[This discussion began with a letter I received in an email recently, which you can read here. I welcome further discussion, and I'm planning a follow-up post soon.]
[Update: I just realized Laurence M. Vance, the author of this article, is the same Laurence M. Vance who regularly contributes to my favorite libertarian website, and has written several books on history, government, and Christianity, as well as Bible and Biblical language study aids.]
Pacifism for the sake of pacifism is nothing less than cowardice, and leads inexorably to the Chambers policy of appeasement, which is famously predicated on the sincere hope that the crocodile will eat you last. Jesus said Himself that, in the last days, there would be wars and rumors of wars, ordered His disciples to be sure to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. The overuse of “turn the other cheek” is a fallacy. Men have a duty to protect their families, and by derivation, their countries; insofar as a war is moral, Christian men have a duty to serve their countries in war: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and WWII (though that was really our own fault). But when morality does not attach, they have a duty to resist: the War Between the States, WWI, and everything since Korea, inclusive (with the possible exception of Persian I – but we didn’t really have a dog in that fight, did we?). David, the man with too much blood on his hands to build the Temple, was still a “man after God’s own heart.” If the SBC ever entertained a blanket stance against any war, for any reason, then I believe they were dangerously close to apostasy (if they claimed an iron-clad Biblical basis for this position), and at any rate, I name them: cowards.
This sea change in the SBC is not a stand-alone. The entire “conservative” establishment has been decidedly un-conservative for many years now. Thus, the SBC is just symptomatic of the general shift. Case in point: the new president, in Texas, of that worthy group is a woman, something I strongly disagree with, something unprecedented and unjustifiable. Call me a misogynist, a throwback, a fossil, a dinosaur; I don’t care, and I’m a big boy – I can take it (you don’t spend several years on a US Navy submarine without growing a thick skin; I leave easy offense to the USAF-country-club guys 
). Of course, this follows the general rule that all societies, over time, move to the left. Who was it that said a democracy will survive only so long as it takes the voters to discover they can grant themselves largesse from the public treasury?
Which leads me to my next point…
George W. Bush is a traitor. I say this as someone who voted for Bush the Younger twice. Bush and his entire coven of advisors have one goal, and only one: power. Look to the power structure of our southern neighbor to find the template for the Bush-Clinton ideal. Mexico is ruled by an almost monolithic power elite of European-descended whites, who are vastly, vastly wealthier than the average Mexican. And the Anglo-Saxon tradition of the Rule of Law has virtually no presence. Clinton and Bush both have greatly incentivized outsourcing of manufacturing in the pursuit of corporate sponsorship and dividends, and Bush is dedicated to amnesty for people whose very presence in this country is an affront to the Constitution. And Congress has been steadily increasing the numbers of foreigners who can come here legally and undercut native workers’ salaries. This is an all-out assault on the American Middle Class, the dissolution of which is crucial to advancement of the Bush agenda. Another crucial step is growth of the Nanny State, at which Bush has been extremely successful, having grown the government by nearly 50% (adjusted for inflation) since taking office seven years ago. And, with his administration’s antics (ahem, Patriot Act! Habeus corpus, anyone?), he has pretty much shredded the Constitution more than any President since Lincoln conducted a war of aggression against the Confederacy… and the Union. But I digress…
The “neocon” movement that has seriously taken over the “right” since the end of the Cold War is anything but conservative. Yet it has insinuated itself into ever facet of American political dialog. Largely populated – in addition to complicit evangelicals – by barely-reformed Trotskyists, hippies fresh out of rehab, and non-practicing and/or openly apostate Catholics and Jews, these are a group of people who never had anything but contempt for true conservatism. How can I make these claims? I can see their fruits: the Patriot act, warrant-less wiretapping, a US hegemony being birthed in the Middle East, numerous thrusts at rewarding lawless illegal aliens, even our very involvement in such groups as the UN and NATO. If you are familiar with George Orwell, you can guess at where this chipping away of personal freedoms and limits to government are headed.
