Will messengers to the Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting talk about the elephant in McAllen Convention Center this week?

Of course, messengers will have a great time, focusing on the Texas Hope 2010 and Hope 1:8 missions emphases. They will take part in a “morning of missions,” nurture their souls in worship and feed their minds in seminars.

Messengers will vote on a $38 million budget for 2011. It reflects a drop of $3 million from the current allocation. It will be the fourth straight decrease and a decline of 26.9 percent in just a decade.

They also will consider a report from a special committee asked to figure out how to attract more participation in BGCT annual meetings. Last year, only 11.6 percent of all eligible congregations sent messengers.

Narrowing budgets and thinning participation in convention events provide glimpses of the elephant that will walk the corridors and hang out in the meeting rooms in McAllen.

For sure, $38 million is huge money. And 5,600 congregations comprise a large denomination. But if the trendlines represented by contributions and participation showed up on your medical charts, you’d be off to the ER before you could ask, “What’s wrong?”

A decade ago, Texas Baptists engaged in a ferocious fight for Baptist principles. The BGCT was one of few state conventions to resist the ultraconservative movement that swept the Southern Baptist Convention. But now the state convention is afflicted with a malady far more pernicious than politics—acute apathy.

That’s right. Increasingly, churches are disengaging from the convention because they just don’t care about it anymore. Many reasons exist: Some grew weary in the fight with the SBC. Some were appalled by that fight. Some have found other avenues for doing missions and ministry and equipping their churches, so they don’t need the convention the way they once did. Some are so concerned with local issues they don’t think much about partnering with others, particularly at the state level. Some don’t see the convention as supporting them, so they won’t support the convention.

In one respect, the BGCT’s challenge reflects macro economics—the widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots. Every time a strong church votes to cut its contribution, the BGCT becomes more of a convention for the churches that rely upon the convention’s resources but can’t afford to contribute much. And so the convention increasingly becomes the burden of churches that can’t bear it.

That said, it’s fair to ask—particularly in an era of ever-thinning budgets—exactly what the convention should be doing. Baptists created conventions to do the big things churches can’t do by themselves—missions, education and large-scale ministry. Somewhere along the way, probably because Southern Baptists operated a huge, successful full-service publishing house, their conventions began to see themselves as resource providers for local churches. This is enormously expensive. We’ve passed the point where the BGCT can afford to do—at least with excellence—all it has committed to do. So, we should ask some hard questions:

• Should we go back to basics, and only fund missions, education and benevolence?

• Should we adopt a free-market system—requiring churches to purchase all services and eliminating the services that don’t pay their own way?

• Should more independent churches adopt a missional attitude toward dependent churches, funding programs and services—which they may not use themselves—for others?

• Should weak churches consolidate with other weak churches, increasing income and decreasing overhead so they can afford to purchase services and support missions?

These are hard questions. Nobody likes to ask them. But the BGCT won’t get better until we provide answers.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

The intersection of Church Street and State Avenue has been a crash zone. U.S. Senate candidates from Delaware wrangled over whether “separation of church and state” exists in the Constitution. Similarly, a Senate candidate from Colorado argued against the distinct boundary between religion and government. These debates echo at water coolers, around lunch tables and in church pews nationwide.

The heat they generate illustrates why many Americans don’t like to discuss religion or politics—or certainly both of them together. They’re an incendiary mix, precisely because both are vital to life and culture.

In the Delaware debate, Christine O’Donnell sought to refute Chris Coons’ assertion the Constitution disallows integration of religion and government. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked. Coons pointed to the First Amendment. She retorted: “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

Religion is the first of five freedoms protected by the First Amendment, which begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”

Law students in the Delaware debate’s audience laughed when O’Donnell appeared not to know the contents of the First Amendment. Later, her campaign clarified she knows the First Amendment but was pointing out “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. That’s the same tack taken by Ken Buck in Colorado. In a Senate candidate forum, he said: "I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It was not written into the Constitution.”

Buck and O’Donnell share a popular opinion held by millions of Americans. But it is not supported by history, plain English and judicial precedent. Also, it’s dangerous.

While many settlers traveled to the New World for religious liberty, they came for their religious liberty. As witnesses to persecution and religious warfare among the state churches of Europe, they wanted to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences. But they did not honor others’ consciences. Ironically, most colonies mirrored Europe, with government sponsoring favored religion and persecuting others. Fortunately, leaders of the young United States learned from the past. They sealed religious liberty protection in the First Amendment.

