Most of us never will feel a hurricane’s wrath. But all of us can ease the burden of Baptists and their neighbors buffeted badly by Hurricane Ike.

In fact, the Baptist General Convention of Texas has set up a system to support partnerships between upstate churches and coastal congregations. It’s a wonderful opportunity for Texas Baptists to demonstrate unity of faith, practicality of purpose and basic Christian love.

“The scope of need is huge,” reported Carolyn Porterfield, director of the BGCT’s Church2Church disaster response partnership effort. “The map shows 322 Baptist churches along the coast are located in the Hurricane Ike disaster area. We know at least 70 of them sustained structural damage.

“So far, we have partnered 21 (upstate and coastal) churches together. We’re still waiting for another 10 churches to commit. They’re in the ‘courting stage’—aware of the need, interested in response, and taking their proposals to the deacons or missions committee or whoever makes the final decision.

“But we still need about 50 churches that will say, ‘Hey, we will help.’”

And that’s the lowest number. The devastation endured by some churches is so great, they may need partnership help from multiple congregations, noted Wayne Shuffield, the convention’s disaster response director.

Here’s just a sampling of needs, provided by Porterfield:

• Visionary Baptist Church in Houston. The sanctuary roof is damaged and leaking, plywood pulled off, shingles gone. Another building also sustained roof damage. Pastor Manuel Fletcher desperately needs a partner.

• Amelia Baptist Church in Beaumont. This church facility suffered major damage from roof leaks, Pastor Tony Shaw reported.

• First Baptist Church in Friendswood. Like most other churches, FBC’s roof was damaged badly. Through Church2Church, Porterfield is trying to set up a partnership with First Baptist and its pastor, David Belk, but the support has not been confirmed just yet.

The Gulf Coast needs vary widely, Porterfield said. Some churches need help from mud-out crews that do exactly what their name implies—remove mud and all the waterlogged detritus of Ike’s grimy visit. Scores of churches need new roofs. Many churches need help for their members, whose homes were flooded and/or ripped by the winds. While some congregations and families are covered by insurance, others are overwhelmed by the potential cost of putting everything back in its pre-Ike place.

Heart-breakingly, Porterfield also acknowledged, “Some pastors need pastoral assistance.” Imagine the devastation of not only seeing your own home and place of work damaged but also helping to carry the spiritual, emotional and physical burdens of a congregation.

Even though public attention has turned to other issues, the effects of Ike will linger for months, even years, Porterfield warned. “Think long-term. Like (Hurricane) Katrina and New Orleans. It’s not going to blow over.”

The needs are specific, she added:

• Prayer and encouragement.

• Physical support—volunteers who partner through Church2Church and travel to the region and help repair damage.

• Money—both to replenish the Texas Baptist Men’s disaster relief fund and also to sustain the ongoing BGCT disaster response efforts.

The challenge is huge but achievable. In Porterfield’s words: “If each church would do just one thing, we could meet the needs of these churches.”

To learn more, volunteer and donate, go to the special website: www.bgct.org/disaster, or call (888) 244-9400.

The last time you and I met on this page, we kept at least one ear tuned to the Weather Channel and asked, “How could a good God allow … ?”

We closely monitored the path of Hurricane Ike as it built up strength in the Gulf of Mexico. And we asked how and why God could permit nature to wreak destruction and suffering upon such a great swath of humanity.

Meanwhile, most Americans blissfully took no notice of Hurricane Wally, which had been building up strength in the banks and brokerage firms on Wall Street. We didn’t know it was preparing to deliver a 100-year storm upon the world’s markets, threatening to blow the financial security of millions of families all to smithereens.

So, if we can consider the problem of evil and suffering in the midst of hurricane season, should we seek theological meaning in global capital catastrophe? Yea, verily.

But before we begin, a caveat or three: First, this crisis is complex. Some of the smartest people in the world don’t understand it. Second, because it is so complex, people of goodwill will take different approaches to it. Third, it couldn’t have happened at a worse time. If you can expect Washington and Wall Street to behave altruistically and responsibly during an election year, you can cast Guadeloupe Peak into the Gulf of Mexico.

Now, acknowledging I’m neither an economist nor the son of an economist, let me suggest four reasons for this unnecessary fiasco. They’re not primarily financial. And they’re not confined to Wall Street. They’re indictments on America. But they’re true reasons:

• Greed. You don’t need an Ivy League MBA to understand greed and covetousness swirl around the eye of this storm. Many fingers point to the CEOs of the giant financial corporations. But greed dominates all strata of our society. For example, the mortgage banks stoked their greed by preying upon the greed of citizens who wanted to buy more house than they could afford and who were willing to ignore risk in order to live high.

