If you’re not in a group of people studying the Bible together, you should be. A good Sunday school class, Bible study or small group is one of the best ways to grow and strengthen your walk with Christ.

What makes a Sunday school class, Bible study or small group good? Our class discussion during Sunday school July 3 at First Baptist Church in Plano offers an example.

Examining the use and misuse of Scripture

Our class is midway through a study of Jesus’ wilderness temptations as recorded in Matthew 4. In Matthew’s account, the devil’s second temptation includes a quote from Psalm 91:11-12.

“The devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.

‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down. For it is written:

He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone’” (Matthew 4:5-6).

Jesus responded in kind, quoting Deuteronomy 6:16: “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Matthew 4:7).

We discussed the nefariousness of the devil using Scripture to tempt Jesus and the effectiveness of such uses, particularly among followers of Jesus.

Class ended with a discussion of two marketing efforts employing Scripture. The first seemed innocuous, though a little confusing. The second generated a livelier discussion.

The use and misuse of Scripture in marketing

We were shown two images—a photo of an In-n-Out Burger drink cup and a tweet of a boy holding an assault rifle.

A photo from the internet shows “John 3:16” printed on the underside of an In-n-Out cup. I went to In-n-Out Sunday afternoon to get a drink so I could verify the internet wasn’t lying. It wasn’t.

We were asked if this is an appropriate use of John 3:16—“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

John 3:16 has nothing to do with soda or tea, but it could be stretched to relate to Jesus as the “living water” (John 4). But we didn’t talk about that.

Our questions revolved around why a company would print a Scripture reference on a drink cup, and why a company that clearly wants to be connected to the Bible and/or Jesus would hide that reference on the bottom of a cup. Some noted their dislike of companies targeting Christians with Bible verses and fish symbols. What do you think? Is this an appropriate use of Scripture?

In the second image, a young boy holds an assault rifle—the same one used by the Uvalde mass shooter—while a man’s hand points in the direction of the gun. Above the image is the following Bible verse, without the reference: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” The reference is Proverbs 22:6.

Daniel Defense, a firearms manufacturer in Georgia, tweeted this on May 16, 2022. The tweet was shared widely on Twitter, spurring fierce backlash. Daniel Defense finally hid or deleted the tweet.

Those who responded during class were unanimous in their opposition to the tweet. Some were horrified by the whole thing. Others were repulsed that a child was holding an assault rifle. Even those most supportive of gun rights took issue with the tweet.

While there was some debate about the appropriateness of a private company using an evangelistic Bible verse on a drink cup, there was no debate about the inappropriateness of using Proverbs 22:6 to sell guns.

Our teacher wrapped up by suggesting the proper use of Scripture is “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

We were asked if Scripture in either of the instances we discussed met Paul’s description of Scripture’s uses. What do you think? How does the use of John 3:16 and Proverbs 22:6 in the examples cited above train us in righteousness?

Characteristics of a good Bible class or group

Our Sunday school class isn’t perfect; none are. But our ability to engage in touchy discussions is an example of the characteristics of a good Sunday school class, Bible study or small group.

We have differing opinions in our class about just about everything, including politics. Even so, we are able to engage in difficult conversations, because we care about and for each other. This takes time, trust and a commitment to gentleness and kindness toward each other.

We also aren’t afraid to dive into thorny subjects. The Bible doesn’t skirt difficult issues. Bible study shouldn’t either, though plenty of stories in the Bible do require appropriate caution when teaching children and individuals who have experienced trauma. Teachers and learners need to consider the whole of Scripture for the whole of life and discuss both honestly.

In our class, we can ask any question, and we accept “I don’t know” for an answer. A confident teacher can allow learners to ask difficult questions, and teachers and others in the group need to allow time for adequate discussion. The people in the room are always more important than the lesson.

If Scripture is to be used properly—to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness so we may be thoroughly equipped for every good work—then every Sunday school class, Bible study or small group should exhibit the three characteristics just described.

If you’re part of a Sunday school class, Bible study or small group and it’s not good, be part of making it good. It’s not all the responsibility of the teacher or church leadership.

What about your class? What makes it good? How can you make it better?

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

The last few days have been full of weighty news. The U.S. Supreme Court—to mixed reviews—decided on abortion, gun regulations and prayer by school employees, among other cases. Russia struck a mall full of people in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, killing at least 20 and injuring many more.

In San Antonio, 51 immigrants died after being trapped in a tractor-trailer found June 27. The following day, Cassidy Hutchinson gave the most direct and damning testimony to date against former President Donald Trump.

It’s more than we can process fully in the few days these things transpired. A common thread among them, however, is their connection to the sanctity of life. They demonstrate the enormity of work needed by pro-life people to make concrete the sacredness of life—all of it. Here, I will focus on the pro-life response to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Making abortion unimaginable

In the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, pro-life advocates have issued two similar calls to action. Some have challenged abortion opponents not to see Roe v. Wade’s demise as the end of the pro-life struggle, but a continuation of it.

Others have exhorted their audiences with some version of, “Now is the time to care for vulnerable women and girls.” Actually, it’s always been time to do that; the clock didn’t start June 24.

Katie Frugé, director of the Texas Baptists’ Center for Cultural Engagement and Christian Life Commission, in repeated public statements ahead of the Supreme Court’s decision said the CLC is committed to making abortion not just illegal but unimaginable. This commitment was stated again after the June 24 decision.

What does it mean, though, to make abortion unimaginable?

The question may seem to have an obvious answer to abortion opponents, especially those known as abortion abolitionists who want to make abortion illegal without exception. “Unimaginable” for abolitionists means abortion is illegal everywhere in all circumstances, including when needed to save the mother’s life.

Another simple answer to the question might be the thought of terminating a pregnancy would not cross anyone’s mind; it wouldn’t even be imagined.

The problem is terminating pregnancy does cross people’s minds, and no law against it will make abortion unimaginable. Rather, Paul tells us the law has the opposite effect (Romans 7:7-11); it awakens our imagination to what is prohibited.

Making abortion unimaginable must mean something else, then. To get at that something else, we need to understand why abortion is imaginable.

Reasons people choose abortion

The following were cited in 2019 as reasons people chose abortion: timing, not ready for a child or another child; finances, not able to afford one or more children; becoming pregnant again after completing childbearing or raising; not wanting to be a single mother; relationship problems, such as an unsupportive or abusive partner; not old enough or mature enough; interference with education or career; health problems with the mother or developing child; pressure or suggestions from family or friends; not wanting others to know of sexual activity; or not wanting a baby or to put a baby up for adoption. (These reasons are cited here, here and here.)

Rape and incest also have been cited as reasons for a person to choose abortion. According to a 2004 Guttmacher study cited by USA Today in 2019, 1 percent of abortions resulted from rape and .5 percent resulted from incest.

Percentages can be fuzzy. So, let’s put them in real numbers. The Centers for Disease Control reported 839,226 “legal induced abortions” in “49 reporting areas” in 2004. This means rape accounted for about 8,392 abortions in 2004, and incest accounted for about 4,196.

