Posted: 1/23/06

BaptistWay Bible Series for Feb. 5

Show gratitude for the blessings God gives

• Luke 17:11-19

By Ben Johnson

Logsdon Seminary, Abilene

Just a few months ago, we were celebrating Thanksgiving. Many of us probably heard or observed, “We should be thankful every day of the year.” Have we been? And if so, how have we shown our gratitude? These are the questions this lesson calls us to consider.

In Luke 17:11-19, we see Jesus leaving Galilee for the last time before his death. On his journey along the border, Jesus went from Galilee to Samaria and then on into Jerusalem. Somewhere between Samaria and Galilee, Jesus stopped in a village where 10 men with leprosy approached him.

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

The Greek word for “leprosy” here is translated as a skin disease. It was not necessarily what we might think of today as leprosy, but very possibly. According to Hebrew tradition, people with leprosy or such skin diseases as these men had were outcasts and required to stay away from everyone. People with such a skin disease were secluded and still are in many cultures in the world. When people with leprosy desired to come near someone, they were required to announce their coming as they approached. This is why we see the 10 men calling upon Jesus from a distance.

Lepers who thought their disease was in remission were to present themselves to a priest. The priest would declare them clean so they could be “proper” citizens again. Jesus sent the 10 lepers to the priest before healing them. Even more amazing is that they all went to the priest still as unclean men, men who had no evidence of healing from their disease. But by faith and trust in Jesus, the men went to the priest anyway. And Jesus cleansed the men on their way to visit the priest.

A few summers ago, I was working at a church in New Mexico. There, I helped lead a Vacation Bible School for a church in a small village. The opportunity arose to lead a weekly church service for a group of young men in a juvenile prison.

I was very nervous about the opportunity. I did not know the teenagers at all, and our group had just a couple of hours to prepare for the worship service. Through God’s leading, the hour we spent singing and talking to the students opened a greater opportunity for me to speak to three specific young men after the session. They all had been struggling with the idea of salvation for awhile. Finally, in that moment, they decided they wanted their lives to change.

God’s leading to that place and opportunity resulted in four lives being changed even as I felt unprepared and out of comfort. I sacrificed a normal afternoon of rest that my body told me I needed after travel and a hard week. But I would have sacrificed something so much greater than an afternoon nap had I decided not to follow God’s leading. It should not have been a surprise that the young men found salvation that day. The Lord led, and we all knew that something good would come of it. We saw God perform a miracle that only he could do.

However, we often receive gifts and blessings from God with ungrateful hearts. Nine out of the 10 cleansed lepers were ungrateful for the blessing God gave. At least they did not express their gratitude. Only the one, a foreign Samaritan, acknowledged the significance of what God had done.

His being a Samaritan is significant for the same reason it is significant in the story of the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were a people hated by the Jews. Once again, Luke is pointing out that God’s grace absolutely is for all people.

For all the lepers, it was not faith in the priest nor faith in themselves. Nor was it faith in anything but Jesus. In the same way, Christians will grow only when we are grateful for the blessings Jesus showers on our lives.

So, how can we be more like the Samaritan in these stories? First, we can turn to Jesus in faith and trust him as our Lord and Savior. There is no other way by which we can be cleansed from our sins. Then, we can and should share that faith with those around us. That may mean forgiving and sharing the good news even with whom we differ—as the Jews did the Samaritans.

But that is the very nature of the miracle of salvation. Yes, our sins are washed away. However, it also changes us and our perspectives. No longer will we suffer the disease of bigotry and prejudice. Nor are we constrained by our discomfort with or fear of those who are different from us. The differences may still be there, but the discomfort and fear will be gone.

We are, as Paul wrote in Romans 12:2, being transformed by the renewing of our minds. That is a transformation possible only with God. And that is what leads us to lives of gratitude. Let us live lives of thanks to God by letting his grace in us overflow to grace shared with those around us.

Discussion questions

• How do you show gratitude for the grace that God gives you by the way you relate to others?

• How can we show our gratitude to God by extending God’s grace to those with whom we differ?

Posted: 1/23/06

Family Bible Series for Feb. 5

Serve on purpose—starting right now

• Jeremiah 1:4-12

By Donald Raney

Westlake Chapel, Graham

Nearly all believers would strongly agree that individual service to God is a vital part of the life of the church. We all accept the fact God most often works in the world through the faithful labors of his human agents.

Yet some believers seem to have an inadequate understanding of true service to God. Some see service to God as a special calling that is reserved for those who are chosen as leaders within the church. Since they have not received such a special call from God, they do not see service as their duty.

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

Others understand service is expected of all believers, but it most often takes the form of a call to a specific ministry at a specific time. Thus, they excuse their lack of service as waiting for the right opportunity.

How often do ministry organizers hear, “If you can’t find anyone to do that, let me know”? But God calls all believers to serve on a continuing basis. A large part of the problem is that, too often, most people view service as a task or chore. Service within the kingdom of God is a privilege. Through our service to God, we are able to participate in the fulfillment of God’s purposes in this world.

As we move ahead in service, we also need not be concerned about our ability to serve—God provides all we need to accomplish what he has called us to do. If we can learn to view it in this light, our service can become a fulfilling experience which we would eagerly begin now.

Jeremiah has a lot to teach us about service to God. Perhaps more than any other Old Testament prophet, we are shown Jeremiah’s humanity. We see his questioning of God and his frustrations. Nearly anyone can identify with, and thus learn from, Jeremiah’s experiences with God.

