Posted: 3/01/04

CYBERCOLUMN:
A day out in the snow

By Brett Younger

On Saturday, Feb. 14, we had the best snow in Fort Worth in years, so our family decided to take a long walk. I assumed I would end up catching snowballs with my back and wore old clothes—a pair of jeans that Carol doesn’t allow me to wear in public because they’re holy in a bad way, tennis shoes, sweatshirt and an overcoat. The only thing I took with me was my keys, which I carefully put in my pocket.

The snow was gorgeous. The kids on our block were making anorexic snowmen. Years of living in Fort Worth have kept them from any understanding of how to make a proper snowman. We had a street full of snow pillars that would embarrass Frosty.

It was such big fun. When it snows, neighbors talk more. You can’t pass someone walking in the snow without speaking. Our family threw snowballs, which is fun until you get hit above the shoulders and fun until it melts and you’re wet as well as freezing.

It was nippy by the time we got back to our house after, I’d guess, a 45-minute walk. I got out my keys, but the storm door at the front was inexplicably locked. I walked around to the garage. There’s a door into the garage that we never lock, but for reasons beyond imagining, it was locked, and we’ve never had a key to that door. We’re still OK. There’s a back door, but then, and you’re not going to believe this, that storm door was also locked.

I’m locked out and I have my keys, but I wasn’t worried. We went next door to the Russells’, explained the bizarre turn of events in detail so they would know there was nothing for us to feel dumb about, and I borrowed a Philips screwdriver. Carol and Caleb, our 10-year-old, chose to stay and get warm. Graham, our 14-year-old, inspiringly, foolishly chose to believe in his father. He and I took one side of the frame around the back door off and were able to open the outside door. I was so happy with myself. Then I got out my key to open the inside door. I had forgotten that there are two looks on that door, and the push lock was mysteriously, incomprehensibly, unfathomably locked also.

Carol called A-1 Locksmith on the theory that if they’re first in the alphabet, they must be good. They immediately asked, “Are we the only locksmith you called?” I took this to mean that when snow falls, lots of people, many of whom are quite intelligent, lock themselves out of their houses.

He said he would be there in 30 minutes. He lied. We found a football in the backyard and tried to play horse on the basketball goal. It doesn’t work. Several times, I thought about throwing a brick through the window, but it just didn’t seem right.

We were huddling close to each other trying to get warm when a neighbor walked by. She said “hi.” We said “hi.” She stared. She still hasn’t figured out why we were just standing there.

Then Matt Menger, one of our church members, drove up. Matt was picking up cans for a Boy Scout food drive. We explained that our food was in a bag inside the house that was now locked. Matt was kind. He told us about almost locking his keys in the car. It was pity. Lots of people lock their keys in their car. It takes someone special to lock themselves out of their house with their keys in their pocket.

His son, John Edward, cheerfully offered a helpful suggestion, “Have you checked all the doors?”

The snow that had recently been so beautiful now seemed miserable. I know this wasn’t the Iditarod or a trip up Mount Everest, but after being outside for two hours in wet jeans with holes I was feeling cold and tired and wanted to sit down. I climbed the tree in our front yard and found a limb on which to sit. My toes were cold and wet enough to hurt. I should have worn boots. I wished we had skipped the snowballs.

When the locksmith finally, mercifully arrived, the first thing he said was, “It will be $65 for the service call and $25 for opening the door.” Does that mean that if he didn’t get the door open I would still owe him $65 just for trying? It seemed high, but I couldn’t see myself telling Carol that I sent the locksmith away because given time and a bigger screwdriver I could open the door myself.

I’d imagined that when the locksmith got there it would be like in the movies. He would pull out a James Bond-looking instrument and open the door in five seconds. It was with horror that I watched our locksmith look at each of our three locked doors with the same quizzical expression I had used. He started with the storm door at the front. Then he went to the garage door, the one for which we don’t have a key. Then he went to the back door, two locks one key. He pulled out a credit card and tried to open it.

He and I had plenty of time to talk. He told me that he’s not really a locksmith, but an engineer, who’s only doing this for a few months. This was not reassuring. He grew up in Morocco, Israel and Mexico, where I assume they have much different locks than in this country.

The locksmith said, “I could drill out the door knob at the back of the garage, but you’ll have to buy a new doorknob, which I can sell to you for an extra $20.” My brain was frozen, “Sure.”

This whole arctic event would be amusing to me, except for the last hour or so I couldn’t get a couple of people out of my mind.

On Thursday night, I had been at the Agape meal, a dinner our church shares with the homeless. My table included two men there for the first time who had just gotten out of prison. We ate chicken spaghetti and talked sports. We agreed that the Mavericks aren’t going to win until they get a big man and that the Rangers should not trade A-Rod—they didn’t listen to us. We talked about how mean churches can be and how kind churches can be. They both said they would try to come to Broadway for worship on Sunday, but they didn’t make it. We talked about their job prospects. The older man, who looked about 60, is a computer programmer. He’d gotten a government job downtown that lasted for 18 hours. He was honest about his record on his application. After he was hired, his new boss called the police to make sure it was OK, but the police said he couldn’t work there. Then we talked about where they would spend the night. The young guy had spent the previous night at the Presbyterian Night Shelter. The old one had slept on the street. The young one said: “It’s going to get cold. You better go with me.”

