Posted: 7/07/06

Posted: 7/07/06

2nd Opinion:
Of Jonathan Edwards & McDonald’s

Driving back over the Appalachian Mountains from a family wedding in Canada, we passed Stockbridge, Mass. This town was the lesser-known base of operations for Jonathan Edwards’ missionary labors. More famously, Edwards resided in Northampton, the central location for the dramatic 18th century revivals of the Great Awakening in New England.

As an Edwards aficionado, I was aware of the Edwards/Stockbridge connection. I wasn’t cognizant of the even less-well-known relationship between Edwards and McDonald’s until, as we hurtled by Stockbridge in our minivan, we decided time had come to eat. And behold, we did what surely would have surprised the famous evangelical leader. We picked up a drive-thru McDonald’s.

I wondered whether Edwards and McDonald’s have anything in common. Could it be that the slight guilty feeling as I munched the salty fries was reminiscent of the stellar theological tome Original Sin, penned in Stockbridge? Was our choice to do a drive-thru right there and then predetermined in a classically philosophically charged “freedom of the will” fashion? Or was the can-do spirit of the frontier that surrounded Edwards’ missionary journey represented, albeit somewhat differently, by the can-do franchise dominance of fast-food chains in America?

Whimsical thoughts aside, I also began to wonder how—or whether—Edwards would critique McDonald’s. Could Edwards approvingly have been involved in a “super-size me” Puritan Jeremiad of fast-food, gut-busting obesity issues in the modern West? Or, rather more pointedly, how is it that the Puritan genetic code in the foundation of the country has managed to be expressed in mercantile relations of Big Macs and milkshakes? Was there something in the original theological code that was liable to be taken in such a direction, or has modern life encapsulated the gospel (sanitized it) in gilded-cage commercial enterprises?

I am not the first—and certainly won’t be the last—to ask about the development of corporate American sensibilities from Puritan foundations. What makes the question significant today are other, more-grating comparisons apparent to the watchful eye than even Edwards and McDonald’s. How is it that a city with many large—even mega—churches can allow signs on its highways that direct travelers to pornographic boutiques? What is happening in our church culture when a schoolteacher can remark that it is the church kids who are most often in trouble with the principal? What do the terms “Christian,” “biblical,” “evangelical” and “Baptist” mean when their linguistic heritage is downgraded by their behavioral aberrations?

What do Edwards and McDonald’s have in common? I have nothing against McDonald’s. The Stockbridge drive-thru is not the first I have frequented. I’m just asking what it means to have an authentic spirituality as a Christian these days. It seems that Jesus had a simple answer to that: “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15).

In our appropriate and worthy desire to be involved with church and all that is allied with Christianity, let us not forget to ask ourselves about more than our community connections. Let us ask ourselves about our spirituality. Let us be careful to examine our lifestyle. Let us fall in love with Jesus again, not merely be enthusiastic for his organization or celebrate this or that movement or emphasis. Let us have our hearts open to his Spirit and his personal involvement with us. Let us embrace God not as a product to be marketed by our churches but as a person to be worshipped.

Josh Moody is pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in New Haven, Conn.

Posted: 7/07/06

DBU students serve Peruvian
orphans through Buckner

By Tim Gingrich

Dallas Baptist University

DALLAS—Forty-seven Dallas Baptist University students, faculty and staff started their summer break by spending two weeks serving orphanages in Peru.

Each morning, the volunteers worked on service projects—repainting walls, doing yard work and repairing broken facilities. During the hot afternoon, they played with the children.

“As soon as they heard us coming, children came running out of all the rooms,” said DBU junior Lindsay Springer, describing the scene as children met their teams in Lima. “They just wanted to sit in your lap or hold your hand.”

Springer—along with 41 classmates and five DBU sponsors—partnered with Buckner Benevolences and its Buckner Orphan Care International program. DBU students previously have assisted on three other such projects in Russia and Guatemala.

DBU Student Body President Timmellyn Buchanan is squeezed by hug-thirsty children.

Jay Harley, director of spiritual life at DBU and the trip’s coordinator, explained this year’s trip was many new students’ first time to leave the country. “It was a little overwhelming for some of them at first, but all the students performed very well,” he said.

One service project called for DBU students to chip away tile inside an old public restroom, one firmly placed piece at a time. Sledgehammers swinging, shards of tile flying, and the smell—it was not the way most people imagine sharing God’s love with orphans, participants noted later. Work, however, came to an abrupt stop as several young boys from the orphanage stormed the room to express their gratitude.

