Posted: 11/04/05

RIGHT OR WRONG?
Embryonic stem cells

I read where a Christian went to China to get treatment for Lou Gehrig's disease. Problem is, the treatment uses stem cells from aborted fetuses. According to the Chinese government policy of one child per family, these babies were going to be aborted anyway. Is this terminally ill Christian wrong for getting help in this way?

When I asked several people in my congregation to define a stem cell, they had difficulty doing so. If you're a little vague about stem cells, you're in good company.

There are different types of stem cells.

Adult stem cells are extracted from bone marrow, skin, blood, umbilical cord and other tissues. They have more limited applications than stem cells from embryos, although some recent research indicates there may be wider applications for these stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized cells extracted from 4- to 5-day-old embryos that have the capacity to develop into almost any type of tissue in the body. A stem cell line, or colony, is derived from a single embryo. The cells can replicate themselves for months or years in labs, and, once established, can be used in research.

Because the Bush administration has limited government funding for development of new embryonic stem cell lines, some patients have gone overseas to receive treatments utilizing stem cells. They have done this because some scientists contend the existing embryonic stem cell lines in the United States are contaminated.

The ethical issue for Christians concerns the use of embryos for medical research. One concern is that individuals will become pregnant in order to sell their embryos. Another is that scientists will use embryos in unethical ways, such as trying to create a cloned human baby.

Further, some Christians fear the use of such embryos will encourage more abortions. To address some of these concerns, the National Academies' National Research Council and Institute of Medicine recently has published guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research to guide scientists in their use and procurement of stem cells. Also, there have been proposals that Congress enact new laws that would place limits on the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes.

In the specific case spelled out in the question, the stem cells do come from aborted fetuses, but they were not fetuses created to be used in medical experiments. To me, there is a difference. Doubtless, some Christians would be troubled by any experimentation on an aborted fetus and therefore could not accept such treatments. However, many Christians would not be troubled by such experimentation. They would justify such usage by the positive results that might ensue. From my perspective, there may be medical dangers involved in such a decision, but there are no ethical dangers for the individual if the person believes using an aborted fetus in this way is ethical or, at the very least, the lesser of two evils.

For society, however, there is another moral issue underlying this question: Is it right for the wealthy to be able to buy good medical care, which is not available to others? A trip of this magnitude and the proposed treatments would be very expensive. Only the wealthy would be able to afford such a trip and such treatments. Many would argue most medical care in the world is available to the wealthy first and then to others. This may be true, but is this the kind of societal value Christians should support?

It seems to me, Christians should support equal access to medical care, and good medical care should be available to everyone. We may not be able to provide such care at this time, but shouldn't that be our goal?

Philip Wise, pastor

Second Baptist Church

Lubbock

Right or Wrong? is sponsored by the T.B. Maston Chair of Christian Ethics at Hardin-Simmons University's Logsdon School of Theology. Send your questions about how to apply your faith to btillman@hsutx.edu.

Posted: 11/03/05

North Carolina convention plans
restrictions on 'gay-friendly' churches

North Carolina Biblical Recorder

WAKE FOREST, N.C. (ABP)—Baptists in North Carolina next month will be asked to place new restrictions on churches that condone homosexuality, creating perhaps the most specific ban of gay-friendly churches in Southern Baptist life.

The president of a conservative group within the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said Oct. 18 he will propose an amendment to the convention’s articles of incorporation that would tighten requirements for church membership in the state convention to eliminate “ambiguity” on the gay issue.

The article dealing with membership in the convention currently says: “A cooperating church shall be one that financially supports any program, institution, or agency of the convention, and which is in friendly cooperation with the convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work.”

