People who know me well know that I enjoy politics. I like to read op/ed. columns. I like to watch the discussions on shows like Hardball, Meet the Press, etc. I am a politics junkie.
I am also proud to be a Democrat. Yes, there are real Christians in the Democratic party. In fact, all during the 1980s when it seemed like every Christian in America had become a part of the Republican Party and joined the Reagan "revolution," I held out and refused to participate. I always believed that the Republican Party leadership manipulated millions of good Christian people into voting for them and played on the basic ignorance of many people in America about how our nation was founded, what the founders were really like, and how our nation works today. I also think they played on the race issue to pull many southern Democrats into the Republican Party, the so-called "southern strategy first used by Nixon. But, that is another blog!
I am following the election of 2008 very closely. I believe that for the good of the nation the Democrats need to win this election. I have been supporting John Edwards to get the nomination. I still believe he is the "real deal," and as a Christian I am very interested in his populist message and his desire to elevate the working poor in our nation to give them opportunity. That is the American dream. That is also Jesus-like. I like John Edwards.
I also like Barak Obama a lot. I think he is inspiring. I think he has a great message of change, a desire to move the country beyond the cut-throat politics of the last 30 years into a new era. He is the closest thing to Bobby Kennedy (who was shot in 68 when I was only 9) that has come along in my lifetime. He gives speeches that give me goose bumps and inspires me to see America for the good that it can be.
Hillary Clinton is also a good candidate. She is tough, perhaps tougher than her husband Bill. He has taken the best of the right-wing warriors and absorbed it all to emerge stronger. If she is the nominee she will be a force to reckon with and if the Republicans think she is an easy mark for them to defeat, they'd better re-evaluate things.
My real hope for the Democratic Party though is for none of these three to get the nomination. I would like to see a vigorous debate through the primary season with no one getting the clear majority of delegates which would lead to a brokered convention. Then, I would like to see Al Gore come into the picture, unify the party and get the nomination. He may be the only person who can unify the party right now because just about every Democrat I hang around with has a basic suspicion that Al Gore really won the 2000 presidential election. I think he would be a formidible candidate.
Who knows what will happen. It is fun to watch. It is also good to see that even many Evangelical Christians are starting to move beyond their basic social concerns relating to abortion and gay marriage to some social issues that they can join hands with more progressive Christians on such as the environment and global warming, poverty, peace, death penalty, and a host of other things.
It is truly an interesting time in the life of our nation!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sunday, November 04, 2007
All Saints Day
Today is being celebrated by many Christians as All Saints Day. I think a very appropriate passage of Scripture to commemorate this day is from Hebrews 11, the famous "roll call of faith." However, since Hebrews 11 was originally written in the late first century, there have been 2000 years of Christian history. Therefore, at the risk of leaving out someone's favorite, I submit here my addendum to the "roll call of faith" from Hebrews 11.
By faith, two Christian women named Perpetua and Felicitas were able to stand strong and firm in their faith even to the point of martyrdom.
By faith, Athanasius of Alexandria became a theological giant against the heresy of Arianism at the Council of Nicea.
By faith, Augustine of Hippo, the great theologian of the west was able to overcome his base temptations, live a life devoted exclusively to service to his Lord and give Western theology its primary focus for the next millennium.
By faith, John Chrysostom was able to stand in the high altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, look the Empress Eudoxia in the eye and publicly censure her for her resistance to his attempts at moral reform in Constantinople and the Eastern Church.
By faith, Thomas Aquinas was able to withstand the rigors of the Dominican monastic order and rise to academic prominence as Roman Catholicism’s greatest theologian and philosopher.
By faith, Martin Luther, a terrified, neurotic, sometimes irascible German monk, was able to experience the grace and forgiveness of God and initiate a movement which forever changed the face of Christianity.
By faith, Balthasar Hubmaier found strength to face a gruesome martyr’s death because of his convictions concerning believer’s baptism and liberty of conscience.
By faith, Thomas Helwys was able to lead a little band of brand new Baptists from Amsterdam back to England and courageously tell King James I that he was a mere mortal and had no authority over the conscience of another human being.
By faith, Roger Williams was able to endure banishment from Massachusetts Bay and establish the colony of Rhode Island, the first colony in the New World exclusively devoted to complete religious freedom and separation of Church and State.
By faith, John Wesley was able to breathe vitality into the Church of England because of his insistence that true religion must be of the heart, not the mind only.
By faith, Jonathan Edwards was able to give theological understanding to the Great Awakening.
By faith, John Leland, an uneducated Baptist preacher, was able to lead the Baptists of Virginia to pressure James Madison into supporting a Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States which includes as its first statement a guarantee of complete freedom of religion and ultimately the doctrine of separation of Church and state.
By faith, William Carey was able to leave the comfort of England for the rigors of the mission field in India because of his unwavering conviction that the people of India needed to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
By faith, Lottie Moon expended her little body in the cause of Southern Baptist missions and gave birth to a passion for missions among Baptists in the South that remains with us today.
By faith, Walter Rauschenbusch was able to minister to the poor and down-trodden in Hell’s Kitchen and then awaken the social conscience of the Church.
By faith, William J. Seymour was able to feel the wind of the Spirit move and found the Azusa Street mission from which the Pentecostal movement sprang.
By faith, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was able to challenge the evil of the Nazi regime.
By faith, Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that our great nation would live up to its creed that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. . . and that one day the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”
By faith, Archbishop Oscar Romero was able to challenge an oppressive regime in El Salvador and bring empowerment to the poor of Latin America through a theology of Liberation.
Every believer has their personal "roll call of faith," those individuals whose names may not have made the history books, but who nevertheless serve as inspiration to us in our Christian lives. My grandmothers would be on that list. Dr. W. R. Estep, my church history professor in seminary would be on that list. Who is on your list?
By faith, two Christian women named Perpetua and Felicitas were able to stand strong and firm in their faith even to the point of martyrdom.
By faith, Athanasius of Alexandria became a theological giant against the heresy of Arianism at the Council of Nicea.
By faith, Augustine of Hippo, the great theologian of the west was able to overcome his base temptations, live a life devoted exclusively to service to his Lord and give Western theology its primary focus for the next millennium.
By faith, John Chrysostom was able to stand in the high altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, look the Empress Eudoxia in the eye and publicly censure her for her resistance to his attempts at moral reform in Constantinople and the Eastern Church.
By faith, Thomas Aquinas was able to withstand the rigors of the Dominican monastic order and rise to academic prominence as Roman Catholicism’s greatest theologian and philosopher.
By faith, Martin Luther, a terrified, neurotic, sometimes irascible German monk, was able to experience the grace and forgiveness of God and initiate a movement which forever changed the face of Christianity.
By faith, Balthasar Hubmaier found strength to face a gruesome martyr’s death because of his convictions concerning believer’s baptism and liberty of conscience.
By faith, Thomas Helwys was able to lead a little band of brand new Baptists from Amsterdam back to England and courageously tell King James I that he was a mere mortal and had no authority over the conscience of another human being.
By faith, Roger Williams was able to endure banishment from Massachusetts Bay and establish the colony of Rhode Island, the first colony in the New World exclusively devoted to complete religious freedom and separation of Church and State.
By faith, John Wesley was able to breathe vitality into the Church of England because of his insistence that true religion must be of the heart, not the mind only.
By faith, Jonathan Edwards was able to give theological understanding to the Great Awakening.
By faith, John Leland, an uneducated Baptist preacher, was able to lead the Baptists of Virginia to pressure James Madison into supporting a Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States which includes as its first statement a guarantee of complete freedom of religion and ultimately the doctrine of separation of Church and state.
By faith, William Carey was able to leave the comfort of England for the rigors of the mission field in India because of his unwavering conviction that the people of India needed to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
By faith, Lottie Moon expended her little body in the cause of Southern Baptist missions and gave birth to a passion for missions among Baptists in the South that remains with us today.
By faith, Walter Rauschenbusch was able to minister to the poor and down-trodden in Hell’s Kitchen and then awaken the social conscience of the Church.
By faith, William J. Seymour was able to feel the wind of the Spirit move and found the Azusa Street mission from which the Pentecostal movement sprang.
By faith, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was able to challenge the evil of the Nazi regime.
By faith, Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream that our great nation would live up to its creed that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. . . and that one day the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”
By faith, Archbishop Oscar Romero was able to challenge an oppressive regime in El Salvador and bring empowerment to the poor of Latin America through a theology of Liberation.
Every believer has their personal "roll call of faith," those individuals whose names may not have made the history books, but who nevertheless serve as inspiration to us in our Christian lives. My grandmothers would be on that list. Dr. W. R. Estep, my church history professor in seminary would be on that list. Who is on your list?
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Gideons Can't Pass Out Bibles in Harnett County Schools
The enclosed story from the Dunn Daily Record describes a decision reached by Harnett County Schools Superintendent Dan Honeycutt. There has been a long-standing practice of allowing the Gideons to distribute bibles in the elementary schools here in Harnett County. Someone complained to the ACLU which contacted Honeycutt to inform him that the practice was illegal. In short, the Harnett County School system has now been notified that the practice of passing out religious literature in its public schools is a violation of federal law. The case, a 1998 Supreme Court case (Peck v. the Upshur County Board of Education) determined that it was a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment for schools to allow Bibles to be passed out to the students. It constitutes an endorsement of religion, a clear violation of decades of case law argued before both conservative and liberal supreme courts. If Harnett County Schools wanted to fight this, it would eventually have to be carried to the U.S. Supreme Court, a very lengthy, expensive process. It would have drained millions away from our school district in a time when we have so many very critical needs, not the least of which is over-crowding and the need for new schools.
This is a no-brainer but there will probably be a loud, vocal outcry from citizens of Harnett County who disagree with this. Most of them will not understand the intent of the First Amendment, that while guaranteeing freedom of religion, it also guarantees freedom from religion. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are two clauses here: (1) the "free exercise" clause that says that in America, people should be free to practice their faith unhindered by government intrusion; and (2) the "establishment" clause which says that the government (in this case the school system) cannot establish religion or formally endorse one religion over another.
Fifty years ago, the vast majority of children in public schools in the South were reared in Christian homes and attended church regularly. No problem with these kinds of things. No complaints. But, during recent decades, even in rural areas, the religious landscape has changed drastically. Now, even in Harnett County, it is not unusual to find neighborhoods with children from many different religious traditions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a good number of children growing up in homes that are expressly non-religious. The reasoning behind these legal opinions that have remained fairly consistent over the last 4 decades is that if one religious tradition (in this case Christian) is allowed to distribute their literature, it is a discrimination against those other religious groups.
One may say, "Well, Christians are in the majority and the majority rules." Majority rules is certainly the case in elections. However, when it comes to the Bill of Rights that is certainly not the case. The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the rights and voice of the minority opinion. The Founders were concerned with tyranny by the majority and wisely included the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to allow for the minority voice always to have an equal place at the table.
But, there is an even more important issue here. Where is the best place for religious instruction to take place anyway? The logical answer should be in the home. Quite frankly, I don't want public schools teaching my children religion or even influencing them in religious matters, unless it is perhaps a course on world religions which is taught from an objective point of view. In short, there is a fine line between teaching religion and indoctrination. I know this because I teach religion for a living. So, I'd rather the public schools teach my children reading, math, science, social studies, health and p.e. etc. and leave the religious instruction to our home and family.
So, really, while there will be dismay on the part of many citizens in Harnett County. This is a no-brainer and I applaud our superintendent for making this call.
http://www.dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=91678&TM=58017.65
This is a no-brainer but there will probably be a loud, vocal outcry from citizens of Harnett County who disagree with this. Most of them will not understand the intent of the First Amendment, that while guaranteeing freedom of religion, it also guarantees freedom from religion. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are two clauses here: (1) the "free exercise" clause that says that in America, people should be free to practice their faith unhindered by government intrusion; and (2) the "establishment" clause which says that the government (in this case the school system) cannot establish religion or formally endorse one religion over another.
Fifty years ago, the vast majority of children in public schools in the South were reared in Christian homes and attended church regularly. No problem with these kinds of things. No complaints. But, during recent decades, even in rural areas, the religious landscape has changed drastically. Now, even in Harnett County, it is not unusual to find neighborhoods with children from many different religious traditions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a good number of children growing up in homes that are expressly non-religious. The reasoning behind these legal opinions that have remained fairly consistent over the last 4 decades is that if one religious tradition (in this case Christian) is allowed to distribute their literature, it is a discrimination against those other religious groups.
One may say, "Well, Christians are in the majority and the majority rules." Majority rules is certainly the case in elections. However, when it comes to the Bill of Rights that is certainly not the case. The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the rights and voice of the minority opinion. The Founders were concerned with tyranny by the majority and wisely included the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to allow for the minority voice always to have an equal place at the table.
But, there is an even more important issue here. Where is the best place for religious instruction to take place anyway? The logical answer should be in the home. Quite frankly, I don't want public schools teaching my children religion or even influencing them in religious matters, unless it is perhaps a course on world religions which is taught from an objective point of view. In short, there is a fine line between teaching religion and indoctrination. I know this because I teach religion for a living. So, I'd rather the public schools teach my children reading, math, science, social studies, health and p.e. etc. and leave the religious instruction to our home and family.
So, really, while there will be dismay on the part of many citizens in Harnett County. This is a no-brainer and I applaud our superintendent for making this call.
http://www.dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=91678&TM=58017.65
Monday, August 06, 2007
Rest in Peace Dr. Wiggins
Baptists in the South who read ABP News and particularly those in North Carolina who read the Biblical Recorder, no doubt heard of the death last week of Dr. Norman Adrian Wiggins, the Chancellor of Campbell University. Dr. Wiggins had been the president of the university from 1967-2003. He retired from the presidency and was named chancellor in 2003 because of his battle with cancer, which finally took him after a valiant struggle.
If you want to read more about Dr. Wiggins, you can find the story on the Campbell University website at http://www.campbell.edu/.
If you want to read a good analysis of his funeral service yesterday, see this site:
http://dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=89557
I am grateful to Dr. Wiggins for several things. First, he was president of Campbell University in 1994 when I was hired to teach in the Religion Department. I am grateful that he had enough trust in me to allow me to stand in the classroom and do what I sincerely love to do: teach college students about religion. Then, in 1999 he had enough confidence in me to approve my promotion to chairman of the Religion Department. Finally, even though Dr. Wiggins was very conservative theologically and politically, he had a very strong sense of academic freedom.
Dr. Wiggins was always kind to me and cordial whenever I saw him around campus. But there is one story about Dr. Wiggins that I will forever appreciate. During my first or second year (I can't remember now), when I was just getting my feet wet as a religion professor, I encountered a problem that many religion professors at Baptist colleges and universities have to deal with. Several students got it in their minds that I was too "liberal" in my theology and didn't belong as a professor at Campbell. One of the students made an appointment with Dr. Wiggins to discuss me. Of course, I was not invited to the meeting, but a friend of mine, our campus minister at the time, was present.
The conversation went something like this:
The student lodged his complaint about my theology and teaching with Dr. Wiggins. Dr. Wiggins responded by asking the student if he was currently in my class or had had me for the class in the past. The student responded that he had not. Dr. Wiggins then inquired about whether the student had ever sat down with me to talk with me about these concerns. The student responded that he had not. Dr. Wiggins then asked the student how he knew that I believed and taught such things. The student responded that he had a few friends that were in my class that were talking about me. Dr. Wiggins then said, "you mean that you have not personally heard Dr. Jonas teach those things and have not personally talked with him about your concerns?" The student said, "No." Dr. Wiggins then said, "Son, do you know what slander is?"
This was all told to me by my campus minister friend. And, I will always appreciate Dr. Wiggins' defense of me. He could have responded to the student's concern in another way. But, he chose to trust me and defend me.
Rest in peace Dr. Wiggins. Campbell is going to miss you!
If you want to read more about Dr. Wiggins, you can find the story on the Campbell University website at http://www.campbell.edu/.
