Posted: 5/19/03

Baptist Briefs

Missionaries' killer sentenced to death. The man accused of killing three Southern Baptist hospital workers has been sentenced to death, his lawyer told the Associated Press. Abed Abdul Razak Kamel, 30, was sentenced to death May 10 for the shooting deaths of Baptist workers William Koehn, Martha Myers and Kathleen Gariety Dec. 30 in Jibla, Yemen. The verdict was given in Jibla, the AP reported. Kamel will appeal, with his lawyer describing the verdict as violating Islamic law.

Alliance links with two other bodies. The Alliance of Baptists has approved a proposed ecumenical agreement with the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) that would foster greater cooperation between the groups' leaders, congregations and seminaries. The proposal has not yet been approved by the other bodies.

Directors of missions website launched. Woman's Missionary Union has launched DirectorofMissions.com, an interactive website designed to improve communication among directors of missions, associational staff and other missions-minded leaders. The website is the result of market research, focus-group studies conducted by WMU in 2002 and interviews with various directors of missions from across the country.

Companions in Christ training offered. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Upper Room Ministries will co-sponsor four regional Companions in Christ training events this summer, including one in Texas. Companions in Christ is a 28-week small-group experience that builds spiritual practices within congregations, helping participants open more fully to God and to one another. The Texas training session will be held July 12 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at Lake Shore Baptist Church in Waco. It will be led by Carolyn Shapard, minister to adults at Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas, and Bo Prosser, CBF coordinator for congregational life. For more information, visit www.cbfonline.org and pull down the “resources” menu.

Texans to be honored. Three Texas Baptists will receive awards when the Baptist History & Heritage Society meets May 22-24 in Belton at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor. William Reynolds of Fort Worth will receive the society's national Distinguished Service Award for outstanding contributions to Baptist history. Charles Wade and Bill Pinson, current and former executive directors of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, each will receive the society's Officers Award for commitment to historic Baptist principles and the values of Baptist history and heritage, creative leadership, and support of the Baptist History & Heritage Society.

Oklahoma church damaged. At least three Southern Baptist churches suffered damage as a series of tornadoes hit the Oklahoma City metro area May 8-9. Trinity Baptist Church in Moore was virtually demolished. Tulakes Baptist Church in Bethany also was damaged, perhaps beyond repair. Witcher Baptist Church near Edmond had significant roof and window damage.

Traylor to be nominated. Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., will be nominated for the presidency of the 2004 Southern Baptist Pastors' Conference. Johnny Hunt, pastor of First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga., and a former Pastors' Conference president, said he will nominate Traylor for the post during the June 15-16 Pastors' Conference in Phoenix.

Davis named Indiana executive. The State Convention of Baptists in Indiana's executive board has voted unanimously to call Stephen Davis the convention's executive director/ treasurer. Davis has been pastor of First Baptist Church in Garland since 1994. He will succeed Charles Sullivan, who is retiring after 12 years in the position.

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

Posted: 5/19/03

Panel warns religious freedom at risk in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON–An independent panel warned May 13 that religious freedom in Afghanistan is perilously at risk unless the U.S. government presses for greater human rights protections.

In its annual report to Congress, the president and the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said Afghanistan could again become a repressive Islamic state unless Washington intervenes.

“There are indications that Afghanistan is being reconstructed–without serious U.S. opposition–as a state in which an extreme interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law) would be enforced by a government which the United States supports and with which our nation is closely identified,” the nine-member panel warned.

The watchdog panel called for increased security to guarantee human rights, as well as secular courts to prevent “misguided judicial activism” and a commitment to make sure “punishments such as flogging, amputation of limbs and death by stoning are banned.”

The commission also rebuked Saudi Arabia, one of America's closest allies in the Middle East, for restricting non-Muslim faiths.

“The commission shares the State Department's view that freedom of religion does not exist in Saudi Arabia and notes that advancing human rights, including religious freedom, has not been a public feature” of U.S. diplomacy, the panel said.

The commission, which was chartered by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act, monitors religious freedom issues and advises the government on ways to weave those concerns into foreign policy.

The panel chided the State Department, however, for ignoring many of its recommendations, particularly adding Saudi Arabia to a list of “countries of particular concern” for its human rights policy.

In March, Secretary of State Colin Powell named six countries–Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Sudan–as countries of particular concern for their “systematic, ongoing and egregious” violations of religious freedom.

The watchdog commission wants Powell to add six more countries–India, Laos, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Vietnam–to the list, as well as naming Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and Uzbekistan to a “watch list.”

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

Posted: 5/19/03

June 1

Amos 2:4-16

Amos in the eye of the storm

By Bill Shiell

The months of April-November provided interesting times in Pensacola, Fla., the city where I grew up.

This was the annual hurricane season, when many people became overnight crack meteorologists. They eagerly watched the weather and plotted the course of oncoming storms, using a blank map provided in the local paper. As a tropical wave turned to a depression then to a storm and finally a hurricane, we usually watched with great anticipation to see which would be the next unlucky city to feel the brunt of nature's wrath.

The book of Amos opens much like a weather forecaster charting the course of an onco

ming hurricane. Amos describes the destruction that will occur to the Canaanite tribes and villages surrounding Israel, many of whom had fought them ever since they occupied the Promised Land. In order to understand the effect Amos' words might have had on his audience, we will note his earlier words regarding God's coming wrath.

The storm

surrounding Israel

Seven nations surrounding Israel during Amos' time also had violated God's commands. In order to indicate how dangerous the times were for Israel, Amos begins by citing others' shortcomings. These oracles or prophetic sermons followed a simple pattern. He preached by by announcing that judgment was coming, discussing the irrevocable punishment from God, listing the evidence that demanded a verdict of guilt, announcing the punishment and offering a concluding statement.

With the exception of Judah, every nation around Israel had violated the commands of God against other nations. They had committed atrocities such as genocide or infanticide against other peoples.

For instance, in the judgment announced on the Aramaeans (Syrians), these people evidently rebelled against God by committing war crimes (1:3-5).The word for “transgression” in 1:3 indicates they were guilty of immoral acts against people of other nations. Their punishment was not simply a result of political disagreements with Israel. Even though Israel and Aram were frequently at war, the political disagreement was merely a byproduct of the Aram's broken relationship with the almighty God.

As Roy Honeycutt noted, God established a covenant relationship with all peoples, whether or not they had ethnic ties with Israel; and he promised to correct those who violated the terms of this agreement as well. In Aram's case, this prophecy was fulfilled when Tiglath-Pileser conquered and deported the citizens around 732 B.C.

