Posted: 10/15/04

Baylor provost's speech sparks
debate over Baptist freedom

By Marv Knox

Editor

WACO–“Baptist freedom” and the doctrine called the priesthood of the believer have taken center stage in a debate over academic freedom and the future of Baylor University.

The issue surfaced in a speech Baylor Provost David Lyle Jeffrey delivered during Wheaton College's Scripture and the Disciplines Conference in Illinois late last spring.

Baylor faculty and alumni have circulated audio and printed copies of Jeffrey's 51-minute speech. Now they're arguing whether Jeffrey's opinion represents the traditional Texas Baptist–and Baylor–interpretation of the doctrine.

Jeffrey's opinion matters to Baylor because he is the university's chief academic officer. He and Baylor President Robert Sloan ultimately direct faculty selection and promotion, as well as classroom content.

Alarming biblical illiteracy

In his address, Jeffrey expressed alarm at biblical illiteracy and substandard orthodoxy, not only in secular culture, but also in conservative Christian churches and at Baylor.

“I am concerned that not only the wider culture, but increasingly the subculture we call the evangelical church has opinions on a book (the Bible) which, for practical intellectual purposes, it hasn't really read,” he acknowledged.

In an interview, Jeffrey stressed his audience was not Baylor but “a large group of academics in the traditional disciplines from a wide variety of religious colleges and universities in North America,” including Catholic and Jewish schools.

“My purpose was in no respect to constrain academic freedom at Baylor, or religious freedom either,” he said. “The religious liberty of institutions such as ours depends to some considerable degree upon our capacity to ground our common life in a … relationship to biblical texts and biblical principles.

“Without a vital conversation around such texts and a normative community life growing up from that conversation, the relatively anarchic pursuit of individual freedom can weaken community purpose to a point at which real community no longer functions–or perhaps even exists.”

Speaking at Wheaton of current scholars' lack of biblical knowledge, Jeffrey talked about “my university, where hiring practice has for decades been too little concerned with articulate faith.”

“Even among more faithful faculty, biblical literacy and theological competence is at a far lower ebb than might have been found a generation ago amongst rural Baptists and other evangelicals who never saw the inside of a college classroom,” he said.

Jeffrey blamed the decline on what he called “anarchic, postmodern advocacy–or radical subjectivism” in academia, noting it “drowns all music but its own.”

Calling for communal freedom

Addressing “the Bible and academic freedom,” Jeffrey advocated “communal freedom,” or the right of a university to set group standards, over against the individual freedom of professors.

In the postmodern academic realm, “the idea of communal freedom is seen as a threat, perhaps because it suggests the possibility of reciprocal accountability,” he said.

“In their attempt to elevate the individual over community, postmodern educators … have resisted ever more strongly the privilege of counterbalance–of communal freedom to speak collectively–especially for religious or dissenting communities to define a communal rather than merely individualistic right to First Amendment privilege.”

This is important because “Christian colleges and universities will soon need to defend their position with a much more coherently biblical reasoning than has typically been the case during the last century,” he warned.

But Christian universities have joined secular institutions in emphasizing individual freedom as opposed to the rights of the group, he charged.

“In most Christian churches, universities and colleges, the anarchic, subjectivist notion of freedom has been essentially institutionalized as if it also was a Christian norm,” he said.

Baptist freedom

To illustrate, he discussed “that much-celebrated 'distinctive,' as my co-religionists like to say, of 'Baptist freedom.'”

Jeffrey cited a newspaper article that quoted “one of my university's board members” as saying, “What Baptist freedom means to me is that as a Baptist I am free to interpret the Bible in any way I choose.”

“This kind of statement apparently thrills the soul of some Texans, but mine is not one of them,” he told the Wheaton audience. “As a radical extension of the doctrines of 'soul competency' and 'priesthood of the believer'–not of 'the believers'–it is a full logical equivalent of the postmodernist stance in literary and legal theory.”

And that will have dire consequences, he predicted.

“What such triumphant subjectivism quite naturally leads to, in practice, is neglect of the Bible altogether,” he said.

“In my literature classes at Baylor, I have found very few students who were not abysmally ignorant of the Bible, both narratively and conceptually. Though they think of themselves as 'biblical Christians,' they most evidently do not possess their book,” the Bible.

Academic freedom

The standoff between communal and individual freedom impacts universities today, Jeffrey said.

"The urgent issue now is the right–or not–of religious communities to hold to internal norms in terms of which some kinds of behavior, including certain kinds of advocacy and even some kinds of research, may be deemed inappropriate, deficient in moral virtue or a transgression of basic communally held notions of rectitude," he said. "Now there is no ideal of communal freedom which does not entail some order of constraint upon individual freedom."

Aided by some of his Baylor colleagues, Jeffrey has drafted “a retrospective Baptist mini-theology respecting academic freedom,” he reported.

“What we soon realized was that to argue from current Baptist articulations about freedom–essentially secularist in every presuppositional way–was to demonstrate that there was neither coherence nor commonality in the present edition of Baptist religious tradition.”

"For Baptists, 'academic freedom is not an idol to be worshipped,'" Jeffrey said, quoting from his document and citing British scholar Nigel Wright. "Because our freedom is experienced in community, there is continuous need for balancing the claims of institutional and individual freedom.

“As Baptists, we emphasize freedom, yet we expect a commitment to the common good. In community, none of us is absolutely autonomous, a 'law unto himself.' …

“When Jesus said, 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,' he did not mean that truth would make you autonomous.”

In an interview, Jeffrey insisted “no one at my level or higher attempts to 'control … classroom content,'” citing Baylor policy. “Nor do I see the academic freedom of the university to chart and pursue its mission as 'over and against the individual freedom of professors.'”