By contrast, 12 percent chose abortion due to a “physical problem with my health.” In real numbers, this was about 100,707 women or girls. Among these, some of the mothers would have died without terminating their pregnancy, and some of the pregnancies were nonviable—such as ectopic or molar.

These two figures are compared to considerably higher percentages reported in the Guttmacher study for the following reasons: timing-related (approximately 74 percent), finance-related (approximately 73 percent) and relationship-related (approximately 48 percent).

Notice: The percentages in the previous paragraph add up to well over 100 percent. Those surveyed were asked to cite all reasons for choosing abortion. As the numbers indicate, the majority of people choosing abortion imagine it for more than one reason, sometimes multiple reasons—89 percent gave two reasons, 72 percent gave at least three reasons, and “some women gave as many as eight reasons.”

If abortion is to be made unimaginable, all of those reasons must disappear. But we aren’t magicians, and God hasn’t removed sin and evil from the world. Therefore, making abortion unimaginable requires an immense amount of work on numerous fronts.

And the cold, hard truth is the church, the people of God, has not eradicated even a single reason people choose abortion, despite championing the sanctity of life since well before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

There’s another cold, hard truth: The church isn’t going to eradicate any of the reasons people choose abortion. But that doesn’t mean we do nothing.

The work of making abortion unimaginable

Frugé and Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission understand making abortion unimaginable requires significant and untiring work. They also recognize this work was necessary before Roe v. Wade was overturned; the work didn’t start June 24.

Additionally, many churches and ministries have been involved for years in addressing the concerns cited by most people for choosing abortion. Pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, benevolence ministries, homeless ministries, feeding ministries, clothing closets, medical ministries, Christian community development, Christian Woman’s Job Corps, substance abuse ministries, counseling services and more have been on the frontlines of caring for vulnerable women and girls.

To make abortion unimaginable, more of this work must be done. But that’s not all.

To make abortion unimaginable, war needs to stop, terror needs to stop, violence needs to stop. We need our best statesmen and women at the helm. Christian education could and should train leaders toward that end—communicating the gospel in deed—while they train people to communicate the gospel in word.

To make abortion unimaginable, the objectification of people fueled by consumerism must stop, which also means consumerism should die. Our lust to consume creates a society that lures people from all over the world with the promise they will find a better life here. Too many of those people trade promise for enslavement or death.

Both the above will require some legislation. Both will require considerable sacrifices and investment from all of us, as well as unwavering persistence and courage.

To make abortion unimaginable also will require more access to good medical care pre- and post-birth, and long-term support of the whole family pre- and post-birth. It also will require extending grace and nurturing love to unwed mothers, not condemnation.

There is immense work to be done to make abortion unimaginable. What is mentioned above is only part of what must be done. To be pro-life to that extent means to do more.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

One of our house church shepherds told me after the Sunday service: “Pastor Paul, ‘The safest place in our spiritual life is not a castle but the frontline.’ I will always remember that.”

My wife told me: “Honey, your sermon today left me no choice but to return to my house church. If David in his isolation was an easy prey to Satan, how much easier prey could I be without my house church family, even though they annoy me a lot?”

It was God’s encouragement to me last Sunday after I preached the fall of David recorded in 2 Samuel 11:1-5.

Three commitments of biblical discipleship

I lost four lay leaders last week. That never happened in our church history. We are a new church in Plano, planted seven and a half years ago.

One couple stepped down from being shepherds of a house church, and the other couple decided to leave the church after struggling with their co-shepherd. It was a painful week to me, not because I lost good leaders, but they lost the vision of biblical discipleship.

Biblical discipleship is the main reason I decided to be a Baptist. I was converted from Buddhism at age 17 in Caracas, Venezuela, through a Korean Southern Baptist missionary who discipled me. During college, I took a history class on American evangelicals and learned and loved the Baptist commitment to evangelism and discipleship.

I am a proud Baptist, committed to the Great Commission. My pastoral journey means my growing understanding of biblical discipleship. At least three convictions shaped my view of what it means to be a pastor faithful in disciple making.

1. Small group ministry

First, discipleship requires a small-group ministry along with classes with good biblical content.

I worked hard to build a church balanced in Sunday school and church training programs. As a competent Southern Baptist in the early 1990s, I taught and established discipleship classes like Experiencing God, Master Life, Master Builder, Mind of Christ and Survival Kit I and II. Our adult spiritual formation curriculum was smooth and successful like a machine, until I went on my first mission trip to China.

In the winter of 1993, I taught 200 Korean Chinese pastors of underground house churches at a clandestine country town. While their biblical and theological knowledge was bare minimum, their Christian ethical integrity was more than impressive.

I wondered how they could live out their faith so consistently. One sociological factor was they all lived in a small, rural village where everyone knew everything about everyone. Transparency was the key component in their life, which came from their small community setting.

That discovery reinforced what I was learning from The House Church by Del Birkey. After the trip, I replaced Sunday school classes with cell groups, and our adult discipleship experience became fuller with the fruits of life sharing.

If church training is theory learned in classrooms, small-group sharing provides a practicum for obedience and accountability.

2. Evangelism

Second, discipleship needs evangelism.

As a pastor of a new church plant, I thought I had both experience and knowledge to lead my church. Once again, I established cell groups along with our discipleship classes called “Good Shepherd College.” The reason we study the Bible is to become shepherds.

We were growing steadily in numbers for the first three years and moved from surviving to stable. Then my second daughter, a freshman in college, told me how her small-group experience was transformative. The key difference was its evangelistic focus.

My daughter’s college house church was intentional and geared toward reaching out to VIPs. In comparison, my church had only a handful of converts while doubling its attendance.

After attending a week-long conference on house church ministry conducted by my daughter’s church in Houston, I found the missing ingredient for our small-group ministry.

We switched from cell groups to house churches four years ago. We made a list of VIPs with our unbelieving friends, coworkers and neighbors.

During the two years of the pandemic and Zoom meetings, our seven house churches grew to 15, while reaching out to several VIPs who are now participating in our weekly activities. We had two VIPs baptized for the first time last Thanksgiving Sunday.

3. Prayer

Third, discipleship will succeed only with prayer.

Just as the Book of Acts showed how radically the disciples of Jesus lived before and after the coming of the Holy Spirit and the revival of their prayer life, discipleship will not advance unless the shepherd feels agony.

Apostle Paul confessed to the Ephesian elders, “Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears” (Acts 20:31).

Our Lord did not just teach his disciples; he prayed for them until the last hour (Luke 22:32).

Our two shepherd couples left their frontline, because they did not see the promise of Immanuel in our Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). They were burned out, because they were not burning the oils of prayer.

I am deeply pained by their departure and my spiritual negligence. I am determined to labor again for the Lord’s promise of making disciples with him to the end.

Biblical discipleship is not for the fainthearted and soft souls. Following Jesus is never easy and even impossible unless I fight on my knees.