• Selfishness. A cousin to greed, selfishness seeks personal gain at the expense of others. America suffers from a pandemic of selfishness. People want their stuff, and as much stuff as they can get, and they don’t care how getting that stuff impacts others. So, market practices and financial products can be structured to benefit one at the expense of the other. And nobody thinks about ethics.

• Insensitivity. Of course, insensitivity is a byproduct of selfishness. It crassly overlooks the pain of others. It only thinks about self and family and friends, and it classifies everyone else as “other,” with less value.

• Sloth. This is the Bible word for laziness. And if you think it only applies to politicians and government bureaucrats, think back to the last time you voted. How well did you study the issues and cast an informed vote? This crisis illustrates how much voting matters and how vital policy is for the public good. When voters are lazy and apathetic, they usually get what they deserve.

This financial failure hit us in the pocketbook and the pension plan, but what we’ve got here is a spiritual crisis. We may want to blame Wall Street and Washington, but the financial titans, pols and government (un)regulators who brought this upon us did so with our tacit support. Collectively, America’s greed, selfishness, insensitivity and sloth enabled and empowered them.

Now, we’ll watch to see how the authorities correct the problems. But if we don’t repent of our me-first attitudes, their adjustments will account for nothing more than plastic window sheeting in the onslaught of another hurricane.

One more related word: Sit still and trust God. Great value cannot be measured by dollars. Ask God to give you calm courage and an appreciation for true value.

With storm after storm pounding the coasts and so much suffering in the world, no wonder people ponder the presence of good and evil.
Just think how many times you’ve heard someone ask, “How could a good God allow … ?”

Some of these questions are easy enough—however painful—to answer: God doesn’t prevent the consequences of people’s own actions. A young man chooses to drink and drive, and a newlywed couple dies on the way home from a movie on Saturday night. A girl starts smoking in her teens, and pack after pack after carton, by the time she’s old enough to warn her granddaughter not to smoke, she dies of emphysema. On a much broader scale, a nation turns a blind eye on corruption, and sinister forces who feed off of it prey on innocent citizens.

Still, people who agonize over such loss continue to rail at God for not sweeping between cause and effect, stilling the results of actions that could bear only rotten fruit. They never consider the logical impact of their desire. Suppose God were to limit the consequences of evil choices. Or imagine God were to prevent those choices altogether. At first, this might sound enticing—no more war, no more drunk drivers, no more abused children. But consider the logical results of such divine limitation. First, where would God draw the line? Would God only limit human action that could result in death? Or would God thwart every deed that causes heartache? And to what degree? If God were to be consistent, then God could not allow any wrong-doing. So, unless you live a perfect life (and no one does), that means God would deny a significant portion of your freedom.

But the Bible—and particularly the creation accounts in Genesis—teaches that God created humanity to reciprocate God’s love. To be authentic, human love for God could not be coerced. To be real, it had to be offered freely. So, Scripture shows us that God gave us freedom—fierce, powerful, frightful freedom. A price of that freedom is its very abuse. In order to be free to love God, we’re free to hate God. In order to obey God, we’re also free to defy God. All the evil human beings are capable of perpetrating upon each other is a shallow yet perverse measure of the capacity of God’s love. Think how great the love of God must be to be worth all we do to each other. And then, more staggering than that, try to imagine the depth of God’s love that he sent his only Son as a sacrifice to atone for all that evil and reconcile our torn relationship with God.

Well, so far, we’ve only considered the evil humans inflict on each other. But what about “natural” evil—like violent storms and inexplicable diseases? We can decide to move away from the coast, avoid fault lines and steer clear of Tornado Alley. And yet we might come down with acute leukemia or get hit by a comet.

I can’t certify this with Scripture, but when I try to make sense of storms and inexplicable disease, I always seek a corollary to what we do know of human evil, which is the price of precious freedom. So, perhaps what we view as random evil in nature may simply reflect the freedom God gave to women and men. Maybe it’s the impulse toward freedom that spins off in meteorological, geological, genetic and even sub-atomic activities that result in both goodness and evil. Maybe those are the roots of freedom in nature that we value for ourselves.

Frankly, I don’t know. When I watch a radar screen reveal a storm the size of the Gulf of Mexico, I truly fear and respect the incomprehensible power—and will—of God.

This much I know through experience: Nothing can separate us from the love of God who made us free. God’s grace is sufficient for us, even in the worst storms. And God will provide the peace that surpasses all understanding.

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

Baylor University took a leap toward unity by selecting David Garland as interim president. A couple of issues ago, we discussed how Baylor’s regents must take responsibility for bringing peace to the the conflict-riddled campus. If they continue to live up the the level of this decision, they can begin to reverse their reputation for divisiveness.

Garland has been an asset to Baylor since he joined the George W. Truett Theological Seminary faculty 11 years ago. As professor of New Testament, associate dean for academic affairs and, most recently, dean, he has provided exemplary leadership. Garland embodies multiple characteristics that commend him to lead Baylor during the coming months:

• Teaching & research
Garland is one of the foremost scholars of the Gospel of Mark, and his books have been praised by academics and ministers for years. He’s a world-class scholar whose research is respected by his peers. But he’s also a scintillating lecturer and a sensitive mentor-teacher.

For several years, Baylor has been divided between those who revere its legacy as a great teaching school and those who want to see it rise in the ranks of research institutions. Garland demonstrates that passion for forming lives and zeal for exploring the world of ideas can reside together, in harmony.

• Honor & integrity
Baylor’s problem with disharmony and division the past decade or so has developed because too many people have been working too many agendas. Suspicion and distrust have infused dysfunction in the “Baylor family.” But David Garland is honest and sincere and full of integrity. Baylor will know that what they see is what they get. And they can begin to trust again.

Garland can lead this because (a) he knows biblical ethics, starting with truth-telling and trustworthiness, is at the heart of the gospel, (b) his life is patterned after that gospel, and (c) he is true with God, himself and others.

• Smart & experienced
I can imagine some of you who read the previous section said to yourselves, “Yeah, then (fill in the blank—the regents, the faculty, the alumni) will eat his lunch.”

Garland is smarter than that. He’s been involved in top-flight academic institutions more than 30 years, and he knows how people behave. He’s not naive. He’s an integrity evangelist; he can convert bad actors to better behavior.

• Open & inclusive
One of the beautiful aspects of Truett Seminary is it is a place where people from many backgrounds and perspectives come to learn together. And a vital part of what they learn is to trust and accept one another.

At Truett, people who hold the range of theological perspectives are respected. The Baptist principle of the priesthood of all believers is affirmed. This spirit can help restore unity at Baylor. Baylorites need to see they can disagree, love Baylor and respect each other. David Garland leads by example, and the “Baylor family” can learn from him.

• The Garland team
Despite his enormous gifts and abilities, Garland wed over his head. He is married to Diana Garland, dean of Baylor’s School of Social Work. She also embodies teacher and scholar. She’s world-renowned for her research and practice in church-based social work. She’s a gifted author. And she’s the kind of beloved teacher whose students follow her example into the poorest homes and neediest neighborhoods and most sensitive congregations, serving the people whom Jesus called “the least of these.”

She’s a strong, funny, energetic, compassionate, faithful and inspiring teacher, dean, minister and friend.

The regents have done well to choose David Garland, and we can pray with confidence that Baylor will grow in unity in the coming months.

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

Texans have been “treated” to a unique spectacle as we watched the Olympics on TV the past few days.

Yep, you guessed it—presidential campaign ads.

I can’t remember what happened before then, but in 2000 and ’04, Democrats and Republicans alike toted Texas smack-dab in the middle of the “red” column. And so they spent their ad money elsewhere. Why bother with the hearts and minds of citizens in a conservative state whose popular former governor tops the ballot?

But this year, well … . Maybe the presidential spots are national ads capitalizing on the patriotic fervor of the Olympic spirit. Or maybe both candidates think they’ve got a chance at taking Texas this November.

In 2008, presidential politics feels upside down. That’s never truer than when you’re talking about (or, more precisely, they’re talking about) religion. For so long, the Republicans monopolized faith as a political issue. Big-time leaders of the Religious Right acted as if “GOP” stood for “God’s Own Party,” and Democrats did their best to prove it true.

But now, the Communion tray is passing down the other aisle. The Democrat is the one who converses more easily, and often, about his faith. And the Republican is the one who seems uncomfortable when pressed to express his religious beliefs and practices. Although he hails from the liberal United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has spent much of his adult life speaking in and working with progressive African-American churches, where the language of faith is cultural currency. And although John McCain attends a conservative Baptist church with his wife, his Episcopalian reticence to discuss private issues typically trips his tongue when he speaks about spiritual matters.