Jeremiah 1:4-8

Like most Old Testament prophets, Jeremiah did not seek to become a prophet. We are told he was the son of a priest in Anathoth. We are not told how old he was when God first came to him, but we do know his prophetic ministry lasted almost 40 years.

Jeremiah’s call came during the reign of King Josiah, who is most known for his widespread reforms designed to re-establish proper worship of God. Prior to the reign of Josiah, Josiah’s father, King Manasseh, had reigned 55 years.

Throughout his reign, Manasseh had supported and expanded the worship of pagan gods and idols throughout Judah while closing the temple and forcing God’s priests into hiding. Although Josiah sought to get rid of the idolatry and restore the worship of God, the people persisted in their sin. Thus, God called Jeremiah to be a prophetic voice calling the people to avoid the coming judgment through repentance.

When God first addresses Jeremiah, he tells the young man he has a special plan for his life. Indeed, God has had this plan in mind since before Jeremiah was born. God was calling Jeremiah to be a “prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah is to be God’s voice to all peoples, calling them back into a right relationship with God. Jeremiah will be led to stand before powerful leaders and boldly proclaim the words God gives to him.

Such a call would intimidate almost anyone. Jeremiah responds by pointing out he is merely a child and lacks the ability to do this. God replies to Jeremiah’s concern by reaffirming his call.

God was well aware of what Jeremiah could and could not do. It was based on this knowledge that God made his choice to call Jeremiah as his spokesman. Whether Jeremiah realized it or not, he was to carry God’s message wherever God sent him. He should not be afraid. Since God had chosen him for this task, God would be with him and deliver him from any dangers.

Just like Jeremiah, God calls us to serve him now. We are not to wait until we acquire whatever special skills or ability or age level we assume we need. God simply wants those who are willing to act as he directs.

Jeremiah 1:9-12

In order to sooth Jeremiah’s fears, God promises to protect him and provide him with what he needs.

God begins by showing Jeremiah he will give him the words to say. Perhaps in a visionary experience, God touches Jeremiah’s mouth and tells him God has given him the words and the power to speak those words to the leaders of the great nations and kingdoms of the world. Jeremiah is given the authority to speak words that will build up and tear down those kingdoms.

God then gives Jeremiah a vision of an almond branch and assures him God is actively watching over his words to bring about what he declares. The connection between the vision and this statement may seem odd to many modern readers. The connection is unfortunately lost in translation. In the original Hebrew, the words for “almond” and “watch” are very similar, thus creating a wordplay in the ears of the original audience.

Yet even for modern readers, the meaning and significance is the same. God is promising that not only will he provide Jeremiah with the words to speak, but he also will be at work to fulfill those words. Thus the newly called prophet can proceed with fulfilling his calling without further concern about his own abilities.

The same promise is available to us today. We need not wait for a special calling or be concerned about our abilities. We simply need to get busy serving God, knowing he knows and will provide all we need.

Discussion questions

• What are some other common excuses for not serving God?

• How do you think God would respond to those excuses?

• What plans are you willing to make to begin serving God now?

Posted: 1/23/06

Explore the Bible Series for Feb. 5

Guard your actions lest they promote conflict

• Romans 14:13-23

By Trey Turner

Canyon Creek Baptist Church, Temple

In our church, we are going through a process of discovering spiritual gifts, personal style and the passions that make up each believer. This is an important process to know how God wants us to serve in and through the church. Part of understanding these things is to show how we do not belong to ourselves.

The Apostle Paul writes, “So in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5). That is a foundational thought about service. We serve the Lord in faithfulness. We serve our brothers and sisters with love, giving up our rights in order to bring people to the faith or to bring them up in the faith. How do we behave towards one another? Paul lays down some expectations for us.

Erect no barriers (Romans 14:13-14)

As Paul discusses the issue of clean animals and unclean animals, he is addressing the Jewish legal code. For some, it was inappropriate for a person to eat certain foods. They might say, “It was wrong when we were obeying the Jewish law; why would it be right now?” But in the same church, there are those who grew up in pagan backgrounds freely eating the things that were not clean under a Jewish religious dietary guideline.

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

Now these believers are in the same church. Which view will prevail? As described in Acts 10, God revealed to Peter that laws regarding clean and unclean animals were no longer an issue for him. In part, this showed Peter he could accept Cornelius into the family of brothers.

Paul holds that same conviction, saying, “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself” (14:14). But Paul does not declare his right to eat because his conscience is clear. He says to consider others whose consciences are not clear.

Today, people have convictions about working on Sunday or wearing shorts to worship services. Paul says do not first think about your rights; consider the barriers they could place to another. Notice how these decisions are self-imposed. They are considerations from maturity.

Act in love (Romans 14:15-18)

The motivation for the Christian’s actions should not be freedom only. Paul appeals to the “most excellent way”—love. Christians consider others and the impact their actions will have on them.

Verse 16 shows the occasion when something good (the believer’s freedom to eat various foods knowing there is no spiritual impact) is given a bad reputation. The believer’s freedom became the point of another person’s stumbling and slander. Be careful not flaunt to your freedom, but use your freedom to love and serve others.

Seek positive results (Romans 14:19-23)

Christians can get embroiled in arguments about who is right and who is wrong just as any one else can. Maturity will hedge against demanding one’s own rights in order to love another person. Maturity likewise can look to the end result of edifying the church.

Again, Paul is not saying everything is allowable for the Christian. Related to foods, the Christian is not limited to the dietary laws of the Jewish faith. These are matters of practice and not core doctrine. In these cases, the Christian works toward the end goal of keeping doors open for mutual partnership; he or she acts from grace.