Bill Sanderson, president of Conservative Carolina Baptists and pastor of Hephzibah Baptist Church in Wendell, N.C., said he will propose adding the following:

“Among churches not in friendly cooperation with the convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. Such actions include: 1) official public statements affirming, approving or endorsing homosexual behavior, 2) ordination of those whom the church knows have not repented of their homosexual behavior, 3) any pastor of the church performing or the church providing facilities for a marriage or other ceremony, blessing or union of persons of the same sex, 4) affiliating with, contributing money to or maintaining membership in a group which the church knows affirms, approves or endorses homosexual behavior, and 5) accepting as members those whom the church knows have refused to repent of sin, including homosexual behavior. The board of directors shall apply these provisions, subject to the right of a church to appeal to the next session of the convention.”

Sanderson said he thinks there should be “no ambiguity” about where the convention stands on the homosexual issue. “We need, I feel, to set a very clear statement about how we as Baptists in North Carolina feel about this,” he said.

The first sentence of Sanderson’s proposal is identical to wording added to the constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1993. Four of the provisions seem to deal with specific instances in which churches in North Carolina have been removed from the convention under a policy not in the convention articles of incorporation.

In 1992, the convention board of directors—then known as the general board—adopted a financial policy that prohibits the convention from accepting funds from “any church which knowingly takes, or has taken, any official action which manifests public approval, promotion or blessing of homosexuality.”

Since churches must give funds to the convention to be a cooperating member, the policy effectively kept out such churches. The policy, which was reaffirmed by the convention board in 2003, first was used to remove Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh and Binkley Memorial Baptist Church in Chapel Hill from the convention. Pullen had voted to bless the union of two homosexual males. Binkley voted to license a gay man to the ministry.

The policy was later used to force out Wake Forest Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, which held a same-sex union for two lesbian members in September 2000.

Two years ago, the convention used the policy to refuse funds from McGill Baptist Church in Concord. Convention officials said the church fell under the policy because it baptized two men believed to be gay.

The homosexuality issue came under discussion again this year when the convention’s nominating committee voted to exclude from consideration persons from churches that are affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists. The organization’s website includes a statement affirming same-sex marriage, which was adopted during the organization’s annual meeting in 2004, as well as the report of a task force on human sexuality that was commissioned and received “with gratitude”—though not officially adopted—in 1995. That report calls for full acceptance of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons.

Sanderson said those earlier expulsions prompted his proposal. “It’s all about that, so when these things happen we already know where we’re standing,” he said.

Sanderson said he thinks churches that affirm homosexuality should not be in the convention.

“This brings it down without any problem whatsoever,” he said. “You know if you’re on this side of this theological issue, you’re on the wrong side.”

Sanderson said he included in his proposal a general reference to sin so the provision could be applied to people who have not repented of lying, backbiting, adultery, murder or other sins.

Clella Lee, chair of the convention’s constitution and bylaws committee, said a motion similar to Sanderson’s was proposed to the committee.

“The committee did not believe it was in the best interest of the convention to recommend a change in the definition of a cooperating church to the executive committee without the time to consider historical precedence, present concerns, and future long-term implications,” she said.

“I believe it is unlikely that such in-depth consideration could be accomplished during the convention session. My hope is that the convention messengers will recognize the magnitude of amending this article without giving careful consideration to each of the areas I mentioned.

“If the convention wants to consider changing the definition of a cooperating church, I strongly encourage the messengers to make a motion to that effect and refer it to the constitution and bylaws committee or a special committee formed to study this issue and report to the convention in 2006.”

The convention articles of incorporation can be amended by a two-thirds vote of messengers to the convention annual meeting provided the proposed amendments are printed twice in the Biblical Recorder, the convention’s newspaper.

Posted: 11/03/05

Iraqi constitution has double
vision on human rights

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Iraq’s new Constitution sets forth two competing visions of democracy and human rights, some religious-freedom experts insist.

The document “sets forth two competing and diametrically opposed visions of society—one based on religious freedom … and another vision of society based on a hierarchy of group rights on Islamic law,” said Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House. Shea is also vice chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

“This is a discriminatory hierarchy, and the rights of all individuals are subordinated to the group,” she continued.

The constitutional referendum came to voters after months of contentious debates between members of a constitutional drafting committee over the roles of Islam and federalism in the new government. Many Arab Shia and Kurds wanted strong guarantees of autonomy for the regions in which they hold majorities. Many Sunnis—who are a minority but enjoyed much of the nation’s power under deposed dictator Saddam Hussein—fearrf that those guarantees will further marginalize them.

While human-rights violations were common in many areas under Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq also was essentially a secular government. Among the dictator’s inner circle were Christian Iraqis.

But the new document declares, according to an English translation, “Islam is the official religion of the state and it is a fundamental source of legislation.” It also stipulates, “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established,” and it bans any law “that contradicts the principles of democracy.”

The devil may be in the details of interpreting those measures, observers have said.

In July, members of the religious freedom commission objected to similar provisions in earlier drafts of the document. At the time, the bipartisan panel’s chairman, Michael Cromartie, said, “If these drafts become law, Iraq’s new democracy risks being crippled from the outset.”

Although the document as finally presented to voters alleviated some of their concerns, Shea and the commission noted that there is still one major potential problem with the current document. It invests the power to interpret itself in a Federal Supreme Court—part of which is to be made up of “experts in Islamic law” without any requirement that they also be experts in civil law.

“In other words,” Shea said, that means “Islamic clerics—Shiite clerics, especially.”

Shea and the commission noted that only three other nations have similar arrangements allowing Islamic scholars on their highest courts—Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran.

“Those defining questions are going to go to those judges, and so it just seems … the freedoms that are stated elsewhere in the constitution are going to be negated,” she said.

She did note that the last-minute compromise allowing amendments to the document within one year after its approval provides “one little glimmer of hope…. One of the amendments that has got to be made is to amend that Supreme Court to make sure that everyone (on it) has a civil law background.”

Other parts of the charter also remain problematic—including a provision that allows disputes between people of the same faith to be settled according to religious law. In Islamic law, men and women are often on unequal footing in personal status and property disputes.

Nonetheless, U.S. officials have said the document can prove to be a model for spreading democracy and human rights in majority-Muslim nations. During a late August appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad defended the proposed charter.

“Not everyone loves every article of this document. Not everyone is totally satisfied,” he said. “But there is enough in this constitution that meets the basic needs of all communities and for Iraq to move forward.”

He also said the document reflects “a new consensus between the universal principles of democracy and human rights, and Iraqi traditions in Islam.”

Posted: 11/03/05

Controversy stirs over Katrina
religious school tuition grants bill

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge continues to muddy the line between church and state, as administration officials and some members of Congress are proposing aid to religious institutions in the disaster’s wake.

A group of senators—including some who normally oppose public funds for private schools—have introduced a bill that would provide tuition grants to private and religious schools that have taken in students evacuated from their own schools in New Orleans and other affected parts of the region.

That came on the heels of an announcement from a White House official that private religious schools and some religious charities in the region will be eligible for reconstruction grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Both moves follow other suggestions of reimbursement and payments to religious institutions affected by the disaster or involved in relief efforts.

“Tonight, Sen. (Ted) Kennedy and I introduced legislation that provides immediate relief for students, schools, and institutions of higher education affected by Hurricane Katrina,” said Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Education Committee. “This is a first step in providing the necessary assistance towards getting families and communities back to school and back on their feet.”

The bill authorizes a $2.4 billion relief package that would include $6,000-per-student grants to private schools that have taken in evacuee children. The vast majority of private schools in Louisiana and other regions of the Gulf Coast affected by Katrina are church-affiliated schools, many of them Catholic.

Kennedy, of Massachusetts, is the committee’s ranking Democratic member, and normally an opponent of private-school vouchers. A statement released by his press office said the tuition grants were not a national voucher program but simply a way to address a dire emergency.