If you want to read a good analysis of his funeral service yesterday, see this site:
http://dunndailyrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=89557
I am grateful to Dr. Wiggins for several things. First, he was president of Campbell University in 1994 when I was hired to teach in the Religion Department. I am grateful that he had enough trust in me to allow me to stand in the classroom and do what I sincerely love to do: teach college students about religion. Then, in 1999 he had enough confidence in me to approve my promotion to chairman of the Religion Department. Finally, even though Dr. Wiggins was very conservative theologically and politically, he had a very strong sense of academic freedom.
Dr. Wiggins was always kind to me and cordial whenever I saw him around campus. But there is one story about Dr. Wiggins that I will forever appreciate. During my first or second year (I can't remember now), when I was just getting my feet wet as a religion professor, I encountered a problem that many religion professors at Baptist colleges and universities have to deal with. Several students got it in their minds that I was too "liberal" in my theology and didn't belong as a professor at Campbell. One of the students made an appointment with Dr. Wiggins to discuss me. Of course, I was not invited to the meeting, but a friend of mine, our campus minister at the time, was present.
The conversation went something like this:
The student lodged his complaint about my theology and teaching with Dr. Wiggins. Dr. Wiggins responded by asking the student if he was currently in my class or had had me for the class in the past. The student responded that he had not. Dr. Wiggins then inquired about whether the student had ever sat down with me to talk with me about these concerns. The student responded that he had not. Dr. Wiggins then asked the student how he knew that I believed and taught such things. The student responded that he had a few friends that were in my class that were talking about me. Dr. Wiggins then said, "you mean that you have not personally heard Dr. Jonas teach those things and have not personally talked with him about your concerns?" The student said, "No." Dr. Wiggins then said, "Son, do you know what slander is?"
This was all told to me by my campus minister friend. And, I will always appreciate Dr. Wiggins' defense of me. He could have responded to the student's concern in another way. But, he chose to trust me and defend me.
Rest in peace Dr. Wiggins. Campbell is going to miss you!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Prayers for the Hokies
I have been in shock over what happened Monday morning at Virginia Tech. Being a professor on a college campus makes this tragedy even more frightening for me and my colleagues. This could have happened anywhere. In fact, we've had some scares over the last few years (one episode with me personally), always dealt with well by our campus and administration here at Campbell University. Nevertheless, we have all been just a little bit "jumpy" this week.
As I have processed this though, there are four thoughts that I have:
(1) How in the world was this troubled young man able to purchase two handguns and the ammunition for them? I know, he didn't violate any laws. That's precisely my point. Why can the N.R.A. at least not support some kind of national registry and at least a 15 day waiting period with requisite background checks before allowing someone to purchase a firearm? We all know that we live in a world with some people who do not need to own guns. And that has to be balanced with the law-abiding citizen who wants to purchase a firearm for hunting or even for protection. Could there not be some type of balance here? It would seem to me that this would be reasonable.
Related to that, unless I am mistaken, the shooter at Virginia Tech was not a U.S. citizen. He was a permanent resident alien. Should there not be again a federal law that would require all people who want to purchase a firearm to prove U.S. citizenship? Would that not be prudent, especially in a post-911 world?
(2) Why was the shooter still a student at Virginia Tech given all that has come out recently about his psychological condition? There was a 2005 court ruling which determined that he was a potential threat. And, there were faculty members and students who several times sounded the alarm and raised red flags about him. Was there not some procedure in place for removing him from the student body before it ever came to this? Did someone "drop the ball" here?
(3) Why did NBC feel that it needed to broadcast the "Cho Manifesto" to the nation yesterday? Oh, I know. They had a "scoop." They had something none of the other news agencies had and they knew they'd have a ratings winner. So, they promoted it all afternoon yesterday and finally broadcast those disturbing photographs and video yesterday evening. But, I fail to see how any of that really added to the story. I fail to see how any of that was journalism. No reporter went out there and "got" the story. It was a package that came to them that no other news agency had. All that was accomplished was to allow a troubled mass murderer to wreak havoc once again on grieving family members and the entire Virginia Tech community. NBC got it right with Imus (although I suspect that the decision to fire Imus was motivated more by financial issues rather than ethics) but made a serious mistake yesterday.
(4) Finally, I have a student here at Campbell University whose sister is a student at Virginia Tech. She was supposed to have been in that infamous building for class on Monday morning, but as it turned out, she overslept and missed class that morning. However, her two suitemates were both killed. Please keep this young woman in your prayers.
Also, I receive an email from a man named Brent Cloyd each week. He is a used theological books salesman. On Monday afternoon I received an email from him (which went to his entire list) requesting prayer for his niece, Austin Cloyd. She was a student at Virginia Tech. He said that his brother had not been able to raise her on the phone or via email and she was not admitted to any of the hospitals. They were fearing the worst. Finally, I got a follow-up email from him on Tuesday that they had confirmation that she was one of the victims that had been killed. Please pray for the family of Austin Cloyd.
At 11:00 this morning the tower bells on our campus tolled 32 times as we all observed a moment of silence for the victims and their families. I was struck by how long it took for the bell to ring 32 times. It was truly an unimaginable loss for the family members.
As I have processed this though, there are four thoughts that I have:
(1) How in the world was this troubled young man able to purchase two handguns and the ammunition for them? I know, he didn't violate any laws. That's precisely my point. Why can the N.R.A. at least not support some kind of national registry and at least a 15 day waiting period with requisite background checks before allowing someone to purchase a firearm? We all know that we live in a world with some people who do not need to own guns. And that has to be balanced with the law-abiding citizen who wants to purchase a firearm for hunting or even for protection. Could there not be some type of balance here? It would seem to me that this would be reasonable.
Related to that, unless I am mistaken, the shooter at Virginia Tech was not a U.S. citizen. He was a permanent resident alien. Should there not be again a federal law that would require all people who want to purchase a firearm to prove U.S. citizenship? Would that not be prudent, especially in a post-911 world?
(2) Why was the shooter still a student at Virginia Tech given all that has come out recently about his psychological condition? There was a 2005 court ruling which determined that he was a potential threat. And, there were faculty members and students who several times sounded the alarm and raised red flags about him. Was there not some procedure in place for removing him from the student body before it ever came to this? Did someone "drop the ball" here?
(3) Why did NBC feel that it needed to broadcast the "Cho Manifesto" to the nation yesterday? Oh, I know. They had a "scoop." They had something none of the other news agencies had and they knew they'd have a ratings winner. So, they promoted it all afternoon yesterday and finally broadcast those disturbing photographs and video yesterday evening. But, I fail to see how any of that really added to the story. I fail to see how any of that was journalism. No reporter went out there and "got" the story. It was a package that came to them that no other news agency had. All that was accomplished was to allow a troubled mass murderer to wreak havoc once again on grieving family members and the entire Virginia Tech community. NBC got it right with Imus (although I suspect that the decision to fire Imus was motivated more by financial issues rather than ethics) but made a serious mistake yesterday.
(4) Finally, I have a student here at Campbell University whose sister is a student at Virginia Tech. She was supposed to have been in that infamous building for class on Monday morning, but as it turned out, she overslept and missed class that morning. However, her two suitemates were both killed. Please keep this young woman in your prayers.
Also, I receive an email from a man named Brent Cloyd each week. He is a used theological books salesman. On Monday afternoon I received an email from him (which went to his entire list) requesting prayer for his niece, Austin Cloyd. She was a student at Virginia Tech. He said that his brother had not been able to raise her on the phone or via email and she was not admitted to any of the hospitals. They were fearing the worst. Finally, I got a follow-up email from him on Tuesday that they had confirmation that she was one of the victims that had been killed. Please pray for the family of Austin Cloyd.
At 11:00 this morning the tower bells on our campus tolled 32 times as we all observed a moment of silence for the victims and their families. I was struck by how long it took for the bell to ring 32 times. It was truly an unimaginable loss for the family members.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Don Imus' Troubles
I have never been a fan of Don Imus. I don't like his show. I particularly have disagreed with some of his political points of view in the past. I don't like the way he makes fun of people. In short, I confess that I simply do not like him. However, the fact that I don't like him gives me no reason to call for his removal from the airwaves. Like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both radio talk-show hosts with whom I vehemently disagree, Imus has every right in the world under the first amendment to have a show on the public airwaves and to say anything he wants. I am an ardent defender of the first amendment. I believe freedom of speech is the bedrock freedom of our society in America. This includes everything from political disagreeements to calling political leaders various names in mocking humor.
However, I also believe that freedom of speech entails a certain level of responsibility. If you are speaking to an audience of millions, you need to show some wisdom not only in what you say but also in how you say it. If you are going to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences if people get hurt in the rush to get out.
Which brings me back to Don Imus. On his show last Wednesday morning, he made fun of the Rutgers University Women's basketball team by saying first:
"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ... ."
He then followed up that comment with: "That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that."
Finally, his producer Bernard McGuirk said, made reference to a Spike Lee movie and characterized the game as being between the "jigaboos and the wannabees."
Here's where the consequences come in. This is nothing short of hate-filled, racist speech. It is not tolerated except in the very sleaziest of places in our society such as Klan meetings, and back room conversations in the South (or North for that matter). And, so I believe that Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk ought to be summarily fired for this outburst. Other radio talk show hosts have been fired for less. I don't care how popular Imus is. I don't care how much money he makes for CBS Radio. I believe these comments are totally unacceptable for the public airwaves.
For a complete video of the episode last wednesday see this link:
http://www.wnbc.com/video/11537836/index.html
However, I also believe that freedom of speech entails a certain level of responsibility. If you are speaking to an audience of millions, you need to show some wisdom not only in what you say but also in how you say it. If you are going to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences if people get hurt in the rush to get out.
Which brings me back to Don Imus. On his show last Wednesday morning, he made fun of the Rutgers University Women's basketball team by saying first:
"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ... ."
He then followed up that comment with: "That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that."
Finally, his producer Bernard McGuirk said, made reference to a Spike Lee movie and characterized the game as being between the "jigaboos and the wannabees."
Here's where the consequences come in. This is nothing short of hate-filled, racist speech. It is not tolerated except in the very sleaziest of places in our society such as Klan meetings, and back room conversations in the South (or North for that matter). And, so I believe that Don Imus and Bernard McGuirk ought to be summarily fired for this outburst. Other radio talk show hosts have been fired for less. I don't care how popular Imus is. I don't care how much money he makes for CBS Radio. I believe these comments are totally unacceptable for the public airwaves.
For a complete video of the episode last wednesday see this link:
http://www.wnbc.com/video/11537836/index.html
Monday, April 02, 2007
Mega Churches and Shady Finances
If you are a member of a church which does not fully disclose all financial information, you perhaps ought to be suspicious. This has been an on-going dispute at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN recently with a group in the church demanding financial and other records in light of several scandals which have erupted in the congregation surrounding the successor to Adrian Rogers, Steve Gaines. You can read about Bellevue's woes here: http://savingbellevue.com/
Now, here's another story about still another mega-church whose pastor refuses to disclose how he's spending the church's money. Church member beware. Just because a flashy, smooth-talking person claims to have a "call from God," that does not entitle that person to no accountability. Pastors are accountable. In an episcopal system of church governement, they are accountable to the bishop. In a congregational form of church government, they are accountable to the membership of the local church. Hold them accountable!!!
The story below is from: www. Ethicsdaily.com
Shell Games and Secrecy Keith Herron04-02-07
When The Kansas City Star published an investigative story a few weeks ago about the secretive financial oversight of one of the Baptist mega-churches in the area, it was as if a bomb went off in the community.
The news story reported that several hundred members had left the First Family Church of Overland Park, Kan., in the last few years because of the church's refusal to provide members with financial reports of the church income and expenses and the enforced secrecy surrounding the salaries and benefits of the pastor and those family members who are paid staff members.
Accountability issues also involved the broken promises of how funds raised to fund one capital campaign were apparently used to pay for another campaign, while other funds raised for particular projects were either mysteriously delayed or never spent for their stated purpose. Additionally, false explanations were given to the church about how a land deal was consummated according to court records. The members have left over their inability to get answers to their questions about these matters.
Pastor Jerry Johnston exercises tight control over financial disclosure policies by hiding behind the claim that all church financial records are accountable to a board of trustees. According to the story, a lawyer listed in church corporation papers as a board member acknowledged he hadn't been to a board meeting in years, didn't know he was a board member and hadn't attended the church in years.
Former members of a building committee for a recent project left the church out of frustration in obtaining financial reports in order to apply for loan approval to fund the project. They were repeatedly denied the reports and in the end, Johnston covered the loan himself. It is unknown whether he utilized the financial resources of others or underwrote the loan himself. The details are unknown to the members of the church. Within weeks, the entire building committee resigned. It should be noted that Johnston disagreed with the facts of the new story on this point. "Respectfully, I disagree," he said about these accusations.
Members are not given access for the salaries or benefits given to the pastor and staff. Complaints criticize the exorbitant life styles of the pastor and his family listing expensive cars, homes, clothing and the use of an exclusive and high-priced American Express card. Johnston has recently hired a public relations specialist from Dallas to handle all responses to the news stories.
The pastor responded defensively with the warning a few weeks before the story broke that the congregation should expect adversaries to attack them and their ministry. "Whenever God's work is being built, Satan sends opponents, and he energizes opponents," Johnston said. "Beware of Satan as he speaks through different people."
Johnston was apparently referring to the upcoming news story implying that the reporter, a member of another large church in the area, had an ulterior motive to hurt the credibility of the church and its pastor in order to benefit her own church.
The news story also highlighted the duplicity of claims the pastor has a doctoral degree. Johnston uses "Dr. Jerry Johnston" publicly and in all church publications and media, but in fact he does not have such a degree other than the honorary doctorate received when invited by Jerry Falwell to preach the baccalaureate service at Liberty University in 1998.
Johnston was a high school dropout from the Christian high school he attended in Kansas City in the 1970s. He later passed the general equivalency degree but has not earned college or graduate degrees beyond that. He claims he will graduate this spring with a bachelor's degree in biblical studies from the Midwestern Baptist College (SBC), the undergraduate program of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City.
While the letters to the editor in The Kansas City Star have been numerous and polarized, it's clear the issue of trust and integrity are central to the story. Many have defended Johnston and the First Family Church as being the victim of a scathing news story that was unfair in light of all the good the church has done in the community while others have voiced their opposition to the strange need for absolute control of such matters.
The news report on First Family's secretive control of their finances has created a community-wide conversation on the issues of trust, disclosure and integrity. In a follow-up article on this issue, a number of local pastors and congregations were asked about their practices regarding financial accountability.
The majority of responses were openly counter to the practices of Johnston at First Family. Nodell Dennis, director of missions for the Blue River-Kansas City Baptist Association said, "The first thing I tell pastors is 'Don't touch the money.'" By that he meant the church should hold itself responsible for creating a system of accountability where the funds are appropriately protected and spent according to a budget system that's open to all members for approval and regular review. Such an open system would create a safe barrier between the minister and the money.
The open accountability of a church's financial reports are a form of sacred trust. Some call it a "covenant" between church members and God that is mutually shared between all members, including the pastor and other ministers.
Dan Busby, vice-president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, says the best way to engender trust in a congregation is to be open about its money. "If there isn't that basic appropriate transparency, then people in and out of the congregation will tend to believe that something is being hidden, whether it is or not," he said.
Churches cannot be healthy where secrets abound and refusing to answer the hard questions has the appearance of being its own answer.
Keith D. Herron is senior pastor at Holmeswood Baptist Church in Kansas City, Mo.
Now, here's another story about still another mega-church whose pastor refuses to disclose how he's spending the church's money. Church member beware. Just because a flashy, smooth-talking person claims to have a "call from God," that does not entitle that person to no accountability. Pastors are accountable. In an episcopal system of church governement, they are accountable to the bishop. In a congregational form of church government, they are accountable to the membership of the local church. Hold them accountable!!!
The story below is from: www. Ethicsdaily.com
Shell Games and Secrecy Keith Herron04-02-07
When The Kansas City Star published an investigative story a few weeks ago about the secretive financial oversight of one of the Baptist mega-churches in the area, it was as if a bomb went off in the community.
