SBC Insider Morris Chapman offers hope

Sadly, Dr. Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has weighed in supporting Ronnie Floyd’s nomination. It appears his email was written and delivered after Dr. Chapman’s most excellent piece.

I’ve referred to Dr. Chapman’s blog post, entitled Diminishing Returns, several times in the past couple of days. For you lazy readers who won’t click the link, let me include some of my favorite lines.

“We are drawn to do things as the world does them. To lose power from above all too often drives us to generate artificial power of our own making.”

This is my favorite. This is a concise summary of the problem facing our denomination. No further comment needed.

“When a president of an entity publicly endorses a potential nominee or nominates a candidate for elected office, he potentially alienates some who otherwise hold him in high esteem because they differ with the person he has embraced publicly for an elected office.”

This is exactly what has happened in my mind regarding Drs. Patterson and Akin. Why are agency presidents, dependent upon generous support by Southern Baptists of the Cooperative Program, so publicly and enthusiastically support a pastor from a church that gives only either .27% or 1.8% to the CP or “joint SB causes”, depending on which number you go with? These men are presuming upon the generousness of churches like mine (currently 10%...up from 7% six years ago).

“Among the other 16 million people are there not sufficient leaders to make and accept nominations for the elected offices of the Convention?”

Thank you, Dr. Chapman (president and chief executive officer of the SBC Executive Committee, arguably the most powerful SBC entity) for enlarging the tent. Yes, I believe there are such leaders and am hopeful they will emerge before we convene our annual meeting in Greensboro.

Floyd Nomination--Is There An Integrity Gap?

Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, for whom I have tremendous respect, decided to move from a silent observer to endorsing Dr. Ronnie Floyd as President of the SBC. I have lost some respect.

I agree very much with the reasoning of Dr. Morris Chapman on this subject. His post last Friday entitled Diminishing Returns is “must-reading” for this topic. Denominational leaders of our entities should remain neutral. In addition to the issues Dr. Chapman raises, I think it’s highly inappropriate for an entity that belongs partially to me to be promoting a candidate I do not support. Why does SWBTS’s website contain Dr. Patterson’s personal endorsement? I can only assume Dr. Patterson is using Southern Baptist time and Southern Baptist resources to lobby for someone only a fraction of Southern Baptists support. Wasn’t that a part of what the conservative resurgence decried? I’m not suggesting the issue is as grievous; only that there are similarities.

Second, Dr. Patterson reportedly said FBC Springdale’s child baptistry was “blasphemous”. This was reported by the Founders website in 2000, reporting on a Patterson interview with Mark Dever. Admittedly, FBC Springdale was never named by Dever, but one wonders whether Patterson has had a change of mind. Is the famed fire-truck baptistry with confetti cannons no longer “blasphemous” because it is in his friend’s church? Patterson evidently hasn’t published any clarifying words to this rather clear hypocritical stance.

Third, Dr. Patterson, who is dependent upon Cooperative Program support, is promoting a candidate who pastors a church with a shameful record of CP support. You’ve all heard the numbers. FBC Springdale’s CP giving is .27% (that’s point-two-seven percent). Even if you combine that with “joint SBC causes” the number only raises to 1.8%. What ingredient is more important to Southern Baptists than the Cooperative Program. We all know it isn’t music that holds us together; theologically we’re Arminians and Calvinists; church methodologies don’t hold us together. How can Dr. Patterson so easily overlook this glaring deficiency in Dr. Floyd’s resume?

Fourth, Dr. Patterson had a slip of the tongue (I hope) in his posted support of Dr. Floyd. He said "...Dr. Floyd has built one of our greatest churches in a smaller community..." Dr. Patterson knows only Jesus builds the church (Matthew 16:18). What has happened to that razor sharp intellect that sliced liberal light-handling of the scriptures in the 1980s? Woe to us for electing any pastor who builds churches. But aside from the sloppy comment of not ascribing church building to Jesus, why is FBC Springdale “one of our greatest churches”? Greatest implies there are not so great churches. Buildings, baptisms and budgets aside, what sets FBC Springdale higher than other churches? Isn’t this more of the tired old mantra that Southern Baptists have been hearing for decades?

I am sure FBC Springdale is a fine church, filled with noble Christians led by committed staff and a passionate pastor. I mean to detract nothing from them. But with over 16 million Southern Baptists, can we not find one candidate who has wider appeal and fewer objectionable issues than this pastor?

SBC Presidency fiasco

Some of you may not be aware of what is becoming quite a fiasco regarding the upcoming presidential nomination at the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro.

At this year’s annual Bible conference at FBC Jacksonville, FL, Jerry Vines called fellow conservative leaders Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler onto the stage and gave them affirming words for their role in the SBC conservative resurgence. Vines himself, had resigned as pastor and the conference was his last speaking engagement with the church. Vines then called Bailey Smith to the stage and then announced in some form or another, that Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church, Woodstock, GA, would be nominated as SBC President. Johnny Hunt has since declined the nomination.

Now we’d have to assume he changed his mind. He preached at the conference shortly after, if not immediately after, the announcement. It’s hard to imagine Dr. Vines just jumped up in front of the gathering to announce a candidate he had not talked with or consulted. I cannot fathom the other leaders had no previous knowledge of why they were being called to the platform. And it’s difficult to imagine them proceeding with this public announcement without Hunt’s blessing.

Hunt, this past Sunday, publicly declined the nomination and at the same time announced he would nominate Ronnie Floyd, pastor of FBC Springdale, AR and the Church at Pinnacle Hills. His announcement can be read here.

Floyd has immediately been criticized because of poor Cooperative Program giving by FBC Springdale. The steady decline of CP giving has been tabulated here. Even the Florida Baptist Witness ran an opinion story critical of Floyd’s nomination. It can be read here.

Founders Journal website re-ran a piece they originally did in 2000 criticizing Springdale’s fire truck baptistry and confetti cannons. It's called Of Fire Engine Baptistries and Blasphemy.

Personally, I do believe the CP numbers, no matter how you spin them, are too low for Floyd to be given the honor of SBC President. I am hopeful of a better alternative. That person may be publicly announced as soon as Monday.

Missouri’s Initiative Petitions

Missouri’s Secretary of State (Robin Carnahan) will be busy for a while. She and her staff, partnering with county clerks throughout the state now have the job of completing a wonderful process somewhat unique to the Show-Me State—citizen initiative petitions. The Kansas City Star reported that Stacie Temple, communications director for the secretary of state’s office, said “This will be a significant workload.” That may well be the understatement of the week.

Of course, Carnahan should be happy that only six made it to the finish line. Eighteen initiative petitions were circulating this Spring…almost higher than the pollen count.

Heading the list is the infamous petition from the self-named Missourians for Lifesaving Cures. Of course, it depends on whose life you are talking about. If you happen to be a human in the embryonic stage of life in a petri dish, the group isn’t interested in the least in saving your life. Rather, they intend to exploit you for research purposes to benefit humans a little further developed (can you tell I'm a member of Missourians Against Human Cloning?). But I’m getting off point. They spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 million to get nearly 289,000 Missourians to sign their petition to inscribe embryonic stem cell research and human cloning into law.

The Committee for a Healthy Future also turned in excessive signatures for their drive to place on the ballot a constitutional amendment to raise taxes on tobacco products. They want to raise Missouri’s current tax rate of 17 cents a pack to 80 cents a pack. That group contends Missouri has one of the highest smoking rates in the nation but with one of the lowest tax rates. The national average is 92 cents a pack.

Another group wants to roll back the General Assembly’s changes in Medicaid. They’ve proposed statutory changes to continue Missouri’s program beyond 2008.

Missourians in Charge spearheaded two constitutional amendments. The first will shore up eminent domain laws, blocking the government from seizing private property and giving it to another private landowner. Their second proposal will further cap spending limits for the General Assembly.

Yet another group, Give Missourians a Raise turned in signatures for a proposal to raise the state minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.50 an hour and have it adjusted annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index.

One proposed constitutional amendment has already been certified by the Secretary of State. It would reauthorize for 10 years the one-tenth percent sales/use tax for soil and water conservation and state parks and historic sites.

If you’ve been keeping track, that’s seven items. It may be a confusing November!