The safest place in life is the frontline of failures and repentance, not the castle of religious consumerism. Biblical discipleship is not an option, but the only way for anyone who wants to obey Christ and serve his church.

Help me, God.

Paul Kim is the senior pastor of Forest Community Church in Plano. The views expressed are those of the author.

After the tragic killing of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, we must answer the question now: “Are we failing our children?”

Our thoughts and prayers no longer can be our response, nor can we hide behind our silence, fears and apathy while our children are being murdered in their classrooms.

Everyone must begin answering this question directly with positive action, not violence and certainly not just our thoughts and prayers.

Our lack of action leaves our children with little hope for their future. We are setting them up for a future filled with hatred, racism, division, bullying, self-centeredness and domestic terrorism—all of which are destined to increase our mental illness needs exponentially.

Is that who we have become in Texas?

Our children are looking to us for action, not just thoughts and prayers.

Children now and then

Yolanda Renee King, the 14-year-old granddaughter of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., recently was interviewed on MSNBC about an op-ed she wrote for the Washington Post. The headline reads: “My generation has to stand up against gun violence.”

Reflecting on how “the other generations” have failed them, she wrote: “I know it is my duty as an American to use the platform given to me by my grandparents’ sacrifices to uplift the voices of my peers.”

What she—an African American child in one of our classrooms—was saying is because American adults have failed their children, children are going to have to save themselves.

When I was a child, we had drills at school to prepare us for the atomic bomb from Russia, but now our children are having to practice drills at school to protect them from guns in America. They have to fear assault weapons being used on them by other Americans while in school, shopping, at a concert and even worshiping in their churches.

America, is this who we are, people who don’t protect their own children? Is this the world we want for our children? We owe them better.

It’s not the world I want. I was a kindergarten teacher for more than 20 years. I am the mother of four children and the grandmother of 13. My heart and my stomach ache; I am sickened and saddened. Enough is enough! I want better for my grandchildren.

The value of children

Some adults are set on getting their way at the expense of everything—seemingly including our democracy and even our children. The majority of Americans want gun control, but our elected officials refuse to do what we elected them to do.

Therefore, our hope today is filled with questions, uncertainty and doubts, which could make our children think that adults don’t care. It could also cause them to question whether God is real.

Jesus said: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).

I was taught in Sunday school Jesus loves all the little children. They all are precious in his sight. Are they as precious to us as they are to Jesus?

I’m concerned about the emotional scars on our children, their parents and our teachers who will face anxieties about returning to school next year. Mental health needs increased exponentially with these recent acts of terror.

Can you imagine the depression, anxieties, lack of sleep and even suicidal thoughts that will result from these horrific acts?

Turning to God

Our children need us to be committed to God and to them, not a powerful person nor a political party.

Such commitment to God looks like this: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

We in America must own up to our sin, acknowledge it, pray about it, seek God’s face and turn from our sin that has created the America we live in today. It’s time for us to put godly action with our thoughts and prayers. We need to be healed to make America safe for our children.

God’s way is love, not violence, racism, greed, intimidation or murder. As Americans, we all are promised in our Declaration of Independence the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, some people strive to make this difficult and even impossible for others.

We must not become apathetic, hopeless and desensitized to the voice of our children’s blood crying out to their Creator for justice and change.

Pursuing peace

The Apostle Paul wrote: “Therefore, let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another” (Romans 14:19 NKJV).

In times like these, we must act to pursue righteousness and peace. Everything rises and falls with leadership. We must put leaders in office who will put laws in place to make America better and safer for all Americans, including our children.

The answer to the questions raised here must come from caring, mature, God-fearing adults, not children and not a political party.

The church is the salt and light of the world and must take the lead. We must listen to pastors rather than intimidating, bullying, slandering and otherwise seeking to silence them as has been done to some pastors I know.

As for us Texans, we should be saying, “Don’t Mess With our Children!” They are our future, and we will fight to leave them a legacy of love, not hate; faith, not fear; unity, not division; hope, not despair.

Lady Evelyn Ogletree is the executive pastor of First Metropolitan Church in Houston. The views expressed are those of the author.

Much is wrong in the world these days. Our news and opinion have been full of difficult stories and challenging views related to these wrongs, and we anticipate more.

This editorial is going to be a bit of a break from that by looking at something right. That something right is what many of our kids—children, youth and college-age—are up to this summer. They are going to camps, attending or volunteering at Vacation Bible School and engaging in missions.

It’s summertime, and the kids are busy.

Missions

Summer is traditionally mission trip season. As I see it, missions is one of the most effective ways to disciple our kids—to form them to be like Jesus—while also communicating the gospel—the good news of Jesus—to others.

Of the summer mission trips I participated in, the two that shaped me the most were to Ailigandi, Panama, and to Juarez, Mexico. Ailigandi—an island you can walk around in 15 minutes—is in the San Blas Islands off the northeast coast of Panama. In those two places, I started to learn how affluent we really are and what it means to see people as humans, not as objects.

While collegiate missionaries, my wife and I built on an annual summer mission trip to Juarez by taking college students there once a month throughout the year. Our hope was to develop a culture of missions. Better still, we built great relationships in Juarez.

This summer, 232 Texas Baptist college students were commissioned and sent to serve around the world through Go Now Missions. They will serve most of the summer in places across Texas, the United States and the rest of the world, and they will come back changed.

First Baptist Church in Plano’s second annual Bless Week runs June 12–19. Bless Week engages the entire congregation in local mission efforts designed to bless the surrounding community in the name of Jesus.

Bless Week includes Vacation Bible School, delivering breakfast to the Plano Fire Department, volunteering at the North Texas Food Bank, prayer walking, construction, a blood drive and a number of other activities.

My family and I are members of First Baptist Plano; so, I have a bias. I think Bless Week is one of the best ideas a church has come up with to engage and care for its community and to communicate the good news of Jesus. One standout is all ages and abilities can be involved.

Bounce is another way Texas Baptist kids will be busy this summer. David Scott, director of Bounce, reports 700 kids will be involved in at least one of six Bounce projects in Texas, Louisiana and Washington.

During a Bounce week, middle school, high school and college students communicate the good news of Jesus in word and deed through construction projects in hard-hit or economically challenged communities.

I took youth from our church—including my son—on a spring break Bounce trip a couple of years ago. It’s hard and dirty work, good for the soul and the character.

Vacation Bible School and camp

Summer is also Vacation Bible School and camp season. VBS, like Bless Week, is one of those events that calls for all hands on deck and provides opportunities for all ages and abilities to be involved.

VBS is an excellent way to connect with and care for your surrounding community. It’s also one of the things many people outside the church still recognize and appreciate about churches.

Churches without the resources to conduct VBS by themselves can receive the benefit and blessing of joining with other local churches to hold VBS. While I was a pastor, we partnered with another church in town, sharing the load and ultimately involving more people.