The judgment Amos announced on Aram was very similar to the punishment looming for six other nations and their respective capital cities: Philistia (Gaza), Phoenicia (Tyre), Edom (Teman), Ammon (Rabbah), Moab (Kerioth) and Judah (Jerusalem). He uses the same formula repeatedly as a rhetorical device to gain his early Israelite audience's attention: “For three transgressions of ____ and for four, I will not turn back my wrath.”

Israel's stormy

relationship with God

The forecast for Israel was just as bad as the ones for the other nations. They would not escape God's judgment either, because they too had done things that would naturally result in violent destruction of their society. Beginning in 2:6, we see massive problems unfolding in the wake of God's wrath. The sins they committed were different than those of the other nations.

Whereas the Gentile nations were guilty of moral atrocities against their international neighbors, and Judah was accused of apostasy against the Lord, Israel was indicted for violation of daily moral and ethical living. Although they were living at peace with other nations politically, spiritually they were complete failures in the sight of God. Amos lists four sins they had committed in the focal text for this lesson.

Selling the righteous

for silver (2:6)

Judges in 760 B.C. Israel were corrupt; often the rich could bribe their way out of their sentences. The poor, however, could not afford to pay the bribes and were left to the whims of the judicial system. This phrase in verse 6 is a metaphor of how the righteous were acquitted easily, but the poor were left helpless.

Selling the needy

for a pair of sandals (2:6)

When the poor were brought to court, often they were falsely accused. Judges would sentence them to fines they could not afford to pay. The resulting punishment was enslavement, sometimes for just a lowly pair of flip flops. Amos calls for repentance from the act of slavery and the attitudes that bred such a practice. The people lacked any pity, concern or compassion for others.

Trample on the heads

of the poor (2:7)

The third sin was another violation of their relationships with the needy. Not only did they treat them badly in their judicial system, but in their daily dealings with the impoverished, they “trampled on their heads,” or showed contempt toward them for no apparent reason other than their economic status. The prophet Isaiah expressed a similar concern (Isaiah 3:15).

Deny justice

to the oppressed (2:7)

By denying justice to the oppressed, the Israelites exhibited a fourth problem. They were known for their “me first/everyone else second” attitude. Amos indicated the poor did not have the same access to due process of law everyone else did. The poor should have been entitled to the same privileges, but the Israelites shoved the poor out as if to say, “Get out of my way.” When it came to the poor or anyone else for that matter, the Israelites said, “I'm looking out for No. 1.”

Profane my

Holy Name (2:7-8)

If the social conditions were bad enough, the moral failings of the people were just as abhorrent to God. In verses 7-8, Amos showed the people were violating God's moral laws, a direct result of their misplaced priorities. To make matters worse, they committed these incestuous acts on the very garments received from the poor as a pledge they would pay the fines levied against them unjustly.

The prophecies

before the storm

Chapter 2 is a preview of what is to come in the book of Amos–a nine-chapter sermon on the choices Israel has made and the consequences of those choices. These themes will be repeated throughout the book, and we will return to these throughout these lessons. The people will soon see natural disasters all around them, and it will be the sign they need to turn their hearts to the Lord.

When read alongside chapter 1, the two chapters function together like the opening diatribe of a modern-day sermon. You could almost imagine Amos standing in the pulpit of a Texas church and warming up the crowd quietly with a discussion of the problems of the “world” today.

In his day, the “world” would be such great empires as the Aramaeans and the Ammonites. The likely response from the crowd to this kind of message would be “Amen,” or “That's good preaching.” When we cross from 2:5 to 2:6, however, I imagine that the crowd would have gotten very quiet. The preacher/prophet was not just talking about them; he was talking about the very people in his audience that day–the Israelites. They were just as guilty as the rest of the sinners in the world.

Amos uses political analogies from the surrounding communities and applies them to his day. The ingenious prophet knows, however, that life is about more than just strategic alliances. The struggles politically were markers indicating deeper spiritual problems only a prophet could see and address under inspiration from God. Amos saw the political, moral and theological issues intertwined into a complete breakdown of the fabric of society. The resulting judgment would feel much like the thunder, lightning and earthquakes of natural disasters on the people–but worse.

In his opening foray, Amos stands in the eye of the storm, a calm place preceding the coming destruction. He notes the one problem the people have had all along. The Israelites thought that as God's people, the covenant provided a safety net underneath them and a hedge around them so that when they acted unlawfully, they would be protected from the punishment other nations received for committing the same wrongs.

Amos will show them that just because they were a part of the covenant Moses handed down and that was reaffirmed in David's reign does not mean they are exempt from responsibility. When they have made all the wrong choices and repeatedly violated God's commands, eventually God would not bail them out any longer. He has to let nature and the consequences of sin run their course.

In a world of moral failures in society and injustice in our own court system, it is easy to turn Amos' message into a sermon directed toward everyone outside the walls of the church. But Amos is very careful to forecast a warning to God's people, and as New Testament believers, that includes us. The storm is brewing, and we have brought it on ourselves. We are left to take the next seven chapters to heart and correct our conduct.

Questions for discussion

How did Ammon, Moab and Judah show they were deserving of judgment?

Think of a time in your life when the events in the world served as a wake-up call to you. How did that affect your actions? Your worship? Your relationships?

In a covenant relationship, God agrees to do his part, and by participating in the covenant, we agree to do our part. How many different ways had God continued to fulfill his covenant toward Israel but instead, he was rejected?

Read the prophecies of Amos aloud to yourself. Begin the first prophecy with Damascus in a quiet tone and increase the volume in your voice as you move to the next country. What affect does a reading such as this have on the intensity of the moment when you get to chapter 2's prophecy against Israel? Could Amos have possibly used this simple device to get his point across?

Bill Shiell is pastor of Southland Baptist Church in San Angelo

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

Posted: 5/19/03

June 8

Amos 3:9-4:3; 5:10-15; 6:4-7; 8:4-6

Prophetic words to the filthy rich

By Bill Shiell

What could cause degradation in a nation of God's chosen people? Amos looks to the root of the problem in the focal passages for this lesson, as he brings judgment on the injustice caused by the lifestyles of the rich and famous followers of God.

Chapter 3:13 is the third of four oracles Amos preached against the wealth of the people in Israel or Samaria. Each oracle has the same characteristics, and we can discuss them together. Each one mockingly discusses the characteristic of the people that made them so pretentious and echoes a reference from the Pentateuch that showed how they violated God's law. Each example builds on the other, providing further reasons why Samaria will be conquered by enemies, and these enemies will be the agents of God's wrath on the people.