“This bill puts the interests of the children victimized by Katrina ahead of politics and ideological battles,” the statement read. “It puts in place an efficient and temporary system to get the necessary aid to the schools without further delay.”

But groups strongly opposed to vouchers, such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, immediately criticized the plan.

“The bill does not use the word ‘voucher,’ but that’s what this really is,” said Barry Lynn, president of the Washington-based group. “I know the hurricane damage in the Gulf region has been severe, but the Constitution does not have an exemption for natural disasters. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for tuition at religious schools.”

While the Supreme Court said in 2002 voucher programs involving religious schools are constitutional, President Bush and other advocates have met with little success in instituting a federal voucher program. Only a handful of states and municipalities offer governmentally funded voucher programs, including an experimental federal program in the District of Columbia.

The recent announcement that FEMA would offer direct reconstruction grants to some religiously affiliated institutions drew similar criticisms from church-state groups. A series of federal court decisions suggest that government aid for the building of religious buildings is unconstitutional.

But White House official Jim Towey said the grants would not be given for use in reconstructing buildings that are used for worship or other pervasively religious purposes.

Earlier, FEMA offered to reimburse churches for expenses associated with housing and feeding evacuated residents of New Orleans.

Posted: 9/16/05

Vernon to be BGCT vice presidential nominee

By Marv Knox

Editor

LEVELLAND–A South Plains pastor with extensive involvement in Baptist General Convention of Texas affairs will be nominated as first vice president of the convention this fall.

Steve Vernon, pastor of First Baptist Church in Levelland and a former BGCT second vice president, will be nominated for the convention's second-highest elected position by Stacy Conner, the convention's current second vice president.

The BGCT will choose new leaders during its annual meeting in Austin Nov. 14-15. Michael Bell, pastor of Greater St. Stephen First Baptist Church in Fort Worth and the convention's current first vice president, already has been announced as a presidential candidate.

“Steve has not only served as a pastor with distinction, but he has served our convention well,” Conner said, citing Vernon's numerous involvements in BGCT life. “I believe that Steve will serve our convention with distinction in the coming year.”

Vernon's specific areas of service in the convention are eclipsed by his “feel for the pulse of the Baptists of our state,” Conner said. “With an understanding of denominational issues, Steve also listens to and responds to the needs of the people in our congregations. Steve understands the importance of helping Texas Baptists realize the ministries of the convention are important to all of us.”

Vernon appreciates the value of Texas Baptist cooperation, Conner added.

“Steve communicates to his own church and his sphere of influence that we do more together than we can do apart. I believe Steve will continue to be a good representative for the need of shared ministry among Texas Baptists.”

Vernon is willing to serve as a BGCT vice president “because of an interest in missions, telling the story of Christ in a variety of ways, which Texas Baptists do,” he said. “It's something you can invest your life in, and that's why I would pursue this.”

He also noted the convention's priorities resonate with his own. “What I appreciate about the BGCT and why I have worked there is because I see an overall commitment to sharing the gospel,” he said, noting the convention's array of missions and ministries, such as partnerships, Texas Baptist Men, Woman's Missionary Union and the WorldconneX missions network, as well as educational, child-care and elder-care institutions and the Christian Life Commission.

“All of that opens the door for us to tell the story” of Christ to a hurting world, he said.

In additon, Vernon said he is excited about the possibility of serving alongside Bell, who would be the BGCT's first African-American president.

“I would like to be there to support Michael and his aims and goals–help him accomplish a lot of things,” he said. “One of the things that appeals to me about the BGCT is it accepts all comers at the table to work together on the enterprise of missions.”

Vernon is president of the Panhandle-Plains Pastors' and Laymen's Conference and was the BGCT's second vice president in 2001-02.

He has been a vice chairman of the BGCT Christian Life Commission and a trustee of Wayland Baptist University. He also has served on the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship's national and state coordinating councils. He has participated in multiple mission trips and has served in various Baptist associational leadership positions.