Unlike today’s simplistic solutionists, they recognized religious liberty is complicated. Not only must government be prohibited from sponsoring religion—“no law respecting an establishment of religion”—but it also must not interfere with faith—“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Religion of and for people all faiths and no faith always has occupied vital space in the American public square. But religion is not government’s domain, whether Congress, state legislatures or local school boards. (Ironically, the people who trust government the least are the very ones who clamor against church-state separation. Why would they risk government involvement with their faith?)

Thomas Jefferson, father of the Declaration of Independence and a champion of the Bill of Rights, affirmed and amplified this principle. In a letter to Danville Baptist Association, he coined the term “wall of separation” to distinguish the space between church and state. No, the term is not in the Constitution, but an advocate of the Constitution used the term to explain the concept.

All Americans—especially people of faith—should fear a breach in that wall. Most wars and coordinated violence of the last 1,700 years, including many conflicts today, arose from discord between religious groups. By prohibiting state sponsorship of religion while protecting religious exercise, our American experiment has provided 234 years of peaceful coexistence and the world’s most fertile field for faith.

—-Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

Leave it to a conservative Christian columnist and a liberal Jewish comedian to provide wisdom amidst election-year political upheaval, uncertainty and malaise.

Cal Thomas, the widely syndicated newspaper columnist, TV commentator and former vice president of Moral Majority, wrote one of the all-time great columns in November 1992. It circulated just days after Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush for the U.S. presidency, ending a 12-year run by political conservatives. The streak began with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 and included two Reagan terms followed by a single term with Bush I.

The Moral Majority provided millions of votes that carried Reagan and Bush to victory. Many political scientists agree Reagan would not have won his first term without near-unanimous support from the Religious Right. Ditto for Bush. And yet, as the sun sat on that political era, conservative Christians had little to show for all their hard work, campaign contributions and earnest prayers. Most vexingly, they had failed to reach their Holy Grail—repeal of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade verdict, which legalized abortion.

Newspaper readers might have expected Thomas to join his co-religionists and fellow conservatives in loud lament. Instead, he basically upbraided them for idolatry. Rather than place their faith in political parties, they must reassert trust in God. This seemed ironic, coming from a former Moral Majority leader. Churning out the votes was the Moral Majoritarians’ forte. But Thomas acknowledged political force is insufficient to change America. The battle for morality—mostly defined for the era’s conservatives by the legality of abortion—would not be won by political votes or Supreme Court seats, he argued. Rather, reason and gentle persuasion are the allies of justice, he urged, calling upon conservatives to throw down their yard signs, strip off their bumper stickers and make the kind of difference in individual lives that encourages young women not to abort their babies.

Fast forward 18 years, and Jon Stewart, the political satirist and host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, made a balancing observation on National Public Radio’s Fresh Air. It’s been circulating for a few weeks leading up to the 2010 mid-term elections, where conservative Tea Partiers and mainline Republicans are expected to regain control of Congress.

This year, liberals are expressing the same kind of self-doubt, fear and frustration that marked conservatives at the denouement of the Reagan Era. Two years ago, Barack Obama rode a wave of hope for change to presidential victory, but that has evaporated in recession, high unemployment, war and healthcare uncertainty.

Fresh Air listeners might have expected Stewart to fan the flames of fear and hysteria. But instead, he said we’ll be all right. The United States has survived a Civil War and other tragedies, and our democracy is resilient, he noted, stressing, “… we always have to remember that people can be opponents but not enemies.”

Thomas and Stewart both offer good and cautionary words in the days leading up to the 2010 general election. We don’t know how votes will turn out. But whatever the outcome, this is not the end of democracy as we know it. Our nation has survived worse. Most of us who are old enough to vote have survived worse.

Ironically, many Christians will cancel each others’ votes on Election Day. The Christian conscience compels some of us to vote conservative and others of us to vote liberal. We lean most heavily on different parts of Scripture and theology, but we vote the way we do because that’s how our faith compels us to vote. Some of us will vote for winners, and some for losers. But as long as we realize politics isn’t ultimate and opponents aren’t enemies, democracy still wins.

—Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

What makes a Baptist a Baptist? What makes you a Baptist, other than membership in a Baptist congregation?

You might mention one doctrine, such as the priesthood of all believers, or a practice, such as believer’s baptism by immersion, or a characteristic, such as local-church autonomy. But the truth is you can find each of those traits in other denominations. Through four centuries, Baptists have defined ourselves by our unique combination of principle and polity, not by a single distinctive feature.

This fall, a group of historians painted a fascinating, poignant and accurate mosaic of Baptists. The Baptist Classics Seminar is composed of scholars who gather each September to read and discuss Baptist history from primary sources—original documents—dating from 1610 to today. I started to say they painted a portrait of Baptists, but mosaic is better. A mosaic presents a striking picture by carefully arranging distinct pieces of glass or stone. The seminar’s mosaic reveals Baptists through the refracted light of singular elements.