Still, to get your vote, they’ll appeal to your piety. The most partisan members of both parties are prone to denigrate the others’ faith, particularly as it applies to public policy. Just as some Christians base their votes exclusively on such moral issues as abortion and homosexual activity, others stress the moral nature of environmentalism and justice for the poor. Interestingly, an increasing number of younger Christians seem to be taking a both/and approach to morality and faith, rather than the either/or attitudes of their parents.

Jesus provided two words of advice that can guide Christians through another political season:

• “I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). We must be discerning, yet gracious; skeptical, yet not cynical. Too often, Christians get in the political game and adopt its ethics and practices. We must understand them and account for them, but we are accountable to Christ. Our ethics must be measured against his righteousness. We cannot forget this.

• “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). We cite this quote in discussions about taxes. But we do not dishonor the passage when we apply it to other “things that are Caesar’s and … God’s”—loyalty and hope. As patriots, we should be loyal U.S. citizens, but our only hope lies in God.

Years ago, columnist Cal Thomas illustrated this latter truth. As 12 years of Reagan/Bush leadership concluded, he observed the anger and angsts of conservative Christians, who failed to achieve their moral goals through political processes. They did not fail because politicians they trusted let them down, but because they trusted politics and not God. The only way to change America morally, he advised, was to persuade fellow Americans to behave morally, not legislate them into submission.

Thomas’ wisdom remains true. In this year of politics, discern carefully and vote wisely—graciously understanding fellow Christians may discern differently. Ultimately, however, rest your hope in God, not a president.

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

Baylor University counts 100,000 living alumni. Add to their ranks many more Texas Baptists who love their flagship institution and Texans who understand the school’s importance to the Southwest, as well as faculty and staff, plus 14,000 students. The “Baylor family” is enormous.

But the fate of Baylor University rests in the hands—and, more significantly, the hearts and minds—of just 21 people.

Baylor will rise or fall according to how the board of regents leads. Regents just fired President John Lilley for failing to “bring the Baylor family together.” No new president can direct the Baylor dissonance until the board orchestrates harmony. Bringing the Baylor family back together should be Job 1, because nothing else will matter if Baylor tears itself apart.

Any telling of the family tale omits some details, but here’s the short version of Baylor’s current calamity: The family dysfunction became painfully and publicly obvious during the administration of former President Robert Sloan and implementation of the Baylor 2012 long-range strategy adopted on his watch. As one insider noted: “There was no middle ground with Robert. You either loved him or hated him.” Ditto for 2012. The regents divided over Sloan and 2012, and the rest of the family went and did likewise.

Dysfunction took on a life of its own 

After Sloan’s departure three years ago, Baylor remained divided. Even casual observers could peg regents, faculty and active alumni as pro-Sloan/2012 or anti-Sloan/2012, or at least against the way 2012 was implemented. Lilley’s supporters and detractors can debate his strengths and weaknesses, but the fact is that by the time he arrived, the dysfunction had taken a life of its own. The new normal for the Baylor family is discord and division. (Thank goodness, the least-affected constituency is the student body.)

Now, the presidency is vacant again, and the focus for restoring healthy function to the Baylor family is back on the only people who can do the job—the regents.

Reportedly, they’re getting along better. Critics say that’s simply because one group outlasted another, and the voices of loyal opposition to 2012 have rotated off the board. Advocates say the board has grown closer together through two difficult presidencies. But the board’s ability to agree on something in a closed room is beside the point. Actually, it illustrates the point—they could celebrate the Lord’s Supper and sing “Blessed be the Tie” until Jesus comes back, but if they don’t get out and actively lead Baylor toward harmony and restoration, they’re failing Baylor.

Closed door needs to open 

The symbol of their meetings—a closed door—is a good place to start. They should open it. Obviously, legal contracts and some personnel situations need to be handled in private. But if Baylor is going to get better, then the regents need to lift the shroud of secrecy. They can start with their meetings.

But they must not stop there. The regents need to sponsor meaningful, respectful discussions among the entire Baylor family—about the future, about key issues that have caused division, about heritage and aspirations, about prospects for being the kind of school they can revere and look to with pride. They need to involve alumni, faculty, staff and students, but also donors, Texas Baptists and others from the state and community. Recent efforts to reach out to the Baylor Alumni Association and the Faculty Senate are a solid start.

Also, before another president arrives, Baylor needs to draft a new vision document. Baylor 2012 has served its purpose. This will take considerable time and effort, but Baylor won’t come together until it can share a vision that affirms, honors and embraces the whole family.