The Presbyterian Night Shelter is a godsend for a lot of people. On a normal night, the shelter houses about 500 people. On Thursday night, they had more than 700. On Friday night, they had more than 800. The shelter has strict rules, but the number of people and the size of the place make the rules hard to enforce. Homeless people who struggle with addictions stay away from the shelter because alcohol and drugs are prevalent. They sleep outside.

When you sleep outside in the winter, you need to avoid two elements—wind and water. You try to stay out of the wind by sleeping next to buildings on the south side, an alcove or the porch of a vacant building. You can warm up by lying on a steam grate, but they’re out in the open, so it’s hard to sleep there.

During the prayer time on Thursday, my friend mentioned that he needed a job. After the service, Ellen Swift-Wilson handed him a business card. Ellen is a member of our church who works for an AARP foundation employment program. She said: “Call me. I can get you a job.”

On Saturday morning, sitting in a tree in my front yard, I tried to imagine what it’s like to be homeless in the winter, but I can’t. I was miserable waiting for a couple of hours for someone to let me into my house. What must it be like not to have a house to be let into?

Many of the things we do as churches are good. We get together and enjoy one another’s company. We discuss. We plan. We learn. Only a few things we do are urgent. Getting people in out of the cold is urgent.

Brett Younger is pastor of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, and the author of Who Moved My Pulpit? An Amusing Look at Ministerial Life (available in late March from Smyth & Helwys Publishing).

Posted: 3/01/04

Sloan criticizes Lariat editorial supporting gay marriage

By Marv Knox

Editor

WACO-—A Baylor University student newspaper editorial supporting gay marriage deviates from “traditional Christian teachings” and “comes dangerously close to violating university policy,” Baylor President Robert Sloan said.

An editorial in the Feb. 27 Baylor Lariat affirms a lawsuit brought by the city of San Francisco, which seeks to declare unconstitutional the California Family Code’s definition of marriage—a union between a man and a woman.

A tagline at the end of the column indicates the Lariat editorial board voted 5-2 in favor of the position.

More than 3,200 gay couples have been married since Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom announced the city would provide them with marriage licenses, the editorial notes.

The editorial outlines response to that event, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to prevent the city from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and the city’s legal challenge to the definition of marriage.

“San Francisco officials believe barring gay marriages violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution,” the editorial says. “The editorial board supports San Francisco’s lawsuit against the state.”

The editorial also offers the board’s rationale for gay marriage.

“Taking into account equal protection under the law, gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriage as heterosexual couples,” the editorial stresses. “Without such recognition, gay couples, even those who have cohabitated long enough to qualify as common-law spouses under many state laws, often aren’t granted the same protection when it comes to shared finances, health insurance and other employee benefits, and property and power-of-attorney rights.

“Like many heterosexual couples, many gay couples share deep bonds of love, some so strong they’ve persevered years of discrimination for their choice to cohabitate with and date one another. Just as it isn’t fair to discriminate against someone for their skin color, heritage or religious beliefs, it isn’t fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation.

“Shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?”

Sloan refuted the newspaper’s assertion.

“This position held by five students does not reflect the views of the administration, faculty, staff, board of regents or student publications board, which oversees the Lariat,” Sloan said in a statement distributed to media March 1. “Nor do I believe this stance on gay marriage is shared by the vast majority of Baylor’s 14,000 students and 100,000 alumni.”

The editorial touched off a torrent of response, Sloan acknowledged.

“We have already heard from a number of students, alumni and parents who are, as am I, justifiably outraged over this editorial,” he said. “Espousing in a Baylor publication a view that is so out of touch with traditional Christian teachings is not only unwelcome, it comes dangerously close to violating university policy, as published in the student handbook, prohibiting the advocacy of any understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching.

“The student publications board will be addressing this matter with the Lariat staff as soon as possible.”

In his statement, Sloan sought to draw a line between free expression and inappropriate advocacy.

“While we respect the rights of students to hold and express divergent viewpoints, we do not support the use of publications such as the Lariat, which is published by the university, to advocate positions that undermine the foundational Christian principles upon which this institution was founded and currently operates.”

Lacy Elwood, editor-in-chief of the Lariat, and Wallace Daniel, chairman of the student publications board, could not be reached for comment.

Posted: 3/01/04

COMMENTARY:
Keep the government’s nose out of our seminaries

By Brent Thompson

Amid all the publicity from Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ,” few Christians will likely notice that the Supreme Court quietly published an opinion that may have just as much impact on the lives of churches and ministers as the movie. On Feb. 26 in the case of Locke vs. Davey, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 that the neither the establishment nor free exercise clauses of the First Amendment require states to fund religious instruction.

High-profile advocates such as Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice and Solicitor General Theodore Olsen argued that states should be required to fund religious instruction if they also fund secular instruction. The state of Washington argued that the principle of separation of church and state prohibits funding of religious studies.