The DaVinci Code

The DaVinci Code is a slam on Christianity. It’s bad enough that the writer uses Christianity as the back drop to his fictional plot. It’s worse that he claims his revisionist writing is factual. Dan Brown needs to decide which literary genre to pursue—fiction or history. There are so many books on the market slamming the claims of The DaVinci Code that I shouldn’t be using space writing about it. But I’ll be addressing the issue in my preaching and teaching ministries in May because of the issue of relevancy. Christians don’t need a primer in Brown’s novel. They need a primer in historical Christianity. The truth is clear. The church has always believed Christ to be divine. Brown’s assertion that the Council of Nicea created that doctrine is absurd to anyone with half an objective brain. And that’s why we must engage our culture on this movie. The glory of Christ is too precious to pass a blind eye and deaf ear to our culture’s irreverence towards the One who alone can save them from eternal hell. We need to warn them. Blasphemers will encounter the Living, Eternal Son of God.

The Memphis Declaration

Having attended the Together for the Gospel in Louisville last week, I’ve intentionally been out of the blogging loop. So it was news to me that some 30 Southern Baptists had been invited to Memphis to take part in a pow-wow over the direction (or lack of direction) the Southern Baptist Convention is going. I was pretty excited about it, but admittedly, am disappointed with the document they have developed.

I was generally in favor of Wade Burleson and his positions taken throughout the IMB controversy. I believe the actions of the IMB trustees are seriously flawed. I believe they sinned against Wade Burleson and have not yet repented publicly of their sin. Their positions on the policy changes and their new gag order are problematic.

But, as one who is sympathetic with the anti-establishment movement that is occurring within the SBC, I am confused by the Memphis Declaration. I wish they had followed the example of Martin Luther’s 95 theses, rather than the Baptist Faith and Message. The first half read like something from the World Council of Churches. Generally, the document reads like the group wants ecumenical evangelism. Knowing some of these folks, I know that is not what they are saying. But a document should stand on its on merits. The reader should not have to know the minds and spirits of the authors.

I don’t want to pick apart the Memphis Declaration because it seems a sincere attempt by humble Christians to help Southern Baptist find their way out of the mess we are in. But perhaps some critical reflection from a semi-supporter would help strengthen the movement.

Paragraph 1 sounds like the liberal mantra of the 80s… “no creed but Christ!” While the Scriptures are sufficient, are the signers trying to say, we need not further clarify our understanding of the Scriptures? In paragraph 2, the group disparages “narrowing cooperation” while praising “parameters…consistent with our rich theological heritage.” Yet, they never delineate whether something is a needed parameter or a narrowing. I think I know what they mean, but they didn’t state it. They commit this same error when they speak of “articles of faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.” What is not essential? What’s triumphalism? Is that loving our denomination over loving the Lord?

The second half of the document reads much better. The group began speaking specifically, or at least, began addressing things that are absolutely true, regardless of the application. Their “pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry” is a great statement. You can read it below. Some signers have blogs where they’ve given further commentary. I’ve linked to them. And if you want to sign the document, send an email to atr1300@yahoo.com




Memphis Declaration
May 3, 2006

We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering. We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.

We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of narrowing cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:

We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denominational bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.

We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.


We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.

We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.

We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.

We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.

Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.

We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.

Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention’s sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.

Steven P. Hardy, NC
Ginny Brant, SC
Pamela Walker Blume, NC
Ken McLemore, VA
Ben Carr, OK
Martin S. Duren, GA
Arthur T. Rogers, KY
Benjamin S. Cole, TX
Thomas Ascol, FL
Jason Helmbacher, OK
Alden Stephens, FL
Wiley Drake, CA
Jason Sampler, LA
C.B. Scott, AL
Roy Hargrave, FL
Wade Burleson, OK
Wyman Dobbs, West Africa
Rick Thompson, OK
Phil Newton, TN

[Don Hinkle, MO, was there as a media representative]

Missouri Cloners One Step Closer to a Culture of Death

The Missouri pro-cloning movement turned in their petitions Monday with 288,991 signatures, more than enough to get the measure on the ballot. It was really a formality (hey, $4 million can buy almost anything!). And we'll be seeing a few more formalities in coming days. Formalities such as the Secretary of State throwing out a few signatures by those who properly filled out the tedious notarized statements stating they mistakenly signed the petition that was available on most street corners in the state by paid signature gatherers. That will bring the number down to about 288,879.

The Secretary of State will then authenticate the measure. Then the Governor will formally place it on...I'm prophesying...the November ballot. That leaves only the formality of the lawsuit filed by Missourians Against Human Cloning. If the Supreme Court should take up the matter, the drama might be prolonged, but I'm guessing they'll drive the final nail in the coffin and skip taking up the case, letting the Appeals Court ruling stand.

This means Missourians will have to decide about human cloning. Will we legalize a process that, until about 10 months ago, was unanimously referred to as "cloning"? Will we reduce the earliest stage of human development--embryonic life--to a research object? Will we prejudicially deny life to humans created in scientific laboratories? And will we revive Untermensch, the Nazi philosophy that there is such a thing as a sub-human race?

There is a better way to research cures for the diseases that plague our times and our loved ones. Adult stem cell research. It doesn't kill the donor.

Benjamin Cole begins Blog

Ben Cole has entered the blogging world. He's the Arlington, Texas pastor who has had some bitingly, insightful thoughts and words on the Southern Baptist IMB controversy. He does a fabulous job out of the starting gate, comparing Plato's Laws with our current Southern Baptist structure. It's worth reading and thinking about. Read it here.

Good Friday--Insight from Spurgeon

The great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon was always keen on his biblical insights. In honor of our Savior’s death, here’s today’s entry from his “Morning and Evening” devotional. You can subscribe for a daily email at bill@morningandevening.org.

===============================================

"All those who see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out their lips at me, and wag their heads (with hatred)." --Psalm 22:7

Mockery was a great ingredient in our Lord's suffering. Judas mocked Him in the garden; the chief priests and scribes laughed Him to scorn; Herod discarded Him; the servants and the soldiers jeered at Him, and brutally insulted Him; Pilate and his guards ridiculed His royalty; and on the tree all sorts of horrid jests and hideous taunts were hurled at Him. Ridicule is always hard to bear, but when we are in intense pain it is so heartless and so cruel that it cuts to the very bone of life itself.

Think of the Savior crucified, racked with anguish far beyond all imagination. And then picture that motley multitude all wagging their heads or thrusting out their lips in bitterest contempt of one poor suffering victim! Their unanimous hatred was a display of the worst evil; and yet in the very moment of its greatest apparent triumph it could do no more than mock at that victorious goodness which was then reigning on the cross?

O Jesus, "despised and rejected of men," how could You die for men who treated You so poorly? This is an amazing love, love divine, love beyond degree. We, too, have despised You in the days before our rebirth, and even since our new birth we have too often honored the world in our hearts. And yet You bleed to heal our wounds and die to give us life.

O that we could set You on a glorious high throne in all men's hearts! We would ring out Your praises over land and sea until men should as universally adore you just as they once unanimously rejected you. [M&E]

Morning & Evening, by Charles H. Spurgeon
Revised and edited by William C. Neff, ©2003-2006

Maudy Thursday--The Betrayal of Judas, part one

With all the hype about the Gospel of Judas, we might think he was a hero. Scripture tells another story.

It’s called ‘betrayal’ for a reason. Judas was one of the Twelve. Judas was an insider, not an outsider. He was "in the know" and "on the team." He was entrusted with sensitive information. Often the greatest harm done to the cause of Christ is from within. I can handle the name-calling and sneers at the coffee shop, but when it comes from my Sunday School class—well, that hurts. The snickering at my weaknesses from the fella across the street is nothing compared to the snickering from the fella across the aisle.

Consider for a moment Jesus's opposition in Israel. You may recall the four major groups that opposed Him--the Temple priests, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Herodians. Throughout His ministry, Jesus was barraged by their theological and political traps but had always successfully outmaneuvered and outwitted them. Matthew's 22nd chapter bears light on this public conflict. The outsiders are once again banging away at Jesus. The Pharisees and Herodians form an alliance and ask Jesus if it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. (This tax question is particularly interesting to us at this time of year). You understand this question is a catch 22. If Jesus says it is lawful, then He appears to be supporting Rome and will lose the support of the people. If He says it is not lawful, He would probably be arrested for insurrection against Rome. But Jesus says clearly to give Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God the things which are God's. After that attack from external forces, the Sadducees come asking about the resurrection of the dead. Immediately after that, the Pharisees are back in Jesus's face laying a trap about the greatest law. (And you think you've had a hard day!). At the end of chapter 22, Matthew says "and no man was able to answer Him, neither did anyone dare from that day on to ask him any more questions."