“It made me see that even a place like that can be an altar when people are willing to express love and work for it,” said Bob Garrett, DBU missions professor, who accompanied the team.

Peru’s picturesque landscape, ancient Incan ruins and distinctive culture provided plenty of memories for the Texans. But participants said the most unforgettable sight was dozens of DBU students down on bended knee, presenting new shoes to children at orphanages.

Buckner shipped hundreds of pairs of donated shoes to Peru before DBU students set foot in South America. Brittany Bradley was one of the students who knelt down to help the children tie their new tennis shoes.

“Bowing before these children and helping them with their shoes was a humbling experience. It makes you realize that God has a special purpose for each child,” she said.

DBU graduate student Christy Brashier helps children with their new shoes.

“Some of them may have had worn-out shoes. However, these new shoes mean more; they symbolize that someone cares.”

She recalled having collected shoes and supplies for orphans before, but she was never sure what happened after they went overseas. DBU students were as surprised as the children to find personal notes in the shoes written by the families who donated them.

“It makes you realize that the things you give really get to the people who need them,” Bradley said.

“The children were very surprised and thankful that we came and that we care about their country,” explained DBU student Abe Huerta. He was one of several Spanish-speaking students who contributed his cultural understanding and language skills to the trip and acquired direct feedback from the children.

“Sometimes people wonder what they can do in such a short time, but it really makes a difference to these kids.”

While serving at an orphanage in Cusco, the team met another volunteer from New York. “I have been working here for a week already and have not seen a single smile,” he told the team. “Whatever you all are doing, keep doing it.”

Several DBU students described the journey as a life-changing experience. “The way the students became burdened for these orphans, children they have never seen before and will probably never meet again, is truly inspirational,” Harley said.

DBU student Adrienne Anderson asked the children at each orphanage, “What do you want to do in the future?”

One after another, children replied with the same answers. “I want to be a doctor.” “I want to be a teacher.” “I’m going to be president!”

“We all go away asking ourselves what we can do,” Anderson said. “During this trip, I realized that these children are the future of their country, and there is hope and a future for them.”

Posted: 7/07/06

DOWN HOME:
It’s summertime; put on your parka

Here’s something that doesn’t make sense to me: Why must we shiver so much in the summertime?

I’m not talking about cataclysmic climatological calamity. The nearest stock tank, swimming pool and/or septic tank isn’t about to freeze up. It’s July in Texas, and you can bet the daytime highs will be somewhere between 90 degrees and the mean temperature of Hades.

But if you decide to shop for groceries, take in a movie or eat out in the summer, pack a parka and put on closed-toed shoes.

The other weekend, Joanna, Molly and I went to see Les Miserables at the Music Hall at Fair Park in Dallas. By the end of the first scene, you could’ve convinced me the French fought the insurrection of 1832 on top of a Greenland glacier. A north gale howled down my back, and I was so cold, I could hardly keep up with the plot. After intermission, Jo convinced me to get under her shawl and scrunch close to Molly, who sat between us. (My wise wife’s learned to layer her clothing, bring a sweater or shawl, and otherwise prepare for indoor frost in the summer. Nothing fazes her anymore.)

A generation or two ago, when air conditioning was new, all kinds of Texas businesses proudly proclaimed, “It’s cool inside.” And when few public buildings—and even fewer homes—possessed AC, that probably was a good marketing gimmick.

This practice even extended to churches. While attending the church where my brother is pastor, I visited a historical display. Decades ago, the church’s primary marquee informed everyone in downtown Temple that First Baptist had air conditioning.

This is curious, of course. If I were a Texas pastor, I’d be tempted to turn off the AC and take on a July-through-August sermon series about the “wages of sin.” You’d think even a semi-decent preacher could convince folks they don’t want to spend an eternity in hell if it’s any hotter than your typical summer afternoon. Besides, a dip in the baptismal waters would be a good way to cool off torched souls.

These days, almost every building, including your nearest church house, is air-conditioned. So, who needs to brag about AC? And with the price of fuel higher than the pinnacle of the Temple, why over-cool every restaurant and theater, not to mention most church sanctuaries?

In businesses, particularly restaurants, I often feel management sets the thermostat to accommodate the employees, not the guests. I can see the logic: Waiters work hard; why not keep them cool? But if they freeze out customers, nobody wins.

OK, here’s the transition: When I visit churches, I often feel the same way, and I’m not talking temperature. Too often, we arrange everything to suit our members and think little, if at all, about how this impacts the poor souls who need the spiritual care and nurture only congregations can offer—if only we will.

