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.

The most significant Christian development since the Protestant Reformation translates into good news for Texas.

The “center” of Christianity is moving south, according to Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Penn State University. Christianity is growing most rapidly in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Within about a generation, only about 20 percent of Christians will be white. The vast majority will be Hispanic, African and Asian.

What’s that got to do with Texas? Plenty. Of course, scientists do not expect an earthquake to send our state sliding past the Equator. But Texas is looking more and more like the “global South,” where Christianity is booming.

This month, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Convencion, the Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas. The cover package of this Standard teems with stories that help us mark this magnificent milestone. And to help us set our celebration in context, we asked Texas Baptists’ demographer, Clay Price, to create a paint-by-numbers portrait of our emerging Hispanic population. Here are some highlights:

• Texas’ population has grown from 3.9 million to 25.1 million—544 percent—since 1910.

• Texas’ Hispanic population expanded from 300,000 to 9.8 million—3,167 percent—during the past century.

• In 1910, 24 churches met to form the Mexican Baptist Convention of Texas, for a ratio of 1 church per 11,957 Hispanics in the state. Today, Texas Baptists count 1,065 Hispanic churches, and the church-to-Hispanic population ratio is 1 to 9,228.

• Hispanic growth has skyrocketed in Texas during the past 30 years, when the Hispanic population has grown almost twice as fast as the total population. In 1980, 3 million Hispanics comprised 21 percent of the state’s 14.2 million residents. By 1990, the numbers grew to 4.3 million Hispanics, comprising 26 percent of 17 million total Texans. A decade later, 6.7 million Hispanics made up 32 percent of our total population, 20.8 million. Now, 9.8 million Hispanics represent 39 percent of Texas’ 25.1 million people.

• That rate of growth will continue. The Hispanic population will comprise 46 percent of the state in 2020, become the majority of all Texans in the mid-2020s and total 52 percent of Texas residents in 2030.

• The pace of change comes into clear view by looking at the Hispanic population as a portion of total growth, which is revealed by three sets of Price’s numbers. For the first 50 years, 1910-60, Texas added 5.7 million residents, and Hispanics accounted for 22 percent of them. The last 50 years, Texas added 15.5 million people, and Hispanics totaled 53 percent of them. Between now and 2020, the state is expected to add 5.1 million residents, and 80 percent of them will be Hispanic.

You don’t have to read far or listen long to see how Texas’ population shift is reshaping our state. The implications touch practically everything—business, politics, health care, education, transportation, entertainment, community relationships. And faith.

People mostly assess change according to self-interest. But Baptists and other Texas Christians must consider the rising Hispanic population through the lens of faith.

As Jenkins has documented, these new neighbors are among the world’s most enthusiastic recipients of the gospel. Now is the time to thank God for our abundant mission field. Rather than continue the slide toward Western materialism and secularism, Texas can be the hub of Christian vigor in North America.

We must make Hispanic church starting, education and human-needs ministry our concerted priority. We must identify and train new Hispanic Baptist leaders. And we must embody the winsome love of Christ so all Hispanics will want to know the Savior.

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

The Baptist General Convention of Texas must think faithfully and courageously about its 2011 budget. Texas Baptists got a sneak peek at budgeting challenges when the ad hoc Institutional Funding Study Committee presented its report to the BGCT Executive Board a couple of weeks ago.

“Institutional funding by the BGCT reflects a downward trend,” the report begins. That truth mirrors the downward trend of the overall budget. Institutional relations—funds the BGCT provides to 23 child care, aging care and educational institutions—is to receive $16 million, or 36.3 percent, of the convention’s $44 million budget this year. Compared to 2009, the 2010 BGCT budget is down $4.3 million, or 8.9 percent. The institutional cut comprised nearly half the total decline—almost $2.1 million, or 11.5 percent of the institutional allocation.

Institutional relations is only one piece of the BGCT budget pie. The others are advocacy/care, $2.0 million; education/discipleship, $3.8 million; evangelism/missions, $9.4 million; affinity ministries, $1.1 million; and four categories of administration, $11.6 million.