Get this picture! For the past three years, Jesus has been battling political groups. Finally, three of them have surrendered and hoisted the white flag; they've given up! Jesus can relax a bit, or can He? The only group remaining to oppose Jesus is the priests and elders of Israel. Verses 3-4 of Matthew 22 make clear the intention of the chief priests and elders of Israel--they wanted to secretly arrest Jesus and kill Him. Their hatred is still strong and their resolve is still robust. But as the passion drama unfolds, the danger comes not from without, but from within.

We would do well to meditate on this passage. The ravenous wolves are easy to recognize--those who argue against Jesus being God, those who advocate homosexuality as an acceptable alternative to a man/woman relationship, those who trust in their goodness and benevolent works for salvation, those who chant "eat, drink and be merry"--these are easily recognizable as a threat to our faith. Often, the danger is not from outside our walls but from among our pews. The church has great trouble in recognizing wolves that eat like sheep, sound like sheep, look like sheep and smell like sheep. Judas was one of the Twelve! He was a professing sheep outwardly, but he was a despicable wolf inwardly. The wolves among us profess the same. They pretend and profess to serve the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. But inwardly they are selfish, fleshly, and deadly. These people would never say the Bible is just an ordinary book; they simply ignore the Bible. These folks would never say abandon the church; they however, give as little of themselves as is necessary to keep pretending they are true disciples. They would never assert that God is not worthy of our praise and worship; they simply sing His praises lackadaisically--without passion, without volume, without conviction. You'll never hear these people say prayer is irrelevant; you will, however, hear these persons use vain repetitions in their insincere recitations. And ever so gradually, their thoughts and their actions begin to rub off on true disciples and the Church is pulled into their vicious net of superficial and meaningless faith. Judas was one of the Twelve.

The greatest threat to your living a life totally for God may lie within--within the Church or within yourself. As we reflect on the Betrayal, may we recommit ourselves tonight, to total loyalty to Christ, sincere devotion and steadfast faith. May we guard ourselves against the Judases in our lives and even more importantly may we guard ourselves against becoming a Judas. May we abandon mediocrity and reach for greatest heights. May we not be satisfied with just another church meeting, but may we long for an encounter with the Holy One.

Cur Deus What?

I’m Anselm, who are you? There’s a fun little quiz I found out there in cyberspace. It asks some questions and then tells you which figure from church history you are most like. Goodness, I hadn’t heard of Anselm for a long time. According to the quiz:

Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?

After shaking some cobwebs out of my brain, I remembered (vaguely) my theological training. Anselm’s famous phrase, aliquid quod maius non cogitari potest, came to mind ("that than which nothing greater can be conceived"). And if you think I remembered it in Latin, well…well…let’s just leave you to your thoughts. Anselm’s ontological argument always seemed way too philosophical for my liking; but I did appreciate his passion apologetic streak. Anselm of Canterbury was no lightweight. His brilliant shredding of arguments opposed to God’s existence and his understanding of other theological matters helped from the church out of the church ages and set the stage for the Reformation.

For what it’s worth, I scored “Jonathon Edwards” as my runner up. Hey, now there’s a guy I wouldn’t mind being labeled with. He’s regarded by many historians as America’s greatest theologian, you know.

You can take the quiz here and here is my complete scorecard.

Anselm 87%
Jonathan Edwards 73%
Martin Luther 67%
Karl Barth 67%
John Calvin 67%
J. Moltmann 53%
Charles Finney 47%
Paul Tillich 33%
Friedrich Schleiermacher 33%
Augustine 20%

Who Would’ve Thunk It?

The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District just sent out their ruling regarding the proposed human cloning initiative petition. We expected this ruling…even along with the dissenting vote (it was a 2-1 decision—Judges Howard and Holliger with the majority). Judge Smart (what a name for someone who sides with you) wrote a great dissenting opinion that is worth reading. The entire ruling can be read here. Here’s his conclusion:

There is evidence that a significant number of people will be uncertain about what is meant by "human cloning" when they see the ballot title. Of course, newspaper articles and other information sources will help inform some. The Secretary's "fair ballot language summaries" prepared pursuant to section 116.025 (and posted in polling places) should also help,(FN3) but there is no evidence that very many people will see them. Although judicial intervention in the initiative process must be cautiously exercised, I cannot ignore an ambiguity that is easily curable, with minimal intervention, so that it will give voters a summary less likely to prejudice the vote.

The record shows that the ambiguity could be sufficiently cured for voting purposes simply by the addition of a word. I would suggest the word that usually comes up in this context -- the modifier "reproductive," a word used by the MCLC itself in its brochure. I believe the modifier "reproductive" would help alleviate the ambiguity because it would allow the inference that "stem cell research" would include the use of cloning to produce stem cells for research purposes, but not for purposes of trying to create a human version of Dolly, the sheep.

The use of the adjective "reproductive" would allow it to be said that all voters -- whether favoring the viewpoint of the MCLC or the MAHC or having some other viewpoint -- are more likely to cast a free, intelligent, and informed vote -- one not prejudiced by misunderstanding. In my view, the change would achieve a proper balance between constitutional objectives by protecting a citizen's valuable right to place initiatives on the ballot without undue interference, and the right of the voting citizens of this state to have a relatively clear idea as to what they are voting on. Accordingly, while I would not de-certify the summary for petition purposes, I would require the addition of a clarifying adjective to the ballot so that the vote on this important measure better captures the actual desires of the electorate.

So, it’s on to the Supreme Court where we’ll be asking yet once again for some common sense in judicial interpretations. Hopefully, the Supremes (leaning liberal) will surprise us with some good ole’ Missouri legal acumen. Better yet, maybe God will surprise us. We must have His intervention or all is lost.

Baylor Squashes Conservative Professor

Baylor, the world’s largest Baptist university, has denied tenure to one of its ablest professors, Francis Beckwith, seemingly because he’s too conservative for the liberal school. Rod Dreher, writing for the Dallas Morning News, states:

Dr. Beckwith, a distinguished philosopher, has what academic insiders tell me is a stellar publication record. He is nationally renown. He is also -- and I suspect this is what did him in at Baylor -- openly conservative. The fact that a Baptist university cannot bring itself to award tenure to a scholar of Dr. Beckwith's stature is scandalous -- and will cause shock waves beyond Waco.

Joseph Bottom, over at First Things writes a bit more eloquently and exhaustively on what is really going on at Baylor. You can read that here.

Beckwith’s pro-life views, coupled with his respect for Intelligent Design, have no doubt been too much for Baylor’s PC advocates. Despite what you hear from liberals about “openness” and “academic freedom” they are zealous about squashing dissent from liberalism. Dr. Beckwith is the latest casualty from their crusade against truth.

Official Responses Miss the Mark… “Unresolved” Says It All

The story of Abdul Rahman’s arrest in Afghanistan for conversion to Christianity is all over the news. Thankfully! America still gets the freakiness of prosecuting someone for their religion, much less threatening the death penalty. Unfortunately, America does not understand the inherent differences between Islam (which will kill you for converting to another faith) and Christianity (which will tolerate you practicing another faith).

The Afghanistan Embassy, sensing public pressure, has issued a press release. Of course, it dances all around the fundamental issue and misses the point altogether.

But that’s more than our government has done. I’m still waiting for my reply from the State Department to my Tuesday letter.

Thank you for your question to the U.S. Department of State web site. Your question has been received and we are working on an answer for you. Question Reference #060321-000440
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Afghan prosecution of Abdul Rahman
Category Level 1: Foreign Policy
Category Level 2: Expressing Foreign Policy Opinions
Date Created: 03/21/2006 04:00 PM
Last Updated: 03/21/2006 04:00 PM
Status: Unresolved

Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------

American diplomacy is at work. We want to be sure we don’t advocate our values too loudly or too boldly. After liberating Afghanistan will billions of our tax dollars and hundreds of American soldier’s lives, we wouldn’t want to offend a country that despises our values.

Here’s an excerpt from Tuesday’s daily briefing by State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack.