The news story reported that several hundred members had left the First Family Church of Overland Park, Kan., in the last few years because of the church's refusal to provide members with financial reports of the church income and expenses and the enforced secrecy surrounding the salaries and benefits of the pastor and those family members who are paid staff members.
Accountability issues also involved the broken promises of how funds raised to fund one capital campaign were apparently used to pay for another campaign, while other funds raised for particular projects were either mysteriously delayed or never spent for their stated purpose. Additionally, false explanations were given to the church about how a land deal was consummated according to court records. The members have left over their inability to get answers to their questions about these matters.
Pastor Jerry Johnston exercises tight control over financial disclosure policies by hiding behind the claim that all church financial records are accountable to a board of trustees. According to the story, a lawyer listed in church corporation papers as a board member acknowledged he hadn't been to a board meeting in years, didn't know he was a board member and hadn't attended the church in years.
Former members of a building committee for a recent project left the church out of frustration in obtaining financial reports in order to apply for loan approval to fund the project. They were repeatedly denied the reports and in the end, Johnston covered the loan himself. It is unknown whether he utilized the financial resources of others or underwrote the loan himself. The details are unknown to the members of the church. Within weeks, the entire building committee resigned. It should be noted that Johnston disagreed with the facts of the new story on this point. "Respectfully, I disagree," he said about these accusations.
Members are not given access for the salaries or benefits given to the pastor and staff. Complaints criticize the exorbitant life styles of the pastor and his family listing expensive cars, homes, clothing and the use of an exclusive and high-priced American Express card. Johnston has recently hired a public relations specialist from Dallas to handle all responses to the news stories.
The pastor responded defensively with the warning a few weeks before the story broke that the congregation should expect adversaries to attack them and their ministry. "Whenever God's work is being built, Satan sends opponents, and he energizes opponents," Johnston said. "Beware of Satan as he speaks through different people."
Johnston was apparently referring to the upcoming news story implying that the reporter, a member of another large church in the area, had an ulterior motive to hurt the credibility of the church and its pastor in order to benefit her own church.
The news story also highlighted the duplicity of claims the pastor has a doctoral degree. Johnston uses "Dr. Jerry Johnston" publicly and in all church publications and media, but in fact he does not have such a degree other than the honorary doctorate received when invited by Jerry Falwell to preach the baccalaureate service at Liberty University in 1998.
Johnston was a high school dropout from the Christian high school he attended in Kansas City in the 1970s. He later passed the general equivalency degree but has not earned college or graduate degrees beyond that. He claims he will graduate this spring with a bachelor's degree in biblical studies from the Midwestern Baptist College (SBC), the undergraduate program of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City.
While the letters to the editor in The Kansas City Star have been numerous and polarized, it's clear the issue of trust and integrity are central to the story. Many have defended Johnston and the First Family Church as being the victim of a scathing news story that was unfair in light of all the good the church has done in the community while others have voiced their opposition to the strange need for absolute control of such matters.
The news report on First Family's secretive control of their finances has created a community-wide conversation on the issues of trust, disclosure and integrity. In a follow-up article on this issue, a number of local pastors and congregations were asked about their practices regarding financial accountability.
The majority of responses were openly counter to the practices of Johnston at First Family. Nodell Dennis, director of missions for the Blue River-Kansas City Baptist Association said, "The first thing I tell pastors is 'Don't touch the money.'" By that he meant the church should hold itself responsible for creating a system of accountability where the funds are appropriately protected and spent according to a budget system that's open to all members for approval and regular review. Such an open system would create a safe barrier between the minister and the money.
The open accountability of a church's financial reports are a form of sacred trust. Some call it a "covenant" between church members and God that is mutually shared between all members, including the pastor and other ministers.
Dan Busby, vice-president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, says the best way to engender trust in a congregation is to be open about its money. "If there isn't that basic appropriate transparency, then people in and out of the congregation will tend to believe that something is being hidden, whether it is or not," he said.
Churches cannot be healthy where secrets abound and refusing to answer the hard questions has the appearance of being its own answer.
Keith D. Herron is senior pastor at Holmeswood Baptist Church in Kansas City, Mo.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
More on "Hollywood" Bob Reccord
This article from Associated Baptist Press speaks for itself. How a church could fall for this line is beyond me. And "Hollywood" Bob just keeps raking in the bucks, bilking from good-hearted Christian people.
Church's offering for Reccord raises questions about six-figure severance
By Greg Warner
Published: March 27, 2007
SALISBURY, N.C. (ABP) -- Former missions leader Bob Reccord preached a revival last week in a North Carolina church where congregants were asked to give a sacrificial "love offering" because preaching is Reccord's "only source of income" -- one year after leaving his top Baptist missions post with a six-figure severance deal.
In a March 1 letter to his congregation, Rick Cockerham, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Salisbury, N.C., appealed for members to give generously to support their revival preacher. "Since he is no longer with NAMB, this ministry is Dr. Reccord's only source of income to support his family," Cockerham wrote three weeks before the March 23-25 revival. "He also is supporting his aging mother, who is in a nursing home near his home."
Reccord left the North American Mission Board in Spring 2006 after allegations of financial mismanagement and conflicts of interest.
While it's customary for a visiting preacher to benefit from a voluntary offering from various congregations, few itinerant ministers receive severance pay from their last job. In Reccord's case, the severance was reported to be two-year's worth of his estimated $250,000 annual salary as president of NAMB.
A second letter 10 days later from Calvary's deacon chairman Kirby Sells admitted the love offering had not been successful and pleaded for more money. "Since Dr. Reccord left NAMB, he has not had a salary from anybody," the letter said. "He is totally dependent on meetings like ours for his livelihood…."
Trustee leaders who negotiated the severance agreement never revealed the details. When asked in April 2006 about the report of two-years' salary, NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis said "there is precedent at other SBC agencies" for such a settlement.
A member of the Salisbury church, who asked not to be identified, said "it makes me mad" that, after receiving a $500,000 severance from NAMB, Reccord "is now preying on small Baptist churches in our state."
Asked about the letter and revival, Cockerham said he couldn’t be happier with the three days the Reccords spent with his church. “I’ve never had anybody come who was more gracious and kind than Bob and Cheryl,” he said.
He said he never spoke with Reccord about Reccord’s personal finances, and he said Reccord didn’t know about the letter.
Cockerham said his church always asks for “love offerings” for guest speakers, and he sent the supplication letter only to the most “faithful” members to give them additional opportunities to give, he said.
“We’ve had just a very, very positive response with our people, and nobody to my knowledge at Calvary ever even mentioned anything other than a super positive response,” Cockerham said. “We were very pleased with the meeting and very pleased with the Reccords, and I was very pleased with the love offering.”
Reccord did not respond to two e-mail messages and was not available by phone. But his wife, Cheryl, said the couple was not aware of the fund-raising letter. "We never discussed financial things with the pastor," she said March 26. "We focus on the positive aspects of ministry, and we hope you would do the same."
She said the three-day revival provided "wonderful opportunities to minister to people and wonderful stories of people’s lives that were changed."
Preaching a revival at a 500-member church is a far cry from Reccord's heyday, when he spoke to Promise Keepers crowds of 10,000-plus people and flew around the world in a private plane.
His extravagant spending and self-aggrandizing earned him the nickname "Hollywood Bob" at NAMB and prompted an expose by the Christian Index newspaper and a trustee investigation, both of which led to his resignation under pressure in April 2006. They also were the subject of a tell-all book, Spending God's Money, by former NAMB administrator Mary Branson.
Curtis, the NAMB chairman, declined again to discuss the severance agreement March 26. "You know I can't answer those questions," said Curtis, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Florence, S.C. But he added "it is generally known" that Reccord received a severance.
As for the appropriateness of the Calvary Baptist appeal, he said, "I can't interpose myself into a local-church situation."
The results of the trustee investigation, released in March 2006, faulted Reccord for poor management, autocratic decision-making, extravagant spending on failed ministry projects, apparent conflicts of interest in no-bid contracts for a friend, and creating a "culture of fear" that prevented staffers from questioning the abuses. The trustees also said Reccord spent time and money on events and projects on the periphery of NAMB’s mission and was absent so much he couldn't provide consistent oversight "to properly manage the agency," which directs Southern Baptist mission work in the United States and Canada.
Church's offering for Reccord raises questions about six-figure severance
By Greg Warner
Published: March 27, 2007
SALISBURY, N.C. (ABP) -- Former missions leader Bob Reccord preached a revival last week in a North Carolina church where congregants were asked to give a sacrificial "love offering" because preaching is Reccord's "only source of income" -- one year after leaving his top Baptist missions post with a six-figure severance deal.
In a March 1 letter to his congregation, Rick Cockerham, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Salisbury, N.C., appealed for members to give generously to support their revival preacher. "Since he is no longer with NAMB, this ministry is Dr. Reccord's only source of income to support his family," Cockerham wrote three weeks before the March 23-25 revival. "He also is supporting his aging mother, who is in a nursing home near his home."
Reccord left the North American Mission Board in Spring 2006 after allegations of financial mismanagement and conflicts of interest.
While it's customary for a visiting preacher to benefit from a voluntary offering from various congregations, few itinerant ministers receive severance pay from their last job. In Reccord's case, the severance was reported to be two-year's worth of his estimated $250,000 annual salary as president of NAMB.
A second letter 10 days later from Calvary's deacon chairman Kirby Sells admitted the love offering had not been successful and pleaded for more money. "Since Dr. Reccord left NAMB, he has not had a salary from anybody," the letter said. "He is totally dependent on meetings like ours for his livelihood…."
Trustee leaders who negotiated the severance agreement never revealed the details. When asked in April 2006 about the report of two-years' salary, NAMB trustee chairman Bill Curtis said "there is precedent at other SBC agencies" for such a settlement.
A member of the Salisbury church, who asked not to be identified, said "it makes me mad" that, after receiving a $500,000 severance from NAMB, Reccord "is now preying on small Baptist churches in our state."
Asked about the letter and revival, Cockerham said he couldn’t be happier with the three days the Reccords spent with his church. “I’ve never had anybody come who was more gracious and kind than Bob and Cheryl,” he said.
He said he never spoke with Reccord about Reccord’s personal finances, and he said Reccord didn’t know about the letter.
Cockerham said his church always asks for “love offerings” for guest speakers, and he sent the supplication letter only to the most “faithful” members to give them additional opportunities to give, he said.
“We’ve had just a very, very positive response with our people, and nobody to my knowledge at Calvary ever even mentioned anything other than a super positive response,” Cockerham said. “We were very pleased with the meeting and very pleased with the Reccords, and I was very pleased with the love offering.”
Reccord did not respond to two e-mail messages and was not available by phone. But his wife, Cheryl, said the couple was not aware of the fund-raising letter. "We never discussed financial things with the pastor," she said March 26. "We focus on the positive aspects of ministry, and we hope you would do the same."
She said the three-day revival provided "wonderful opportunities to minister to people and wonderful stories of people’s lives that were changed."
Preaching a revival at a 500-member church is a far cry from Reccord's heyday, when he spoke to Promise Keepers crowds of 10,000-plus people and flew around the world in a private plane.
His extravagant spending and self-aggrandizing earned him the nickname "Hollywood Bob" at NAMB and prompted an expose by the Christian Index newspaper and a trustee investigation, both of which led to his resignation under pressure in April 2006. They also were the subject of a tell-all book, Spending God's Money, by former NAMB administrator Mary Branson.
Curtis, the NAMB chairman, declined again to discuss the severance agreement March 26. "You know I can't answer those questions," said Curtis, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Florence, S.C. But he added "it is generally known" that Reccord received a severance.
As for the appropriateness of the Calvary Baptist appeal, he said, "I can't interpose myself into a local-church situation."
The results of the trustee investigation, released in March 2006, faulted Reccord for poor management, autocratic decision-making, extravagant spending on failed ministry projects, apparent conflicts of interest in no-bid contracts for a friend, and creating a "culture of fear" that prevented staffers from questioning the abuses. The trustees also said Reccord spent time and money on events and projects on the periphery of NAMB’s mission and was absent so much he couldn't provide consistent oversight "to properly manage the agency," which directs Southern Baptist mission work in the United States and Canada.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Confederate Heritage Month?
If I were a citizen of the state of Georgia, I would be ashamed of this effort described below in an Ethics Daily story. The NAACP of Georgia had proposed that the legislature issue a public apology for the state's role in supporting slavery in the 19th century, in hopes of following the action taken recently by the Virginia legislature. Instead, it looks as if the Georgia legislature wants to perpetuate the myth of the Confederacy.
By the way, for all those who believe that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery, but was instead about states rights or confederate independence, you need go no further than to read the documents of secession written by several of the Confederate States' legislatures which spell out in black and white that the issue causing the separation is indeed slavery. For the document related to the state of Georgia, see this link:
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/georgia_secession.asp
The Southern states went to war to defend the institution of slavery. End of case. I can't believe Georgia has legislators who want to celebrate that!
Georgia State Senate Considering Confederate Heritage Month Bob Allen03-21-07
After being asked by black leaders to apologize for Georgia's role in slavery, the state Senate instead moved forward with a bill designating April as Confederate Heritage and History Month.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bill Mullis, R-Chickamauga, said his proposal is not a reaction to a call by the Georgia state conference of the NAACP for the legislature to follow Virginia's example. Virginia's General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution in February atoning for "involuntary servitude of Africans" and calling for reconciliation among all Virginians.
Georgia's Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, said he was skeptical about his state following Virginia's lead in apologizing for slavery. "Repentance comes from the heart," he said, according to the Associated Press. "I'm not sure about public apologies ... as far as the motivation for them."
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, also a Republican, broke ranks with Perdue, saying he would support the effort to acknowledge the state's role in slavery, which has biracial and bipartisan support. A top Republican leader, Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) said he would introduce such an apology, increasing its chance of passage.
In the meantime, the Senate Rules committee on Monday voted unanimously to send SB 283, setting aside each April "to honor, observe, and celebrate the Confederate States of America, its history, those who served in its armed forces and government, and all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause of Southern Independence…."
Mullis' district is home to Chickamauga Battlefield, scene of the last major Confederate victory of the Civil War in September 1863. Mullis said he introduced the bill as a favor to John Culpepper, commissioner of the Georgia Civil War Commission and a personal friend, and because he believes children need to know the state's history.
His proposal encourages the Civil War Commission to develop curriculum for elementary and high schools about Georgia's Confederate heritage.
Mullis told the Walker County Messenger in LaFayette, Ga., he filed his bill before the NAACP made their demand for an apology, and the timing made it more controversial. He said he is open to having "reconciliation language" added to the bill but not an apology.
"If I had done something personally, yes, I would apologize," he told the Associated Press.
Sen. Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta), an African-American, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the timing of Mullis' proposal is troublesome.
"I think that in light of the conversation we've been having about Georgia accepting responsibility for its history as it relates to slavery, this is not appropriate," Reed said. "If we're not going to address that issue in a candid way, I find it inappropriate to be passing a measure such as this."
Reed also said he is disappointed that lawmakers have not yet approved a proposal to hang a portrait of civil rights figure Coretta Scott King in the state Capitol.
Several Southern states observe Confederate Heritage and History Month in some form. April is the month the War Between the States both began in 1861 and ended in 1865. Georgia already celebrates Confederate Memorial Day on April 26.
The Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is working in all 159 counties in the state requesting proclamations by county commissions.
Mullis said his measure would help promote tourism in the state. State officials are already working on plans to promote tourism for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in 2011.
This year marks the 145th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, an 1883 executive order by President Abraham Lincoln declaring freedom for slaves in confederate states.
Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.
Copyright © 2002-2005 EthicsDaily.com
By the way, for all those who believe that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery, but was instead about states rights or confederate independence, you need go no further than to read the documents of secession written by several of the Confederate States' legislatures which spell out in black and white that the issue causing the separation is indeed slavery. For the document related to the state of Georgia, see this link:
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/georgia_secession.asp
The Southern states went to war to defend the institution of slavery. End of case. I can't believe Georgia has legislators who want to celebrate that!
Georgia State Senate Considering Confederate Heritage Month Bob Allen03-21-07
After being asked by black leaders to apologize for Georgia's role in slavery, the state Senate instead moved forward with a bill designating April as Confederate Heritage and History Month.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Bill Mullis, R-Chickamauga, said his proposal is not a reaction to a call by the Georgia state conference of the NAACP for the legislature to follow Virginia's example. Virginia's General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution in February atoning for "involuntary servitude of Africans" and calling for reconciliation among all Virginians.
Georgia's Republican governor, Sonny Perdue, said he was skeptical about his state following Virginia's lead in apologizing for slavery. "Repentance comes from the heart," he said, according to the Associated Press. "I'm not sure about public apologies ... as far as the motivation for them."
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, also a Republican, broke ranks with Perdue, saying he would support the effort to acknowledge the state's role in slavery, which has biracial and bipartisan support. A top Republican leader, Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) said he would introduce such an apology, increasing its chance of passage.
In the meantime, the Senate Rules committee on Monday voted unanimously to send SB 283, setting aside each April "to honor, observe, and celebrate the Confederate States of America, its history, those who served in its armed forces and government, and all those millions of its citizens of various races and ethnic groups and religions who contributed in sundry and myriad ways to the cause of Southern Independence…."
Mullis' district is home to Chickamauga Battlefield, scene of the last major Confederate victory of the Civil War in September 1863. Mullis said he introduced the bill as a favor to John Culpepper, commissioner of the Georgia Civil War Commission and a personal friend, and because he believes children need to know the state's history.
His proposal encourages the Civil War Commission to develop curriculum for elementary and high schools about Georgia's Confederate heritage.
Mullis told the Walker County Messenger in LaFayette, Ga., he filed his bill before the NAACP made their demand for an apology, and the timing made it more controversial. He said he is open to having "reconciliation language" added to the bill but not an apology.
"If I had done something personally, yes, I would apologize," he told the Associated Press.
Sen. Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta), an African-American, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the timing of Mullis' proposal is troublesome.
"I think that in light of the conversation we've been having about Georgia accepting responsibility for its history as it relates to slavery, this is not appropriate," Reed said. "If we're not going to address that issue in a candid way, I find it inappropriate to be passing a measure such as this."
Reed also said he is disappointed that lawmakers have not yet approved a proposal to hang a portrait of civil rights figure Coretta Scott King in the state Capitol.
Several Southern states observe Confederate Heritage and History Month in some form. April is the month the War Between the States both began in 1861 and ended in 1865. Georgia already celebrates Confederate Memorial Day on April 26.
The Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is working in all 159 counties in the state requesting proclamations by county commissions.
Mullis said his measure would help promote tourism in the state. State officials are already working on plans to promote tourism for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in 2011.
This year marks the 145th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, an 1883 executive order by President Abraham Lincoln declaring freedom for slaves in confederate states.
Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.
Copyright © 2002-2005 EthicsDaily.com
Thursday, February 15, 2007
A Promising Future for Baptists
I am very excited about the New North American Baptist Convenant and its forthcoming celebration in January, 2008. I plan to be at this historic meeting. For the first time in a very long time, I have hope that the name "Baptist" might be able to be rehabilited. For the last several decades the Baptist name has been increasingly viewed in a negative light. Now, I have hope that with this Covenant signed by the leaders of 18 other Baptists groups, the name "Baptist" might be able to be viewed positively again. Below is an article about the Covenant and the celebration next January written by one of the premier Baptist historians of our day, Buddy Shurden. The link is found at: http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/bulletin/2007/february.htm
"Living History: The New North American Baptist Covenant and Its Celebration"By Walter B. Shurden
I believe . . .
that “The New North American Baptist Covenant and its Celebration” that is presently in the planning stage for early 2008 in Atlanta, GA is one of the most exciting things that has happened in my half-century of traipsing around the Baptist yard of America.
By now, most Baptists and many other Christians are aware that “A New North American Baptist Covenant” has been adopted by Baptist leaders representing an estimated twenty million Baptists, and probably more. It all started with the majestic dream of one of the good and prophetic Baptists of our time, evangelical President Jimmy Carter. Without him, the Covenant would not be a possibility. President Carter wisely chose Mercer President William D. Underwood to help him spearhead the movement.
What is “The North American Baptist Covenant Celebration?” Foremost, it is a “covenant,” a good biblical word. It is a covenant that eighteen Baptist leaders adopted on 10 April 2006 in Atlanta, GA at the Carter Center “to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in these complex times. They reaffirmed their commitment to traditional Baptist values, including sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for public and private morality. They specifically committed themselves to their obligations as Christians to promote peace with justice, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and the marginalized, welcome the strangers among us, and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity.”
A second strategic planning committee convened at the Carter Center on 13 June 2006. At this meeting several significant developments occurred. One, the Covenant was reaffirmed. Second, those present underscored the necessity of celebrating the Covenant by crossing racial, ethnic, and gender barriers among Baptists. Third, these Baptists wanted to project an image of Baptist unity among those who represent prophetic and traditional moral values, especially themes of religious liberty and equality in the service of Christ. Fourth, two committees were appointed. The first, led by President William Underwood of Mercer University, would seek to find a time and place for a Baptist convocation that would be a massive Celebration of the North American Baptist Covenant. Dr. Jimmy Allen was appointed chair of the Program Committee of the future Celebration.
The last meeting for the Covenant planning celebration, now much publicized, met on 9 January 2007, again at the Carter Center in Atlanta. President Bill Clinton was present to endorse and affirm the Baptist Covenant and its celebration.
Why do I think that the Covenant Celebration is one of the most exciting things that has happened in my half century of traipsing around the Baptist yard of America?
First, it puts Baptists on the road to healing. Tragic wounds have scarred the Baptist landscape over the years. These wounds have divided white Baptists from white Baptists since the mid-nineteenth century issue of slavery. White Baptists, North and South and East and West, are now sitting around the same table talking to each other, listening to each other, embracing each other.
Second, it puts us on the road to healing some sinful wounds in Baptist life. These are the wounds of slavery itself, wounds that divided black Baptists from white Baptists since before the nineteenth century. I cannot put into words the thrill of sitting with black Baptists, names that I have known for some years, but who are now becoming friends. One element of our conversation that I have most enjoyed is the absence of playing to an audience. Deference is out. Honesty is in. People are not afraid to say what they think, and others are not afraid to disagree.
Third, it puts Baptists of North America on the road to integration of smaller ethnic groups into the larger Baptist family. Japanese Baptists, Laotian Baptists, Korean Baptists and Hispanic Baptists were all gathered around the table at the Carter Center on Tuesday, 9 January 2007.
Fourth, it puts us on the road to greater awareness of our Canadian and Mexican Baptist friends.
Fifth, and most important, it puts us on the road to working together on issues that unite rather than issues that divide. Those who signed the Covenant and who will be part of its celebration are not a monolithic group. Like good Baptists, we still differ on a number of issues. But we have decided to work in areas of agreement, and most of these have to do with the hurt and suffering of humankind. The best definition of “church” that I have ever heard is: “All who love Christ in the service of all who suffer.” The North American Baptist Covenant Celebration is not a “Church,” but the Covenant leaders certainly plan to act in a churchly manner.
A word simply must be said about what the “New North American Baptist Covenant Celebration” is NOT.
First, it is NOT an effort to construct a new mammoth Baptist denomination in America. The NABC is an informal Baptist network, not a new Baptist corporation. Baptists don’t need a new Baptist Denominational Corporation in this country. We need cooperation, not Corporation. We need to talk to each other. We need not tread on each other’s turf, and we certainly do not need to tear up turf securely planted. We need energy from each other. We do not need a phony Baptist ecumenism, and we do not plan to have such.
Second, the NABC is NOT an anti-SBC movement. It was not designed to embarrass the SBC. It was not even designed to call attention to the SBC in any possible way. That the Covenant represents some commitments lacking in fundamentalist SBC leadership minds since 1979 has not been a major issue. Most of the Baptists involved in the Covenant group have had very little, if any, historical relationship with the SBC for over a century. Only the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship people, a very small portion of the Covenant group, has had SBC relations within the last 30 years.
Third, the North American Baptist Covenant and its celebration in early 2008 is NOT an anti-Republican movement to get a Democratic candidate elected president of the United States. Indeed, the Covenant Baptists are looking for Republicans and Independents that share the values of the Covenant itself. Unfortunately, a kind of political conspiracy theory quickly developed in some suspicious minds that this was an anti-SBC, anti-Republican movement. However, that talk has never been uttered in any of the meetings that I have been in with the New Covenant planning groups, and I have been present at every one of them, including some of the subcommittee meetings. On the other hand, I have witnessed efforts to include people of all political and theological stripes who can commit to the Covenant.
"Living History: The New North American Baptist Covenant and Its Celebration"By Walter B. Shurden
I believe . . .
that “The New North American Baptist Covenant and its Celebration” that is presently in the planning stage for early 2008 in Atlanta, GA is one of the most exciting things that has happened in my half-century of traipsing around the Baptist yard of America.
By now, most Baptists and many other Christians are aware that “A New North American Baptist Covenant” has been adopted by Baptist leaders representing an estimated twenty million Baptists, and probably more. It all started with the majestic dream of one of the good and prophetic Baptists of our time, evangelical President Jimmy Carter. Without him, the Covenant would not be a possibility. President Carter wisely chose Mercer President William D. Underwood to help him spearhead the movement.
What is “The North American Baptist Covenant Celebration?” Foremost, it is a “covenant,” a good biblical word. It is a covenant that eighteen Baptist leaders adopted on 10 April 2006 in Atlanta, GA at the Carter Center “to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in these complex times. They reaffirmed their commitment to traditional Baptist values, including sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for public and private morality. They specifically committed themselves to their obligations as Christians to promote peace with justice, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and the marginalized, welcome the strangers among us, and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity.”
A second strategic planning committee convened at the Carter Center on 13 June 2006. At this meeting several significant developments occurred. One, the Covenant was reaffirmed. Second, those present underscored the necessity of celebrating the Covenant by crossing racial, ethnic, and gender barriers among Baptists. Third, these Baptists wanted to project an image of Baptist unity among those who represent prophetic and traditional moral values, especially themes of religious liberty and equality in the service of Christ. Fourth, two committees were appointed. The first, led by President William Underwood of Mercer University, would seek to find a time and place for a Baptist convocation that would be a massive Celebration of the North American Baptist Covenant. Dr. Jimmy Allen was appointed chair of the Program Committee of the future Celebration.
The last meeting for the Covenant planning celebration, now much publicized, met on 9 January 2007, again at the Carter Center in Atlanta. President Bill Clinton was present to endorse and affirm the Baptist Covenant and its celebration.
Why do I think that the Covenant Celebration is one of the most exciting things that has happened in my half century of traipsing around the Baptist yard of America?
First, it puts Baptists on the road to healing. Tragic wounds have scarred the Baptist landscape over the years. These wounds have divided white Baptists from white Baptists since the mid-nineteenth century issue of slavery. White Baptists, North and South and East and West, are now sitting around the same table talking to each other, listening to each other, embracing each other.
Second, it puts us on the road to healing some sinful wounds in Baptist life. These are the wounds of slavery itself, wounds that divided black Baptists from white Baptists since before the nineteenth century. I cannot put into words the thrill of sitting with black Baptists, names that I have known for some years, but who are now becoming friends. One element of our conversation that I have most enjoyed is the absence of playing to an audience. Deference is out. Honesty is in. People are not afraid to say what they think, and others are not afraid to disagree.
Third, it puts Baptists of North America on the road to integration of smaller ethnic groups into the larger Baptist family. Japanese Baptists, Laotian Baptists, Korean Baptists and Hispanic Baptists were all gathered around the table at the Carter Center on Tuesday, 9 January 2007.
Fourth, it puts us on the road to greater awareness of our Canadian and Mexican Baptist friends.
Fifth, and most important, it puts us on the road to working together on issues that unite rather than issues that divide. Those who signed the Covenant and who will be part of its celebration are not a monolithic group. Like good Baptists, we still differ on a number of issues. But we have decided to work in areas of agreement, and most of these have to do with the hurt and suffering of humankind. The best definition of “church” that I have ever heard is: “All who love Christ in the service of all who suffer.” The North American Baptist Covenant Celebration is not a “Church,” but the Covenant leaders certainly plan to act in a churchly manner.
A word simply must be said about what the “New North American Baptist Covenant Celebration” is NOT.
First, it is NOT an effort to construct a new mammoth Baptist denomination in America. The NABC is an informal Baptist network, not a new Baptist corporation. Baptists don’t need a new Baptist Denominational Corporation in this country. We need cooperation, not Corporation. We need to talk to each other. We need not tread on each other’s turf, and we certainly do not need to tear up turf securely planted. We need energy from each other. We do not need a phony Baptist ecumenism, and we do not plan to have such.
Second, the NABC is NOT an anti-SBC movement. It was not designed to embarrass the SBC. It was not even designed to call attention to the SBC in any possible way. That the Covenant represents some commitments lacking in fundamentalist SBC leadership minds since 1979 has not been a major issue. Most of the Baptists involved in the Covenant group have had very little, if any, historical relationship with the SBC for over a century. Only the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship people, a very small portion of the Covenant group, has had SBC relations within the last 30 years.
Third, the North American Baptist Covenant and its celebration in early 2008 is NOT an anti-Republican movement to get a Democratic candidate elected president of the United States. Indeed, the Covenant Baptists are looking for Republicans and Independents that share the values of the Covenant itself. Unfortunately, a kind of political conspiracy theory quickly developed in some suspicious minds that this was an anti-SBC, anti-Republican movement. However, that talk has never been uttered in any of the meetings that I have been in with the New Covenant planning groups, and I have been present at every one of them, including some of the subcommittee meetings. On the other hand, I have witnessed efforts to include people of all political and theological stripes who can commit to the Covenant.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The New SBC Leadership: Do You Know Where Your Money is Going?
I have been a critic of the leadership of theSBC since they began to move into power in 1979. My experience, talking to people who have been hurt by these demagogues is that they can be very mean and hurtful people and that they have a very high opinion of themselves at times. Furthermore, many of them have an attitude of "entitlement," especially when it comes to financial arrangements. In other words, I have long suspected that they may be doing some really unethical things with money and the budgets at the institutions they control.
Below is an article from Bob Allen at Ethicsdaily.com about "Hollywood Bob" Reccord and how he fleeced the coffers of the North American Mission Board while he was president. It is worth reading. And, I think every person who remains loyal to the SBC ought to read it and begin to question what is being done with their money.
The article is located at: www.ethicsdaily.com
Author Describes Culture of Waste at Baptist Agency
Bob Allen02-12-07
A radio interviewer Sunday dubbed it "Branson's Law:" The extent of misuse of mission dollars is directly proportional to the distance between the giver and the spender.
Mary Kinney Branson, author of Spending God's Money: Extravagance and Misuse in the Name of Ministry, uses the following analogy: If a preschooler brought a jar of coins to church and desired to give it to the Lord's work, most everyone would take care to make sure it is spent wisely. As those small gifts are combined through collective giving into multi-million-dollar budgets of denominational entities, however, it becomes easy to forget it's made up of many small sacrifices.
Branson worked 16 years for the Southern Baptist Convention, primarily as editing and marketing director of the Home Mission Board and its successor North American Mission Board, formed in a denominational reorganization in 1997.
Not long after arriving at the HMB, Branson said, she began hearing stories about "old timers" and how rigid they were with approving expenditures. Arthur Rutledge, HMB president from 1964 to 1976, once refused to approve a U-Haul trailer rented to carry supplies to a conference in Florida, saying staffers already driving to the conference could have packed supplies in the trunks and backseats of their personal cars.
After an uninitiated new worker mistakenly listed a massage taken to relax after a hard day's work on a line in an expense form labeled "entertainment," Rutledge took up all the expense forms and issued new ones without an "entertainment" category.
While the environment was somewhat more relaxed when Branson arrived--not long after Larry Lewis became president in 1987--the appearance of extravagance was still strongly discouraged. Traveling staff members were told not to accept free upgrades at rental car counters, because people observing them would assume they paid full price. Lewis once refused to ride in a stretch limo sent to an airport to pick him up.