The features of our Baptist mosaic—listed by the seminar and described by me—are:

• Believer’s baptism. Baptists never have practiced infant baptism. Baptism symbolizes a person’s death to sin and resurrection into a new life in Christ—actions that reflect willful repentance of sin and acceptance of salvation by grace through faith.

• Personal “heart” experience of God. Faith is not a rational belief; it’s a personal relationship with God in Christ.

• Priesthood of all believers. Every person possesses the privilege of relating directly to God. No one needs a priest or other intermediary to pray, repent or seek God’s guidance. Each person also is responsible to be a “priest” to others—to minister to and serve all people.

• Personal and communal devotion to God. We come to God individually, but we live and move and have our being in community.

• The church as the body of Christ. The church, both universal and local, is the presence of Christ in the world. When Jesus ascended to heaven, he left his followers, the church, to continue his work in the world. The church is the tangible representation of Christ in a lost and dying world.

• Autonomy of each local church. This is a corollary of the priesthood of all believers. If believer-priests possess autonomy, so do their congregations, which they comprise.

• Congregational polity. This also is a corollary of the priesthood of all believers. Baptists honor individual liberty by making corporate decisions democratically.

• Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. For Baptists, these hugely significant practices are ordinances, not sacraments. They don’t confer salvation. But they do symbolize our identification with Jesus (both), our death to sin and resurrection to a new life (baptism) and Jesus’ sacrifice of his body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins (Lord’s Supper).

• Voluntary cooperation among churches. We don’t have a pope or ecclesiastical hierarchy. We get things done by working together. Again, this is a practical corollary of the priesthood of all believers.

• Religious liberty and separation of church and state. Similar to honoring priesthood in believers, Baptists honor the conscience of all people. From our founding, we have championed religious liberty, not only for ourselves, but for people of all faiths and no faith. And we have insisted the best way to preserve this liberty is for government to keep its hands off religion.

• Sola Scriptura. The Baptist Classics Seminar significantly labeled this principle, “Scripture alone,” as the foundation for all the others. “We have seen a commitment to … the belief that the Bible alone, neither creeds nor tradition, is the authority for religious faith and practice.” We are, indeed, a people of “the Book.”

People are worried about the economy.

That’s not news. You’ve known—and most likely shared—that concern for exactly two years, at least. That’s when Wall Street melted down the drain and took almost everyone’s retirement plans with it. That’s when the job market plummeted. It’s when “For Sale” signs started popping up like ragweed in neighborhoods across the nation.

The Barna Group documented the depth and breadth of that concern in a recent survey of U.S. adults. Researchers asked Americans to name the most important issues our nation’s leaders should address. They cited about 40 items, ranging from environmental protection, to morality, health care, national security, education, international relations, lifestyle, government corruption, constitutional rights, oil dependency and the role of government. But the runaway first-place answer was the economy.

Almost everyone—98 percent—said they are concerned about economic issues. No. 1 is jobs, both creating them and helping people without work. Then other similar worries followed in close order—financial hardship, national debt, the recession and taxes.

Americans’ economic woes and/or worries precipitated an unprecedented response, the Barna Group noted in an online report. Pollsters asked open-ended questions, for which a vast array of answers is possible. But this time, almost every respondent honed in on the economy.

“It is unusual when asking an open-ended question to generate a response that is as universal (i.e., economic recovery) as did this one,” the report said. “Compared to past instances when we have asked such an open-ended question about critical issues, we have never before seen such unanimity around a particular issue. … Nothing else matters as much to Americans right now. There are occasional, short-lived distractions from people’s economic concerns—such as the Gulf oil spill—but until the economy gets on better footing, it is likely to remain people’s primary preoccupation.”

This should provide an object lesson for Christians. And, in fact, one congregation illustrates the power of meeting human needs. 12Stone Church in suburban Atlanta has been named the nation’s fastest-growing congregation by Outreach magazine. Last year, it grew by 30 percent and added 2,226 weekly participants. One of its major emphases is ministry to single mothers and their children. At Christmas, the church donated gifts mothers could give to their children, as well as $50 so moms could give something to another single mother. Another time, the church gave a minivan to a family with a special-needs child. Along the way, the church has developed a reputation for loving people who are hurting.

Of course, bigger is not necessarily better. And we must be careful that we don’t seduce people financially and tally numbers, not changed lives. But still, a strong reputation for compassion and practical service goes a long way toward earning the right to talk to folks about the welfare of their souls. When they know we care for the needs of their bodies, they’re more likely to allow us to tend to their spirits as well.