Verse 23 shows the importance of conscience. In many matters of practice, each Christian is growing. As a demonstration, Paul says we do nothing to put up barriers to that person’s faith. We do everything considering others. We work to grow peace.

Peace is the biblical understanding of wholeness, harmony. It is more than a lack of conflict. It embodies health from blessing and growth. Broken relationships do not yield to peace; mutually edifying relationships do.

Discussion questions

• What are some practices that divide churches or denominations?

• What kind of disagreements do you suppose most churches have in their fellowship? How might this approach to personal faith make a difference in these disagreements?

• What is the greatest difficulty to practicing this lesson?

• What rights are you most likely to claim? Has this ever caused problems?

Posted: 1/23/06

Supreme Court supports Oregon's
physician-assisted suicide law

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court rebuffed the Bush administration’s efforts to punish doctors who participate in physician-assisted suicides under an Oregon law.

The ruling does not establish a constitutional “right to die.” But in deciding Gonzales v. Oregon, the court said the attorney general cannot interpret a federal drug-control law to effectively override the Oregon Death With Dignity Act. That legislation, which Oregon voters passed in 1994 and reaffirmed in 1997, is the nation’s first and only law allowing physician-assisted suicide.

The case represents the first contentious social issue to come before the court since Chief Justice John Roberts took its helm Oct. 3. Roberts joined the court’s two most conservative members—Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—in the minority.

Not at issue in the decision was whether the Constitution provides individuals with a “right to die.” Rather, the case turned on the question of whether a federal administration that is opposed to a state’s policy allowing physician-assisted suicide can effectively undermine it, even though the legal system historically has given states the authority to regulate the medical professions.

“The question before us is whether the Controlled Substances Act allows the United States attorney general to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, notwithstanding a state law permitting the procedure,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who penned the majority opinion.

The Oregon law allows doctors to prescribe oral medications to hasten death for terminally ill patients who are mentally competent and meet other strict criteria. Since the law was enacted, according to court documents, approximately 200 patients have used it to end their lives.

The drugs prescribed to patients to end their lives under the law, however, are controlled by federal law. That means physicians must have a federal license to prescribe them.

In 1997, several members of Congress who oppose assisted suicide inquired if the federal Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, would allow the Justice Department to punish Oregon physicians for prescribing suicide drugs. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno determined in 1998 that her Justice Department would not pursue such sanctions.

However, with the advent of President Bush’s administration in 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed the Justice Department’s position. Ashcroft determined that prescribing drugs to hasten death violates a provision in the federal law that says “a prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.”

After Ashcroft resigned, his successor, Alberto Gonzales, maintained that stance. Lawyers for the government argued that physician-assisted suicide violates the public interest and thus is not a legitimate medical purpose.

But the high court’s majority disagreed, upholding two lower federal courts that ruled against Ashcroft and Gonzales.

“The statutory terms ‘public interest’ and ‘public health’ do not call on the attorney general, or any other executive (branch) official, to make an independent assessment of the meaning of federal law,” Kennedy wrote.

He also said the text and history of the Controlled Substances Act do not authorize such an interpretation.

“The statute and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood,” Kennedy said. “Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.”

He concluded: “The government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.”

But Scalia said the text of the statute clearly allows such an interpretation.

“Virtually every relevant source of authoritative meaning confirms that the phrase ‘legitimate medical purpose’ does not include intentionally assisting suicide,” he wrote, in a dissenting opinion joined by Thomas and Roberts. “If the term ‘legitimate medical purpose’ has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.”

The conservative Family Research Council was among the first of several anti-euthanasia groups to release statements condemning the ruling. While noting that the opinion does not directly endorse physician-assisted suicide, the group’s president, Tony Perkins, said it nonetheless places the court on a slippery bioethical slope.

“It is important that the traditional understanding of the medical role as one of healing not be confused by licensing doctors to kill,” Perkins’ statement read. “Assisted suicide is a perversion of the medical profession because it violates a fundamental ethical principle of medicine, ‘First, Do No Harm.’”

Posted: 1/20/06

IMB policy used to try to persuade blogging trustee to resign

By Greg Warner

Associated Baptist Press

RICHMOND, Va. (ABP)—A new staff policy that gives International Mission Board trustees power to censor news stories about their work reportedly was used to try to persuade a trustee to resign.

That’s the picture emerging from the account of Oklahoma trustee Wade Burleson, whom trustees are trying to remove from the board.

“If I was asked once, I was asked 15 times to resign after the vote for the recommendation to remove me,” wrote Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., in his blog Jan. 12.

“The carrot that was offered was that there would be no press release that would be damaging to me or the IMB. Some of the appeals were very, very passionate. All of them were phrased in such a way as to save everyone embarrassment.”

Trustee chairman Thomas Hatley of Rogers, Ark., said the threat of publicity was not part of the trustees’ action on Burleson.

“The opportunity to resign offered to Brother Wade would have allowed the withdrawal of the motion or have rendered the motion mute,” he said in an e-mail to Associated Baptist Press Jan. 17. “There was no discussion or ‘deal’ relating to publicity about this that came from the floor. What individual trustees might have said to him I cannot fully address.”

During their Jan. 9-11 meeting, the trustees were told the IMB’s communications office would now clear any stories about trustee actions with the board’s chair or someone he designates. Previously the IMB staff controlled news releases.

The change is in response to a dispute over a vote count at the trustees’ November meeting. The IMB staff initially reported the vote as 25-18. Some trustees later challenged that count, claiming a more decisive 50-15 count. The original story was later removed from the IMB’s web site.

