Posted: 2/04/05

Disaster led to forgiveness of persecutor in Sri Lankan village

By Craig Bird

Baptist Child & Family Services

BATTICALOA, Sri Lanka (ABP)—The four previous encounters between the Hindu man and the young Sri Lankan pastor had been violent. Each time, Balram (not his real name) led a mob attacking Vijyaraj, the young pastor. Each time Vijyaraj was tied up and severely beaten and his church set ablaze.

And each time, the congregation of Heavenly Mission Harvest Church rebuilt, and Vijyaraj kept preaching about Jesus.

But when the two men met for a fifth time, in the horrific aftermath of Sri Lanka’s tsunami, Vijyaraj lived out a sermon on forgiveness.

In four years since becoming the first Christian convert in his rural fishing village of 300 people, and despite the fierce persecution of the militant Hindus, Vijyaraj has led his church to grow to include 27 families. They all were worshiping on the morning of Dec. 26 when the tsunami swept onto the coast of Sri Lanka. While many church members lost homes and fishing boats, not a single Christian from the village drowned, though as many as 10 of their neighbors died.

When a disaster-relief team from Baptist Child and Family Services of San Antonio arrived less than two weeks later, two volunteers —medical doctor Andrew Bentley of Tyler and psychologist Richard Brake—went to the village to set up a clinic.

“We were told not to mention Gospel for Asia (a group with which Vijyaraj’s church is associated) because of the hostility,” Bentley said. “And I imagine that’s why the clinic was at the pastor’s house instead of at the church. The idea was to help the entire community.”

“I noticed an old man with a glazed look,” explained Bentley. “The translator told me the man had lost his entire family—and that, by the way, he’s the one who has been persecuting the pastor.”

When it was obvious the wait would be long, Vijyaraj invited the Hindu man into his house and fed him. “It was amazing that Vijyaraj was not making any difference” between Balram and the others seeking help, Bentley said.

“The man … was already dazed, primarily from grief over losing his family,” Brake said. “But I think he was further stunned by the way he was welcomed and loved.”

Bentley agreed. “I don’t think he even realized he was going to Vijyaraj’s house. The word was just out that there was a medical clinic in the neighborhood. Then when he got there and was met with love instead of fear or animosity, he wasn’t sure just what to do.”

Brake, the psychologist, counseled the man extensively while he waited to see Bentley. Then Bentley treated him “for some cuts and bruises that were already healing” and confirmed that the soreness in his chest was not life-threatening and likely “from being beaten up by the waves.”

The two Texans know they performed only “minor ministry” that afternoon when compared to Vijyaraj.

“I flew halfway around the world to share my faith and help needy people. And then, as I watched Vijyaraj do exactly what Jesus said and love his enemy and forgive those who persecuted him, I thought, ‘Wow, I just got nailed,’” Brake added. “In America we have trouble forgiving the jerk who cuts us off in traffic. And here this Sri Lankan pastor basically says, ‘Jesus said to love, so I guess I have to do it.’

“When I told him how impressed I was, he just kind of looked down at the ground and didn’t make a big deal out of it. And that’s what Jesus told us to do too.”

“We never knew for sure that the man accepted Jesus because of that afternoon,” Bentley said. But he added he is confident Balram either became a Christian then or will in the near future.

“I just feel in the deepest part of my heart that the truth of the gospel reached him because of Vijyaraj’s willingness to be faithful to his God and to God’s word.”

Posted: 2/04/05

UN report blames Sudan government for crisis in Darfur

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—While stopping short of labeling the humanitarian crisis in the Sudan’s Darfur region “genocide,” a long-awaited United Nations report lays blame on the Sudanese government for creating the crisis.

The report, issued by a five-member U.N. panel commissioned with studying the situation, also recommends those responsible for “crimes against humanity” in the situation be prosecuted by an international tribunal that President Bush opposes.

“The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the government authorities … should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in the region,” the report said.

For almost two years, government-supported Arab militias in western Sudan have been driving members of black African tribes from their homes into refugee camps scattered across the region and in neighboring Chad. According to U.N. estimates, more than 1 million people remain displaced from their homes as a result, and at least 70,000 have died from violence at the hands of the militias as well as the disease and hunger resulting from being forced into refugee camps.

The report did not label the situation “genocide”—despite such descriptions previously employed by United States officials—because, in the commission’s opinion, the actions of Sudan’s central government did not exhibit clear genocidal intent.

“The policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds,” the report said.

One expert described the legal standard for genocide with which the commissioners were forced to work as “very strict and very high.”

Georgette Gagnon, deputy director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, said, “What’s key about what the report said is that, even if they did not conclude there was a genocidal policy on the part of the (Sudanese) government, that does not detract from the serious human-rights crimes … that they found the government committed.”

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan urged the U.N. Security Council, of which the United States is a member, to move quickly on the report’s recommendations to end further violence in Darfur. Among the report’s recommendations is that the Netherlands-based International Criminal Court investigate and prosecute the case.