As I write, I am praying for a church in West Texas whose pastor will talk with children about faith tonight. He asked me to pray the children who understand will turn to Jesus as their Savior. This is what VBS is all about—to point people to Jesus.

Camps are yet another summer opportunity to disciple our kids, both as campers themselves or, for youth and college students, as leaders. They are a summer tradition and rite of passage that should not be overlooked or neglected.

Don’t grow weary doing good

There is a lot going on this summer with mission trips, camps and Vacation Bible School, especially if our kids participate in more than one of the three. These activities are a lot of work, they’ve seen a lot of challenges and change over the years, and they’re some of the best busy there is.

Missions, camps and VBS are a good kind of busy when they grow us, shaping us to be more like Jesus and drawing other people to him. There’s still time this summer to get involved in at least one of the three.

There is a lot of heartache in our world, and far too much of it involves our kids—children, youth and college students. We must grieve this and work to restore their brokenness, owning our part in it.

At the same time, we must celebrate God’s continuing presence and work in our kids. We must not overlook God’s faithfulness but must celebrate it.

And let’s celebrate our kids, let’s celebrate the good they are doing in the world, and let’s work to make sure they can do more of it.

*******

On another note: The summer is busy for me, too. During my absence the next two weeks, Lady Evelyn Ogletree and Pastor Paul Kim are providing guest editorials. Ogletree serves with her husband Pastor John Ogletree at First Metropolitan Church in Houston. Kim serves Forest Community Church in Plano.

I encourage you to read their editorials and to hear their hearts.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

We usually publish obituaries of “seasoned saints.” This week, we published an obituary of a 10-year-old. Most of the people appearing in our obituaries died of natural causes. This week, we honored a child killed by a mass shooter.

She is not the only person killed in a mass shooting this year. The Gun Violence Archive reports 231 mass shootings in the United States as of May 31, 2022.

The site defines a mass shooting as having “a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.” The full list of 2022 mass shootings is available here.

We’ve had too much experience with gun violence. It’s as American as apple pie. In fact, two of my predecessors in this role—J.B. Cranfill and J. Frank Norris—were involved in incidents involving guns, though they weren’t mass shootings.

We need to gain more experience in limiting, if not stopping, gun violence. This especially is true for those of us who claim to be pro-life and committed to the sanctity of life. All too often, though, some of us play into the blame-shifting game.

The person or the gun?

The finger-pointing started soon after news broke of the Uvalde shooting. Some blamed the gun; some blamed the shooter.

Gun rights advocates frequently respond to these events with: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

“People kill people” may be pithy, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. The whole story is guns can be deadly, and we need to do a better job caring for people.

Unfortunately, the gambit works, because it names a reality far worse than an AR-15: Some people kill people. It’s true, and they don’t need guns to do it.

A social media meme reads: “Cain killed Abel with a rock, [sic] The Lord didn’t get rid of all rocks. He blamed Cain, not the rock. We have a sin problem, not a gun problem.”

As true as the meme may be, there are a couple of problems with the logic. One, it assumes gun regulation advocates don’t want to hold people accountable for their actions; they do. Two, rocks are not designed to kill; guns are.

We need to pull the wedge out of the debate and start working on solutions that address the whole story.

For the sake of this editorial, let’s agree on two things: (1) A gun can kill you, sometimes without someone pulling the trigger. (2) Some people really do kill other people.

We have plenty of evidence of both dangers. What we need now is a more robust response than blame shifting.

Deadly force

While our focus is diverted to whether people kill people, the fact remains a gun can kill you. Another fact: Some guns—by design—can kill a lot of people, and some of those guns—by design—can kill a lot of people quickly.

If those guns—the ones that can kill a lot of people and the ones that can kill a lot of people quickly—were ice cream or produce contaminated with listeria, they would be recalled, even though it’s not the food’s fault.

But this analogy between guns and food breaks down at a crucial point. Food isn’t supposed to make you very sick, much less kill you. Recalls of tainted food make sense. A gun that fires one or more projectiles without injuring the person pulling the trigger is functioning as designed. No manufacturer recall will be issued.

But as gun rights groups have pointed out, guns aren’t the only things people use to kill other people. The truth in the meme about Cain and Abel, rocks and guns is Cain didn’t need a gun. If all gun regulations are passed, by some miracle, some people still will kill other people.

And this brings us back to the central problem—our bent toward sin. Any successful solution to gun violence of any scale must deal with the sin in us—all of us.

A robust solution

To be successful, a solution must be robust. To be robust, it must encompass legislation, mental and spiritual health care, and community involvement. We’re all affected; so, we all need to be part of the solution.

Some legislation is needed to address guns. Though the Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it does not preclude intelligent regulation of firearms.

Some will argue criminals don’t abide by regulations. True enough. However, as a Christian, we must ask if Jesus expects us to keep pace with criminals, making sure we have equal or greater firepower in arm’s reach.

Other legislation is needed to care for people. Though the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No State … shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” it does not preclude intelligent legislation such as red flag laws, which the U.S. Senate is debating as I write.

Red flag laws need to be paired with fortifying mental health care. This will involve at least three things: (1) recognizing gun violence and mental health are not a direct correlation, (2) removing the stigma from mental health care, and (3) supporting financially and emotionally those who need or seek mental health care.

And, yes, sin must be addressed. This should involve Christians—individually and congregationally—acknowledging their own struggles with anger and hatred, which Jesus said is tantamount to murder (Matthew 5:21-22).

Addressing the spiritual aspect of gun violence also will involve Christians and churches building better and stronger relationships with people among and around them, shepherding and discipling relationships that emphasize the character of Jesus more than the culture of America.

Mass shootings are so frequent in the United States that we have become inured to the numbers. Four victims—the minimum to qualify as a mass shooting—hasn’t impressed us for a long time. Many want to know just how many must be shot and killed to move us out of our inertia regarding gun violence.

Can now finally be the time?

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

Are you angry? I am.

I’m angry that 19 children and two adults were killed yesterday at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde by yet another mass shooter. Many of us are still angry that 10 Black people were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., by yet another mass shooter.

More needs to be said—and done—about these horrific tragedies than I can say here.

I’m also angry that unknown numbers of people—children and adults—were sexually abused by Southern Baptist ministers, and that many of the abused were disbelieved, gaslighted, delegitimized, demonized, blown off, resisted, stymied and stonewalled, and by none other than Southern Baptist leaders.

It’s OK for us to be honest about our anger. Some things should make us angry. Senseless and preventable gun violence should make us angry. When religious leaders put self-preservation before caring for hurting people, we should be angry.

At the same time, we must go beyond anger. We must respond to what has been done, and we must do it in a way that honors Christ by caring more for people than preserving institutions and power.

Anger

Since the public release of the report of Guidepost’s investigation of how the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee handled sexual abuse allegations, several ministry leaders have expressed to me their anger at certain SBC leaders and those who enabled them.

At least one minister wanted me to provide a “30-second” explanation of what’s going on with the SBC. We spent closer to 30 minutes talking. There is no 30-second explanation for decades of what the report calls “resistance, stonewalling, and even outright hostility” toward sexual abuse survivors.