That’s a big task and difficult. But the regents should be up to it. They’ve been given Texas Baptists’ most prestigious trusteeship. They’re smart, successful leaders. They must lead Baylor to unity. It’s not just their job; it’s their duty.

For several days now, I’ve been carrying a note I wrote to myself. It says: “100% agreement not mandatory.”

I have no idea when I put down those words. The piece of paper is getting pretty ragged on the edges, so, I’ve obviously been toting it around for awhile, reading the message to myself every day. But I know why I wrote that note. I’m bone tired of the notion people have to agree completely, or else they’re adversaries.

Have you experienced this attitude? You disagree, and the person you’re talking to goes from zero to furious in about 0.046 seconds. It’s not like you attacked this person or said bad things about his mother. You just happened to disagree. And now you’re the enemy.

We probably see more of this behavior in years that are divisible by four. Presidential elections seem to bring predispositions toward partisanship out in people.

Tilt toward incivility 

Beyond election-year politics, this pattern reflects a broader tilt toward incivility. When we think clearly about disagreement, we recognize the “other” has reasons for believing. And when we think humbly about disagreement, we concede even we may be wrong.

Unfortunately, clarity and humility don’t surface that often, particularly in American discourse. Once, I illustrated this by describing the patterns of rhetoric and the belittle-to-win-an-argument tactics I hear on talk radio. Maybe I called it the “Rush Limbaughization of America.” But because I disagreed with some folks about the efficacy of talk radio and the contributions of radio hosts, some folks got really mad. Touché.

Sadly, congregations practice this kind of thinking all the time. Don’t believe it? Bring up the subject of worship music, and you’ll get an earful from partisans of “traditional” and “contemporary.” Sometimes, you’d think Jesus only likes one kind of music—never mind that neither the organ nor the guitar were invented when Jesus preached.

I'm guilty, too 

Full disclosure: My wife, Joanna, will vouch I’m inclined this way, too. We’re fixing dinner and talking about stuff, and she disagrees. If I don’t watch it, I’m raising my voice, as if practically shouting will force her to see the pure light of my reasoning. “I disagree, but you don’t have to get mad about it,” she says. And she’s right.

The tragedy of resorting to anger when we disagree manifests itself several ways:

• Anger prevents us from learning important lessons.

Baptists, of all people, ought to know this. We talk about “the priesthood of all believers” and affirm every individual has the privilege and responsibility to seek wisdom directly from God. The obvious corollary to this is that no individual is the sole owner and arbiter of all wisdom. If we listen instead of shout, if we stay calm and don’t get hot, we can reason and glean knowledge and wisdom from each other. And even when we still disagree, we benefit from understanding why we disagree and why the other person thinks as she does.

• When we refuse to listen, we dishonor the presence of Christ in others.

When we get hot and take a hard line solely to win an argument, we treat the other person as an object, not a child of God. But when we respond with dignity and respect—especially when we don’t agree—we affirm God’s hand in creating and guiding that person.

• When we treat our positions as absolute, we ignore the complexity and ambiguity of creation.

People who disagree with us aren’t necessarily totally wrong, and their disagreement doesn’t make them totally bad. Sometimes, we forget this. In so doing, we overlook the richness and diversity of humanity, which is a blessing from God.

You can think of other examples. But here’s the deal: “100% agreement not mandatory.” In fact, healthy, open, vibrant disagreement can be a blessing.

The “non-dogmatic” results from the latest Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life poll generated buzz and created controversy. But maybe they’re not as off-base as critics claim. And maybe the politicization of religion explains the reason why.

The Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey revealed most Americans take a “non-dogmatic approach” to their faith. Strong majorities of almost every faith group (Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only exceptions) indicated they agree that “many religions can lead to eternal life.” Even Southern Baptists, whose doctrinal statements and historic preaching have emphasized Christianity’s exclusive faith claim, tilt toward tolerance. Sixty-one percent of Southern Baptists said they agree that other religions can lead people to eternal life; only 33 percent said their faith is the sole path to salvation.

Justifiably, some critics have found fault with this particular Pew question. They have noted the question asks about many “religions,” and they have wondered whether that word confused participants. To a pollster, “religions” might differentiate between the world’s faith groups, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others. But to a Baptist, “religions” might mean other faith groups, such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and members of Assemblies of God and Churches of Christ.

So, perhaps 61 percent of Baptists don’t really believe Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus go to heaven. Maybe, when they’re feeling particularly ecumenical, they think their Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal and Church of Christ friends will walk the streets of gold.

