Posted: 9/5/03

COMMENTARY:
Love, not angry slogans, will
convince Muslims of God's truth

By Erich Bridges

Declaration recently spotted on a T-shirt at a mall food court:

Abortion is murder.

Homosexuality is a sin.

Islam is a lie.

Some issues are black & white.

If this statement is intended to make the T-shirt wearer feel good about the rightness of his views, it probably succeeds. If it's intended to change anyone else's mind or heart, it fails miserably.

Take it from a longtime pro-lifer: The fastest way to end a conversation about abortion before it even begins is with a frontal assault. If you want to shout your opinions or express righteous anger, have at it. But don't expect to convince anyone who's unconvinced.

The same goes for the “Islam is a lie” approach. It's not “hate speech,” but it's also not a very effective way to initiate a discussion. Would you introduce yourself to a Muslim on a street corner in Cairo with that line? I don't recommend it. It's a guaranteed riot starter in the 45 or so countries with Muslim majorities. It won't work in Atlanta or Dallas, either, if you want to get past square one in communicating the truth in love.

Isn't communicating the truth in love your goal? If not, you need to examine your motives in the light of Scripture and God's Spirit.

Muslims, like most people, don't respond well to in-your-face confrontation. They do respond to friendship, love and–at the right moment–the good news that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of all people.

And it is news to most Muslims.

While we're talking truth and lies, the notion that Muslims automatically reject the gospel is one of Satan's biggest falsehoods. The fact that so many Christians believe this lie–or fear testing it–is a global tragedy. Most of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims simply haven't heard the gospel in a way they can understand. When they do, God begins to reveal himself.

“Tolga,” a university student, recently wrote to the producers of an evangelistic radio program that is broadcast in several Muslim cities:

“Today I heard your show for the first time. The program explaining the life of Christ is rather intriguing to me, but my head's all mixed up. Some of the things you're teaching differ from what I've been taught all my life. I'd like to be better informed, but I don't know how. I'd like it if you could help me.”

Christian broadcasters and Bible distributors in the Muslim world can show you thousands of similar letters.

“Ali,” another respondent, wrote: “I've been listening to you for two years. I've tried to write you before, but I've just been too frightened. When I am writing you, my hand trembles with fear. I really love you, and I am truly alive. My family and my neighborhood are fanatical Muslims, and I can't speak these words to them. I hope this doesn't sound really weird to you.”

It doesn't sound weird at all, Ali. You are discovering the God of love and mercy. One day, he will give you the strength and courage to share this wonderful news with your relatives and neighbors.

That's what more than 3,500 Muslims who have become followers of Christ are doing in a major South Asian city. When asked why they decided to follow Christ, group representatives cited three factors–the “guarantee of heaven,” the fact Jesus Christ is not just a prophet but God's anointed Messiah, and his healing power. When asked if God had revealed these truths to them through the Koran (Islam's holy book), the New Testament or their personal experiences, they responded, “All three.”

The same is true in the United States, a magnet for Muslim immigrants from all over the world.

Guven, a Muslim from Central Asia, came to the United States to pursue post-graduate studies. A pastor at a church that prays for Muslims befriended him and supports mission work in Guven's home country.

The two discussed their religious beliefs. Like so many Muslims, Guven rejected the idea of a God in three persons, the resurrection of Christ and the authority of the Bible. But the two stayed in touch, and when Guven's teeth began to ache, the pastor contacted a Christian dentist who performed a root canal on Guven without charge.

The grateful student decided to visit the pastor's church a few times, strictly as a courtesy. But the more he went, the more alive the worship songs, the pastor's words and the Scripture seemed.

“What made the most sense was the personal relationship” with God, Guven later said. “This is amazing.”

Eventually, in the quietness of his heart, Guven invited Christ to be his Savior and Lord. When he told the pastor and his congregation, they stood and applauded for joy. Next year, he plans to return to his home country with a team from the church to share the gospel with others who are hungry for God.

“I know it's a challenge, but I pray God makes me ready for this, too,” he said, acknowledging the risks of taking the good news to his own people. “Everyone has to go through trials, and this is going to be mine.”

What are the odds that Guven would have opened his mind and heart to Christ if the pastor had shown up on his university campus one day wearing a T-shirt declaring, “Islam is a lie”?

Don't get so caught up in defending truth that you lose the chance to share truth with the people around you who are desperately seeking it.

Erich Bridges is a writer with the Southern Baptist International Mission Board; his column was distributed by Baptist Press

9/5/03

U.S. overlooks Africa's 'twin towers'

By Richard Stearns

The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States proved the mettle of the American people. We are strong. We are brave. We are a people of faith. And we are generous and compassionate.

Few of us will be called upon to prove our strength by rushing into a burning building. Fewer still to prove our bravery by commandeering a hijacked airplane. But all of us can demonstrate our compassion by helping widows and orphans in need.

Seven out of 10 Americans gave to help families of the thousands of people killed in the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center's twin towers. But there's another “twin tower” disaster that has been all but ignored by the American people–Africa's AIDS crisis.

I received a list of children who had lost one or both parents to AIDS in just nine villages of the southern African country of Zambia. The list of 3,613 names, 10 to a page, was 3 inches thick. I calculated that a list of all of the African children who have lost parents to AIDS–at least 12 million–would be more than 90 stories high.

Next to that, put a similar list of 28 million Africans infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS; that list would reach 194 floors–84 stories taller than the World Trade Center. Many of the names would be of widows, infected by their husbands with the disease, wishing for nothing more than to stay alive long enough to raise their children.

Unlike New York's twin towers, which collapsed before the eyes of the world, these towers have been building slowly, inch by inch, for the past two decades–not on global television, but in anonymous slums and villages.