There’s also no 30-second response to sexual abuse and SBC mishandling of it. The effects of sexual abuse are too far-reaching, and the literal adding insult to injury through decades of self-preservation—institutional and individual—compounds the trauma experienced by sexual abuse survivors in SBC churches and institutions.

Wrong responses

Not long after the report went public May 22, some of those identified for wrongdoing issued public responses denying or criticizing statements about them in the report. Some of those responses are collected here. Be sure to read them with a critical eye.

As much as those individuals want to clear their names, their protestations merely echo what sexual abuse survivors have heard for decades. It’s the wrong response. Let’s not copy it.

Many Baptists—Southern and otherwise—are seeking to distance themselves from those named in the report. Some Southern Baptists are talking about leaving the SBC or reducing their connection to it.

As much as these individuals and churches don’t want to be guilty by association or held responsible for the wrongs and failures of a particular group of Southern Baptist leaders, their efforts are a mirror image—protestations in reverse—of SBC leaders’ denials, basically saying, “We’re not responsible.”

Some degree of separation—not isolation—may be appropriate for some individuals and churches, but by itself, it’s not an adequate response.

Shared responsibility

We may separate in one sense, but in another sense, we are still responsible for the whole body. Paul taught and we believe: “For we are all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body … If one part suffers, every part suffers” (1 Corinthians 12:13, 26).

When SBC leaders put liability and preserving the base before caring for hurting people, what they seem to ignore is how this prioritization affects an entire convention, as well as other Christians.

We may be among the innocent, not the guilty, but as followers of Christ, it’s still our problem. We may be able to distance ourselves from the guilty parties, but the effects will still affect us and others.

It might not be fair, and we may resent it. As someone said in one of my conversations over the last few days, “It may not be your fault, but it is your problem.”

Asserting our innocence in any way is the wrong response. Relieving others of their responsibility is also a wrong response. The right response is accepting there is no getting away from the problem. We must take it on.

SBC leaders have particular responsibility for leadership failures. Meanwhile, all of us—Southern Baptist or not, leader or not—have a responsibility to address sexual abuse and to care for those abused.

Taking responsibility

One effect of the report’s revelations is we cannot expect the average person to trust us anymore—if they still did. Trust is currency, and we’ve thought we were flush with it, enough to burn some. We must assume we are bankrupt and have to build again from zero.

I can hear the protests now: “But we didn’t do anything wrong. I’ve never abused anyone. We don’t condone sexual abuse. Our ministry is safe.”

The people named in the report were supposed to be trusted. They and their ministries were supposed to be safe. They assured us.

We may want to distance ourselves and our churches from those who permitted sex abusers to lead in ministry and those who stonewalled or denigrated abuse survivors, but we shouldn’t expect the average person to buy our assertions of innocence.

What we should expect is the average person doesn’t trust us. We have to assume they are suspicious of us and that we must earn their trust. Trust—that is a gospel issue if there ever was one.

Sexual abuse is our problem

Sexual abuse in the church is our problem. Ministers not held to account is our problem. Denominational leaders, whoever and wherever they are, who mishandle sexual abuse allegations and mistreat survivors of sexual abuse is our problem.

Those who committed sexual abuse; covered it up; gaslighted, stonewalled and denigrated sexual abuse survivors—they must take responsibility for their actions and face the consequences.

At the same time, all of us must reject and cease the decades-old pattern of prioritizing institutional self-preservation over people. We also must understand the problem isn’t adequately addressed by separating ourselves from the guilty parties.

An adequate response involves building trust, however uncomfortable and embarrassing it may be, however long it takes, even if we aren’t the guilty parties.

We must build trust, because trust matters if people are to believe anything we say about how much Jesus loves them. Trust matters if we want people to trust Jesus. And part of trusting Jesus is being honest about our wrongdoing, our failure, our sin.

Another part of trusting Jesus is being more concerned with another person’s wholeness than our innocence.

There is a profoundly hurting world around us. We have a lot of work to do, and we can’t just be angry. We also have to care for others the way Jesus told us to do.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

There are weeks when I find it hard to focus an editorial in one direction. This is one of them. The amount and variety of anger, fighting, violence, suffering—the sheer extent of evil—overwhelms.

When I find myself trying to absorb events like those of the last week, I often find myself returning to the question, “Who am I to be in the middle of this?”

Any response I might have to seemingly boundless evil must be grounded in who, as a follower of Jesus, I am to be. If you are a follower of Jesus, this question can ground you, too.

Two years ago

The news arrived over the last several days much like it did in the spring and summer of 2020. It actually started Oct. 12, 2019, when a Fort Worth police officer shot and killed Atatiana Jefferson. A similar incident happened Mar. 13, 2020, when Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by a Louisville, Ky., police officer. Both were killed in their homes.

Just a couple of weeks earlier, February 23, vigilantes shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery near Brunswick, Ga. Most of us didn’t know about his death, though, until cell phone video of it surfaced May 5. Just 20 days later, May 25, a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd. His death also was captured by cell phone video.

These deaths were like a succession of uppercuts on top of the sustained body blow of the COVID-19 pandemic and thrumming of racial and political tensions defining Donald Trump’s presidency.

The last week

And here we are again.

May 11, a man shot three women inside Hair World Salon, a Korean-owned business in northwest Dallas. The incident has an eerie similarity to the killings of eight people—most of whom were women of East Asian descent—in the Atlanta, Ga., area March 16, 2021.

May 14, a white man shot 13 people in a Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, N.Y., killing 10 of them. Reports say he chose that store in that neighborhood “to target Black people,” and that he planned further killing.

May 15, a Chinese American man shot and killed John Cheng and injured five others during a morning service at Irvine Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in Laguna Woods, Calif. Orange County Sheriff Donald Barnes believes the shooter “was motivated by anger over political tensions between China and Taiwan.”

Abortion fight

During this same five-day period, Southern Baptist Convention presidential candidate Tom Ascol tweeted a call for Brent Leatherwood’s removal as acting president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

May 13, Ascol accused Leatherwood of using “SBC resources to smear our name & defy our clear resolve to protect the unborn” by signing an open letter released May 12. This letter was signed by 75 other pro-life and anti-abortion leaders from every state in the United States and a number of religious organizations, including Ralph Reed of the Faith & Freedom Coalition.

Ascol took umbrage with this statement at the bottom of Page 2 of the letter: “We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.”

Just a day before the open letter was released, Chelsea Sobolik of the supposedly “rogue” ERLC roundly criticized a failed U.S. Senate bill to protect abortion. Baptist Press quotes her stating: “The erroneously named Women’s Health Protection Act does nothing to protect women or preborn children, but instead is the most pro-abortion bill to be brought to the Senate floor.”

“It not only removes all restrictions and limits on abortion and allows for abortion up to the point of birth, [but] it also removes all pro-life protections at the federal and state levels and eliminates a state’s ability to legislate on abortion,” she continued.