Next time you go to church, look at everything from the perspective of guests. Are you “freezing” them out?

— Marv Knox

Posted: 7/07/06

EDITORIAL:
What difference does it really make?

After dinner not long ago, a wonderful friend asked a poignant question: “What’s it mean to be a Christian?”

My friend is a lifelong Baptist and a serious Christian. We’ve known each other more than two decades, and we’ve talked often about the challenge of living the Christian life, particularly as parents, in a secular, materialistic community. She wasn’t asking how a person becomes a Christian or what happens after death. She was asking: What difference does it make—or should it make—to be a Christian?

My friend’s question stuck with me. A comprehensive reply could fill many books, but here’s the short version of my answer. I hope and pray it prompts you to think about the difference being a Christian makes in your life.

• Our lives have purpose. We are created, known and called out by God.

The Prophet Jeremiah insisted God knew us before we were formed in the womb, consecrated us before we were born, and made plans for us (Jeremiah 1:5, 29:11). Jesus told us we have been chosen and appointed for our tasks (John 15:16). So, God knows us and has specific work for each of us to do. Our lives are far from meaningless, because they fit into God’s plan—for us and for the world.

• Our priorities are clear. We’re supposed to love God with all we’ve got and love others at least as much as we love ourselves.

When a lawyer asked Jesus to name the greatest commandment, he named two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. (And) you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:28-31).

What if we were to love God and others that much? If you absolutely love someone, you want to make that person happy. You arrange your life—activities, choices, thoughts, investments—to their interest. Imagine doing this with God and others. How would our lives be different? Would we purge wanting more, more and more? Would we give up on lust, envy, anger, suspicion and self-promotion?

• We put into practice the essential elements of our faith. Here are a few of those elements:

• Godly living. The Prophet Micah noted our spiritual requirements are “to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). If we truly are just, we seek right and fair outcomes for others, not simply for ourselves or people like us. We work for equitable treatment and opportunity for all people. We transcend the seduction of nationalism. We rise above racism and religious prejudice. Jesus also indicated the way we treat “the least of these” in society indicates how we have treated him. This should shape how we think about immigration, look at the tax system, and secure care for the elderly, children and the disabled. Jesus said we ignore him if we ignore them. Are we damned by our insensitive blindness?

• Faithfulness. The Apostle Paul promised that God “will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able” (1 Corinthians 10:13). Christians are most vulnerable to temptation when we think we’re invulnerable. The man who thinks he can’t have an affair better remain in his wife’s sight. The woman who thinks she won’t steal better let someone else handle the finances. Our culture blames circumstances for temptation and, ultimately, moral failure. But Paul promises God will “provide a way of escape.” We don’t have to fail, and our faithfulness in face of temptation in an “everyone’s doing it” world may be our finest witness.

• Persistence. The writer of Hebrews described a “cloud of witnesses”—Christians who passed before us and endured suffering and martyrdom—who cheer for us from heaven. He urged us to “run with endurance the race set before us,” realizing Jesus endured the cross to make our salvation available. Persistence enables us to identify with Christ’s suffering. Endurance makes us stronger, more valuable servants in God’s kingdom.

• Stewardship. In a harrowing parable, Jesus described the death sentence of a greedy person who hoarded all his material treasures: “You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?” (Luke 12:20). The Apostle Peter insisted we’re responsible for our spiritual gifts as well as our material possessions (1 Peter 4:10). We can determine what we really value by where we place our money, time and talents. So, what difference does our faith make if the way we invest our lives is no different than our neighbors?

• Confidence and courage. Jesus told us, “Do not worry about your life …” (Luke 12:22), and he promised to prepare an eternal “dwelling place” for us (John 14:2). This both is and is not about the “sweet by-and-by.” If we know Christ is watching over us and will provide our ultimate protection, then the small stuff of life shouldn’t shake our confidence or drain our daily courage. (By the way, it’s all “small stuff.”)

• Mission. Jesus commissioned us to lead others to follow him (Matthew 28:19-20). Since we have been so blessed, how dare we ignore him and hoard our salvation?

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard.

Posted: 7/07/06

Gibson’s Passion sparked new
relationship between faith & film

By David Anderson

Religion News Service

NEW YORK (RNS)—There is a lot of buzz these days in both religious and Hollywood circles that a new relationship is being forged between faith and film. Is it for real, or is it just a lot of hype?