Frankly, I am relieved that this case was resolved in this way. Sometimes Christians go too far in our zest for advancing religious rights in our country. This was such a time. Put another way, this case reminded me of the story about the little boy who decided to help himself to cookies in the cookie jar. He stuck his hand into the jar and grabbed a handful of cookies. When he tried to pull his hand out, it got stuck because he refused to let go of the cookies.

Men and women who are called by God into the ministry are generally facing a life of low pay and high stress. The low pay begins in college, continues through seminary and into their field of service. So does the high stress. It is rare for ministers to be paid a salary commensurate with the secular market value of their educational achievement. It is common for ministers to burn out or get discouraged from the stress of ministry. These concerns may explain why Joshua Davey left theology studies and enrolled in Harvard Law School during the course of this litigation.

So why wouldn’t a theology student at a private Christian college want to get all the financial help he can? Why shouldn’t a budding minister in a denominational seminary take a two-year grant like the state of Washington’s Promise Scholarship which provided $1,125 the first year of school and $1,542 the second year? Why wouldn’t the financial aid departments of seminaries pursue funding from the coffers of state and federal governments, especially in an era of declining alumni giving and increased overhead?

Here is why: Christians should not want state or federal regulators nosing around in our business. Or, with apologies to Tertullian, “What hath government to do with seminary?”

Consider this analogy: When a private donor contributes money to a college or graduate school, they are normally very interested in how that money is spent. If the money is for tuition scholarships, the donor sets up restrictions or qualifications to screen for the types of recipients who will benefit from the money. If the money is for a campus building, the donor is keen to see the architect’s plans or where their names are displayed on the final edifice. All this is reasonable and understandable because the donated money is hard-earned and the donor wants to promote some cause with it.

The government is no different. The government rarely provides scholarships to students without strings. The state of Washington, for example, set academic, enrollment and income standards which prospective candidates had to meet before they qualified for the money. Of course, it was one of those standards—the recipient would not use the money to obtain a theology degree—that got Washington into the Locke vs. Davey lawsuit.

Governments are also interested in whether the schools that benefit from these scholarship programs are meeting certain standards of conduct. If these schools discriminated in admissions on the basis of, say, religious belief or gender, it would be understandable if the government moved to stop such discrimination.

Churches should not make their ministers-in-training rely on government largesse to finance ministerial training. If a state government wants to give money to theology students without interfering with the right of the seminary to exclude applicants based on religion, gender or age, then that would be great. The same is true if a state like Washington refuses to do so. But it is unwise for Christians to force a government to fund religious education in the name of “religious freedom.”

If groups of churches or denominations want well-trained ministers, they should set up and fund their own seminaries, colleges and Bible schools, or align themselves financially with existing seminaries of similar theological persuasion. If possible, these institutes of ministerial training and their students should take as little money as possible from governments.

Our local, state and federal governments are rife with rogue mayors who issue illegal marriage licenses, spineless judges who refuse to issue restraining orders halting the practice and waffling legislators who do not want to prioritize a defense of marriage amendment. Do Christians really want the money these politicians control used to educate our ministers? Do Christians really want to give these kinds of politicians an excuse for poking around in the admissions, curriculum and placement policies of Christian colleges and seminaries? I don’t.

Brent Thompson, associate director of communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, practiced law in Alaska and Texas for eight years before de-activating his law licenses to enroll in seminary and enter full-time ministry.

Posted: 2/27/04

‘Passion’ reviews take issue with violence, lack of context

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (ABP)—The reviews of “The Passion of the Christ” are in—and while both Christian and secular observers offered praise for it, many of the same reviewers also took significant issue with the movie.

“Even within what often looks like a self-indulgent exercise in humiliation, pain and gratuitous gore, there is no denying the moments of genuine and powerful feeling in ‘The Passion of the Christ’—some of which, by the way, evoke Jesus’ most profound teachings of Jewish principles,” wrote Ann Hornaday, in the Washington Post, summarizing her review.

Time magazine’s Richard Corliss said the film’s director, Mel Gibson, had produced an overall well-crafted product.

“In dramatizing the torment of Jesus’ last 12 hours, he has made a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment,” Corliss wrote. But, he added, “Gibson portrays Jesus’ agony and death in acute and lavish detail. In the end, all that gore tends to blunt not only the story’s natural power but even the sense of horror at what a God-man has to endure to save all men.”

Meanwhile, Dallas pastor Jim Denison offered unreserved praise.

“If a movie is a film you watch on a screen, this is no movie,” Denison wrote on the website of his congregation, Park Cities Baptist Church.

“You have been to Calvary. You watched as Jesus was tortured and executed, for you. You will never again wonder if God loves you.”

The film has stirred significant controversy since its production was announced in 2002, mainly for fears that its depiction of the death of Christ would stoke the kind of anti-Jewish sentiment that historically has often followed passion plays.

And although New York Daily News reviewer Jami Bernard called it “the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II,” many other reviewers said such fears were overblown.