Texas Baptists got it right with our Texas Hope 2010 emphasis, which combined spreading the gospel with feeding hungry people. Next, we embark upon Hope 1:8, which challenges us to minister near and far. Barna research shows people are more inclined to believe us when we say we love them and want what’s best for them if we demonstrate commitment to the needs they can see—such as jobs, groceries, rent and utilities in these hard, hard times.

The beautiful part of this is it’s local, practical and scalable. Whether it’s a Sunday school class or an entire church, we can team up to help folks hurting in this economy. And we can demonstrate Jesus’ love so they can’t ignore it.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks blog.

Twenty years ago, a good friend and neighbor languished in a hospital bed, dying of leukemia at age 36. He grew up in the Deep South, the product of a Christian home and a Baptist church. He accepted Jesus as his Savior as a child. And as an adult, he and his wife lived out their faith, teaching their own children about Jesus, actively participating in their church, showering kindness on friends and strangers alike. About the same time my friend died, I made another friend who soon began to manifest the horrific symptoms of metastasized cancer. In many respects, he mirrored my first friend—“raised right” and the product of strong Baptist upbringing, a lifelong Christian, faithful husband, devoted father, steadfast friend, and a kind, generous and decent human being who also died at 36.

My friends differed, though, in how they faced death. Both taught vital lessons.

The first never reconciled himself to the reality cancer would take his life. He waged a bitter war of attrition against a damnable disease that killed his spirit long before it eventually ended his life on Earth. He refused to acknowledge he might die, so he never allowed “ultimate” conversations with his grieving wife, his confused children or his sorrowful friends. He never expressed how much he loved them, never heard how much they loved and would miss him. He also never granted himself the blessing of anticipating a journey to a better place, where pain and sorrow cease and disease does not ravage. He accepted few words of spiritual comfort and no images of a waiting, loving God. So, anger consumed his days, and violence reverberated through his final moments.

The second hated death and worked tenaciously with his medical team to defeat his disease. He did everything he could to keep on living. But he also recognized life extends beyond mere earthly existence and eventually acknowledged he could not overcome the tumors throughout his body. He devoted himself to blessing, teaching and encouraging his family and friends. He spent long hours of forced inactivity contemplating the meanings and possibilities of a short life. He considered the relative merits of a lingering death versus a quick passage. He told people how much he loved them and specifically described the ways their lives had enriched his own. When visitors arrived to bring good cheer, he inevitably lifted their spirits. He confidently testified to his faith that God’s love is deeper than death, more persistent than disease, more exponential than cancer cells. And as his days diminished, he remained serene as he focused on expressing his love and his hope to his wife, his children and his friends. He passed sweetly, gently from this life to the next.

As the Baptist Standard and our New Voice Media partners contemplated this issue’s cover package on fear, I remembered my young friends and how they faced death. I always will admire my second friend’s faithful courage. But I cannot judge my first friend’s fear, because I cannot say for certain how I will face my own mortality.

Still, a theme persists: How Christians handle fear is a seismograph of our souls. Of course, unless we are extremely old, most of us do not wish for death. And we never welcome calamity or desire cataclysm. But we do not allow fear of tragedy or affliction to dominate our lives. We do not quake at the thought of misfortune and do not fall apart in the face of tribulation.

With the Apostle Paul, we acknowledge our “light and momentary troubles” pale in comparison to the “eternal glory” of God. When we belong to Christ, financial setbacks, poor health, wars, betrayal, corruption and even death are disconcerting and disappointing, but they are not ultimate. They cannot destroy our faith or diminish our hope. We know God’s love endures beyond all that frightens us. We know God is perfect love, and perfect love casts out fear.

We stand on faith. We refuse to fear.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

America’s longstanding tradition of tolerance served us poorly in this season of religious rancor. Toleration often takes a timid turn when it encounters strong opposition. This summer, we witnessed the weakness of toleration. It was a dispiriting debacle.

As you know, Muslims want to open a community center, including a mosque, in lower Manhattan. The location is several blocks from Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center twin towers fell and 2,752 people lost their lives on 9/11—Sept. 11, 2001. Debate over the “Ground Zero mosque” has disclosed the still-tender scar on our national psyche. We continue to grieve the horrific loss of life. We remain afraid of terrorism in the name of Allah.

Politicians and pundits dashed to the debate. With general elections just a few weeks away, they angled to exploit the 9/11 tragedy nine years later. Turns out, baiting voters with globs of grief is as American—and, they hope, as effective—as fishing with dynamite.

Unfortunately, few voices rose on behalf of the Muslims’ religious liberty. That’s because America has become a tolerant society.

At its founding, the United States viewed religious liberty as a right. The earliest U.S. citizens valued freedom of religion so much they enshrined it in the First Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” A right is inherent. It cannot be rescinded or abridged. The Constitution prevents Congress—and, according to the 14th Amendment, the states—from infringing upon the free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately, you’d never know it by listening to most politicians and commentators, who are clamoring against the mosque in lower Manhattan. Blame it on tolerance.

You see, rights are absolute, but tolerance is conditional. For decades, Americans proclaimed “tolerance” for many and varied religious groups. Give most folks the benefit of the doubt; they talked about “tolerance” when they meant to discuss “freedom” and “liberty.” But words have meaning, and by proudly waving the flag of toleration, we slowly surrendered commitment to religious rights.

Here’s how the late George W. Truett, venerable longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and Baptist Standard readers’ Texas Baptist of the 20th Century, put it: “Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from man, while liberty is a gift from God.”

Unfortunately, many Baptists today do not concur with Truett’s contention. They oppose the right of Muslims to open a mosque. In so doing, they repudiate the convictions of Thomas Helwys, one of the first Baptists, who died in prison for telling King James I all people should be free to worship as conscience directs. They revile the memory of Roger Williams, the first Baptist in America, who was banished from Massachusetts Bay Colony for refusing to allow his infant child to be baptized and who founded Rhode Island as a safe haven for people of all faiths and no faith. They refute the testimony of John Leland, a Virginia Baptist pastor who convinced James Madison to include religion guarantees in the First Amendment.

Yes, we still grieve the deaths of 9/11. Yes, we wish the Manhattan Muslims would exercise restraint and exhibit compassion by moving their mosque farther away from Ground Zero. But we dare not participate in denying their right to build their mosque. If we tolerantly undermine religious liberty, who will stand up for churches when Christians no longer comprise a majority in America?

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

Not surprisingly, the rhetoric in Texas Baptist Forum, our letters to the editor section, has been loud and large this summer. People tend to write when they’re upset.

The volleys began in early June, after the Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Board voted to refuse financial contributions from Royal Lane Baptist Church in Dallas, whose deacon body includes two practicing homosexuals. The board also asked the church to stop identifying itself as affiliated with the BGCT. Those measures effectively removed Royal Lane from the convention.

The first round of letters chastised the Executive Board’s action to “excommunicate” Royal Lane and its failure to be “as inclusive as … Jesus.” The aggrieved almost always write first. They’re the most motivated. But they’re not, of course, the last to write. Other readers next defended the Executive Board for its firm stance on what they believe to be the clear teaching of Scripture. By now, the letters to the editor in-box is full, with charges and counter-charges as well as defenses and counter-defenses.

The rage among letter writers reflects readers’ feelings about homosexuality, the most incendiary issue in the church today. The debate over the nature of homosexuality and the role of homosexuals in the body of Christ has just about sundered the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. It regularly riles the Presbyterians. And it is a point of huge contention among Lutherans and Methodists. Baptists—even the most progressive among us—tend to be conservative compared to our Mainline sisters and brothers. So, it makes sense that we have come later and, for the most part, more quietly and cautiously to confront this issue.

Judging by the Executive Board vote and letters to the editor, most Texas Baptists remain resolved to oppose affirmation of homosexual activity and, particularly, homosexual leadership in congregations. Many Texas Baptists call for loving ministry to homosexuals and decry the evil of homophobia. Many also repudiate the notion that only one sin is worthy of such public and prolonged condemnation. But they still point to about a dozen Bible passages as evidence that God’s plan for humanity reserves sexual intimacy to the bonds of marriage between one woman and one man.

The newest factors in the letters about homosexuality have been the level of vitriol and abandonment of the Baptist principle of soul competency. Some writers stress only one perspective—theirs—should be expressed in Texas Baptist Forum. They claim contrary opinions have brought “shame” upon the Standard. One insists the editor should prepare to wear a millstone around his neck for allowing letters that support Royal Lane’s interpretation of Scripture.

For 401 years, Baptists have affirmed the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers—the idea that individual Christians are both privileged and responsible to approach God directly, study the Bible seriously, and follow their beliefs according to the dictates of their consciences, guided by the example of Jesus and the influence of the Holy Spirit. This makes for messy Christianity, because we do not interpret God’s will uniformly, and so we tend to disagree. When we disagree, we tend to argue. Many of us find that uncomfortable.

Some Baptists cannot embrace the paradoxes that result from the priesthood of all believers. They focus on the logical fact that opposing views cannot simultaneously be correct. And since they are sure they are correct, they are certain those who disagree with them must be wrong.

Instead, paradoxes produced by the priesthood of all believers should inspire a spirit of humility. We think we are right, but we may be wrong. And so opposing letters should inspire us to discussion, reflection and discernment. Differing viewpoints should be welcomed, not banned.

This summer on this page, we’ve been talking about the most significant topics facing Texas Baptists. We must:

• Prioritize the Baptist General Convention of Texas budget so we fund vital ministries for excellence, even though that means operating only ministries we can afford.

• Acknowledge our state’s seismic demographic shifts and emphasize Hispanic churches, Hispanic ministries and Hispanic leadership development.

• Recognize the only way we will reach Texas with the gospel is if we start thousands of churches and pour our energy into calling out and equipping church planters—mostly bivocational ministers—to lead them.

These are vital issues, but we also must think beyond our borders. We need to talk about how Baptists conduct missions in other countries. We need to consider changing how we organize, fund and implement missions.

For more than 200 years, career missionaries have been the vanguard of Baptists’ efforts to propagate the gospel around the globe. If Baptists declared saints, the pantheon would be populated by foreign missionaries, from British pioneer William Carey, to American trailblazers Adoniram and Ann Judson, icon Lottie Moon, martyrs Bill Wallace and Archie Dunaway, and Texans-turned-Brazilians Buck and Anne Bagby. Their faith and passion epitomized the best of who Baptists are and hope to be.

But traditional missions methods are experiencing unprecedented challenges. Among the most significant is the expense of training and maintaining overseas missionaries. This crisis even transcends the politics that divided Baptists during the past few decades. Jerry Rankin, president of the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, has announced the board is backing down from a record 5,624 overseas missionaries in 2008 to fewer than 5,000 by the end of this year. Meanwhile, Daniel Vestal, coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, said CBF may have to recall missionaries next year.

In both cases, money—or, more precisely, lack of it—is the culprit. “People are always saying ‘Why don’t you appoint more funded missionaries?’ The fact is we don’t have the money,” Vestal said. Even though the IMB would like to deploy more than 8,000 missionaries, “we will … have to restrict appointments and restrict our missionary force” due to costs, Rankin reported.

Southern Baptists have launched the Great Commission Resurgence to raise more funds for missions, and Fellowship Baptists have pleaded for more funding from their faithful.

Certainly, Baptists could bankroll many more missionaries if we were so inclined. But we also need to think about how we can make our missions money go further. With all due respect to our sainted forebears and to current career missionaries whom we love and admire, we must ask: "Is training and maintaining large career forces the best way to accomplish global missions today"

We must be strategic about how we spend missions money. We must consider the possibility that the best use of most missions funds may be training and supporting indigenous pastors, who are native to their countries and culture, who are trusted locals and who will raise up new generations of Christians from their own people.

We may deploy selected U.S. missionaries, particularly gifted ministry teachers and those who have invested many years developing relationships and identifying and cultivating those indigenous leaders.

We also may utilize short-term volunteers and mission teams, sent specifically to serve and encourage the indigenous leadership.

This will be a tenuous, even tender, conversation about missions. But for the sake of the gospel, we must talk.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

(ABP) — “Truth is the first casualty of war,” the old adage proclaims. Consequently, a couple of truth-tellers became early victims of the Baptist Holy War.

Twenty years ago this summer, the Southern Baptist Convention’s so-called “Conservative Resurgence” secured absolute political victory and started to pile up strong majorities on all SBC trustee boards.

Shortly thereafter — on July 17, 1990 — the SBC Executive Committee retraced the template of victorious coup-plotters throughout history. They took control of the media.

In this case, they fired the editors of Baptist Press, the convention’s then-respected news service. Al Shackleford and Dan Martin were experienced professionals, convictionally and viscerally committed to telling the truth as best they could discover it. Shackleford and Martin lost their jobs because they believed Southern Baptists deserved fair, thorough, even-handed reports on the events and issues that shaped the convention.

The action took place behind closed doors in a room protected by armed guards. I know; I was there. I saw the guns carried by two off-duty Nashville police officers who “protected” the Executive Committee from about 300 heartbroken Southern Baptists. The protesters stood outside the room, singing “Amazing Grace” and “It Is Well With My Soul” with tears streaming down their faces.

My own grief sprang from wells of personal relationship, professional conviction and commitment to principles.

Al and Dan were dear friends. Until six weeks earlier, I had worked alongside them at Baptist Press. I knew they cared deeply for Baptist principles of truth-telling and honesty. Against pressure from every side, they served all Baptists fairly without fear or favor. I worried for them, for their futures and for their families.

As a Baptist journalist, I shook from the violence done to a long-standing principle: “Tell the truth, and trust the people.” The new SBC leaders fired Shackleford and Martin because the new leaders wanted to control the news in order to control Baptists. They desecrated the callings not only of these two journalists, but scores of colleagues who sensed God appointed them to serve their denomination by informing its people.