“We were trying to decide how not to get in that situation again,” IMB spokesman Van Payne told ABP Jan. 11. “Showing the chairman stories about board meetings before their release is a staff process worked out in consultation between senior staff and the chairman.”

However, the IMB did not release a story about the Jan. 9-11 meeting, during which trustees voted to ask the Southern Baptist Convention to remove Burleson from the board.

Instead, Hatley issued a four-sentence statement after the meeting. He called the vote for Burleson’s ouster “a rare and grievous action but one that was absolutely necessary for the board to move forward in its duties as prescribed by the SBC.”

Hatley said Burleson was being removed after “trustees addressed issues involving broken trust and resistance to accountability.”

If Burleson is removed by SBC messengers in June, it apparently would be the first time in SBC history that a trustee is removed from an institution.

Burleson said he has never been told why he is being removed but he assumes it is because he has used his weblog to criticize previous IMB actions—particularly November decisions to restrict the use of private “prayer languages” by missionaries and the proper setting for a missionary’s baptism.

“In everything I have spoken truth, never violating any confidentiality policies or guidelines of the IMB, and have always spoken with the desire to make our beloved convention better,” he wrote Jan. 10 in his blog at www.wadeburleson.com.

Burleson declined to elaborate Jan. 17 on the trustees’ use of news releases to keep colleagues in line.

“I cannot speak to the motives of the individual or individuals involved,” he said in an e-mail to ABP. “All I can do is relate my experiences.”

Burleson said he was shocked to learn Jan. 11 that he was being removed from the board.

“It seemed to me a leap across the Grand Canyon for any trustee to recommend my removal without first trying to arrive at a compromise,” he wrote in his blog. “I could not understand the sudden action. Maybe I am missing something. I am sure willing to listen to the explanation from someone in the know, but I am clueless as to why the recommendation to remove.”

“I said to anyone who would listen in the hallways, parking lot and hotel that I would stop blogging if the trustee board passed a policy that blogging by trustees was detrimental to the IMB,” Burleson wrote in his Jan. 14 blog.

“I would not stop because people wanted me to stop. I would only stop because policy required me to stop. I still am amazed that the motion was to remove me rather than a recommendation for a policy that all trustees stop blogging.”

“Most trustees are 50 or older. Some are in their 70s,” he added. “I am not sure how many have ever read my blog, but some think a blog is like ‘computer pornography’ (an actual quote).”

Burleson said the underlying issue in his dispute with trustees is the growing division among conservative Southern Baptists over freedom of conscience.

“Are we going to continue to narrow the parameters of cooperation in our convention by tightly controlling trustee boards and agencies to the point that that those who disagree on minor doctrinal issues are excluded from service? Are we going to allow principled dissent?”

Posted: 1/20/06

RIGHT OR WRONG?
Table manners

I work with a company that does quite a bit of business with clients through lunches and dinners. I realized I may not be at the top of the game on table manners. But, really, does etiquette have anything to do with the way I do my work?

When it comes to table manners, everyone occasionally makes a mistake. We've all taken a roll before offering the basket to someone else (yes, this is a dining etiquette faux pas) or passed the gravy bowl the wrong direction (you should pass items to the right, or counter-clockwise). That being said, everyone's occasional table-manners blunder is no excuse for being completely uncouth during dinner. It is relatively simple to search online for a few tips on dining etiquette or to check out a book from your local library to answer your questions. The next time you are entertaining clients or hosting guests for your company, you won't have to be caught off guard about what to do when you find a bit of gristle in your mouth.*

The bigger question is whether poor table manners and dining etiquette have anything to do with the way you conduct your business. This is the "Right or Wrong?" column after all, not "Ask Miss Manners." So, let's look at the question from another perspective.

If you were overseas dining in someone's home, wouldn't you want to avoid offending the person by using manners appropriate to the culture? For instance, no matter how many times your mother told you to clean your plate, when in Argentina, you would leave at least a bite or two to avoid being impolite. (See www.kwintessential.co.uk.) If you were a left-hander visiting Iran, you would take extra care to use only your right hand at dinner, since use of the left hand for eating is considered unsanitary. If we make the extra effort with our international friends, why would we want to give the impression to business partners, clients or guests that we are lazy or downright rude?

Certainly, your intention would not be rudeness, but table etiquette is not merely about observing a list of rules. There is more at stake than using the incorrect fork. Using proper etiquette gives an indication of respect and consideration for those with whom you dine. Despite an increasingly more casual culture, use of proper etiquette continues to communicate your level of respect and honor for your dining companions. In an age where e-mail and "Casual Friday" rule the day, many people lose credibility over things they deem insignificant, like sloppy grammar, untidy appearances and even poor etiquette.

The Apostle Paul, though he never commented on the use of the salad fork, was concerned about doing everything possible in order to maintain credibility for the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9). As Christians, we should put forth our best effort in whatever we are called to do. Whether we are banking, teaching, repairing, farming, exercising or dining with clients, we live out our daily lives in service not only to people, but to our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, yes! Your table manners do make a difference in the way you do your work, whether you are dining in Africa, Europe, the Middle East or right here in Texas.

Emily Row, program coordinator

Texas Baptists Committed

San Angelo

*If you find you have put something in your mouth that you would prefer not to swallow (like gristle or a bone), use your utensil to retrieve the item from your mouth and discreetly place it on your bread plate or the edge of your dinner plate. I'm sorry to tell you that spitting the item into your napkin is not considered proper dining etiquette!

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: 1/20/06

Houston Baptist University president to retire

By Ken Camp

Managing Editor

HOUSTON–Houston Baptist University President Doug Hodo has announced plans to retire June 30 after 19 years at the school.