That's not to say that Americans are unaware of the toll AIDS is taking on Africa. We just choose to look away.

A poll conducted by the Barna Research Group found that about three-quarters of the American public is aware that many countries have a large population afflicted by AIDS. Nearly a third said they were “very familiar” with the AIDS crisis.

The same survey found that more than half of the public is unlikely to help children who have lost parents to AIDS. Almost two-thirds said they are unlikely to help overseas AIDS prevention and education programs–efforts that can protect wives from being infected by their husbands and young people from experiencing the same fate as their parents. Only 8 percent said they would definitely support these causes.

Regrettably, evangelical Christians were significantly less likely than non-Christians to support AIDS education and prevention. And although they are usually twice as likely as adults overall to support disadvantaged children overseas, they were less likely to support children orphaned by AIDS.

Why would fewer than one in 10 Americans be willing to help widows and orphans of AIDS, while seven out of 10 were moved to help those who lost mothers, fathers, wives and husbands in the Sept. 11 attacks?

Sept. 11 saw the first direct attack on the United States in nearly 60 years. The deaths of thousands of our countrymen in three short hours also were unprecedented.

More compelling than the terrible ways in which they died was the ordinariness of their lives as they started the day. They commuted to work. They got on airplanes. They sat at their computers, coffee cup to the right, pictures of their kids to the left–just like us.

In short, we all can relate to the people who died on Sept. 11. We feel compelled to care for their families like they were our own. As we should.

Africa's AIDS crisis, by contrast, has been slowly building over the years. Those affected live in villages, even countries, we cannot locate on a map–or even pronounce. Most are poor. Their cultures are different. The way men and women relate to one another is different. And so we turn away from what we do not understand.

But while we turn away, the “twin towers” of those affected by HIV/AIDS continue to grow. By the end of this decade, Africa alone could have 40 million children who have lost parents to AIDS. That list would stack up high enough to make three of the New York twin towers.

Sept. 11 proved it is impossible for the United States to ignore the world's problems. We were outraged by the oppression of women under the Taliban, and even moved by abuse and neglect of animals at the Kabul zoo. We are more aware of world events than we have been in decades.

We are a different country than we were prior to Sept. 11, 2001–stronger, kinder, more internationally savvy. Our new awareness of the world should lead us to extend the same respect and compassion to the widows and orphans of Africa's AIDS epidemic as we have to survivors of America's greatest tragedy.

Richard Stearns is president of World Vision United States, one of the world's largest Christian humanitarian organizations. His column is distributed by Religion News Service

Posted: 9/5/03

Congress returns to face church-state issues

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)–As Congress returns to session this month from its summer recess, a host of church-state issues await on the agenda–from gay marriage to school vouchers.

The most visible debate may be over gay marriage. A proposed constitutional amendment that would limit marriage and marriage-like benefits to opposite-sex couples–in some cases overturning state and local laws–appears to be picking up momentum in Congress. The Federal Marriage Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., likely will receive committee hearings in the early fall.

But other church-state issues are farther along in the legislative process and could get action sooner. Among them:

Religious discrimination in hiring. The issue of religious discrimination in federal programs likely will resurface in Head Start legislation. When the House passed a bill July 24 that reauthorizes funding for the Head Start early-childhood-education program, it included a provision explicitly allowing religious organizations receiving Head Start funds to discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of religious ideology. This would repeal anti-discrimination provisions under which Head Start has operated for years.

In May, the House added similar provisions to the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. Critics of government funding for social-service programs at churches and other religious organizations claim this is part of a wider plan by the Bush administration to enact Bush's “faith-based initiative” in a piecemeal fashion.

Both bills will come up in the Senate, where the hiring-discrimination provisions are expected to face stiffer opposition in that chamber than they did in the House.

School vouchers. On Sept. 4, the House was expected to take up a District of Columbia appropriations bill with an expected Republican amendment to start a school-voucher program for D.C. public-school children. The scholarships for low-income children could be spent at private schools, including religious schools. Church-state separationists and many public-school advocates strongly oppose vouchers. Last year, the Supreme Court declared an Ohio voucher program constitutionally valid.

Previous attempts to create D.C. voucher programs have failed, but the latest program got a boost earlier this year with unexpected endorsements from Washington Mayor Anthony Williams and the chair of the city's school board.

Churches and political endorsements. Legislators who think churches should be allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status are expected to make a second attempt to amend Internal Revenue Service codes. The latest version of Rep. Walter Jones', R-N.C., “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,” currently in a House committee, has managed to gain 159 co-sponsors at last count.

Although the House soundly defeated a similar bill last year, it has strong support from many Religious Right leaders and organizations. They claim churches, pastors and religious organizations are unfairly silenced on political issues by IRS regulations. Opponents claim the bill threatens religious liberty and gives religious groups political privileges other tax-exempt organizations would not enjoy.

Posted: 9/5/03

Death row exonerations reach new high

WASHINGTON (RNS)–Nine death row inmates have been exonerated this year, the highest number in 15 years, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Three men who spent a combined 67 years on death row were freed in late July, bringing to 111 the number of inmates who have been released from death row since 1973.

All charges were dropped against Timothy Howard and Gary Lamar James, childhood friends who were convicted in 1977 in Ohio on robbery and murder charges, after new evidence was presented in Howard's case and James passed a polygraph test. Both men were on death row before Ohio's capital punishment law was overturned in 1978.

A third man, Joseph Amrine, was released from a Missouri prison after spending 17 years on death row. Discovery of inaccurate testimony from witnesses helped free Amrine from a conviction in the 1985 murder of a fellow inmate.

Six inmates from Illinois, Louisiana and Florida have been freed this year; another man, Nicholas James Yarris, is expected to be released in Pennsylvania.

