I was born in a rural area of the northwestern part of Kenya inhabited by the pastoralist tribes known as Pokot.

Hostile cattle-rustling bandits from neighboring pastoralist tribes invaded my parents’ village, raiding all the livestock. This made my parents migrate from their ancestral and inherited land to a distant and safer location where they bought a piece of land and settled.

A deep dispute arose in our family, and I was driven out and settled at a nearby small town as a street boy. A year later, God sent his servant, a missionary, Rev. George Kendagor. I eventually was rescued and welcomed by the Kendagor family and invited to stay at their home. I encountered love through that family, and I encountered Jesus as my hope and Savior.

As I grew up, the government of Kenya came up with a peace approach that needed community participation. They formed peace committees from the grassroots level, and I was elected by my villagers to be among the committee.

Later, I was elected to the District Peace Committee that played an important role in developing peace policy. It also restored a hopeful relationship among pastoralist tribes and the government agencies that opened and paved the way for development in the villages.

Learning peacemaking

While working for peace, I met with Rev. Dr. Dan Buttry, a global peacemaker working for peace and justice at International Ministries—or the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. In 2013, he invited me to participate in conflict transformation training.

In this training, I received a lot of resources on biblical principles of peace that motivated my commitment in peacemaking work. I was able to facilitate mediation effectively among five tribes fighting over natural resources along administrative borders of each tribe.

I also have established peace committees in the conflicted areas, and I have trained them with the skills I received from the conflict transformation training. The peace committees are using the skills to pursue peace in their context.

I have facilitated peace dialogues and trained peace committees in Uganda and Zimbabwe, as well.

Because the training material is based on biblical principles, peace committees suggested the training needed to be persistent due to the dynamic nature of conflict.

We started weekly discipleship sessions. I introduced the salvation message into the training tool, which led to some peace committee members professing faith in Jesus Christ. Also, churches started under trees in the villages.

Leading village churches

As many men were converted from banditry to Christ, the churches increased, along with the need to have spiritual leadership for them. By God’s grace, those reformed warriors not only became attending members of church fellowships, but they also became vessels of God—pastors of those churches in the villages.

God is using them to reach other youth who still are active in cattle rustling and causing instability among elderly, women, children, persons with disabilities and all God’s creation.

Pastors with theological education don’t like to preach in these village churches under trees. They demand payment, but the church members cannot raise funds to pay pastors due to poverty in the area caused by drought, climate change and conflict in the area. This leaves the churches without educated pastors.

Currently, there are 78 local Baptist churches still gathering under trees. There are no buildings, because the poverty in the area doesn’t allow them to purchase construction materials. So, most of time, the services may be interrupted by the weather.

Equipping pastors

As I continued to minister alongside my Baptist brethren, the pastors unanimously asked me to provide leadership, electing me as the moderator of the West Pokot Region of the Kenya Baptist Convention. The region has 110 local Baptist churches.

Among 110 Baptist pastors, I am the only pastor with a diploma in theological studies. The rest are not trained. Some are seeking non-formal education and struggle a lot to pay the fees. This calls for starting a Bible school nearby to train and equip the pastors.

Rev. Buttry has visited and worked with me in my village and understands the financial challenge to fund the peacemaking ministry in villages with a high percentage of poverty. He introduced me to International Ministries, and in 2019, I was accepted as an associate missionary.

My wife and I now have three daughters. It has been really challenging to fund their education, to feed our family and to respond to church needs, such as purchasing construction materials or land.

Despite being raised in a vulnerable life, Jesus Christ has been my hope. He is the reason I keep ministering in these churches despite the challenges. He keeps me strengthened and encourages me to continue serving him in regional leadership by equipping pastors and mobilizing churches to continue evangelism and discipleship.

Boaz Keibarak is married to Sophia and blessed with three daughters: Hiemiah, Anastacia and Jannele. He is the pastor of Genesis Rock Baptist Church in Bendera, Kapenguria, Kenya. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

We all should denounce political violence unequivocally. In doing so, it is tempting to claim killing political leaders is un-American, to believe we are beyond such atrocities more common in developing nations and young democracies. History teaches this is not the case.

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump and killing of firefighter Corey Comperatore were tragic and reprehensible. A dark day in challenging times, indeed. I pray it does not prove to be a lit match thrown on the pile of dry kindling we’ve been stacking for years.

By many measures, we are as divided now as any time since the Civil War or the upheaval of the 1960s. If that’s true, then I’m afraid we may be in another American assassination season.

During those two eras, President Abraham Lincoln and President John F. Kennedy were killed. So, too, were Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers assassinated, among others. In times of division, the country I love tends to get violent.

Social scientists have been warning of this current threat. In a survey from a few years ago, the Public Religion Research Institute found 23 percent of Americans agreed “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

For Republicans, that number is 33 percent. Among Republicans who support Trump, that number rises to an astounding 41 percent.

‘Othering’ and political violence

As we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence, we like to claim the United States is the longest surviving democracy on earth, but this stretches the truth.

No woman could vote in the United States until just over 100 years ago. The Voting Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. It was less than 60 years ago that non-white Americans truly secured the right to vote. That legislation was possible only when the nation witnessed the political violence perpetrated against John Lewis and other marchers on “Bloody Sunday” in Selma.

We’re not even 60 years into our attempt at a true multiracial democracy. The outcome of this uniquely American experiment is yet to be determined.

We all carry responsibility in the outcome of this democratic experiment, and we hinder it when we “otherize” our fellow citizens. By labeling those with different convictions as enemies and threatening political opponents with jail time, we have fanned the flames of violence.

By judging a neighbor’s worth based on their party affiliation and curating our social media feeds to drown out contrary views, we’ve fed a hyper-partisan culture that leads to dehumanization.

Once we acknowledge our own role in this context of violence, we also should recognize the attempted assassination of a politician is only one type of political violence.

Other forms of political violence

Driving through the night more than 600 miles to an El Paso Walmart to target and kill 23 Saturday-morning shoppers in an anti-Latino attack based on the racist, anti-immigrant, great replacement theory is political violence.

Joining a Bible study at an historic Black church, then gunning down nine Christians because they were “taking over our country” is political violence.

The State of Texas executing the poor, the abused, the mentally ill, the addicted and those with inadequate counsel is political violence.

Snatching nursing migrant children from the arms of their mothers hoping to deter others from fleeing to the United States is political violence.

Putting razor wire-covered buoys in the Rio Grande and other fortifications on the border we know will injure migrants or drive them to cartel coyotes is political violence.

Sending an endless supply of bombs and weapons of war used to kill children and civilians in Gaza is political violence.

If the truth is ever going to set us free, we first must be humble enough to recognize we’re not so exceptional. Our self-delusions need to die before another sister or brother becomes a victim of political violence. Only by living the truth that we’re all created equal in the image of God will we ever douse the rising flames.

Stephen Reeves is executive director of Fellowship Southwest. This article is adapted from where it first appeared on the Fellowship Southwest blog.

(RNS)—State officials in the South have reignited debates recently over teaching religion in public schools, with Oklahoma’s superintendent of schools issuing a mandate for schools to teach the Bible and Louisiana passing a law requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments.

The push ultimately is aimed at prompting the newly conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a 1980 ruling on a similar law in Kentucky. Their argument is the Bible is a historical text as well as a religious one and should not be disqualified any more than founding documents that make references to God or a creator.

Referring to religious texts in terms of patriotism and history may prove effective in inserting them into classrooms. But the argument they are like any other aspect of American culture could backfire, paving the way for Christian texts and symbols actually to be treated like any other aspect of American culture.

As of now, Oklahoma’s rule stands, affecting all public schools in the state, though some districts are refusing to comply, and a federal judge delayed Louisiana’s measure after parents brought a lawsuit. Meanwhile, political analysts have portrayed both as culture war stunts—acts of political theater for a polarized election year.

Separation of church and state

But legal scholars have focused on the challenge these new directives pose for the separation of church and state, a policy contained in the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause forbidding the government from establishing a religion.

While warranted, this focus puts a lot of stock in the idea the boundaries between church and state, public and private, religious and secular are clear. And this is where the unintended consequences could arise for the religious conservatives pushing the directives.

Louisiana’s bill, for example, places the Ten Commandments alongside the Mayflower Compact and the Northwest Ordinance, historical documents that also mention God or religious liberty. Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma state superintendent who issued the directive, suggests teaching one is no different from teaching the other.

But placing these documents in public schools alongside other historic yet obsolete documents may make these biblical texts appear historical and obsolete, too.

A case study

One case that illustrates this point is Lynch v. Donnelly, a famous 1984 U.S. Supreme Court church-state case that concerned a Pawtucket, R.I., Nativity scene included in a Christmas display on town property in a busy shopping area.

The court ruled the Nativity scene, or crèche, could remain because it was deemed a “cultural” symbol that depicted the origins of a national holiday, calling it a “legitimate secular purpose.”

Justice Harry Blackmun, a Methodist who wrote the dissenting opinion, warned the Nativity being seen as a secular item alongside Santa and Rudolph would backfire: “The crèche has been relegated to the role of a neutral harbinger of the holiday season, useful for commercial purposes but devoid of any inherent meaning and incapable of enhancing the religious tenor of a display of which it is an integral part. The city has its victory—but it is a Pyrrhic one indeed.”

Blackmun explained how placing baby Jesus next to Santa Claus ultimately contributed to the former being seen as a frivolous holiday character, like the latter.

He also noted the culture war spirit of the mayor of Pawtucket: “Not only does the Court’s resolution of this controversy make light of our precedents, but also, ironically, the majority does an injustice to the crèche and the message it manifests. While certain persons, including the Mayor of Pawtucket, undertook a crusade to ‘keep Christ’ in Christmas, the Court today has declared that presence virtually irrelevant.”

Blackmun recognized the intent indeed was to inject what we might call a devotional or overtly religious message in the town square, even if that is not how it was defended.

In addition to alienating some non-Christians, Blackmun further explained, a municipally sponsored Nativity scene creates a situation in which devout Christians would feel “constrained in acknowledging [the Nativity’s] symbolic meaning.”

“Surely,” he concluded, “this is a misuse of a sacred symbol.”

Unintended consequences

The prohibition against visible symbols, in other words, may protect public schools, town squares and other “neutral” spaces from religious bias. But the prohibition also protected items seen as religious, constructing them as sacred and, in many ways, placing them beyond reproach or critique.

Mandating the use of biblical texts in public schools by presenting them as neutral, historical and secular likely will prove counterproductive to the goals of the officials intent on putting them in public schools.

By making the Ten Commandments and the Bible “merely historical” and part of “national culture,” these bills actually contribute to their secularization. The separation of church and state, on the other hand, creates ideas of sacred things that deserve to be set apart.

These states eventually may claim a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, but it could turn out to be an empty one.

Lauren Horn Griffin is assistant professor in the department of philosophy and religious studies and the department of history at Louisiana State University. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

From the beginning, God has worked through the church in Africa for theological development, mission growth and global influence. The church in Africa always has been integral to the global identity of the church and the global mission of God.

Both the Old and the New Testament incorporate Africa into its story. The church in Africa played an indispensable role in the development of the Bible, Christian identity and mission.

However, our understanding of Africa’s contribution to the Bible, Christian faith and Christian mission often has been underdeveloped, underappreciated and unarticulated.

God is at work in and through the church in Africa historically and today.

Africa in the Old Testament

Here are just a few highlights of Africa’s place in Scripture.

• Egypt is mentioned in the Old Testament 679 times in 602 different verses.

• The earliest definite mention of Africa is Genesis 10:6-7 as part of the sons of Noah via Ham.

• Hagar in the story of Abraham is African.

• Moses was trained and developed his leadership skills in Egypt.

• One of Moses’ wives was from Africa (Numbers 12:1).

• Queen of Sheba was possibly from Axum in northern Ethiopia (1 Kings 10).

• At various stages, people of Africa emerge as great warriors (2 Samuel 18:21, 2 Chronicles 12:3-4, 2 Chronicles 14:8-9, Jeremiah 49:9).

• Jeremiah the prophet was saved from death by an African who had migrated to Israel (Jeremiah 38:6-13).

• There are numerous prophecies about Africa, including Isaiah 18:1-2, Psalm 68:31, Psalm 87:4 and Zephaniah 3:10.

Africa in the Gospels

• Africa provided refuge for Joseph, Mary and Jesus for several years when they fled as refugees (Matthew 2).

• Simon of Cyrene—modern-day Libya—carried the cross for Jesus on the way to crucifixion (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26).

Jesus’ life is literally bracketed by the continent of Africa. It was Africa that welcomed Jesus as a baby and refugee. It was Africa that helped carry the cross. It was Africans present at those critical moments.

Africans ministered to Jesus at moments of his greatest need. Africans ministered when Jesus had been rejected by everyone else. The global church owes thanks to the African church for the way it served Jesus. And for the way it continues to serve Jesus today. Praise God for the African Church!

Africa in Acts

• Africans were present at Pentecost (Acts 2).

• One of the first recorded Gentile converts was from Africa (Acts 8).

• The first recorded missionaries—individuals who carried the gospel to Antioch, planted the first church and were among those first called Christians—included Africans (Acts 11:20).

Acts 13:1-3 reads: “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Africans were key teachers and leaders in the church in Antioch. Did you notice the order of the names? First, is Barnabas. Second, is Simeon called Niger. Niger is a Greek term literally meaning “dark in color” and referred to individuals from Africa.

Acts 13 is clear that African leadership was essential to the church where people were first called Christians and the church that became the first great sender of missionaries.

The third is Lucius of Cyrene. Not much is known about Lucius but as the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary notes: “An African was one of the first Christian evangelists and had an important part in the early days of the church of Antioch and in beginning the Christian world missions movement” (p. 1056).

Multicultural diversity is healthy. It is biblical. Two of the five leaders of this incredible church were from Africa. What does it mean to affirm that the first church where followers were called Christian was led by African believers?