Their actions also defied Baptists’ commitment to the twin principles of soul competency and the priesthood of all believers. For almost 400 years, Baptists sacrificed and bled for those convictions. But by undermining the conduit of truth, the Executive Committee declared individual Baptist souls incompetent to handle truth.

That day remains one of Baptists’ darkest. The ignobility of the Executive Committee’s action marked a terminus of trust for many Southern Baptists. If this was what the SBC had become — a political machine that fires faithful employees for following God’s guidance and their consciences — then it wasn’t their convention anymore.

Fortunately, time has healed most wounds inflicted on July 17, 1990. I doubt many, if any, Baptists will weep now for what they lost then. But this anniversary of the Shackleford/Martin firing provides occasion for observation:

• Political martyrs remained faithful. Although they suffered, the fired journalists maintained their gracious spirits and sense of divine calling. Shackleford stocked groceries for a while. Eventually, he served as editor of Mature Living magazine, thanks to the kindness of then-Sunday School Board President Jimmy Draper. Shackleford died in an automobile accident in 2000.

Martin held several jobs, including pastor and part-time college instructor in North Carolina, director of Texans Against Gambling, and news writer for the Baptist General Convention of Texas. He now is semi-retired and serves as an intentional interim of churches in Texas and encourager to folks tried by life’s stresses.

• Beauty bloomed from ashes. On the very day of the editors' firing, a forward-thinking group of Baptists launched Associated Baptist Press, an independent news organization that is even freer than BP was when the SBC still cherished press freedom. From the beginning, ABP was operated by an autonomous board of directors. No political apparatus can control the selection of ABP’s board the way Conservative Resurgence operatives controlled the Executive Committee and took over BP.

Similarly, even though the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship initially provided significant ABP funding, the money never came with strings. The Fellowship never even suggested, must less elected, board members. In time, ABP’s funding sources became increasingly diverse. If its financial backers have a common denominator, it’s their conviction that the only authentic press is a free press.

And so ABP’s goal never has been expediency, but rather broad, complete, balanced coverage of news important to all kinds of Baptists. I’ve been a member of ABP’s board for 19 years out of gratitude for the valuable service it has provided to the two Baptist newspapers I have edited.

• The constant is change. During the past two decades, both the communications industry and the denomination have been reshaped by ongoing, churning change. News organizations — from daily newspapers to denominational journals — have been wracked by declining readership. All have been hit hard, and some have not survived. And the way they deliver news seems to be changing by the week. Twenty years ago, Americans read newspapers delivered to them each morning. Now, they might visit a newspaper’s website. But more probably, they follow their favorite blogs and tweets, and they click on links sent by friends via Facebook. The pace of change has taxed denominational newspapers to their limits in terms of staffing and funding.

Simultaneously, news about any denomination has been a declining commodity. That’s because fewer people care about denominations. And those who still care don’t care as passionately as they cared two decades ago. So, selling Baptist news — and even giving it away — has become an increasingly difficult job. If people don’t care about the denomination, they’re not going to be interested in its news.

• The principle still matters. A free flow of news remains vital for any democracy, and Baptist polity is the purest form of democracy. People who cooperate at any level need reliable information so they can respond to challenges and opportunities, make good decisions and work together effectively. If news organizations ceased to exist, Baptists would start new ones, because they need information.

Fortunately, Associated Baptist Press and its New Voice Media partners — the Baptist Standard, Religious Herald and Word & Way — today collaborate in ways that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. The result is interesting, broad-based, focused journalism — and four stronger news organizations, which may be the template for collaborative denominational journalism in the decades ahead.

Ironically, at least one thing hasn’t changed. This summer, the SBC held its most significant annual meeting in, you guessed it, 20 years. A new regime leads the convention. And members of its retinue are thinking about how they can take over Baptist Press.

–Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard.

Quickly: Name the most significant issues that will affect Texas Baptists’ ability to reach our state with the gospel for the duration of this century.

If church planting isn’t on your short list, you need to make a new list.

The cover package of this edition of the Standard focuses on church planting. That’s because it’s absolutely vital to the kingdom of God and, consequently, to the future of our corner of the world.

Studies consistently show new congregations are much more effective than older churches at engaging people, sharing the gospel and leading them to faith in Jesus. Research reveals young churches may be reaching unbelievers five times faster than settled congregations. In a state like Texas, where the population is booming, that statistic is sobering. And in an organization like the Baptist General Convention of Texas, where the budget has plateaued and begun to decline, it’s absolutely significant. Pardon the double negative, but we can’t afford not to pour our resources into starting churches.

Unfortunately, a scandal involving church planting left a bad taste in many Texas Baptists’ mouths. The BGCT spent more than $1 million on a program to start hundreds of churches in the Rio Grande Valley with very little to show for the investment of time and money. While this was both tragic and disturbing, we don’t have time to wring our hands and lament our losses. If we’re even going to attempt to keep pace with population growth, we’ve got to get busy.