Impact on Baylor

The issue for Baylor, as well as other religious schools, is “how they will form their consensus and, over time, adjust and reform consensus concerning that identity,” he added.

“For Baptists, the historic way we do that is through a conversation in which Scripture provides a normative base for reflection on a wide range of issues. That is why I take evidence of a diminished familiarity with the Bible to be for us in particular a significant cause for concern.”

Jeffrey stressed his individual theological views should not be reason for alarm to Baylor faculty and alumni who disagree with him.

“I have no intention of forcing these issues or any other views I have upon anyone else, let alone upon Baylor as a community,” he said.

“I was, in that paper, carrying out an argument into a national conversation and, of course, expect debate. A part of academic freedom is the expectation of dissenting views.”

Predictably, the “Baylor family” feels free to disagree regarding their assessment of Jeffrey's position.

A university regent opposed to Jeffrey lamented, “Baylor, as we know it, will be lost” if Jeffrey's view of Baptist freedom and priesthood prevails.

Conversely, a professor who supports Jeffrey countered that adversaries of President Sloan are using the priesthood debate as a wedge issue to convince constituents “Jeffrey doesn't understand Baptists.”

Building a 'straw man'

Kent Gilbreath, an economics professor, said Jeffrey's assertion that Baylor's hiring practices have been “too little concerned with articulate faith” is a “straw man that Jeffrey creates so he can attack it.”

“He creates a Baylor that does not exist, nor has it ever existed,” Gilbreath charged. “He creates a myth with virtually no historical knowledge or meaningful personal experience of life at Baylor.”

Gilbreath also finds fault with Jeffrey's use of “articulate faith,” noting: “That phrase goes to the heart of Jeffrey's overall problem as an administrator. He apparently believes he has been 'called' to define what constitutes an articulate faith. … His attempt to do so is one of the key factors in his contribution to the great divisions that have taken place at Baylor.”

Bill Thomas, an accounting lecturer and former chair of the accounting department, contended former Baylor administrations “generally permitted more latitude” in hiring faculty and staff who may not have affirmed the faith.

“The decision regarding whether to require persons to 'articulate their faith' centered around whether that was an important question to the department chair and the dean,” Thomas said.

“When it was important at that level, it was screened. When it was not important at that level, it tended not to be screened as closely. …

“Under the current administration, all of the new faculty members whom I have met are not only highly academically qualified, but also seem to have a more vocal spiritual commitment in general than those hired under previous administrations,” he said.

Not immune

Barry Harvey, associate professor of theology in the Honors College, cited a misreading of culture rather than “deliberate, intentional neglect or malfeasance” as cause for any erosion of Baylor's faith identity.

“There was for many years a good-faith assumption that there always would be a Baylor and that it would be what Baylor always had been­with its Christian identity, its Baptist identity left intact,” he said.

“Only in the last 10 years, research has illustrated the dynamics of society are very different. School after school–intentionally or not–has turned away or moved away from its Christian identity.”

And since Baylor reflects “changing American society,” it is not immune, Harvey added.

“I can tell from students. Biblical allusions that would have been familiar to their grandparents–whether or not they were church-going folks–are lost on students, even students who have been in church all their lives. That's true of younger faculty, too.”

Not learning from history

Bill Brackney, professor of religion specializing in Baptist studies and former chair of the religion department, said Jeffrey's warning about faculty embracing an anarchic, subjectivist notion of freedom is uninformed by the reality of mainstream Baptist history and life.

The irony is that what the provost describes has in fact been the case with fundamentalist Baptists, including the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada, a group with which Jeffrey is familiar, he added.

“Any person schooled in Baptist history and polity in the U.S. and Canada would know that Baptists always have recognized the historic tension which works between autonomy and interdependence, or between individualism and cooperation,” he said. “Both elements belong in the historic Baptist equation.”

Baylor “has reflected trends in society in this regard,” Harvey countered. “There's no intentional embrace, but it has become kind of a de facto cultural emphasis.”

He pointed to an “older faculty member” who “was not so much concerned about religious identity but wanted to preserve the 'Baylor culture.' He views faith as a privatistic matter, something polite people just don't talk about.”

Essence of Baptist faith

Gilbreath contended Jeffrey's remark about “anarchic, postmodern advocacy–or radical subjectivism” is “a simplistic view of individual freedom.”

“The word 'anarchic' is a pejorative term and suggests that those who hold that view are the modern equivalent of bomb-throwers,” he said.

“Subjective freedom is the essence of the Baptist faith, and the ultimate essence of the Baptist faith is the individual's freedom to choose whether or not to accept Christ as his or her personal Savior,” he said.

“Among Baptists more than any other faith that I am knowledgeable about, the decision about whether to accept Christ is absolutely not a collectively made decision. It is a personal decision, and it is a subjective decision.”

Any “anarchy” present at Baylor has its roots in an attempt by some at Baylor “to define for (faculty) what is a legitimate expression of their faith,” Gilbreath said.

Singular or plural priesthood

The professors expressed differing perspectives on Jeffrey's distinction between priesthood of the believer and priesthood of the believers.

Brackney and Harvey agreed the general idea predates Baptists, but not on the specifics of the terms.

Brackney pointed to the Lutheran and Reformed movements of the Reformation as the first champions of the “idea we call priesthood of the believer.”

"From the beginning, Baptists have affirmed what Luther and Calvin called the 'priesthood of all believers,'” Harvey said.

“As Protestants, we have no special class of priests. Any baptized believer can serve as priest to anyone else, whether inside or outside the church.”

Priesthood of the believer/believers was "not a piece of terminology as such before the 19th century," Brackney said.