I say all that to say that neocons have likewise infiltrated religious institutions, or their shills have. A mindless – and wholly Scripturally unjustifiable – devotion to the manufactured state of Israel typifies these shills, as does the cleaving of them to any politician who claims to be a Christian. The Anglo-Saxon basis of the US population historically has had a strong – and valid – mistrust of the government, any government. All the government policies since the New Deal, however, have slowly eroded this well-advised mistrust. And, after the shenanigans of the Clinton White House, I’m pretty sure the public was ready for anyone who could fit the form of a moral person. So Bush and his ilk show up, talk about the Bible, and give all the “Sunday School” answers, and groups like the SBC take it hook, line, and sinker. Sort of an evangelical group-think. (Not to mention that the feminist movement has, since the ’70s, conditioned us all to not speak out against the herd – even when they’re dead wrong, to make everyone feel good, and not risk offending anyone. Of course, I can’t find any of that – but actually, Paul ordered the opposite – in Scripture) The result is, they’ve identified (right or wrong) that the Democrat party is immoral, so anything the Republicans do or say is by default inerrant. And Southern Baptists – and other evangelicals, apparently, are stoopud, because we fall for this every time, regardless of what their lying eyes tell them about the Anointed Party.
Finally, let me make the very important point that the SBC in no way speaks for the Southern Baptist wing of the Church. Always, and by design, a confederate (little “c”) organization, its edicts and resolutions are never – cannot be – binding on any church body. That’s the case now; it was the case in 1845. It is therefore likely that such resolutions did not in fact represent the passions and feelings of great, broad swathes of Southern Baptists at any given time, but simply a majority of those present when the resolutions passed. And I especially hope that is true of the views of officers of the SBC, and in particular Richard Land.
Mr. Land is a member of the extremely anti-American Council on Foreign Relations, which is a godfather of the Security and Prosperity Partnership a la George W. Bush. Regardless of their propaganda, the SPP is intent upon: ”breaking down trade barriers” (read: ensuring middle class wages are undercut to the benefit of multinational conglomerates and foreign-born cheap laborers) between the US, Mexico, and Canada; and providing for the “mutual security” (including that of the governments against any attempts to practice the God-given right to overthrow them) of the member states. It’s basically attempting to lay the foundation for a free commerce zone in the Americas. Of course, the EU started out as a free-commerce partnership, you’ll remember. You know, the EU… which just recently told British PM Gordon Brown that his plan – to ensure most new jobs in the UK go to Britons, rather than to one of the mushrooming population of alien residents – violates EU laws, and he can’t take this necessary step to protect British citizens. That’s where Land, the ersatz Propaganda Minister of the neo-SBC, would have us go, apparently.
(By the way, according to World Net Daily:
According to a variety of sources, the following presidential candidates are either members of [CFR, the Bilderberg Group, or the Trilateral Commission – three highly-connected and influential internationalist think tanks] or have strong ties: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.
Mike Huckabee, though not a member, spoke to the CFR in September. Since then, his political star has risen to the point that he has become a top-tier candidate.
And Land is part of it. Ever read Daniel? Revelation? I’m just sayin’….)
It’s informative (and in particular to this very issue) that so many who call themselves “conservative Christians” are giddy over Mike Huckabee, a man with a very long, very anti-conservative record. In case you’re keeping score, there are only two conservatives running for the GOP nomination, in my opinion: Paul, and a somewhat distant second, Tancredo. The others are pretenders to the throne. And though I wouldn’t vote for him, Kucinich is the only Dem I can really respect; he’s at least a true believer. But, again, I’ve gotten off-topic.
There are many reasons that our God is our personal Lord and Savior, and that it’s important that all believers pursue an intimate relationship with Him. We should all be intellectually vigilant and do our dead-level best to learn all facts about any issue before us, lest we be led into sin. Following the dictates of a group – any group, regardless of its pedigree – without first researching the facts ourselves, even if the group wraps itself in the Bible (or the flag), can only cause more harm.
For “many are called, but few are chosen,” and we are, all of us, each, ultimately, responsible for what we do, and who we believe.