Hodo, 71, noted the end of his tenure at the university's helm roughly should coincide with the completion of a capital fund-raising campaign for a cultural arts center on the Houston campus, including a chapel and museum.

“My hope and expectation is that the entire building project will be under way by spring and that we will have funding for the completion of the project in the next few months,” he said.

“With the success of this major project, it's the right time to go. The university is poised to take its next steps forward, and a new president will be integral in providing that leadership. I don't see myself retiring, but instead, reassigning my activities to a different venue.”

HBU Trustee Chairman Ray Cox characterized Hodo as “without a doubt … the right person to lead” the school for nearly two decades.

“Because of his leadership, this institution stands strong today,” Cox said.

Cox announced a search committee has been named to seek Hodo's successor. An advisory council comprised of faculty, staff and student representatives also will be named, he added.

Members of the search committee are Chairperson Diane Williams, Bruce Belin Jr. and Stewart Morris, all from Second Baptist Church in Houston; Karl Kennard of Spring Baptist Church in Spring; Jack Carlson of Tallowood Baptist Church in Houston; Mark Denison of First Baptist Church in Gainesville; and David Stutts of Willow Meadows Baptist Church in Houston. Cox, also a member of Second Baptist Church in Houston, will serve as an ex-officio member of the committee.

Second Baptist Church in Houston and Spring Baptist Church are uniquely aligned with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, a group that broke away from the Baptist General Convention of Texas in 1998. Tallowood and Willow Meadows Baptist churches of Houston and First Baptist Church in Gainesville are affiliated with the BGCT.

Hodo became HBU's second president June 1, 1987, succeeding William Hinton.

During Hodo's tenure, HBU's endowment grew from $30 million to more than $75 million, and the school's total unrestricted revenue increased from about $13.3 million to $33.3 million. Value of the total university plant grew from $19.7 million to $37.6 million.

Also during his time as HBU president, the university took steps to loosen its ties to the BGCT. HBU trustees voted in May 2000 to create a self-perpetuating majority on their board, rather than continuing to allow the BGCT to elect all its trustees. And three years later, HBU entered into a fraternal relationship with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.

Hodo earned his bachelor's degree, two master's degrees and a doctorate all from the University of Mississippi. He served on the faculty at Nicholls State University and Middle Tennessee State University before he became dean of the College of Business at the University of Texas at San Antonio, the post he held until he became HBU president.

Hodo is a member of Second Baptist Church in Houston. He and his wife, Sadie, have three children and nine grandchildren.

Posted: 1/20/06

Foy Valentine prodded Baptists to apply faith to life

By Marv Knox

Editor

DALLAS–Friends and family celebrated Foy Valentine's love for God, which stimulated his love for people, his courage and even his “quirkiness” during a memorial service at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas.

Valentine, a Baptist leader who spent a lifetime prodding Christians to apply their faith to daily life, died of an apparent heart attack Jan. 7 in Dallas. He was 82.

Valentine's family buried him in Van Zandt County, near his hometown of Edgewood, Jan. 11. Then they joined a crowd that spanned generations and geography to recall the life and legacy of the leader who presided over the Southern Baptist Convention's Christian Life Commission from 1960 to 1987.

“You can't talk about Foy Valentine without talking about courage,” said David Sapp, pastor of Second Ponce de Leon Baptist Church in Atlanta, who worked for Valentine on the staff of the Christian Life Commission 30 years ago.

Valentine courageously led Southern Baptists through the civil rights movement, prompting them to embrace equality and justice in the face of withering criticism, Sapp said.

“While some stood in schoolhouse doors and shouted, 'Closed!' Foy stood in the churchouse door and shouted, 'Open!'” he recalled.

In addition to “courageous,” many words described Valentine, he added, citing “color,” “character,” “judgment,” “faith,” “intelligence” and “love.”

“Foy was not your basic sentimentalist, … but he did deeds of love,” Sapp reported.

“Foy Valentine loved the Lord Jesus Christ,” which produced his loving deeds for others, he added. “But mostly, God loved Foy Valentine.”

Valentine was a “modern prophet,” insisted Jimmy Allen, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who worked for Valentine when he was director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission and succeeded Valentine in that post when Valentine accepted the SBC position.

“I discovered a rare man,” Allen said of meeting Valentine about 50 years ago. “In days of confused identities, this man knew who he was. Nothing could deter or confuse him. … This man lived his whole life fighting for freedom.”

Valentine championed freedom and religious liberty so much that he even opposed the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message, the SBC's doctrinal statement, Allen remembered, noting he sat next to Valentine when the document came up for a vote almost 43 years ago.

In the aftermath of Watergate, Foy Valentine led Baptist and governmental leaders in a call for integrity in public life. Valentine (center) is pictured in the early 1970s with (left to right) Brooks Hays, former congressman; Rep. Richard H. Fulton of Tennessee; Rep. William Jennings Bryan Dorn of South Carolina; and CLC Chair Cecil Sherman, pastor of First Baptist Church in Asheville, N.C. (File photo courtesy of Southern Baptist Historical Library & Archives)

“It's a step toward creedalism, and you're going to regret it,” Valentine told Allen. Sure enough, when fundamentalists gained control of the SBC, they revised the Baptist Faith & Message, producing in 2000 a new, much more restrictive, document that Baptists who tended to agree with Valentine labeled a creed.

Valentine gathered his courage through his sense of calling from God, Allen told the memorial service crowd, insisting the courage that enabled Valentine to champion biblical positions in the face of bitter opposition derived from his understanding that God had given him his assignment.

