My Dad (Thanks!)

            This is my first Father’s Day without my father.  For 55 years I was able to tell him “Happy Father’s Day,” either in person or on the phone.  I can’t do that today.  So, instead, I have written my thoughts.  If I could have one more hour with him, these are some of the things I would tell my father. 

            Back in 1988 Mike and the Mechanics recorded a song called “The Living Years.”  It is written from the perspective of a son expressing grief over unresolved issues in his relationship with his deceased father.  I was living in Texas at the time that the song came out.  I remember a line in the song that was particularly striking: “I wasn’t there that morning, when my father passed away.  I didn’t get to tell him, all the things I had to say.”  I remember resolving to myself that I was not going to allow that to happen in my relationship with my father.  I determined that for as long as he lived, from that point on, I would tell him my love for him and how much I appreciated what he did for me as he molded me into the man I am today.  The night that he died I recall thinking that I was so thankful that I made that decision all those years ago.  I am confident that my father died knowing that my sister and I loved him deeply and that we will always be grateful for the wonderful lessons he taught us and the wonderful legacy as a father that he left me.

            Dad, I think about you every day in some way.  Sometimes it is when I’m mowing the grass and I get an image of you on the lawn mower when I was a child.  It could be in something one of my daughters might say to me that sounds so much like something I once said to you.  Other times, it is while I’m at work and I think of a lesson you taught me about human nature or some tidbit of wisdom you imparted to me.  In subtle ways, you are still with me. 

            So, Dad, “Happy Father’s Day!”  You were the best father that anyone could possibly have asked for.  In the mysterious fortunes of the universe, I’m not sure how we were so lucky to have been given you as a father.  But, I sure am grateful.  Here are some of the reasons why I am so grateful to you and love you so much.  I will spend the rest of my days as a father trying to to be like you.  You were the master.  I’m still working on perfecting these, but I’m trying.

(1) You taught me about sacrifice.  You taught me that there are times when what I want is not the most important thing.  You taught me that the good fathers sacrifice for their children.  Good fathers sacrifice financially.  Good fathers sacrifice time that they would perhaps rather spend doing something for themselves, but instead devote that time to developing their children.  Good fathers are even willing to be embarrassed for the well-being of their children.  Let me share a quick memory of you here.  When I was a Cub Scout, we went to the local Boy Scout Camp on a Father/Son day.  One of the things they allowed us to do was to go to the skeet-shooting range.  I don’t recall shooting a shotgun that day, so it may have just been a demonstration.  But as we left, the scoutmaster gave each one of us one of the small clay pigeons that are shot on a skeet range.  I went back and showed it to you.  You took it in your hand but accidently dropped it and it broke on the ground.  I was upset but ran on ahead with my friends.  A minute or so later, I looked back and you weren’t behind us.  I asked the other fathers where you went and they said, “he walked back up the trail for a minute.”  I ran back to the skeet range and I will never forget seeing you there.  You had the next demonstration stopped and you were trying to explain to the scoutmaster why you needed another one of the clay pigeons.  You wanted to replace the one you had broken.  I will always treasure that story and your willingness to be embarrassed for me!

(2) You taught me that when you work for someone who is paying you that you need to do your very best job for that person.  It’s about “integrity” and “dependability.”  When I was a young teen I had a lawn mowing business in town.  I mowed several lawns to make my spending money.  One of the jobs I had was the yard at the bank that you managed.  Despite the fact that there was a very small amount of grass, the parking lot required a lot of trimming.  This was before gas-powered string trimmers and I would have to get down on my knees with hand clippers and clip the grass all the way around the parking lot curbing.  It was tough work, especially in the hot summer.  I recall one night you and I had a terrible argument about the fact that I had not done a good job trimming around the parking lot.  You told me, “Glenn, the bank is paying you to do a job and to do it well.  I’m responsible for the money we pay you and the job needs to be done right.”  I remember riding by the bank later that evening on my bicycle and seeing you there in the parking lot, on your hands and knees clipping the grass.  You were doing the job I was supposed to do right the first time.  The guilt from that experience made a tremendous impression on me.  I never forgot it.  I still work as hard as I can for people who employ me, a lesson that you taught.

(3) You taught me the importance of encouraging my children.  Mom was the card and letter writer in the family.  You can imagine how surprised I was to receive a letter from you one day.  I was having a very difficult time just after I moved to Texas to go to school.  The letter I received from you was written on a plain piece of typing paper in your handwriting.  It was just a few simple lines.  It said, “Glenn, just remember that when the going gets tough, the tough get going.  Love, Dad.”  I know that phrase wasn’t original with you.  I do remember that you used it frequently.  I don’t know if you got it from the Navy or from reading something somewhere.  But, it meant the world to me.  It was a very difficult time and you took a few minutes out of your day to write a note to me which let me know that even 1200 miles away you were thinking of me.  Thanks Dad!