QUESTION: On Afghanistan.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.
QUESTION: Probably you’ve seen an Afghan citizen faces prosecution, possibly the death penalty --
MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- for converting to Christianity. Do you have any observation?
MR. MCCORMACK: I talked a little bit about this yesterday, Barry, but thank you for bringing it up.
QUESTION: I'm sorry.
MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. Thank you for bringing it up because we did raise this particular case with Foreign Minister Abdullah. We are watching this case closely and we urge the Afghani Government to conduct any legal proceedings in a transparent and a fair manner. Certainly we underscored -- we have underscored many times and we underscored also to Foreign Minister Abdullah that we believe that tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy. And certainly as Afghanistan continues down the pathway to democracy these are issues that they are going to have to deal with. These are not things that they have had to deal with in the past. Previously under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death. Right now you have a legal proceeding that's underway in Afghanistan and we urge that that legal proceeding take place in a transparent matter and we're going to watch the case closely.
QUESTION: Well, I don't want to quibble but it sounds like you're asking for fair play and good procedure. Why don't you simply ask that it be cancelled? I mean, what possible justification is there for putting someone on trial for changing his religion?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, Barry, this is a question of the Afghan constitution and its laws. There are differing interpretations of it and I think that that's the issue with which they're trying to grapple with. That's the allusion that I made to -- of Afghanistan being a new democracy and coming to terms and dealing with these issues.
So it is, in the eyes of Afghanistan, the Afghan Government now, a legal issue that we are going to watch very closely.
QUESTION: I mean, it does seem a little lukewarm to just say you hope that they treat him fairly in this court case when it's questionable whether that is even a moral grounds to hold a proceeding. Is that something that the U.S. Government has pressed the Afghan Government to do is just to allow people to convert their religion?
MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, in the sort of -- within the Afghan -- confines of the Afghan constitution, this becomes a legal question. We have underscored the importance of freedom of worship, tolerance and freedom to express oneself as a core element of democracy. Like I said, we raised this issue with Foreign Minister Abdullah and I think that he and the Afghan Government understand very clearly where we stand on this issue. But as I said, this is, at the moment, a legal issue for the Afghan Government and that we would urge the Afghan Government to proceed in a fair and transparent manner.
QUESTION: Do you feel that that's all it's appropriate for the U.S. Government to do is just to hope the court case goes --
MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, we have raised it with the Foreign Minister and we're going to continue to watch the case very closely.
QUESTION: But I guess my question is: Are you raising the fact that you want the court case to go transparently or raise the fact that there should even be a legal question?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that the concerns that I have expressed in public are the ones that we have expressed to the Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: Isn't there something wrong with the constitution of Afghanistan if it's -- I mean, the Secretary of State goes around, you know, telling countries which have, you know, bad human rights records to respect the freedom to worship, and here's a country where America has gone in and tried to help, has been praised by the President, praised by the Secretary of State for its democratic progress, and here it is persecuting somebody because they've converted to another faith.
MR. MCCORMACK: Jonathan, as I said, this is right now -- it's a constitutional matter so it's a legal question. So what that tells you is that there are two sides to this. There are those that believe that this is absolutely this person's right within Afghanistan, Afghans who believe that. So right now this is -- I believe certainly this is the first case that I have heard of of this type. So it is a test of the Afghan constitution. It's a test of Afghanistan's democracy. And so as I said, we will watch the case very closely. We have raised it with the Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: Is there anything at stake if they choose to prosecute -- choose to actually take -- persecute, perhaps, this man for his faith?
MR. MCCORMACK: Let's deal with the situation as we have it right now. This is the -- it is at an initial stage and, like I said, we're going to watch it closely.
QUESTION: But by waiting until the results of the trial come out, you're not casting judgment on whether there should be one in the first place.
MR. MCCORMACK: Teri, I've provided the answer that I'm going to provide to you on it.
QUESTION: Let me try it a slightly different way, though the answer may be the same. Are you troubled in any way by the case?
MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie, again, I've answered the question.

Maybe it’s just me, but when an American reporter gets the point, you know it’s pretty clear. Our government’s response to this affair is pathetic.

Of course, our President (or Theologian-in-Chief on this issue..."the religion of peace" mantra, remember?) chimed in with his poignant insights. You can see his "fury" here.

Sadly, the case against Mr. Rahman is only one of many abuses. Check this out for a bigger picture on what is happening in Afghanistan. Also, you might want to monitor columnist Michelle Malkin. She’s a brilliant writer and seems to have taken a keen interest in writing on this matter.

Liberty and Islam are simply incompatible. We are fools to think freedom will endure in the countries we’ve liberated without a foundational change in those countries. There is a reason the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution deals with the freedom of religion. Without it, all other freedoms we cherish cannot flourish. And since we have it, we should aggressively denounce all governments that attack it, especially those who owe their very existence to us.

Jesus--Our First Allegiance

Some of you are much more trendy than me, so don't snort that cynical laugh too loudly on what you're about to read (hey, loan me your music once in a while!). In doing some surfing this morning, I came across these lyrics from Derek Webb and his album "Mockingbird."

I know it's old news to some of you on the cutting edge of contemporary music (or is that contemptible music?). But guys like me don't get away from Bach very often. I thought they tied in well to yesterday's post.

A King & A Kingdom
(vs. 1)
who's your brother, who's your sister
you just walked passed him
i think you missed her
as we're all migrating to the place where our father lives
'cause we married in to a family of immigrants
(chorus)
my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it's to a king & a kingdom

(vs. 2)
there are two great lies that i’ve heard:
“the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die”
and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican
and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him

(chorus)

That Jesus was a white, middle-class republican seems less and less plausible every day.

Republican Rift Keeps Growing

Allan Carlson has written a great piece in the Weekly Standard entitled: “Social conservatives and the GOP: Can this marriage be saved?” Many evangelical Christians should read this article. It is a wake up call that our values aren’t really as esteemed by the Republican party as we would like to believe.

Carlson rightly assesses a divide between business republicans and social issue republicans, tracing the rift all the way back to President Theodore Roosevelt.

Between 1900 and about 1912, he wrote and spoke often, and eloquently, about the dangers of a rising divorce rate and a falling birth rate. He celebrated motherhood and fatherhood as the most important human tasks, and described the true marriage as "a partnership of the soul, the spirit and the mind, no less than of the body." He blasted as "foes of our household" the birth control movement, equity feminism, eugenics, and liberal Christianity. However, the Rough Rider was the only prominent Republican of his time to think and talk this way. The dominant wing of the GOP tilted in favor of the banks, the great industries, and--perhaps more surprisingly--the feminist movement.

Carlson points out that the Republican party was the first to endorse the ERA amendment and asserts that the Democratic party was, for the most part, America’s pro-family party. This all changed with Ronald Reagan, when the Republican Party “now saw pro-family social conservatives in political alliance with the interests of the banks and the large corporations. Main Street and Wall Street were under the same tent, which was a very new development.”

In Missouri, I’ve observed this first hand. The most prominent example is the stem-cell issue which has clearly divided business/social Republicans. Most surprising is the lack of angst the pro-business Republicans have shown in their betrayal of social conservative’s agenda. They don’t even fake remorse. Former Missouri Senator John Danforth, a leading proponent of Missouri’s clone-to-kill amendment, even openly blasted social conservatives last June and sounded more like a Democrat making a moral case for homosexual marriage than a Republican indebted to the grassroots involvement of social conservatives.

Jim Talent, in his reversal over prohibiting human cloning, at least went into a 30 minute diatribe on the Senate floor, even if it was soaked with incomplete logic and convoluted reasoning. He did a good job, though, of making his divorce from social conservatives look pained. But in the end it was that, a divorce from social conservatives and a re-embracing of those campaign-contributing, Rockefeller-rich, business Republicans. Carlson warns:

Moreover, when push comes to shove, social conservatives remain second class citizens under the Republican tent. During the 2004 Republican convention, they were virtually confined to the party's attic, kept off the main stage, treated like slightly lunatic children. Republican lobbyist Michael Scanlon's infamous candid comment--"The wackos get their information [from] the Christian right [and] Christian radio"--suggests a common opinion among the dominant "K Street" Republicans toward their coalition allies.

Maybe it’s time to rethink our allegiances. I decided mine a long time ago. In the words of hymn-writer George Bennard, “I will cling to the old rugged cross.” It’s probably too soon to say goodbye to the Republican party just yet, but I am dusting off my suitcase…just in case.

Afghan Christian to be Proscecuted

It feels rather uncanny to be criticizing President Bush again. He has many truly remarkable characteristics and is enduring so many unjust criticisms. However, his glaring deficiency of a proper theological understanding regarding Islam is jeopardizing America’s successes overseas and will continue to do so.

The most recent example is in Afghanistan. Abdul Rahman, a 41 year old man, was arrested over the weekend and is being tried for converting to Christianity.

Perhaps our administration is quietly working behind the scenes to change this situation. But such a flagrant human rights violation deserves a harsh, public reprimand. When we remember Afghanistan liberation was bought by American taxpayers and American blood, we cannot be silent in the face of such blatant disregard for American values (in this case, freedom of religion).

But this is just the point. We are trying to import American values into Afghanistan and Iraq without the proper foundation from which those values spring—Christianity. Our President (I think he is a Christian) seems to equate the religions. Yet, from Islam springeth no good thing (or at least no good government).

I am no prophet, nor son of a prophet, but I doubt we’ll see democracy thrive in these countries. The Afghan situation offers but one example of many to come of Islam’s inherent acrimony of human liberty.

Oh How Good is Christ the Lord!

There’s a neat little song tucked away in our Baptist Hymnal I remember singing a couple of times throughout my ministry. Because it lacked the quality of the church’s great hymns, it never endured as one of the church’s great statements of faith. And because it was pretty much a chorus song, it got washed away in the flood of praise and chorus music that hit the church in the late 90s. But its simple truths and simple melody grab my mind every now and then. Its melody has a Puerto Rican flair to it and says:

Oh how good is Christ the Lord
On the cross He died for me.
He has pardoned all my sin,
Glory be to Jesus!

Glory be to Jesus!
Glory be to Jesus!
In three days He rose again!
Glory be to Jesus!

He pardoned my sins because He died on the cross.
Pardon was exactly what King Saul was begging from Samuel (1 Sam. 15:25). But he was begging it from the wrong one which showed the true condition of his unrepentant heart. Saul wanted pardon without repentance and he saw his sin more as an offense against Samuel than as an offense against God. This is what is so remarkable about God. The very one who has been offended is the very one who pays the price of forgiveness. Christ’s death bought our forgiveness… “we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14) and we have “peace through the blood of His cross” (Col. 1:20).

He died on the cross because He is good.
This goes to His motive. David said to give thanks to the Lord “for He is good” (Psa 107:1). It is God’s goodness, not man’s that is to be praised. There is no one who seeks after God (Rom 3:10); we have all gone astray and pursuing our own pleasures (Isa. 53:6). Still, while we were sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8). Is it any wonder I was taught to sing in my preschool Sunday School class: “God is so good! God is so good! God is so good! He’s so good to me!”

Glory be to Jesus!

Patrick of Ireland: A Christian not a Drunkard

Thomas Cahill’s masterful little history, How the Irish Saved Civilization, is an incredible piece of literature. Like the brilliant history writer David McCullough, Cahill has mastered the balance between history and readability. His book has been out for over a decade. I got a copy a couple of years ago when an elderly saint was cleaning out his library in a move and bequeathed me his copy.

SO…in honor of St. Patrick’s day, I wanted to revisit one of Cahill’s remarkable chapters. It is entitled “Good News from Far Off: The First Missionary.”

He never chased snakes out of Ireland or guzzled beer. In fact, Patrick wasn’t even Irish. Patricius was born in Roman Britain around A.D. 390. When he was a teenager, marauding Irish raiders attacked his home, took him to Ireland, and sold him to an Irish king who put him to work as a shepherd.

Cahill writes:

“The life of a shepherd-slave could not have been a happy one. Ripped out of civilization, Patricius had for his only protector a man who did not hold his own life highly, let alone anyone else’s…We know that he did have two constant companions, hunger and nakedness.”

Through a miracle of God, Patrick was able to escape and sail back to Britain. And within a few years, Patrick did the unthinkable. He returned to the people who had been so cruel to him to share the gospel of Jesus with them.

We have some admiration for such an act. But the remarkableness of Patrick’s decision gets lost on us because we are so evangelistically focused. But Patrick went to Ireland in an age when the thing to do was go to Rome. His church culture viewed pagans with prejudice. They were people to be avoided, not evangelized. So Patrick helped rescue the church from cold and irrelevant faith and fanned the flames of evangelistic fervor.

In protest of our culture’s obsession with revelry on this day, let us honor one of the church’s heroes. Patrick was a selfless Christian, consumed and driven with a love for a people in darkness.

Patrick’s love was a wholistic love. It wasn’t just their eternal souls he loved. He loved them. That’s why he didn’t only witness and teach and show the glories of Christ, but fought against slavery, hunger and oppression. Cahill writes:

He worries constantly for his people, not just for their spiritual but for their physical welfare. The horror of slavery was never lost in him: ‘But it is the women kept in slavery who suffer the most—and who keep their sprits up despite the menacing and terrorizing they must endure. The Lord gives grace to his many handmaids; and though they are forbidden to do so, they follow him with backbone.’

I have this passion that the purest expression of our Christian faith will be a wholistic expression of love. That is, we don’t just transform people’s souls, we transform their cultures. In an age when so many evangelicals (Southern Baptists in particular) focus only on baptisms and witnessing, it would do us well to revisit the saints of the past and Patrick of Ireland is one of the best to consider.

Rick Warren: Self Promoter?

Having read the most recent article from Rick Warren in his Ministry Toolbox, I’m really confused.

I know I’m not the most tech-savvy guy in the universe, but I’ve learned to navigate around a bit, especially in search of free stuff. So, either I’ve still got a lot to learn about web stuff or the article is a bit fantastical.

Warren’s article is unusually rambled. It has a tinge of his personal insights and encounters (which are usually quite helpful); a dash of a philosophical discussion over using other pastor’s sermons; and a generous heaping of self-promotion.

Warren tells the story of encountering a pastor in Johannesburg, South Africa. This pastor journeys down to the local post office every week (the only place internet service is available) to download free (that’s FREE) sermons from Rick Warren. "Pastor Rick, you are the only training I’ve ever had” the pastor says.

Hey, while I can afford a few books and commentaries, I’m not opposed to “FREE” at all. Especially when I’m not overly fond of the sermonic approach of a certain pastor, in this case Rick Warren. But when I clicked on the link for sermons, I was directed to a page where I had to do some more clicking. The #1 sermon (of the top 10) was entitled “How to Tell God You Love Him.” I clicked it and was directed to another page that showed the message was a part of a series entitled “Essentials for 21st Century Living” and showed I could download the PowerPoint slides and transcripts for $72.00.

Recoiling from sticker shock, my bargain hunting eye caught the “free sermons” tab on the left-hand menu bar and my mouse moved faster than Jerry ever did when evading Tom. When my browser opened the page I found them. Five free sermons in all. Two were from America’s 9/11 terrorist attack (that was in 2001); two were from Mel Gibson’s Passion movie (that was Spring 2004) and one was from Hurricane Katrina.

And that’s why I’m wondering whether my internet surfing skills have become bereft of adequacy. Did I miss the mother load of the “free sermons” posting somewhere else on the site? Is the “free” page updated every week and I’m just not catching it? The page states “we’ll update periodically with new sermons…” That usually means it doesn’t happen too often. So is this Johannesburg pastor preaching the same sermons over and over? Is he satisfied with such a low level of “training”?

I’m sorry, but I’m skeptical. I can't imagine a pastor walking an hour and a half away to download 5 free sermons. The article seems like a pretty blathered story to me, constructed to promote a site that is more about selling sermons than providing them for free. I hope I'm missing a key part in understanding this story.

I get some benefit from Rick Warren and his pastors.com resource. He’s a creative thinker and offers many great perspectives on leadership and church life. I know there’s a swirl about several issues involving him. I just pray about it. That always seems so orthodoxally trite, but I want this guy to succeed not fail. That’s why I’m so bothered by this article. It seems to reinforce the assertion that Pastor Rick is heading down the wrong path.

The Lion Still Has a Roar

Billy Graham stated in his New Orleans crusade this past weekend that he has preached his last sermon. [reported in CitizenLink]

With frail and failing health, this 87 year old spiritual giant mounted the platform and stood behind a pulpit for the first time in nine months to declare the saving gospel of Jesus Christ one last time. Graham noted: “Jesus is no security against storms, but He is a perfect security in the storm.”

Dr. Graham went on to say that the lesson of Katrina is "that there is more to life than material things. There's a moral and spiritual strength that's needed not only in New Orleans and the 9th Ward, but everywhere," he said. "We're living in a very tumultuous time," marked by the violence of hurricanes and war in Iraq, he said. "If ever a country needed to turn to God, it's now."

Dr. Graham had held a month long crusade in the old Pelican Stadium in New Orleans in 1954. His son, Franklin, signed the same pulpit his father and other team members had signed over a half century ago.

Prior to the preaching weekend, Billy and Franklin Graham had toured Katrina ravaged areas in New Orleans and had stopped in the devastated Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, which was flooded by up to 10 feet of water after Hurricane Katrina.

Spokesman Larry Ross said while the veteran evangelist is not planning any more appearances, the details of Graham's future are up to God. "I think he felt invigorated to be back in the pulpit," he said. "Obviously, he needs to be assisted to get up to the pulpit, but once he's in the pulpit, it's obvious the lion still has a roar."

I thank God the way he has used Dr. Graham and hope another lion will rise in American evangelicalism to roar the truth of salvation in Jesus Christ with as much dignity, authority and appeal that Dr. Graham has mustered in these past decades.

Senator Crowell attacks Roe

I wasn’t too sure of Senator Jason Crowell when I testified last year before Missouri’s Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. He had been identified by the Missouri Baptist Christian Life Commission’s lobbyist as a “swing vote” on a key piece of legislation. We were trying hard to get a “do pass” vote from the committee to move the legislation on to the full Senate. I knew he was a lawyer which earned my immediate distrust. His “apprenticeships” under Judge Ronnie White and Attorney General Jay Nixon gave me further cause to wonder whether this 34 year old Republican was truly conservative. He asked me a question which I interpreted as a bit disingenuous which caused me to be further guarded. I’m pretty sure of him now.

There are no perfect men, and even less so in the political field. Good men and women who walk legislative halls and occupy government offices become twisted and jaded and perhaps even corrupted to some degree. But this Senator from Cape Girardeau (Missouri’s 27th Senate District) is demonstrating remarkable courage and personal conviction by proposing unpopular legislation that could annihilate the most loathsome Supreme Court decision in our nation’s history and help bring America’s evil practice of abortion to a remarkable and much-prayed-for end.

South Dakota has fired the opening salvo. Missouri must aid in the demise of the one court decision that surpasses Dred Scott in its evil. Roe v. Wade has always been frail. It has lacked any modicum of morality, has never enjoyed much support from the people of America, and has only hung by a line string of contrived constitutionality. It is time for a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade.

Certainly, the shrill voices of feminism continue to cry for personal freedom; even when that freedom is at the cost of the innocent and valuable human life of precious babies. Tepid politicians also question whether this legislation should be given any consideration.

But the group I am most surprised by is my group—pro-life leaders and conservative Christians. Many of them wonder aloud whether the timing is right and whether Roe v. Wade will become further entrenched in American law. I can’t help wondering whether the church has become as political as those leaders walking legislative halls. We’ve become inflicted with a philosophy of what we can do, rather than what we should do. This strategy of accommodation has led the church to be comfortable with sin. Christians are now a part of a climate of acceptance of an evil, a horror that warrants our spite, not our tolerance.

We should overturn Roe v. Wade. It is immoral and it should be challenged at every possible juncture. That’s why I support Senator Crowell’s proposal and urge you to do the same.

Letters Make a Difference

The Southeast Missourian printed my letter to the editor in their March 2 edition. Here is how it appeared:

Value of life outweighs health issues
Thursday, March 2, 2006

To the editor:
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read former U.S. senator Thomas F. Eagleton's op-ed piece in Sunday's edition. There wasn't much with which I agreed, but then I read: "When the right to life of the fertilized egg is invoked in this debate, a counter right must also be recognized, and that is the right to health of persons who suffer from such diseases as mentioned above." That is the essence of this debate, and Eagleton's honesty was a refreshing alternative to his coalition's propaganda.

While the right to health is a "counter right," it is not an equal right. While I hope for cures to the serious diseases afflicting Missourians, those cures must come from ethical research. No just and moral society can subjugate the right to life to lesser causes, even if the research is for a noble cause. Life is always more valuable than health.

Eagleton's vision and that of the proposed amendment is that some Missourians are entitled to health, even if that right deprives cloned human embryos of life. That morality is chilling and has no place in the Missouri Constitution.

RODNEY ALBERT, Hallsville, Mo.

Pro-life Missourians must be more involved in the public square and take advantage of these opportunities to get our message out. We cannot afford the millions for slick ad campaigns. News coverage in this state is largely slanted in favor of the clone-and-kill measure. But we must take advantage of the forums given to us such as "Letters to the Editor".

The paper won't be printing any letters from me for awhile, but other pro-life voices can articulate the issues addressed by this ballot initiative. Keep scanning the papers and be ready to write!

IMB Trustees’ PR Campaign Long Overdue

Southern Baptist International Mission Board (IMB) Chairman Tom Hatley has posted some materials on the IMB website.

These materials are long overdue. I applaud Chairman Hatley’s decision. It shows some degree of deference to the larger Southern Baptist constituency. I still hope for a little humble pie on his part. To my knowledge, neither he nor any trustee who voted to remove Wade Burleson has apologized and this remains disconcerting and a continued cloud of suspicion over this entire affair.

The open letters to pastors and church leaders as well as the position papers are the result of Wade Burleson’s openness and frankness with Southern Baptists. Burleson has tenaciously blogged on this subject and has a post on this very issue.

Chairman Hatley begins his open letter to SBC pastors with:

“You are due a report from me concerning recent actions by your International Mission Board trustees concerning the qualifications for new missionaries.”

I don’t imagine I would ever read those words were it not for Oklahoma trustee Burleson and the tidal wave of support he has received from throughout our convention. Chairman Hatley felt no need to inform us of the direction IMB trustees were going and in the early days of the controversy, he gave every indication that no information would be coming. I think today’s posting on the IMB webpage is a fulfillment of an old adage by President Reagan: “Politicians see the light when they feel the heat.” Regardless of how we got to this point, I believe we are moving in the right direction. Forthcoming and honest information is essential from the IMB trustee leadership.

Still, a several things are concerning, one of which has occupied my thoughts today.

In the webpage disclaimer before the content of both position papers (baptism and private prayer language) we read:

This paper has not been adopted by the board of trustees and is primarily the work of several experienced trustees with the final edit being made by the chairman of the board. It contains many of the points considered by many trustees as they worked through this issue over the last several years.

I’m not sure if it’s my fascination with parliamentary procedure, my theological views as a conservative, my preaching preference as an expositor, my love as an amateur historian and constitutional scholar, or my background with drafting denominational resolutions, but those words became very enlightening to me. I know not everyone is always deliberate in their writing (I get pretty sloppy about it myself most of the time) but I have to believe that a preamble or disclaimer had several people sign off on it.

The word that caught my eye most in the entire document is the word found in the disclaimer… “PRIMARILY”

That word leaves room for others who aren’t trustees to contribute to the rationale of these policy changes. That word leaves the door open for a previous charge that other denominational persons are influencing IMB trustee decisions. That word strikes at the heart of this controversy. If these papers and letters are about damage control, and the timing suggests that could be a real possibility, then we aren’t much past where we started a couple of months ago. If in fact, non-IMB trustees contributed to the position papers, we aren’t dealing with documents that explain certain trustee’s rationale for making the policy changes and that should be stated.

I have emailed Chairman Hatley asking for clarification regarding this matter and have asked him to consider posting the names of all those who contributed to the document. I was sorry to add to my brother’s load, but I do desire clarification and look forward to his response.

Terrorist strikes UNC

Over the weekend I heard about the injuries of 9 University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill students. A driver of an SUV intentionally plowed into these students in an attempt to kill them. It wasn’t until I sat at my desk today that I learned the driver was Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, a 23 year-old UNC graduate, who has reportedly informed authorities that he committed this savage act "to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world." It looks like the mainstream press is once again underplaying Muslim violence. While it appears this was a single, isolated act, it underscores the violent stream of this religion and how susceptible our citizens are, even in our own country.

Erstwhile…
The 27 year-old the former deputy foreign secretary of the murderous Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Rahmatullah Hashemi continues his education at Ivy League Yale University, getting further entrenched in American culture and liberal elitism. The ROTC is banned from Yale, but a Taliban spokesman is welcomed. Yes, we’re definitely not in Kansas anymore…neither are we in the Founder’s America.

Eagleton's Honesty is Scary

I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read former Senator Eagleton’s op-ed piece in Sunday’s edition of the Southeast Missourian. After muddling through this former politician’s attempt to be a (Catholic) theologian, making a veiled attempt to link Pope John XXIII and even Thomas Aquinas with supporting Missouri’s clone-and-kill proposal, I encountered the most remarkable statement. Eagleton wrote:

"When the right to life of the fertilized egg is invoked in this debate, a counter right must also be recognized, and that is the right to health of persons who suffer from such diseases as mentioned above."

This is the debate in Missouri, but Eagleton evidently didn’t get the talking points from the leadership at the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. The pro-cloners aren’t suppose to be talking about the truth, they are suppose to be mesmerizing Missourians with promises of cures. Eagleton correctly framed the issue before us, and he isn’t even a religious zealot. This was a refreshing alternative to the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures heretofore flawless propaganda. It is all about the right to life vs. the right to health. Eagleton called it “a counter right.” He meant “an equal right.”

This is the battle. The amendment is framed to deny the right to life to cloned humans embryos by giving the right to health to more fully developed (and thus “more worthy”) children and adults. But no just society can allow the right to life to be subjugated to any other right.

This was the essence of the Nuremburg codes (gasp…I’m making a connection with Nazism!). Jewish persons became research commodities because they were deemed inferior to the German people. The right to life of Jews became subservient to the right to health of Germans. Granted, some Nazi experiments were simply insane and cruel and masochistic. But some were done with a legitimate motive to advance science and health discoveries. The world, fortunately, refused to use beneficial studies and research because of how that research was obtained.

Mr. Eagleton apparently understands the issue and stands ready to deprive human embryos of their right to life by focusing on the right to health for others. His morality is chilling. Missourians must reject this proposal to maintain any resemblance of a just and moral state.

A Strategy Against the Cloning Initiative

I just returned from a meeting with some Missouri Baptist staff members, strategizing about what we can do to help Missouri Baptists understand the coming constitutional amendment, which will legalize cloning by making cloning illegal (yes, you read that correctly). That’s all predicated on the anticipated unfavorable outcome of next Thursday’s legal challenge to the Court of Appeals.

First, there is a slim chance that the Court of Appeals will agree with the legal arguments advanced by our (Missourians Against Human Cloning) lawyers. The operative word is “slim” because the legal argument centers on whether Missouri’s Secretary of State (Robin Carnahan) is fairly representing the initiative petition. The petition is deceptive and misleading which means Ms. Carnahan’s summation of the bill for the ballot in necessarily deceptive and misleading. So, there’s been a legal complaint by us that Missourians are being deceived and mislead. If the Court of Appeals would agree that a deceptive ballot summary based on a deceptive initiative petition is legally impermissible for Missouri voters, we will prevail and the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, the sponsor of this initiative would have to cease collecting signatures, re-write and re-submit their initiative or they would have to appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. Either option is time consuming and could potentially create difficult obstacles for this well-funded biotech get-out-the-vote-at-any-cost group.

At any rate, the group I’ve met with this morning is comprised of regular folks. None of them is making much money and none of them will benefit financially based on the outcome of the proposed constitutional amendment. I thought how unlike the folks on the other side. They make big dollars (BIG, BIG dollars), are well financed and well connected. They can re-package the semantics of this issue by manipulating science and the dictionary, but they can’t avoid the truth. Much like the gamblers could not prevail in Missouri by making a case for gambling so they legally renamed gambling by calling it “gaming”, the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures cannot prevail in Missouri by making a case for cloning. So, they’ve elected to make cloning (SCNT) legal by forwarding a document to outlaw cloning. But they’ll be met by common, ordinary Missourians who know truth.

The group I was with are amazing folks. They love Jesus and care about His Kingdom and our society. They gave a part of their day and their brain power and pulled away from their normal responsibilities to help craft a way to reach the minds and hearts of other Missouri Baptists with the truth about this initiative. With folks like this, the Coalition's deceptive strategy will soon be slowed. Common, plain thinking Missourians. That will be a formidable obstacle to overcome; and it may be the very thing that stops the Coalition for Lifesaving Cure’s deceptive initiative dead in its tracks.

What's the President Thinking?

Our President is leading a valiant effort against terrorism in foreign lands. But when it comes to America’s own borders, President Bush’s leadership is depressingly dismal. In addition to the negligent care of our southern border with Mexico, the Administration is now planning to turn over security of several ports to Dubai Ports World, a company based in Saudi Arabia.

"We make sure there are assurances in place in general sufficient to satisfy us the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

Whew! I’m breathing easier. I guess Homeland Security made no assurances of safety for the New Orleans evacuation, and I suppose the Intelligence Community that pre-dated the creation of Homeland Security Department had no assurances that America was safe prior to 9-11.

All sarcasm aside, these good folks did their best in those situations and failed. Trusting a non-American entity for the security of America is negligent, short-sighted and downright stupid.

Thankfully, the Washington beltway is waking up to this danger. With Congress and the press clamoring over this story, perhaps America will be well served by a united Congress thwarting a poorly conceived idea by our otherwise very stalwart President.

Is the Southern Baptist Convention Disintegrating?

I’m sure if I were a better student of history, I’d have a better grasp on whether my denomination is really living in troubled times. History has a way of giving comfort by showing we’ve been down this road before…and survived. Conversely, history can be a clarion alarm by documenting certain variables from which there is no recovery. I remember reading about the missions controversies of the early to mid 1800s. And I helped fight the inerrancy controversy in the 1980s. It seems there’s always been a schism around and I know we can face certain threats. But there are several factors that cause me alarm.

The present IMB trustee controversy.

Most of you are already aware of the details. From my perspective, this controversy could really be cataclysmic. My thoughts are that this all boils down to power. A trustee went outside normal and traditional channels and publicized a) what the trustees of an institution had done, and b) his concerns against it. If Burleson survives the ouster recommendation, there will be growing momentum to share power (information) with grassroots Southern Baptists. This could lead to the disenfranchisement of older, established Southern Baptists who feel they have little to contribute to a changing way of doing business or that ‘their’ denomination is changing or being re-shaped without their input. If Burleson does not survive, there will be growing detachment and disillusionment among many, especially that younger generation of Southern Baptists. The convention already recognizes a problem here. Many younger leaders already have little or no connection to the annual meeting. I remember Jimmy Draper’s concern and his attempts to address this issue. The convention may alienate those younger leaders who are connected to the convention’s annual meeting.


The continued renewal of Calvinism.

I guess the way I phrased this one shows my bias. ‘Renewal’ is a nice word compared to what some say about Calvinism. I’ve become convinced that the 5 points have Biblical merit and that the Southern Baptist founding was by Calvinistic theologians. There is a growing rub here. I was recently in a meeting with several other Southern Baptist leaders because of a shared purpose, when an agency head addressed the issue of Calvinism (with some degree of disparagement). This wasn’t even on our agenda or a part of our purpose. Yet this agency leader obviously thought the issue so important that it was worth addressing. This leader had some strong beliefs one way and I had some strong beliefs another way. The subject was becoming divisive to our unity on another issue. Calvinism is an issue becoming a divisive point. From my perspective it is from critics of the system, many of whom demonstrate no real grasp of the tenants. We aren’t discussing Calvinism, we are arguing it, and losing civility and unity in the process. Perhaps the Mohler-Patterson breakout session at the annual meeting will help move the issue back into the realm of civil discussion and foster mutual respect.


The church growth movement.

I’m lumping a lot of things into this one area. Churches driven by pragmatism, “worship wars” that have never really been settled, and the newest kid on the block…the revival of the social gospel. For instance, several key Southern Baptists signed a document about global warming, while the traditional agency heads did not. I’m not sure of a clearer example of schism than that.


The common denominator in all of these issues is the lack of communication. Our denomination is doing nothing to bridge the gaps of these rifts. Ignoring them will only add to further the divide. Unless leaders of all sides begin civil and honest dialogue on these issues of disagreement, we will see a weakening of our denomination at least, or perhaps witness its collapse.

IMB's Baptism Policy At Variance With Local Churches

I just had lunch with a Southern Baptist church-planting friend. He was saved some years ago and was baptized in a Christian church (that’s Christian as in the denomination, the heirs of Alexander Campbell). He did not believe his baptism was a saving act…not then and not now. He has attended and graduated from a Southern Baptist seminary. He was recommended to that seminary by a Southern Baptist church. He was ordained by a different Southern Baptist church (with two very notable Southern Baptist seminary professors on his ordination council). His church planting work is supported by the Missouri Baptist Convention and several different Southern Baptist churches. And he is viewed as the pastor by folks attending his new church plant. None of these (churches, people or seminary) has asked him to be re-baptized. Yet, should God call him into international missions, the current IMB policy would demand that he be re-baptized.

The new IMB baptism policy is not in harmony with other Southern Baptist entities and certainly is at variance with the policies of the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches. The IMB trustees should rescind this new policy on baptism.

President Bush Is Wrong About Islam

This past week, we have seen an eruption of violence throughout Europe and the Middle East by Muslims objecting to a Danish newspaper’s portrayal of Mohammed in a comic strip. Our President has been telling us since 9-11 that Islam is a peaceful, noble religion.