“With these most recent exonerations, it is increasingly clear that the death penalty is falling apart at the seams,” said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment. “There is no question that additional cases of innocence remain uncovered on America's death row.”

Most religious groups oppose capital punishment, although many Baptist groups have supported it strongly.

In 2000, then-Gov. George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on all executions after 13 inmates had their sentences overturned. Days before he left office last January, Ryan commuted the death sentences of 167 inmates.

Illinois remains the only state to have a moratorium on all executions.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich of Maryland overturned a statewide moratorium imposed by his predecessor, Parris Glendening, when he was inaugurated earlier this year.

Posted: 9/5/03

Destination Known charts a course

By Leann Callaway

Special to the Standard

FORT WORTH–The message behind the music starts with the name for the Fort Worth-based worship band Destination Known.

“We want people to know there's a hope for all ages, that they can spend eternity with Christ,” explained band member Blake Bollinger. “At a lot of the camps and youth events we go to, we see youth struggling and being unsure of where they're going to spend eternity. We want them to be sure of their salvation and a fulfilling life by having a relationship with Christ.”

Destination Known is made up of five guys. Vocals are provided by Bollinger, Joey Vanderveer and Jordan Critz. They are joined by drummer Brian Oswalt and bass player Jozef Bobula.

The group's theme verse is 1 Thessalonians 5:9: “For our God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

Many times, having a band like Destination Known perform at church functions can break the ice and make it easier for students to invite their friends to hear the gospel, the band members said.

“One of the things I enjoy most about being in this band is knowing the way music tears down walls,” Vanderveer said. “There's so much that kids today are being taught and so many outlets that they're being influenced by. Because of music, we can reach them in a way that pastors or counselors wouldn't be able to reach them. Kids put up these walls, and music gives us an opportunity to break through those walls so we can speak truth into their lives. Hopefully, we can lead them to Christ through that.”

When Destination Known performs, they offer more than a concert. They hope to provide students and young adults a life-changing encounter.

“At one of our shows in Fort Worth, these people had been praying for this guy who was a Buddhist,” Critz said. “They brought him to the show, and he came because he heard a band was going to be there. … He got saved that night.”

“It was God's hand working, coordinating events, because people had been praying for this guy for a long time,” Bollinger added. “Being at our concert just happened to be the final step in leading him to salvation.”

Vanderveer feels strongly about leading teenagers to Christ because it was his profession of faith in Christ as a teenager that led to creating Destination Known.

After high school, Vanderveer was forming a secular band with some friends. But when one of his friends invited Bollinger over to band practice, Vanderveer's life and musical style began to change.

“At that time, I wasn't a Christian,” Vanderveer said. “But through seeing Christ in Blake's life and seeing the Christian life lived out, he was witnessing to me in that way. … Through that, I became a Christian at a practice we were having. Pretty much right after that, the band changed direction, and we became a worship band.”

The band continued changing shape as Critz, Oswalt and Bobula joined, and they have added a unique mix to the group. Critz can play almost any instrument imaginable, including bagpipes. Bobula, who joined the band in 2001, is originally from Slovakia. Oswalt, who said he started beating on almost everything around his house at an early age before his parents finally gave in and purchased a drum set, joined the group in May 2002.

Today, Destination Known is widely recognized for their emphasis on vocal harmony and use of multiple instruments.

“I think what separates us from other worship bands is our emphasis on vocal harmony,” Bollinger noted. “A lot of times, we'll take a standard praise chorus or hymn and put our own spin on it, whether it's adding accordion or a really unique drum part. We try to detail our praise songs like we would our own songs.

“We believe in doing things to the best of our ability, and that applies to everything we do in life, especially leading worship. In leading worship, we want to put that same attention to detail that we would on anything else in our worship time.”

The band maintains a busy schedule, performing 100 to 150 events a year. They travel with their own sound system and sound engineer, John Vance, who has toured with groups such as dc talk.

Despite their increasing popularity, the boys in the band insist nothing will change their image or their reason for performing.

“We have something called a character contract,” Critz explained. “It's a form of accountability that we stick to certain things–to not give people any reason to see us and think we're doing something wrong. One of the main things we strive for is to always try to be above reproach in everything we do and say.

“The impact you have on the kids, in everything you say, is huge. It's almost like they just put you on a pedestal,” he added.

Despite traveling across the country leading worship, the group remains true to its Texas roots, performing frequently at Baylor University, Mount Lebanon and Zephyr Baptist encampments and The Door in Dallas.

But in their travels, they have worked with Michael W. Smith, FFH, Bebo Norman and Chris Rice.

“We've been fortunate enough to travel all over the country, play in various camps, concerts, retreats, DiscipleNow, conferences, and lead worship Sunday mornings at churches,” Oswalt said. “You name it, and we've probably played it. I think when it all comes down to it, our favorite thing to do is lead worship.”

“One of my favorite experiences was at Camp Zephyr,” Bobula noted. “Another highlight was playing at the Air Force Academy Chapel in Colorado Springs, Colo.”

This fall, Destination Known will team with youth evangelist Jarrod Jones to lead worship for DiscipleNow weekends at Baptist churches in Texas, including First Baptist Church of Waxahachie. In addition to leading worship at youth events, their upcoming schedule includes performing at Six Flags Astroworld, the South Texas Children's Home and Texas Christian University's Fellowship of Christian Athletes Game Day. During the holiday season, they are planning special Christmas concerts at churches, and this spring, they will lead a campus revival at the University of Mary-Hardin Baylor.

While enjoying the journey, they continue to take their task seriously.

“Leading worship needs to be taken very seriously,” Bollinger said. “It's not just playing songs. It's leading people into the throne room of the Lord. We pray each time before we lead worship that God's face will be seen and not ours–that we'll just be a vehicle to lead people in worship.”

.

Posted: 9/5/03

DOWN HOME:
A guy's gotta know his place

“Scoot over here–closer,” Joanna whispered, tugging at my sleeve.

Ah, nothing like a Sunday morning sermon to bring out the romance in my wife.

And if you believe that, you think everyone in our church's sanctuary tithes, nobody has sinned since last Sunday and we'll eventually enjoy a worship service of hymns without “praise choruses” once more in this lifetime.

Nah, Jo got cold. As usual.

She scooted me over just to warm her up. That's my Sunday morning job–pew warmer. I sit immediately to my wife's left, between her and the big air conditioning vent. My first task is to block the breeze. And then, when she thinks she's freezing anyway, I'm supposed to snuggle on over, with my right arm and shoulder over the left side of her body. Sorta like a human blanket in a three-button suit.

At least I know my place–and my job. Seems like I've always had a place and a job on Sunday morning.

When I was just a little kid, my place was down on the second row, just left of center, right beside Mother, the pastor's wife. My job was to sing loudly, pray, follow along with the Bible reading, listen to Daddy's sermon and then join Mother in praying for all the lost and wandering souls while everybody else was singing the invitation.

As I got a little older, my place changed. I moved away from Mother, across the aisle and back a ways, with the “youth.” Except not on the back row, where boys who were made to go to church sat and whispered, passed notes and clipped their fingernails. Sitting back there would interfere with my main job, which was to be quiet and listen. Daddy never said so directly, but I think he hoped I'd have a calming influence on at least a few of the noisy kids.

Sometime in there, I decided my other job was pump primer. When I figured it'd been too long since someone made a “decision,” I'd walk the aisle and rededicate my life to the Lord. I always felt pretty sure I needed to repent of a few sins. And although I never told anybody, I guess I sorta hoped seeing the preacher's kid down at the front, confessing his sins, would prompt some of the other rowdy kids to, as the Bible says, “Go and do likewise.”

Years later, when my daughters, Lindsay and Molly, were little and their Mama sang in the choir, my place was back near the front. And my job was to help them sing along and keep them quiet so they'd listen. That was my favorite job I've ever had in church. I just loved listening to the sermon with a little girl in a crinkly dress curled up on my lap.

But now I'm down on the main floor, front-left section, keeping my wife warm.

And someday, I hope Lindsay and Molly will sit downwind of men who love worshipping the Lord with their families as much as I always have.

Posted: 9/5/03

EDITORIAL:
Prop. 3 will help churches

The fate of church building projects across the state rides on the outcome of Proposition 3 on the Texas ballot Sept. 13.

Proposition 3 would authorize the Texas Legislature to provide tax exemptions for property churches buy to expand their facilities. It also would authorize tax exemptions for property owned by religious organizations and leased for school use.

The bottom line for churches is that Proposition 3 would allow churches and religious organizations to plan for expansion without running the risk of increasing their taxes.

The state's Tax Code allows a religious organization to qualify for a tax exemption if it engages primarily in religious worship or promotes individual spiritual development, operates so that it does not create profit or private gain and uses its assets for religious functions, according to the House Research Organization.

Unfortunately, a legal loophole allows local governments to tax “non-revenue-generating church property.” The Tax Code exempts church property that is under construction or physical preparation for construction for five years. But after that, the property can be taxed until it is used by the church for worship.

Strapped for cash, taxing authorities in several counties have exercised that option, the House Research Organization reported. Consequently, some churches have had to sell all or parts of the land they bought for expansion, just to pay the taxes they never thought would come due.

Legislation drafted to complement Proposition 3 would create a fair and equitable exemption for church property set aside for construction. It still would place time limits on construction and require church officials to state in writing how they intend to use the undeveloped land. It would not allow a church to extend its exemption indefinitely. And it would impose sanctions of five years' back taxes if the exempt property were sold or transferred.

But the legislation would give churches a much-needed breather. It would offer them more time to raise money to construct buildings on both contiguous and non-contiguous property. Even during difficult economic times, churches would have some leeway to raise the money they need to get on with their expansion plans.

Opponents criticize Proposition 3 for several reasons. Some believe churches should not be tax-exempt. Others believe local taxing authorities are punished when valuable property remains off the tax roles. Some say tax exemptions are not fair to other property owners, because the exemptions increase their tax burden.

However, it's time tax law stops punishing churches for planning ahead. New and growing churches infuse life and vitality into their neighborhoods and communities, and they should not be forced out or held back, particularly during an economic recession, when income doesn't grow as expected. Furthermore, local governments should not be allowed to regulate church activity by tightening the noose of taxation.

Posted: 9/5/03

EDITORIAL:
2003 Davis offering unusually vital

Texas Baptists are getting ready to raise one of the most important offerings in their history.

Beginning Sept. 14, the Baptist General Convention of Texas will collect the 2003 Mary Hill Davis Offering for Texas missions. Rarely, if ever, has an offering been needed more.

Due to a variety of reasons–among them an ailing economy, increased needs within churches, years of denominational controversy and a short-sighted sense of stewardship–the BGCT's Cooperative Program missions-and-ministry budget is slumping. For the third year in a row, receipts are coming in at a double-digit deficit. We are not alone. A recent survey conducted by the Standard revealed budget woes at numerous state and national conventions. But company does not reduce misery, and Texas Baptists who empathize with the spiritual, physical and emotional needs of our state feel miserable.

For example, Texas is one of the fastest-growing states in the nation, meaning Texas Baptists face an unprecedented demand for starting churches. However, the BGCT already is out of church-starting money for the year. Similar needs exist among all types of ministries. We require more financial support for sharing the gospel with and meeting the needs of untold thousands of newcomers along both sides of the Mexico-Texas border, through River Ministry, borderland associations, benevolence ministries and others. We need more money to enable Texas Baptists to be “the presence of Christ” in broken homes, behind prison walls, among college and university students, with people who could only comprehend the gospel if they hear it in a language other than English. We need to equip one another for the work and ministry of the church. The needs seem endless.

So, Texas Baptists have no choice but to reach this year's Mary Hill Davis Offering goal, $5.1 million. No matter how pinched you feel by the economy, no matter how much your church can use all its income, no matter how you feel about some recent developments within our convention, you can be assured every penny of your Mary Hill Davis Offering gift will be used directly for ministry and missions. It's the best investment you can make in the kingdom of God.

Woman's Missionary Union of Texas promotes the Mary Hill Davis Offering and prepares the allocation guide for the offering. Here are some of the new items on WMU's wish list:

$15,000 to provide interns and materials to equip churches to evangelize, disciple and train international students who are training in Texas and plan on returning to their homelands.

$20,000 to enable Hispanic students and lay leaders to conduct evangelism blitzes among Hispanics in key cities across the state.

$10,000 to provide storybook Bibles to 5,000 at-risk children in 15 cities. Quite likely, these will be the first Bibles owned by these children and their families.

$4,000 to help students from East Texas Baptist University start a church in Laredo.

$75,000 to help fund the Emerging Church Network, a specialized ministry that works with the BGCT Church Starting Center to enable churches to minister to an “emerging culture” of people who are not likely to be reached by traditional churches.

$35,000 to enable churches to share the gospel with people in unusual settings, such as Padre Island beaches, Piney Woods campgrounds, Davis Mountains hiking trails and “winter Texan” campgrounds in the Rio Grande Valley.

$40,000 to help the BGCT Center for Community Ministries develop resources on how to reach and keep at-risk children and youth in the church.

$5,000 to assist Asian churches in Texas to hold an evangelistic camp for their youth; it will encourage youth ministry in the churches and train future leaders.

Those items alone total just $204,000 of the $5.1 million goal. Among other needs are:

$150,000 for the BGCT's Key Church strategy, which focuses on churches doing missions.

$1.25 million to start at least 259 mission-minded churches.

$75,000 to support missions initiatives in multihousing complexes, which are home to 49 percent of all Texans but incredibly hard to reach with the gospel.

$45,000 to assist churches and associations as they minister to families in crisis, who are at risk of crime and violence.

$104,000 to provide health care along the Mexico-Texas border through River Ministry.

$105,000 to help Hispanic Baptist Theological School train Texas leaders of the future.

For more information, call (888) WMUOFTX or visit the www.maryhilldavis.org website.
–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at marvknox@baptiststandard.com

Posted 9/5/03

CYBERCOLUMN:
Shopping addiction

By Brett Younger

The New York Times reported that, according to her lawyer, Elizabeth Randolph Roach is a shopping addict who was driven to steal a quarter of a million dollars from her employer by padding her expense accounts. (Why didn’t Kenneth Lay think of this excuse?)

Her addiction also compelled her to buy a buckle worth $7,000 at Neiman Marcus (The reporter didn’t say if it was marked down). It also compelled her to buy 70 pairs of shoes at one time. (Why didn’t the clerk, like a good bartender, cut her off after 50 pairs?) And she became so engrossed shopping in London that she ran up a tab for $30,000 and missed her flight home. (She should have bought a plane).

Judge Matthew Kennedy of Federal District Court in Chicago spared Roach from jail by reducing what could have been 18 months in prison because, he said, she has a “shopping addiction.” Instead, he sentenced her to:

Five years of probation.

Six months of home confinement on weekends (during all the best sales).

Six weeks in a Salvation Army work-release center (where she’ll be great in the Thrift Store).

Pay a fin of $3,000 (less than half a buckle’s worth).

The United States attorney’s office believes this to be the first case in which a federal judge reduced a crime sentence because of a shopping addiction.

A psychiatrist who examined Roach said: “A lot of people use shopping to make themselves feel better. They feel alive. They feel engaged. It can be very stimulating.” Those involved in the case believe the decision might encourage more defendants to argue that their shopping addictions are responsible for their criminal behavior.

This story is too sad to be funny. We live in a country where shopping is recognized as an addiction in a world where people starve. I wish Judge Kennedy had been more creative. He should have sentenced Ms. Roach to:

Five years in Somalia, Rwanda or any other country with a disproportionate number of the 24,000 who die each day from hunger and hunger-related diseases. Maybe “shopping” won’t seem like such a pick-me-up after she’s sat with mothers whose children are starving.

Six months of reading the Bible. God commands us to feed the hungry countless times. According to Matthew, Jesus thinks that those who own 70 pairs of shoes and do nothing for the hungry “will go away into eternal punishment.” Maybe eternal punishment will seem like more of a deterrent to Roach than probation.

Six weeks of praying that God will use her to feed God’s children. Roach cannot solve the problem of world hunger, but she can make a difference. God always answers the prayer, “Open my eyes.” She can become one of the saints who see a better way.

A fine of whatever she ends up honestly thinking is right. She could give the money to Bread for the World or another organization working to end hunger. Like most of us, she might end up admitting that she is not nearly as “addicted” to feeding the hungry as God calls us to be. She might learn that a lot of people have discovered that helping the hungry “makes them feel better. They feel alive. They feel engaged. It can be very stimulating.”

Brett Younger is pastor of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

9/12/03

COMMENTARY:
Reflections on response to missionaries
affirming the Baptist Faith and Message

By Jerry Rankin

Asking Southern Baptist missionaries who serve with the International Mission Board to affirm that their work and personal convictions are compatible with what their sponsoring denomination believes has been an interesting process. It was not unexpected that many among our Southern Baptist constituency who do not agree with the leadership and conservative direction of the SBC – as well as those who are in disagreement with the faith statement itself – would disagree with this initiative.

However, reflection upon the negative response from individuals and the media over the past year has revealed that an alarming number of Southern Baptists have succumbed to the subtle influence of post-modern thinking and theological compromise. Many are offended that denominational workers would be expected to adhere to any defined commonality of faith. It is evident the precious doctrine of individual priesthood of believers is being distorted to justify whatever arises out of self-centered, independent thought, regardless of explicit biblical teaching to the contrary.

See response: Creedal use of 2000 BF&M ‘differs radically’ from historic Baptist practices by Keith Parks

Criticism of the Baptist Faith and Message and accusations of enforced creedalism indicate that many have lost any understanding of what it means to be a confessional people. For more than 400 years, Baptists have been expressing their distinctive stance on social issues and doctrinal positions in drafting confessions of faith – and they will continue to do so. Theological truth is absolute, so theology does not change, but as long as the world and society change it will be necessary for churches and denominations to express where they stand and what they believe the Scripture teaches on contemporary issues, if they are to maintain their distinctives and be salt and light witnesses in the world.

When many diverse denominations and cultic groups claim to base what they believe and practice on their interpretation of the Bible, it is essential that Southern Baptists express what they believe and where they stand in a commonality of convictions and faith. The London Confession in 1644 was written in response to the Westminster Confession to clarify who Baptists were in contrast to the Reformed tradition, both of which claimed the Bible as their authority for faith and practice. Rising ecumenism and Darwinism in the early 20th century precipitated the drafting of the original 1925 Southern Baptist statement, and the 1963 revision emerged almost 40 years later in reaction to the assaults upon the authority and truthfulness of the Bible.

While dismissing the BF&M as a creed, critics likewise demean it for supposedly attempting to change Southern Baptist beliefs. In reality, the 2000 BF&M has not changed any beliefs at all. Recent revisions have simply spoken to contemporary issues by confessing what the Bible has always taught – and Southern Baptists have always believed and practiced – about the role of pastoral leadership, the spiritual order of the home and to affirm that the entire Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, not just that spoken by and with reference to Jesus, all of which have been under attack by post-modern thinking.

The Bible – Sole authority of faith and practice

Being a confessional people doesn't contradict in any way the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice nor an individual's freedom to interpret Scripture as led by the Holy Spirit. Anyone can believe what they choose. No one has to be a Southern Baptist. But those who are Southern Baptists have the collective prerogative of determining, under God's leadership, what they commonly hold as the teaching of God's inerrant and infallible Word.

In reaction to the Baptist Faith and Message, many proclaim their conviction that the Bible is their only authority, but then refuse to be accountable for believing and practicing its specific and explicit teachings! A creed is simply a statement of what an individual or group believes. Perhaps the reason creeds are spoken of with such disdain is that so many, typical of post-modern thought, really do not believe anything as absolute truth anymore.

An extremely alarming trend is that many detractors of a statement of faith espouse the priesthood of the believers and autonomy of churches as the hallmarks of Baptist belief, neglecting to acknowledge that the foundational convictions of Baptists, and those upon which these two precious concepts are based, are the lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of God's Word.

One oft-repeated accusation is that the Baptist Faith and Message is being imposed on others. This is a hollow and distorted perception, as it has never been imposed on any church or individual. One believes what one believes – something that simply cannot be imposed by others. However, it is altogether appropriate that Southern Baptist churches expect those who represent them and who are entrusted with matters of faith – such as missionaries, seminary professors and denominational workers – hold personal beliefs and convictions consistent with what the denomination confesses to believe.

The BF&M was formulated by men and women, priests of God, who prayerfully and earnestly sought God's will and guidance in expressing the consensus of their faith according to the teaching of Scripture. It was formulated under God's leadership and is an expressed interpretation based on His authoritative, unchanging Word. Southern Baptists, gathered in annual session, prayed and expressed their sense of God's will in voting to adopt the BF&M. Would critics who champion the case for individual priesthood as justification for dissension and independent thinking deny the very basis on which we practice church and denominational polity?

Denying that God had anything to do with leading Southern Baptists to boldly affirm what God's Word teaches regarding church order, the marriage relationship and the inspired authority of all Scripture, reveals a contradiction of values. Unfortunately and sadly, the result has been many Baptist churches and individuals mimicking society, choosing humanistic thinking, cultural accommodation and theological compromise at the expense of abiding and eternal truth to guide faith and practice.

A short view of Baptist history

Those who claim Southern Baptists have abandoned what it means to be Baptist seem to have a short view of history. Their heritage goes back no further than the last generation, when leadership and seminaries were embracing higher criticism, an erosion of biblical authority that was moving the denomination toward the precipice of liberalism over which mainline denominations had fallen. As we hold missionaries accountable today, they forget that the Foreign Mission Board denied appointment to Southern Seminary professor Crawford Toy and withdrew the appointment of John Stout and T. P. Bell in 1881 because they did not hold to the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture as other Southern Baptists did. They forget that the chairman of the original Baptist Faith and Message committee in 1925, E. Y. Mullins, made it clear that this definitive confession of faith was to be an instrument of doctrinal accountability for preachers, professors and those representing the denomination.

One has succumbed to the relativism of post-modern thought when one says missionaries deserve our support regardless of what they believe or teach. Exaltation of independent, self-centered thinking has supplanted submission to the Word of God when individuals sent out and supported by the denomination are unwilling to affirm they will carry out their work in accord with what the churches they represent believe.