(4) You taught me the joy of the Christian faith.  There was no doubt about your commitment to Christianity.  You didn’t wear your faith on your sleeve though.  It permeated all that you did.  It revealed itself in the way you dealt with people, the way you sang hymns, your service and commitment to the church where I grew up.  And, unlike so many church members today, you didn’t insist on your own way.  You were the solution to problems in the church, not the cause of problems.  I suppose that most of your pastors throughout your adult life would “rise up and call you blessed” because you were so faithful and always willing to help them.  And, on a personal note, I will forever remember your hymn-singing over the hum of the lawn mower.  I will also forever think of you when I hear the solo “Fill My Cup Lord,” because I can still see you singing it church.  Thanks Dad, for teaching me the joy of the Christian faith.

(5) You prepared me to be on my own.  What I mean by this is that you had just the right mix of doing things for me that I couldn’t do for myself, while challenging me to struggle and do the things that I could do.  This has served me so well in my adult years.  It may have been something as simple as slipping a $20 bill into my hand as I got into the car to return to school (with the comment, “You don’t have to spend this.  It is just in case you need it”).  Or, sometimes these lessons came through your interaction with me as I faced a project or task.  Remember the Pinewood Derby cars we whittled when I was in Cub Scouts?  You could have made the car for me.  I know there were other fathers who did.  But, you made me do it myself with your guidance.  You made me do the whittling, sanding, and painting.  In the end, although my cars never won, I always felt great pride that I made the car myself.  You gave just the right guidance to me.  I find that this is one of the hardest things to do as a father.  When do I step in and do it for my children?  When should I let them struggle on their own and even fail?  I am so quick to step in and rescue them when sometimes they need to learn lessons by failing.  You were a master at this balance and I am so grateful.

            And so, Dad, on this first Father’s Day without you, these are the things I’d tell you if I could have just one more hour with you.  Thanks for loving me.  Thanks for encouraging me.  Thanks for teaching me to throw and hit a baseball.  Thanks for coming to all my ball games and practices.  Thanks for the laughter and all the hours we sat together eating apples and laughing at Barney Fife on the Andy Griffith Show.  Thanks for teaching me the importance of loving my country and patriotism.  Thanks for instilling in me love of God and the importance of living my life as Christ would want me to live.  Thanks for teaching me honesty, integrity, and the importance of hard work.  Thanks for teaching me to think for myself.  But most of all, thanks for being the best Father in the world.

            I began this essay by referencing a song.  Let me end by referencing another.  In 1981 Dan Fogelberg wrote a song called “The Leader of the Band.”  This verse says it all.  Thanks Dad!  I love you and miss you.

I thank you for the music
And your stories of the road
I thank you for the freedom
When it came my time to go
I thank you for the kindness
And the times when you got tough
And, papa, I don't think
I said, "I love you" near enough.

A Big Baptist World

The website of the Baptist World Alliance reports that there are 42 million Baptists around the world in 177,000 churches.  There are 228 various Baptist conventions and unions in 120 countries.  The Baptist "tent" is indeed big!

The International Baptist Convention is one such group that contributes its part to the world-wide Baptist family.  According to their informational brochure, the IBC is "a fellowship of international English-language churches and missions currently in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas."  The IBC has approximately 75 cooperating churches located in 27 countries.  It boasts 7,200 members from 140 different nationalities.  To say that this is a small, diverse group of Baptists is an understatement!

I had the wonderful opportunity this summer to attend the "IBC Interlaken Summer Experience," held annually in Interlaken, Switzerland and sponsored by the International Baptist Convention.  One of my former students, Dr. Mason Smith, is pastor of Immanuel Baptist church in Wiesbaden, Germany which is affiliated with the IBC.  He extended a gracious invitation for me to come and participate in this wonderful experience.

For the last 15 years the IBC has hosted this event in which missionaries, pastors and laity bring their families to beautiful Interlaken for spiritual nurture, fellowship, ministry, and training.  I taught two seminars during the week; one titled "How We Got Our Bible," and the second on the book of Jeremiah.  Each morning during the week I had a diverse group of participants literally from around the world.  Some were United States military personnel assigned to various bases around the world who had found a local IBC church near their base.  Others were missionary clergy who serve as pastors in some of the churches.  There were also participants for whom English was perhaps their second or third language.  It was an amazingly diverse group of people.