Michael Flaherty, president of Walden Media, a partner with Walt Disney Studios in bringing C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe to the silver screen, comes down on the side of the optimists.

“I think there’s definitely an interest” in Hollywood in religious themes, he said, but added: “One of the mistakes that people make is they think they can just throw in a church scene here, throw in a bit of Scripture here.

“They’re missing the point that it’s (filmmaking) all about a great story. And so if it (religion) doesn’t exist in the DNA of the story, you can’t just dab it on like makeup.”

Flaherty made his comments during a panel discussion—“What Would Jesus Direct”—at the recent Tribeca Film Festival in New York.

Kim Lawton, managing editor of the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, moderated the panel.

Other members of the panel included Jonathan Bock, president of Grace Hill Media, founded in 2000 to “bridge the chasm” by marketing films to people of faith; Ralph Winter, producer of X-Men: The Last Stand; and Academy Award-winning actor Cuba Gooding Jr.

Asked whether the new interest in faith on film is about putting Bible stories on the screen, or films that may not be explicitly religious but tackle themes with religious and moral overtones, Flaherty opted for the latter.

“And you know, it’s like the Apostle Paul said to the church of Philippi: Look, whatever’s good, whatever’s true, whatever’s praiseworthy, this is where you need to be putting your focus, this is where you need to be putting your minds,” he said.

“I think that there’s a lot of people in the faith community who are looking for those films that are really inspirational and uplifting and might not necessarily be considered deliberately religious per se,” he added.

But it was an explicitly religious film—Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, which earned at least $370 million in the United States—that panelists pointed to as the breakthrough movie creating an awareness in Hollywood of the Christian market.

“The Passion of the Christ kicked the door open for these kinds of (religious) projects,” Winter said.

“But I think they have to be entertaining. No one wants to be preached to in a movie theater.”

There’s a fine line, Bock said, between the kinds of movies filmmakers want to make, the kinds of films audiences want to see, and most importantly, the kinds of films studios are willing to bankroll.

“I think the question just can’t be what would Jesus direct,” Bock said.

“I think it’s got to be what would Jesus direct and would Paramount distribute because, look, film is a collaborative process. It requires a lot of money.”

Gooding, who won Best Supporting Actor in 1996 for his role in Jerry Maguire, said he laughs at Hollywood’s timing.

“It’s funny. They go where the money is,” he said, pointing to the financial success of The Passion of the Christ.

“Now everybody’s scurrying to have the next faith-based project that goes through the roof. The audience has been there for years.”

Hollywood is just discovering the audience, Bock said.

“The statistics are overwhelming,” he said. “For example, on Sunday, 43 percent of America was in church—43 percent. And for studios not to recognize that that’s an audience now, it’s like a studio saying we’re not making movies for men.

“What you are starting to see is studios are starting to put their toes in the water.”

A number of studios, he said, are making small-budget films—$2 million movies—aimed at the Christian market.

He said he hopes Grace Hill will play a role in reaching “the relatively untapped market of religious America.”

The panelists agreed most religious leaders now believe faith and pop culture need to be connected.

“Movies, for many denominations, were a sin,” Bock noted.

“And I think what most Christian leaders have seen happen is that pop culture has moved on without them. And you can’t stop it.

“And so instead of being at the back end of the curve, I think they are interested in getting to the front end of the curve and engaging in that discussion and being at the front end of culture.”

Posted: 7/07/06

New York's highest court punts
gay-marriage dispute to legislators

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

ALBANY, N.Y. (ABP)—New York’s highest court has ruled that the state’s constitution neither requires nor bans the legalization of same-sex marriage, saying the question is one for the state’s legislators to decide.

The July 6 ruling dealt a blow to gay-rights activists but was not as broad as many gay-marriage opponents had preferred.

In the 4-2 decision, the state’s highest court—the New York Court of Appeals—said the state’s constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex.

“Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the legislature,” the court ruled.

The New York decision is one of several by state high courts in recent years denying a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts became the only state to legalize same-sex marriage after its highest court ruled in 2003 that banning it violated the Massachusetts Constitution. Vermont and Connecticut offer gay couples civil unions, with benefits and responsibilities nearly identical to marriage. California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have “domestic partnership” laws that offer marriage-like advantages to unmarried couples.

The latest ruling came in four separate cases that were combined. In those, 44 New York same-sex couples who wished to marry sued municipal clerks who denied them marriage licenses in various parts of the state, saying the state’s Domestic Relations Law, which deals with marriage in heterosexual-specific terms, violates the New York Constitution’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees.