Lifestyles of

the rich and famous

We can read several identifiable characteristics of the lavish lifestyles of the people during Amos' time. Their homes were filled with furniture (3:12). The houses were adorned with ivory (3:15) and were built to enormous proportions (3:15). They owned homes for different seasons–one for winter, another for summer (3:15). They successfully grew vineyards (4:11) and other crops (8:5) but cheated others out of a fair market price. Women especially enjoyed the fruits of the opulent lifestyle (4:1).

Amos focused on the region of Bashan (4:1-3). Known for its fertile land to the east of the Jordan valley, the heavy rainfall created a rich cropland filled with tall, strong trees (Psalm 22:12). Amos uses the region of Bashan as a metaphor of God's destruction. Instead of the people's growing strong like the trees of Bashan, they have fattened themselves like cattle prior to slaughter. They desire to fill themselves continually with drink, lounging and imbibing in their own wicked designs, a plan that eventually will backfire on them.

In their minds, the people were not only rich, but they thought they were famous–protected by God because of their ethnic ties to one another and their covenant relationship with him. Amos announced that covenantal agreements and fame or protection in the eyes of other nations were not permanent guarantees of peace and freedom. The covenant was only as good as the people's willingness to fulfill their part of the agreement, to follow God's laws. Israel thought God's agreement with them was for the lifetime of their race, whether they did anything wrong or not. In God's mind, the people had so routinely violated the terms of the agreement his patience had finally run out.

God's response to the people

God was particularly infuriated with the people because they violated one of the conditions of the covenant, their holiness. As God's chosen people, they had been called out to be a reflection of his holiness, separated from others to be an example for the nations surrounding them. They were to set God's standards, modeling for others an ethic that coupled moral responsibility with social justice and righteousness. Because Israel chose to rest on their laurels, Amos was forced to become God's mouthpiece, stating the people had violated the holiness codes set up by God. We get the sense of how serious this concern is in 4:2, when the Hebrew can be translated, "My Lord God swears by his holiness." This holiness motivated the Lord to correct the covenant family.

The responsibilities

of God's family

Amos models for the believer today two critical responsibilities of God's spiritual family.

Leaders must speak. The opening verses of chapter 3 allude to several cause-and-effect relationships, such as a lion roaring and a trap being tripped. Amos related his prophetic calling to these kinds of familiar operations in society. Amos' life has a cause-and-effect relationship with the Lord. The Lord speaks, and he cannot help but follow through by speaking to the people.

The leaders of the 21st century must speak in ways similar to Amos. Just as we find it natural to cheer when our favorite sports team scores, the prophetic voices of today should find it natural to speak when the lifestyles of believers become so opulent their spiritual lives are clouded by their material possessions.

Early Baptists like John Bunyan wrote of this prophetic urgency when he boldly prayed: "Oh, that those who have heard me speak today will see as I do–what sin, death, hell and the curse of God really are, and that they might understand the grace and love and mercy of God, that it is through Christ to them no matter in what condition they are, even if they are his enemies."

God's family also is accountable. Just as marriages and family systems require accountability and faithfulness to the agreements we make together, so God's family necessitates accountability to one another and a holy God. We have a very special relationship to the Lord; as the church today, we are God's chosen.

Just like the Israelites chosen by God on Mount Sinai, we are now responsible for our own choices. Our most important responsibility is to follow the example of a holy God and see the worth and dignity of every person created in his image, including the poor. Bribery, slavery and adultery all transgress the first order of God's good creation. By trampling on those who are the least, we risk running over the very Christ who said, "Whatever you have done unto the least of these, my brothers, you have done unto me."

The word from Amos is not optional. As General Montgomery, commander of the forces in North Africa during World War II, once said, "Orders no longer form the basis for discussion but for action." The family of God must take action now to avoid the imminent judgment (3:2).

On July 14, 2000, Warren Bailey died. Most people probably did not read his obituary; but unknown to most people in his hometown of St. Mary's, Ga., Warren Bailey had left $60 million to the local Methodist church. According to the Associated Press story, Bailey operated a local family-owned telephone company. He became quite wealthy over time but divorced after several years of marriage and died with no children to inherit the money. He chose to give most of his estate to the church with no strings attached to the gift.

This inheritance presented a wonderful opportunity for the church and their pastor, Derek McAleer. Most churches might crater under the responsibility of this kind of estate, but the church voted to give the majority of the money away. They divided the estate into various kinds of trusts and accounts designated to assist the impoverished and needy in their community and to go toward nonprofit groups and other churches to assist them with their projects. None of it was designated for future building construction or for the general fund of the budget.

Could Warren Bailey and the members of St. Mary's church have been modern-day prophets like Amos, willing to give for the good of the community? They certainly became responsible members of God's family.

Questions for discussion

Amos challenges us to set new priorities in our finances. What would Amos say if he were a member of your church's finance committee? How would his influence cause you to evaluate your church's budget priorities?

Christians are not immune to the temptations of materialism. If Amos were to stop by your home, what material goods would you be ashamed to show him, for fear he might have something negative to say about them?

Amos describes God as a holy God. How should that characteristic of God be reflected in our choices today?

Can you see areas of injustice in our judicial system that favor the rich over the poor? What ways can the church be used today to provide equal opportunities for justice at every level of society?

The Dallas Morning News reported that average giving to churches dropped by almost $150 per donor from 1999 to 2000, and the giving of the average Christian dropped by 19 percent within the same period. What do these statistics reveal about Christians' attitudes to generosity and giving today?

Posted: 5/19/03

June 15

Amos 4:4-5; 5:18-24

Going to church never felt so bad

By Bill Shiell

“Is it ever a sin to go to church?” Randall O' Brien once posed this question to a group of students when discussing our focal passage for this lesson.

In Amos' day, the religious leadership was so corrupt the people's presence at worship actually appeared to condone the hypocritical religious activities of the priesthood. Amos calls the people in these passages to a higher form of worship and service.

Problems in the

priesthood (4:4-5)

We have noted throughout these lessons that the people committed several sinful acts against the Lord. The ultimate transgressions were committed by the priesthood, the very people entrusted by God to draw the Israelites closer to him.

The conflict between Amos and Amaziah (7:10-17) will be noted in the

next lesson, but the example of their problems gives evidence for an overall corrupt priesthood. The religious leaders were complicit with the political leaders by condoning alliances with nations that ran contrary to the standards of Israel's God. Their own political and religious dealings left Israel with an inept priestly class, incapable of addressing the societal ills of the day.

