President Bush has renominated Charles Pickering of Mississippi for a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m glad. Although our paths do not often cross, I have known Pickering for almost 20 years. I have known the Pickering family much longer. I have seen Charles Pickering’s work as a Baptist leader in Mississippi where he served as president of the state convention. I appreciate his service to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) as a member of the Peace Committee established in 1985.
That is why I wrote a letter on personal stationery on his behalf to a United States senator I knew who served on the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, the first time Pickering was nominated. Unfortunately, he was rejected by the committee on a 10–9 vote.
This time, I hope Pickering is affirmed. I believe he is the kind of person needed by the nation’s court system.
However, Pickering’s nomination has raised again the question about how far a religious group can and should go in the political arena. More specifically, is it right for a Southern Baptist entity to campaign for Pickering’s confirmation and the confirmation of others on President Bush’s list of nominees? Or is it the role of a Southern Baptist entity to advocate biblically based positions while not campaigning for personalities?
A Jan. 8 news release distributed by Baptist Press news service announced the confirmation of Pickering and the other Bush nominees was a “priority in this (legislative) session” for the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).
The announcement recalled an episode in 1987 when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert H. Bork to the United States Supreme Court.
Certain Southern Baptist leaders attempted to use the offices of the SBC to support Bork’s nomination. It was the first time in anyone’s memory that SBC spokespersons were supporting individuals instead of issues and positions.
Those supporting Bork’s confirmation argued that supporting a nominee for a judgeship was different from supporting a candidate for elected office.
Still, the situation produced such confusion that it was discussed by the SBC Executive Committee. Alabama Pastor Darrell Robinson, then serving Dauphin Way Baptist Church, Mobile, took the floor and shared with committee members the confusion and questions such support had created in his area.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s making confirmation of Pickering and the other Bush nominees a legislative priority again raises these questions.
SBC’s voice in the public square
That ERLC should be in the middle of the public square representing Southern Baptists goes without question. The commission’s mission statement includes the charge to “represent Southern Baptists in communicating the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention to the public and to public officials.”
The question is whether “communicating the moral and ethical positions of the Southern Baptist Convention” … includes supporting the confirmation of particular nominees. The usual position has been to advocate for the qualifications, experience and character desired in nominees.
Whether that is still good policy or effective strategy is questionable. Some of the groups opposing Pickering never blinked at tactics that to this writer appeared underhanded and distorted. They may again. Yet, the misconduct by some does not justify compromise of principle by
others.
Alabama Baptists have not shied away from public issues. From the lottery to tax reform and from the prison system to public education, Alabama Baptists have spoken clearly. Neither convention leaders, churches nor Baptist individuals have backed away from proclaiming biblically based moral positions on issues related to our state.
However, the Alabama Baptist State Convention and its cooperating entities have been careful not to cross the line of endorsing candidates. We have rightly urged that candidates be considered in light of their positions on certain issues. We have not said, “Vote for this person,” which means we are advocating positions, not candidates.
Individual Alabama Baptists have campaigned fiercely for various candidates. They should as good citizens. But there is a difference between what individual Baptists can do and what can and should be done in the name of a church or a convention.
For a Southern Baptist entity to publicly support the confirmation of a judicial nominee seems remarkably close to supporting the election of an individual. The argument that supporting Bork’s confirmation was different from supporting a candidate for election seemed like a distinction without merit. To support a candidate for election or confirmation is not a wise action, in this writer’s judgment, and maybe outside the mission of any SBC entity.
When Land asks people to support Pickering’s confirmation, I hope he does it as an individual citizen. When Land champions the qualities, character and experience needed for a judicial nominee, I hope he does it as a representative of Southern Baptists.
The difference may seem minor but it is important.
Share with others: