America is growing more secular, but don’t start writing a eulogy for the church.

A new report produced by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago compares at least 17 studies that have examined religious trends in the United States during the past 40 years. The 346-page report acknowledges the national tilt toward secularism but notes the overall shifts in Americans’ attitudes and feelings toward religion are “quite varied.”

The surveys show declines in four religious factors over the past four decades:

Editor Marv Kox

• Identification with a religion. Citing “none” as a person’s religious preference was stable from 1972 to 1991, ranging from 5 percent to 7 percent of the population. But the “nones” more than doubled—to 16 percent—by 2006.

• Attendance at religious services. Around 36 percent to 37 percent of Americans claimed to attend church about weekly in the early 1970s. The size of that group dropped to as low as 30 percent by 2006. Meanwhile, survey respondents who said they never go to church climbed from 9 percent in 1972 to 22.5 percent in 2006.

• Religious attachment. People who said they were “strong” members of their faith included 40 percent of respondents in 1974-75, peaked at 45 percent in 1984 and declined to as low as 35 percent to 36 percent in both 2000 and 2006.

• Belief in God. The report notes the “basic level of belief in God is high” but points to a “moderate, but clear” decline over 50 years. Belief in God registered 95 percent of respondents in the 1940s, 99 percent in the ’50s, 97.5 percent in the ’60s, 96 percent in the ’80s, 95 percent to 93 percent in the ’90s, and 92 percent in this decade.

But the surveys show a couple of faith-based increases:

• Belief in an afterlife. The proportion of Americans who believed in life after death grew from 69.3 percent in 1973 to 73.0 percent in 2006, with the increases occurring by the end of the mid-’80s.

• Frequency of prayer. The practice of daily prayer fell from 54 percent of Americans in 1983 to 52 percent in 1989-90, but rose to 59 percent in 2004-06.

The surveys also turned up three other positive factors about Americans’ beliefs:

• Centrality of God. In both 1999 and 2005, polls showed about 75 percent of respondents said “having faith in God” was “very important” to them, contrasted with about 8 percent to 9 percent who said faith is “not very important” or “not important at all.”

• Contact with God. Americans’ sense of God’s presence on most days rose from 57 percent in 1998 to 62 percent in 2004.

• God’s closeness. In 1981, 80 percent of Americans said they felt extremely or somewhat close to God. By 2004, 17 percent said they were “as close as possible” to God, 36 percent were very close and 89.5 percent were at least somewhat close.

The National Opinion Research Center report calls the changes in Americans’ faith patterns “complex and nuanced.” It also notes the research results question belief in the “inevitability of secularization.” And it observes Americans have shifted toward a perspective in which they describe themselves as “spiritual, but not religious.”

The numbers can help us on a couple of levels.

First, they reveal trends. We can do a better job of developing and implementing our evangelistic and mission strategies when we study our culture.

But second, they reveal people. Beyond the statistics, they remind us our fellow Americans individually determine their religious beliefs. The true study of culture is the study of our friends and neighbors. And we can guide them to faith when we know them so well we understand them.

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

Texas Baptists Committed’s board of directors must decide what to do with the organization, the most potent political force among Texas Baptists for the past quarter-century. The answer will have profound consequences for the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

When TBC launched about 20 years ago, a titanic battle for the soul, and future, of the Southern Baptist Convention was all but settled. A focused, well-organized force—they called themselves conservatives; others called them fundamentalists—had set out to take political control of the national convention and turn it hard to the right. By 1990, their victory was complete.

Within this context, an architect of that “takeover” or “resurgence” movement threatened to gain control of the BGCT, Baylor University and the Baptist Standard. Some Texans took this threat seriously. They created Texas Baptists Committed to prevent what happened nationally from occurring in our state.

Texas Baptists Committed succeeded by implementing two key political tactics. It conducted rallies to discuss the controversy that consumed the national convention and to warn it could take place in Texas. It also endorsed slates of BGCT presidents and vice presidents, who won victories every year. Their elections controlled the process for nominating board members of about 27 agencies and institutions affiliated with the state convention, plus the BGCT Executive Board. These steps rebuffed efforts to steer the BGCT in the direction of the national convention, an endeavor that succeeded in most other state conventions.

Along the way, Texas Baptists Committed collected its share of critics, who lambasted the organization for controlling the state convention’s political process. The criticism escalated about a decade ago, after churches that favored what had happened in the SBC and opposed the BGCT’s resistance pulled out and formed a competing convention. It echoed in recent years, amid claims that, since our state convention defeated fundamentalism, TBC’s guiding hand no longer was needed. Some critics seemed to forget the original threat and condemned TBC’s very existence.

Criticism aside, we owe a debt of gratitude to Texas Baptists Committed. Thanks to TBC, our state convention has not endured the upheaval and redirection that afflicted the national convention and many other states. Our state convention stands as a bastion for historic Baptist principles, such as soul competency, the priesthood of all believers, local church autonomy, the primacy of Jesus, and the separation of church and state. We have had Hispanic, African-American and female presidents. Thank God and TBC, our strong and vital institutions have neither fallen to fundamentalism nor forsaken our convention.

But now David Currie, TBC’s only executive director, has stepped down, and its board must decide what to do next. Some Texas Baptists want them to keep on plugging, while others would prefer they pull the plug. Neither is the correct answer.

Texas Baptists Committed must reinvent itself, as some observers hoped it would do a couple of years ago. The BGCT does not need TBC to endorse its officers or rally folks to attend meetings. But our convention and all freedom-loving Baptists need TBC to help them become all they can be. TBC—or something much like it—must become a first-rate educational organization. Baptists need to know our heritage. We need creative methods for instilling our principles in the lives of our people. And even though the heat of battle has chilled, we need wise and winsome warnings about the clear—if not imminently present—danger of fundamentalism. We also need advocacy for our mission and ministry, for our institutions, and for all the “least of these” who will not receive the gospel and experience wholeness if we do not reach them.

TBC should not die. But it must be reinvented.

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

Once upon a time, I attended a church—and you’re probably familiar with the type—where longtime-and-savvy members intentionally planned weekend trips about this time of year. They knew October was “stewardship month. “ That, of course, meant four Sundays in a row when the pastor bombarded us with sermons about tithing. Most of the church-skippers, or at least a solid minority of them, already tithed and believed in tithing. They just didn’t want to hear about it every Sunday for a month.

Those fellow church members who carefully planned fall-foliage excursions to evade tithing sermons came to mind recently. Our New Voice Media partnership decided the cover package for this edition of the Standard and our partner newspapers would focus on stewardship. Oh, great. You probably don’t want to think about tithing and/or church-giving, either. And some of you will write letters arguing that tithing isn’t even appropriate for Christians.

Still, we all need to think about stewardship from time to time. Thinking about what stewardship means and how we plan our budgets—as families, as churches and as religious organizations—is good discipline, particularly during periods of economic difficulty.

So, since we’ve raised the issue, I’d like to channel our thinking to three aspects of stewardship:

• Money. “Show me your budget, and I’ll show you your priorities,” a wise seminary professor once told his students. “If you say you value something but don’t allocate your budget to make sure you get it done, then it’s not as important to you as you claim.”

He was correct, of course. Baptists are good at knowing what to say about our values, but sometimes we fall short of performance when we fail to put our money where our mouths are. If we say we believe in missions and ministry and evangelism but fail to support those vital tasks with our personal and church budgets, then we prove we don’t mean it. This has been glaringly clear the past few months, as the nation debates what to do about health care. Many Christians argue care for those whom Jesus called “the least of these” is “the church’s job.” But very few churches have mobilized their budgets to provide that kind of support for anyone in their community, much less the state and beyond. So, do we mean what we say? Do our budgets validate our beliefs?

• Natural resources. Sometimes, when we discuss environmental issues, we get sidetracked by the debate over global warming. But more and more, people of care and goodwill are setting that debate aside and focusing on preservation of natural resources. Call it a parental—or maybe a grandparental—impulse. We don’t want to be the generation that irreparably fouled the air and polluted the water.

So, we’re seeing a green revolution. It’s a civil action in an incivil society. And increasing numbers of churches and Christians are getting involved. It should be a testimony of our call to creation care.

• Time. At its root, how we spend our time is the stewardship of our lives. Time is our most nonrenewable resource. Spend it, and we never get it back.

So, as a matter of Christian stewardship, we must think about how we utilize the gift of the moments that aggregate into our lives. This requires balance, because not only should we work and work hard, we also need time for fellowship with family and friends, worship and ministry, sabbath relaxation and rest, and reflection upon all we hold important.

But we don’t have time to waste, because wasting time is wasting the life God gave us. As we recognize the holiness of being created in God’s image and the value of the life entrusted to us, we become prayerful, thoughtful and careful stewards of not only our years, but also our seconds.

What will our nation do about health care? That question dominates the American social and political landscape this autumn.

But another question hovers in the mists of that landscape. It’s almost as important and perhaps even more troubling: Will U.S. Christians be part of the health care problem, or will we contribute to the solution?

Judging by what we saw this hot, hazy summer, Christians probably will exacerbate the issue. Time after time, we watched as people simultaneously trumpeted their faith and blasted opponents who disagreed with them about how to ensure and insure health care. It wasn’t a pretty sound. And I fear for the damage done to the reputation of Jesus Christ by the vitriol spewed by his followers.

In an effort to dissipate heat and shine light, the Baptist Standard and our New Voice Media partners—Associated Baptist Press, Virginia’s Religious Herald and Missouri’s Word & Way—have prepared a package of articles on health care, which we’re introducing on page 1 of this paper. Our reporters and editors have worked hard to help you base your decision about possible solutions on facts and informed analysis of the status of health care in our country.

At the outset, let me say that I’m not advocating a specific solution. I think we should be able to build consensus around two parallel ideas: Solid health care should be available to all Americans. And something must be done to stem the rising costs of medical treatment, which not only crimp coverage, but also threaten to cripple the economy.

Personally, I’ve been fascinated by proposals that would eliminate for-profit insurance companies in favor of not-for-profit insurance organizations. I’ve also been intrigued by ideas that eliminate administrative costs of both health care and insurance coverage, emphasize preventive care, guarantee insurance portability and protect people from having their coverage summarily denied, particularly through no fault of their own. And I would love to live in a country where everyone has a right to a healthy and decent level of basic medical care and where all Americans can insure themselves to ensure they receive the most comprehensive and excellent health care in the world.

By now, steam may be streaming out your ears because you have projected one model or another of health care upon the ideas I’ve just shared. If that is the case, I have one plea for you: Calm down. The First Amendment guarantees free speech. The social construct of our country calls for a civil exchange of ideas—a concept that seems lost in 2009.

I hope and pray Christians and other people of faith would lead the way toward finding a solution to this vital issue by embracing three principles outlined in the sixth chapter of the Old Testament book of Micah:

• Act justly. If we truly believe all people are created in God’s image and are of equal worth, then justice demands that we guarantee access to adequate medical care, and that it not be offered only to those who possess special status. We have developed a consensus regarding the human right to food, clothing and shelter. Well, shelter should include at least a decent level of protection from disease and physical malady, as well as protection from the elements.

• Love mercy. This may be the hardest part. Mercy extends to those who are different, those we don’t like, and even—or especially—those we don’t think deserve it. Frankly, we can identify plenty of people who, we think, don’t deserve full medical care. But the prophet didn’t include an opt-out clause for mercy.

• Walk humbly with God. Lord, do we all need humility. Especially when we’re worried and scared. But humility with God—extended to others—can help us find a solution.

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

Could you skip a meal a month to alleviate life-threatening hunger? Or, if you don’t think you can stand missing a meal, would you match the cost of one dinner to provide food for someone who otherwise might not eat all day?

If Texas Baptists would take either of these tiny steps, we could walk a long way together toward Christlike ministry to the people Jesus called “the least” in our state, across our nation and around the world.

Hunger dwells very near each of us. More than 3.1 million Texans are food-insecure, meaning they don’t know where they will get the groceries or money to supply their next meal, according to the Center for Public Policy Priorities. Beyond that, almost 900,000 Texans suffer from outright hunger. They don’t receive enough nutrition to sustain healthy bodies.

Texas is home to the highest percentage of food-insecure and hungry families in the nation, the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission reports. Texas’ poverty rate is 25 percent higher than the national average, and impoverished people in Texas comprise almost 10 percent of the national total.

Other Texas hunger statistics:

• Almost one of every six Texans lives in poverty.

• Ten of the nation’s 30 poorest counties are in Texas.

• One in 10 Texas children under age 12 is hungry.

• Almost one-third of Texas children are hungry or at risk of hunger.

• One in four Texans along the Rio Grande is poor.

• The vast majority of Texas’ hungry are from working families. More than 80 percent of poor families with children and almost 60 percent of poor families and individuals without children include at least one adult who works.

• Hunger and poverty are racial issues. African-Americans and Hispanics are three times as likely to live in poverty as are their Anglo neighbors.

Of course, hunger does not confine itself to Texas. More than 36 million Americans—10 percent of the entire population—live in households that experience hunger or food insecurity. Of those, 13 million are children. No matter how you feel about their parents, can you blame the children for their poverty and hunger?

Worldwide, the situation is even worse. More than 1.4 billion of Earth’s inhabitants live on less than $1.25 per day, according to Bread for the World. One of every five people on the planet subsists on less than $1 per day, the Christian Life Commission adds. Nearly half the population ekes out an existence on less than $2 per day.

Texas Baptists have determined to do something about hunger. As part of our Texas Hope 2010 endeavor to spread the gospel and alleviate suffering, we’re trying to raise $2 million through the Texas Baptist Offering for World Hunger, beginning this fall and running through the end of next year. Allocations will include $700,000 for worldwide hunger and developement ministries this year, $700,000 for those ministries next year, $250,000 to fight urban and rural poverty, $150,000 for Texas-Mexico border ministries, $100,000 for disaster relief and $100,000 for Christian Women’s and Christian Men’s Job Corps.

These are terrific, but the goal is too low. Texas Baptists actually can count 1,532,735 resident members. Suppose all of us would skip a not-chinchy-but-not-extravagant meal per month at $10 and contribute it to our world hunger offering. In one year, we could raise $183,928,200 to fight hunger. (For the faint of heart, halve the participants and the price of lunch; you’re still at $38,318,375.)

Just imagine what we could do to save and improve lives. We cannot comprehend the impact on time and eternity that would derive from saving many of their souls.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his blog at baptiststandard.com .

Texas Baptists’ challenges to unity and cooperation have changed. The new challenges aren’t as inflammatory as the previous challenge. Still, they’re deep, more diverse and potentially more debilitating.

The former challenge was theological discord. Texas Baptists divided into two groups, largely over how we felt regarding charges of liberalism and fundamentalism in the Southern Baptist Convention. But theology doesn’t divide the Baptist General Convention of Texas anymore. Sure, we reflect a range of theology. But those who only fellowship with people who share their ultraconservative beliefs have left to join a competing convention. Remaining BGCT Baptists share many key doctrines and disagree on some. But we grant each other the grace to disagree on non-essential beliefs.

Today, the BGCT faces different challenges to unity and cooperation. They’re not likely to create the kind of conflict that confounded the convention in the past. But if left untended, they will dissipate our affections, develop into apathy if not outright antipathy, and continue to dilute our effectiveness and diminish our efficiency. The results could be even more dire than those ground out by theological conflict.

These are the elephants in the BGCT room. We must name, tame and harness them:

• Church size. Depending upon their size, churches hold very different expectations of the BGCT. The largest and/or wealthiest congregations don’t want much from the convention. Most don’t feel they need it, because they can procure their own resources—primarily for training and missions. They send clergy and laity to conferences most anywhere. They also send members on mission trips—and even long-term assignments—worldwide. Some large churches still value the BGCT for providing opportunities to support missions and institutions, but not much else. Meanwhile, the BGCT is the only vehicle for training and equipping, as well as doing missions, for thousands of small churches. So, what large churches and small churches want out of the BGCT is very different. More and more, their willingness to compromise is diminishing. This creates an almost impossible scenario for developing convention programs and ministries.

• Age. A generation gap is rending many churches, and it’s stretching out in the BGCT. Like most organizations, the convention tends to confer leadership based upon age and experience. But we have raised young church leaders who are ready to exert their influence. And they feel they can’t wait. As change whipsaws their congregations and all of society, they sense that if the BGCT doesn’t keep up, they won’t even have a convention to inherit by the time they’re “old enough” to be trusted with leadership. They have ideas and passion and courage. They’re unencumbered by a generation of denominational conflict. And they’re not patient. So, if the convention cannot keep up with the currents of change, they’ll engage elsewhere—within the confines of their congregations, in their communities, in networks they create themselves or in groups that accommodate their vision.

• Race and ethnicity. In the BGCT, we work hard at liking each other across the races. In many cases, we genuinely love each other. But we don’t respect and trust each other as we should. Respect/trust means staking our future upon each other. It means valuing each other above ourselves and risking comfort and position for the good of the whole. It means acknowledging and affirming racial and ethnic cultural differences. But it also means refusing to make everything about race and recognizing some issues transcend race.

Compounding these challenges is the fact Texas Baptists mirror our culture, with its heightened sense of self and desire to dominate rather than to create win-win solutions. We must embody Christ’s agape love and graciously submit to each other for the sake of God’s kingdom—and the BGCT.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his blog at baptiststandard.com .

While our emissaries to Washington take a vacation, you and I can do a little work that could improve the lives of millions of people all over the world.

Please join me in writing members of the Senate and House of Representatives, urging them to support companion bipartisan bills that will strengthen U.S. assistance to foreign countries.

The House bill is the Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 2139), and its counterpart in the Senate is the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009 (S. 1524).

The House bill calls on President Obama to implement a comprehensive U.S. strategy to advance global development, which translates into the tools to help feed hungry people, support healthcare and lift them from poverty.

The bill’s four main sections: Require President Obama to develop a comprehensive national strategy for global development. Direct the president to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign aid. Mandate that both taxpayers and recipients have full access to information about U.S. foreign assistance. Repeal outdated provisions of current policy.

The Senate bill articulates U.S. policy that promotes global development, good governance, and reduction of poverty and hunger. Like the House bill, it specifies U.S. foreign assistance should be transparent. And it restores planning, policy and evaluation capacities for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Before their August recess, 100 House members signed on as co-sponsors of H.R. 2139. Only four—Charles A. Gonzalez, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Mac Thornberry—are Texans. S. 1524 was introduced right before the break. It has five sponsors, none of them Texans.

Christians and other people of faith and goodwill need to contact their senators and representative and call on them to co-sponsor the bills immediately and then support them when they come up for votes.

This effort “is crucial to the overall reform of U.S. foreign assistance,” noted David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, the highly regarded Christian organization that works for solutions to hunger, both in the United States and around the globe. Bread for the World has made H.R. 2139 and S. 1524 the focus of its 2009 “Offering of Letters,” an intense effort to rally Christians to shape policies that can end hunger and reduce global poverty.

“If the Obama Administration and Congress improve the effectiveness of U.S. foreign assistance, our dollars will do more good for decades to come,” Beckmann said. He is correct. And we can strengthen his voice by adding ours to his—if you will take a few moments to write three letters, urging your senators and representative to support these bills.

The need is vital. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization recently reported that, for the first time in history, more than 1 billion people on Earth are hungry. That means one out of every six people go to bed hungry each night.

Now, every time I address hunger and poverty, I hear from Christians who say we should not be involved in government solutions to hunger and poverty. They say it’s the church’s job. They’re only half right. Yes, the church should work to end hunger and poverty. But this is too big of a task to do ourselves. And besides, one way we can work on behalf of the hungry and the poor is to advocate for all means—including U.S. foreign aid—to assist them.

To determine your representative and locate contact information for your senators and representative, go to: www.capitol.state.tx.us. Fill in the “Who Represents Me?” box.

For more information about H.R. 2139 and S. 1524 and other hunger issues, visit the Bread for the World website, www.bread.org.

Just like so much of life these days, the way we train ministers is changing. This trend is vital, because even though Baptists affirm the priesthood of all believers, pastors’ and staff ministers’ influence is inversely proportional to their actual numbers. An exceptional minister cannot single-handedly build a great church, but he or she can impact hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. And a poor minister can bring a church to its knees and ruin its influence.

This issue of the Standard carries a cover package about creative new approaches to ministerial training. They supplement outstanding training provided by traditional Baptist seminaries and theology schools. Texas Baptists benefit directly from three—Baptist University of the Americas, Logsdon Seminary at Hardin-Simmons University and Truett Seminary at Baylor University.

With due respect to all these programs, here are 10 skills seminaries need to emphasize. Churches also need to support these skills with opportunities for lifelong continuing education. Most seminary graduates do a passable job of interpreting Scripture, preaching and/or operating church programs. But a vast majority of church travail traced to ministers involves failure touching on one or more of these skills:

• Spiritual discipline. Seminary students spend so much time handling the sacred it can seem mundane. The same is true in ministry. So, a life of prayer and devotional Scripture reading is vital. Ministers can’t survive without this.

• Communication. A huge number of church challenges stem from poor communication. Pastors and staff must be able to present ideas and vision and even basic information clearly. The often-overlooked key is learning to listen.

• Team-building. A church is an army of volunteers. Success often hinges on enabling members to pull together in the same direction. An equally important corollary of this skill is learning to motivate with integrity, not manipulation.

• Conflict mediation. Churches are going to experience conflict until “the roll is called up yonder.” Ironically, conflict can be a catalyst for many valuable developments, such as learning from one another, clarifying goals and expectations, healing old wounds and finding common ground. Unfortunately, many pastors waste these opportunities by either pretending conflict doesn’t exist and allowing it to fester or escalating the conflict into win-lose scenarios that damage their ministries and hurt their churches.

• Transparency and vulnerability. Pastors quickly learn to mask their weaknesses, because some church members will exploit them. But this skill set can strengthen and empower church members by enabling them to identify with and learn from their ministers’ struggles.

• Healthy families. Here’s a strength that becomes a weakness: Ministers are so committed to the church they sacrifice their families. Then, when their marriages corrode or their families crumble, everyone loses. Ministers’ families must come first, before church, just as marriage preceded the church.

• Financial management. Many—most?—churches should do better at compensating their staff. But in this materialistic, consumeristic age, ministers must exercise financial discipline and teach values by the way they conduct their personal business.

• Basic planning. How can you get where you’re going if you don’t know the way? We need pastors who can lead, and it starts with the ability to conceive and execute plans.

• Healthy lifestyles. This is important on multiple levels. Like everyone else’s, ministers’ bodies are the temple of God. Ministers perform best when they’re healthy. And church members need to see the example of fit ministers.

• Humble courage. Maybe neither of these traits can be taught, but they are essential. Both arrogant tyranny and passive cowardice ruin churches.

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

Many Baptists and conservative Christians have set homosexuals aside as unparalleled pariahs. There are sinners, and then there are sinners. Ordinary sinners engage in everything from adultery to zealotry. Sometimes, they receive rebuke, and at other times, their church-going friends look the other way. But sinners are women who have sex with women or men who have sex with men, and they can get their church kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention.

That’s what happened again this summer, when the SBC voted to disfellowship Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth because of the congregation’s perceived tolerance of homosexual members. Article III of the SBC constitution notes, “… churches not in cooperation with the convention are churches which act to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior.” Controversy erupted at Broadway when some same-gender members asked to be photographed together in its pictorial directory, but church leaders insisted Broadway still complies with convention policy. Messengers to the SBC annual meeting disagreed and severed the convention’s relationship with the church.

The situation most likely will affect the Baptist General Convention of Texas—if someone proposes the BGCT follow in the national convention’s footsteps.

But the issue presents broader implications than the affiliation of one church. Homosexuality will not go back into the closet. Besides, most churches of any size likely include gay and lesbian members, in the open or not.

I’m not a geneticist or a biologist, so I don’t know if someone is “born homosexual.” I do know many homosexuals who swear they did not choose their orientation and never would choose to feel this way. Still, a direct reading of Scripture says sexual relations are designed by God to be enjoyed between one woman and one man exclusively within the bonds of marriage. While I empathize with the pain and grief of homosexual friends, I believe the Bible says their option is to remain celibate. I do not belittle their suffering, because the sex drive is one of the most powerful forces on Earth, but I also cannot ignore what seems to me the plain teaching of Scripture. Likewise, I do not feel their same-sex yearnings alone comprise sin. Humans are responsible for actions, not feelings. So, we must differentiate between homosexuality and homosexual activity.

This said, Baptists and other Christians must determine how we respond redemptively to homosexual church members. The SBC’s action does not seem to be redemptive, because it singles out one behavior for condemnation while turning a blind eye to the broad range of sins.

Many Christians fear homosexual activity—and perhaps homosexuality itself—and set it aside as a special category. This not only is unbiblical (since blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is named the unforgivable sin), but it also is irrational and disproportionate.

Gossips, back-biters and tattlers have divided many multitudes of congregations. Authoritarian, arrogant and hypocritical church leaders have run an infinite number of new Christians out of the church. Mean ministers and deacons have shoved untold thousands of children and youth so far away from Christ they never will draw near again. These sinners have done far more damage to the Kingdom of Christ than Baptist gays and lesbians. And yet we overlook these damaging and damnable sins. In fact, many of their practitioners are considered pillars of their congregations.

I write this with a heavy heart. I’m sure these words have angered many of you—to both the right and the left of me. And I know one editorial will not resolve one of the most sensitive, frightful and serious issues in the church today.

But we must talk about it. We cannot be afraid to talk

The Southern Baptist Convention crossed a generational divide at its 2009 annual meeting. To be sure, the SBC may or may not succeed in consolidating strong commitment from young adults in the long term. But their presence in Louisville this month wrested leadership from the hands of the old cadre who took control of the convention a generation ago. Younger leaders and their allies now have ascended and will call the denominational shots unless they, too, get out of touch as they age.

A case in point: Danny Akin and Al Mohler overwhelmed Morris Chapman.

Chapman represents the old guard of “fundamentalist” or “conservative resurgence” leaders (your modifier depends upon whether you agreed with them or not) who took control of the SBC in the late 1970s through the early ’90s. Chapman was a favorite son of the movement: A pastor who progressed to ever-more-prominent pulpits. The successful SBC presidential candidate whose 1990 election sealed convention control. And, soon after, the anointed head of the SBC Executive Committee, theoretically the convention’s most powerful staff position.

The fundamentalist/resurgence coalition held together for most of a generation—long enough to defeat their adversaries; consolidate their victories in most state conventions and launch new state conventions elsewhere; reward their faithful with convention offices, board appointments and denominational jobs; and shape the convention in their image.

What they haven’t noticed is they are getting old, the world is getting younger and since Baptists reflect culture at least as much as, if not more than, the Bible, a rising generation of pastors and laity are finding them irrelevant. (Full disclosure here: This problem isn’t unique to the SBC; it’s a primary issue facing the Baptist General Convention of Texas.) Also, the triumphalism of their early successes—God rewarded their political victories with strong finances and fast growth—rings hollow now that their finances are tight and the convention has suffered two years of membership decline.

Along the way, two youngish seminary presidents—Akin of Southeastern and Mohler of Southern, both around 50 and downright vigorous in the SBC age spectrum—developed the convention’s most vibrant theological schools and, with that, attracted a strong following among both their graduates and other young pastors. This year, they joined forces with Johnny Hunt, the most interesting SBC president in ages, who enjoyed benefits of a denominational insider but apparently saw himself as something of an outsider and consistently demonstrated affinity for befriending and mentoring younger pastors.

So, Akin, Hunt and Mohler proposed creating a “Great Commission Resurgence” task force to turn the SBC toward growth. Apparently fearing denominational upheaval, Chapman opposed it and even lashed out at their recommendation during his report in Louisville, an act of old-bull desperation that young-bull Akin felt secure in blasting as “shameful.” When messengers finally got around to voting, their support for Akin, Hunt and Mohler’s idea was so overwhelming, the convention parliamentarian ex-claimed, “Wow!”

The Great Commission Task Force faces a complicated task. It will need to deal with denominational duplication. It must address how to respond to America’s demographic change, or else everything else ultimately will be irrelevant. It should be honest about differences of theology (Calvinism and Arminianism), practice (missions outreach, worship style) and even behavior (everything from dress, to lifestyle, to attitudes about gender).

But at the outset, the Louisville vote was about the SBC’s generation gap. The power base has shifted.

Imagine you’ve just moved into a community. You’re driving down the street, and you see “Baptist” on a church sign. Does that make you want to stop in for a visit next Sunday? Do you have any idea if you would feel welcomed? Does “Baptist” in the church’s name tell you if you would agree with the brothers and sisters who call this their spiritual home?

Baptists around the world are celebrating our 400th anniversary this year. In 1609, a small group of English Separatist exiles led by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys sought refuge in Holland. After considerable prayer, Bible study and deliberation, they decided to follow a new path. So, Smyth baptized himself, then Helwys and the other adults, and they founded the first Baptist church in the world.

While believer’s baptism may have been Baptists’ earliest distinguishing feature—thus their name—it wasn’t their sole characteristic. Within a generation, they were known for their disputes. Two groups soon developed. Particular Baptists emphasized God’s sovereignty and a “particular” salvation set aside only for people of God’s choosing. General Baptists promoted free will and a “general” salvation for whoever accepts God’s gift of grace. And that was only in the 17th century. Through the generations, Baptists have argued and split over so many issues that Walter Shurden has written a fascinating history of Baptists (Not a Silent People) by telling the tale of their disputes.

Now, all things Baptist have become even more bewildering. Some churches that are Baptist in every respect—up to and including affiliation with Baptist conventions—have dropped “Baptist” from their name. Some of them are embarrassed because of decades of Baptist battles. Some think denominational labels are a liability in a post-denominational age. Some just don’t want to be pinned down.