He has been pastor of the Levelland church since 1991 and also was pastor of churches in Panhandle, Kress and Ames, Okla.

In 2004, First Baptist Church in Levelland had 1,710 resident members and averaged 382 in Bible study. The church baptized 12 people. Its receipts totalled slightly more than $1 million, and it contributed $165,101 to missions, including $85,740 to the Cooperative Program.

Vernon is a graduate of Baylor University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Donna, have three children.

Posted: 11/01/05

BaptistWay Bible Series for Nov. 13

Regardless of leadership, follow God

• Judges 8:22-23; 8:33-9:15

By Ronnie Prevost

Logsdon Seminary, Abilene

Conventional wisdom: “Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.” “Something is better than nothing.”

Conventional wisdom has many and varied expressions. Some people call it “common sense.” And sometimes these old sayings are true. Sometimes they are not. As we learn from the Scripture passage for this lesson, let’s re-examine those two axioms as they relate to leadership.

In the afterglow of triumph over the Midianites (and forgetting that the Lord God was the true source of the victory), Israel asked Gideon to rule over them (8:22). There is no evidence in Scripture of their seeking God’s will. Their reasoning was that Gideon had “saved us from the hand of Midian.” Things had worked so well, they reasoned, they simply needed Gideon and his heirs to be their kings for this success to continue.

For a printer-friendly version, click on the printer icon at bottom of page.

Gideon, however, demurred, reminding the people (v. 23) God was to be their king.

Then Israel returned to their idolatry. The Lord God had made covenants with them and their forebears. Now they were worshipping Baal-berith or “Lord of Covenant.” Their thinking may have been that one covenant god is as good as the other. Similarly, they may have thought one leader is as good as the other. Neither assumption is true. One’s object of worship makes all the difference. The same can be said of the leader one chooses to follow.

Idolatry again resulted in oppression and hardship. This time Israel did not repent. The people seemed to assume God still would raise up a leader to deliver them. They were taking God for granted. Why repent? They always had been delivered somehow.

Since they would not follow God, Gideon’s death left a leadership vacuum in Israel. Into that void stepped Gideon’s son, Abimelech. Gideon had fathered Abimelech by a Shechemite concubine. Abimelech probably was reared by the mother as a Shechemite and would identify more with that city. Gideon’s 70 other sons would be identified more with Israel.

Where Gideon had said there would be no dynasty, his family warred against each other to make one. Abimelech won, due to support from his mother’s people in Shechem and using money from the shrine to Baal to hire assassins to kill all his half brothers. Jotham, the youngest, hid and was the only survivor. Abimelech was made king —literally by elimination.

But, in Judges 9:8-15, we read that Jotham was not done and had something to say. From the heights of Mount Gerizim (the traditional site where the Israelites had, once upon a time, annually renewed their covenant with God), he shouted a parable down on Israel.

Jotham’s story was designed to cause dissension among the Israelites by calling into question Abimelech’s motives and style of leadership. The parable was one of the trees asking, in order, an olive tree, a fig tree and a vine to be their king. All three candidates were useful trees, but all turned down the offer.

The olive tree preferred to keep its status as related to gods. The fig tree wanted to keeps its wealth. The vine enjoyed its ability to intoxicate.

Then, the bramble volunteered. He offered nothing. His “protection” was meaningless. However, he demanded and received the trees’ submission, threatening their destruction if they did not submit.

Jotham’s bramble, of course, represented Abimelech and said something about the kind of king Abimelech intended to be and became—self-serving and tyrannical.

But neither would Jotham have been a fit ruler. Not called by God, Jotham lacked courage, running and hiding when the time was tough. And after telling and interpreting the parable, he ran away again (v. 21).

Israel’s choices seemed to be between corrupt leadership and cowardly leadership. Under God, both are oxymorons. Godly leadership is the servant leadership exemplified and taught by Jesus. It requires compassion, integrity and courage. Unworthy leaders stress personal gain rather than the good of people they serve and with whom they serve.