How the institutional piece of the pie has been sliced indicates a faulty assumption in the budgeting recipe. The first two findings reported by the study committee point to the assumption: “1. We anticipate BGCT receipts to remain flat … . 2. If the overall BGCT budget remains at its current level, the institutional portion of the budget may decrease further as BGCT ‘fixed costs’ will probably escalate.”

While some costs truly remain fixed—such as legal obligations to annuitants and maintenance of assets—we should not assume too broad a range of “fixed costs.”

Dialogue between institutional presidents and representatives of the study committee revealed “fixed” thinking. Agreeing 2011 receipts will be flat, both parties acknowledged institutional funding will take another cut, in part to offset smaller cuts elsewhere. The presidents understandably bristled at a proposal to bid for convention funding—asking them to compete with each other for budget money.

That painful conversation pointed to reality: The BGCT does not have enough money to fund every ministry it wants to operate. Now is the time to make hard, far-reaching decisions. While asking ministries to bid for grants might be too crude, the convention must prayerfully, thoughtfully and aggressively do that work itself. We must rank every ministry by priority order and assess the cost of funding each of them—not at a subsistence level, but for world-class excellence—and then fund only the ones we can afford.

Two caveats: First, this would include all ministries sponsored by the Executive Board as well as the institutions. Second, the prioritization should be done by a broad-based collection of Texas Baptists and not managed by the staff of the Executive Board, whose conflict of interest would be obvious.

Of course, this would be traumatic. The very proposal is sure to cause some Texas Baptists to flex in anger and others to gasp in horror. But here is the truth:

1. We cannot afford every ministry we now sponsor. Attempting to fund them all weakens them all, including the most important.

2. A significant reason for the BGCT’s declining support is corroding confidence in our competence and recoil from our real or perceived irrelevance.

3. If we expect renewed engagement and excitement about our ministries, we must excel. We must provide ministries everyone agrees we need and perform them spectacularly so that all will know they change lives and expand Christ’s kingdom.

4. As we begin to succeed and regain our reputation for excellence, more and more churches will recognize reasons to reinvest spiritually, financially and emotionally in our collaborative efforts. Then we will have new money to add ministries—by priority order.

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

The strains of “Pomp and Circumstance” have been wafting through auditoriums, arenas and gymnasiums for several weeks now. They will echo for a while longer, as schools—from kindergarten through university—conclude the academic year and graduates walk the stage to the cheers and applause of delighted family and friends.

To the Class of 2010, here are a few words of encouragement as you ponder what comes next:

Remember, this is only the beginning, not the end. That’s why they call the diploma/degree-conferring ceremony a commencement. Education is preparation. Life is the main event. Whether you just finished kindergarten or earned a Ph.D., the next phase of life is more significant, demanding and meaningful than the one you just completed.

Never stop learning. Do you know folks who haven’t read a book since graduation? Pity. The rate of change occurring in practically every vocation demands continual lifelong education. More significantly, the mind requires stimulation. If you want to be an interesting person, keep on studying, thinking and learning all your life.

Don’t forget the line from the old country song, “Hard work never done a body harm.” Or, as the writer of Ecclesiastes put it, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.” If you work hard and give your best effort, you will cut your regrets in half and double your satisfaction in life.

Take time to recharge. This may be your most difficult ongoing challenge. Life will take and take and take from you. So, you have to stop to recharge your batteries. Hear it from someone who’s lousy at this: You need to loaf every now and then. Even Jesus, who crammed eternal ministry into just three years, took time to get away and be still. If he needed it, how much more do we? Consider practicing the Sabbath—not as a rules-oriented task, but as a blessing to your soul.

Eat right and get plenty of exercise. When you’re young, your motivation probably will be looks. If you’re fit, you’re prettier and/or more “buff.” Later, in middle age, you’ll try to do this to stay healthy and productive, because you really will be able to connect the dots between diet, exercise and overall health. If you have a stressful job, you’ll do it to stay sane. And in your old age, if you’ve taken good care of yourself, your mind will remain sharper and your hips limberer, and you will be glad.

Listen to music and read novels. This is sort of like “never stop learning,” but it’s the dessert part of lifelong learning. Good music fires your neurons but also plucks the strings of your heart. And great literature inspires you and makes you think new thoughts.