“You will find Baptists talking about an antagonism to a professional priesthood in the 17th century, but you do not see 'priesthood of all believers' until Baptists in the South started talking about it in the late 19th century.”

Many Baptists “conflate” or confuse priesthood of the believer/believers with a couple of other doctrines–liberty of conscience and soul competency, Harvey explained. Those doctrines lead them to an individualistic interpretation of priesthood, which is incorrect.

Quoting the late pastor/theologian Carlyle Marney, he called the notion of a self-reliant individual “priest” a “gross perversion of the gospel.”

Striking a balance

Jeffrey's use of the terms is “a false issue,” Gilbreath insisted. “It leads you back toward a hierarchy in the ranking of views about what constitutes appropriate doctrine, which is what Protestantism is all about.

“Who is it exactly who holds the keys to the kingdom of God? Baptists have decided it is the individual, and certainly no hierarchy of priests holds the keys to the kingdom. Those who focus on the priesthood of believers and (formulating) an appropriate definition of doctrine would be much more comfortable in the Catholic tradition than in the Baptist tradition.”

Thomas stressed the doctrine implies a balance.

“I can trust the Holy Spirit to reveal to me through prayer and reading Scripture what is the path for my life,” he said. “I am not obligated to accept any other man's interpretation of the Bible, but I am obligated to be diligent about seeking and knowing the will of God.

“God will ultimately hold me accountable for the knowledge I have received and how I have applied it to my life. So, with that freedom also comes awesome responsibility.”

Jeffrey's call for “balancing the claims of institutional and individual freedom” is not unique to Baylor, Harvey and Thomas said.

“Baylor has every right to develop an institutional framework from which to apply the concept of academic freedom. If that includes boundaries, so be it,” Thomas said, noting other “notably religious schools” have similar policies.

“The concept of institutional right and responsibility to apply academic freedom within a framework that includes the boundaries of Scripture is one of the main factors that allows us to discriminate in hiring practices–favoring Baptists, evangelicals, practicing Catholics, Jews–as we do. It is not only our right, but our responsibility to do so.”

“I don't think it's a zero-sum game between Baylor's right to pursue its mission and freedom of individual professors to pursue their research,” Harvey added. Professors enjoy freedom to teach and conduct research, but the university can proscribe limits to the research it will fund, he explained.

Gilbreath likewise acknowledged a balance between freedoms. “We have this tremendous gift of being able to determine who we will allow to come and associate with us. We get to discriminate on the basis of religion, and we have done so throughout history. To me, that is institutional freedom. What other freedoms do we need beyond that?”

Individual freedom “allows us very wide limits,” he added.

Different evaluations

Harvey and Thomas expressed confidence in Jeffrey, while Gilbreath and Brackney shared concerns.

“Performance always is the test,” Harvey said. “If you look at Dr. Jeffrey's record in terms of hiring, he has a deep and abiding respect for academic freedom, for Baptists not signing creeds.”

Under Jeffrey's leadership, “I'm concerned about the drift at Baylor away from our Baptist roots,” Gilbreath said.

Jeffrey is “a brilliant man, accomplished scholar and a Christian exemplar,” Thomas added. “We are fortunate to have a person of his caliber as our provost.”

“The division at Baylor will go on until one camp defines (priesthood and academic freedom) to the satisfaction of everybody, or until one group pouts and goes away and says, 'That's not the way we see it,'” Brackney predicted.

“We are involved in a deep dynamic clarification of Baptist ideals on this campus. It matters a great deal to many good people.”

Posted: 10/15/04

Baptist scholars point to tension
between individualism and community life

By Marv Knox

Editor

Do Baptists affirm the priesthood of the believer or the priesthood of believers?

To outsiders, the question may seem as esoteric as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

But it's important at Baylor University these days. In a speech, Baylor Provost David Lyle Jeffrey came down on the side of believers–plural.

Supporters say he merely advocated the longstanding Protestant notion that Christians exist in community, not alone. Critics claim he traded away Baptist's birthright by diminishing their distinctive doctrine of freedom.

Historians and theologians say Baptists–particularly Texas Baptists–have championed the individualism implied by “believer.” But they also have affirmed the sense of responsibility “believers” suggests.

Paul Powell, dean of Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary, analyzed the basic concepts between both views.

“The priesthood of the believers–plural–is the idea that our interpretation of Scripture should take into account what the church has taught through the ages, such as through creeds and statements of faith,” Powell said. “Some people interpret this as implying that if there is a conflict between what the church has taught and what we believe, we should give deference to the teachings of the church and not to our individual interpretations.

“The priesthood of the believer–singular–is the idea each individual Christian is capable of reading and interpreting Scripture and no mediator other than Jesus Christ stands between the believer and God. Some people interpret this as implying each Christian individual may believe whatever he or she wants to.”

Both perspectives reflect truth, but they both can be distorted, Powell acknowledged.

"We should not ignore the distilled wisdom of Christian teachers and statements of faith through the years," he stressed. "On the other hand, the individual may have insights into the meaning of Scripture contrary to the church."

Bill Pinson, retired executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas and director of the Texas Baptist Heritage Center, pointed to the “perennial struggle” between the two perspectives.

“There has always been a tension between the individual and the group or the community in almost every area of human thought,” Pinson said. “Baptists have not been immune to this struggle but have generally emphasized the individual.

“This comes from our careful study of the Bible that has resulted in 'distinctives' such as soul competency and the priesthood of all believers. However, this does not mean that Baptists have been without an emphasis on community and relationships under the Lordship of Christ.”