This is why Amos declared so passionately in 4:4-5, “Go to Bethel and sin!” He uses this hyperbolic language much like a parent would say to a child determined to go the party she is not supposed to attend: “Go on and party through the night; see what good that does for you!”

Amos, however, attacks their religious rituals, the very fabric of their society, and tells them their participation in ritual will no longer be sufficient to save them. They have depended upon the religious traditions passed down from Moses to provide a hedge of protection, but now the priests are corrupt as well. Going to their religious sites in Bethel and Gilgal would only lead them further away from God.

They could “brag about their freewill offerings” (4:5), but it would do them no good whatsoever. Through the mouth of Amos, God says to the people to not go to Bethel, Gilgal or Beersheba, because these places will be captured by the enemy (5:5).

Days of gloom

and darkness (5:18-24)

The priests had made one critical mistake in their interpretation of a concept popular in ancient Israelite theology– the day of the Lord or the day of Yahweh. Most of the priests in Amos' day thought this day at the end of time would mean the dawn of a new era of victory, light and hope for all those who were ethnically tied to Israel.

Amos and several of his contemporaries reminded the people that God intended for the day of the Lord to be a day of reckoning for those who had not lived up to the responsibilities of the covenant (Zephaniah 1:7,8; Obadiah 15; Zechariah 14:1; Joel 2:1-11).

The first part of the passage (5:18-20) describes Amos' view of the day of the Lord, a day of darkness and gloom for his people. The Lord would win, but the people who thought they were on the victorious side would actually be the recipients of wrath.

In the passages from other prophets noted previously, each shared the idea the God would go into battle, conquer his enemies and be victorious. This “holy war” is a common thread that unites each of the predictions of a “day of the Lord.” They would be very similar to God's battles in other sections of the Old Testament, when the battles began with a theophany (image of God) appearing before the people, and a subsequent victory for God (Judges 7:1; 1 Samuel 14:15; Joshua 6).

In Amos' case, the day of the Lord would be very similar to the evening the death angel passed through the land of Egypt. Only those who trusted in God completely would be spared from doom. Any feelings of security or well-being will be short-lived. Whether through the lion, the bear or snake, the people would not escape the judgment of God (5:19), a day of intense darkness (5:20).

The darkness, of course, was caused by priests' treatment of the religious festivals, now despised by a holy and righteous God. Beginning in 5:21, Amos returns to a critique of these sacrifices, many of which the people learned in the wilderness wanderings. Now they are detested by the Lord. He rejects the very sacrifices he commanded the people to carry out in Leviticus 1-3–burnt offerings, grain offerings and fellowship offerings.

Another aspect of the festivals was the music. God cuts off his sense of hearing (5:22) so he does not have to listen to the music of the people. This act signifies the end of all communications. Smell (v. 21), sight (v. 22) and sound (v. 23) are all blocked.

Hope in the

midst of darkness

Amos' condemnation of the people provides a shaft of light in the midst of deep darkness and gloom. He subtly weaves solutions to the problems for those who are willing to be obedient.

Seek God individually

The people of Amos' day had been taught simply to follow their religious and political leaders. The priest and king would hold the keys to unlocking the doorways into righteousness. Their leaders had, at one time, instructed them that God was God alone; and no one would compete with him. Now Amos says that with corruption and disobedience on every hand, their leaders could no longer be trusted. By following the leaders' instructions and trusting in a king or priest instead of the Lord, the people risked violation of the first commandment: You shall have no other gods before me.

The people were not absolved from responsibility, and Amos tells them to go outside of the traditional priesthood and monarchy. Seek God individually for your needs.

This radical message was practically unheard of in Amos' time until he spoke the word from the Lord, but it was the people's only hope. Instead of going to Gilgal and Bethel, Amos said, “Seek me and live” (5:4). Do not wait for the leadership to instruct you, because they will fail you every time. In other words, it is now a sin to continue to go to worship God through the traditional religious systems.

Shalom Paul calls this kind of seeking “a total dedication to a concern,” making God's righteousness their complete passion.

Hate what is evil

“Hate evil” is strong language, but he calls for the people in 5:15 to examine the individual shortcomings in their lives and learn to detest them. The people could either be purified through handling this problem themselves and ending their worship as they knew it, or, through fire and destruction, the day of Yahweh would cleanse the land of rebellion and impurity before a holy God.

C.S. Lewis once likened the way some people treat evil to the way we file taxes. When we pay taxes, we hope there is still some money left over when we are finished. Lewis stated that sometimes we confess sin hoping there is enough left over where we can still enjoy ourselves.

Amos preached against this attitude. Do not use God for what you can get out of him, hoping to have a little left over for yourself. Hate the kinds of evils God detests–the mistreatment of a brother or sister, injustice in the court system and abuse of the poor.

Let justice roll

Perhaps the most famous admonition of Amos comes in 5:24: “Let justice and righteousness roll.” Like the waters flowing down through the rivers of a mountain stream, so Amos holds out the chance for the cool, refreshing waters of righteousness to cleanse the land. God's righteous people would need to instigate the waterfall, however. They could not wait for their tithes, worship or taxes to begin the process; their individual deeds of righteousness would be the fountain from which God's justice would roll.

I once served a church in Central Texas that was a victim of a flood. A heavy rainstorm swept through the area on a Friday evening, and the rains filled up the drains in the city so quickly the water backed up into our church building. Luckily, one of the senior adult men who maintained the grounds of the church stopped by on a Saturday morning before the water flooded the sanctuary too badly. The men in our church came out with wet-dry vacuums in hand, ready to clean up the carpet, but the damage was bad enough to the office areas that we had to tear out carpet and flooring and sanitize the slab.

That event remains a picture for me of what Amos was describing here in these chapters. This was a time when the floodwaters of corruption had filled even the worship centers of ancient Israel. The only thing left to do was to tear apart the institutions and start over from the ground up. Individuals would be responsible for seeking the Lord from pure and righteous hearts.

Sometimes the institutions we trust become corrupt and far removed from God; even what we think is true worship is only shoddy mishandling of the holiness of God. Amos calls for a higher standard and for individuals to rise up righteously and release the floodgates of justice and righteousness throughout the land.

Questions for discussion

Describe a time when an institution you trusted became corrupt and untrustworthy. How did you feel; what changes did you make in your giving and attendance to that system?

When is it a "sin" to go to church? What are the sinful characteristics of religious leaders that Amos is addressing? What are the warning signs that indicate when religious leaders have lost the prophetic edge Amos brought to the ministry of preaching in his day?