The few missionaries who rejected my request to affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message made it clear that they will be accountable to Southern Baptists only the way they themselves choose to be accountable. Others say, "I want you to support me, but I am accountable only to the Lord!" How would a local church respond to a pastor who said, "I no longer believe or will preach and teach what you as a church have said you believe, but I want you to continue to support me as your pastor since I have served so well in the past"? Such independent attitudes and thinking certainly have nothing to do with the priesthood of the believer and one's relationship with God, as some claim. God leads believers within the body to live and work in mutual submission to one another and with respect for those God has called to servant leadership within His kingdom.

Missionaries are called of God and are accountable to their Lord. They don't have to serve with Southern Baptists, but those who are sent and supported by the Southern Baptist Convention have a stewardship and trust to teach, preach and represent what Southern Baptists believe with integrity and personal conviction. Asking for that affirmation is not a politically coerced initiative; it is the simple bottom line of accountability to those we represent.

The issue is not about individuals being terminated; it is about the credibility of the International Mission Board being doctrinally accountable to our denomination. It is about holding to the fundamentals of our faith that will enable us collectively to fulfill the Great Commission and reach a lost world for Jesus Christ.

Few Southern Baptists would admit to post-modern views. It is both sad and frightening that so many are unconsciously succumbing to these kinds of societal influences and that they would be challenging the truths and convictions that have distinguished us as Southern Baptists.

But when one denies absolute truth and embraces a theological relativism that says what one chooses to believe and practice is only a matter of personal choice, when one advocates soul competency but without any adherence to the authority of God's revealed Word, and when one insists that self-centered, independent personal opinions supercede any sense of doctrinal accountability, one is, indeed, moving from the foundations of our historic faith to the nebulous, humanistic standards that characterize our post-modern society.

The inevitable result should be apparent – a diluted, ineffectual witness for the Lord Jesus Christ and diminished influence on a pluralistic and valueless society that would be disastrous in our churches and erode any potential for fulfilling our Great Commission task.

Jerry Rankin is president of the International Mission Board, SBC

9/12/03

COMMENTARY:
Parks: Creedal use of 2000 BF&M ‘differs
radically’ from historic Baptist practices

By Keith Parks

Jerry Rankin and I have a lot in common. We were both missionaries to Indonesia. We have both served as area director for Southeast Asia and as president of the International (Foreign) Mission Board. We agree on several basic beliefs. We agree the Lordship of Christ and the authority of God’s Word are foundational to the kind of Baptists we have been historically. We agree churches should expect missionaries they support to have sound doctrine. We agree those who reject absolute truth and embrace theological relativism deny our heritage, dilute our witness and erode the potential of fulfilling the Great Commission task. We both have given our lives in the cause of reaching all people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. When asked to write a response to Rankin’s editorial, I was reluctant to do so.

I did not want to re-engage in the distasteful controversy that has so damaged our witness and our denomination. But in reading what he wrote, it was clear what he and I believe has happened and why are very different. So I feel obligated as a Baptist concerned about missions and missionaries to state a different view. I believe strongly in the old Baptist saying that we must “Trust the Lord and tell the people.” In recent years, the “official Southern Baptist Convention position” is that Baptists can no longer be trusted to make up their own minds on issues. Editors have been fired and some state papers print only what is acceptable to the SBC’s elected officials. But it is important to challenge some of Rankin’s presumptions. Most of his views mirror those of other leaders who now control the SBC. They differ radically from our traditional Baptist heritage.

Baptists reject hierarchical structure Rankin presumes that elected leaders, both of the SBC and IMB, have priestly authority over Southern Baptists. He believes that because committee members who revised the Baptist Faith and Message prayed and brought recommendations that were affirmed by a few thousand Southern Baptists voting at the SBC annual meeting, everyone should accept them as being from God. Then he makes the astounding claim that those who do not accept this and still believe in the priesthood of every believer are denying the very basis on which we practice church and denominational polity! He believes in the doctrine of “priesthood of the believer” for committee members, but denies it to rank-and-file members. Baptists have never believed in a hierarchical church–with authority from the top down. His editorial ignores the most glaring fundamental change in the 2000 BF&M.

The Lordship of Jesus (the Living Word) is supplanted by making Him secondary to the Bible (the written Word). The statement, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” in the 1963 BF&M is removed from the 2000 BF&M. One committee member defended this, declaring this phrase was being used to justify too many heretical views. Does this mean that, rather than Jesus, SBC leaders who define orthodoxy have become the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted? The official SBC view of polity reflects drastic changes made in the SBC. Prior to the mid-‘80s participation in the convention was based on financial support of missions and other agreed-upon causes. The originating documents state the convention’s purpose was to “elicit, combine and direct the energies of Southern Baptists for the propagation of the gospel at home and abroad.” Churches that contributed to these causes qualified for messengers. The shift from being the kind of Baptists who cooperated around missions to the kind of Baptists who control with doctrine culminated in the 2000 BF&M. After asserting that “the 2000 BF&M has not changed any beliefs at all,” Rankin then defines the importance of the changes. He declares it affirms “what Southern Baptists have always believed and practiced” about pastoral leadership and the spiritual order of the home.

Actually Southern Baptists have never agreed on the authoritarian role of the pastor. Nor have they previously accepted control of one Baptist body (the convention) dictating requirements for leadership (pastor) of another Baptist body (the local church). Nor is it appropriate Baptist practice to deliberately exclude part of scriptural teaching because it fails to buttress one’s viewpoint. The committee adamantly refused calls to include Ephesians 5:21 stating husbands and wives should submit to one another when quoting Ephesians 5:22-25 to emphasize “a wife’s gracious submission to her husband’s servant leadership.” Rankin is correct when he declares Baptists believe in the Word of God. It is our interpretation that differs. Another significant reshaping of our Baptist heritage is the way the 2000 BF&M is used. It is the very first Southern Baptist confession to claim its purpose as “doctrinal accountability.” In describing confessions of faith, the 1963 BF&M states, ”Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority.”