Pinson cited Baptist historian Walter Shurden, author of “The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms,” who wrote: “Individualism is far from the total picture for Baptists. For the most part, however, Baptists never crouch in a defensive position when the charge of individualism is hurled at them. With all its inherent weaknesses, individualism is to a great degree a Baptist badge of honor.”

And Pinson added that although Baptists have been aware that hyper-individualism could lead to subjectivism–even to the extent of anarchy–they have always believed that some sort of collectivism under the rubric of community is also dangerous, perhaps even more so.

That danger lies in trading away freedom, he explained.

“Texas Baptists are big on individual autonomy,” noted Leon McBeth, retired professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth and author of Texas Baptists' 150-year history.

“But in the whole Baptist family, there are certain bedrock principles we have adhered to and should adhere to,” he added. “If a person gets so set on some issue outside the norm of Baptist faith and practice, I don't know how he calls himself a Baptist.”

A root doctrine of the priesthood of the believer/believers is soul freedom, McBeth said. “We're free under the lordship of Jesus Christ, but we're not free outside of that lordship,” he explained.

“The lordship of Jesus Christ and the text of the Bible properly interpreted–these are our guidelines.”

Pinson picked up on that theme.

“Does that mean everyone has the right to interpret the Bible for himself or herself? Yes,” he said. “Is every interpretation of the Bible right? No, because there are many different interpretations of various passages and issues, and thus not all can be right.

“But does anyone or any group have the right to dictate to another what is the right interpretation? Baptists have replied, 'no.' But they have also said 'yes' to the responsibility of each believer-priest to submit interpretations to other believer-priests for insights, suggestions and challenges.”

Powell noted that if an extreme interpretation of priesthood of the believers had been followed, Baptists would not exist. Baptists' forebears had the courage to contradict majority views of Reformed, Anglican and Congregational churches.

“True Baptists will take their stand and face the consequences when they are compelled by the Scriptures,” he said.

Pinson noted that “no Baptist distinctive really stands alone. To pick one or two without relating them to others is problematic.”

Baptist historian Bill Leonard, a native Texan and now dean of Wake Forest University's Divinity School in North Carolina, has for years spoken of the priesthood of all believers–emphasizing both individual privilege and responsibility to the community of faith.

“The bottom line is this: Every Baptist can exercise his/her priestliness, but that does not mean the rest of the Baptist community can't throw them out,” Leonard said.

“Priestly dissenters shouldn't whine when they get rejected by the community. Indeed, they should expect it.”

Posted: 10/15/04

Sloan: Balance demands both

Thinking theologically, Baptists need to affirm both the priesthood of the believer and the priesthood of believers, Baylor President Robert Sloan said.

Citing the New Testament book of 1 Peter, he observed: “The church is a 'body of priests,' and that means that I, both as a member of a regenerate congregation and as an individual, need no other priest than Jesus Christ. The church does not need another mediator than Jesus Christ. There is no teaching authority beyond us that tells us how we must observe Scriptures.”

A proper understanding of the priesthood of the believer/believers involves balance, Sloan said.

“On the one hand, every individual has the freedom to interpret the Scriptures,” he added. “And what do we need to do that? We need the guidance of the Spirit, the full witness of Scripture and, of course, we are aided by the body of Christ, the church.

“As an individual, I do interpret the Scriptures, but the corrective to that is that I must not become eccentric. … If you believe the Scriptures are inspired, you must handle them with care and not interpret them eccentrically. You have the right to interpret Scripture, but that does not mean you are correct. There are many interpretations of Scripture you must reject.”

To illustrate, Sloan cited cult leader David Koresh and also the Jehovah's Witnesses. “They have freedom and the right to interpret the Scriptures, but they're wrong,” he said. “That's why we need each other–the fellowship of the church–and history of theology to help us.”

Sloan affirmed the power of a “great prophetic voice,” such as the prophet Jeremiah, who speaks when the church goes wrong. As examples of times when such a voice is needed, he noted church-going people used the Bible to defend the Nazis in Germany and, earlier, Southern slaveholders.

“The individual prophetic voice is a corrective witness,” he said. “But sometimes you get an individual voice that is just plain crazy. So, the tradition can be wrong and needs the corrective voice of a great prophetic speaker, but the speaker can be wrong and needs the correction of the church.”

Posted: 10/15/04

Organizers hope BGCT session
will be a family celebration

By Ferrell Foster

Texas Baptist Communications

SAN ANTONIO–The Texas Baptist family looks different these days, and they're gathering Nov. 8-9 to celebrate it.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas will hold its 119th annual session Nov. 8-9 at Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center in downtown San Antonio. The theme will be “Celebrando la Familia de Dios–Celebrating the Family of God.”

“The 2004 convention is an effort to show that our Texas Baptist family is diverse and growing,” said Ken Hall, president of the convention and of Buckner Baptist Benevolences. “We are celebrating our family as a visible expression of what it means to be followers of Jesus.

“Our convention worship, business sessions, workshops and exhibits are geared to be positive and cutting-edge. We are unified in our desire to represent to all people that Texas Baptists are loving and generous.”

Churches are encouraged to bring as many messengers and members as possible, said Becky Bridges, director of the BGCT Communications Center. “We want everyone to come.”

Again this year, the annual meeting schedule includes time for workshops. Participants can choose from 60 workshops in English and 10 in Spanish.

“The workshops are invaluable training opportunities for all lay leaders and church staff,” Bridges said. “It is well worth your time just for these sessions. Everyone who comes will discover new missions ideas, connect with experts in their ministry field and find new ways to work with churches around the state.”