Would you picture that moment? They were gathered in a room worshiping and praying. Paul and Barnabas kneel as the other three leaders put their hands on them. Two of the three who commissioned these first missionaries were African. Two of the three who remained as leaders and teachers of this great church where the term Christian first was used were African believers.

To the African church, thank you. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for commissioning these first missionaries.

I am grateful for African leadership who commissioned missionaries to carry the gospel to Europe. Thank you, to the church in Syria and to the church in Africa to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. God’s global mission calls for God’s global church.

Africa in the early church

The early churches in North Africa continued to play an important role in the early church. Just a few examples from the earliest years of the church after the New Testament include:

• Africans demonstrated faith in the face of persecution and death. It was Tertullian, an African, who first said, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” He also coined and defined the term “Trinity.”

• Africa produced influential theologians Origen, Athanasius, Tertullian and Augustine. In Origen, Africa produced the first systematic theology.

• Africa birthed the earliest forms of monasticism.

• The order of the New Testament as it is in our Bible was suggested in a letter by Athanasius, who was called “the Black Monk” because he was from Africa. An African suggested the order of the New Testament as it appears today.

• The Council of Carthage—modern day Tunisia—confirmed the order of the New Testament and closed the biblical canon. The African church was essential to the establishment of the Bible as the Bible.

• Augustine, an African, wrote the first spiritual autobiography; developed the doctrines of individual salvation, predestination, original sin, and separation of church and state; and was used by the Reformers to embrace and emphasize justification by faith.

The African Church is integral to the development of Christian theology, identity and mission. God’s global mission always has called for God’s global church.

Celebrating the church in Africa

Baptist World Alliance commits to continue to celebrate the life and influence of the church in Africa and, with thanksgiving, to emphasize directly the role and influence of Africa in the shaping of Christian identity, theology, mission and leadership in our teaching.

BWA commits to continue to learn from and stand with the Baptist church in Africa today.

BWA commits to continue to be a family that celebrates, embraces and prioritizes that God’s global mission always has called for a global church praying, learning and in leadership together.

Elijah Brown is general secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. This article is adapted from his opening remarks at the 2024 BWA annual gathering in Lagos, Nigeria.

I don’t always feel like following Jesus. So, am I supposed to fake the feeling?

When my present circumstances don’t look so good, and the news tells me the world’s a mess, am I faking it to keep a positive attitude and working toward positive goals?

Or am I declaring war on the dark side and all the negative voices trying to keep me down? The voices tell me: “Nothing can be done,” “It’s impossible,” “Don’t even try,” “The darkness has won.”

Following Jesus can feel like faking it, but it’s based on the truth of our new life in Christ.

Negative vs. positive

Negativity and fear are everywhere. They’re all around us. They’re on every newscaster’s lips. Fear is the coinage of the day. People live in a constant state of stress and fear, but I am determined to be positive in this negative, problem-filled world.

Some say it’s not realistic to focus on the positive when our present society seems like one big hellhole. It’s like sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to face the negative reality. But constantly reminding myself and others of every lousy, wrong thing in our lives and rubbing our noses in it won’t remedy anything.

I’m not hiding under my blankets, wishing when I wake up all will be well. I acknowledge the problems are here, and something needs to be done. But I’m making a positive declaration to focus on the positive and on solutions instead of all the negativity and problems.

Everyone has their own choices to make in life, but wouldn’t it be easier for people to choose to live positive, compassionate, victorious lives if they saw others—you and I—living above the stifling, suffocating negative smog as examples of the positive truths we say we believe?

The world is waiting for enthusiastic, positively charged true followers of Jesus to take the world’s stage and bring light to the darkened landscape.

Calling vs. feeling

My calling, like yours, is to be an instrument of God’s love on Earth. That’s it. Everything we do should be to this end—to embody God’s Spirit on Earth as it is in heaven. God is calling us to be positive, because his Spirit is positive, life-giving, encouraging, uplifting, healing, joyful, loving and transformative.

But you think, “I’m a bummer, because I read all these wonderful words of Jesus, but I don’t feel like doing them.”

Maybe you don’t feel positive or loving. Maybe you feel like a hypocrite for doing things you don’t feel like doing. Jesus’ words are the true, real you God wants you to embody on Earth, even when you don’t feel like it.

Don’t you think Jesus had days when he didn’t feel 100 percent, when he was tired from walking or didn’t get enough sleep? Don’t you think even Jesus had times when his flesh didn’t feel like healing the multitudes, when he would rather have gone somewhere to rest?

Living by faith

Everything Jesus did—and everything we do to manifest his love—is by faith. We don’t have to feel anything.

We don’t have to feel compassion to be compassionate. We don’t have to feel like loving our mate to help wash the dishes or feel like helping our children with their homework to help them. We don’t have to feel faith to have faith. We don’t have to feel like doing what’s right to do it.

Every day, a great deal of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel like doing it. It’s all by faith for us from now on. You praise and thank God by faith. You listen for his voice by faith. You pray by faith. You believe by faith.

We don’t measure what is true or false by how we feel. Our feelings and thoughts need to be brought into line with what Jesus taught, not the other way around.

Believing I am a new person in Christ is an act of pure faith, because often I don’t feel positive, loving or Christlike, but I step into the new me by faith that God’s promises are the new me I want to be.

Do you see it? Align yourself, your thoughts and actions with the new you—Christ in you, our hope of glory.

Robert Ritzenhein, after retiring from full-time missionary service, lives in Japan, organizing Christian programs for area rest homes, and is the yearly Santa at his city’s hospitals. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

“If you don’t share the gospel with someone, their blood is on your hands!”

I still remember that sermon like it was yesterday, even though it was almost 20 years ago. It’s branded into my brain as a memory that refuses to leave. I heard a pastor say those exact words while speaking about the importance of sharing the “good news,” but as a young child, I couldn’t help but feel like it was anything but.

Little did I know, it was these types of illustrations and metaphors that would cause me to develop a deeply harmful theology of God’s character—one that instilled in me a constant fear of condemnation and shame and cultivated a relationship with God that looked more like a child cowering from an abusive father than embracing a loving God.

I wish I could say these messages were isolated incidents, but it was far from that.

Fear-based evangelism

As part of their outreach strategies, the churches I attended in my youth often employed fear-based tactics regularly, such as Halloween “hell houses” designed to scare people into conversion. These practices both instilled a dread of damnation and encouraged children to spread fear among their peers.

Rather than sharing the “good news,” the bad-news approach led to confusion and concern among their parents when confronted with these dire warnings from their children when they got home.

The prophet Ezekiel warned, “If the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes someone’s life, that person’s life will be taken (Ezekiel 33:6).

Preachers frequently misapplied such biblical texts, suggesting that as God’s “watchmen,” if we fail to warn others of the coming judgment, God holds us accountable for their sins and, ultimately, their eternal fate.

Popular videos shown in youth groups, such as the “Letter from Hell” popularized by GodTube, propagated a viewpoint that placed the burden of one’s salvation squarely on the shoulders of friends or family members.