All of the lower courts involved had ruled against the plaintiffs, save for one trial court in New York City. Attorneys for the state and the municipalities involved defended the marriage law.

The author of the court’s controlling three-person plurality opinion, Judge Robert Smith, said the state’s Domestic Relations Law does not violate the rights of same-sex couples because the law had a rational basis beyond sheer anti-gay prejudice.

“The question is not, we emphasize, whether the legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course, the legislature may … extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples,” Smith wrote.

“We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted … both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.”

First, Smith said, legislators may choose to provide heterosexuals with incentives to marry—such as tax advantages and inheritance and health-care rights—because heterosexual couplings are the only ones naturally inclined to produce children.

Gay couples “can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse,” he said.

For that and other reasons, Smith contended, “the legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships.”

Second, Smith wrote, “The legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.”

He also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the state’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples is analogous to a Virginia law banning interracial marriage that the federal Supreme Court overturned in 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

“…[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case,” Smith said. “Racism has been recognized for centuries—at first by a few people, and later by many more—as a revolting moral evil.”

But heterosexual-only marriage is not an analogous situation, Smith said: “Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”

Smith questioned whether the freedom to marry someone of one’s own gender is a “fundamental right.”

“The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not ‘deeply rooted’; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times,” he said.

Finally, Smith said, the decision should be a legislative one.

“The dissenters assert confidently that ‘future generations’ will agree with their view of this case. … We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives.”

But Chief Judge Judith Kaye, in a lengthy dissenting opinion challenging virtually all of Smith’s arguments, said the court should not shirk its constitutional duty.

“If the legislature were to amend the statutory scheme by making it gender neutral, obviously the instant controversy would disappear. But this court cannot avoid its obligation to remedy constitutional violations in the hope that the legislature might some day render the question presented academic,” she said.

“It is uniquely the function of the judicial branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation.”

Kaye said Smith and the plurality employed circular logic in saying that the freedom to marry a partner of one’s own gender was not an inherent right.

“The court concludes … that same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in tradition, and thus cannot implicate any fundamental liberty. But fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights,” she wrote. “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.”

The logic of encouraging child welfare by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples isn’t consistent with the state’s other laws or cultural reality, she said.

“While encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the state, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone,” she wrote.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage in no way furthers the welfare of children but in fact it undermines it, she continued.

“Tens of thousands of children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in New York. Depriving these children of the benefits and protections available to the children of opposite-sex couples is antithetical to their welfare.”

The issue is now in the hands of the state’s political leaders, whom gay-rights supporters called on July 6 to pass a same-sex marriage bill. A recent poll showed that a slight majority of New Yorkers favor legalizing same-sex marriage. Bills to do so, however, have not made it out of committee during recent legislative sessions.

Posted: 7/07/06

Texas Baptist Forum

Unity, not division

In his letter excluding female church leaders (June 12), Brian Thompson cited several Scriptures and concluded we must trust in the authority of the Bible. In my entire Baptist experience, I have never been in a Baptist church where women aren’t allowed to talk, teach Sunday school, wear their Sunday best, wear earrings and wedding and engagement rings, wear makeup and have their uncovered hair in the latest styles. Yet with the same scriptural authority that Thompson cites, these practices are problematic.

• Jump to online-only letters below

Letters are welcomed. Send them to marvknox@baptiststandard.com; 250 words maximum.

“A growth-oriented congregation won't shut down for the summer. They can change programs, perhaps, but they need to recognize that church-shoppers expect to see ‘merchandise on display,’ not ‘empty shelves.’ Some churches, in fact, offer more in the summer, not less.” Tom Ehrich Writer, consultant, workshop leader and Episcopal priest from Durham, N.C. (RNS) “The language of the Declaration (of Independence) marked an important shift in early American history. Prior to Philadelphia and the Revolution, most public professions of faith were Christian, whether the words came from Anglicans in Jamestown or Puritans in New England. In declaring the colonies’ independence from Great Britain, though, the Founders were also making another declaration: That Americans respected the idea of God, understood the universe to be governed by moral and religious forces, and prayed for divine protection against the enemies of this world, but were not interested in establishing yet another earthly government with official ties to a state church.” Jon Meacham Managing editor of Newsweek magazine, in his new book, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers and the Making of a Nation (RNS)

Also, in my reading of these Scriptures, it appears that they are addressing family relationships, not clergy or deacons. Scripture does cite several early female church leaders. More importantly, Jesus communicated clearly in the gospels that men and women, Jew and Gentile, and free and slave were equals in every way. The very first person to proclaim the good news to a group of people was Mary Magdalene, and her authority to do so came as a direct command from Jesus himself.