Despite the ERLC’s consistent opposition to abortion, abortion abolitionists like Tom Ascol, his brother Bill and many likeminded Southern Baptists expect such opposition to go further in keeping with the resolution submitted by Bill Ascol and passed during the 2021 SBC annual meeting.

The resolution states the SBC understands abortion unequivocally as murder and a crime that must be punished, and any exceptions and incrementalism are to be rejected. Louisiana state representatives considered a bill to do just that—charge women who have abortions with murder—until the bill’s sponsor pulled it May 12, purportedly in response to the open letter.

This fight undoubtedly will feature in the upcoming 2022 SBC annual meeting during which Tom Ascol may or may not be elected SBC president. David French doesn’t think Ascol will win, but the abolitionist presence at last year’s meeting doesn’t support such confidence.

Who we should be

In the United States, racism swirls around us, and bitter fights among fellow pro-life advocates threaten deeper division. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is in turmoil. Who are we to be in the midst of this maelstrom? We are to be imitators of Jesus.

We are to remember Jesus did not take the side of the religionists unequivocally when he confronted sin. When he addressed sin, he said to stop it. That is clear. When he addressed sinners, he loved them in ways that sure looked like compromise to the religionists. Jesus told us to love that way, too.

Religionists in our day seem to be expending their energies on demonizing critical race theory and meeting women in crisis with criminal charges. That doesn’t look like Jesus to me.

When I consider Jesus’ life and teachings, it’s easy to see we love better when we work against hatred, pride, racism, poverty, disease, greed, exploitation and all other equally heinous horrors than when we turn our teeth against each other in bitterness and anger.

For that, some will accuse me of weakness or compromise. That’s fine. I’m not trying to convince them. I’m trying to convince those who want us to be who Jesus calls us to be—people known by our love—that there is another way: Jesus’ way.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

Occasionally, a reader tells me to “stay out of politics” with my editorials. In a similar vein, readers have said pastors should “stay out of politics,” too. This is ironic in several ways. One is that the central figure of our news, opinion and preaching—Jesus—was smack dab in the middle of politics. As his followers, we will be, too.

One of the aggravating things about Jesus—at least to his compatriots—was his politics. It never seemed to be the right version for his followers, onlookers and critics. Jesus’ politics led Judas to betray him, the religious leaders to arrest him and the Romans to crucify him.

We tend to consider politics with disdain, as something too earthly and polluted for Christians to address in the sanctuary. The word alone may put a bitter taste in our mouths and cause our jaws to clench. How could Jesus have anything to do with something that causes us to react like that?

Yet, Jesus did. From the beginning of his ministry through to the end, Jesus worked right in the center of the political turmoil of his time on Earth. It was unavoidable. It is for his followers, too.

Stay out of politics?

Perhaps what people mean when they tell us to “stay out of politics” is they are concerned for our wellbeing. They don’t want us to get hurt like Jesus did. But there’s no avoiding politics, and there’s no avoiding its offense—not forever, anyway.

More likely, when people tell us to “stay out of politics,” they mean, “Don’t criticize my positions.” Such barbed responses typically include the respondents’ assessments of our intelligence, spiritual condition and presumed political allegiance. No, these respondents—faithful Christians all—are not in any way concerned for our wellbeing.

Others mean we should adhere to the historic Baptist idea of separation of church and state. We agree with them that forms of religious politics, such as Christian nationalism, are an unholy alliance of church and state. I do not advocate for such a blend of faith and politics.

Nor do I mean religious leaders should tell people how to vote. I don’t. I also do not mean church services should be political rallies. They should not.

To believe in Jesus, which means to accept and follow his teachings and his ways as true and authoritative, means such a follower of Jesus will find herself or himself involved with politics somehow, someway. To follow Jesus isn’t to “stay out of politics”—which indeed are an earthly mess—but is to honor him in their midst.

Jesus in the middle of politics

The following are just a handful of examples of Jesus’ involvement in politics.

Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized. We might think this was purely spiritual, but politics were involved, at least if Luke’s account is to be believed—and I think we believe Luke’s account.

Luke tells us tax collectors and soldiers went to John for advice (Luke 3), counsel that would impinge on politics. The act alone of going to John pegged them politically. Luke also tells us John “rebuked Herod” for a host of “evil things he had done” (Luke 3:19-20). You might guess how that political action turned out for John.

John’s call to repentance—including the religious leaders—was inherently political. When Jesus went to John to be baptized, Jesus picked a side in the political struggle of his day, which was as much religious as governmental.

Following his baptism and his 40 days in the wilderness, Jesus assembled a group of followers. As he did, he called people with differing—even polarized—political positions.

Some, like Peter, were blue-collar workers whose prime concern was making a living. James and John mounted an influence campaign for the top spots in Jesus’ kingdom. Simon was a zealot, what today we might call an insurgent. Matthew was a tax collector believed by his fellow Jews to be in collusion with the Roman colonizers.

If we think Jesus didn’t know what he was doing choosing these particular individuals and all that came with them, we probably need to get out more. Jesus knew he was surrounding himself and inserting himself in the political fight of his day.

Those Jesus chose did not see the world or its systems in the same way. Nevertheless, Jesus picked them and called them together, and at some point, Jesus paired them up and sent them out to spread his message. I wonder if he deliberately paired political opposites.

The beginning of Jesus’ last week was nothing if not political. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt to the shouts of “Hosanna” from an adoring crowd?

Jesus might have rejected being made Israel’s earthly king (John 6:15), but he didn’t mind fulfilling Zechariah’s prophecy about King David’s descendent: “Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! / Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! / See, your king comes to you … riding on a donkey, / on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9).

Some like to bring up Jesus’ response to paying taxes. Jesus would have been reviled if he blessed paying taxes to Rome, and he would have been imperiled if he directed the Jews not to pay such taxes. His “middle way” of give “to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17) proved no less troubling and dangerous.

Keeping the main thing the main thing

To say Jesus didn’t speak out on political issues or entangle himself in politics is simply to ignore or redefine what Jesus did through the entirety of his ministry. In making the choices he made—going where he went, saying what he said, associating with who he did—Jesus did not stay out of politics.

Jesus spent himself smack dab in the middle of politics. Not only was it unavoidable in first century Israel-Palestine, he assured his position by being obedient to God’s will. How else was God’s redeeming and reconciling work even going to begin restoring this world if politics were off limits?

Which brings us to today.

Jesus’ followers today are called to the same messy work. Jesus’ words in Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount still apply: “The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher” (Luke 6:40).

Perhaps the rub is we are not fully trained. For to be fully trained is to “have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5), who did not come to accomplish his will but God’s will. And God’s will is to reconcile the world through Christ. This is our ministry, our message, our ambassadorship (2 Corinthians 5:17-20).

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com or on Twitter at @EricBlackBSP. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

Mother’s Day will be observed May 8 this year. May 1 was the formal launch of the Global Methodist Church, a conservative split from the United Methodist Church. May 2, Politico reported that, according to a leaked draft, the U.S. “Supreme Court has voted to strike down … Roe v. Wade.”