That culture changed, she said, after formation of NAMB and election of President Robert Reccord, a former mega-church pastor whose extravagant lifestyle soon earned him the nickname "Hollywood Bob."
"Dr. Reccord came from a mega-church, and he brought with him a mega-church mindset," Branson said Sunday on "Religious Talk," a weekly radio program hosted by Bruce Prescott, executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists.
"Dr. Lewis had been a church planter," Branson said. "Some of the things a mega-church pastor feels entitled to do became part of our culture."
One of the first things to go, she said, was full financial disclosure. A half-inch-thick budget that had been presented to HMB trustees was reduced at NAMB to a few pages. As a result, she said, trustees didn't know what questions to ask.
"We are finding that in a lot of mega-churches," Branson told Prescott. "People are standing up and saying, 'We want the information. We want to know what the salaries are.'"
"I've actually received e-mails from some people asking for advice on how to receive that information from their church," she said. Some have set up Web sites, because they feel too intimidated to ask their pastor for the information.
"We are not children," she said. "This is our money. If we are paying for it, we have a right to know how it's being spent."
Branson said her book's focus is not on individuals but on a system that promotes waste and rewards hubris.
"Most of us, if we were in a position of entitlement, and we had no checks and balances, would do the same thing," she said. "It's very difficult to spend that kind of money with humility."
Branson said she left NAMB under positive circumstances and had no intention of writing a book. She probably never would have, she admitted, if--like about 100 people let go during Reccord's administration--she had been offered a couple of thousand dollars of severance in exchange for never saying or writing anything negative about NAMB. Branson said she has long wondered about a Christian organization that would require former employees to sign such a statement.
She said she also wonders about the leadership of 41 prominent SBC leaders who signed a letter unconditionally supporting Reccord after he stepped down, despite knowing about his spending practices. After Reccord left, auditors found that two of those signers, evangelist Jay Strack and Reccord's pastor, Johnny Hunt of Woodstock Baptist Church, were paid a total of $392,000 without written contracts through verbal agreements with Reccord, who at one time had $1 million in discretionary spending cleared by auditors.
At least one of 31 employees laid off as a result as Reccord's lucrative contract with InovaOne, a business owned by a member of Reccord's former church in Norfolk, Va., ended up on food stamps. When he decided to resign, Reccord reportedly took a lawyer with him to negotiate his own settlement. It was supposed to be secret, Branson said, but word leaked out it was in the neighborhood of $500,000 with additional funds for a headhunter to help him find a new job.
Branson said not everything that occurred at NAMB was bad, but much of it was not part of the agency's primary assignment. Directors were repeatedly told to cut budgets and reduce staff, even while money was coming in, to make room for entrepreneurial ideas of leaders without input from church planters on the field.
"I do feel it's important to bring these things to light," she said. "I've heard people say 'you could hurt the cause of Christ.' I believe it could hurt the cause of man, but not the cause of Christ. If you look in the Bible, sin is confronted."
Another change when she moved to NAMB, Branson said, is that on at least two occasions part of her job was to "brand" Bob Reccord. One poster displayed in NAMB's chapel promoted a meeting with Reccord as a featured speaker that identified him only as "author" without any mention of NAMB.
Reccord contracted two outside PR firms, despite having a public relations department on staff at his service, at a cost of $12,000 a month with a goal of "getting him on CNN."
Asked by Prescott if Reccord ever made it onto CNN, Branson quipped: "I don't know, but maybe Spending God's Money will get on CNN."
Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.
Below is an article from Bob Allen at Ethicsdaily.com about "Hollywood Bob" Reccord and how he fleeced the coffers of the North American Mission Board while he was president. It is worth reading. And, I think every person who remains loyal to the SBC ought to read it and begin to question what is being done with their money.
The article is located at: www.ethicsdaily.com
Author Describes Culture of Waste at Baptist Agency
Bob Allen02-12-07
A radio interviewer Sunday dubbed it "Branson's Law:" The extent of misuse of mission dollars is directly proportional to the distance between the giver and the spender.
Mary Kinney Branson, author of Spending God's Money: Extravagance and Misuse in the Name of Ministry, uses the following analogy: If a preschooler brought a jar of coins to church and desired to give it to the Lord's work, most everyone would take care to make sure it is spent wisely. As those small gifts are combined through collective giving into multi-million-dollar budgets of denominational entities, however, it becomes easy to forget it's made up of many small sacrifices.
Branson worked 16 years for the Southern Baptist Convention, primarily as editing and marketing director of the Home Mission Board and its successor North American Mission Board, formed in a denominational reorganization in 1997.
Not long after arriving at the HMB, Branson said, she began hearing stories about "old timers" and how rigid they were with approving expenditures. Arthur Rutledge, HMB president from 1964 to 1976, once refused to approve a U-Haul trailer rented to carry supplies to a conference in Florida, saying staffers already driving to the conference could have packed supplies in the trunks and backseats of their personal cars.
After an uninitiated new worker mistakenly listed a massage taken to relax after a hard day's work on a line in an expense form labeled "entertainment," Rutledge took up all the expense forms and issued new ones without an "entertainment" category.
While the environment was somewhat more relaxed when Branson arrived--not long after Larry Lewis became president in 1987--the appearance of extravagance was still strongly discouraged. Traveling staff members were told not to accept free upgrades at rental car counters, because people observing them would assume they paid full price. Lewis once refused to ride in a stretch limo sent to an airport to pick him up.
That culture changed, she said, after formation of NAMB and election of President Robert Reccord, a former mega-church pastor whose extravagant lifestyle soon earned him the nickname "Hollywood Bob."
"Dr. Reccord came from a mega-church, and he brought with him a mega-church mindset," Branson said Sunday on "Religious Talk," a weekly radio program hosted by Bruce Prescott, executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists.
"Dr. Lewis had been a church planter," Branson said. "Some of the things a mega-church pastor feels entitled to do became part of our culture."
One of the first things to go, she said, was full financial disclosure. A half-inch-thick budget that had been presented to HMB trustees was reduced at NAMB to a few pages. As a result, she said, trustees didn't know what questions to ask.
"We are finding that in a lot of mega-churches," Branson told Prescott. "People are standing up and saying, 'We want the information. We want to know what the salaries are.'"
"I've actually received e-mails from some people asking for advice on how to receive that information from their church," she said. Some have set up Web sites, because they feel too intimidated to ask their pastor for the information.
"We are not children," she said. "This is our money. If we are paying for it, we have a right to know how it's being spent."
Branson said her book's focus is not on individuals but on a system that promotes waste and rewards hubris.
"Most of us, if we were in a position of entitlement, and we had no checks and balances, would do the same thing," she said. "It's very difficult to spend that kind of money with humility."
Branson said she left NAMB under positive circumstances and had no intention of writing a book. She probably never would have, she admitted, if--like about 100 people let go during Reccord's administration--she had been offered a couple of thousand dollars of severance in exchange for never saying or writing anything negative about NAMB. Branson said she has long wondered about a Christian organization that would require former employees to sign such a statement.
She said she also wonders about the leadership of 41 prominent SBC leaders who signed a letter unconditionally supporting Reccord after he stepped down, despite knowing about his spending practices. After Reccord left, auditors found that two of those signers, evangelist Jay Strack and Reccord's pastor, Johnny Hunt of Woodstock Baptist Church, were paid a total of $392,000 without written contracts through verbal agreements with Reccord, who at one time had $1 million in discretionary spending cleared by auditors.
At least one of 31 employees laid off as a result as Reccord's lucrative contract with InovaOne, a business owned by a member of Reccord's former church in Norfolk, Va., ended up on food stamps. When he decided to resign, Reccord reportedly took a lawyer with him to negotiate his own settlement. It was supposed to be secret, Branson said, but word leaked out it was in the neighborhood of $500,000 with additional funds for a headhunter to help him find a new job.
Branson said not everything that occurred at NAMB was bad, but much of it was not part of the agency's primary assignment. Directors were repeatedly told to cut budgets and reduce staff, even while money was coming in, to make room for entrepreneurial ideas of leaders without input from church planters on the field.
"I do feel it's important to bring these things to light," she said. "I've heard people say 'you could hurt the cause of Christ.' I believe it could hurt the cause of man, but not the cause of Christ. If you look in the Bible, sin is confronted."
Another change when she moved to NAMB, Branson said, is that on at least two occasions part of her job was to "brand" Bob Reccord. One poster displayed in NAMB's chapel promoted a meeting with Reccord as a featured speaker that identified him only as "author" without any mention of NAMB.
Reccord contracted two outside PR firms, despite having a public relations department on staff at his service, at a cost of $12,000 a month with a goal of "getting him on CNN."
Asked by Prescott if Reccord ever made it onto CNN, Branson quipped: "I don't know, but maybe Spending God's Money will get on CNN."
Bob Allen is managing editor of EthicsDaily.com.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
I Am Proud of My Church
I am a member of Memorial Baptist Church in Buies Creek, NC. As I was sitting with my children in church today, there were several thoughts that occurred to me which illustrate why I am so proud of my church. I'd like to share them with you. In a day and time when there are many churches in turmoil, and people frequently complain about their church, I'd like to say a positive word about the community of faith where my family worships.
First, we have a wonderful pastor, Dr. David Whiteman. He has been our pastor for more than 20 years. He is beloved by the membership of our church, indeed the "marriage" between pastor and parish has been very good. It is a healthy relationship and the fact that he is such a good pastor means a lot to my family. He is always there when we need him to bring a "pastoral presence." He leads the staff well as they plan and conduct the worship services and his sermons always have a tremendous amount of depth to them. He makes me think. And any pastor worth his/her salt should do that every Sunday. Furthermore, I consider David to be one of my closest friends. I always feel at ease around him. I never feel like he's judging me for my weaknesses. I always feel accepted by him, which is how I think people probably felt around Jesus, again a trait that any pastor worth his/her salt should possess. Pastors should welcome people to their presence, not repel people away by their arrogance.
Second, our church has a wonderful program for children. My children are happy at Memorial Baptist Church. There are lots of activities for the children. The Sunday School is good. And, children are treasured at our church. Our Childrens' Minister, Rev. Robin Hardison, is the best in the business. Even though she is a busy mother herself, she always finds time for the children in our church. I have always admired how patient she seems around the children and every child is valued and loved the same by her.
Third, we have one of the best atmospheres of fellowship that I have ever experienced in a church. Our church has one of the most diverse congregations that I have ever been a part of, yet we celebrate that diversity and it becomes our strength rather than an impediment. Let me illustrate what I mean. Some churches are like blankets. They are all one color, all one depth, and all one pattern. They might keep the congregation warm, but there is no diversity. In fact, diversity is not encouraged and is even threatening in a church like this. The leadership of churches like this would prefer that the church remain like a blanket because diversity could lead to change or a least might lead to challenging the status quo. But, our church is like a quilt. We have lots of color, lots of different edges, lots of shapes and sizes. But in spite of that diversity, we are all united in purpose. Our church's statement of purpose "Celebrating Christ, Growing Together and Serving Others," unites us as one body with different parts, all important for our mission. Do we always agree? Absolutely not. But, we're Christian about it. We discuss things in committees, in business meetings, and in Sunday School classes, but no one goes away mad. We respect one another. We have different theological perspectives from liberal to conservative. We have different political perspectives from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat and everything in between. Sometimes our discussions are passionate. But, we are always there for each other and our diversity becomes our strength. I like belonging to a "quilt-style" church rather than a "blanket-style" church! Furthermore, quilts are prettier than blankets. They take more work to make and they even keep you warmer on a cold, dark night! Our church is one of the best I have ever seen at celebrating its diversity.
Fourth, our church prays for and cares for those in need. My family has experienced this firsthand over the last several months. My wife has had a long history of chronic back pain. Finally, she had an accident last August which ultimately led to a very extensive back surgery just before Christmas. I can't even begin to express how helpful our church community has been to our family. Several people kept our children overnight during the time that my wife was in the hospital. Others have made meals for us. Still more have prayed for Pam. And, there has been an outpouring of love and concern that we'll never be able to repay. Perhaps the way we repay is simply to return the love and sharing of resources to someone else who is in need.
Fifth, our church understands the essence of the Baptist tradition. We are a church that celebrates freedom. Early Baptists understood the value of freedom. They celebrated the freedom of the individual believer within the community of faith. They valued the freedom of the local congregation to govern itself without any kind of coercion from the outside. They cherished the freedom to interpret Scripture for themselves. And they worked tirelessly to secure religious freedom from the government, both for themselves and for others. They understood the nature of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." They understood that if they needed freedom to practice their faith as they were led to do so, they in turn had to work for freedom for others with different beliefs as well. If freedom of religion is repressed for one group, ultimately there is no true freedom of religion. Our church is a "Baptist" church and as such we value the freedom to be whatever God's Spirit leads us to be.
Sixth, and this is a little bit more specific, I am very proud that our church celebrates that God can call and use both women and men in ministry. I am so proud that our church has just recently been named to receive the "Church Award" from Baptist Women in Ministry of North Carolina. This means that we have been selected as the church of the year by this fine organization for our promotion of women in ministry. Today, we celebrated "women in ministry Sunday," an emphasis promoted by the Baptist History and Heritage Society. Our Minister to Youth and College Students, Rev. Jenny Folmar, shared an outstanding message with our congregation today from I Corinthians 15 entitled, "I Am What I Am." It was a very good message that challenged us. As good as the sermon was though, the thing that stood out the most to me was how much attention my ten year-old daughter Hannah paid to it. The fact that a woman was proclaiming the Gospel from the pulpit of our church today and held the attention of my daughter made quite an impression on me. And, it also sent a message to my daughter and to any other young girls in the congregation that if they hear God's voice calling them to ministry someday, our church will celebrate and encourage God's call on their lives, not try and convince them that they are mistaken.
That leads me to one final thought. Our church is in the process of trying to make some decisions about the entities it is going to affiliate with beyond itself. More specifically, we are trying to decide whether we need to continue in fellowship with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina or are we going to alter that relationship in some kind of way. For me, the decision becomes a matter of conscience. How can we continue to associate with a Convention which seems to be moving so rapidly in the direction of becoming a de facto auxilliary of the Southen Baptist Convention? And, anyone who has followed, even from a distance, the direction that the Southern Baptist Convention has travelled, should be concerned. The SBC is now one group of Baptists which are defined on the basis of what they are against rather than what they are for. And that is a terrible p.r. problem! The SBC has made it clear in its Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement that it has no room for women serving God in ministry positions, most especially the pastorate. In other words, they want to try and limit whom God will call to the ministry. Furthermore, there is a mean spirit prevalent in the SBC which comes across in a militant tone. It turns people away rather than invites people in. So, if this is the direction that the Baptist State Convention seems to be going, does our church really need to be affiliated with it? What can I say to my daughters some day if either or both of them should feel the call of God to preach and our church is formally affiliated with a Convention that not only does not celebrate her call, but would want us to tell her that she is mistaken? Additionally, how can a church that celebrates its diversity (a "quilt-style" church) find commonality with a Convention that seems bent on encouraging more "blanket-style" churches? Or, put another way, can a "quilt-style" church find a place at the table in a Convention full of "blanket-style" churches?
If you live in the Buies Creek area and you are looking for a church, I encourage you to come by Memorial Baptist Church. Our quilt will keep you warm! Check out our website at:
http://www.memorialbaptistchurch.net/PublicPortal/
First, we have a wonderful pastor, Dr. David Whiteman. He has been our pastor for more than 20 years. He is beloved by the membership of our church, indeed the "marriage" between pastor and parish has been very good. It is a healthy relationship and the fact that he is such a good pastor means a lot to my family. He is always there when we need him to bring a "pastoral presence." He leads the staff well as they plan and conduct the worship services and his sermons always have a tremendous amount of depth to them. He makes me think. And any pastor worth his/her salt should do that every Sunday. Furthermore, I consider David to be one of my closest friends. I always feel at ease around him. I never feel like he's judging me for my weaknesses. I always feel accepted by him, which is how I think people probably felt around Jesus, again a trait that any pastor worth his/her salt should possess. Pastors should welcome people to their presence, not repel people away by their arrogance.