We as Baptists are congregationalists, and this issue is clearly the prerogative of each congregation. If a person’s cultural and social perspective makes one feel uncomfortable in a church that has female leaders, find another Baptist church more to one’s preference.

Let’s focus on those things that unite us, not divide us.

Ray Atkinson

Dallas

Spirit’s leadership

Brian Thompson seems to suggest that men are to be the spiritual leaders of women (June 12).

Is he saying men are to take the place of the Holy Spirit in the lives of women? This is almost blasphemous even to consider. The Bible says it is the Spirit, not men, who will guide us into all truth.

Surely the word for “head” has a different meaning in Scripture. The words “source” or “origin” come much closer. Moreover, there is abundant proof from the Bible that women did preach and teach in the early church  with God’s, and Paul’s, blessing and approval, so 1Timothy 2:12 must have another, less restrictive meaning.

If women are as able as men to lead, why not let them?

Kathryn Vance

Kosse

Stumbling block

In William Campbell’s letter about alcohol (June 26), the question should not be, “Can we drink alcohol?” but, “Should we drink alcohol?”

Things are permissible, yet because of their influence on others, they’re not. The question becomes: “Does taking a drink glorify God?” Paul said in Galatians the last fruit of the Spirit is self control. We need to be cautious of anything that takes control away. No matter how little alcohol you use, it inhibits self control. This is a proven fact.

By promoting alcohol use, the pastor has become a stumbling block, because everyone who reads his letter thinks that because the pastor drinks, it is OK.

One of my deacons tells the story of he and his wife befriending another couple before he was saved. They met for dinner and had wine. This was the first time to drink for the couple. The wife became addicted and now is an alcoholic.

As a pastor, I would have a hard time explaining that situation if I had caused it. Pastors influence people. We must be careful not to lead people astray. I could use alcohol and it not hurt me. I will not, because it might be a tragedy for someone else, keeping them from Christ.

Let us not glorify culture but rather glorify Christ.

Bill Gleason

Cuero

Clear positions

Thank you for clearly stating the positions in your editorial “SBC: Many changes, very little change” (June 26)

We can choose to be “traditional, mainstream Texas Baptists” or to be “young, polite inerrantists who affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message” and work with—I suppose you mean financially and ideologically support—the Baptist World Alliance and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. 

It really helps when guys like you spell it out for us.  It makes our decisions much easier.

Wade Taylor

Alvarado

. Letters are limited to 250 words.

Posted: 7/07/06

Longview church in home of its own

By Laura Frase

Communications Intern

LONGVIEW—As a worship service ends, Pastor Willie Cabrera invites church members and visitors to move from the sanctuary to a fellowship event in the church’s kitchen.

It’s a special time because having a kitchen to move to—or a worship center to move from—marks a new day for Primera Iglesia Bautista in Longview.

Since Primera Iglesia Bautista’s birth in 1977, the church has been without its own facilities until recently.

Mobberly Baptist Church adopted the church in 1984, not long after Mobberly began another Hispanic mission in South Longview in 1983.

Primera Iglesia Bautista has been meeting and worshipping at Mobberly Baptist Church the past six years, but it needed a place to call its own.

Former Primera Iglesia Bautista Pastor Reuben Guerrero explained that when a person stays in another person’s home, it’s awkward—and sometimes rude—to invite people over.

“They will be able to invite them to their own home,” he said. “Now they can say, ‘Come and dine with us.’ That’s their kitchen!”

Mobberly Baptist Church and Primera Iglesia Bautista worked together to raise money for the new facilities. In 30 years, the churches overcame numerous obstacles to purchase the facilities, said Joe Parnell, Mobberly’s minister of missions.

“God’s timing is a mystery,” Parnell said. “We tried to buy this building five years ago, but God did not open these doors. … We didn’t want to put them in debt, and the price and amount of money we had raised at the time would have put them into serious debt.”

“A true blessing” came when Mobberly Baptist Church sold land it purchased several years ago that had appreciated in value, Parnell said. The money was put into Primera Iglesia Bautista’s building fund.

“God finally opened up” the doors, Parnell said. And Primera Iglesia Bautista purchased the building its members now call home.

“We dreamed of this day for a long time,” Parnell said.

“The church has a chance for their vision, their dream to be fulfilled,” Guerrero added.

While the church now has a permanent home, the relationship between the two congregations will continue.