Regarding business, it still is uncertain exactly what messengers will be dealing with on one major front. The Executive Board of the convention will meet Oct. 26 to consider proposed constitution changes that would alter the BGCT's governance structure. If the board approves the plan, it will then be considered by messengers to the annual session.

Executive Director Charles Wade is proposing the size of the Executive Board be reduced and other coordinating boards, commissions and some committees be abolished.

Messengers also will be asked to affirm new strategic plan statements of mission, vision, values and priorities that will guide the work of the convention.

“We are praying for a transformation of our structure, governance and practice that is more inclusive and dynamic,” said Hall, who has been involved in shaping the proposals. “Our history is our foundation for an even brighter tomorrow.”

A $47.38 million 2005 budget will be considered, as well. It reflects a 3 percent increase over this year's spending plan. Of the total, $40.5 million would depend on giving through the BGCT Cooperative Program. The remainder would come from gifts to the Mary Hill Davis Offering for Texas Missions, endowment income, allocated funds, fees and other sources.

Messengers are expected to elect a new president at the meeting. Hall is eligible for a second term in that position, but he already has said he will not serve another term. Hall said he hopes his precedent-defying move will help the BGCT rotate its top leadership more rapidly and embrace greater diversity of leaders.

Albert Reyes, president of Baptist University of the Americas in San Antonio, is expected to be nominated as convention president. Reyes currently is first vice president of the convention.

Michael Bell, pastor of Greater St. Stephen First Baptist Church in Fort Worth, is to be nominated as first vice president. Stacy Conner, pastor of First Baptist Church in Muleshoe, is to be nominated as second vice president. No other nomination plans have been announced prior to the meeting.

The BGCT annual meeting begins Monday, but related events are planned for the weekend.

A concert featuring Salvador and Rachel Lampa will be held 7-9:30 p.m. on Nov. 6 in the convention center's Lila Cockrell Theater.

The Woman's Missionary Union of Texas and the Texas Baptist Men annual meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 7. WMU will meet in the sanctuary of First Baptist Church in San Antonio, and TBM will gather at the Raddison Market Square Hotel.

At 7 p.m. on Nov. 7, the Hispanic Baptist Fellowship meeting begins at Harlandale Baptist Church. At 7:30 p.m. that same evening, the African American Fellowship meeting starts at Calvary Baptist Church.

Registration for the BGCT annual meeting will be 3-6 p.m. Sunday and beginning again at 8 a.m. Monday. The exhibit hall also will be open during those times.

Monday morning's schedule features workshops, with the opening general meeting beginning at 12:45 p.m. The president's address will be at 1:30 p.m.

Monday night will be the annual missions emphasis, and the executive director's address will be part of it.

This year's convention sermon will be delivered by Jerry Dailey, pastor of Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in San Antonio, at 11:40 a.m. Tuesday.

The convention will adjourn at 12:10 p.m. Tuesday.

Posted: 10/15/04

Baptist Briefs

Gift benefits Hispanic church-starting. A $100,000 gift will be used by the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship for a joint effort in helping to start Hispanic churches throughout the United States. The donors, who chose to remain anonymous, asked that the money be combined with other gifts to help the Fellowship and the Convencion assist in training, equipping and encouraging church leaders to start 400 churches in eight years.

Iorg installed as seminary president. Jeff Iorg was installed Oct. 11 as the seventh president of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, Calif. Iorg was elected to the office in April and began serving as president in August. Iorg came to Golden Gate from the Northwestern Baptist Convention in Vancouver, Wash., where he served as executive director-treasurer from 1995 to 2004. He is a graduate of Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo., and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. Born in Georgia, Iorg moved to Texas at the age of 3, where he lived until after college. He and his wife, Ann, who have relocated to Mill Valley, have three children: Casey, 20; Melody, 17; and Caleb, 15.

Texan named Prague seminary chaplain. Larry Maddox recently was named chaplain at the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Prague, Czech Republic. The former associate pastor of administration and education at First Baptist Church in Waco has served as a Texas Envoy at the seminary with his wife, Betty, for the past four years. Texas Envoys is a program of the Texas Partnerships Resource Center of the Baptist General Convention of Texas that encourages long-term volunteer mission work. In addition to serving as chaplain, Maddox will continue teaching theology and representing the seminary across Eastern Europe.

Seminary names new business officer. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has named Mike Hughes of Abilene as director of business services. Hughes owned and operated automobile franchises from 1976 to 2001. He also has worked as a consultant and helped launch an Internet start-up company. Hughes, 50, is a graduate of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, a long-time member of Pioneer Drive Baptist Church in Abilene and former chairman of trustees for Hendrick Medical Center.

Seminary honors missions educator. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary honored Cal Guy–missions professor at Southwestern from 1946 to 1982–during global missions week. During his 50 years at Southwestern Seminary, Criswell College and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, it was estimated that he taught half of the missionaries appointed by the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board. Also during global missions week, President Paige Patterson announced Southwestern Seminary will focus its international evangelistic efforts over the next five years in Cuba and Siberia and among the Nyika people of Tanzania. He said the seminary will work with Baptists in Bonn, Germany, and Oradea, Romania, in the Siberian effort.

Shorter College president resigns. Shorter College President Ed Schrader, who led the attempt to sever the Rome, Ga., college's ties with the Georgia Baptist Convention, resigned to accept the presidency of Brenau University, a women's college in Gainesville, Ga. Schrader will begin his new position at Brenau Jan. 1. The case between Shorter College and the Georgia convention is slated to be heard by the Georgia Supreme Court in January. In March, the college lost in the Georgia Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the Georgia convention's position that Shorter had acted illegally in April 2003 in dissolving itself and transferring all its assets to a new corporation with a self-perpetuating board of trustees.

