the upcoming “A [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant.” Co-sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Mercer University and being held at First Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia, this first-ever Baptist sexuality conference has sparked plenty of interest.

Last August, Dr. Daniel Vestal – CBF Executive Coordinator – offered an explanation about the purpose of the conference:

The aim of this event is conversation, not conclusion, treaty or statement. The gathering is a conference, not a summit. Consistent with our shared values of local church autonomy and the priesthood of every believer, no statement of public policy will be offered as a result of this gathering. Consistent with our values of freedom and responsibility, we gather to both explore and hold one another accountable.

Vestal’s statement did not shut down speculation on what the conference would mean and symbolize.  In late October, principal conference organizer Dr. David Gushee of Mercer University penned a column to “clarify a few things.”  Gushee explained “what the conference is not about”:

It is not about denominational policymaking. No CBF policy matters will be on the agenda.  It is not about public policy.  No matter of law or public debate, such as gay marriage, will be on the agenda.

In a January column promoting the conference, Gushee reiterated:

We are not hiding an advocacy agenda behind the cloak of conversation.  There is no hidden agenda here.  We think that our explicit, open agenda is demanding enough – to have a conversation within a willing part of the Baptist family about what it means to live in responsible sexuality in a context in which our traditional sexual ethic is being challenged and quite often abandoned, and not just by secular folks.

Three weeks later, CBF Moderator Colleen Burroughs told Coordinating Council members that she had hoped to “have a conversation” about the CBF’s policy that prohibits the funding of “organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice” and prohibits the hiring of “a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.”

Burroughs lamented that other pressing concerns such as budget woes had prevented her from pursuing that conversation.  Burroughs stated:

I find the policy to be divisive, unenforceable and probably not Baptist.

Burroughs expressed hope that the CBF will re-visit this policy after selecting a new Executive Coordinator to succeed Daniel Vestal who is retiring this year.

Baptists like a good drama.  And this comment in the context of the upcoming sexuality conference served to stir things up.

Just a few days after the Associated Baptist Press reported Burrough’s comment, the new Executive-Director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas offered a public response.  From the Baptist Standard:

BGCT Executive Director David Hardage insisted two things need to be understood regarding the BGCT—Texas Baptists are opposed to homosexual behavior, and they love all people.

Daniel Vestal also spoke out, defending the ban on hiring gays.  Rick McClatchy, director of CBF-Texas, responded to Burrough’s comment by reprinting Vestal’s defense of the CBF policy.

On February 29, Dr. Tony Cartledge, Professor of Old Testament at Campbell University Divinity School, published a blog post in support of Burrough’s titled “It’s past time.” Cartledge wrote:

The ban on hiring gays needs to be eliminated.  Period.  Of course, it’s not as if CBF has that many employees, and more have been laid off than hired lately, but it’s the principle of the thing.

…We were wrong about slavery, though one could defend it with culturally-bound biblical texts, and we’ve been wrong about homosexuality.  It’s past time for us to acknowledge that, learn to embrace all of our brothers and sisters, and move on.

That same day, Luke Smith, pastor of Linden Heights Baptist Church in Staunton, Virginia, argued in an ABP column that the upcoming CBF-sponsored sexuality conference is misguided:

The language of covenantal sexuality is in fact merely expanding licit sexual intercourse beyond marriage.  My concern is that this is a perversion of the scriptural witness to sexual intimacy.

…Rather than modeling dialogue on important issues of the day, I fear we as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship are modeling how to allow a few loud and persistent voices to derail cooperative alliances.  I believe the voices that are orchestrating this conference do not represent most churches. I think it is important to resist allowing the framing of the issues to be set by people acting independently of their local congregations.

This emerging Baptist drama reached a new level when Dr. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, opined in his daily podcast that the upcoming sexuality conference “is likely just to be a start, the public start, of a very divisive conversation.”

Charles Bugg, a Baptist pastor in Kentucky, asked in an ABP column whether Mohler’s prediction would prove true:

While Al Mohler and I disagree about many things, I have to say that he is right in one sense. This is a time of disagreement among folks in the CBF, especially on the issue of human sexuality. To avoid dialogue, however, is to forsake our birthright as Baptists who believe that we can care for each other even when we disagree. Let’s show Dr. Mohler that we are better than he predicts. The fact is that we need each other.

Baptists Today editor John Pierce also weighed in with an important post on the road that lies ahead.  Here’s Pierce:

If there is any chance of proving Al wrong, it will be rooted in the willingness of those in CBF leadership roles (elected, employed and otherwise invested) to listen closely to one another about these concerns rather than choosing sides and arming for a quick skirmish…Listen, listen, listen to one another.

The SBC’s public relations arm – Baptist Press - jumped in the mix with a news-opinion piece titled “Is the CB poised for a shift on homosexuality?”

All of this debate and discussion prompted David Gushee to once again defend the purpose and rationale for the April 19-21 conference.

In the second part of this series, I will offer my thoughts and reflection on these significant happenings in Baptist life.