“Is the film anti-Jewish? Well, which Jews?” Corliss asked. Besides Jesus and his followers themselves being Jewish, Corliss noted, Gibson depicts many of Jerusalem’s Jews as taking pity on the suffering Christ.

“Gibson also shows many Jews (and no Romans) treating Jesus with a kindness and charity one might call Christian,” Corliss wrote. “We acknowledge, then, that ‘The Passion’ is rabidly anti-Sanhedrin, opposed, as Jesus and other Jews were, to the establishment of the time. But to charge the film with being anti-Semitic is like saying those who oppose the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy are anti-American.”

The Washington Post’s Hornaday echoed many critics who said the film lacked historical context—both in portraying Pontius Pilate as something less than a brutal dictator and in ignoring the history of overt anti-Semitism depicted in other Passion narratives.

“Gibson has exhibited a startling lack of concern for historical context, both of the Passion’s ritualized re-enactment and of its story itself, which over the past several centuries has been used repeatedly to foment violence against Jewish communities.”

Several critics faulted Gibson for focusing obsessively on the gruesome end to Jesus’ life without providing adequate explanation for the reasons—both historical and theological—behind his suffering and death.

“Gibson’s lack of attention to other chapters in Christ’s life does indeed pose challenges to viewers—especially those who do not know the gospel story,” wrote Christianity Today film critic Jeffrey Overstreet.

“In ‘The Passion,’ the path from the garden of Gethsemane to the cross is such a marathon of bloodshed—Jesus is beaten and bloodied even before he leaves the garden—that I found myself a bit dizzy from the violence only an hour into the film,” Overstreet continued. “It became harder and harder to focus on what the director was trying to reveal concerning Christ’s teachings and his love.”

Another area of concern for many critics was the source material for Gibson’s account of Christ’s suffering. Although many conservative evangelical leaders have praised the film for its fidelity to the gospels, other Christian and secular critics have noted that the story draws from several non-biblical sources.

“Aside from its entertainment value, the movie ensures the advance of biblical illiteracy for years to come and the encroachment of flaky evangelism on those who need an authentic understanding of real faith,” wrote Baptist ethicist Robert Parham, in the webzine EthicsDaily.com.

Gibson, who co-wrote the screenplay, has said he took much of his inspiration for the torture and crucifixion depictions not only from the gospel accounts, but from the writings of a 19th-century German Catholic nun. The film features much from Catholic tradition that is not based directly on Scripture—such as Jesus passing through the Stations of the Cross and his mother, Mary, being by his side much of the way.

Despite such criticisms, many Christians are embracing the movie, flocking to theaters in such numbers that Gibson nearly recouped his $30 million investment on the movie’s first day. Many viewers attest to the movie’s power, in spite or because of Jesus’ violent death.

According to Dallas pastor Denison, at the end of the film, the central message is inescapable: “You know that the passion of the Christ is you.”

Posted: 2/27/04

Church connection key in marketing ‘Passion’

By Ted Parks

Associated Baptist Press

LOS ANGELES (ABP)—Once upon a time, pastors warned churchgoers against the evils of the silver screen. Now they are packing believers and unchurched guests alike into movie houses across the land.

The difference is what’s playing—”The Passion of the Christ,” by Hollywood heavyweight Mel Gibson.

With its R-rated, bloodstained recreation of the last hours of Jesus’ life told in English-subtitled Aramaic and Latin, film insiders predicted Gibson’s quixotic project would be a box-office flop. Instead, the movie opened with numbers rivaling Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters.

And in the audience sit many faithful church members, their seats often reserved for them by pastors.

Making its debut on Ash Wednesday, Gibson’s movie opened on 4,643 screens in 3,006 theaters with $10 million in advance ticket sales, according to Larry Ross, media representative for Icon Productions, which made the film. The media and public relations firm that Ross heads, Dallas-based A. Larry Ross and Associates, is known for its work with religious clients.

Churches are buying out entire movie houses—”four-walling,” as it’s known in the trade—to encourage their members to attend “The Passion” and take their unchurched friends with them.

In northeastern Virginia, near Washington, D.C., McLean Bible Church reserved 11,306 tickets for members and their guests, said Denny Harris, the church’s director of ministry operations. The process that snowballed into securing thousands of movie seats started with an e-mailed invitation from a theater chain asking if the church wanted to buy a couple of hundred tickets so members could see the film.

As they considered the invitation, congregation leaders were struck with the opportunities for outreach the movie offered. The goal then became to “commandeer theaters” for viewings, Harris said.

With more than 11,000 reserved movie seats, the church scheduled the film over four evenings. Interviewed after the first two nights, Harris estimated that guests invited by church members made up more than half the audience.

One of the congregation’s pastors showed up at each screening to talk to the audience about the “personal implications” of the gospel story they have just watched. And the church scheduled three workshops on “Personalizing ‘The Passion’” for people interested in finding out more.

Using Gibson’s widely publicized movie for evangelism is part of a multifaceted promotional effort by Vista, Calif.-based Outreach magazine. The magazine’s website offers a variety of products based on the film, ranging from direct-mail postcards to “affordable Passion-themed New Testaments.” Outreach sent “most churches in the United States” a DVD that included a movie trailer.