What we got wrong: Fear

The doom-and-gloom focus on evangelism has led many to a misunderstanding of Christianity’s core message. Such fear-based evangelistic methods make the goal to avoid hell rather than enter the communal relationship God has with his church.

The idea that Christianity is about avoiding a place reduces faith to a transaction aimed at escaping punishment, overlooking the opportunity to live a life anchored in God’s love.

At its heart, the gospel offers life enriched by the Holy Spirit. Life on this earth includes preparing for an eternity with God that transcends the mere avoidance of hell. Eternal life is about being reunited with the God of the universe here and now and looking forward to having a maximally intimate relationship with him in a perfected creation.

Unfortunately, the good intentions of church leaders in emphasizing evangelism fail to excuse the harmful methods employed. One way this fear-based view manifests in our churches is by emphasizing the “urgency” of the gospel, which, while well-intentioned, implies God needs human beings to accomplish his salvific work.

Scripture makes it clear salvation, from beginning to end, is a work of the Holy Spirit and a result of God’s grace and love for his creation. The responsibility for someone’s salvation rests on God’s shoulders rather than ours.

Instead, God invites us to participate in bearing witness to his redemptive plan without bearing the weight of the outcome. Francis Schaefer put it beautifully when he said: “We are not building God’s kingdom. He is building his kingdom—and we are praying for the privilege of being involved.”

We can get it right: Love

A love-focused approach to evangelism recognizes the unique journey of every human. Just as Jesus ministered to people from all walks of life, meeting them in the mess of everyday life, so too must modern evangelists adopt a posture of listening, empathy and patience.

Rather than wielding the gospel as a tool of judgment or coercion, believers must present Christ’s sacrifice as a gift of grace, an open invitation to explore the depths of God’s love without fear of rejection or condemnation.

The journey toward a healthier, more authentic evangelistic approach involves a deep, introspective understanding of the gospel’s true message. Such an understanding necessitates a move away from fear-based tactics and toward a model of evangelism rooted in love, relationship and the inherent value of everyone in the eyes of God.

How we get there

Re-educate. Education and discipleship play crucial roles in the fear-to-love paradigm shift. Believers need more than an understanding of the gospel’s core messages.

Relate. Christ-followers also need to gain the interpersonal skills necessary to engage in genuine, respectful conversations about faith.

By reclaiming the New Testament model of evangelism as relational and communal, Christians can foster communities that welcome questions, refuse to demonize doubt, and recognize the unique journey of faith for each person, marked by mutual support, learning and growth.

Adopt new metaphors. We must examine critically and challenge our cultural narratives that equate evangelism with conquest or coercion.

Instead of bearing the results-oriented nature of so many ministries today, we can focus on building relationships, leaving for God the preparation of souls to hear his message.

In embracing such a renewed vision for evangelism, the church can heal wounds inflicted by past abuses and misunderstandings.

As followers of Christ embody such an inclusive, relational approach to sharing their faith, they offer a compelling alternative to the narratives of fear and division that dominate much of our world today.

Through such a witness, the church can replace the image of a hell house with one of a lighthouse, serving as a beacon of hope, where inside a community exists where all can discover their identity and purpose as beloved children of God, and where the journey of faith becomes a shared adventure into the depths of divine love and grace.

Taylor Standridge is a Christian podcaster and producer who loves to help people understand who God is and how to live faithfully according to his goodness, grace and generosity. He is the production manager for FaithFi: Faith & Finance and holds a Master of Biblical and Theological Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I write today to express support and gratitude for the congregation and leaders of First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., considering their recent public dismissal from the Southern Baptist Convention.

First Baptist Alexandria has been a beacon of gospel ministry and a faithful congregation in the evangelical, global orthodox family for decades.

In the complex ministry environment of our nation’s capital, they also have not capitulated to the winds of progressive ideology as have many other “tall-steeple” churches, nor have they bowed the knee to country over kingdom in an effort to lift up party over the person of Jesus Christ.

They have served the kingdom faithfully both locally and globally and have been a catalyst for gospel expansion.

Gratitude for First Baptist Alexandria

I and the ministries I serve have benefited from their generosity of spirit. I can attest that thousands of people in North America have found new life in the gospel and a renewed engagement in the church family because of First Baptist Alexandria.

When the Lord opened the door to launch the Fresh Expressions movement in the United States nearly 15 years ago, First Baptist Alexandria was by our side. From 2012 to 2016, they hosted what would be foundational gatherings for our movement and set the course for gospel work that eventually would spill over into nearly 100 regional or national denominational families in North America.

They gave of their time, talents and treasures to seed that work, have done the same for others and will continue to do so in the days ahead.

I remember quite distinctly when the leadership of more than 30 denominational bodies gathered in 2016 to lay hands of blessing upon an evangelical charismatic Anglican, Bishop Graham Cray, who had been pivotal in working with us to develop Fresh Expressions work in America.

Afterward, someone remarked to me, “That kind of thing doesn’t happen in a typical Baptist church.”

Indeed, that is true of most. We owe a debt of gratitude to First Baptist Alexandria.

A vast fellowship

It is not surprising SBC messengers would oust First Baptist Alexandria, as doing so is consistent with the doctrinal stances and theological culture evident in the SBC.

After all, they made the same motion last year toward Rick Warren and Saddleback Church—other stalwarts of the global evangelical movement—for having a female teaching pastor who preaches roughly 25 percent of the time.

Now apart from the SBC, First Baptist Alexandria and churches like them need to know they are not alone.

In associations like the Ascent Movement, of which I am part, and other evangelical fellowships around the globe, there are thousands upon thousands of leaders and churches that support women in the life of church leadership in pastoral roles.

In fact, the Capetown Commitment of the Lausanne Movement, widely recognized as the global evangelical family of faith, makes room for such in their Confession of Faith and Call to Action.

In many parts of the globe, it is the movements that embrace the gifts and calling of women where the gospel is growing in power. FBC may have lost the SBC, but the truth is, they may be gaining much more.

My expectation is, in time, First Baptist Alexandria will experience growth in gospel vitality and power as a result of these circumstances.

A biblical witness

As was made clear in the public written response to the SBC, as well as Pastor Robert Stephens’ remarks during his opportunity to address the messengers in Indianapolis, the posture of First Baptist Alexandria is based on sound scriptural reasoning provided within the written witness of the Bible.

Throughout the world, the Holy Spirit clearly is blessing such approaches, and there is no “grievance” of the Spirit in taking such stands.

As I stated in reference to a person’s written response and Pastor Stephens’ remarks, “If you are going to go out, at least go out with good exegesis.”

In fact, it’s the same conservative interpretive method any of us who attended evangelical Bible colleges or seminaries were taught.

A few weeks ago, in response to Al Mohler’s continued perspective that the lifting up of women in ministry is a slippery slope into other progressive postures, Andy Miller III of Wesley Biblical Seminary—which holds to inerrancy—offered the perspective that if you consider the dialogue of Scripture instead of just the monologue of Scripture, you can see why solid evangelicals exegetically arrive at the support of women in ministry.