Posted: 10/15/04

Judge finds no evidence of
racketeering in Criswell College lawsuit

By Ken Camp

Managing Editor

DALLAS–A district judge found no evidence of racketeering by either the W.A. Criswell Foundation or Criswell College in a dispute with a computer contractor.

International Data Systems sued the foundation and the college for allegedly breaching a contract with IDS and then giving the business to a corporation in which IDS claimed a foundation board director held significant financial interests.

IDS accused the Criswell entities of engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity that included mail fraud, extortion and copyright infringement.

By granting the partial summary judgment and dismissing complaints filed under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the judge reduced the claim for damages from $46.6 million to about $15.5 million–which IDS claims are actual damages. The anti-racketeering statute allows recovery of three-fold damages.

Attorney Scott Hershman, representing IDS, noted a jury still could award punitive damages equal to or greater than those allowed under the anti-racketeering statute.

The judge found the case lacked evidence to qualify as racketeering under several elements of the RICO Act–particularly no evidence of a continued threat of criminal activity or the presence of a racketeering enterprise.

While the cause of action by IDS and its attorneys listed First Baptist Church of Dallas as part of the criminal enterprise, the judge found no evidence linking the church to racketeering.

The judge's ruling “removed all doubt of wrongdoing and vindicated the W.A. Criswell Foundation and the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies,” said Blake Beckham, lead attorney for the foundation.

Beckham characterized the anti-racketeering claims as “a cheap publicity stunt in an otherwise simple contractual dispute over $40,000 of contested invoices.”

The suit arose from an agreement John Thomas, a Baptist layman and founder of IDS, reached in 1995 to digitize tapes, transcripts and outlines of sermons by W.A. Criswell, longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas.

Thomas claimed he understood he was working on a charitable venture for Criswell College. Consequently, he agreed to donate his own time and charge the school only what it would cost him to complete the project.

Thomas hired two students to digitize the sermons, and he purchased hardware and software for the job. Criswell College paid on invoices received for services and equipment through October 1999.

Originally, the Criswell Legacy Project–as the sermon preservation effort became known–called for the sermons to be available on compact disk. Later, the medium shifted to the Internet, and IDS developed a prototype website for the project, which was demonstrated at the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Operating under the understanding IDS would host the website, Thomas secured a five-year lease on a building with the necessary fiber-optic capacity and entered other contracts for Internet-related lines, connections and equipment.

But sometime between October 1999 and January 2000, the business relationship soured, and the Criswell entities stopped paying on invoices IDS presented. Each party since has accused the other of trying to change the terms of earlier agreements.

In March 2000, the Criswell entities terminated their relationship with IDS and entered into a contract with Chris Mor-eau, president of DIAWS Systems, to complete the project. Thomas maintains the project essentially was completed, a matter the foundation disputes.

Thomas also alleged a foundation board director had financial interests in DIAWS.

The court set another summary judgment hearing for Nov. 19. The trial on any remaining charges begins Dec. 6.

Posted: 10/15/04

DOWN HOME:
Complex cars; simple faith

A radio reporter recently confirmed something I've known for years: Fewer people work on their own cars than they did decades ago.

Most guys don't need a Time/CNN poll to tell us the obvious.

When I was a teenager, I always changed the oil in our cars. Daddy probably figured the experience would “build character” (or maybe provide me with a useful skill if the college thing didn't work out). I just thought it was fun to crawl around underneath our cars, handle tools and keep the engines running smoothly.

As a young adult, I kept this chore, mainly because I was cheap and money was tight. But I had to give it up when Joanna and I bought our first new car–an ultra-compact import. (We justified that buy because, in 1980, we thought gas might hit $2 a gallon. Little did we know …)

The first time I looked under the hood and then crawled under the chassis of that midget car, I knew my oil-changing days were over. Without a lift to hoist the vehicle over my head, I would've needed an extra elbow midway down my right forearm just to get a good grip on the oil filter. So, I scratched that chore off my list and started paying someone to do a task I was embarrassed I no longer could do myself.

The guy on the radio didn't blame ill-placed parts and squeeze-fitted engine compartments on the decline of shadetree mechanics. The real culprits are (a) computers and (b) new-fangled electronic, hydraulic and mechanical components that hadn't even been invented when guys like me thought they knew their way around under the hood of a car.

Now, you just about need a computer science degree from Stanford or a master's in engineering from MIT to fix the complicated machine parked in your garage.

I know what he means. Joanna and I now drive mid-priced sedans, both with more amenities than we really need but not with onboard satellite receivers, global positioning transponders or other high-end gadgets.

But I've got to confess that when I look under the hood of either car, I might as well be staring at the engine compartment of the Space Shuttle. If my life depended on it, I probably could add a quart of oil and fill the windshield washer reservoir. Maybe.

Sometimes, I think we Christians make the life of faith and the community of the church as complicated as today's high-tech cars. We seem to assume worship and ministry are so complex we have to hire professionals to do it. And so we miss out on the wonderful joy of “getting our hands dirty” in praise of our Lord and service to others.

The prophet Micah tells us our lives of faith are really pretty simple: “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

Posted: 10/15/04

EDITORIAL:
Unlikely pair propose debate question

Politics really does make strange bedfellows. The day after the third presidential debate, Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, and Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, wrote a joint letter, thanking debate moderator Bob Schieffer for asking George W. Bush and John Kerry “a central question on faith and policy.”

Few Christians could be further apart politically than Gaddy of the left and Weyrich of the right. But before the third debate, they teamed up to ask Schieffer to “raise questions in the presidential debates about the influence of the candidates' religion and personal faith in making public policy.”

Schieffer complied. His 18th question of the night was, “What part does your faith play on your policy decisions?”