“Take time during your weekend services to show the G-rated trailer … to your congregation and then share with them how your church will be helping equip them to reach their friends and neighbors for Christ,” the website recommends. Outreach even suggests linking the movie to Easter services, perhaps by showing scenes from the DVD “to illustrate points in the sermon.”

Accompanying the recommendations are endorsements by prominent religious leaders, including well-known evangelicals Billy Graham, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Southern Baptist Convention President Jack Graham.

“I am praying that Mel Gibson’s movie will have a powerful impact on our culture and that it will appeal to millions of movie lovers who are starving for a glimmer of honesty regarding the miraculous and life-changing story of the one who died for everyone,” Falwell says on the site.

While marketing religiously themed films to churches is nothing new, Gibson’s movie has brought the pitch to believers to a new level of intensity, according to Gabriel Snyder, who has covered “The Passion” for the benchmark entertainment newspaper Variety. Compared with other movies similarly targeting religious markets, like the 2002 Veggie Tales feature “Jonah,” the push to pique believers’ interest in Gibson’s film comes on “a massive scale,” Snyder said.

In early January, Outreach screened the film at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., where best-selling author Rick Warren is pastor. More than 3,000 pastors and church leaders saw the movie and heard Gibson talk about it at the church, according to David Chrzan, pastor and chief of staff at Saddleback.

Warren’s church subsequently bought 18,000 tickets to offer members. When it made the tickets available on the church website, Saddleback sold nearly 10,000 in the first 48 hours, Chrzan said. The church bought out more than 40 screens.

With Warren offering a two-part sermon series on “Understanding ‘The Passion,’” Chrzan said Saddleback already felt the impact of Gibson’s movie. The weekend Warren began the series, 23,000 people attended, the largest crowd ever except Christmas and Easter. And Chrzan said the church anticipated 30,000 to 35,000 people the first weekend after the movie premiered, when Warren is to present the concluding installment of the Passion series.

In Plano, Prestonwood Baptist Church member Arch Bonnema decided to go beyond reserving seats for others, instead buying 6,000 tickets to give away. Owner of a small financial planning agency, Bonnema saw the movie in December with a group of pastors.

“When I saw it, it really changed my life,” Bonnema said. “It made everything else I had done look meaningless.”

The Texas businessman said he decided after the screening that he had to do something so that other people could see the film. When he sent out a few e-mails in December offering people the chance to go, Bonnema said, he received 23,000 e-mail requests in three days.

Bonnema scheduled his showings early on the day the film opened, Ash Wednesday. With the first screening at 6:30 a.m., Bonnema said that at 5:30—notwithstanding a 20-degree windchill and a winter downpour—a thousand people showed up to get in line.

“Just seeing these people come today, it was worth everything I own,” Bonnema said.

Nathan Mellor, minister of Hixson Church of Christ in Chattanooga, Tenn., echoed other church leaders across the nation convinced that Gibson’s movie offers a unique chance to rekindle the passion of believers, as well as reach people normally uninterested in the gospel message.

Observing that watching the movie with members of his congregation in a nearby cinema was “a real bonding experience,” Mellor reflected, “This is the biggest conversation starter we have ever had for this generation.”

Posted: 2/27/04

Leaders warn ‘The Passion’ not for most children

By John Hall

Texas Baptist Communications

Christians may want everyone to hear the gospel, but parents should be wary of letting their younger children view Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” according to faith leaders.

Christian leaders are cautioning parents to use discretion when determining whether or not their children should see the film, which graphically depicts Christ’s brutal last 12 hours on earth that led to his crucifixion and resurrection.

Many Christians are calling the R-rated film too explicit for young children and teens. Phil Boatwright, who reviews movies from a Christian perspective on moviereporter.com, calls the crucifixion possibly “the most believable death scene ever to be placed on screen.”

The violence is not only bloody but also prolonged, said Leighton Flowers, youth consultant for the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The demonic also is portrayed vividly.

The brutality is more agonizing for Christian children because they are seeing someone they love persecuted for the length of the movie, Flowers said.

The film could give some young children nightmares and flashbacks, said Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist-in-residence for Focus on the Family.

The movie is not suitable for many children under the age of 10, leaders said. Parents should strongly consider whether or not to allow anyone under 15 to see it in the theater.

“It’s too much for little kids,” Boatwright noted.

Generally, parents need to know what is appropriate for their children when determining if they should see the movie, Flowers said. They must understand their children’s tolerance for violence and ability to understand what they are seeing.

“It’s hard to pick a cut-off date because each kid is at a different point in maturity and exposure to violence,” Flowers said.

If parents are having trouble deciding whether a child should see the film, Maier encourages them to see the movie before their youth do. Adults also can choose to purchase the video of the movie at a later date and show it to their children when appropriate.

“Parents are the guardians, gatekeepers of their child’s media experience,” he said.