Or, as Julio Guarneri noted in a recent written update to the Baptist General Convention of Texas: “We do not believe the topic of women in ministry is a matter of scriptural authority. We believe it is an issue of scriptural interpretation.”

Women in ministry is not an issue such as current debates on human sexuality, where one clearly must import evidence into the text of Scripture. Scripture contains support for women leading in ministry, even if it does not contain such support in every circumstance.

This also is not a matter we should lay at the feet of the “autonomy of the local church.” Autonomy itself is a slippery slope and is a weak tie in binding a people together. After all, how compelling is a vision to “join one another” in “doing what you want?”

An opportune time

Applying nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory to the ouster of First Baptist Alexandria, as much as the SBC may wish for these exits to serve as a warning, they likely are to do the opposite.

Already, I am aware of more churches who will be more emboldened in their affirmation of women leaders.

I also suspect even some soft complementarians now will determine we are not in an age when we can afford to separate from fellow evangelicals over an issue many solid, Scripture-affirming leaders, theologians, missionaries and others around the evangelical world support.

For those of us coming from an SBC heritage of some kind, we are in an opportune moment of sorts. Saddleback may have signaled the beginning of this moment. First Baptist Alexandria has demonstrated the intensity of this moment.

Now is the time for those of us who believe women are called into ministry and those of us who believe this is a matter of scriptural interpretation to step into this moment.

Will we carry out the mission of God with only half the people of God fully engaged, or will we move forward, re-center the Great Commission and invite all those who are faithful to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ into carrying out the call of the gospel in a time when the need for the gospel to go forth and go deep is as important as ever?

Chris Backert serves as the senior director of Fresh Expressions North America and the Ascent Movement.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions against Palestine, widely regarded as profoundly anti-Christian, have ignited a critical reevaluation of the SBC’s theology and principles.

Despite the moral failure of forming in defense of slavery, the SBC grew to become the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, emphasizing evangelism, missionary work and biblical inerrancy. Historically, the SBC has shaped American religious and cultural life, advocating for various social and moral issues.

Their stance on Palestine is another moral failure.

Modern parallels of historical failures

Despite their longstanding support for Israel, in recent years, the SBC has intensified its pro-Israel stance, prioritizing it over Christian principles of justice, mercy and reconciliation. This shift is deeply troubling theologically.

Foundational to Baptist tradition are Jesus Christ’s teachings urging followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

The SBC’s unwavering support for Israel and Zionism mirrors their past backing of slavery, which they justified using biblical verses, thus contradicting core Christian principles. This stance neglects the plight of Palestinian Baptists and Christians, aligning with the SBC’s historical legacy of siding against justice.

During the Indianapolis convention, the SBC passed resolutions that starkly contrasted with their stated values. Of particular note was a resolution denouncing “anti-Israel activism” and affirming “solidarity with Israel.”

This highlights the SBC’s consistent pro-Israel stance over the years. By aligning with the Israeli government and settlers, the SBC continues to echo their rhetoric, potentially disregarding Palestinian aspirations for statehood and self-determination.

Theological error and ethical inconsistencies

These resolutions lack a biblical Christian perspective, condemning Hamas without addressing broader historical and geopolitical aspects. They fail to advocate for repentance, forgiveness and Christ-like reconciliation, rejecting “moral equivalence” and failing to acknowledge the suffering of all parties, particularly Palestinians.

True justice and lasting peace are found in Christ’s reconciling work, demanding humility, compassion and solidarity with the marginalized. The SBC’s resolutions contradict Jesus Christ’s radical teachings, lacking calls for enemy-love, forgiveness and nonviolent peacemaking that should define the church’s prophetic witness.

By uncritically affirming the just war tradition and endorsing the state’s right to wield the “sword,” the SBC conflates earthly nationalism with the kingdom of God.

Impact on Palestinian Christians

The SBC’s resolutions blatantly ignored Palestinian Christians and churches, callously neglecting them amid dire struggles against severe hardship, apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, terror, genocide and discrimination.

This deliberate abandonment begs the question: Why harbor such deep animosity toward them? This stance not only repeats historical injustices, but also disregards international law and human rights abuses.

Over the years, Israeli attacks on Gaza have resulted in significant damage to Christian sites and properties, including churches and schools. The Gaza Baptist Church and its library, for instance, have been bombed and damaged multiple times.

The SBC’s resolutions also conveniently ignore the plight of Palestinian hostages, many of whom are Christians, focusing on Israeli hostages while disregarding the thousands of Palestinians languishing in illegal detention and facing torture. This double standard undermines the SBC’s moral authority.

Reclaiming the true spirit of Baptist Christianity

The recent actions of the SBC betray Baptist principles. Historically, Baptist churches have had a complex and varied relationship with justice and resistance against injustice.

While Baptists have been strong advocates for religious freedom and, in many cases, social justice, they also have supported and justified oppressive systems, such as slavery and segregation.

This contradictory legacy makes the SBC’s fervent support for the Israeli government’s occupation of Palestine even more troubling, as it appears to repeat past mistakes of siding with power over the powerless. Labeling opposition to Israeli policies as “antisemitic” ignores the systematic dehumanization of the Semitic Palestinians.

To realign with Christian principles, the SBC must reconsider its recent resolutions. This requires advocating for a just solution that respects the rights of all parties, especially Palestinian Christians.

Future generations and global implications

The SBC risks alienating a younger, globally aware generation that is critical of injustice. Young Christians, especially students, are seeking communities that reflect values of justice and equality.

The SBC’s stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict may lead to declining membership as congregants look for authentic Christian communities. Supporting policies that perpetuate oppression and conflict not only undermines Christian moral authority but also harms interfaith relationships.

Baptist tradition demands advocating for all oppressed, regardless of nationality or religion. It is crucial for the SBC to remember being Baptist means championing the marginalized and oppressed. This commitment transcends politics and strikes at the core of our faith. The SBC must pursue a Christ-centered, prophetic response that goes beyond political expediency.

This authentic spirit of Baptist Christianity requires confronting the moral lapses of our leaders and reclaiming our prophetic voice. The future of our faith hinges on this moment, demanding decisive action.

We implore the SBC to reconsider this resolution and commit to sacrificial love, forgiveness and the pursuit of true peace.

How can the SBC possibly defend its alleged commitment to justice and Christian principles while shamelessly endorsing a stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that utterly betrays and abandons the suffering and rights of Palestinian Baptists and Christians?

When the SBC abandons its principles, siding with power over the powerless, what does it truly represent?

Jack Nassar is a Palestinian Christian based in Ramallah. He holds an MA in political communications from Goldsmiths University in London and possesses expertise across sectors, driving positive change. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

(RNS)—A lifelong Baptist in the Middle East, I have found myself in agreement with many of the resolutions coming out of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis this week.

The resolution on the integrity of church leaders, the importance of the separation of church and state, and the call on church organizations to walk in the light and refrain from nondisclosure agreements all strike me as Christlike, and I and others in my corner of the Baptist world would happily sign on without any problem.

But two of the resolutions Southern Baptists approved—one concerning the idea of just war and another titled “On Justice and Peace in the Aftermath of the October 7 attack on Israel”— not only are contradictory, but are disappointing and dismaying.