In remarks at the Isalmic Center in Washington D.C. just six days after terrorists attacked America, President Bush said:

“These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that…The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

And in his State of the Union speech last Tuesday, the President again stated:

“No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.”

If Islam is such a “noble faith” why has there been such violence? Maybe Islam isn’t quite as noble of a religion as our President would have us believe.

P.S. John Piper makes a great point about the differences between Jesus and Mohammed in this week’s edition of “Fresh Words” .

Georgia's IMB Trustee Speaks Out

I'm sure a hyper-critical analysis of IMB trustee John Schaefer's comments to the Georgia Christian Index (http://www.christianindex.org/1922.article) isn't totally fair, but his interview does bolster my perception of the unfair treatment of Wade Burleson.

I’ve listed his statements in the interview below with a few comments. I ought to be quiet but Martin Luther King Jr. said "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." I’m not ready for my life to be over and I think this issue matters. So…my musings:


“It is unfortunate that Wade did not choose to follow established procedure to voice his concern,”

Unfortunate for whom? Why is the IMB's response to Burleson's response of the policy changes not "unfortunate"? Doesn’t “established procedure” maintain the status quo?


“I believe his heart is in the right place but trying to shape board policy by Internet postings is not the way to go.

There was no IMB trustee policy that stated internet postings were not the way to go. This is simple trustee bias against blogging. Also, if Burleson's heart is in the right place, why was his ousting handled within three days (apparently), maybe even less? Mr. Schaefer uses the present tense verb "is" so I assume he still believes Burleson's heart is pure. Yet, the trustee action is extreme and is an action that should be taken only against a "bad-hearted" trustee.


"Board deliberations should remain in the committees where they were discussed; that’s why committees are established, so all sides can engage in the discussion and come to a consensus.”

This is a very powerful statement, because on the surface of it, it denies any accountability to the members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Keep in mind that Schaefer is giving an interview, not postulating a paper. But if he would think through this issue a bit, and conclude that board deliberations belong to Southern Baptists as a whole, he might reconsider his actions. But the heart of this matter lies with how much knowledge the broader Southern Baptist family should have of trustee matters.


“Everything is done by committee and the discussions generated a lot of controversy, but it was a healthy exchange. If you are on the losing side of a vote you go back to the committee and try to bring clarity to an issue and change it. These committees change every year and there are opportunities to be heard.”

Had this strategy been followed, would the conservative resurgence have taken place? Wasn’t it fueled by trustees and other agency personnel letting the broader Southern Baptist family know what was taking place? Wouldn’t have “working within the system” slowed or stopped the theological conservative movement? And don’t trustees owe their conscience to the Southern Baptist polity.

Consider this ridiculous hypothetical. Trustees change the missionary policy to allow homosexuals to serve. A trustee, joined with a minority, unsuccessfully lobbies against the change. Should that trustee “go back to the committee and try to bring clarity…”? I would hope that trustee would not work within the system, but take his case to the broader body and I would think Mr. Schaefer would agree.

I am not contending the policy changes are on the same level as homosexuality, only that Mr. Burleson has the right to take his case to the broader community of Southern Baptists. I would further argue he has a moral duty to do so if his conscience is grieved by the change. He would be morally culpable if he stayed silent if he felt we were making a serious departure from established and/or commonly held beliefs and practices.


“Wade wasn’t happy with the vote on those issues and, not liking the results, went public with his views by expressing them in his blog.”

That’s the heart of the matter. Is it appropriate, wise, ethical and proper for a trustee of a Southern Baptist entity to communicate directly to Southern Baptists? An interesting research project would be to document how many trustees have spoken to Southern Baptists through the years. I would contend that it has occurred many times, albeit typically through the medium of state Baptist newspapers. I think the blogger culture has changed the dynamic of trustees communicating to the Southern Baptist constituency in at least two ways. First, blogging is interactive. The reader can engage, improve upon, challenge, refute, ignore and do a host of other things to the journal entry. Secondly, denominational leaders cannot exert as much influence on bloggers as they can on state Baptist newspaper editors. I think the sparse coverage by Baptist Press on this particular issue is a good case in point.

Had Wade Burleson stated his objections to the Oklahoma Baptist newspaper only and had not blogged his insights, would we be in this crisis?

“We run enormous risk in society if we begin using blogs to shape policy. There is great potential to destroy an organized, orderly process for governance, regardless if you are serving in the secular or denominational world.”

I think Mr. Schaefer raises a valid point here, at least for consideration. I’m not conceding he’s right, but I do think we’ve not adequately addressed whether blogs do have a down side that can harm our denomination. I don’t think they do, but there are some issues to consider to reflect upon. Having said that, I believe the issue boils down to whether having an informed and active Southern Baptist constituency is helpful. I suppose the harm could be micro-management. But all the blog did was get some Southern Baptists talking. How can that be harmful? I suppose some members contacted the IMB trustees to give their two cents. How can an IMB trustee object to that?

Had Burleson advocated some ridiculous notion that had virtually no support among Southern Baptists, would we be where we are today? Had he advocated wine drinking missionaries be approved, wouldn’t the trustees have blown him off as some quack from Oklahoma? And had he blogged about it (I’m assuming there’s some policy somewhere about alcohol consumption) wouldn’t most Southern Baptists have blown Wade Burleson off as well? I suggest if that scenario would have occurred there would have been no trustee motion to recall him. Didn’t this current situation get exacerbated because so many were resonating with Burleson’s blogs, particularly over the change in the baptism policy? And could that be what is at the heart of some trustees anger at Burleson’s blogging?


“Because his blog is mixed with truth and heresay [sic], people now don’t know what to believe.”

Mr. Burleson has stated he has never been confronted with specific charges. Mr. Schaefer (and IMB trustee leadership) needs to step forward immediately and present Burleson with his written un-truths! Perhaps Burleson will then repent and Schaefer will have gained a brother. If Mr. Schaefer cannot present such writings “mixed with truth and heresay [sic]” he owes Burleson and readers of the Christian Index an apology.

I would like to know whether the trustees had specific charges at their January business meeting when they voted on the recall motion. They should answer this question immediately and let Southern Baptists know whether Wade Burleson’s assertion that he was not presented with specific offenses is true or contested.

If no such list of specific offenses existed (verbal or written) and trustees later compile a written list they should 1) apologize to Wade Burleson for not handling his discipline in a Biblical matter; 2) confront Wade Burleson with the newly compiled list to allow him to address and/or repent of the listed offenses and 3) trustees should always note the date the charges were compiled along with the notation “(# of days) after trustees voted to recall Burleson” or some similar notation.

"He seems to be comfortable with the idea of making public what is said at trustee meetings, but I think there is basically a great spirit at the IMB and I can’t think of a trustee who is not supportive of President Jerry Rankin.”

I’ve already said that’s the heart of the issue. Should any trustee be “comfortable” with sharing trustee matters with the public? I am glad Wade Burleson is comfortable with making things public and I am very sad that Mr. Schaefer (and other trustees) appears to resent me and other Southern Baptist knowing about IMB policy changes approved by the trustees. Burleson has shown trustworthiness and discretion in not posting about “Executive Session” business.

Schaefer is, to some degree, making things public. He is speaking to Georgia Baptists through the Christian Index. Is it ok to do that since this Burleson controversy is already public? Is using traditional journalism (state Baptist newspapers) to be accepted and using modern journalism (blogging) to be forbidden? I’m confused. Will Mr. Schaefer now be recalled for violating the moratorium of silence?

The issue of Jerry Rankin is related somewhat, though it can be a distraction from the issues at hand. But the trustees do have an opportunity to put this matter to rest. They should adopt a resolution of support that strongly praises Rankin’s leadership. It should be phrased in such a way that Rankin critics could not in good conscience support. Then IMB trustees should publicize the vote and Southern Baptists will know whether there is an anti-Rankin faction on the IMB or whether Mr. Schaefer exaggerates the support of Jerry Rankin.

The trustee response of silence is not appropriate. There is a public controversy at hand, and as servants of our denomination, they owe Southern Baptists some answers. If IMB trustee leadership intends to give Southern Baptists their perspective of this situation ten minutes before messengers in Greensboro are to decide the guilt or innocence of Wade Burleson, they need to say it. But a situation of this magnitude is deserving of much prayer and deliberation by Southern Baptists who will be deciding upon the future direction of the International Mission Board. IMB trustee silence prevents us from praying informatively and is a barrier to a God-honoring resolution to this matter.