Still, by any reckoning, 61 percent is a slew of Baptists. It’s hard to imagine so many of them misunderstood the question. Whatever the final percentage, we come back to the conclusion that many Baptists meant exactly what they told the pollsters: They think they’ll see Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Hindus and Buddhists in heaven.

Traditional Baptist thinking on this subject points to two New Testament passages: “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) and “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Baptists have interpreted these verses to guard Christianity’s exclusive faith claims.

But Baptists have been stronger on relationship than theology. We come by this naturally, because we emphasize our saving relationship with Jesus, not precise arguments for the historicity and theoligical validity of our faith. For example: How many of us learned to witness by countering arguments against faith with, “This is what Jesus has done for me”?

Since we are a relational people, it’s only natural that we extend those relationships to others. For more than 30 years, many Baptists have been building relationships upon common positions on political issues that have their grounding in faith perspectives. Abortion and homosexuality stand out, as do gambling, hunger and poverty.

Decades ago, church historian Bill Leonard saw this and predicted people of faith would disengage from denominations and coalesce around political issues on the conservative-liberal political spectrum. At the time, most people interpreted that as “people of Christian faith,” but politics being what it is, those coalitions broadened to include other faith groups with similar social and political perspectives.

Meanwhile, our communities have become more multicultural, and Baptists have formed friendships with people from all over the world, whose faiths are different, but whose values are similar.

And following the historical pattern, Baptist relationships may have overwhelmed Baptist theology.

Thank the Calvinists for one of the most thoughtfully provocative moments of the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting.

(Of course, if you’re a Calvinist, you’ll say: “No, thank God. That moment was preordained from before the foundation of the world.” Just a little theological humor.)

The moment happened while messengers considered the sixth of nine resolutions they passed this year. Resolution Six addressed “regenerate church membership and church member restoration.” It exhorted churches and pastors to “implement a plan to minister to, counsel and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture.”

But Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Fla., and a key leader among Calvinist—also called Reformed—Southern Baptists, suggested the resolution needed to be more direct and substantial.

Ascol asked messengers to amend the original resolution and to call on Southern Baptist churches “to repent of any failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in lovingly correcting wayward church members.” His amendment also urged denominational leaders “to support and encourage any church’s efforts to recover and implement this discipline of our Lord Jesus Christ … even if such efforts result in a reduction in the number of members that are recorded in those churches.”

Calvinism, or Reformed theology, takes its name from the 16th century reformer John Calvin. Its five “points” are brought to mind by the acrostic TULIP—representing total depravity of all humans, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints (or what Baptists often call “once saved, always saved”).

From its earliest decades, the Baptist movement has embraced both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Because contemporary Baptists focus so strongly on missions and Christ’s Great Commission to proclaim the gospel to “all nations,” most of them shy away from strict Calvinism. They can’t comprehend that God would “elect” or choose some people for salvation while also condemning others to hell even before they are born. As you might imagine, Baptists have argued over Calvinism for generations.

But Calvinism has been gaining favor with many Baptists, particularly young adults, for several years. Its most attractive feature is its unswerving belief in the sovereignty, or absolute power, of God. In such uncertain times, it’s not surprising that an emphasis on God’s timeless and ultimate power has found a following.

It’s also not surprising Calvinists would lead an emphasis on “regenerate church membership”—ensuring that church members have a vital, saving, personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. They would state it more precisely, but in essence they point to two facts: (a) if God is sovereign and Christ died for the church, then the church should take God’s power and Christ’s sacrifice seriously as it relates to its membership, and (b) if a person claims to have a saving relationship with God through the mediation of Christ, then he or she should live like it.

A potential danger of Ascol’s proposal is that Baptist Christians could tilt too much toward judgmentalism and fail to apply God’s grace. But given the fact Baptists can’t even find about half the members we count, and many of the ones we can find don’t live as if Christ has made a difference in their lives, judgment is a far lesser danger than the laxity of license.

If we love people whose names fill our church rolls but who never darken our church doors and who live like hell, we will draw up the courage to “lovingly correct” them. That’s difficult and uncomfortable. But the consequences are eternal.

“How could such a fine, first-rate organization fall so far so fast?” That’s the common refrain as folks talk about Texas Woman’s Missionary Union these days.

For 128 years, Woman’s Missionary Union has provided Texas Baptists with strong leadership in missions education, missions action and missions support. WMU paved the way for inspiring Texas Baptists to roll up our sleeves and get about the business of fulfilling Jesus’ Great Commission.