Just war

In the first resolution, the drafters justify the necessity of war for defensive reasons, correctly calling for “discrimination between combatants and civilians,” so that “civilians may not be deliberately targeted for attack.”

In addition, “war must be fought with proper proportionality and the scale of death and destruction must be proportional to the scale of peace and justice at stake in the conflict,” and “military personnel should adhere to the principle of military necessity.”

Given everything we have seen in the last eight months in Gaza and the West Bank, this resolution debunks any attempt at calling Israel’s military action just.

The Israeli government’s actions have resulted in the starvation of an entire population, as well as deliberate attacks on schools, humanitarian workers, ambulances and journalists. These clearly are not in sync with the above-mentioned conditions for just war.

Unjust war

More astounding in light of the just war resolution is the second resolution, whose drafters appear to have taken a chapter from the Israeli military playbook and applied it without seeking the counsel of fellow Christians or even fellow Baptists in the Middle East.

The resolution fails in what it says but more in what it fails to say. It ignores the larger context of the conflict, which has seen 75 years of refugee status without the right of return, 57 years of occupation and 17 years of an illegal siege of Gaza. It didn’t just start on Oct. 7, as the resolution seems to want us to think.

Since Oct. 7, more than 5,000 Palestinians, including Christian Palestinians, have been detained by Israel without charge or trial, yet Southern Baptists focused solely on the Israeli hostages.

The Israelis, meanwhile, have engaged in civilian hostage taking, administrative detention and indiscriminate destruction of homes, businesses, universities, hospitals and houses of worship. The Israeli offensive action has gone far beyond its initial defensive justification, killing thousands of innocent Palestinians and displacing hundreds of thousands of others.

Christians in Gaza

This suffering—all publicly available information—did not earn a single word of recognition from Southern Baptists, not even the attacks on Gaza’s Christians, which have resulted in the loss of 3 percent of their already tiny population.

The Baptist church in Gaza, established by Southern Baptist missionaries, has been destroyed by Israeli missiles. Palestinian Christians who have taken refuge in churches have been left to die without the ability to get medical treatment. At the very least, Southern Baptists in Indianapolis could have offered words of compassion and solidarity.

Anti-hate

But more disturbing than what was ignored are the Oct. 7 resolution’s claims about the rise of antisemitism—much of it, of course, properly antiwar-ism, anti-Israelism and anti-occupation-ism. It failed to mention the increase in hate speech and hateful crimes against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

Palestinian and pro-Palestinians have been bullied and fired from their jobs for expressing support for justice and a cease-fire, both in the Middle East and in the United States, where three Palestinian students, graduates of the Friends Quaker school in Ramallah, were shot at because they wore the Palestinian traditional kaffiyeh.

Southern Baptists apparently have swallowed the pro-Israeli narrative that protests at American universities were pro-Hamas, not anti-war. While some instigators made rare pro-Hamas comments, the protests were pro-peace and pro-cease-fire. There is nothing wrong with supporting the rights of Palestinians to self-determination.

Compassion needed

Most Christians in the Middle East ache with the pain of every death and destruction of any of our neighbors, whether Israeli or Palestinian. We hoped that, of all people, Christians in the United States would understand this pain. We hoped our fellow Christians would follow the Prophet Amos’ call for “justice to roll on like a river” and Micah’s call to all of us to “love mercy.”

Instead, our fellow Baptists’ words have poured salt on a deep wound. Showing compassion to Israelis killed and taken hostage on Oct. 7 is correct and biblical, but so is the need to show compassion to Palestinians who have suffered and continue to suffer. This one-sided resolution fails on all the tests of biblical principles and must be revisited.

Daoud Kuttab is a member of the Amman Baptist Church and publisher of Milhilard.org, a news site dedicated to the Christian community in Jordan and the Palestinian territories. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

We will try to answer questions posed by Eric Black, editor of the Baptist Standard, regarding our hope to add the Nicene Creed to our Baptist Faith and Message.

When one of our number mentioned adding the creed to the confession, we immediately said, “Yes!”

Let us share with you our heart for the glory of God.

‘Why this motion, and why now?’

Black asked, “Why this motion, and why now?”

We believe it is right, good and necessary to add the creed to our confession now. Next year is an important trifold anniversary.

The year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2025 marks the centenary of the Baptist Faith and Message, the quincentenary of the modern recovery of believers’ baptism, and the 1,700th anniversary of the initial formation of the Nicene Creed.

These three events remind us of the providential utility of the creed for two necessary activities—teaching the faith to believers and protecting the flock from false teachers.

What about Baptist heritage?

“What is your response to those who say Baptists do not descend from the Great Tradition? What of our Anabaptist heritage?” Black asked.

Heresy

First, in A.D. 325, long before the advent of Roman Catholicism and while believers’ baptism still was evident, bishops primarily from the East gathered at the Council of Nicaea to examine the teachings of Arius.

They found the heresy of Arianism so distorted the person of Jesus Christ and so undermined Christ’s work they were compelled to craft a memorable summary to remind believers of the biblical truths about our only Lord and Savior.

In affirmation of the prophecy of Paul that “heresies” or “factions” must arise to demonstrate who God’s “approved” teachers are (1 Corinthians 11:19), the battle to protect the hearts and minds of believers against those false teachers who diminish the one true God goes on.

Arianism, Marcellianism, and many other Trinitarian and Christological heresies and errors continue to assail the church. We see them in many forms today, including Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses, two groups chillingly adept at trapping untaught Southern Baptists in their webs.

Anabaptists

Second, in 1525, the first Anabaptists submitted their consciences to the lordship of Jesus Christ and began recovering the baptism of believers only. These precious men and women subsequently suffered exile, torture and death from Magisterial and Romanist authorities alike.

Some assume the Anabaptists were anti-credal because they excoriated the evil compulsion of conscience by confessional states. However, major early Anabaptist leaders like Balthasar Hubmaier, Leonhard Schiemer, Pilgram Marpeck and Peter Riedemann wrote commentaries on, developed lengthy confessions from and heartily affirmed the classical creeds.

Moreover, the three largest groups of Anabaptists—Swiss Brethren, Mennonites and Hutterites—were led to affirm classical theology in response to inroads made by Socinians—or Unitarians.

Hans de Ries—the Anabaptist leader upon whose confession John Smyth, the first English Baptist pastor, wrote an approving commentary—struggled long to bring Mennonite doctrine into orthodoxy.

The Anabaptist way of using the creeds to define doctrine should encourage Baptists who appreciate the Anabaptists to adopt the Nicene Creed.

Trinitarian

Third, Southern Baptists always have confessed the biblical doctrine of the Trinity expressed in the Nicene Creed.

In 1925, the Baptist Faith and Message article on God summarized the robust, biblical trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed. The article was amended in 2000 explicitly to exclude modalism.

After that amendment, the article, while still orthodox and accurate, still was “most underdeveloped,” according to “the dean of Southern Baptist theologians” James Leo Garrett Jr., of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Baylor University.