“Here was a rare man, who lived a rare life and showed us the way to live life at its fullest,” Allen said.

Valentine's ability to champion racial reconciliation and to lead Baptists toward biblical positions even when they were unpopular transcended animosity and bitterness, noted Darold Morgan, former president of the SBC Annuity Board and a Valentine friend for six decades.

“Most of his years of active ministry came through tumultuous times,” Morgan said, adding that Valentine remained “confident and serene” even in the midst of turbulence.

Morgan described leafing through the Bible Valentine carried with him throughout his adult life. Near the back, Valentine wrote the words of Martin Luther: “My soul is too big to harbor hatred against any man.”

All three speakers brought the memorial crowd to laughter, recalling some of Valentine's habits and proclivities–such as his colorful expressions, “unwavering certainty,” love for the color turquoise and penchant for playing Scrabble.

“We're not going to put a halo on Foy,” Morgan said of his friend. “In the final analysis, he was a delightfully quirky character. Quirky, yes, but lovable moreso.”

“Across this last half-century of Baptist life, there has been no person of greater conviction, courage and character than Foy Valentine,” said his pastor at Park Cities Baptist Church, Jim Denison.

In interviews, Valentine friends, colleagues and even one of his chief rivals paid tribute to his legacy.

W.C. Fields, longtime director of Baptist Press and a friend of Valentine's for decades, described Valentine as the most significant civil-rights leader among Southern Baptists during the 1960s, '70s and '80s.

“During those dark days, when civil rights was such an explosive issue, Foy always was well-informed, sure of the Christian approach, and he had the courage to follow through on his convictions,” Fields said. “His courage was amazing.”

One of Valentine's strengths was his insistence on building ethical principles upon Scripture, noted Floyd Craig, who worked with Valentine as communications director of the SBC Christian Life Commission from 1967 to 1979.

“Foy always went back to the Bible,” Craig said.

“That was a key ingredient for Foy, whether it was race or any issue. He constantly reminded Baptists that, whatever ethics we might have, for a Christian, it all starts in the Bible.”

Ironically, fundamentalists who gained control of the Southern Baptist Convention criticized previous SBC leaders of Valentine's generation for not believing the Bible enough, Craig said.

“It always hacked him, I think, when conservatives would use (the Bible) as a basis for what they did,” he recalled. “Foy would say, 'I don't think they've read the Book.'”

Valentine made major contributions to Baptists for a variety of reasons, said Robert Parham, who worked for Valentine at the SBC Christian Life Commission in the 1980s and now is executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics.

“Foy encouraged and aggravated a generation of Southern Baptist ministers in the 1960s and 1970s to care about applied Christianity,” Parham said in a statement posted on the Baptist Center for Ethics' website, ethicsdaily.com.

“He refused to let Southern Baptists define Christian faith by pietistic individualism and other-worldly evangelism. He knew the Hebrew prophets and Jesus' teachings were at the core of Christianity and should be at the heart of Southern Baptist life. He tried his best to lead Southern Baptists to prioritize Christian ethics.”

And Valentine was on the front edge of resistance to the fundamentalist movement that eventually took over the SBC, Parham recalled. “In the 1980s, he rightly saw the building danger of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC and rallied agency heads to counter that threat. Not surprisingly, the Christian Life Commission became an early takeover target and was eventually transformed into an arm of the religious right, an agenda that Foy found foreign to the gospel.”

“During the last decade, Foy focused on the journal he founded, Christian Ethics Today,” said Joe Trull, now editor of that magazine. “A wordsmith of the first order, his articles were unique, as was he, in content and style. He worked hours on his typewriter–he refused to the end to be computerized–to get each article just right.”

Richard Land, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, which emerged from the former SBC Christian Life Commission in the 1990s, noted Valentine gave 27 years of “faithful service to Southern Baptists as head of the CLC,” particularly in what Land said was Valentine's “eloquent witness to the biblical truth that racism is a sinful rebellion against the biblical teaching of the equality of all men before the cross.”

“While Dr. Valentine and I had significant differences of opinion on many issues, all Southern Baptists will be forever in his debt for his courageous and prophetic stance on racial reconciliation and racial equality in the turbulent middle third of the 20th century,” Land said, noting it had been important for him as teenager in the 1960s to know that Valentine and the CLC were “on the right side of the race issue, when there were too many institutions and individuals in American life and Southern Baptist life who were on the wrong side.”

Valentine, who had heart problems for many years, awoke with chest pains Jan. 7 and asked his wife, Mary Louise, to drive him to the hospital.

He fell unconscious five minutes away from the hospital, a family member said. Doctors tried unsuccessfully for 40 minutes to re-establish a heartbeat before pronouncing him dead.

Valentine is survived by his wife of 58 years, three daughters–Jean, Carol and Susan–and five grandchildren.

He earned an undergraduate degree from Baylor University and master's and doctoral degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

After retiring from the Christian Life Commission, Valentine founded the Center for Christian Ethics, now attached to Baylor. He was the founding editor of the journal, Christian Ethics Today, in 1995 and a trustee of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, among other national groups.

Greg Warner of Associated Baptist Press contributed to this story.

Posted: 1/20/06

IMB to remove blogging board member

By Robert Dilday & Greg Warner

Virginia Religious Herald & Associated Baptist Press

RICHMOND, Va. (ABP)–Trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board will seek to remove a member of their board, apparently for posting information about the board's deliberations on his weblog.