Maier also urged parents to attend the film with their children rather than letting them go with a youth group or friend. This allows families to discuss the movie and any emotions they are feeling immediately after the show.

Tommy Sanders, minister of childhood education at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas, said the same standards that are applied in teaching the gospel to younger children should be applied to the movie.

Bible study teachers should be careful not to over-emphasize the brutality of the persecution of Christ, because it can leave them fearful, Sanders said. Younger children need to hear the message of hope in Christ clearly. The brutality of Jesus’ sacrifice is more appropriate for older youth.

The movie can invigorate the faith of mature teens, leaders said. The depiction helps viewers understand the painful sacrifice Jesus made for humanity’s sins.

“It is brutal, but there is a difference between 99 percent of (movie) brutality and this brutality,” Boatwright said. “This brutality shows what Christ went through on our behalf.”

Posted: 2/27/04

Internet buzzing as non-Christians debate 'Passion'

By John Hall

Texas Baptist Communications

While many Christians have geared up for Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” to be the greatest evangelistic opportunity since Pentecost, non-Christian reaction to the film has been mixed.

Message boards across the Internet are filled with posts from non-Christians annoyed by what many of them see as Christians pushing their viewpoints.

“I am not against religious films at all or religions in general,” writes “Skynetdyne” on a pop.com forum. “But this is a fun film site where freaks and movie buffs come to talk about movies. Then they make these religious movies and all the (Christian) freaks start to come in. They get all mad and try to press their points of view on us movie freaks, when all we want to talk about is having fun at the cineplex.”

Dave Silverman, spokesman for the nation’s oldest non-profit group for non-religious people, American Atheists, called the movie “really preachy.” He predicted “The Passion” would not bring anyone into the Christian faith because non-Christians largely are not interested in seeing it.

Silverman decried the film’s violence and gore, calling it “Quentin Tarantino meets the pope.” He said he was disappointed the film did not present the non-judgmental elements of Christianity or answer questions people have about the crucifixion.

“This was nothing new,” he said. “This was just the Catholic view of the persecution of Christ.”

Other non-Christians are separating the religious issues from the film. On pop.com, “Cosmo_Kramer,” who noted he does not believe in Jesus, said the “film is going to be great … good quality … great story.”

“Jim” on jimlynch.com, who wrote that his spiritual beliefs have swayed greatly, was hopeful the movie would show the heart of Christianity. And he wondered if the movie would bring others to the faith.

“Still, the film will be worth watching, and it will be worth pondering what Christianity is really supposed to be about,” he said.

“I can’t but wonder if it will result in an influx of people back to the church, or if the film will simply vanish after a few months in the theaters. We’ve become such a secular country that it seems hard to believe that suddenly people will move in the other direction. I hope some good things come from it, though.”

Posted: 2/27/04

CBF must avoid partisan politics, Vestal urges

By John Pierce

Baptists Today

ATLANTA (ABP)—”We are not going to be involved in secular politics,” Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Coordinator Daniel Vestal told the CBF Coordinating Council at its winter meeting in Atlanta.

Fellowship participants are “all over the board when it comes to secular politics,” Vestal said, describing a broad spectrum, ranging from “rock-ribbed Republicans, to yellow-dog Democrats, to the tree-hugging Green Party.”

The Fellowship’s mission—to be the presence of Christ in the world—is greater than any secular political agenda, Vestal insisted.

“Please don’t divide the Fellowship over partisan politics,” he urged. “We’re about something more important than that.”

No political party “has a corner on the moral conscience of America,” he stressed.

In an interview following his report, Vestal said his comments were made not in response to the recent announcement by Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land about a new voter registration effort or any other particular action or concern.

“I was being preventative,” Vestal said, noting the upcoming elections will evoke political debate.

Land, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, announced Southern Baptists will work with other evangelical Christians to promote voter registration through the web site ivotevalues.com.

The coalition effort avoids endorsing particular candidates, but encourages people “to vote their values,” Land claimed.

Vestal said a broader statement on avoiding partisan politics will be posted on the CBF web site, thefellowship.info, soon.

But he wanted to go ahead and express his concern to the council, he added. “I wanted to be clear about this before anything comes up.”

Posted: 2/27/04

Freedom panel recommends 11 nations for sanctions

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (ABP)—A federal panel charged with monitoring global religious freedom conditions has picked 11 countries as the world’s worst violators of that basic human right.

The commission has asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to declare Burma, North Korea, Eritrea, India, Iran, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam as countries of particular concern, or CPCs, under the terms of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act.

That act established an ambassador-at-large position in the State Department for monitoring religious freedom. It also created the commission, an independent federal watchdog group appointed by the president and congressional leaders from both parties.

The commission monitors religious freedom conditions around the globe and makes regular recommendations to the State Department, including the designation of the CPCs.

The act also enables the State Department, if it follows the committee’s recommendations, to enact a number of sanctions against an offending nation.

The commission said it is recommending those 11 countries because of “systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom that (their) governments are responsible for or have tolerated.”

The commission was divided on India, with a minority of commissioners feeling India’s toleration of violations by some local and regional governments did not rise to the level of CPC recommendation. Those three commissioners filed a dissenting opinion recommending that India be placed on a watch list of nations with concerns about religious freedom.