On the other hand, many churches fly the Baptist banner simply because they practice believer’s baptism by immersion. Baptism is their distinguishing feature, so they must be Baptists. Never mind that they never affiliate with other Baptists and don’t follow broadly recognized Baptist polity or hold to beliefs embraced by most Baptists. Oh, and some who even affiliate still don’t hold to many Baptist beliefs.

Still, you’re new to the community, and you’re scoping out churches and you see “Baptist.” Makes you wonder. Since the “Baptist” label means practically nothing, you’ll just have to check the church for yourself. If you’re a true Baptist, you’ve got the freedom to define what being a Baptist means to you. But here’s my checklist. Historic Baptists believe in:

• Soul competency and the priesthood of all believers. God gave each person the inalienable ability to relate directly to God. You don’t need another person to mediate between you and God.

• Salvation by grace through faith in Christ. God’s unmerited favor makes a relationship with God—now and forever—possible. All you have to do is believe and accept.

• Believer’s baptism. The act of baptism does not confer salvation. It reflects our willful, knowing identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, and hope for resurrection from our graves.

• Local-church autonomy. If Baptist believers are free and independent, so are their churches.

• Separation of church and state, and religious liberty. Historically, Baptists have believed the freedom they desire should be extended to everyone. To be authentic, faith must be free—from both religious and political coercion.

• Absolute authority of Scripture. The Bible is our certain and infallible guide for seeking God’s will, following Christ and living in the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Passion for evangelism, ministry and missions. We who have been blessed should not horde so great a gift.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard.

Here’s a conundrum for you: How can bloggers keep on blogging if they’re unable to dial a telephone?

Beats me.

But unfortunately, that’s apparently the case. Three “prominent” Texas bloggers (I say “prominent” because they would have us believe they’re read widely. We don’t know for sure. They don’t document their circulation.) recently damned the Baptist General Convention of Texas for allegedly escrowing Texas Baptists’ gifts to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. (See the news story on page 2.) If they’d have bothered to pick up the phone to check the facts, this never would’ve happened. Of course, that wouldn’t have been so much fun.

Here’s how your Lottie Moon Offering gift gets to the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board, where it’s used to support missionaries around the world: You give your gift, designated to the Lottie Moon Offering, to your church. Your church sends its contributions, including your Lottie Moon gift, to the BGCT Executive Board. The BGCT wires all SBC-related contributions—including money allocated for the Cooperative Program unified budget, Lottie Moon and the Annie Armstrong Offering for Home Missions—to the SBC Executive Committee. The Executive Committee transfers your share of the Lottie Moon Offering to the mission board.

In March, the BGCT was installing a new information management system when it wired its monthly collection from the churches—including the Lottie Moon Offering money—to the Executive Committee. However, the BGCT inadvertently failed to send a document telling the Executive Committee how to distribute the Texas convention’s money. That document didn’t arrive before the end of the month, so although the Executive Committee had received more than $3.3 million in Lottie Moon money from the BGCT in March, it went on the books as $0.00.

Someone at the IMB got wind of this and told one of the bloggers, a pastor who had led his church to leave the BGCT and to join the competing convention here in Texas. Well, this seemed like a great opportunity to whack the BGCT over the head, and he did. Soon, a couple of other bloggers picked up the first blogger’s accusation and joined the fray.

You would think at least one of these brothers would have thought to check his facts. They all claim to understand the intricacies of Baptist polity. So, even if they don’t trust the BGCT, they should have known to phone the treasurer of the Executive Committee to learn the truth.

This is the problem with so many bloggers. Unlike a Baptist newspaper editor who is accountable to a board of directors and, ultimately, a convention, a blogger only is accountable to pay his monthly Internet bill. Bloggers aren’t even accountable for genuine apologies. Rather than eat crow, they burp loudly and say, “That was from the crow I (wink, wink) ate.”

I understand why these bloggers jumped on the BGCT without bothering to check the facts. The first blogger despises the BGCT and basically said so in his “retraction.” (His blog actually parallels history. It’s reminiscent of so many lies about the BGCT’s positions on homosexuality and abortion that have been told to exhort churches to join the competing state convention he led his church to join.) A couple of others are disappointed in the BGCT and have become so jaded they only expect continued disappointment.

Still their animus does not justify their actions.

We should not judge all bloggers by this incident. But it should remind us not to take independent blogs at face value. Many blogs can and do provide helpful and needed information. But we must remember independent bloggers are accountable to no one. Readers must hold them accountable by demanding demonstrable verification.

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