If that happens, it may set up a showdown with the Bush administration, which opposes the ICC. That body, supported by the majority of the rest of the world’s governments, is designed to prosecute war crimes and other international atrocities.

But in 2002, Bush essentially withdrew U.S. support for the treaty that created the court. Since then, administration officials have said they fear the court could be abused for politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. soldiers and other citizens.

A few days before the U.N. Darfur report was issued, Bush officials recommended that an ad hoc African war-crimes tribunal, similar to the one created in the aftermath of the 1994 Rwanda genocide, be established to deal with the Darfur situation.

But Gagnon said that would take too long and allow atrocities to continue in the short term. The ICC is “already up and running,” she said. “In our view, it is the best option to provide quick, speedy justice and could act as a very good deterrent.”

Gagnon, who recently returned from a trip to Sudan to study the situation, said Sudanese government officials in Khartoum “became very worried” when the subject of the ICC was brought up.

“That may cause them to stop what they’re doing—an investigation by that court,” she said.

Gagnon added she hopes U.S. officials will simply abstain from the Security Council vote on the recommendation to have the ICC investigate the situation rather than use its veto power.

“The government’s ideological opposition to this court should not get in the way of speedy justice for Darfurians,” she said. “That’s what should be front and center—what’s best for the people of Darfur, not what’s best for the U.S.”

Posted: 2/04/05

Evangelical leaders ask Bush to focus more on poverty issues

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—A group of prominent evangelical Christian leaders—including heads of two Texas Baptist schools—have asked President Bush to pay more attention to poverty issues in his second term.

The group of 76 academics, activists and other leaders sent the letter to Bush in mid-January, on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. It asked Bush to invest political capital in improving economic conditions for the poor in the United States and around the world.

The letter noted that overcoming poverty is as important an issue to Christian voters as are issues often cited by other evangelical leaders and media outlets as crucial to evangelicals.

“Precisely the commitment to moral values (including the sanctity of human life) that shapes all our political activity compels us to insist that as a nation we must do more to end starvation and hunger and strengthen the capacity of poor people to create wealth and care for their families,” the letter read.

The letter’s signers include several progressive evangelicals, such as Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action and Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who have been highly critical of Bush’s economic policies.

But it also includes many evangelical leaders who have stayed out of politics or spoken out frequently in favor of Bush policies, such as Christianity Today editor David Neff, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, and Salvation Army head Todd Bassett.

Several Baptist college presidents signed the letter, including Pauul Ames of Wayland Baptist University and Doug Hodo of Houston Baptist University. Others were David Black of Eastern University in Pennsylvania, Jerry Cain of Judson College in Illinois and Pat Taylor of Southwest Baptist University in Missouri.

The letter praised Bush’s commitment to increasing the ability of religious charities to receive government funding, as well as his attempts to expand American support for aid to spur economic development and fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa. It also commended Bush’s “moral leadership in the fight against human trafficking” and his efforts to end humanitarian crises in Sudan.

However, the leaders added, “both at home and abroad, the number of people in poverty remains unacceptably high.” Despite Bush’s commitment to ending poverty and other injustices, they asserted, some of the proposals he heralded lacked funding.

“Adequate funds to meet these goals are not being given, and the U.S. ranks absolutely last (as a percentage of GNP) among all developed nations in its governmental assistance to overcome global poverty,” the letter said. “Our nation has fallen far short of the increases in health and development assistance that you proposed. The richest nation in history can and must grasp the opportunity to lead.”

The leaders said the poverty rate and lack of health insurance—even for hard-working families—in the United States is morally unacceptable.

“Tragically, millions of Americans today work full time and still fall below the poverty level. The moral values that shape our lives tell us this is wrong,” the letter read. “We believe our rich nation should agree that everyone who works full time responsibly will be able to earn enough to rise above the poverty level and enjoy health insurance.”

The leaders challenged Bush to use his inaugural address or his State of the Union speech to declare “that it is the policy of your administration to make the necessary improvements in the next four years so that all Americans who work full time responsibly will be able to escape poverty and enjoy health insurance.”

Sider said the letter “offers clear evidence that the widespread view that President Bush’s evangelical constituency care only about abortion and family issues is simply false. … As the president charts his agenda for the next four years, he needs to understand that large numbers of his evangelical ‘base’ insist on expanded efforts to reduce poverty.”

Posted: 2/04/05

At prayer breakfast, Bush praises
BWA and others for generosity

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—President Bush praised the relief arm of the Baptist World Alliance and other religious groups as exemplifying a faith-based spirit of generosity during the National Prayer Breakfast Feb. 3.

Speaking to thousands of influential participants—members of Congress, diplomats, foreign politicians and other leaders from around the globe—Bush noted that all could come together around the common ground of prayer.

“Here we thank God for his great blessings in one voice, regardless of our backgrounds,” Bush said. “We recognize in one another the spark of the divine that gives all human beings their inherent dignity and worth, regardless of religion.”