Both candidates then talked about their spiritual lives. “I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to. … Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency,” President Bush said at one point. Sen. Kerry said, in part: “Everything is a gift from the Almighty. … As president, I will always respect everybody's right to practice religion as they choose–or not to practice–because that's part of America.”

Some Christians in America complain of being shoved to the sidelines of culture. You can understand their feelings, especially if you selectively sample mass-media images. But the religious undertones of the 2004 presidential election are fascinating. Both candidates have courted Christians while taking care not to ostracize people of other faiths or of no faith. Bush and Kerry both profess their faith in Christ. In their third debate, they talked about how their religious views empower their actions. Bush set his positions on abortion and homosexuality in the context of his faith. Kerry explained that his stands on justice and care for the poor stem from his theological understanding.

And Schieffer realized faith matters to American voters. He asked the question during a prime-time broadcast.

Also heartening was Gaddy and Weyrich's cooperation. They disagree on many issues. But they understand millions of Americans believe faith is part of the fabric of life, and voters can't make informed decisions unless they know more about the candidates' religious feelings and beliefs.

In their appeal to Schieffer, Gaddy and Weyrich suggested several questions people of faith can ask to better understand the candidates:

What role should and does your religious faith and values play in creating public policy?

What active steps have you taken and will you continue to take to show respect for the variety of religious beliefs among your constituents?

Should an office-holder's use of religious language reflect his/her own religious tradition, or be more broadly inclusive?

How do you balance the principles of your faith and your pledge to defend the Constitution, particularly when the two come into conflict?

Voters should seek answers to these questions during this election season.
–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at marvknox@baptiststandard.com

Posted: 10/15/04

EDITORIAL:
One option may be foregone,
but votes count for something

Friends here in the Lone Star State–Democrats and Republicans alike–have joked and/or griped in recent weeks about the apparent futility of voting in the 2004 presidential election. “Everyone already knows where Texas' electoral college votes are going,” one declared. “Yeah, my vote doesn't really seem to matter,” another added.

To a degree, they're right. No individual trip to a Texas voting booth is likely to impact the race for the White House. President Bush will capture his home state's electoral votes. (On the other hand, we may be thankful we don't live in one of the 10 so-called swing states. Voters there reportedly have been inundated by some of the harshest campaign ads in history.)

But we deceive ourselves if we think our votes do not count, that voting does not matter.

That's especially true this year, when U.S. military personnel are risking their own lives to secure free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us our suffrage also was bought with blood. Every time we vote, we honor soldiers and sailors and flyers and marines who gave their lives so we might have the opportunity to vote.

As Christians, voting is a spiritual privilege and responsibility. We affirm that all people, created in God's image, ought to be autonomous and free. When we fail to vote, we denigrate the persecution of Christian brothers and sisters who do not enjoy religious liberty and who cannot participate in the selection of their government leaders.

As citizens, voting is a civic right and duty. Our democracy has been built on principles of informed participation by its citizens. When we fail to vote, we belittle and undermine the structure that has provided us with a free and stable government.

So, as citizens and Christians, we should vote–on everything from president to school board to bond issues to local referenda.
–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at marvknox@baptiststandard.com

Posted: 10/15/04

Posted: 10/15/04

LifeWay Explore the Bible Series for Oct. 24

No one is beyond the healing powers of Christ

Luke 8:1-56

By Pakon Chan

Chinese Baptist Church, Arlington

Through several miracles, Jesus demonstrated his power over natural disasters, evil spirits, sickness and death. These miracles also served as proof that Jesus' teaching was the word of God, because only God can have such power.

Jesus' power over natural disaster

There was a lake called the Sea of Galilee. Storms often rose suddenly on it, and fishermen usually would stay closer to Capernaum to avoid getting swept into it. The other side of the Sea of Galilee was the region of Decapolis, where more Gentiles lived than Jews. Jesus knew why he wanted to go there. His message was not only given to Jews but to all people. Anyone who hears God's word and puts it into practice is his brother or sister (8:21).

Jesus probably was very tired and went to sleep in the boat while they were sailing on the lake. This time, they had to sail across the lake, because their Master had asked them to do so. “A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger” (v. 23).

Sometimes we may need to get out of our comfort zone and go beyond secure regions to do something for the Lord. This easily could expose us to danger and challenges. When danger comes and we do not know how to manage it, our immediate reaction is that we want God to intervene and deliver us. But sometimes we perceive no response from above. This was the emotion the disciples experienced when they went to wake Jesus, and said to him, “Master, Master, we are going to drown!” (v. 24).

“Jesus got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters” (v. 24). Jesus knows exactly when and what needs to be done to help us in any situation where we cannot help ourselves. He is the Lord who can even subdue the nature. He must be able to save us from the worst situation of our lives.

Jesus' power over evil spirits

Jesus went into a community which was despised by Jews. It was a place where people kept and sold pigs for a living. Certainly, they were pig consumers. Jesus even stepped into the graveyard, considered by Jews an unclean place. Jesus intentionally brought his message to the “unclean” people.

People discriminate between groups of peoples and associate with people according to their prejudice. But God wants to save all people. We can come to God, no matter who we are and what we have done in the past.

The demon-possessed man came to meet Jesus. Luke told us this man had been seized by the evil spirit many times (v. 29). He might have been a failure in the past in resisting the evil spirit, but this time Jesus completely released him from such tortures forever. Jesus has power over evil spirits and is able to destroy any spiritual bondage and set us free.

Jesus' power over sickness & death

After Jesus had driven the evil spirit from the man, he returned to the other side of the lake. He was welcomed by a crowd of people. In the midst of this crowd, there was a woman who had suffered from 12 years of bleeding.