Letting justice and righteousness roll requires a complete reversal of the social systems that caused the problems in the first place. How can individuals be used to address corrupt mishandling of resources, poor worship, immoral problems, bribery in the judicial system and mistreatment of the poor through society?

Amos implies religious leaders and political leaders should not mix, a common theme in Baptist circles today. Why would Amos be a strong advocate for separation of church and state? What circumstances in Amos' day contributed to the downfall of the priests and the monarchy? How can both church and state live more righteously today?

Some people have stated that many churches fight "worship wars," characterized by disagreement over styles of music played during a service. These debates would have largely been unheard of in Amos' day. The war over worship in his book regarded the effects worship had on its hearers. Amos wanted their worship to produce ethical people who cared about justice for the poor. What kind of people does your worship service produce? Do people leave more focused on the needs of those less fortunate?

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

Posted: 5/19/03
June 22 Lesson

Amos 7:7-17

On the outside looking in

By Bill Shiell

For six chapters, Amos has preached a word of the Lord to the people. As a prophet, he has used the deeds of the people as signposts to point them to the problems of their day. Although the world around Amos was politically secure, spiritually the people were in shambles. In our focal text for this lesson, we gain insight into the prophet behind the prophecies.

Amos: The messenger

The book of Amos begins with very little information about the prophet himself. We learn from the first chapter about his hometown and his primary occupation as a shepherd. The focus of the book is not on biographical details but the word Amos speaks. In chapter 7, however, we learn a bit more about the man behind the prophecies and how his role as an outsider might have affected his mes

sage to the people of the northern kingdom of Israel.

One word that characterizes Amos' life is “outsider.” Amos was an outdoorsman, one who spent much of his time in the desert with sheep (1:1) and sycamore trees (7:14). As Amos says, he considers himself to be “neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet.” In other words, he has had no formal training for this role; he is a country man called out by God to announce these words of warning to the people.

Located six miles south of Bethlehem, Tekoa was a town somewhat isolated from the rest of Judah. It is significant in only two other places in the Bible. A wise woman from Tekoa once visited King David, and King Rehoboam fortified the city.

More than likely, Amos lived on the outskirts of the city in the wilderness region that extends east along the Dead Sea. The climate and terrain of this region make it possible for Amos to tend to sheep and care for the trees as well.

People like Amos who lived in the desert were removed from the progress of civilization in the populated regions and would have had little regard for the wealth being consumed by the rich of their day. They still would hold fast to the Mosaic laws that guided the chosen people to this land.

As a man who lived outside, Amos would have had contact with many of the images he used in his prophecies–locusts (7:1), fire (7:4), lions (1:2; 3:4, 8, 11), drought (1:2), birds (3:5) and traps (3:5).

Amos was not only a geographical outsider, but he was a political outsider as well. Tekoa was located in the southern kingdom of Judah. Amos traveled into hostile territory, the northern kingdom of Israel, where he was called to prophesy against their transgressions. The cities of Bethel, Gilgal and Samaria were no more than a two days' walk for anyone from the village of Tekoa. Amaziah, the priest Amos confronted in 7:12-13, was so enraged a prophet from Judah would come to Israel to preach he tried to force Amos to go home.

Amos probably was a social outsider as well. Most biblical scholars agree that shepherds earned very little money and were viewed as social outcasts by the majority of the population. Amos naturally would have been sympathetic to the causes of the poor and the despised.

Amos also functioned as a religious outsider as well. Unlike Isaiah, who was a priest in the temple system, Amos was simply a layman. With no formal training whatsoever and no family ties to the priesthood (7:12, 14), Amos would have walked into the role of prophet with no credentials other than the word of the Lord that was spoken directly to him. Amos even admits he was plucked from his occupation and sent to this region by God directly (7:15).

Amos' life as an outsider contrasts sharply with those that failed to hear God's voice in society. All the individuals on the inside were deaf and blind to the message of God–an Israelite king who inherited the throne, a priest named Amaziah who regularly dealt with the holy things of God, and the rich and wealthy who had enough time and money on their hands to do anything they wanted to. None of these people accepted God's warnings or could see the signs in their society that judgment was coming. God had to raise up an outsider to carry forth his message.

Amos: The message

Amos' identity as an outsider more than likely helped him shape the message that would be used to warn the people. The opening verse of Amos provides a date for his message two years before a key event, the year of a great earthquake. We do not know the precise date for this event, but we do know it occurred during the reign of Uzziah.

This king of Judah was quite popular. He ascended the throne at age 16 and was known for conquering the dreaded Philistines, building up Jerusalem and organizing an army. At the zenith of his success, however, his pride overcame him.

According to 2 Chronicles 26, he went into the temple and attempted to burn incense, a direct violation of the laws of God and a privilege reserved only for the priests. As soon as he was confronted with this sin, while he was in the temple with a burning tong in his hand, Uzziah contracted leprosy and remained so until he died. He was removed from the throne and had to live in isolation the rest of his life. For the southern resident Amos, familiar with Uzziah's sins and shortcomings, to see similar transgressions in the north was possibly a motivating factor for this shepherd in touch with God.

The northern king, Jeroboam II (circa 783-743 B.C.), had caused troubles much like Uzziah. He created a false sense of peace and tranquility by paying taxes to the influential Assyrian nation to his north. In doing so, he violated God's command for the people to be completely reliant upon him.

Assyria had expanded its empire southward, taking the areas of Erini (775 B.C.), Damascus (773 B.C.) and Hadrach (772 B.C.). By keeping the Assyrians at bay for several years, Jeroboam II was able to convince the people through his priest Amaziah that they were safe and secure as God's chosen ones. During this time, they had no conflicts with the southern kingdom of Judah, and the economy flourished through some agriculture, trade, urbanization and slavery.

Amos, however, had a different perspective. He stated the people tried to manipulate God and that priests like Amaziah had taken power into their own hands. As Chip Conyers noted, Israel tried to appeal to God for the purposes of economic security and political safety but wanted to organize their nation to fit their own plans. Amos, however, said the people could not worship God merely for what he could do for them. Rather, God reached down to Israel, choosing them to be used for his purposes. The covenant into which they entered was an “all-or-nothing” proposition, and the people were required to live up to their end of the agreement.

With the analogy of the plumb line in 7:7-9, Amos indicated the walls of their false religion were cracking and crumbling, no longer aligned with God. Because the walls of their religion had been breached by their own injustice, mistreatment of the poor and participation in sexual immorality in the worship centers (7:9), they could no longer be continually pardoned for their misdeeds.