Quoting Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that he would be the “most shallow and self-conceited blockhead on this Earth” if he thought he could do his job without “the wisdom which comes from God, and not from men,” Bush praised the compassionate response of the United States to the recent tsunami disasters—both by the government and by private institutions, including religious ones.

“When the tsunamis hit those on the far side of the world, the American government rightly responded,” Bush said. “But the American response is so much more than what our government agencies did.

“Look at the list of organizations bringing relief to the people from Indonesia to Sri Lanka,” he continued. “They’re full of religious names: Samaritan’s Purse, American Jewish World Service, Baptist World Aid, The Catholic Medical Mission Board. They do a superb job delivering relief across the borders and continents and cultures.”

The breakfast, which is sponsored by a private foundation, has been attended by every president since Dwight Eisenhower. It has taken place annually near the beginning of Congress’ sessions since the 1950s. Although it started out as an explicitly Christian event, it has taken on a more ecumenical flair in recent decades.

Bush concluded with an exhortation to Americans. “I thank you for the fine tradition you continue here today, and hope that as a nation, we will never be too proud to commend our cares to providence and trust in the goodness of his plans.”

Posted: 2/04/05

Bush State of the Union speech barely mentions 'values' issues

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP) — Aside from Social Security, President Bush spent little time in his fourth State of the Union address discussing the controversial domestic issues important to many Christians.

Speaking in the House chamber Feb. 2 to a Congress whose deep partisan divisions were frequently evident, Bush laid out an agenda for the first year of his second term that dealt mainly with his plan to partially privatize Social Security and his stated foreign policy of encouraging the growth of democracy in troubled parts of the world.

“The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else,” Bush said, to an enthusiastic burst of applause from a small group of House Democrats who opposed his war in Iraq. “Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.”

The speech’s emotional high point also came in reference to the war, reminding the audience of both the goal of Iraqi democracy and its high human cost.

Pointing to Iraqi democracy activist Safia Taleb Suhail, seated next to Laura Bush in the House gallery, Bush noted that even threats of terrorist violence against voters did not keep Iraqis from turning out at the polls in large numbers. Suhail flashed a victory sign, revealing the blue ink on her index finger that Iraqi poll workers used to mark those who voted, as the audience cheered.

A short while later, Bush introduced Texans Janet and Bill Norwood, whose 25-year-old son, Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood, was killed in Iraq. Suhail, seated in front of Janet Norwood in the First Lady’s box, leaned up and grasped the grieving mother in an emotional embrace—causing Bush and many others in the audience to tear up even as they applauded.

Bush spent a large portion of the speech providing additional details about his plan for reforming Social Security, including allowing some younger workers to begin channeling a portion of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts.

Bush made only glancing references to his stances on issues—such as same-sex marriage, life-ethics issues and public funding for religious charities—that motivated many of the conservative religious voters who helped re-elect him.

During a seven-minute portion in the middle of the 53-minute speech, Bush alluded to those issues as well as to battling the spread of AIDS and the virus that causes it. He also noted the controversies over some of his appointments to the federal judiciary, and mentioned a new proposal to help defendants in death-penalty cases.

“Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life,” Bush said, employing a phrase borrowed from the writings of Pope John Paul II that Bush frequently uses when discussing abortion rights and medical research involving human embryos.

He continued: “To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. … I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity.”

Bush briefly reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

“Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges,” he said. “For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”

In a show of the political division over the issue, the ovation that followed was largely split along party lines—with the vast majority of congressional Republicans standing and applauding. Meanwhile, most Democrats sat in stony silence.

The nation’s largest gay-rights group accused Bush of hypocrisy on the issue. “President Bush said that government should never undermine family values and family responsibilities but, in the very next breath, called for passage of a constitutional amendment that undermines (gay and lesbian) families and denies them the same responsibilities of all others,” said Justin Fisher, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, in comments released shortly after the speech.

Nonetheless, the Federal Marriage Amendment is expected by most congressional observers to go nowhere soon. It was blocked in the last Congress by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. Most of the Republicans who opposed it remain in the Senate, while one of the three Democrats who supported it has retired.

And comments Bush made in a newspaper interview earlier this year suggest that the president will not invest heavy political capital in attempting to change their minds.

Bush also referred only briefly to another of his controversial domestic policies: his plan to expand government’s ability to fund social services through churches and other religious groups.

“Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America,” Bush said. “Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places.”

He announced a $150 million initiative, to be headed by First Lady Laura Bush, designed to support religious and other community programs that fight gang recruitment and youth violence. According to a fact sheet from the White House, the program will last three years and provide grants to programs that target youths between the ages of 8 and 17.

He also announced a proposal “to fund special training for defense counsel for people in capital cases—because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side.”

Bush said he will propose a budget designed to cut the record federal deficit without tax increases by slashing spending on many social programs. But Democrats expressed skepticism that such a feat is possible.

“I too share in the president’s goal to balance our budget, but I question the negative impact his domestic spending priorities will have on low-income working families,” said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.). “It is misleading for the president to imply that spending cuts alone would solve our problems.”