While the adults were in the seminars taught by me and other faculty members and clergy from around the world, a Vacation Bible School was conducted by a group of people representing the Alabama Baptist Convention with a few folks from Virginia and even North Carolina thrown in for good measure!  Away from Interlaken the teenagers participated in a youth camp.  There was something for everyone that week!

I came away from this experience with a wonderful feeling about Baptists.  This was the most diverse group of Baptist people I had ever been around.  Different languages, nationalities and cultures made this groups of Baptists more like a quilt than a blanket.  And yet, through the entire week, there was no fighting, arguing, or disagreeing about anything.  In fact, a concerted effort was made to focus only on the things that bind us together, not the things that divide.  And, with a group as small as the IBC, they can't afford to argue and divide like many Baptists in America have done over the last couple of centuries.

So, when I get depressed thinking  about Baptists in the southern part of the United States and how much we have quarreled over the last half century, I find myself feeling much brighter about the worldwide Baptist movement because of groups like the International Baptist Convention.  Dr. Jimmy Martin, the group's General Secretary, is to be commended for his splendid leadership of this wonderful group.

Jesus and Religious Freedom

Every July 4th 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, or have no at all, and not have to worry about religious 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.

The 4th of July also marks a special day in the history of Baptists, particularly Virginia Baptist history.  On that day in 1802, "Swearing" Jack Waller died after preaching himself to exhaustion.  If you are a Baptist and don't know "Swearing Jack," you should.  His name was actually John Waller but he had the nickname "Swearing Jack" before his conversion to Christ.  By happenstance he was on the grand jury that indicted a Virginia Baptist preacher named Lewis Craig, the first Baptist preacher brought before the court in Virginia for preaching without a state license.  This occurred in the 1760s.  Because of the powerful testimony of Craig in the hearing before the grand jury, Swearing Jack confessed Christ as his Savior and became a Baptist preacher himself.  He experienced persecution because of it, serving time in prison with some other Virginia Baptist preachers in 1766 for preaching without a state license.  Of course, the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, changed things a little more than two decades later.

Did Jesus talk about separation of church and state or religious freedom for all?  Well, the way that Christians behaved for much of Christian history and the way that many Christians today treat those of different faiths makes one wonder.  However, I believe there are some places in the teachings of Jesus from which we can build a case for religious freedom.  For example, in Mark 12, when the Pharisees asked Jesus if they had to pay their taxes, Jesus in turn asked to see a coin.  He asked them a question: "Whose head is this and whose title?"  Their answer: "The emperor's."  Jesus then said, "Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's."  From this I believe we can draw a conclusion that Jesus saw two realms, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of this world.

There is one other place in Jesus' teaching that I believe is the foundation for an ethic of religious freedom.  I believe it can be found in the so-called "Golden Rule."  In Matthew 7:12 Jesus said, "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you."  Can you imagine how just following this simple teaching of Jesus (the thought of which is found in all the world's major religions) would revolutionize our world, our nation, our state, our communities?  This simple teaching is the key to how we should respond to those whose faith may be different than ours.  How would we want them to treat us?  That is how we should treat them.  Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Liberal Christian, Fundamentalist Christian . . .  

And so at the heart of one of the most common sayings of Jesus is I believe the key to living and celebrating our religious freedom as Americans.  This coming Thursday, before you fire up the barbecue, before you go to the parade, before you watch the fireworks, think about your Muslim neighbor down the street.  Or think about your Buddhist co-worker.  Or think about the Christian who believes differently than you do on a certain point of doctrine.  And, remember the Golden Rule!

The North Carolina General Assembly, Rowan County Commissioners and Religious Freedom

I had a very good church history professor in seminary named Dr. William R. Estep.  Dr. Estep taught me a lot about Christian history and especially Baptist history.  He inspired me so much that I chose to pursue a PhD in Church History.  Most of my research and publication has concentrated in the area of Baptist History.

One of the defining characteristics of Baptists in the 17th century (when the movement began) was their intense devotion to religious freedom.  Unlike other dissenting groups in the 17th century, the Baptists believed and agitated for religious freedom for all people (Christian, non-Christian, Muslim, Jew, atheist, etc.).  This devotion to religious freedom for all comprises a unique contribution of the early Baptists to the world.  They wanted no part of establishment for religion.

The early Baptists knew their history well.  They understood, and had experienced for themselves, the dangers of establishment.  They knew that when the state had an established religion, other religions suffered.  And they also knew that what might be established today could easily be disestablished tomorrow.  So, one group might have the power right now but with a change in the government, a new group might have the power.  Simply put, the early Baptists knew the value of the "Golden Rule" when it came to advocating for religious freedom.  "I will grant you the freedom to practice your faith as you choose because I would want the same from you if you were in power."