The Lord had measured Israel like a plumb line, and they were found to be crooked. Their king and priest would die shameful deaths, and their people would be taken into exile (7:17).

Amos: The representative

Amos' life follows in a long tradition of outsiders, especially shepherds, whom God uses to carry out his work. God called out a Bedouin shepherd named Abraham to be the first one to bear his covenant promise for a new nation. Moses ran from the Egyptian palace guard and found an occupation as a shepherd tending his father-in-law's flocks until God convinced him to appear before the Pharaoh to free the Israelites from slavery. David's primary occupation prior to becoming the anointed king of Israel was the shepherd of father Jesse's flocks.

Amos seems to fit the pattern, and his life anticipates another shepherd, the Good Shepherd, who will come and complete the task Amos began, offering a word of hope, judgment and redemption to the lost sheep of the world (John 10).

When our own religious and political institutions become corrupt, God must use outsiders to awaken our senses to a new, fresh calling on our lives. Amos provides an example of one who came from the outside to awaken people to God's day of wrath dawning on them.

Questions for discussion

Make a list of people in the Bible who were considered outsiders by their community's standards until God used them on the inside of society to change people's hearts.

While many of the people God uses in Scripture are like Isaiah, formally trained for their tasks, some are like Amos, with no training whatsoever. Has there been a circumstance recently in your life that you have felt God's nudging but used the excuse that you needed more training to be suited for that task?

The first part of chapter 7 records Amos' requests urging God not to bring the judgment he had planned on the people. Amos prayed continually that God would relent. How is Amos a model of prayer today? In a world where some preachers focus solely on condemnation and judgment, how does Amos' prayer life provide an alternative to this one-sided view of preaching?

Amos rises to the occasion for one brief moment in time and follows God obediently, perhaps even at the cost of his life. Even though there may be times in our past where we have not been faithful to God, the Lord still can use us at this moment. Think of ways God can use you in the world today to carry out Amos' message of justice and love.

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

Posted: 5/19/03
June 29 Lesson

Amos 9

Eyes wide open to the future

By Bill Shiell

Many people claiming to be prophets have attempted to see things in their day as signs apocalyptic events were near. In the 1800's, William Miller predicted Christ would return on Oct. 22, 1844. In 1988, Edgar Whisenant published “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988.” From Hal Lindsey to Tim LaHaye and other modern-day prognosticators, the doomsday theorists abound hoping to read the tea leaves and be the first to show that the end of time is coming.

Amos, however, was not that kind of a prophet. He was less concerned with foretelling future events than forthtelling (telling forth) truths from the daily experiences of life in 8th century B.C. Israel. He could see a "day of the Lord" was imminent, but he was less concerned with setting specific dates. He was not a magical prognosticator; through the inspiration of the

Lord, he knew the people were bringing incredible consequences upon themselves if they continued down this path.

In ancient Israel, the prophet was one of the few people in society tuned in to the natural progression (or destruction) of society. Each one played a significant role in helping the king and/or the people to understand their relationship with God better.

Some such as Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah focused mainly on the king, his court and the destruction he caused in the region. Amos' role as prophet was unique because he had an audience with the king, the priest and the people. He was able to speak directly to individuals who could go around the king and hopefully protect themselves from God's judgment.

In fact, the land was so peaceful at the time, Amaziah, the ruling priest, and Jeroboam II, one of the reigning kings might have thought he was crazy to predict doom and gloom.

Amos concentrated more on the actions of the people: Whether or not judgment comes, do the people's activities match their covenant responsibilities? Amos was able to take the common images from nature such as earthquakes, drought and fire and send warning signals to get the people to change their ethical behavior.

The last chapter of Amos provides a new day that dawns for the people of Israel who would be carried into exile following Amos' prophecies. Indeed, what Amos said did come true; but they were given hope for the future.

God rebuilds

The book of Amos opens with a series of three dramatic events–an earthquake (1:1) that shook the foundations of the buildings, a roll of thunder (1:2) to warn the people of the onslaught that was coming and a fire to purify their lives (1:4).

In chapter 5, God cursed the people, reinforcing the destruction of the opening chapters: "Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them. You have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine."

Each event in nature corresponded to an aspect of God's power. The earthquake, which would become so pivotal to the date of the book and the ministry of Amos, spoke to the need for the people to understand they were not in control of the affairs of their own lives. Their hubris created a false security. They formed alliances with foreign deities and powers. The earthquake shook up their senses to see that God desired for them to be dependent on him.

The tendency of some during times of disaster, as one writer has noted, is to get in touch with how we feel and how our emotions are handling things. For Amos, times of disaster were designed to help people reach out to God in dependence on him, rather than being too concerned with the self.

Amos used thunder to show the sound they were hearing in his preaching was like a distant warning from on high. Just as thunder warned lightning was near, so his preaching sounded an alarm that God's judgment was near. Positively, the thunder also reminded them God's presence was near. In his righteous love, God was not seeking to zap the people from on high but to nudge them with physical reminders of his never-failing love, just as Amos showed them in chapter 9.

Fire reminded the people of his holiness. Just as he had done to Moses through a burning bush, the Israelites through a pillar of fire, Elijah and the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel and Isaiah in the temple, so through Amos' words, God revealed his holy presence through fire. Fire would consume the land so that the highest peak in Israel, Mount Carmel, to the lowest part of the country, would be purified.

Amazingly and graciously, in 9:11-15 of the focal text, everything is reversed. God promises to restore what he has torn down; he promises to replant a land that was wiped out. His first step was to rebuild. Clearly, the devastation brought by the attacking Assyrian army in 722 B.C. would have been overwhelming to the people.

The first group taken into exile was led off by the very person Israel had attempted to pacify, Tiglath-Pileser of the Assyrians. These ancient peoples were known for their heinous acts of torture. When they took another tribe out of their homeland, the Assyrians intended to enforce punishment down to the lowest level of society. Families would be torn apart, women would be raped. Only the lowest class, the most ignorant of the people, remained in Israel. No one remained who could mount resistance to their puppet government. The most educated and wealthiest were the ones taken away and scattered throughout the region.

God has a way, however, of getting his point across to the people who threatened his chosen ones. He still had hope for the Israelites. We should recall the events that unfolded after the Assyrian conquest.

Babylon, a new empire, rose up conquering Assyria and eventually Judah in 586 B.C. The Babylonians were then conquered by the Persians. One of the most heathen rulers of all time, a non-believer named Cyrus, understood the plight of these Jews and granted them permission to go back home. In the middle of the exile, God began to rebuild through the work of an earthly Persian king.