As used in religious terms, a creed is defined and enforced by religious authority. A confession is defined and expressed by individuals. A confessional group says, “This is basically what we believe. If you agree and want to, let’s walk together.” A creedal group says, “We have determined what you must believe to be acceptable. Otherwise, you cannot join with us.” The confessional approach affirms individual Christians are to be trusted when they declare their study of Scripture leads them to be Baptist. The creedal approach insists that some denominational authority will determine who really is Baptist.

If BF&M is unchanged, why sign? If the 2000 BF&M changes nothing in belief or practices of the past, why was it mandatory for missionaries to sign? When have veteran missionaries ever been required to sign such a document? If it is no different, why is it the only decision that has resulted in so many missionary resignations and early retirements? (The numbers reported by the IMB do not cover the numbers who resigned quietly because they were afraid of losing retirement and insurance benefits if they protested openly.) Rankin seems to imply that, prior to the recent compulsory signing, no attention had been given to missionaries’ doctrinal views since 1881. The truth is that biblically-based doctrine as understood in our Baptist heritage has always been of serious importance. But, in fact there has not been a problem with the basic Baptist beliefs of FMB staff or missionaries for at least the past 50 years. He accuses those who reject the 2000 BF&M of postmodern theology, which he seems to define as a rejection of absolute truth as revealed in Jesus Christ and recorded in Scripture. Let it be understood that liberal, postmodern theology was never accepted among staff or missionaries of the Foreign Mission Board! Never once was I accused during my 38 years with the FMB of unsound doctrine.

My offense was that I would not support the divisive politically-motivated ultra-conservative resurgence. During my tenure as FMB president, out of nearly 4,000 missionaries, 10 were accused of unacceptable doctrine. I personally reviewed every case in consultation with missionaries, staff, board members and other Baptists. Only two were dismissed because their doctrine had become unacceptable after their appointment. Historically, most Southern Baptists have rejected a Baptist creed, believing a confession of faith was adequate. The 1963 BF&M declares, “The sole authority of faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.” By contradicting this, Rankin has joined other current leadership in seeking not only to rewrite history but in accusing anyone who rejects a creed of not believing in absolute truth. Countless missionaries and other Southern Baptists who have a high view of Christ, the Bible and the work of the Holy Spirit have contradicted this false presumption.

They have demonstrated their steadfast belief in absolute truth to such an extent that they refused to compromise their integrity even at the cost of their calling and livelihood. It is unfortunate that all Southern Baptists cannot hear the testimonies and read the writings of all the godly, veteran missionaries forced to resign their posts, give up their calling and forsake their people because their consciences would not allow them to subjugate their God-given convictions to the dictates of human religious authorities. I am aware many committed missionaries continue to serve faithfully. I know the gospel continues to be preached, churches are being started and God continues to bless those who serve. The same is true of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and many other mission efforts. Unfortunately, trying to impose control over all Baptists has hampered cooperative mission efforts that had worked so well for more than 150 years.

‘Regrettable changes’ alter mission effort Rankin’s editorial reveals some of the regrettable changes that have created a different kind of Baptist mission effort, such as:

The presumption that a select few have exclusive access to biblical truth. n The rejection of Christ’s promise that His Holy Spirit will enable every ”believer priest” to interpret His teaching.

The loss of trust in the integrity of denominational agencies, missionaries, individual Baptists and local churches.

The assumption that messengers at the SBC annual meeting have the prerogative to dictate doctrine to Baptist churches and individuals. n The implication that there is only one, very narrowly defined, acceptable expression of Baptist doctrine.

The accusation that anyone who rejects the 2000 BF&M creedal statement does not believe the Bible.

Requiring a mass creed-signing to assure Southern Baptists of missionaries’ doctrinal integrity, rather than trusting in their personal confession of belief and calling. Southern Baptists are a drastically different denomination with a radically altered mission program.

Baptists who are committed to biblical truth and missions will examine these changes and decide if they are consistent with their own interpretation of God’s Word. If they cannot agree, they must find ways to obey Christ’s command to take the gospel to the whole world. They cannot allow disillusionment to cause them to turn inward and disobey the God of missions. We must be missionary because God is missionary. And there will be new, exciting ways to join Him in this task.

Posted: 9/19/03

Trends noted in white & Hispanic Catholics

WASHINGTON (RNS)–New research shows that Hispanics who are born Catholic are more likely to remain in the church than white Catholics, and Hispanics who leave the church tend to adopt other faiths, while white Catholics do not.

The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University found that in a survey of 982 adults who were born Catholic, 81 percent of Hispanics remained Catholics, compared to 72 percent of whites.

But among “cradle Catholics” who have left the church, researchers found Hispanics were more likely to convert to another faith, while white dropouts were more likely to claim no faith at all.

Most former Catholics (56 percent) said they left the church after age 20. Ten percent said they left by the age of 10, and 34 percent left during their teenage years.

The research echoes earlier findings by the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, which found the portion of Hispanics who labeled themselves Catholics had dropped from 66 percent to 57 percent since 1990.

The newest data cast doubts on the popular notion that Hispanic converts are flocking to Pentecostal churches. While the percentage of Pentecostals in the Hispanic population grew from only 3 percent to 4 percent between 1990 and 2001, those claiming “no religion” more than doubled from 6 percent to 13 percent.