Video: People of Faith Against North Carolina’s Anti-Gay Amendment One (3/30)

Jimmy Carter Backs Abortion-Reduction and Restricting Abortion Rights (3/29)

Robert George Replaces Richard Land on U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom (3/28)

My Thoughts on Al Mohler’s interview of former President Jimmy Carter (3/27)

SBC’s Al Mohler interviews former President Jimmy Carter (3/26)

Southern Baptist Leader Richard Land on Trayvon Martin Murder (3/25)

Religious Responses (And The Lack Thereof) to the Murder of Trayvon Martin (3/22)

Scholars Discuss the History of Gender in Southern Baptist Battles (3/22)

SBC Seminary Official Backs Anti-Gay Amendment (3/21)

Richard Land as Southern Baptist leader or Republican Consultant (3/19)

Baptist Studies Bulletin: Competing Visions of Religious Liberty Among Baptists (3/19)

The short-video features several North Carolina Baptist pastors among other Christian and Jewish clergy.

On a media tour promoting his latest and most unique book – NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter – the former President had this to say about abortion during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham:

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade. And I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions. I made it easy to adopt children, for instance, who were unwanted and also initiated the program called Women and Infant Children, or WIC, program that’s still in existence now. But except for the times when a mother’s life is in danger or when a pregnancy is caused by rape or incest, I would certainly not or never have approved of any abortions.”

“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion, which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy, that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue.”

Earlier this week, I blogged about Southern Baptist Seminary president Al Mohler’s interview with President Carter.  During that interview, Carter brought up the subject of abortion on his own.  Here’s what he said to Mohler:

“I have one problem in my political service with my faith and that is concerning abortion. I have never believed that Jesus Christ would approve abortion and so I had to interpret my duties as president compatible with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade, but with my religious beliefs I did everything I possibly could to minimize a need for abortion by liberalizing adoption services and by starting a program—it’s still in existence, by the way—called Women and Infant Children, WIC programs where, because one of the—the key reason for abortions around the world is when a pregnant mother doesn’t think she and her baby will be cared for. So I did everything I could to minimize abortions because I don’t believe that Jesus would approve of a liberal interpretation of that law.”

In a separate post, I offered my thoughts on the Mohler-Carter interview.  Putting Carter’s remarks on abortion in a moderate Baptist context, I wrote:

I wish Mohler had asked President Carter – now that he’s long gone from the White House – whether he thinks that abortion rights should be curtailed?  Does Carter believe that the Roe ruling should be further reformed or even repealed?

In light of Carter’s comment that he “[doesn't] believe that Jesus would approve of a liberal interpretation of that law,” I wonder what the former President would say?  After all, Carter’s view is the view of most moderate Baptists during the early 1970s.  Beginning in the late 1960s, Baptists in states such as Texas started calling for legal reforms that would allow for abortion in extremely limited circumstances such as rape, incest, and physical health of the mother.

What many Baptist leaders like former SBC president Jimmy Allen (who Carter was close to) did not want was (more or less) unrestricted abortion rights or “abortion-on-demand.”  Southern Baptist conservatives like to trot out the names of several prominent moderate leaders who were in fact supportive of broad abortion rights.  However, these viewpoints were still minority ones among moderates just as W.A. Criswell’s initial support for abortion rights was a minority perspective among Southern Baptist conservatives.

Most moderates shared the convictions of President Carter on abortion and abortion rights.  The moral critique of these Jimmy Carter Baptists was that they generally remained relatively silent on this  issue despite believing – like Carter – that Jesus would not approve of abortion and expansive abortion rights.

So now we know. President Carter does, in fact, back restrictions on abortion rights – restrictions consistent with the popular moderate Southern Baptist perspective on abortion during the 1970s and 1980s.

The truth is that platforms of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not representative of what most Americans believe with regard to the legality of abortion.

The most recent Gallup poll from July 2011 found that only 26% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances.  Only 20% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans – 51% – believe that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

This is the Jimmy Carter position.  A healthy majority of Americans have supported this position for 35+ years.

See Gallup’s graph tracking these historic trends.

Land served on the commission from 2001-2004 and 2005-2012.    Four other commissioners’ terms ended on March 22.  The remaining four commissioners will be terminated on May 14 due to a new law.

President Obama will select three members to serve on the USCIRF while congressional leaders will appoint the other six.

On March 23, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced the appointment of Dr. Robert P. George to the USCIRF.  A Princeton University professor, George has emerged in recent years as the Christian Right’s leading intellectual.  George has served as chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and co-authored the controversial Manhattan Declaration with Samford University’s Timothy George in 2010.

Last year, Faith in Public Life revealed that Robert George had been involved in funding anti-Islam conspiracy-promoting organizations.  While George has verbally defended Muslim-Americans and their right to religious freedom in the past, his actions supporting divisive anti-Islam organizations is certainly cause for concern.

Faithful America launched a letter-writing campaign calling on George to explain his support for organizations opposed to religious freedom for Muslims in the United States.

Just this month, George was publicly confronted at Georgetown University over his participation in an organization – Bradley Foundation – that funds anti-Islam organizations working to deny the religious freedom of Muslims.  The video is here.

Certainly Robert George is no improvement over Richard Land for those of who care about religious freedom here at home and abroad!

For more on Robert George and other Republican appointments to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, see this report from Think Progress:

GOP Leaders Make Mockery Of ‘Religious Freedom’ By Appointing Commissioners Who Advocate Fear Of Others