Demographics dictate we primarily must focus on starting more Hispanic churches in order to reach the fastest-growing segment of our state. Thanks to above-average Hispanic birth rates and the pace of immigration, Texas no longer has a majority population of any ethnic group. Before long, Hispanics will comprise more than 50 percent of Texas residents, and that percentage will continue to increase. But we also must keep up with growth on the ever-expanding edges of our metropolitan areas, where we’ll need more congregations to reach Anglos, African-Americans and Asian-Americans.

Consequently, we must allocate money to help start these congregations. Some, possibly many, of them may begin in homes, so they won’t initially require rent. But they’ll still need basic resources and salary for a pastor.

The word “pastor” points to Texas Baptists’ single most pressing need—people capable of starting these churches. In order to secure enough pastors, we must cultivate and educate them. We must make an all-out effort to encourage our best and brightest young people to consider the pastorate. We also must encourage many of our most committed and passionate laypeople to consider career changes and enter the ministry. Then we must make ministerial education readily available for all of them. And it must transcend what has been, up to now, traditional ministry training. As Randel Everett noted on this page a couple of months ago, most of the new churches will need bivocational pastors. Texas Baptists simply don’t have the money to start all the churches we need and fund them with full-time pastors.

Our universities and seminaries will need to supply students with the skills to succeed in their “day jobs” and also thrive at planting and growing young congregations. This will require a two-pronged educational process. Of course, not all these ministers will be able to attend classes on a university or seminary campus. We’ll need to make their training available in churches across the state and through the Internet. And we must pair them with mentors who can provide practical guidance and, even more importantly, encouragement.

A few weeks ago, we talked about the need for the BGCT to set budgeting priorities. This is where we must start.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

This is the time of year when our thoughts turn to hamburgers and hot dogs, ice cream, fireworks, heat waves and all things American. Especially freedom. Smack in the middle of summer, we celebrate liberty and independence.

Americans treasure liberty for theological, historical, political and practical reasons. All are valid and valuable. And none is secure if they are not protected as a whole.

Two years before he penned the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.” He grasped a truth as old as Adam and Eve. The first two chapters of the Bible recount the story of creation. The formation of people marked creation’s crowning achievement. Scripture clearly indicates God made people to reciprocate divine love. And for reciprocity to be true, it must be free. So, freedom always has been intrinsic to what it means to be human.

Ironically, religious freedom hasn’t always been an American ideal. Sure, early colonists came here for religious freedom, but it was their freedom, not others’, they cherished. That’s why Massachusetts Congregationalists persecuted the first American Baptist, Roger Williams, and why Virginia Anglicans imprisoned Baptist preachers. It’s why another Virginia Baptist, John Leland, influenced James Madison to ensure religious freedom by listing it first among the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Madison and the other Founding Fathers also relied upon history as inspiration for weaving religious liberty into the American fabric. Their Enlightenment notion of individual liberty didn’t materialize in a vacuum. They understood lessons written in blood from decades of European religious wars. They realized ensuring religious liberty for all people was the only way to prevent similar calamity in America. More than 200 years of U.S. history have proven their hypothesis. While religion wars continued to plague the planet, this nation peacefully absorbed people of every conceivable faith, as well as no faith. Religious expression has flourished like never, and nowhere, before.

Like everything else that matters deeply, religious liberty has been absorbed into American politics. This is where the issue gets tangled and tricky. Americans tend to want their politicians to act and sound like they do, an understandable and easily exploited trait. So, political extremists appeal to this base instinct. From the left, they contend arguments from faith are out of bounds in public discourse. They claim guarantees of religious liberty remove faith from the public square. From the right, they act as if the extreme left’s position were normative for both government and society, and they claim to be persecuted because others disagree with them and say so. The extreme right often sounds alarmingly like the early colonists who protected their religious liberty by punishing all other expressions of faith.

Today, the five-point intersection of faith, politics, demographics, media and economics is busier and more treacherous than ever. Strident voices seem to dominate discussions of religious liberty and human freedom.

Thank God, millions of Americans also embrace religious liberty for practical reasons. Even though our culture seems faith-averse, religious expression is more robust in the United States than anywhere else in the West. Even though religious expression is enormously diverse, the practice of faith still is safer here than anywhere in the world. Most Americans instinctively realize their religious liberty cannot be separated from the religious liberty they protect for people of other faiths.

We can pray that our American pragmatism will prevail throughout these tumultuous times. It must remain strong enough to preserve religious liberty until Americans once again protect all expressions of faith from the tyranny of zealots at both ends of the theo-political spectrum.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.