Even today, we sometimes care far too little about the type leaders we choose to follow. To simply settle for the one available is far too tempting. When we do this, we are agreeing that “Something is better than nothing.” But the story of Abimelech shows otherwise.

With all the available choices and options in our lives, we can too easily yearn for someone who will make things simpler by making the choices for us. Though a far and sad departure from our Baptist heritage, we may find ourselves asking someone else to tell us what to believe and do. This lesson reminds us “Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.”

“Be done with lesser things,” a line from one of our hymns reminds us. That has to do with the God we serve and worship. He alone is worthy. Any other god is unworthy. Further, God calls and equips people—ministers and laity alike—to lead.

In response, our responsibility is two-fold. If and when God calls, we must each be the kind of leader God would have us be. Also, we must have high standards for those we choose to follow. God wants the best for his people and his church. We are never to settle for less.

Discussion questions

• What are the criteria you have for leaders whom you follow?

• How consistent are those criteria with the example set by Jesus—a servant leader?

Posted: 11/01/05

Family Bible Series for Nov. 13

Look to God for answers to life’s hard questions

• Job 4:6-8; 8:4-8; 11:13-15

By Donald Raney

Westlake Chapel, Graham

When tragedy strikes, there are generally two extreme explanations immediately raised. One states all bad things that happen are sent by God as judgment on the people involved. The other explanation holds that tragedies solely are the result of human choice and bad luck.

While either of these may be true for a particular situation, one must be very cautious about any general statements universally applied to explain why certain events occur. As is often the case, the truth usually lies somewhere between these two extremes.

For a printer-friendly version, click on the printer icon at bottom of page.

God has told us his ways and thoughts are much higher than ours. Human explanations usually fall far short of offering fully satisfying answers that can speak to the soul of the one suffering. Believers should shun overly simplistic explanations and carefully seek God’s help with each unique circumstance. The story of Job’s encounter with his three friends clearly illustrates this.

Job 4:6-8

Before looking at what each of these friends said, we should point out these three men truly were Job’s friends. They were genuinely concerned about their friend and sought to help Job through his trying times. Their explanations were based squarely on the commonly held theology of the day that God would bless the obedient and punish the disobedient. While the basic idea is central to much of the Torah, especially the book of Deuteronomy, this explanation is based on mistaken assumptions and misapplication of this truth.

Having heard about Job’s misfortunes, three of his friends come to console and support him. For seven days and nights, they all sit together without speaking a word. Finally, in chapter 3, Job breaks the silence as he gives voice to his lament. The words recorded there are the words of a man genuinely grieved and perplexed concerning his situation. In this lament, Job curses the day he was born and questions why God would give life only for the person to suffer.

Eliphaz is the first to respond to Job’s lament. In his response, Eliphaz immediately appeals to God’s justice as the reason for Job’s misfortunes.

His reasoning is certainly logical. Why would God send discomfort on a “blameless” person (v. 6)? Since the only reasonable answer to this question is that God would not do that, Job must be hiding some unconfessed sin.

God is thus justified in sending calamity as punishment. Yet the reader knows Job stands blameless before God. Still, Eliphaz continues into chapter 5 to encourage Job to “come clean” and confess his sins.

In chapters 6 and 7, Job affirms his initial lament was indeed emotional instead of rational (6:1-3) and then continues to lament his situation while maintaining his innocence before God. Even today, well-intentioned believers may dismiss the emotional laments and outcries of innocence from those suffering and counsel the person to “just get over it.” Yet God honors such appeals as honest expressions of human emotion. God desires this type of complete openness and honesty from his people.

Job 8:4-8

Bildad is the next to speak. His explanation largely is the same as that of Eliphaz in that he attributes Job’s suffering to God’s punishment for sin. Yet whereas Eliphaz had based his argument on God’s justice, Bildad based his on religious tradition.