On an educational level, WMU has trained generations of children, girls and women about what being a “Great Commission Christian” really means. Thousands of Texas Baptists—women and men alike—first learned about missionaries and the priority of missions as Sunbeams and Mission Friends. The Lord only knows how many women first felt God’s tug on their heartstrings in GAs and Acteens. And countless churches have been strengthened by WMU’s leadership development.

A vital missions role

WMU also has made missions possible for the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The Mary Hill Davis Offering for Texas Missions has financed foundational missions programs, such as church starting and outreach to people of many ethnicities and languages. And it has provided the seed money for many of the BGCT’s greatest innovations, such as compassionate ways to reach vulnerable Texans and creative ways to reach new generations of Texans. Our convention, and the kingdom of God, would have been tremendously diminished were it not for the leadership of WMU and the liquidity of the Mary Hill Davis Offering.

Although leaders have been mum about the details, Texas WMU obviously is passing through one of the most difficult, tenuous periods in its history. Last fall, Executive Director-Treasurer Carolyn Porterfield summarily resigned. Last month, the WMU Executive Board summarily fired the interim executive, Nina Pinkston. And the method was ugly: She showed up at a staff retreat only to find the staff wasn’t coming. She called the office to learn she had been relieved of her duties, and they would ship her belongings to her. This was shoddy, unprofessional treatment of a respected former missionary who had labored to keep the ailing organization on its feet. These losses have been compounded by the resignations and early retirements of four longtime employees—Waunice Newton, Ruby Vargas, Cathy Gunnin and Judy Champion.

Former presidents respond

All this has caused Texas Baptists who love WMU to grieve and to ask, “How could such a fine, first-rate organization fall so far so fast?”

Texas WMU’s crisis has prompted response from two groups—all eight living former presidents, as well as 59 “friends of WMU of Texas.” Their concerns should be heeded.

The friends sent a letter to the WMU board of directors that says: “This esteemed organization seems to be moving in a direction contrary to her historic principles and practices. We are deeply disturbed and wonder how this could have happened.” The letter calls upon the WMU board to “put aside any reticence and consider your responsibilities as board members.” It also affirms the desire to “move ahead in truth and honor as ‘laborers together with God.’”

The former presidents have called for prayer for WMU, particularly for the board meeting June 16-17. The presidents also asked the board to consider hiring an experienced intentional interim.

Texas Baptists don’t have to be missiologists to see things are amiss in our iconic missions organization. We need to pray for Texas WMU.

In the meantime, the WMU board should follow the former presidents’ advice. The pattern of the past eight months indicates deep problems within Texas WMU. The organization needs to right itself before expecting a new executive director-treasurer to take up the mantle of leadership.

The next two years should be good for our souls.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas’ new executive director, Randel Everett, fired a double-barreled challenge during his installation service May 19. He called it Texas Hope 2010. And it calls for Texas Baptists to accomplish two enormous feats in just under two years:

Present the gospel to everybody in Texas in a way they will understand it. And make sure all Texans know where their next meal is coming from.

I like how this new guy thinks. These two concise goals embrace both Jesus’ Great Commission and his Great Commandment.

Of course, Texas Hope 2010 is a tall order in a state where 11 million residents do not affiliate with any church. It’s a huge task in a state with some of the highest poverty rates in the nation. How can we explain the message of Jesus in more than 100 languages, not to mention an infinite array of cultures? How can we ensure ongoing food distribution in some of the poorest counties in the country, not to mention cities bursting at the seams?

A Parodox

Here’s a paradox: The greatness of Texas Hope 2010 is its impossibility. We can’t do it. Not in our own strength, anyway.

Fortunately, (this sounds trite, but it’s true) God can. We’ll be blessed if God uses us to help all Texans know about Christ and forget about hunger.

The wonderful thing about the impossibility of Texas Hope 2010 is that it kicks our pride in the head. Let’s just admit we’re a prideful people. And we come by all that pride quite naturally.

First of all, Baptists tilt toward pride. It’s a corruption of one of our greatest strengths. We believe in the priesthood of all believers. We don’t need a priest or anybody else to mediate between ourselves and God. We know we can relate directly to God. This is wonderful knowledge. But taken to its extreme (which we’re prone to do), it leads to Lone Ranger spirituality. Even if we don’t say it, we tend to think, “Ain’t nobody but Jesus gonna tell me what to do.”

Second, as Texans, we’re proud of our pride. This is another corruption of a strength. In their purest forms, independence and self-reliance are virtues. But when we take them to their extremes, they lead to stubborn arrogance. We say, at least to ourselves: “Just me ’n Jesus. I don’t need anybody else.”