Second, our church has a wonderful program for children. My children are happy at Memorial Baptist Church. There are lots of activities for the children. The Sunday School is good. And, children are treasured at our church. Our Childrens' Minister, Rev. Robin Hardison, is the best in the business. Even though she is a busy mother herself, she always finds time for the children in our church. I have always admired how patient she seems around the children and every child is valued and loved the same by her.
Third, we have one of the best atmospheres of fellowship that I have ever experienced in a church. Our church has one of the most diverse congregations that I have ever been a part of, yet we celebrate that diversity and it becomes our strength rather than an impediment. Let me illustrate what I mean. Some churches are like blankets. They are all one color, all one depth, and all one pattern. They might keep the congregation warm, but there is no diversity. In fact, diversity is not encouraged and is even threatening in a church like this. The leadership of churches like this would prefer that the church remain like a blanket because diversity could lead to change or a least might lead to challenging the status quo. But, our church is like a quilt. We have lots of color, lots of different edges, lots of shapes and sizes. But in spite of that diversity, we are all united in purpose. Our church's statement of purpose "Celebrating Christ, Growing Together and Serving Others," unites us as one body with different parts, all important for our mission. Do we always agree? Absolutely not. But, we're Christian about it. We discuss things in committees, in business meetings, and in Sunday School classes, but no one goes away mad. We respect one another. We have different theological perspectives from liberal to conservative. We have different political perspectives from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat and everything in between. Sometimes our discussions are passionate. But, we are always there for each other and our diversity becomes our strength. I like belonging to a "quilt-style" church rather than a "blanket-style" church! Furthermore, quilts are prettier than blankets. They take more work to make and they even keep you warmer on a cold, dark night! Our church is one of the best I have ever seen at celebrating its diversity.
Fourth, our church prays for and cares for those in need. My family has experienced this firsthand over the last several months. My wife has had a long history of chronic back pain. Finally, she had an accident last August which ultimately led to a very extensive back surgery just before Christmas. I can't even begin to express how helpful our church community has been to our family. Several people kept our children overnight during the time that my wife was in the hospital. Others have made meals for us. Still more have prayed for Pam. And, there has been an outpouring of love and concern that we'll never be able to repay. Perhaps the way we repay is simply to return the love and sharing of resources to someone else who is in need.
Fifth, our church understands the essence of the Baptist tradition. We are a church that celebrates freedom. Early Baptists understood the value of freedom. They celebrated the freedom of the individual believer within the community of faith. They valued the freedom of the local congregation to govern itself without any kind of coercion from the outside. They cherished the freedom to interpret Scripture for themselves. And they worked tirelessly to secure religious freedom from the government, both for themselves and for others. They understood the nature of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." They understood that if they needed freedom to practice their faith as they were led to do so, they in turn had to work for freedom for others with different beliefs as well. If freedom of religion is repressed for one group, ultimately there is no true freedom of religion. Our church is a "Baptist" church and as such we value the freedom to be whatever God's Spirit leads us to be.
Sixth, and this is a little bit more specific, I am very proud that our church celebrates that God can call and use both women and men in ministry. I am so proud that our church has just recently been named to receive the "Church Award" from Baptist Women in Ministry of North Carolina. This means that we have been selected as the church of the year by this fine organization for our promotion of women in ministry. Today, we celebrated "women in ministry Sunday," an emphasis promoted by the Baptist History and Heritage Society. Our Minister to Youth and College Students, Rev. Jenny Folmar, shared an outstanding message with our congregation today from I Corinthians 15 entitled, "I Am What I Am." It was a very good message that challenged us. As good as the sermon was though, the thing that stood out the most to me was how much attention my ten year-old daughter Hannah paid to it. The fact that a woman was proclaiming the Gospel from the pulpit of our church today and held the attention of my daughter made quite an impression on me. And, it also sent a message to my daughter and to any other young girls in the congregation that if they hear God's voice calling them to ministry someday, our church will celebrate and encourage God's call on their lives, not try and convince them that they are mistaken.
That leads me to one final thought. Our church is in the process of trying to make some decisions about the entities it is going to affiliate with beyond itself. More specifically, we are trying to decide whether we need to continue in fellowship with the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina or are we going to alter that relationship in some kind of way. For me, the decision becomes a matter of conscience. How can we continue to associate with a Convention which seems to be moving so rapidly in the direction of becoming a de facto auxilliary of the Southen Baptist Convention? And, anyone who has followed, even from a distance, the direction that the Southern Baptist Convention has travelled, should be concerned. The SBC is now one group of Baptists which are defined on the basis of what they are against rather than what they are for. And that is a terrible p.r. problem! The SBC has made it clear in its Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement that it has no room for women serving God in ministry positions, most especially the pastorate. In other words, they want to try and limit whom God will call to the ministry. Furthermore, there is a mean spirit prevalent in the SBC which comes across in a militant tone. It turns people away rather than invites people in. So, if this is the direction that the Baptist State Convention seems to be going, does our church really need to be affiliated with it? What can I say to my daughters some day if either or both of them should feel the call of God to preach and our church is formally affiliated with a Convention that not only does not celebrate her call, but would want us to tell her that she is mistaken? Additionally, how can a church that celebrates its diversity (a "quilt-style" church) find commonality with a Convention that seems bent on encouraging more "blanket-style" churches? Or, put another way, can a "quilt-style" church find a place at the table in a Convention full of "blanket-style" churches?
If you live in the Buies Creek area and you are looking for a church, I encourage you to come by Memorial Baptist Church. Our quilt will keep you warm! Check out our website at:
http://www.memorialbaptistchurch.net/PublicPortal/
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Hypocrisy in the Evangelical and Republican Ranks
O.K. So, I am driving home from my nightly workout at the gym Thursday night (I walk 3-5 miles on the treadmill) and I hear on the radio the breaking news that Rev. Ted Haggard has resigned as the President of the National Association of Evangelicals and temporarily stepped aside as pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. To give you an idea of how powerful this man was in the Evangelical community, the NAE boasts a membership of more than 30 million Evangelical Christians. His church alone has a membership of 14,000. And, Evangelical Christians have been the centerpiece of Karl Rove's strategy to win elections on behalf of George Bush ever since Bush first ran for Governor in Texas. Haggard himself had regular contact with the White House and for the last several elections, the Rove-Bush political machine could always count on millions of Evangelical Christian voters to turn out on election day. They pushed Bush over the top in 2000 and again in 2004.
I cannot predict what will happen on Tuesday in the election. But, I think Evangelicals need to do some serious thinking and reevaluation of their true allegiances. Evangelicalism is a movement which can trace its beginning back to the 19th century in America. It gets its name from the Greek word for "good news." Though it encompasses a variety of different Christian traditions, everything from Fundamentalists to Pentecostals, it has two central ideas shared by all: the importance of a personal conversion experience with Jesus Christ and supreme devotion to the Bible as the only source of authority for a Christian.
Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, became enamoured with secular political power back in the 1970s as a way to foster change in America. And that is where I would argue the movement needs correction. Randall Balmer, a professor of American Religious History at Barnard College in Columbia University, who grew up in the Evangelical tradition and still identifies with it, has written a new book that I recommend. It is called Thy Kingdom Come, an Evangelical's Lament: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America. The first sentences in the Introduction of the book is hard-hitting:
"I write as a jilted lover. The evangelical faith that nurtured me as a child and sustains me as an adult has been hijacked by right-wing zealots who have distorted the gospel of Jesus Christ, defaulted on the noble legacy of nineteenth-century evangelical activism, and failed to appreciate the genius of the First Amendment."
Which brings me back to Rev. Haggard. When the male prostitute who claims to have had a sexual relationship with Haggard for three years and provided a contact for drugs went public with the story Thursday night, Haggard was interviewed and he denied everything. He denied evening knowing the man. But Then, yesterday he admitted that he had gone to the man for a "massage" and had purchased methamphetamine once, but he "threw it away." Does anyone think that sounds a bit like Bill Clinton's assertion that he tried marijuana once but he didn't inhale? Who believes that? And besides, why would he call a male prostitute and go meet him in a motel for massage? There are plenty of legitimate massage therapists (reputable) out there.
The reason that Rev. Haggard is news is that he has taken such a strong stand on gay marriage and homosexuality. And so, what do I think Evangelicals need to do? Well, I certainly don't think they need to give up their crusade for better morals in America. One of the bedrock principles of the Gospel is that when a person meets Christ, that person's life will change. We are to become more like Jesus. And, in doing so, we experience transformation. The old life passes away and all things become new. I believe that Evangelicals should continue to speak out in favor of life. Of course, I would broaden the anti-abortion rhetoric to include anti-war and anti-death penalty. And, I also believe Evangelicals should work for better ecological principles to be practiced by large corporations. And, I believe Evangelicals should continue to encourage stronger families. So, although I disagree with Evangelicals on some of the issues for which they strive, I do not want them to stop.
What Evangelicals need to do, however, is get out of bed with the state. They need to completely reevaluate their priorities and realize that ultimately the things they seek can only come through changed hearts and lives and not through secular politics. Jesus eschewed the secular politicians of his day. Evangelicals should concentrate on preaching the Gospel and let God change the lives, not the government.
I cannot predict what will happen on Tuesday in the election. But, I think Evangelicals need to do some serious thinking and reevaluation of their true allegiances. Evangelicalism is a movement which can trace its beginning back to the 19th century in America. It gets its name from the Greek word for "good news." Though it encompasses a variety of different Christian traditions, everything from Fundamentalists to Pentecostals, it has two central ideas shared by all: the importance of a personal conversion experience with Jesus Christ and supreme devotion to the Bible as the only source of authority for a Christian.
Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, became enamoured with secular political power back in the 1970s as a way to foster change in America. And that is where I would argue the movement needs correction. Randall Balmer, a professor of American Religious History at Barnard College in Columbia University, who grew up in the Evangelical tradition and still identifies with it, has written a new book that I recommend. It is called Thy Kingdom Come, an Evangelical's Lament: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America. The first sentences in the Introduction of the book is hard-hitting:
"I write as a jilted lover. The evangelical faith that nurtured me as a child and sustains me as an adult has been hijacked by right-wing zealots who have distorted the gospel of Jesus Christ, defaulted on the noble legacy of nineteenth-century evangelical activism, and failed to appreciate the genius of the First Amendment."
Which brings me back to Rev. Haggard. When the male prostitute who claims to have had a sexual relationship with Haggard for three years and provided a contact for drugs went public with the story Thursday night, Haggard was interviewed and he denied everything. He denied evening knowing the man. But Then, yesterday he admitted that he had gone to the man for a "massage" and had purchased methamphetamine once, but he "threw it away." Does anyone think that sounds a bit like Bill Clinton's assertion that he tried marijuana once but he didn't inhale? Who believes that? And besides, why would he call a male prostitute and go meet him in a motel for massage? There are plenty of legitimate massage therapists (reputable) out there.
The reason that Rev. Haggard is news is that he has taken such a strong stand on gay marriage and homosexuality. And so, what do I think Evangelicals need to do? Well, I certainly don't think they need to give up their crusade for better morals in America. One of the bedrock principles of the Gospel is that when a person meets Christ, that person's life will change. We are to become more like Jesus. And, in doing so, we experience transformation. The old life passes away and all things become new. I believe that Evangelicals should continue to speak out in favor of life. Of course, I would broaden the anti-abortion rhetoric to include anti-war and anti-death penalty. And, I also believe Evangelicals should work for better ecological principles to be practiced by large corporations. And, I believe Evangelicals should continue to encourage stronger families. So, although I disagree with Evangelicals on some of the issues for which they strive, I do not want them to stop.
What Evangelicals need to do, however, is get out of bed with the state. They need to completely reevaluate their priorities and realize that ultimately the things they seek can only come through changed hearts and lives and not through secular politics. Jesus eschewed the secular politicians of his day. Evangelicals should concentrate on preaching the Gospel and let God change the lives, not the government.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Pray for the Amish Community in Nickel Mines, PA
A couple of days ago, I wrote a post about the Amish in Nickel Mines, PA, and the horrific loss of life of the little girls in the shooting at their school. As I predicted, the Amish response to their grief is the answer to the question "What would Jesus do?" They have responded by offering forgiveness rather than hatred and resentment.
Hatred is like a cancer that will ultimately eat a person up from the inside out. Back in the 1980s Don Henley, after he left the Eagles for a solo career, wrote a song called "The Heart of the Matter." It is a song about a love affair between a man and a woman that went wrong and is over. The refrain of the song says,
'Been tryin to get down
to the heart of the matter
But the will gets weak,
and my thoughts seem to scatter,
But I think its about, forgiveness, forgiveness
Even if, even if,
you don't love me anymore."
There is another line in the song that says, "You keep carrying that anger, it will eat you up inside."
Although it is unimaginable to most of us, the way of Jesus is not the way of hatred and revenge. And, the world was reminded of that yesterday as the grandfather of one of the little girls stood over her lifeless body and said, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Pray for the Amish community today as they bury these innocent little girls. Pray that the grace of God will sustain them in this horrible moment. But, also pray for your own community, state, nation and the world. Pray that the way of Jesus will be followed in the face of evil rather than the way of violence, hatred and revenge.
"And the world will live as one!" --John Lennon
Hatred is like a cancer that will ultimately eat a person up from the inside out. Back in the 1980s Don Henley, after he left the Eagles for a solo career, wrote a song called "The Heart of the Matter." It is a song about a love affair between a man and a woman that went wrong and is over. The refrain of the song says,
'Been tryin to get down
to the heart of the matter
But the will gets weak,
and my thoughts seem to scatter,
But I think its about, forgiveness, forgiveness
Even if, even if,
you don't love me anymore."
There is another line in the song that says, "You keep carrying that anger, it will eat you up inside."
Although it is unimaginable to most of us, the way of Jesus is not the way of hatred and revenge. And, the world was reminded of that yesterday as the grandfather of one of the little girls stood over her lifeless body and said, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Pray for the Amish community today as they bury these innocent little girls. Pray that the grace of God will sustain them in this horrible moment. But, also pray for your own community, state, nation and the world. Pray that the way of Jesus will be followed in the face of evil rather than the way of violence, hatred and revenge.
"And the world will live as one!" --John Lennon
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Pennsylvania Amish School Shooting
The nation has been horrified once again by a shooting at a school. While all of the school shootings in recent years have been horrible and should remind us that there are way too many guns out there for people with psychological problems to use, this particular case is especially disturbing. It is especially disturbing because the Amish are a very close-knit community of Christian believers who have pacifism as one of the hallmarks of their faith. Therefore, to have this level of violence instigated by an outsider who came into their community is indeed a major tragedy for their community.
Violence is not new to the Amish tradition though. They are the descendents of the 16th century Anabaptist tradition. The Anabaptists (who got their name from their refusal to accept infant baptism and their decision to "re-baptize" themselves as adult believers in Christ) were perhaps the most biblical of all of the 16th century reformers, yet were the most persecuted of that century. They denied the biblical validity of infant baptism. Whereas the other reformers went a long way toward reforming the church on the basis of sola scriptura, the Anabaptists took sola scriptura to its logical conclusion denying infant baptism. With the church and the state tied together as closely as it was in the 16th century, to deny infant baptism was tantamount to denying one's citizenship. As a result, Anabaptists became the scourge of both Protestants and Catholics in western Europe. They were hunted down, tortured and hundreds were executed for their religious beliefs by burning at the stake and even drowning (a cruel method of mocking their emphasis on adult baptism).
The Anabaptists were distinctive for several important beliefs. (1) They believed that baptism was reserved for adult believers who had experienced a personal conversion. (2) They placed great emphasis on Christian discipleship, instructing that Christians should live like Jesus lived. (3) They were pacifists, refusing to take up arms even to defend themselves. (4) The practiced separation from the world, meaning that their communities tended to be separate and to themselves, a tradition that the Amish practice today. (5) They were strong supporters, perhaps the most vocal in the first 16 centuries of Christianity, of the notion that the institution of the church and the institution of the state should be separate. (6) They had a very strong sense of community, again a concept practiced by the modern-day Amish. (7) They had a distinctive ecclesiology, meaning that they believed that the church is not made up of every citizen of society (the belief in Europe in the 16th century) but the church is only made up of those baptized believers who have had an experience of personal converstion. (8) They believed in restoration of the NT ideal of the church rather than in a reformation of the 16th century church.