The other nations on the watch list include Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Georgia, Indonesia, Laos, Nigeria and Uzbekistan.

This is the fourth time the commission has asked the State Department to declare Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan as CPCs. The department has not yet heeded the commission’s recommendations.

Both Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan are considered close allies of the United States in the global war on terrorism. But a State Department report released late last year admitted religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia.

Commission Chair Michael Young, in a letter to Powell accompanying the recommendations, also asked the secretary to take more advantage of the powers granted to him under the International Religious Freedom Act.

“CPC designation carries an obligation that one or more of certain actions … be taken, unless the president determines that pre-existing sanctions are adequate or otherwise waives the requirement,” Young noted. “Yet for every country named a CPC to date, the only official actions taken (by the State Department) have been to invoke already-existing sanctions rather than taken additional action to advance religious freedom.”

The commission requested a meeting with Powell to discuss the report prior to his decisions about CPC designations.

Posted: 2/27/04

ABC, CBF in on formation of new ecumenical effort

By John Pierce

Baptists Today

ATLANTA (ABP)—Leaders of the American Baptist Churches in the USA and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship say they are excited about potential opportunities for formal dialogue with other U.S. Christians, including Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

Both Baptist groups’ governing bodies are taking steps toward becoming founding members of Christian Churches Together in the USA. A much broader fellowship than the current National Council of Churches, CCT is seeking to embrace the widest range of Christian communities.

“Our general board has authorized us to become a part of it officially,” said ABC General Secretary Roy Medley, adding final documents and cost estimates are still forthcoming.

“It will give us a place to have the spectrum of our family represented,” said Medley, noting American Baptists range from evangelical to liberal.

Unlike bodies that pass resolutions and take specific political positions, Medley said he is attracted to CCT’s conciliar approach. CCT “will be more about conversations and mutual knowledge of one another’s faith and traditions,” he predicted.

As a result, he added, a wide range of American Christians will likely participate. “That means that Roman Catholics and Evangelical Pentecostals will be involved.”

A CCT steering committee statement welcomes churches and national Christian organizations that “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savoir according to the Scriptures; worship and serve the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and seek ways to work together in order to present a more credible Christian witness in and to the world.”

One unique characteristic of CCT is a consensus approach to decision making.

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s Coordinating Council has voted to pursue participation in CCT. John Finley, pastor of First Baptist Church of Savannah, Ga., and a member of the CBF ecumenical task force, spoke in favor of a recommendation that the Fellowship “identify as a founding member.”

Daniel Vestal, CBF coordinator, urged support as well, saying he is impressed by the broad inclusiveness of CCT. “I’ve frankly been waiting for the emergence of some ecumenical body that fits CBF and in which we fit.”

CCT’s intention to include a wide spectrum of Christian communions is a unique and noble effort, Vestal said. He noted that the National Council of Churches lacks the involvement of Roman Catholics and many evangelicals, while the National Association of Evangelicals includes no other Christian traditions.

This is the most ambitious ecumenical effort ever put forth,” said Vestal.

CCT has loosely identified five “families”—Evangelical/Pentecostal, Historic Protestant, Historic Racial/Ethnic, Orthodox and Roman Catholic—to assure broad participation.

Focusing on dialogue is the only way to bring together such a broad spectrum of Christians, Medley said. “There is a real effort in this to keep everybody at the table.”

During a planning session in Texas in early January, participants were asked to gather by “families.” The challenge for Baptists may be in knowing exactly where they fit.

“I went to the Historic Protestant faith family,” Vestal told the coordinating council, “and Roy (Medley) went to the Evangelical one.”

The designation of these five families will not play a major role in CCT, but it simply assures wide participation, Medley said.

Regardless of how Baptists identify themselves among the broader Christian community in the United States, Medley said, the efforts of CCT connect well with the “longtime commitment of American Baptists to bridge denominational barriers and create an ability to work with others for the sake of the gospel.”

Posted: 2/27/04

BWA committee shares blame for SBC pull-out, member says

By John Pierce

Baptists Today

NASHVILLE (ABP)—Baptist historian Albert Wardin, a member of the Baptist World Alliance membership committee that recommended including the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in the worldwide group, said blame for the reaction from Southern Baptist leaders can be placed on several shoulders.

“If there had been more Christian charity and sensitivity on all sides, the division would not have occurred,” Wardin, emeritus professor of history at Belmont University in Nashville, wrote in a letter to Baptists Today newspaper.

Many share the blame for the planned departure of the Southern Baptist Convention from the BWA, Wardin said in a statement countered by BWA and Fellowship leaders.

He begins with the committee on which he served.

“The (BWA) membership committee … is to be seriously faulted,” said Wardin, the only committee member to vote against CBF acceptance. “It is a committee created by the administration of the BWA and was particularly influenced by individuals from Western Europe who had no sympathy for the SBC leadership, and its concerns were more ideologically in tune with the CBF.”