Oklahoma pastor Wade Bur-leson has been outspoken in his criticism of recent board actions, particularly its decision not to appoint missionaries who use a “private prayer language” in their personal devotions.

But a brief mission board statement said Burleson's proposed removal involved “broken trust and resistance to accountability, not Burleson's opposition to policies recently enacted by the board.”

Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., and an active blogger, regularly posts his comments about the mission board on his web page.

“In everything, I have spoken truth, never violating any confidentiality policies or guidelines of the IMB, and have always spoken with the desire to make our beloved convention better,” he wrote Jan. 10 in his blog at www.kerussocharis. blogspot.com.

Burleson was traveling and could not be reached for comment. Because messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention elect agency trustees, they can only be removed by action of the convention, which meets in June in Greensboro, N.C.

Burleson wrote Jan. 11 that he was not allowed to respond to the trustees' accusations during the meeting.

“I have not been given a copy of the statement, but I know it contained the words 'slander' and 'gossip,'” he wrote.

In a statement released after the meeting, trustee Chairman Thomas Hatley of Rogers, Ark., said: “This difficult measure was not taken without due deliberation and exploration of other ways to handle an impasse between Wade Burleson and the board. … The trustees consider this a rare and grievous action but one that was absolutely necessary for the board to move forward in its duties as prescribed by the SBC.”

Burleson and a handful of other trustees said the November vote to exclude missionaries who use a private prayer language actually was aimed at undermining IMB President Jerry Rankin, who has acknowledged using such prayer language when he was a missionary in southeast Asia.

“I have felt for some time that there are a few trustees who are dead set on opposing the direction, vision and leadership of Dr. Jerry Rankin,” Burleson wrote. “… I am blogging to make sure Dr. Rankin is no longer undermined, or if he is, to call it out.”

In his blog, Burleson said the larger conflict behind the opposition to Rankin, and his own potential ouster, is “the removal from leadership and service those who do not conform to specific interpretations of the Bible.”

“The real issue is crusading conservatives versus cooperating conservatives,” he wrote.

That language has been used to describe a growing rift among the SBC's conservative leaders. Last year, SBC Executive Committee President Morris Chapman warned such a conflict threatens the denomination's future.

Burleson also has charged that a small group of IMB trustees exert inordinate control over the board's activities, in violation of mission board policies. In a Jan. 9 blog, he described encountering a small group of trustees in the lobby of their Richmond hotel–the day before the vote to oust him.

“As we entered the hotel, a group of about 10 or 12 trustees were seated in the foyer of the hotel,” he wrote. “I decided to come back down and listen in on the conversation without being observed by the group. After 10 minutes of hearing things that I am not yet prepared to place in print, I … (decided) to confront these men.

“I asked them to explain to me what I heard, which I believe to be a clear violation of trustee policies and procedures establishing agendas and motions outside of normal trustee meetings. I also asked them to explain other things I heard.”

The book of trustee guidelines “clearly forbids other trustees meeting in caucus to establish agendas, motions or policies during the course of a regularly scheduled IMB meeting, without other trustees present,” he wrote. “This policy prevents politics where prayer and the Spirit of God should be pre-eminent. … The motion I heard being made had nothing to do with missions, our missionaries, world evangelism or anything else to do with the promotion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it had everything to do with a private agenda–period. This is what must stop.”

In a related development, the trustees were told the IMB's communications office now will clear any stories about trustee actions with the board's chair or someone he designates.

The action is in response to a dispute over last November's vote count–taken by a show-of-hands–to approve the prayer-language restriction.

The initial story distributed by the IMB reported a vote of 25-18. Some trustees later challenged that count, claiming a more decisive 50-15 count. The original story was later removed from the IMB's web site.

“We were trying to decide how not to get in that situation again,” IMB spokesman Van Payne said in explaining the new policy about news releases.

“The trustee chairman will get a look at trustee stories before they are released.”

Posted: 1/20/06

Oklahoma minister arrested in sex sting

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

OKLAHOMA CITY (ABP)–A Southern Baptist Convention leader was arrested in Oklahoma City for offering to have sex with a male undercover police officer.

Police arrested Lonnie Latham, pastor of South Tulsa Baptist Church in Tulsa, Okla., on a charge of offering to engage in a lewd act. He resigned from the Tulsa church Jan. 5.

He also reportedly resigned from the SBC Executive Committee and from his elected position with the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.

Police officials said they had received several complaints about male prostitutes in the neighborhood around the Habana Inn, a hotel that advertises itself as “the Southwest's largest gay resort,” in “the heart of Oklahoma City's gay district.”

A plainclothes officer investigating the complaints told police officials that, late on the evening of Jan. 3, Latham approached him at a nearby location and invited him back to another hotel near the Oklahoma Baptist Building for oral sex. The pastor did not offer to exchange money for the act and thus was arrested on the lewdness charge rather than solicitation, police reported.

The Oklahoma County district attorney's office has agreed to prosecute Latham, police spokesman Capt. Jeffrey Becker said.

Latham was released from the Oklahoma County Jail on $500 bail Jan. 4. He did not return a phone message left at his home requesting an interview. However, multiple media outlets quoted Latham as saying, as he exited the jail, that he had been “set up” and that he had simply been ministering to people in the area when he was arrested.

South Tulsa Baptist Church posted a statement on its website that said Latham had resigned as pastor and will not return to the church in any staff capacity.

The statement also noted the church “has a long history of sharing Christ's message of love and redemption to people from all walks of life,” and “that same spirit of love will be one that we continue to show Dr. Latham and his family.”