Laugh. If I have to tell you why, you won’t get it. Just take my word for it. Laugh. Every day.

Give love away. No matter how much math you’ve learned, you’ll never master this equation, but it’s true: The more love you bestow on others, the more you receive.

Tell people you love that you love them. This is almost the same as “give love away,” but it’s to the point. Don’t just show it; say it. If you say it but don’t show it, that won’t count. But you’ll bless the people you love when you tell them you love them.

Take time for family and friends. Sure, you must work hard, but don’t work always. And don’t spend all your other time on yourself. When you’re old, the time you will have treasured most is the time you spent with the people you love. And if you become a parent, remember that “quality time” is a myth. Quantity time produces quality time.

Most of all, glorify God by worshipping the Father, adoring the Son and listening to the Holy Spirit. A life grounded in God, consecrated to Christ and sanctified by the Spirit is the only life worth living.

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

Lovers of irony should relish the fact that—in alphabetical order—the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Southern Baptist Convention have a lot in common these days.

They’re all struggling with membership issues. They’re all strapped for cash. They’re all scrambling to figure out what to do about the future.

A generation ago (my, how time flies) the “conservative resurgence” purged the Southern Baptists of so-called moderates, who had been libeled as “liberals” and branded the source of all woes. The new SBC leaders advocated theological purity and predicted God would pour unprecedented blessings upon their convention once it attained homogenous orthodoxy. They got their purity, but the blessings did not flow. Their quest for theological correctness morphed into political infighting between generations, personalities and quadrants of conservatism. Contrary to accepted wisdom, even baptisms declined.

Baptists who migrated to the Fellowship faced their own challenges. Put out by the SBC, they wanted to be different. They successfully resisted the SBC’s trend toward autocratic leadership. But they so wanted to be different they denied their desire to be a new convention even while aspiring for convention-like structures, such as a unified budget, affiliated missions and ministries, and an archipelago of institutions. Almost 20 years later, they struggle with how to attract adherents and to fund and operate an un-convention.

Texas Baptists, meanwhile, planted feet in both worlds. Some love the SBC, while others adore the CBF. They often distrust each other because of those affections. Long-term disagreement over how to relate nationally dissipated BGCT support, particularly among the most conservative churches, which left to start a competing convention. On top of that, seemingly ceaseless strife, a church-starting scandal and the shifting focus of generations provided excuses and/or reasons for traditionally faithful Texas Baptist supporters to drift away—toward quasi-independence and project-specific relationships with like-minded churches and laser-focused, church-friendly institutional ministries.

So, all three Baptist behemoths simultaneously and ironically abandoned their first love. All would say Christ is their first love. But each group fixed its primary focus elsewhere. Southern Baptists honed in on rigid orthodoxy. Fellowship Baptists longed for a new denominational home. And Texas Baptists—ever the champions of autonomy—got so caught up in options and possibilities that we made an idol of choices and lost our center of gravity.

These Baptist groups face three consuming challenges:

• Relevance. Most laypeople—particularly young adults—are ignorant and apathetic regarding all things denominational. They don’t know, and they don’t care. Also, more pastors who historically have been engaged are slipping away. They appropriately ask: How does supporting you fulfill our mission better than we could do on our own or with an assortment of other partners? Why should we give significant sums to you to demonstrate our identification as Baptists? What return do we really get on our investment?

• Alternatives. Churches of all stripes, from fundamentalist, to conservative, to moderate, to progressive, to liberal, can choose from a vast array of options for everything from Bible study curriculum, to worship materials, to—and this is key—missions and ministry partnership opportunities. Baptist churches no longer must choose from one domestic and one international ministry option, one publishing house, one advocacy group, one decidedly similar set of seminaries.

• Mission/vision. Decades of denominational discord distracted leaders of all three groups. They remained preoccupied with one another, expending energy on internecine competition rather than focusing on the satanic enemies of evil and unbelief. They got behind on learning how to communicate the changeless gospel to an ever-changing culture. And now they’re all struggling to catch up.

Who knew all these disparate Baptists would have so much in common?

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