We should review these lessons from the exile, because God always has the intent to rebuild what individuals destroy. While many of the people were victims of the destruction brought by Jeroboam II and Amaziah, God would not forget his precious chosen ones.

I remember being in Germany a year after the Berlin wall fell. We would walk around from town to town and see bullet holes still remaining from World War II imbedded in walls. Churches such as the old Berlin Cathedral and other buildings still were lying in ruins because they never had finances to rebuild. But when freedom dawned in that land, the construction process began to take place; people found hope, new jobs, new freedoms and took pride in their construction again. Even churches like the Berlin Cathedral reopened as marvelous houses of worship.

God replants people

Amos shows us in this text as well that God replants his people. Through the mouth of his prophet, God shows us he is not trying to punish the people for punishment's sake. Rather, this is only a transitional phase in the lives of the Israelites. In the end, the once dry agricultural harvest will be watered and restored by God; the same God who brought judgment would bring renewal. In 9:14, the reversal of destruction has been completed. Now the exiled people are back; they are able to build again; their vineyards are fruitful; and their gardens are alive.

Instead of a day of judgment and wrath like the day of the Lord, a new day is dawning full of hope and promise for these restored people. This time, the people do not think that they have rights to the land and the government and the social systems; the focus in this text is on their dependence on God. God is the one who gives them the land; he is the one who plants them. They understand they are contingent people and learn to trust the Lord even better.

God opens our eyes

Amos' eyes were opened by a sovereign God to see the natural progression of the choices the people were making. God did not send earthquakes, drought, fire and destruction so the people could be punished. They set themselves up for their own failure. Amos was able to use the events in life as analogies for the decay on the inside of their lives. He was able to speak a word of hope when the imminent doom and destruction were coming. Amos' message was a sign of love that God still desired for the people to be near him, even though they continually rejected him.

In the world today, people still debate whether or not God actively sends destruction for the purposes of punishing people. From a New Testament perspective of grace, we say, "No." God is able, however, to open our eyes to the world around us, alerting us to the need for dependence on the Lord who is in control.

When the space shuttle Columbia exploded over the skies of Texas, many of us literally watched in stunned amazement. One of those people was a local man named Richard who had been visiting our church with his girlfriend.

From what little I knew about Richard, he had been running from the Lord for a long time. When he saw the shuttle disaster, he sought out his girlfriend's father, a fellow minister in our community. That morning, Richard trusted the Lord as his personal Savior. He joined our church the next day and was baptized a month later.

Even though God did not send the astronauts of the Columbia to this horrible death, through this terrible experience, Richard's eyes were opened to a God who loved him very much and had been seeking him for a long time. Amos was hoping the same could happen to many in Israel in 760 B.C.

Questions for discussion

In the end, Israel's restoration comes from a remnant of people allowed to go back and restore everything that was lost. How did these events play out in the life of Nehemiah?

Describe a natural disaster where your eyes were opened to your need for dependence upon God.

There is a natural temptation to see destruction in nature and life as God's condemnation on certain people. How do we avoid that dangerous interpretation of Scripture yet keep our eyes open to God's messages to us through the significant events in life?

Other ancient near eastern cultures thought their gods tricked people and even willfully destroyed them. How did Amos' message differ from the myths of other gods during his time? How did Amos show the true God's power and love at the same time?

What are some of the distractions in the modern world that deceive us into thinking we are actually in control of our destinies? What role do technological advances, consumerism and wealth play in your life? Is it hard to remain dependent upon God while putting faith in other areas of society?

The last word of Amos is one of hope. How can we be ambassadors of hope to those experiencing disaster around us?

How does Amos contrast with modern-day figures who try to predict the return of Jesus Christ? What would Amos say to them? What should we focus on in our lives while anticipating the coming day of the Lord?

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.

Posted: 5/22/03

Baylor regents investigate board member
for interfering in drug investigation

By Mark Wingfield

Managing Editor

Baylor University's board of regents has launched an investigation of board member Jaclanel McFarland, reportedly on charges that she interfered with an undercover drug investigation on campus.

McFarland, a Houston attorney and former vice president of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, denied the allegation. She contends she is being pressured to leave the board because she has opposed several recent initiatives of President Robert Sloan.

Sloan and other university officials declined to comment on the investigation or allegations against McFarland. “Our hands are tied because of the legalities involved in the investigation,” said Baylor spokesman Larry Brumley.

Executive session

The story broke in the Waco Tribune-Herald Saturday, May 17, the day after accusations against McFarland were made in an executive session of the board of regents. No one present in that executive session would comment to the Standard about what happened there.

The Tribune-Herald reported that a subcommittee of the regents concluded initial evidence warranted a full investigation by the board if McFarland did not resign. Brumley said the university could not divulge that evidence beyond the regents.

McFarland said she first heard rumors about an investigation on Wednesday, May 7. At that point, she called Sloan, she said, to ask if he knew anything about it.

Sloan told her he didn't wish to discuss the matter with her, she said.

McFarland then called Drayton McLane, chairman of the regents and a Temple businessman. McLane arranged for McFarland to meet on Friday, May 9, with himself, Sloan and Bill Brian, an attorney from Amarillo who also serves as a Baylor regent.

At that meeting, McFarland said, she was urged to resign from the board to spare her family “embarrassment.”

By her account, the visiting delegation warned her that criminal charges could be filed against her but that if she resigned from the board, they would intercede to have those charges dropped.

McLane and Brian declined to comment, citing confidentiality requirements of their duties as regents. Baylor spokesman Brumley said Sloan could not comment on the matter either.

The university did release a statement May 23, however, that said: “Baylor University Regent Jaclanel McFarland has recently communicated with the media regarding an internal investigation over her conduct. The Baylor board of regents is conducting such an investigation. The rules set forth in the bylaws of the university govern such investigations. These rules provide that neither Baylor University nor any regent has the right to make public any information obtained through such investigation. Baylor has abided by these rules and will continue to do so.”

Tip-off alleged

McFarland, who has been a visible figure within Texas Baptist denominational affairs, called the turn of events “surreal” and said she was shocked by the allegations against her.

Although the university has not publicly stated any allegations against McFarland, she and others reported she has been accused of tipping off members of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity to the presence of an undercover police officer.

According to press accounts, Baylor's Department of Public Safety placed an undercover officer inside the student population and he in turn pledged the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity this year. The 22-year-old officer enrolled in classes and lived in Penland Hall, a student dormitory.