The modern-day Amish (as well as the Mennonites) are the inheritors of this Anabaptist tradition. Pacificism, living like Jesus lived, strong sense of community, etc. has characterized the Amish for centuries. These were peaceful people. They did not look for trouble. They kept to themselves as much as possible. And, so that is what makes the killings of these little girls in one of their schools so tragic.
But even more interesting is the question of how the Amish in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania are going to respond to this. In fact, their response which will probably be articulated only in their community and not to the world, will most like be to simply return to their simple lives and deal quietly with their grief in their community with the loving support of their neighbors.
We live in a very violent world. And the foreign policy of our president has not contributed to peace in the world, but rather has stirred up the anger of many people in the world toward each other and toward the United States. In such a time as this, it is sobering to be reminded of the simple question "What would Jesus do?" I suspect that if we watch the Amish of Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, we will get a good indication of how that question is to be answered.
Violence is not new to the Amish tradition though. They are the descendents of the 16th century Anabaptist tradition. The Anabaptists (who got their name from their refusal to accept infant baptism and their decision to "re-baptize" themselves as adult believers in Christ) were perhaps the most biblical of all of the 16th century reformers, yet were the most persecuted of that century. They denied the biblical validity of infant baptism. Whereas the other reformers went a long way toward reforming the church on the basis of sola scriptura, the Anabaptists took sola scriptura to its logical conclusion denying infant baptism. With the church and the state tied together as closely as it was in the 16th century, to deny infant baptism was tantamount to denying one's citizenship. As a result, Anabaptists became the scourge of both Protestants and Catholics in western Europe. They were hunted down, tortured and hundreds were executed for their religious beliefs by burning at the stake and even drowning (a cruel method of mocking their emphasis on adult baptism).
The Anabaptists were distinctive for several important beliefs. (1) They believed that baptism was reserved for adult believers who had experienced a personal conversion. (2) They placed great emphasis on Christian discipleship, instructing that Christians should live like Jesus lived. (3) They were pacifists, refusing to take up arms even to defend themselves. (4) The practiced separation from the world, meaning that their communities tended to be separate and to themselves, a tradition that the Amish practice today. (5) They were strong supporters, perhaps the most vocal in the first 16 centuries of Christianity, of the notion that the institution of the church and the institution of the state should be separate. (6) They had a very strong sense of community, again a concept practiced by the modern-day Amish. (7) They had a distinctive ecclesiology, meaning that they believed that the church is not made up of every citizen of society (the belief in Europe in the 16th century) but the church is only made up of those baptized believers who have had an experience of personal converstion. (8) They believed in restoration of the NT ideal of the church rather than in a reformation of the 16th century church.
The modern-day Amish (as well as the Mennonites) are the inheritors of this Anabaptist tradition. Pacificism, living like Jesus lived, strong sense of community, etc. has characterized the Amish for centuries. These were peaceful people. They did not look for trouble. They kept to themselves as much as possible. And, so that is what makes the killings of these little girls in one of their schools so tragic.
But even more interesting is the question of how the Amish in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania are going to respond to this. In fact, their response which will probably be articulated only in their community and not to the world, will most like be to simply return to their simple lives and deal quietly with their grief in their community with the loving support of their neighbors.
We live in a very violent world. And the foreign policy of our president has not contributed to peace in the world, but rather has stirred up the anger of many people in the world toward each other and toward the United States. In such a time as this, it is sobering to be reminded of the simple question "What would Jesus do?" I suspect that if we watch the Amish of Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, we will get a good indication of how that question is to be answered.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Incompetence of President Bush
The anger exhibited by former President Clinton toward Chris Wallace this past weekend on a FoxNews interview has been news itself for the weekend and the first of this week. I can't really blame President Clinton for reacting angrily to what many of us perceive is a deliberate distortion of history in order to sway public attention away from the incompetence of the Bush Adminstration. In fact, the same idealogues who continue to attack the Clintons now (did you see Jerry Falwell's comment yesterday about Mrs. Clinton?) are the very people who have absolutely loathed them since they first stepped into the public arena in 1991. So, I don't really expect anything different from them. Ultimately, they will probably get their wish and Hillary Clinton will not run for president, or at least not be elected if she runs. She will remain in the Senate as a very powerful force for years to come though. And, if she ever becomes majority leader, watch out!
But, what President Clinton said in his anger with Chris Wallace must be kept in mind. Here's a quote from the transcript:
"What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. . . And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange."
He tried to get Bin Laden and when he bombed Bin Laden's camp, Senators and Representatives from Ashcroft to Coats, to Specter blamed him for trying to take the national attention off of the Lewinsky scandal ("Wag the Dog"), a scandal created I might say by the extreme right wing in the country.
All that aside, let's assume Clinton didn't do all he could to get Bin Laden. Let's assume everything said about him is completely true. The fact of the matter is that when President Bush became president in January, 2001, the nation knew that Bin Laden was an imminent threat. They were getting daily intelligence briefings indicating that he was a dangerous risk. And, the one person in the govt. who knew more about it than anyone else was Richard Clarke, certainly not a partisan politician. And, they demoted Clarke and paid no attention to the Cole matter or to anything related to Bin Laden. When 9/11 happened, instead of embracing the world's compassion toward the U.S. and asking their help in going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, President Bush and his administration turned the nation's attention toward Sadaam Hussein, who had no direct ties to Al Queda. And, it as it turns out now, had absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. And, then after 9/11, even to this day, we have more troops in Iraq fighting a war that now the NIE says is creating more terrorists rather than less terrorists, and not nearly that many troops in Afghanistan trying to kill Bin Laden. So, who is the real incompetent president?
Go figure!
But, what President Clinton said in his anger with Chris Wallace must be kept in mind. Here's a quote from the transcript:
"What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke's book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. . . And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that's strange."
He tried to get Bin Laden and when he bombed Bin Laden's camp, Senators and Representatives from Ashcroft to Coats, to Specter blamed him for trying to take the national attention off of the Lewinsky scandal ("Wag the Dog"), a scandal created I might say by the extreme right wing in the country.
All that aside, let's assume Clinton didn't do all he could to get Bin Laden. Let's assume everything said about him is completely true. The fact of the matter is that when President Bush became president in January, 2001, the nation knew that Bin Laden was an imminent threat. They were getting daily intelligence briefings indicating that he was a dangerous risk. And, the one person in the govt. who knew more about it than anyone else was Richard Clarke, certainly not a partisan politician. And, they demoted Clarke and paid no attention to the Cole matter or to anything related to Bin Laden. When 9/11 happened, instead of embracing the world's compassion toward the U.S. and asking their help in going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, President Bush and his administration turned the nation's attention toward Sadaam Hussein, who had no direct ties to Al Queda. And, it as it turns out now, had absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. And, then after 9/11, even to this day, we have more troops in Iraq fighting a war that now the NIE says is creating more terrorists rather than less terrorists, and not nearly that many troops in Afghanistan trying to kill Bin Laden. So, who is the real incompetent president?
Go figure!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Gospel According to Archie Bunker
(Hebrews 11: 1-4)
During the 1970s one of the most popular critically acclaimed television shows was “All in the Family,” starring Carroll O’Connor, Jean Stapleton, Rob Reiner, and Sally Struthers. “All in the Family” was indeed a ground-breaking television show, because, it brought to audiences a hard-hitting, realistic satire, rather than the naïve comedy escapism of the 1960s.
The main character of the show was “Archie Bunker.” I have always enjoyed the show. But, what I have particularly enjoyed is the theology of Archie Bunker. From time-to-time the show brought in themes of religion because Archie’s son-in-law, Mike Stivic was an agnostic. Although Archie himself never attended church in the storyline, he was an opinionated expert on theology. Here are just a few of his theological “Archieisms.”
In the famous episode which guest-starred Sammy Davis, Jr., Archie said, “Now, no prejudice intended, but I always check with the Bible on these here things. I think that, I mean if God had meant for us to be together he’d a put us together. But look what he done. He put you over in Africa, and put the rest of us in all the white countries.” Then, Sammy Davis, Jr. said, “Well, he must’ve told’em where we were because somebody came and got us.”
Once, in an argument with his son-in-law Mike, Mike reminded Archie, “Remember that Jesus was Jewish.” To which Archie replied, “Yes, but only on his mother’s side.”
Concerning the divinity of Christ, he said, “All over the world they celebrate the birth of that baby, and everybody gets time off from work. Now if that ain’t proof that he’s the Son of God, then nothing is.”
On the nature of God, Archie said, “God don’t make no mistakes, that’s how he got to be God!”
Concerning the inferiority of women (in Archie’s theology), he said “God made Adam first, and then he made Eve out of Adam’s rib—cheaper cut.!”
But my very favorite Archieism that leads to the point of this sermon is the one statement theologically that I believe Archie got right. Talking to Edith on one episode about faith he said, “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”
What a profound statement! “Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe. The passage of scripture cited above is the Bible’s definition of faith. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen.” The NIV puts it this way, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we cannot see.” The CEV translates it “Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see.”
There are two points to this definition of faith.
I. What Faith Has
The first part of the verse explains to us what faith “has.” “It already possess in the present what God has promised for the future.” (Tom Long, Interpretation (Hebrews), 113).
There are two aspects to this, both an inward and outward aspect according to Tom Long. Long says, “Inwardly, people of faith have a confidence today, here and now when all hell is breaking loose around us, that the promises of God for peace, justice, mercy and salvation can be trusted.” (Long, 113). Faith therefore becomes a response to the trustworthiness of God. It is like swinging “out on the vine of God’s promises over the chasms of life, trusting that the vine will hold.” (Long, 113)
But, faith is more than just an inward assurance. It is the very being of God’s promises. “It is more than the inner confidence that the powers of the world that press down and destroy human life will eventually yield and that God’s promises will be fulfilled someday; it is the reality of those promises moving as an advance force and operating behind enemy lines.” (Long, 113).
Therefore, “faith inwardly sings “We Shall Overcome.” Faith as an outward reality marches at Selma. Faith as an inward reality trusts God’s promise that “mourning and crying and pain will be no more (Rev. 21:3). Faith as an outward reality prays boldly for those who mourn, serves tenderly those who weep, works tirelessly to ease the pain of those who are wounded. Inwardly, faith moves hearts; outwardly, faith moves mountains.” (Long, 113)
I read once about a woman who was called to serve as a missionary to the Apache Indians out west. She packed her belongings and drove out in the desert to her post. She was so excited that she drove past the last gas station for hundred miles without noticing that she needed fuel. She ran out of gas about a mile down the road past the station.
She walked back to the station. The attendant came out of the office and met her to see what he could do to help. She explained that she had run out of gas about a mile down the road and didn’t have anything to transport the gas back to her car in. The attendant went around back of the station to an old shed to see if he could find anything with which she could carry her gasoline. The only container he could find was an old hospital bedpan. She told him that it would work just fine and that it would give her enough that she could get back to the station.
So, she carried it back down the road to her car careful not to spill any of the fuel. When she got to her car, she carefully poured the contents of the bedpan into the tank of her car. A truck driver pulled alongside the car just as the lady was emptying the bedpan into the tank. He rolled down his window and shouted to her, “Lady, I wish I had your faith!” (SermonCentral.com, Sermon by Michael Luke, www.sermoncentral.com/sermon.asp?SermonID=62412&ContributorID=6734)
The great theologian Augustine once said, “Faith is to believe what we do not see, and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe.” Clement of Alexandria said, “Faith is voluntary anticipation.” Faith is that quality of assurance that when life tumbles in on us, that ultimately there is still a God on control. And, that while we do not have the answers right now, we can still trust that God will bring about calm in the midst of the storm.
II. What Faith Perceives
The second aspect of faith is the evidence or conviction of things not seen. This points to the capacity of faith to see things beyond the naked eye. In 2 Corinthians 4:18 and 5:7 Paul says it this way: “What can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (Long, 114)
To the person of faith, the universe has purpose. It is not just a random swirl of matter. John Calvin says, “If God should withdraw His hand a little, all things would immediately perish and dissolve into nothing.” (Quoted in Long, 114)
The naked eye sees trouble all around. But to the eye of faith, through toil and adversity another reality can be perceived. “What the naked eye can see is a world of suffering and setback, violence and hardship. Given the harsh realities of the world, faith is the ability to see with the inner eye, to see what cannot be seen with the natural eye.” (Long, p. 114)
Martin Luther said it this way in the 3rd verse of “A Mighty Fortress is Our God:”
And tho’ this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph thro’ us,
The Prince of Darkness grim
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.
Charles Swindoll, in his book Living Above the Level of Mediocrity, tells the story of a man lost in the desert, about to die from thirst. He came upon an old, run-down shack and went inside to try and find some shade. As he looked around he saw an old water pump on the other wall of the shack. He grabbed the handle and began to pump up and down. But nothing came out. Disappointed, he staggered back to a corner, but then noticed an old jug off to the side. He looked at it, wiped away the dirt and dust and read a message on the jug that said, “You have to prime the pump with all the water in this jug. P.S. Be sure to fill the jug up before you leave.”
He popped the cork, and the jug was full of water. Now he had a decision to make. If he drank the water, he’d have his thirst quenched and he would live. If he poured the water into the old rusty pump to prime it maybe it would bring fresh, cold water from down deep in the well, perhaps all the water he wanted, and even enough to allow him to complete his journey. But, what if the pump no longer worked? And, how long had the jug of water sat in the old shack anyway.
He studied his options and reluctantly decided to pour all the water into the pump. Then he grabbed the handle and began to pump. He pumped, he pumped, and he pumped. Finally came a little trickle of water and then it all began to gush. Cool, fresh water from deep in the ground below. He filled the jug and drank from it. He filled it again and drank it again. Then he filled the jug to the top for the next traveler. He put the cork back on and added this to the note, “Believe me, it really works. You have to give it all away before you can get anything back!”
During the 1970s one of the most popular critically acclaimed television shows was “All in the Family,” starring Carroll O’Connor, Jean Stapleton, Rob Reiner, and Sally Struthers. “All in the Family” was indeed a ground-breaking television show, because, it brought to audiences a hard-hitting, realistic satire, rather than the naïve comedy escapism of the 1960s.
The main character of the show was “Archie Bunker.” I have always enjoyed the show. But, what I have particularly enjoyed is the theology of Archie Bunker. From time-to-time the show brought in themes of religion because Archie’s son-in-law, Mike Stivic was an agnostic. Although Archie himself never attended church in the storyline, he was an opinionated expert on theology. Here are just a few of his theological “Archieisms.”
In the famous episode which guest-starred Sammy Davis, Jr., Archie said, “Now, no prejudice intended, but I always check with the Bible on these here things. I think that, I mean if God had meant for us to be together he’d a put us together. But look what he done. He put you over in Africa, and put the rest of us in all the white countries.” Then, Sammy Davis, Jr. said, “Well, he must’ve told’em where we were because somebody came and got us.”
Once, in an argument with his son-in-law Mike, Mike reminded Archie, “Remember that Jesus was Jewish.” To which Archie replied, “Yes, but only on his mother’s side.”
Concerning the divinity of Christ, he said, “All over the world they celebrate the birth of that baby, and everybody gets time off from work. Now if that ain’t proof that he’s the Son of God, then nothing is.”
On the nature of God, Archie said, “God don’t make no mistakes, that’s how he got to be God!”
Concerning the inferiority of women (in Archie’s theology), he said “God made Adam first, and then he made Eve out of Adam’s rib—cheaper cut.!”
But my very favorite Archieism that leads to the point of this sermon is the one statement theologically that I believe Archie got right. Talking to Edith on one episode about faith he said, “It ain’t supposed to make sense; it’s faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe.”