The Southern Baptist Conven-tion and its leaders have, in recent years, regularly spoken out in opposition to homosexuality as an orientation, as well as against legalizing same-sex marriage and other gay civil rights.

Latham publicly supported the SBC effort to convince gays to “accept Jesus Christ as their savior and reject their sinful, destructive lifestyle.” Latham also has served as an officer of the conservative Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, which repeatedly has passed resolutions opposing homosexuality and gay rights.

Posted: 1/20/06

Texas Baptist giving a mixed bag in 2005

By Ken Camp

Texas Baptist Communications

Texas Baptists gave in an unprecedented way to help victims of natural disaster in 2005, but state missions and ongoing world hunger ministries paid the price.

Even so, while Texas Baptists seemingly reallocated their designated offerings last year, they apparently continued to tithe to their churches, since the Texas Baptist Cooperative Program totaled $40,069,624, an increase over $39.86 million given the previous year.

Churches generally contribute a percentage of their undesignated receipts to the convention unified budget through the Cooperative Program.

Total Cooperative Program gifts were $55,702,823, a decline of less than 1 percent from 2004. The total includes the portion of Cooperative Program gifts directed by churches to worldwide causes beyond the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

David Nabors, BGCT treasurer and chief financial officer, reported more than $5.8 million in disaster relief gifts in 2005.

Texas Baptists gave $1,486,328 to aid victims of the tsunami that hit South Asia and $4,373,921 to support relief and recovery following Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina.

The designated gifts to disaster relief were in addition to $1 million the BGCT Administrative Committee appropriated from other sources to help Baptists in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

The Mary Hill Davis Offering for Texas Missions suffered. Receipts totaled $4,374,921, down close to 9 percent from 2004 gifts and far short of the $5 million goal.

“I believe that's nearly all attributable to Katrina and Rita, since they hit right about the time churches emphasize the Mary Hill Davis Offering,” Nabors said.

The Texas Baptist Offering for World Hun-ger–which also is emphasized particularly in the last quarter of the year, usually around Thanksgiving–posted a decline. Gifts totaled $681,887, compared to $746,714 given in 2004.

Texas Baptist gifts to the two Southern Baptist missions offerings each showed about a 6 percent drop–$10,892,897 to the Lottie Moon Offering for International Missions and $4,456,694 to the Annie Armstrong Offering for North American Missions.

Gifts to Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Global Missions remained flat at $1,004,188, about $1,000 less than in 2004.

Posted: 1/20/06

Munich explores themes
of vengeance & forgiveness

By Susan Edwards

Special to the Baptist Standard

Horribly graphic and violent, disturbing, challenging and even frightening, Munich explores themes imbedded in the factual Palestinian/Israeli conflict, particularly in the context of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Adapted by Steven Spielberg from the book Vengeance by George Jonas, Munich is about Israel's retaliation for the hostage-taking and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics by the Palest-inian terrorist organization Black September.

There are conflicting accounts of the veracity of the book–and thus the facts of the movie. But they do not diminish a storyline that will challenge the viewer to think beyond the facts of political and military involvement to larger issues of killing and revenge, the sanctity of life–on a national scale –as well as vengeance, forgiveness, and loyalty to family and “home”.

It is a movie adults of faith should see because it challenges them to consider those issues.

The decision by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to send a special force of the Mossad to find and destroy the terrorists responsible for the attack sets five men on a mission of–some would say–patriotic revenge. The movie then carries viewers along with these men as they systematically prepare for the mission, seek out and destroy those they believe are responsible for the carnage in Munich.

What happens in the process, Spielberg says, is a subtle change in the assassins' perspective. He says, “The implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing.”

This movie explores much of what current literature on violence and peacemaking seems to suggest–the drive/ need for vengeance changes individuals. A saying attributed to Gandhi–“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”–resonates here.

Especially well-scripted is the psychological transformation of the lead character, Avner, from a man of family pride, zeal and commitment to one showing signs of fear, depression, paranoia and the capability of extreme violence. And viewers come to understand that the changes they see in Avner can be seen daily in lives around them; violence begets violence. Some people “wear” it better than others, and certain violent, vengeful behaviors become acceptable responses over time.

Perhaps it is true what Meir says in the movie: “Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate the compromises with its own values.”

But when does the violence end? And how?

Christians will be led to apply the movie's lessons to their understanding not only of the Middle East conflict, but also to consider whether such vengeance and retribution can be manifestations of biblical justice. Indeed, they must apply Micah 6:8 as they consider generational and ethnic violence and hatred along with issues of forgiveness, mercy, love, reconciliation and peacemaking within their own spheres of influence. What would they do if they were faced with the events of Munich?

How does it relate to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

More specifically, how does it relate to the murder of a family member in rural Texas, or a DWI or road-rage crash that kills a family of four on the streets of Dallas?

Churches, too, will face these decisions. In the community/neighborhood/city filled with violence and victimization, where is the church?

How is the church able to minister, to apply peacemaking and restorative justice to all involved with the violence that is so prevalent? Is it a “compromise of values” to seek restoration and healing rather than more violence?

How Christians respond to such violence says much about how they view vengeance and forgiveness.

And it says much about how Christians relate to the admonitions of Jesus regarding revenge, embracing the enemy and restoring relationships that have been fractured by centuries of violence.

Get past the visually graphic violence, and the movie Munich will give you much to consider.

Susan Edwards, a licensed professional counselor, works with the Baptist General Convention of Texas in restorative justice ministry and is director of Hope for Healing Ministries. Reference and discussion materials on Munich are available through the Baptist Center for Ethics (www.ethicsdaily.com) and were reviewed for this article.