This is perhaps most clearly evident in verse 8, where he encourages Job to “ask the former generations and find out what their fathers learned.” The idea here is that God-fearing men had determined long ago suffering was the result of sin. This was now the essential teaching of their theology.

Such appeals to traditional beliefs have been common throughout history and frequently are used today. Yet the mere fact that a certain belief or practice has been around for a long time, does not strengthen its validity.

For example, for centuries the church taught the earth was flat and excommunicated anyone who taught otherwise. We now know, however, this teaching was false. God constantly is in the process of revealing more of himself and creation to us. While we are certainly called to test new ideas against the teachings of the Bible, we also should be open to new revelations from God and should always refuse to readily accept explanations simply because they represent traditional teachings.

Job 11:13-15

After Job once again affirms his innocence and laments his circumstances, Zophar offers yet another explanation. While the idea is once again that suffering is evidence of God’s punishment, Zophar bases his argument on human reason. He offers a series of “if …, then …” statements designed to get Job to see the logic behind this idea. Yet rather than focusing on the negative side, Zophar emphasizes what the logical result of turning to God in obedience would be. For Zophar, it is only reasonable to think that if Job confesses his sin, God would bless him.

After each of these friends have spoken, Job offers a final reaffirmation of his rejection of their explanations and expresses a desire to bring his case directly to God (13:20-24). While God does not immediately answer Job, Job has taken the best course of action. Instead of seeking guidance from human ideas of justice, tradition or reason, Job wishes to take his concerns to God to see what God might say. What better course of action could there be?

Discussion questions

• What are some other explanations people offer for why bad things happen?

• What are some other traditional beliefs and practices that have been or should be reconsidered?

Posted: 11/01/05

COMMENTARY:
Welcome to a China where Mao is a capitalist icon

By Marv Knox

Editor

BEIJING, China—You can eat with a fork in China.

But don’t you dare drink the tap water.

The fork symbolizes China’s welcome to the western world: It’s present everywhere, even in the most traditional restaurants. But the water represents the challenge of adapting: If you’re not from there, you’ll never fully grasp all the nuances of its ancient and deeply layered culture.

China teems with such contrasts:

• Housing. Cranes dominate the skyline of China’s cities, erecting gleaming, sophisticated high-rise apartments. But many of them tower over decrepit communist-era gray apartments and mud-brick shanties. Sometimes, you can walk or drive three blocks and travel a century in time.

• The economy. At once socialist and capitalist, China embraces both economic systems that divided the world in the 20th century. The government provides healthcare, transportation, utilities and basic services. Entrepreneurs sell everything else. And business people from all over the world are flocking to Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing, eager to get in on the world’s largest market.

(The most ironic capitalist icon: Chairman Mao. Enterprising Chinese are getting rich, or at least making a healthy living, off of the image of one of the 20th century’s leading communists. You can buy Chairman Mao hats, Chairman Mao backpacks, Chairman Mao T-shirts. Even Chairman Mao wristwatches.)

• Transportation. For most of the past century, the bicycle was China’s preferred mode of transportation. The Chinese must have had the healthiest legs in the world. Now, bikes still are bountiful, but they share the road with young China’s new favorite—the car. You can stand at any major intersection in Beijing, and the scene is better than any action movie. Bicyclists whiz in front of and between cars, cross in front of buses without seeming to look, drive headlong into oncoming lanes. If you’re a foreigner, you’re probably safer drinking the water than riding a bike.

• Food. Nothing smells quite like a Chinese restaurant. Chicken, beef, pork and seafood all cooking at the same time, each in its own pungent, succulent sauce. A table laden with Chinese food is enough to send the senses of taste and smell and sight into hyperdrive. But the West has come to China’s kitchens, too. Although a group of Buckner Orphan Care International volunteers usually ate Chinese food three meals a day, they also dined at KFC, Pizza Hut and Outback Steakhouse.