“Our church plans to be part of this ministry,” said Rick Gabehart of Mobberly Baptist Church.

“We plan to work side-by-side to grow.”

The Hispanic congregation feels grateful for Mobberly Baptist Church’s help and continuing support.

“We don’t deserve this place, but we want to dedicate it to God,” Cabrera said. “We look to the future. … For the church, a new life has begun.”

Posted: 7/07/06

Charges dismissed against Missouri institutions

By Vicki Brown

Word & Way

JEFFERSON CITY, MO. (ABP)—A Missouri judge dismissed conspiracy charges June 27 filed by the Missouri Baptist Convention against four Baptist entities, but the convention may appeal the ruling.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Brown dismissed conspiracy counts against the Baptist Home, Word & Way, the Missouri Baptist Foundation and Windermere Baptist Conference Center.

The judge dismissed the same counts against Missouri Baptist University on June 12.

The conspiracy charges are part of legal action the convention filed against the five entities in 2002. The convention filed the lawsuit in an attempt to require each agency to rescind changes each made to its corporate charter to elect its own trustees. In the past, messengers to Missouri Baptist Convention annual meetings elected each institution’s board members.

Convention lawyer Michael Whitehead argued that university president Alton Lacey influenced the other agencies’ chief operating officers. The charter changes were “interlocked,” Whitehead said. “Trustees for each entity “voted with the knowledge of what the others were doing.”

Judge Brown responded that the entity heads and trustee chairpersons “did not constitute a majority of any board.”

Whitehead pointed out that three institutions are utilizing the same law firm to represent them in the case and that all five entities have listed concerns about liability as a reason to elect their own trustees.

“It shows they were cooperating together. … It will show a pattern,” Whitehead argued.

In its lawsuit, the convention charges all five institutions with breach of contract. Judge Brown ruled the convention’s legal action does not adequately identify a contract between the convention and the four entities.

The judge ruled the convention must specify which provisions of the Missouri Baptist Convention’s governing documents and the covenants the institutions allegedly have breached. He granted attorneys two weeks in which to file the new document. Restated conspiracy charges could be included in the new petition.

Vicki Brown is associate editor of the Word & Way.

Posted: 7/07/06

On the Move

• Carlos Alvarez to Primera Iglesia in Buffalo as pastor.

• Everett Barry to Oak Crest Church in Midlothian as interim pastor.

• Corey Bearden to First Church in San Marcos as minister to students from Park Meadows Church in Waxahachie, where he was youth pastor.

• Richard Boswell to First Church in Sinton as transitional pastor.

• Carlos Charco to Iglesia Emanuel in Hillsboro as pastor.

• Eric Covington to First Church in Milford as music minister.

• Curtis Crofton to First Church in Frankston as interim pastor.

• Joe Dougharty to Dale City Church in Dale City, Va., as pastor of youth and worship coordinator from Lakeview Church in Vidor, where he was pastor.

• Derek Draper has resigned as youth/ education director at First Church in Justin.

• Mark Grace and Linda Wilkerson to Bill Harrod Memorial Church in Dallas as co-pastors.

• Ben Griffin to Grace Temple Church in Waco as minister of music.

• J.D. Hawkins to Mount Pleasant Church in Oakwood as pastor.

• Tom Henderson to Bell Association as director of missions from Heights Church in Temple, where he was pastor.

• Mark Hewitt to Builders Church in Merkel as interim pastor.

• Jim Holloman to Faith Church in Corsicana as pastor.

• Jim Howard to First Church in Matagorda as interim pastor.

• Aaron Hummel to First Church in Stockdale as youth minister.

• Charles Johnson has resigned as pastor of Trinity Church in San Antonio and will serve a one-year appointment as visiting instructor of preaching at Mercer University’s McAfee School of Theology.

• Toby Irwin to Belmore Church in San Angelo as pastor from Hayden Church in Wills Point.

• Blake Lander to Memorial Church in Pasadena as pastor from Council Road Church in Oklahoma City, Okla., where he was minister to young adults.

• John Lawrence to First Church in Mount Calm as pastor.

• Rachel Lopez to First Church in Stockdale as youth ministry assistant.

• Wayne Mahoney has resigned as pastor of First Church in Streetman.

• Cory Mauritzen to Highland Church in Denton as youth minister.

• Herschiel McCarty has completed an interim pastorate at First Church in Ingleside.

• Ron Nolen has resigned as pastor of Ranchhouse Cowboy Church in Maypearl.