Her sickness might be an irregular menstrual cycle which made her bleed all month long. Women under the Jewish law were considered unclean during the menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19-33).

This woman suffered physically and spiritually and was not allowed to appear in public. That was the reason she wanted to hide her identity when she touched Jesus' cloak and did not want to show herself when Jesus first asked who had touched him (v. 45).

The healing event occurred on Jesus' way to Jairus' house. Jairus' daughter–his only child–was dying. We cannot imagine how desperate he was when he asked for help from this itinerant rabbi. While Jesus was sending the woman away, someone from the house of Jairus came and told Jairus his daughter was dead, and Jesus wasn't needed (v. 49). They might believe Jesus was a godly prophet who had the power to heal the sick. They could not imagine Jesus was the Son of God and had powers of resurrecting the dead. Jesus only required his disciples, the woman and Jairus to have faith in him to see the miracles.

People in those four situations were all coming to their “dead ends.” The disciples were caught in the middle of the storm, and their boat was sinking. The demon-possessed man failed so many times in the past that when he met Jesus, he was possessed by a legion of evil spirits. A woman had suffered 12 years of sickness and shame and never had thought she was worthy for public acceptance. Jairus' daughter was his only child, and she was dead.

These four situations can represent all types of life situations. They represent all people, Jews and gentiles, men and women, society's elite and the ordinary people. Anyone in any life situation can come to Jesus. Jesus can save all those who have faith in him.

Discussion questions

Why did Jesus want to meet these four people?

Have you received Jesus as your personal Savior? If you have not received him yet, he is now calling you to put your faith in him.

Posted: 10/15/04

LifeWay Explore the Bible Series for Oct. 31

Give up your life so that Christ can fill it richly

Luke 9:1-50

By Pakon Chan

Chinese Baptist Church, Arlington

Different people see Jesus differently. We may hear people talk about Jesus as a great religious guru, moral teacher or a failed revolutionist. Often times, public opinion does not necessarily tell the truth and reflect the reality. Nowadays, people rely heavily on statistics to make judgments and decisions. People love to follow the crowd so they can act “normal” in the eyes of society.

It also is the case in the lifestyle of many Christians. What do we know about Jesus? How do we build a relationship with him? These answers will affect our Christian lifestyle and our testimonies to other people.

What do you know about Jesus?

Jesus wanted to know what his disciples learned from the crowds about him. He asked them, “Who do the crowds say I am?” (v. 18).

There is nothing wrong with learning from others or even from the “crowds.” It is the function of education to transmit knowledge, values and lifestyle from one generation to another. Healthy social norms and public opinions are very important in giving stability to a society.

But Jesus wanted more from his disciples regarding their understanding of him. It is all right to have many different opinions about Jesus among the crowds, but Jesus wanted to know, “What about you?” (v. 20). What do I say about my Lord, Jesus Christ?

Jesus wants us to have personal knowledge of him. We should not be satisfied with what we have learned from others. Secondhand knowledge has no power and cannot transform our lives. All the preaching we have heard in worship services and Bible messages learned in Sunday school classes have to be internalized to become our own personal knowledge of our Lord.

The power of God's word will only be released if we put it into practice in our daily lives. Through putting God's word into practice, we will know Jesus personally. By then, we can answer the questions Jesus is asking us: “What about you? Who do you say I am?” (v. 20).

Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” (v. 20). Even though Peter had a very deep spiritual insight at that moment about the identity of Jesus, and he confirmed Jesus with this outstanding answer, he did not totally understand its full meaning until after the resurrection of Jesus. Then, Peter committed his life to the risen Lord, and put what he had learned from Jesus into practice. His life was completely transformed.

From loss to gain

Why did Jesus strictly warn the disciples not to tell this answer to anyone? (v. 21). It was because the crowds were not ready to accept it. The idea of Christ to the Jews was completely different from what Jesus would do in his life.

Jesus immediately told them the fate of the Messiah, and that he was going to fulfill that destiny (9:22). Jesus has set the example of how his disciples should live as Christians. Jesus gave his life for us, and he wants us to live the same lifestyle, which is a life full of self-giving love. He used the image of carrying the cross to follow him to make it clear that his disciples should live the example he has set for them (9:23).

Jesus tells us that in the Christian life, there is a paradox of loss and gain. People love to gain and focus on self-interest all the time. Their relationships with others always are based on what they can gain from them. But in God's kingdom, loss is gain. Jesus lost his life, but he gained many lives. When we accepted Jesus, we lost our old life, but in return, we also gained a new life. If we do not want to lose our old life, we will not be able to gain new life (9:24).

This was the core of Christian ethics and the nature of a Christ-like lifestyle. After describing what he would do in the future to fulfill his identity as the Messiah, he then turned to the followers and said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” (9:23).

There are three things we should know in this statement:

There is a condition or requirement for following Jesus, and it is the denial of one's own self. Self-denial means to submit to Jesus. It can also mean to live a selfless life, a life no longer focused on self-interest.

The act of taking up a cross has to be personal. We should deal with our life problems and build a Christ-like character in Christ.

Following Christ is a daily habit. It is a lifestyle.

Live unashamedly for Jesus

Living a Christ-like lifestyle is not a shameful thing. Jesus is not ashamed of us, and we are not to be ashamed of him. People may laugh at us or even hate us if we live a Christ-like lifestyle. It is our cross, and we should take it up and carry it gratefully, for our Lord Jesus Christ already has carried the heaviest one for us.

Discussion questions

Can you tell a difference in your lifestyle from non-believers?

What does it mean to you when you hear that loss to a Christian is gain?