Being both Baptists and Texans, we overdose on pride. Could our recent malaise be a direct result of our pride? Has it been God’s punishment for our arrogance? Denomina-tionally, we stood up to a takeover movement and preserved historic Baptist principles and practice. Demographically, we set out to start churches and meet needs all over the state. Those are virtues. But when we started believing we did it, we made idols of our virtues and started worshipping ourselves and not God.

So, God has given us an assignment we know we can’t accomplish without help. What do we do?

• Get on our knees and pray. First, for forgiveness, repenting of our pride. Second, for God’s divine intervention and daily help in taking on a task we know we can’t accomplish on our own.

• Admit we need the help of others. If we think we can accomplish Texas Hope 2010 through more than a million Texas Baptists in 5,000 churches, we’ll slip on the banana peel of pride again. We’ve got to admit we need to collaborate with other Christians in other denominations. And, even more humbling, we need to admit we need the help of other Baptists in Texas. (Lord, forgive, then help us.)

• Roll up our sleeves and get busy. To accomplish Texas Hope 2010, we must live among and love the people we easily objectify—the poor and the stranger. As missionary/theologian D.T. Niles said, “Christianity is one beggar telling another beggar where to find Bread.” In humility, let us thank God for our Bread and bread as we work with others to make sure all Texans are fed, spiritually and physically.

You probably aren’t surprised to learn we get a lot of mail here at the Baptist Standard. For generations, Baptists have interpreted their foundational doctrines—soul competency and the priesthood of all believers—to embrace a corollary: the right to write a letter to the editor. That’s good. Soul competency and individual priesthood affirm God’s grace in the life of each Christian. So, we expect to learn from each other as grace works in our lives. And even when we read letters with which we disagree, at least we learn about others’ perspectives. At the Standard, we also value letters to the editor because we value our fellowship with the believers who write them.

An occupational hazard of being a newspaper editor is receiving mail from people who think you’re (a) dumb, (b) mistaken, (c) doing a crummy job, (d) preparing to roast in hell or (e) all of the above. Readers never see the majority of those letters, because people who set out to prove points (a) through (e) usually blow past the Standard’s 250-word limit before they even get warmed up. Then, by the time I offer to publish a condensed letter, they’ve calmed down and don’t feel compelled to condemn me to a fate worse than death.

While I hate to admit it, I’m lousy at predicting what will set readers off. (One exception: Anything about worship music generates tons of mail.) When I fret, nothing happens. Then, when an “innocuous” edition comes out, the letters pour.

Those are the weeks when friends offer sympathy, but I tell them I’ve got it easy compared to pastors. Readers can take me to task, but they live elsewhere, and I worship in the company of my friends. But a pastor gets criticism and then has to stand in the pulpit on Sunday and see the faces of the folks who are after him. Now, that’s a challenge, and it’s a pity more people don’t appreciate how hard it is.

Lately, I’ve been increasingly bothered by a trend in letters to the editor, church relationships and public discussion in general. We can’t disagree agreeably.

Theoretically, people should be able to express different opinions and still get along. In practice, however, cordial disagreement is the exception rather than the rule. Confronted with a contrary opinion, people go from placid to mad faster than you can shout, “You’re an idiot!”

Denies our heritage

Across society, this reflects a dangerous breakdown of civility. In the church, it undermines unity. Among Baptists, it denies our heritage.

Civility glues democracies together. That’s why our haste to anger and inability to remain civil imperils the nation. For example, witness the rampant partisanship of Congress. Incivility impedes our lawmakers’ ability to find solutions to our worst problems.

The night before he was crucified, Jesus prayed that the church, his followers, might be unified. Jesus clearly saw Christian unity as the outward testimony of his mission to express God’s love to a hurting world. His logic is simple: How will the world know God loves them if Christians can’t love each other? Yet when Christians fight each other and congregations split apart, the world doesn’t see a symbol of God’s love, but just another group whose practices are like worldly organizations, only more vicious. Our incivility belies our witness.

Value disagreement

Baptists, of all Christians, ought to value disagreement. Remember soul competency and the priesthood of all believers? For 399 years, Baptists have been champions of religious dissent—not, as some may think, because we like to argue, but because we believe God entitles each person to an opinion. And when we’re at our Baptist-best, even when we disagree, we listen for the voice of God in the one who vocalizes another opinion.

May we be free to speak, quick to hear and slow to judge. If Baptists lead the way to civil disagreement, our nation will be stronger, our churches healthier and our witness more credible.