The undercover operation came to a conclusion April 29 with the arrest of six people for selling illegal drugs and the arrest of one other for possession of illegal drugs. None of those arrested were reported to be members of the fraternity, although six of the seven were Baylor students.

A May 5 memo distributed to the university community by Baylor's chief of police, Jim Doak, said the “lengthy undercover operation” was designed to “remove individuals from the university community who were known to provide contraband to students and others.”

“At no time did anyone within the TKE fraternity nor anyone within Baylor Student Life have knowledge of this operation,” Doak wrote.

He reported that “no active members of the TKE fraternity were involved in any capacity with distributing contraband.”

The memo extolled the fraternity as a “model of efficiency” and reported it conducted pledge activities without hazing.

That reflects an improvement for the fraternity, which in February 2002 was suspended from campus for the rest of that semester due to allegations of hazing violations.

Doak concluded his memo by saying the public safety department “has achieved the stated goal of this operation.”

Yet, according to the Tribune-Herald, university officials have complained that the undercover operation was cut short because the officer's cover was blown. The newspaper quoted an unnamed source as saying the seven arrests were minor compared to what Baylor law enforcement had hoped to achieve.

McFarland's 22-year-old son, Allen, has been a member of Tau Kappa Epsilon, although he did not attend Baylor during the 2002-2003 academic year. He enrolled in the fall at McClennan County Community College, then returned to Houston to work in his parents' law firm to save money for an overseas study trip.

Charges denied

University officials reportedly have alleged that Jaclanel McFarland knew of the undercover operation in her role as a regent and informed her son, who in turn tipped off members of the fraternity. McFarland explained to the Houston Chronicle: “Supposedly, I knew when no other regent did. I told my son, and he told someone who told someone.”

The regent affirmed to the Baptist Standard in a May 20 interview that she had no knowledge of the undercover operation prior to its conclusion and could not have told her son or anyone else about it. Other regents confirmed to the Standard that regents had not been told of the undercover operation.

“We weren't told about this,” McFarland said. “I didn't know about it until it came out on TV.”

While refusing to discuss what was said in the regents' executive session, McFarland said any evidence against her that she is aware of is “triple hearsay.”

McFarland said she spoke May 20 with Steve McConnico, an Austin attorney hired by the university to participate in the investigation. McConnico told her, she said, that he had no solid evidence against her or her son.

McConnico, a Baylor Law School graduate who works in the Austin law firm Scott, Douglass & McConnico, did not respond to the Standard's request for an interview.

The Standard could not ascertain whether any criminal charges or complaints have been filed against McFarland.

Likewise, the status of the regents' investigation of McFarland could not be determined. University spokesman Brumley declined to characterize the status of the investigation. It is being handled by “outside counsel” rather than in-house, he said.

Retaliation alleged

McFarland and others close to her have suggested that she has been targeted because of her vocal opposition to several recent decisions at Baylor. Although initially a strong supporter of Sloan, McFarland in recent years has become a vocal critic, particularly of the spending required to implement Baylor 2012, the university's 10-year strategic plan, and Sloan's recent purchase of a jet.

By her own account, McFarland gave Sloan poor marks on a recent job evaluation. She gave him “D's” and “F's” on the evaluation, she told the Houston Chronicle.

By multiple accounts given to the Standard, she led the charge against the jet purchase in a conference call between Sloan and some regents who questioned the purchase. Regents reportedly had been told about the $2.3 million purchase after a $100,000 deposit already had been made.

Brumley questioned the relevance of the jet purchase to the current investigation of McFarland. “Regents were completely in the loop on that,” he said.

McFarland also has opposed the university's increase in spending to fulfill the goals of Baylor 2012.

Although Baylor officials would not discuss details of the ongoing investigation, they implicitly rejected the assertion that McFarland is a victim of retaliation.

Removal process

If Baylor presses to remove McFarland from the board of regents, it would be the first time in the university's 158-year history for such a step to be taken.

The case would take on particular interest because McFarland is among the one-fourth of Baylor regents elected by the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Until 1991, the BGCT elected all Baylor's trustees. When the Baylor board amended the university charter to declare a self-perpetuating board, the BGCT worked out an agreement to elect one-fourth of the regents, with the remainder elected by the board itself.

Baylor's bylaws give minimal provision for removal of a regent, stating: “A director may be removed from his or her position as a director only for cause and by employing due process procedures applicable to private entities. The removal of a director may occur at a regular or called meeting of the board of directors, provided notice of intention to act upon the question of removing the director has been stated in the notice of the meeting as one of the purposes of the meeting.”

Parent protests

Meanwhile, the mother of a Baylor student who roomed with the undercover officer has complained that Baylor put her student and another roommate at risk in the undercover operation.

The Tribune-Herald reported May 22 that Diane Ambrosio, mother of 19-year-old Andrew Ambrosio, believes her son was placed at risk by the presence of the undercover policeman.

“I really feel like they used our sons,” the mother said, reasoning that a drug dealer could have tracked the officer back to his dorm room and harmed everyone present.

The May 22 story also reported that some Baylor students and members of Tau Kappa Epsilon suspected the undercover officer as early as last fall. “We knew he was a narc,” Andrew Ambrosio told the paper.

Ambrosio said the undercover officer also dated a Baylor student who apparently was unaware of his true role.

Ambrosio and the third roommate eventually learned the undercover officer was 22 years old when they found his wallet lying on the floor, he said.

All three roommates were present in the dorm room April 29 when police burst into the room and conducted a mock arrest of the undercover officer at the same time other arrests were made in Penland Hall.

The Tribune-Herald also reported that members of the fraternity confronted the undercover officer on the Friday before the April 29 raid, but the officer denied he was a police officer.

Raid results

On May 22, the Tribune-Herald also reported the names and charges against individuals arrested in the drug sting. The three students arrested in Penland Hall are 19; three others who live in apartments near the campus are 21. The seventh person, who was not a Baylor student at the time of his arrest, is 20.

Five of the six Baylor students were charged with misdemeanor counts related to selling or possessing marijuana, the paper said. One was charged with two felony counts related to drug delivery. The non-student was charged with four counts of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of possession of an illegal substance. Two of those charges are felony offenses and three are misdemeanors.

Below are links to other news reports:

Baylor regent under investigationby university officials

Waco Tribune-Herald, May 17

Parents irked about Baylor undercover drug sting

Waco Tribune-Herald, May 22

Baylor drug sting resulted in mostly minor charges

Waco Tribune-Herald, May 22

Baylor regent blames politics for ouster bid

Houston Chronicle, May 19

News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.