It’s an interesting confluence, to be sure. Is there a common thread?

Mother’s Day

Anna Jarvis’ mother, Ann Reeves Jarvis, championed mothers and led Mothers’ Day Work Clubs in her Methodist Episcopal Church in Grafton, W.Va.

Historian Katharine Antolini quotes the elder Jarvis saying: “I hope and pray that someone, sometime, will found a memorial mothers’ day commemorating her for the matchless service she renders to humanity in every field of life. She is entitled to it.”

Ann was right. Her daughter, Anna, made her hope a reality after Ann’s death May 9, 1905.

The first Mother’s Day was celebrated three years later at Andrews Methodist Church in Grafton. Anna selected the second Sunday in May so “it would always be close to … the day her mother had died.”

Mother’s Day became a state holiday in West Virginia in 1910. President Woodrow Wilson made it a national holiday on May 9, 1914.

A lot of money can be made off a national holiday. Anna didn’t intend Mother’s Day to turn a profit. When it quickly became commercialized with greeting cards, special meals and flower bouquets, Anna spent her remaining 40 years working to undo what she started.

Disgusted with the commercialization of what she intended to be a simple honoring of mothers in the home, Anna lashed out at those trying to profit from it: “WHAT WILL YOU DO to rout charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and other termites that would undermine with their greed one of the finest, noblest and truest movements and celebrations?”

The BBC article in which I learned this was written in May 2020, when Mother’s Day celebrations were much simpler and mostly virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Anna fought for simpler, but I doubt she envisioned that.

Methodists

The Methodist Episcopal Church—the denomination Ann Reeves Jarvis served faithfully—separated over slavery in 1844, one year before Southern Baptists finalized their split from northern Baptists over the same issue.

Unlike Baptists, the separate Methodist groups rejoined in 1939, becoming the Methodist Church. About 30 years later, the combined Methodist Church joined with the Evangelical United Brethren Church to form the United Methodist Church.

For decades, United Methodists have disagreed over sexuality, pushing some in the denomination beyond patience. No longer willing to wait for the United Methodist General Conference to work out a solution, the conservative Global Methodist Church made its separate launch May 1.

The Global Methodist launch happened with about the same amount of fanfare as Anna Jarvis intended for Mother’s Day, which is to say, not much. Breaking news the following day completely outshined it.

Roe v. Wade

While we prepare for Mother’s Day this year, we are digesting a 98-page first draft—obtained by Politico and released May 2—of the much-anticipated “opinion of the [U.S. Supreme] Court” on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

According to the draft opinion, the Supreme Court is prepared to overturn both its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and its 1992 affirmation of it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The 1973 decision made abortion legal in the United States, a decision protested ever since by many pro-life Christians.

A statement released by the court May 3, while confirming the authenticity of the draft, cautioned the leaked opinion “does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

The final decision is scheduled for the end of the court’s term in late June. The biggest question now seems to be what the leaker intended with this bombshell.

Common thread

What’s the common thread? It’s not Mother’s Day, Methodists or abortion court cases. It’s also not what we should celebrate, and how or why.

The common thread is life is more complicated than our intentions. Our decisions produce outcomes that grow beyond us, taking on lives of their own. We sometimes want to take back some of those decisions, to undo what we started.

The good news is the gospel can handle the complexity. The gospel is both a magnificent and sweeping singularity that will right all wrongs, and a humble and gentle individual encounter that meets us where we are, not where it wants us to be. The gospel then calls us on a journey that, if we go, doesn’t always undo the consequences of our decisions, but works to redeem them.

We are called to embody this gospel in the world.

This Sunday, the probability is high there will be people around us—in church and out—whose lives have not turned out as they intended. Some will be mothers; some won’t. Some will have had abortions; others will stridently oppose the act.

Whatever the story, will we get lost in the complexity, or will the gospel in us encounter the people around us in a way that draws them to good news and redemption?

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com or on Twitter at @EricBlackBSP. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

In the introduction to his most recent book, Church Revitalization Checklist, Sam Rainer states: “Some local churches will die. But no church should die.” The emphasis on “should” is his.

Rainer was the featured speaker at a recent event I attended. During one of his presentations, he doubled down on his assertion. To say a church should die is, in his estimation, tantamount to telling people to go to hell.

His contention is “every congregation of God’s people is worth the effort to revitalize.” Thus, his book offers “A Hopeful and Practical Guide for Leading Your Congregation to a Brighter Tomorrow.”

To Rainer’s credit, he acknowledges there is a difference between what will happen and what should happen with a church. Despite his hopeful optimism about the future of American churches, he understands the way to that future is not without significant challenges. Not all churches will overcome them.

Rainer’s statement is provocative, though; it provoked me. The academic in me wanted a clearer definition of “die,” because Rainer also talked about church mergers and adoptions—both of which require a death. Furthermore, there is a kind of dying every church should do, and that kind of dying needs to be clearly understood.

Defining “die”

One way to define “die” is a church closing its doors forever and disbanding because the attendance, membership and income declined below the congregation’s ability to afford staff and property.

This kind of death happens for a host of reasons, such as a church not changing with its community or, in the case of rural communities, a church no longer having a population from which to draw.

Should a church in either of those circumstances die?

Orchard Hills Baptist Church in Garland is an example of a church whose neighborhood changed considerably. Recognizing it didn’t reflect its neighborhood and was on its way to insolvency, the congregation entered into a partnership with Ethiopian Evangelical Baptist Church that has benefitted both congregations and enabled a third to form.

Mayfield, Texas, isn’t even a wide spot in the road anymore. In the early 1980s, the Baptist church there disbanded because the community all but vanished. Some of the members joined First Baptist Church in Covington just up the road and served that church well until their own health limited their attendance. I was pastor to one of those families.

Did either one of these churches—Orchard Hills or Mayfield—die? Yes, and no. They died in the way a seed dies, serving as life for the growth of something new.

Should they have died? Answering this question gets us into a more philosophical—and biblical—definition of death.

How a church should die

One reason a church should die is encapsulated in the idea of “dying to self.” Though that exact phrase isn’t found in the Bible, the concept is.

Paul describes dying to self in his letter to the church in Galatia:

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

“Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24).

The idea of dying to oneself is also described in Romans 8:13 and 12:1, as well as Jesus’ exhortation that to follow him means to deny oneself and take up one’s cross (Matthew 16:24-26).

“Die” here means putting to death pride, fear, power and anything else that keeps a church from obediently following God.

If a church stubbornly refuses to obey God, that church may need to die the first death—disbanding and closing. To avoid both the first and second death, revitalization for a church like that may be repentance or reconciliation.

For example, a church that habitually abuses its ministers, its members or its neighbors likely has received at least one opportunity to repent of abuse. After a while, an abusive church gains a bad reputation and runs off members, visitors, current ministers and prospective ministers. If such a church continues to rebel against repentance, its death may be God’s grace to its community.