• Cities. Fly from Beijing, near the eastern Pacific coast, to Urumqi, far in the Asian hinterland. You feel like you traveled to a different world. Beijing sparkles with new growth, big businesses, fancy cars. Although cosmopolitan with tourists and foreign businesses, its native residents are almost exclusively Han, the dominant ethnic group in all of China. Beijing is busy primping for the 2008 Summer Olympics, and it’s set on putting on a fantastic show. In contrast, Urumqi feels rusty and dusty. Sure, it’s erecting some new high-rises, and its energy and agriculture businesses are booming. But it’s far from the limelight. And it’s diverse, too, with residents from all over central Asia, like Mongolia and countries whose names end in –istan.

• Religion. After decades of communist rule, atheism seems to permeate China. Still, people of many faiths abound. Buddhists and Taoists, for example, reflect the religions that have remained the longest. In western China, where ethnic minorities have migrated from Central Asia, you don’t have to look long to find an Islamic mosque. But Christianity is the fastest-growing faith. The registered Three-Self churches burst at the seams on Sundays, and underground house churches are multiplying like a 21st century Pentecost. Some close observers believe 30,000 Chinese a day are coming to faith in Christ. And they predict China will be Christianity’s evangelistic and missionary engine before the century is out.

• Children. An unofficial yet rigid caste system constrains China’s babies. To slow burgeoning population growth, the government decreed that each family may have only one child. That plants healthy boys at the top of the baby mountain, since they can carry on the family name and provide for aging parents. Next come healthy girls, readily adopted the world over. And handicapped children crawl at the bottom. They’re abandoned by the thousands, so parents can try again for a healthy child.

If you think the contrast between China’s children is cruel, you’re right.

Walk into a Chinese orphanage, and you’ll see the devastating effects of social engineering run amok. The Buckner volunteers, who visited China Oct. 13-23, took the agency’s Shoes for Orphan Souls program to five orphanages, and they met enough special-needs children to fill their dreams for a lifetime.

Orphanage directors in both the western Xinjiang Province and Beijing in the east reported that more than 90 percent of their children suffer mental or physical handicaps. And, except in nurseries for the babies, the Buckner group never saw a healthy girl.

But they witnessed love. Lots of love.

In fact, loving concern is the common denominator—along with crushing, desperate need—among all the orphanages.

The orphanages in the cosmopolitan east, Beijing and Tianjin, are exactly what they appear to be—large, spotless and efficient. Their directors are leaders among China’s child-care and rehabilitation specialists. Their workers are well-educated and either experienced or closely supervised. And although they house large numbers of children, they’re funded well enough to provide close care for children, even one-on-one teaching in some cases.

The orphanages in the remote west, Changji, Shihezi and Urumqi, also are as they seem—smaller, struggling for funds and informal. The staffs at Changji and Shihezi, for the most part, aren’t trained well, nor are the children as clean as the youngsters in the big-city facilities. The buildings aren’t as tidy and well-kept. These conditions don’t reflect on the workers’ intentions as much as their culture and poverty.

But in every place, the caregivers show genuine love for the children. They obviously know each child well and tailor their care to the children’s individual temperaments and needs.

And the children, at least those with minimal mental capacity, seem happy and well-adjusted in their homes.

Still, the effects of a caste system that casts off the “least of these” in an entire society leaves its marks. Like 1-year-olds whose heads are flat on the back, because overburdened workers didn’t turn them as infants. Babies who lean into the gentle strokes of Buckner volunteers on their faces. Toddlers who don’t want visitors to stop playing with them. Children who beam when caring adults pay them personal attention.

Buckner has committed to help the orphanages of China. Not as a know-it-all Western big brother, but as a sister institution that loves children of all kinds in all places.

After all, if business entrepreneurs are flooding into China to make money off of the world’s biggest market, shouldn’t Christians flood China to share the gentle, life-giving touch of Jesus’ love?

Now, that’s a contrast.