Additionally, Wardin claimed the membership committee broke its own rule of not recommending membership of any Baptist body if there was objection from a current BWA member.

“In all of this,” said Wardin, “the administration of the BWA was also as culpable since it did not stop the action on constitutional grounds and long-standing policy.”

Denton Lotz, BWA general secretary, disagreed with Wardin’s assessment of the committee’s process and conclusions.

“That’s the first I’ve heard of it,” he responded to Wardin’s charge that the membership committee’s recommendation violated the BWA constitution. “The (BWA) General Council thought it was constitutional.”

The BWA also never has had a written rule about not including member bodies if any other member objects, Lotz added. In countries where only one member existed, he said, special consideration has been given to the current member before bringing in a second body if there is conflict.

“But there are 14 member bodies in the U.S.,“ he pointed out. Strong efforts were made to work with both SBC and CBF leaders, he added.

“There have been cases when other member bodies were accepted when there were particular objections,” added Ruby Burke, assistant to the BWA general secretary who met with the membership committee.

Burke said she was the only BWA staff member involved in the committee process and Wardin gave the lone opposing vote to including the CBF. Another member abstained during the final vote.

“It was a membership committee decision,” said Burke, “Dr. Lotz had nothing to do with this.”

In fact BWA President Billy Kim “asked me not to participate in the committee’s decision,” Lotz reported.

Wardin said the BWA General Council showed its negative feelings toward the SBC by approving the recommendation of the membership committee by majority vote.

“In spite of the protestation today of love for the SBC, a number of General Council representatives have been critical of the current theological stance of the SBC leadership and its unilateral action,” Wardin said. “As has been noted, numbers of the BWA look upon the SBC as many in Western Europe today look upon the U.S.A. as too big and powerful and too often acting only on its own.”

Wardin claimed the Fellowship got the recognition it sought, but at a high cost.

In response, Fellowship Coordinator Daniel Vestal said recognition was not one of the reasons the organization sought inclusion in the BWA.

“CBF’s application for membership in the BWA was not to gain recognition,” Vestal said, “but to be a full participant in the world Baptist family.”

Blaming the Fellowship for the SBC’s proposed withdrawal is misplaced, Vestal added. “To blame CBF for the actions of the SBC is like blaming the abused wife for the behavior of the abusive husband.”

Fellowship leaders do not wish for Southern Baptists to leave the worldwide body they helped form nearly a century ago, Vestal added.

As a longtime supporter and participant, Wardin said he has been “most disturbed about the proposed separation of the SBC from the BWA” and is aware of the need for inter-Baptist cooperation worldwide.

Wardin said he agrees with John Briggs of Oxford that the BWA today is more conservative and has a more limited theological range than it had when founded by Southern Baptists and others in 1905. It is unfortunate, he said, that SBC leaders have tried to brand the BWA as “an organization on the path of theological deviation.”

“But the application of the CBF and its acceptance by the membership committee of the BWA brought again to the fore the underlying discontent with certain aspects of the BWA,” he said.

In the membership committee report presented last July, Chairman Ian Hawley of Australia gave a different perspective on the committee’s action. He wrote: “The membership committee in bringing this recommendation has not done so lightly or easily, … (but) we believe that this recommendation is the only fair and right decision that could be made.”

Posted: 2/27/04

Bush again circumvents Senate; appoints Pryor federal judge

By Robert Marus

Associated Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (ABP)—For the second time, President Bush has used a special administrative maneuver to install a controversial nominee to a federal court.

On Feb. 20, at the end of Congress’ Presidents’ Day recess, Bush used his recess-appointment power to place Republican Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pryor is among six of Bush’s appeals-court nominees who have been held up due to Democratic filibusters.

Democrats object to some of Pryor’s statements and actions on church-state and abortion-rights issues, arguing he is an extremist and would be a conservative “judicial activist.”

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) called Bush’s recess appointment of Pryor “an abuse of power.” The recess-appointment provision allows a president to install any of his nominees without the normal approval of the Senate while Congress is in recess.

On Jan. 16, Bush used Congress’ Martin Luther King Jr. Day recess to appoint Mississippi judge Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pickering had also been the subject of a filibuster, with Senate Democrats arguing that his record on civil rights, church-state issues and abortion is extreme.

In announcing Pryor’s appointment, Bush said the nominee’s “impressive record demonstrates his devotion to the rule of law and to treating all people equally under the law. He has received widespread bipartisan support from those who know him and know his record.”

Some Republicans argued that Pryor, who is a conservative Catholic, and Pickering, who is a former president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, were victims of “religious profiling” because of their faith.

But Democrats noted they had already approved dozens of Bush’s Catholic and Baptist nominees. They also noted Pryor was less-than-orthodox in his Catholic faith, since his public position in support of the death penalty directly contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine.

Pryor sparked controversy for his support of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s effort to display a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state’s judicial headquarters building. However, Pryor ultimately turned against Moore after Moore defied federal court demands to remove the monument from the building’s rotunda.

Pryor served as Moore’s prosecutor in the state judicial-ethics trial that ultimately resulted in Moore’s removal from office.