• Rick Pearson to First Church in Ingleside as pastor.

• Leigh Ann Powers has resigned as Baptist Student Ministries director at Coastal Bend College in Beeville.

• Bryan Price has completed an interim pastorate at First Church in Winnsboro and is working with Alpine Resort Ministries in Colorado.

• Chris Proctor to Navarro Mills Church in Corsicana as student minister.

• Chris Shirley to Frost Church in Frost as pastor.

• Mike Smith has resigned as pastor of Pawnee Church in Pawnee.

Posted: 7/07/06

Single ministers face multiple hurdles

By George Henson

Staff Writer

Churches that point to biblical proof-texts as their basis for excluding women from consideration as pastors may not look to the Bible when they discount single men, as well. But single men have almost as hard a time as women finding ministerial positions—especially as pastors—in Texas Baptist churches, some observers noted.

Student placement staff at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary and Hardin-Simmons University’s Logsdon Seminary say the lack of a wife can make the search for a place of service difficult.

Werth Mayes, director of student services and resource development at Logsdon, said that while he does not know any student who has married to make himself more marketable, it does enter the mind of some students. And, he noted, some begin to pay more attention to possible matches.

Judy Battles, coordinator for pastoral ministries at Truett, does not believe high anxiety over lack of a wife—and subsequent lack of a pulpit—leads many students into marrying the first person who comes along.

“I think the majority would be smart enough to know that it is not a good reason to get married,” she said. Both said it is apparent that with many search committees: “Single men need not apply.”

While the reasons for the caution could be varied, Mayes said the thing he hears most often from search committees is “they say they feel (marriage) adds more stability” to a minister.

Often, a search committee develops a detailed profile of what they are looking for that includes the prospective pastor’s age, education level and years of experience. Mayes recalled that a colleague told him about one profile that even included the number of children the pastor would have, their ages and the pastor’s height, weight and hair color.

While most profiles are not that in-depth, and most committees say the profiles serve only as guidelines, Mayes believes it is often very difficult—if not impossible—to engender interest in a unmarried candidate, regardless of his other qualifications.

“I’m very honest with those committees,” Mayes said. “I tell them: ‘He’s a wonderful young man, an excellent preacher. I know it is the cultural norm for a pastor to be married, but I think he would do you a very good job.’ Still, most won’t take the chance.”

Even though most committees do not come armed with a profile clearly delineating the prospective pastor’s marital status, that does not mean it is not a factor for them, he said.

“The ones that are not open about it are still very gun-shy,” he said. Many churches short-change themselves by not at least considering an unmarried pastor, Mayes said. He also tells single candidates if a church strongly desires a married pastor, a single pastor probably would not be able to meet their standards anyway, regardless of his abilities.

So, what is a single man who wants to be a single pastor to do?

“They have to just keep praying that some search committee will not have that as a parameter,” Battles said.

Tony Gruben, pastor of Baptist Temple Church in Uvalde, was fortunate enough to find two congregations who felt led to call him as pastor even though he was unmarried.

He was married a few months ago at age 40, and now he knows there are plusses and minuses to being single and a pastor. One positive aspect of being a single pastor is there are less restrictions on time, he said.

“You have a lot more time, because you don’t have a wife or children that you have to be sure to take care of. Because of that, you have a lot more time to be a part of events and projects at the church,” he said.

There are many more positives, however, to being married, he said.

“Being in ministry is often times lonely, and not being married and having someone at home to share things with may have at times exaggerated that. I was fortunate to have family and wonderful associational directors of missions and other friends in ministry to share with, but it was hard not having someone at home I could share with,” he said.

And while Baptist Temple and First Baptist Church in Paint Rock called him as pastor as a single man, other churches plainly told him his marital status was central to not calling him.

“I’ve had pastor-search committees tell me, ‘If only you were married, we would probably call you.’ But I’ve been confident to wait and know in God’s timing he would lead, and he has,” Gruben said. That did not soften the sting, however.

“Any time you are rejected, it’s painful,” he admitted. “Also, I was someone who wanted to be married, but the right person hadn’t come along, and sometimes that pain would come up when I was stymied.”

While he was confident God could use him as a single man, he admits sometimes times were hard.

“Basically, I had told God when I was in college that if he wanted to use me in ministry as a single person, I would do that and be happy in that. Sometimes, I could actually do that, and other days, I couldn’t.”

Like Gruben, other singles manage to find places of service. “I have a lot of single people out serving, so it’s not impossible,” Battles stressed. “But the bias is there.”