What a profound statement! “Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe. The passage of scripture cited above is the Bible’s definition of faith. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen.” The NIV puts it this way, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we cannot see.” The CEV translates it “Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see.”
There are two points to this definition of faith.
I. What Faith Has
The first part of the verse explains to us what faith “has.” “It already possess in the present what God has promised for the future.” (Tom Long, Interpretation (Hebrews), 113).
There are two aspects to this, both an inward and outward aspect according to Tom Long. Long says, “Inwardly, people of faith have a confidence today, here and now when all hell is breaking loose around us, that the promises of God for peace, justice, mercy and salvation can be trusted.” (Long, 113). Faith therefore becomes a response to the trustworthiness of God. It is like swinging “out on the vine of God’s promises over the chasms of life, trusting that the vine will hold.” (Long, 113)
But, faith is more than just an inward assurance. It is the very being of God’s promises. “It is more than the inner confidence that the powers of the world that press down and destroy human life will eventually yield and that God’s promises will be fulfilled someday; it is the reality of those promises moving as an advance force and operating behind enemy lines.” (Long, 113).
Therefore, “faith inwardly sings “We Shall Overcome.” Faith as an outward reality marches at Selma. Faith as an inward reality trusts God’s promise that “mourning and crying and pain will be no more (Rev. 21:3). Faith as an outward reality prays boldly for those who mourn, serves tenderly those who weep, works tirelessly to ease the pain of those who are wounded. Inwardly, faith moves hearts; outwardly, faith moves mountains.” (Long, 113)
I read once about a woman who was called to serve as a missionary to the Apache Indians out west. She packed her belongings and drove out in the desert to her post. She was so excited that she drove past the last gas station for hundred miles without noticing that she needed fuel. She ran out of gas about a mile down the road past the station.
She walked back to the station. The attendant came out of the office and met her to see what he could do to help. She explained that she had run out of gas about a mile down the road and didn’t have anything to transport the gas back to her car in. The attendant went around back of the station to an old shed to see if he could find anything with which she could carry her gasoline. The only container he could find was an old hospital bedpan. She told him that it would work just fine and that it would give her enough that she could get back to the station.
So, she carried it back down the road to her car careful not to spill any of the fuel. When she got to her car, she carefully poured the contents of the bedpan into the tank of her car. A truck driver pulled alongside the car just as the lady was emptying the bedpan into the tank. He rolled down his window and shouted to her, “Lady, I wish I had your faith!” (SermonCentral.com, Sermon by Michael Luke, www.sermoncentral.com/sermon.asp?SermonID=62412&ContributorID=6734)
The great theologian Augustine once said, “Faith is to believe what we do not see, and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe.” Clement of Alexandria said, “Faith is voluntary anticipation.” Faith is that quality of assurance that when life tumbles in on us, that ultimately there is still a God on control. And, that while we do not have the answers right now, we can still trust that God will bring about calm in the midst of the storm.
II. What Faith Perceives
The second aspect of faith is the evidence or conviction of things not seen. This points to the capacity of faith to see things beyond the naked eye. In 2 Corinthians 4:18 and 5:7 Paul says it this way: “What can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.” “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (Long, 114)
To the person of faith, the universe has purpose. It is not just a random swirl of matter. John Calvin says, “If God should withdraw His hand a little, all things would immediately perish and dissolve into nothing.” (Quoted in Long, 114)
The naked eye sees trouble all around. But to the eye of faith, through toil and adversity another reality can be perceived. “What the naked eye can see is a world of suffering and setback, violence and hardship. Given the harsh realities of the world, faith is the ability to see with the inner eye, to see what cannot be seen with the natural eye.” (Long, p. 114)
Martin Luther said it this way in the 3rd verse of “A Mighty Fortress is Our God:”
And tho’ this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph thro’ us,
The Prince of Darkness grim
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.
Charles Swindoll, in his book Living Above the Level of Mediocrity, tells the story of a man lost in the desert, about to die from thirst. He came upon an old, run-down shack and went inside to try and find some shade. As he looked around he saw an old water pump on the other wall of the shack. He grabbed the handle and began to pump up and down. But nothing came out. Disappointed, he staggered back to a corner, but then noticed an old jug off to the side. He looked at it, wiped away the dirt and dust and read a message on the jug that said, “You have to prime the pump with all the water in this jug. P.S. Be sure to fill the jug up before you leave.”
He popped the cork, and the jug was full of water. Now he had a decision to make. If he drank the water, he’d have his thirst quenched and he would live. If he poured the water into the old rusty pump to prime it maybe it would bring fresh, cold water from down deep in the well, perhaps all the water he wanted, and even enough to allow him to complete his journey. But, what if the pump no longer worked? And, how long had the jug of water sat in the old shack anyway.
He studied his options and reluctantly decided to pour all the water into the pump. Then he grabbed the handle and began to pump. He pumped, he pumped, and he pumped. Finally came a little trickle of water and then it all began to gush. Cool, fresh water from deep in the ground below. He filled the jug and drank from it. He filled it again and drank it again. Then he filled the jug to the top for the next traveler. He put the cork back on and added this to the note, “Believe me, it really works. You have to give it all away before you can get anything back!”
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Baptists and Religious Freedom: The Courage to Confront the Establishment
Introduction
Tuesday, we celebrate the birth of our nation. The United States is a nation that stands for freedom. One of our most basic freedoms that we cherish is the freedom of religion. Within the first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution, we find the words that spell out the doctrine of the separation of church and state. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For more than two centuries Americans have enjoyed the fact that they can exercise their faith any way they please and can even have no faith at all, all without any coercion from the government. That, in my opinion, is one of our most basic of freedoms and it has served us well. It certainly explains why religion thrives so well in America.
There is a very long tradition of Baptist attention to religious liberty and separation of church and state. In his book, The Baptist Identity, Walter Shurden indicates that frequently, Baptists have been a “Romans 13 people,” recognizing that God ordains the government and they have been supportive. Other times, Baptists have been a “Revelation 13 people,” living under political circumstances where they consider the government to be the “Beast” and having to “oppose the state with their very lives.” But, most of the time, Baptists have been a “Matthew 22 people,” able to “render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is God’s.”[1]
One of my favorite Baptists was Thomas Helwys, a member of that very first congregation of Baptists established in Amsterdam by John Smyth. Eventually, Helwys took part of the group back to England and helped establish the first Baptist church on English soil. The little band of Baptists ran into great difficulty in England, though. King James was not accommodating to dissent from the Church of England. Baptists were not free to promote their faith. And, so Helwys wrote a wonderful little book called The Mistery of Iniquity. Listen carefully to these clear, concise, and prophetic words Helwys used to address the king:
We still pray our lord the King that we may be free from suspect, for having any
thoughts of provoking evil against them of the Romish religion in regard to
their profession, if they be true and faithful subjects to the King, for we do
freely profess that our lord the King hath no more power over their consciences
than ours, and that it is none at all; for our lord the King is but an earthly
King, and if the King’s people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all h
human laws made by the King, our lord the King can require no more. For
men’s religion is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it,
neither may the King be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics,
Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish
them in the least measure.[2]
Two important things should be noticed here. First, Helwys wrote this document and sent a personal copy to King James. He was immediately arrested and spent the rest of his life in Newgate Prison. Second, notice that Helwys was arguing not only for Baptist freedom, but also freedom of religion for Roman Catholics, Muslims, atheists, and Jews, a concept almost considered blasphemous in their day! But, we need to understand that it is the Baptist way!
My great fear today is that religion in America is so free, that we have been lulled to sleep and are not able to recognize threats to religious liberty that are all around us today. Even many Baptists are unaware of the danger of some of the things they say and advocate. There is a philosophy going around today in Religious Right circles that basically argues that the founding fathers were all Christians (in the way that we define Christian) and that the philosophical underpinning of the founding of our nation is Biblical Christianity. That is almost totally false. It cannot be denied that the Founding Fathers were “Christian” to some degree or another. But, coming from 18th Century Enlightenment ideals, they conceived of a nation and a government that would be totally “secular” and “neutral” when it came to matters of religion. But, many fail to recognize this today.
In 1984, in an interview with Bill Moyers that was televised nationally, W. A. Criswell, longtime pastor of FBC Dallas made a historical blunder of epic proportions. He made the statement that the notion of the separation of church and state is “the figment of some infidel’s imagination.” In that one statement, W. A. Criswell was casting off centuries of Baptist witness, including that of his own predecessor George W. Truett, as being full of “infidels.” Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!
The passage that we read a few moments ago from Amos is a story about one prophet and his refusal to go along with the establishment. It was the 8th century B.C.E. The nation of Israel had been divided between the northern kingdom, which retained the name “Israel” and the southern kingdom which was called “Judah.” Amos was a farmer, a layman, from the South who was called by God to go to the North and prophesy. Following his conscience, he did just that. And, his prophecy was pointed, harsh at times, and for the most part rejected. The northern kingdom was doing well financially and politically. The shrine at Bethel where Amaziah served as priest had good attendance. And here came this “doom and gloom” prophet, an outsider, claiming that God’s judgment was coming upon Israel for its mistreatment of the poor and its general disobedience. This was a message they did not want to hear.
This encounter between Amos and Amaziah represents the conflict between priestly religion and prophetic religion.[3] I want to suggest to you today that we do not truly have freedom of religion until there is the freedom for the “prophets” to challenge the “priests.” And, I would contend that this dynamic is at the heart of the Baptist tradition when it comes to matters of the state and our faith. Can this story teach us anything today about the freedom of religion we enjoy in our nation? Indeed I believe it can.
I. Priestly Religion: Comfort But No Freedom
In this passage of scripture we see an encounter between Amos and Amaziah. Amaziah was on the king’s payroll. He represented state religion, the establishment, the majority opinion. He was a priest at Bethel, the religious center of the Northern Kingdom. Amaziah seems to have had some type of personal acquaintance with King Jeroboam II by the fact that he reported to the king what Amos was prophesying and he seemed to speak for the king in forbidding Amos to prophesy any further. He was paid to keep the king happy. He dared not cross the king! Furthermore, one could say that a part of his job was to sponsor the state religion. He exemplifies “establishment” religion. He was a prototype of John Calvin of Geneva, John Cotton of Massachusetts Bay and Henry VIII. Amos spoke his conscience and dared speak against the establishment.
The kind of priestly religion as exemplified by Amaziah is always accountable to someone other than God. It is never truly free. It is either controlled by a governmental power, some type of social structure, or its own spokesperson. Roy Honeycutt says, “Whenever religion is institutionalized there is always a “Jeroboam” rather than God to whom it is responsible.”[4]
Priestly religion always demands that things stay as they are and is chaffed by criticism. In fact, it frequently does not allow for criticism at all. When Amaziah encountered Amos he reported to the king that Amos was “conspiring” against Israel. Then, he told Amos in verse 12, “flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.” In other words, go back home and do you prophesying but leave us alone!
On July 16, 1651 John Clarke, pastor of the Newport Baptist Church in Newport, Rhode Island, along with Obadiah Holmes and John Randall, made a pastoral visit to the home of a man named William Witter in Lynn, Mass. Witter was elderly and near death and was probably a member of the Newport church. John Clarke apparently led a worship service and preached at the home. The established religion in Mass. was Puritanism and the Puritans forbid Baptist preaching. Clarke, Randall, and Holmes were arrested for illegal preaching. They were tried and sentenced to be fined or publicly whipped.
Clarke’s fine was paid by an anonymous donor. Randall paid his own fine. A donor offered to pay Holmes’ fine but he refused and insisted on taking the whipping. And so, after several weeks in jail, on September 5, 1651 Obadiah Holmes’ hands were tied to the post in Boston Commons. He was stripped to the waist and he received thirty lashes across his back. It was reported that throughout the whipping Holmes continued preaching to the crowd as a witness. He was so brutally injured that he was unable to leave Boston for several weeks and for much of that time he could rest only crouched on his elbows and knees. His back remained scarred for the rest of his life.[5]
What was their crime? What had Holmes done to deserve such brutal treatment? Holmes, Randall, and Clarke dared challenge the establishment. One of the hallmarks of the early Baptists is that they dared to challenge the establishment, whether in England or in the American colonies. Baptists were at the forefront of efforts to secure religious freedom, not only for themselves, but also for all. Early Baptists were opponents of established religion.
It concerns me that many modern Baptists tend to be part of the establishment rather than the challenge to the establishment. I’m not advocating here that we all go out and become gadflies. However, I do think Baptists need to remember that our tradition was born in the fires of controversy and that the earliest Baptists were courageous enough to challenge the standing order.
There is a certain religious mindset in our culture today that seems to want the government on its side to do its bidding. Priestly religion! Regardless of political party, when the church starts courting government support and vice-versa, we find ourselves in danger of becoming more and more like Amaziah. Religion in America has thrived because it has had the freedom of Amos rather than the government identity of Amaziah!
Martin Marty once said that the Southern Baptist identity was so closely identified with Southern culture that the Southern Baptist Convention could be described as the “Catholic Church of the South” because of its pervasive influence on Southern culture.[6] We all know the sins of slavery and segregation that many Southern Baptists one time were guilty of. Perhaps it took Baptists such a long time to recognize their sin because like Amaziah, our religion had become too identified with the standing order.
II. Prophetic Religion: Freedom But No Comfort
II. Prophetic Religion: Freedom But No Comfort
The kind of religion exemplified by Amos is free. The only authority that Amos had to respond to was God. In verse 14 Amos made it clear that he was not a member of the “prophetic guild.” He was not a professional prophet. Other places in the Old Testament indicate that there was indeed a guild of professional prophets that the kings of Israel kept on the payroll. They functioned in ways similar to Amaziah. They were hired to keep the king happy. They never challenged the king. They never critiqued the king. And, they kept the king thinking that he was within the will of God.
Amos was different. “I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son; but I am a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees, and the Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said to me, “Go prophesy to my people Israel.” Amos let it be known that he was beholden to no one except God. He was not on the king’s payroll so he could say what he believed God wanted him to say. And, this freedom allowed him to speak God’s true word to the people in the Northern Kingdom.
One of the most powerful images I have ever witnessed on television occurred in June of 1989. It was the image of that one, lone, Chinese man, unknown to this day, who stood in defiance in front of Chinese tanks and held his ground, holding up the progression of those tanks in the street near Tiananmen Square in Peking, China. There had been days of rioting and student protests. Hunger strikes had taken place. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese students wanted one thing: Freedom. Ground Zero was Tiananmen Square. Finally, fearful of losing complete control, the Chinese government ordered tanks into the Square to put down the rioters. What happened to this man, no one will know. Who he was no one will know. But, that one image completely captured the essence of the Baptist tradition of dissent. There used to be a time when Baptists were symbolized by that one lone man standing in the face of insurmountable odds.
Like Amos 800 years before Christ, and this one man in Tiananmen Square, Baptists have a tradition of being prophetic when we need to be. I don’t know of a time in my life when a Baptist prophetic voice of dissent is more needed. We need to remember that God loves the entire world, not just America. And, when the temptation comes to identify God only with America, good Baptists need to stand up and say “no!”
As we celebrate our nation’s birth tomorrow, let us be reminded that in this great land we have the freedom to challenge the standing religious order. And let us also be reminded that we should never get too comfortable in our religion to the point where we become like Amaziah and are unable to listen to the Amoses of the world!
[1] Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 1993), p. 45.
[2] H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, (Nashville: Broadman Press: 1990): p. 72. (I have “Americanized” the English wording and spelling from the original quoted by McBeth).
[3] See Roy Honeycutt, Amos and His Message, Broadman, 1963, 132-144.
[4] Ibid., 133.
[5] Taken from Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, p. 140.
[6] Bill Leonard, God’s Last and Only Hope, p. 3.
[1] Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 1993), p. 45.
[2] H. Leon McBeth, A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, (Nashville: Broadman Press: 1990): p. 72. (I have “Americanized” the English wording and spelling from the original quoted by McBeth).
[3] See Roy Honeycutt, Amos and His Message, Broadman, 1963, 132-144.
[4] Ibid., 133.
[5] Taken from Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, p. 140.
[6] Bill Leonard, God’s Last and Only Hope, p. 3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)