This underdevelopment sadly enabled some to “tamper with the Trinity,” in the language of Millard Erickson, also of Baylor and Southwestern.

The Baptist Faith and Message certainly is true in what it outlines about the Holy Trinity and the one Lord Jesus Christ, but we no longer can presuppose the underlying biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology are understood rightly.

Southern Baptists should make explicit our robust affirmations of the Trinity and the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must teach the fullness of the Christian faith and warn against errors and heresies that contradict essential dogmas of the Christian faith, both current and future.

‘Will you still make the motion?’

In light of pushback since the proposed motion was reported, “will you still make the motion? If so, will the motion be modified in any way?” Black asked.

Yes

We have seen no substantive proposal that would prompt us to alter our plans. Some have proposed we follow a different process than what the Southern Baptist Convention has used previously. Some may intend thereby to lock up the creed in a committee.

Others are innocently and understandably nervous about a hasty adoption of a change in the confession. We hope to put the minds of the latter group at ease.

The process of democracy always is dynamic, and that naturally makes us uncomfortable. However, Baptists must never surrender democratic governance, and we have yet to adopt a different process.

If we follow the current rules fairly and in good spirit, we believe God will guide the Southern Baptist Convention providentially to the truth we should all affirm. We believe Southern Baptists ultimately will agree that long-established Christian orthodoxy is absolutely necessary.

Ascribing to our one Lord God the honor, dignity and majesty true believers owe him is worth going through the Baptist process of democratic deliberation. Baptists have shown they will respond with appropriate urgency on issues of importance. There can be no more important issue than the untrammeled and unqualified lordship of Christ.

Modified motion?

As for proposals to modify the motion, we would remind our brothers and sisters the Nicene Creed reached its primary form almost 2,000 years ago. As such, we believe there should be no modification whatsoever of the substance of this creed, the most widely accepted confession of the faith in Christian history.

It is wise to heed the witness of the Spirit in the voices of true believers across space and time, as they honored and exposited Holy Scripture.

At the request of ecumenically minded Baptist scholars, we have placed brackets around the Filioque—Latin: “and the Son.” This will encourage Baptists to do their own homework in the Bible and arrive at their own conclusions about the exact form of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit (See John 15:26). These brackets also indicate we believe both the Eastern and Western editions of the Nicene Creed are acceptable.

We also decided to use the lower-case of “virgin” in reference to Mary so as to accommodate the consciences of our brethren concerned about the message it might send about popular Romanism.

While we accepted those two modifications, we believe neither is substantive.

‘No creed but the Bible’

We recognize some are arguing, “we have no creed but the Bible.” While that sentiment certainly is evident in Southern Baptist history, it always has been a minority position that belongs more with the Campbellites than with the Baptists.

Baptists who use this admittedly pithy motto typically are arguing for sola scriptura or suprema scriptura. We affirm their claim. But Liberals, Unitarians, Subordinationists and Kenoticists have used the same motto, hoping thereby to accord themselves opportunity to modify the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We deny their claim.

Yes, you should be alarmed at how some recently have begun treating the confession as a creed in a legalistic manner. Southern Baptists wisely draw a distinction between creeds and confessions. “Creeds” describe central teachings of the universal Christian faith. “Confessions” are much broader and distinguish various Christian individuals, churches and groups.

On the one hand, Southern Baptists must reaffirm the Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message as a good description of the purpose and limits of our confession.

In accordance with the Preamble’s traditional five qualifications, we believe confessions are variable, multiple and non-binding upon churches or individuals, except where a church or association deems a particular doctrine necessary for membership.

We are Baptist Confessionalists, as McKinion and Yarnell recently argued in Baptist Press. Ross Shelton shared helpful thoughts on these matters in the Baptist Standard in October 2019.

On the other hand, we contend the confession now should provide a definition of its most basic teachings through defining its existing terminology of “creeds.”

We believe the Nicene Creed defines well two of the nonnegotiable dogmas of the Christian faith—the Trinity and Christology. We would encourage individuals, churches and associations to examine these two teachings of the creed to see if they indeed are true and significant. We believe you will agree they are. We view the creed as right, good and necessary toward that end.

Confessional and creedal

Let’s preserve our Baptist distinctives by being confessional with our confessions. And let’s preserve Christian orthodoxy by being credal with the creed. We honor your liberty of conscience to come to your own conclusions about both the confession and the creed.

We would encourage all those interested in the biblical basis of the Nicene Creed to review the video recently posted at the Center for Baptist Renewal by Matthew Emerson of Oklahoma Baptist University and Luke Stamps of Anderson University. Four Southern Baptist scholars therein demonstrate the biblical basis for the Nicene Creed in its structure, articles and clauses.

We believe you will agree with us and with prominent Baptist leaders like W.A. Criswell, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas. He defined “creed” as “an expression of doctrinal belief, what the Bible teaches.” Criswell also praised publication of the Nicene Creed: “Now isn’t that a magnificent statement to be universally published as the orthodox faith?” Amen, pastor.

For the glory of Christ

We are passionate for the glory of Christ. We are convicted that the Father wants us to proclaim and defend the honor of his Son, our one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Alas, we have seen Jesus Christ diminished by new forms of the ancient Greek heresies of Arianism and Marcellianism and by the modern German error of Kenoticism. These teachings distort the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Lord.

We are orthodox Christians. We believe in God the Father. And we believe in Jesus Christ. And we believe in the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is our “one Lord.” He is not a second lord with subordinate authority to the Father. He is “God from God” and “true God from true God.”

Maintaining the ontological unity and simplicity of God, we believe the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.” He became man, born of a virgin. He died on the cross, and on the third day, he arose from the dead. This is the gospel that saves all who will believe.

Christ then ascended to the divine throne. He will return one day to judge everyone, and “his kingdom shall have no end.”

Maintaining the ontological unity and simplicity of God, we also believe the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father [and the Son].

Mission

Furthermore, Baptists have been a people compelled by mission. There is no meaningful mission apart from the confession “Jesus is Lord.”

We believe the Nicene Creed gives us language to help us when someone on the field asks, “Who is Jesus?”

A casual reading of the creed convinces of the undiminished lordship of Jesus Christ in a way that has been expressible in contemporary language for these 1,700 years. We borrow from the creed even when we do not officially acknowledge the creed.

Like many who have walked the faithful road of Christian confession before us, we always seek to define, articulate and defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints in the Scriptures.

How can we all help ensure we are not reading the Bible like one of the ancient heresies mentioned earlier or some other contemporary heretical group? The Nicene Creed is a faithful articulation of the faith once delivered and indicates how our reading of the text is aligned with its meaning so we may exalt Jesus Christ.

Baptists are not a sect within Christianity. We, in our time, seek to make a meaningful contribution congruent with faithful Christian teaching. Reinforcing our confession with the Nicene Creed carries us further toward a meaningful contribution.

We invite everyone to proclaim the Lord by voting for every motion that will bring the Nicene Creed into our confession and by voting against any substantive modification of the creed itself.