Another example: Some communities have more churches than they should as the result of one or more church splits. In those cases, at least one of those churches never should have existed separate from the first church. Revitalization in that instance might mean reconciliation.

A church that undergoes this second understanding of death probably needs to die to more than one thing and may need to die more than once. Peter Bush studied Presbyterian churches in Canada that died more than once and recorded his findings in In Dying We Are Born: The Challenge and Hope for Congregations.

Flipping the question

Declaring a church should not die may be more rebellious than noble if God has determined a particular congregation should disband and close its doors. Declaring a church should not die also may be an abuse of grace (Romans 6:1-4) if a church that refuses to obey God sweeps its rebellion under the rug of believing no church should die.

I would flip Rainer’s assertion on its head. He contends “no church should die.” I contend every church should die, but not necessarily all in the same way.

Rainer believes saying a church should die is tantamount to telling people to go to hell. I contend that to “save others, snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 23) means a church should die in the right way to the right things so Christ may live in it.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com or on Twitter at @EricBlackBSP. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

We’re told history repeats itself. We’re also told those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Could the Southern Baptist Convention avoid further attrition if it studies its history ahead of the 2022 SBC annual meeting in Anaheim, Calif., June 12-15? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem likely.

Let’s consider the history anyway.

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

In response to the campaign waged by Southern Baptist fundamentalists during the 1970s and ’80s to gain control of SBC seminary and agency boards, “a group of moderate laymen” met in Dallas in 1988 to form Baptists Committed to the SBC.

Jesse Fletcher, in The Southern Baptist Convention: A Sesquicentennial History, stated: “Their goal was singular: to make a concerted effort to defeat candidates of the fundamentalists.”

After more than a decade of moderates and fundamentalists vying for leadership—some will say control—of the SBC and within two years of the formation of Baptists Committed, the moderates suffered a decisive defeat during the 1990 SBC annual meeting when their presidential candidate Daniel Vestal lost to Morris Chapman.

Two months later, as Pam Durso relates in A Short History of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Movement, “Vestal called for a meeting of moderate Baptists.” The turnout greatly exceeded expectations, and with “more than 6,000 moderate Baptists representing 1,556 churches in 39 states,” the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was formed in May 1991.

Messengers to the 1994 SBC annual meeting voted to cease receiving funds through the CBF, effectively separating the CBF from the SBC.

Conservative Baptist Network

Fast forward to 2020.

In response to concerns about “social justice, Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and the redefining of biblical gender roles,” the Conservative Baptist Network launched Feb. 14, 2020.

The Conservative Baptist Network states on its webpage asking Southern Baptists if they will attend the 2022 SBC annual meeting in Anaheim: “The SBC is drifting in a liberal direction. Critical Race Theory has crept into our seminaries, women preaching is becoming more accepted, some have begun to soften on LGBTQ issues, and plummeting baptism numbers reveal that the Great Commission is no longer the central focus of our denomination.”

The proposed solution is “to turn the SBC back to the Bible,” and to accomplish that in part by attending the 2022 annual meeting and voting for candidates, motions and resolutions backed by the Conservative Baptist Network.

The Conservative Baptist Network believes the United States follows the SBC, seeing the SBC as “one of the few remaining roadblocks keeping liberalism from overtaking the United States.”

2021 SBC annual meeting

Twenty years after CBF formed within the SBC after moderates lost that decisive presidential bid, the Conservative Baptist Network backed a presidential candidate—Mike Stone. Stone is a former chair of the SBC Executive Committee, senior pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Blackshear, Ga., and a member of the CBN steering committee.

The 2021 SBC presidential election was close. As I wrote then: “In the first vote … 14,300 (messengers) cast ballots. … Stone received 5,216 votes” to Ed Litton’s 4,630, precipitating a runoff. In the second round, “13,131 (messengers) cast ballots. … Stone received 6,278” votes to Litton’s 6,834.

Litton, the more moderate of the two candidates and the one favored by those hoping to smooth racial tension in the SBC, won narrowly, but only after receiving fewer votes in the first round.

From the numbers, it appears the Conservative Baptist Network’s and Stone’s supporters did not plan for a runoff or for enough of Mohler’s support to move to Litton for Stone to be defeated in a runoff. I do not expect the Conservative Baptist Network to make the same mistake twice.

Repeating history

In a statement released March 22, a group of Southern Baptist leaders—Mike Stone among them—announced their intent to nominate Tom Ascol for SBC president during the 2022 SBC annual meeting.

Ascol is pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Fla., and president of Founders Ministries, which holds to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith written by Particular—or Calvinist—Baptists. Over the last few years, he has skillfully used social media and video platforms to build a wide audience.

Robin Hadaway also will be nominated for SBC president, as announced March 23.

Willy Rice, a former candidate for SBC president, withdrew his nomination April 6.

The next day, Bart Barber was announced as another candidate for SBC president. Whether Hadaway’s or Barber’s candidacies are in response to the Conservative Baptist Network’s efforts, I do not know, but Barber’s announcement did follow Rice’s withdrawal, suggesting an effort to keep a strong candidate in the running to counterbalance Ascol.

Downsizing

I see similarities between the formation of CBF, and its separation from the SBC, and what is shaping up with the Conservative Baptist Network and the SBC now. The parallels aren’t exactly parallel. They rarely are, but they’re close.

Just as CBF included numerous prominent Southern Baptists in its early days, so does the Conservative Baptist Network. Like CBF, the Conservative Baptist Network includes churches throughout the United States. Also, like CBF early on, the Conservative Baptist Network does not currently identify itself as a new denomination.

Despite CBF hoping to hold the SBC together, it now exists outside the SBC, along with more than 1,500 former SBC churches. I see the same scenario ahead with respect to the Conservative Baptist Network, which also hopes to save the SBC. Already, churches have left the SBC over concerns with CBN.

In response to allegations of critical race theory in SBC seminaries, the six seminary presidents issued a statement Dec. 2, 2020, condemning racism and also declaring “affirmation of critical race theory, intersectionality and any version of critical theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.” A number of African American churches left the SBC as a result of that statement.

Should Ascol be elected president of the SBC, there’s no reason to believe more African American churches will not leave the SBC. And they likely will not be alone. Other SBC churches uncomfortable with the Conservative Baptist Network will look for connections outside the SBC. What the numbers and timeframe will be is unknown.

Should Ascol not be elected, history may repeat itself, but on the other end of the theological and political spectrum from CBF. The Conservative Baptist Network may see its hope for the SBC thwarted and, should it lose enough elections, may separate as CBF did 20 years ago—taking all their supporting churches out of the SBC. The Conservative Baptist Network already has its own mission, network of churches, leadership structure, events, press and giving channel.

History is shaping up for a repeat. With principled positions so firmly in place, it seems the SBC will need miraculous intervention to keep it from downsizing again.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com or on Twitter at @EricBlackBSP. The views expressed are those solely of the author.