The Nicene Creed is a right, good and just way to glorify Jesus Christ as Lord. It can be used as an effective instrument to teach the true faith and to push back heresy and error, not only now, but far into future generations.

Adoption of the Nicene Creed will demonstrate to a watching world the most important issue for Southern Baptists is not human affairs, nor human glory, but the glory of God alone. Let’s adopt the Nicene Creed, for the glory of Christ.

Andrew Brown is senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Starkville, Miss. Stephen Lorance is pastor of leadership development at Two Cities Church in Winston-Salem, N.C. Steven McKinion is professor of theology and patristic studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Malcolm Yarnell is research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and teaching pastor at Lakeside Baptist Church in Granbury. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the authors.

Dear college freshmen:

A recent opinion article characterized your move to college as exile. I reject that characterization.

Exile is used to remove autonomy from a person—a neutering of their power or influence. College is the opposite. This is where you gain autonomy and stretch your power and influence. Or you don’t.

Most of you are entering a stage of your life saturated with new freedoms and autonomy. You’ve made a lot of choices so far in your life, but brace yourself. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

You’re about to open a menu of choices wider than you’ve ever experienced before. This is what makes college and emerging adulthood so fantastic. And you will get to—and have to—experience the consequences of those choices to a degree you’ve never experienced before. This, too, is what makes college and emerging adulthood so fantastic.

The gateway to this new, critical phase of life is simultaneously sad, scary, fun, exciting, memorable, traumatic, fulfilling … everything, because it’s life to a new degree. It involves every feeling available. And it should. Because while you will make some good choices, you’re also going to make some bad choices. And you sense that. And it’s good.

Growing in autonomy

The worst thing for you to do over the next few years is to avoid choosing. Ironically, that avoidance itself is a choice.

You’re going to hear a lot about forming life habits as you leave home. One of the most important habits to start forming is the habit of being intentional in your actions.

Choose deliberately. Own the consequences of your choices. Don’t avoid either. Don’t be someone to whom things happen, a person whose influence and power is limited by choices other people make for them.

If college feels exilic, take a look at your experience and your choices, or lack of them. More often than not, that feeling will stem from not making a choice, not from making the wrong choice. Reassert yourself and your Self.

The island you’re about to find yourself on is not an exile that will diminish your autonomy, but a new land where it will be amplified.

Mindy Ward is a licensed professional counselor and a licensed marriage and family therapist specializing in preteen, adolescent and young adult therapy. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

The Baylor board of regents voted May 17 to amend the university’s longstanding mission statement.

The traditional formulation of “Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana” now will include “Pro Mundo.”

The university’s president, Linda Livingstone, praised the change in this way: “Now that Baylor has risen to a Christian Research 1 university, we have an opportunity to shine God’s light around the world and serve others in even more significant ways.”

She went on to argue Baylor “must prepare [students] to lead now and into the future in an ever-changing global environment.”

At first glance, this change might seem laudable or, at the least, unimportant. A deeper reflection, though, will show why the change is misguided for two reasons.

Baylor’s always been globally minded

The first is Baylor always has been oriented toward forming students in the tradition of Christian service that knows no national boundaries.

Baylor’s mission statement reads as follows: “The mission of Baylor University is to educate men and women for worldwide Christian leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment within a caring community.”

Even more notable is the university’s long tradition of turning out, not just missionaries and clergy, but civil servants, leaders in education and servant-hearted business leaders.

I grew up in Waco and attended Baylor from 2006 to 2010. During my years as a Baylor student, the Christian ideals of service, humility and self-reflection permeated classrooms and the larger campus environment.

Baylor has done more to form my spiritual life, personal character and professional ethos than any other organization in which I was formed.

After leaving Baylor, I went on to earn degrees from two other universities and now have taught at several more. These institutions vary in size, region and mission, but none of them has the missional coherence of Baylor.

Baylor, like all institutions, has plenty to improve on, but its innate sense of mission is one of its strong suits.

Baylor should maintain its particularity

The second, and more important, reason the motto update is misguided is it obscures the particulars that make Baylor unique.

Baylor should serve the world, yes, but it cannot do it in a generic way. Baylor is a Baptist and Texas university, animated by the particular strengths and weaknesses that entails.

In the same way each person should serve his or her community by using God-given gifts as well as limitations, each institution of higher education should look to carry out the thing it is best suited to accomplish.

Baylor is many things: The oldest university in Texas, the foremost Baptist university in the world, and a medium-sized, family-like community in Central Texas. It is from those particularities, not in spite of them, that Baylor’s service to the world flows.

Baylor’s shifting focus

In recent years, Baylor, like many universities, has made the decision to prioritize standing in national and conventional metrics over and against emphasizing its distinctive identity. The university’s administration has made big pushes to achieve “Research 1 (R1)” status to increase external grant funding and to focus more and more on athletic success.

A “Research 1” university is one the Carnegie Foundation recognizes as having “very high research activity.” The designation is given to universities that meet a set of quantitative criteria in areas such as type and amount of research, external grants and Ph.D. degrees earned.

There are arguments as to how each of these things can benefit Baylor, but none of them touch the soul of the Baylor family.

Just as, for example, the University of Texas owes a primary debt of service to the people of the State of Texas, Baylor first ought to concern itself with the well-being of the Baptist tradition, Texas and the United States, and its own students, faculty and alumni. Baylor cannot be, and should not try to be, everything to everyone.

What makes Baylor distinct

It is not just our unique customs that make Baylor what it is—the homecoming parade, the fondness for our live bears or the nostalgia we associate with Dr Pepper hour. These are symptoms, not drivers, of the intense attachment Baylor people feel for our university.

Baylor can only achieve its most important goals insofar as it maintains its particular communal ethos. The reason so many of us—graduates, employees and alumni by choice—love Baylor so dearly is because it formed us in a way and in a style no other university could have done.

Baylor ought not isolate itself from the broader world of higher education. And Baylor people should not think we are the only community with something special to offer the world.

Being a good citizen and a respectable participant in wider society, though, does not depend on reducing and obscuring what makes us special. On the contrary, the more Baylor is itself and is comfortable being itself, the more good it will do to those it owes—the church, Texas, America and, yes, the world.

The ‘Immortal Message’

In 1931, as he was dying, then-Baylor president Samuel Palmer Brooks penned a letter to the graduating class. He addressed this message, soon to become famous among Baylor’s people, as the “Immortal Message.”

The culmination of the message goes like this: “Build upon the foundations here the great school of which I have dreamed, so that she may touch and mold the lives of future generations and help to fit them for life here and hereafter. … To you I hand the torch.”

During my Baylor days, I worked summers as a student orientation leader. One of my bosses then was fond of coaching us this way: “When we talk with prospective students, we need to put our best foot forward, but we need to make sure it is our foot, Baylor’s foot.”

To President Livingstone and the Baylor Board of Regents, I respectfully request we ground our globe-facing service firmly in the specifics that make Baylor the one-of-a-kind place it has been. Build upon these foundations, not just a great school, but the great school Baylor can be.

John Kitch II is a 2010 graduate of Baylor University and a lecturer in Texas State University’s Department of Political Science. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.