Dr. Estep inspired me because in him I saw a modern Baptist who remained loyal to the 17th century Baptist notion about religious freedom.  He understood, like our Baptist forebears, that although Baptists are no longer dissenters and in the minority on the American religious landscape, nevertheless, we need to remain consistent to the principles of religious liberty for all.  If I heard him say it once, I heard him say it a dozen times: "freedom of religion has always got to guarantee freedom from religion."  He understood that establishing one religion, or showing favoritism to one religion, can have the opposite of the intended effect.  State support of one religion actually serves to weaken all religion.  Just look at the history of established churches throughout Christian history!  Establishment tends to weaken rather than strengthen.

So, that brings me to Rowan County (my home county) and the North Carolina General Assembly.  The Rowan County Commissioners are engaged in a dispute right now with the ACLU over the issue of Christian prayers to open its meetings.  They are contemplating a lawsuit over the issue.  The Forsyth County Commissioners have already litigated this same issue all the way to the SCOTUS, which refused to hear their case.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/article_c28b7206-1556-5f76-b66e-0d9263a14741.html

This means that the lower court rulings, that such sectarian prayers are unconstitutional, must stand.  It is the law of the land.  The Rowan County Commissioners will waste thousands of taxpayer dollars if they choose to litigate an issue that is legally a dead end.

That reality is probably what prompted two Rowan County representatives (NC Reps. Henry Warren and Carl Ford) to the NC General Assembly to propose a bill a couple of weeks ago which made national headlines.  It was supported by 14 other Republican legislators as well.  Essentially, their proposed bill would nullify SCOTUS rulings for the state of North Carolina.  If the state didn't like the rulings, the state could nullify them.  The same argument has been tried unsuccessfully since the end of the Civil War.  In the matter of religion, it would allow the state of North Carolina to choose an established religion.

So, here's what Warren and Ford are up against.  They are carrying water for the Rowan County Commissioners who are fighting their own losing cause that has already met a dead end in Forsyth County.  They are also using a legal argument (nullification) which has been tried since the Civil War, particularly in civil rights issues.  They are showing a complete ignorance of the dangers of establishing religion.  And, perhaps most importantly, establishing one religion over all others would be a direct contradiction of the Golden Rule.

Bill Leonard (James and Marilyn Dunn Professor of Church History and Baptist Studies at the Wake Forest Divinity School), wrote a column today that discusses this issue much better than I.  It is located here:

http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/columns/item/8395-at-home-in-the-17th-century#.UWhLyDe67To

The best line in the whole column is this: "The issue is not the loss of religious liberty, but loss of religious privilege."  I suspect he's right.  A couple of generations ago religious pluralism meant Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, non-denominational, Catholic, all Christian groups living together in community.  Today, all over America, religious pluralism is being redefined.  Have you seen a mosque in your hometown yet?  It will be coming soon.  Have you noticed the new Buddhist temple going up in the county seat town?  It will be soon.  The American religious landscape is changing at light speed.  One day in the not too distant future, Christians may realize that we no longer corner the religious market.  Hopefully, then Baptists will once again become the agitators for religious freedom for all.  And, when that day comes, it will be much easier for Baptist Christians to make that argument if we abide by the Golden Rule now.

Baptist Historians

Back in the early spring of 2002, I received an email from Buddy Shurden asking if I'd like to participate in a seminar with approximately 15-20 other "younger" Baptist historians. If I said "yes," I committed myself to read several hundred pages of primary source documents from the Baptist tradition in preparation for the seminar which would convene at Mercer University in September of that year.

Although I was busy with many things at the time, I agreed to participate. We just completed our 9th seminar last weekend in Atlanta. Buddy is now retired and no longer meets with us. Our group still meets though. We have added a few other names as some of the original members have had to drop out. But, in all honesty, this has been and continues to be one of the most helpful continuing education experiences of my professional life. We have read and discussed literally thousands of pages of primary source materials from 400 years of the Baptist tradition from both England and America.

We just completed our 9th seminar last weekend in Atlanta. This year we decided as a group to release a document which we hope will inform the public about some of the things we have learned through our reading of these primary sources. Here is the link to the document:

http://www.baptisthistory.org/bhhs/affirmationbaptisttheme.html

I am so proud to be associated with these historians. They are professional colleagues and I value their individual as well as collective expertise as historians. But the best thing that has happened through these 8 years of working together in this seminar is that we have all become close friends. A sense of community has developed between us. That has made this experience even more beneficial.

CBFNC and Priesthood of the Believer

I have been away from blogging for a while due to being consumed with a long-term writing project. However, I want to return to blogging momentarily to comment on the proposed efforts of CBFNC to revise its foundational statement. In 2007, CBFNC appointed a committee to start the process of revision. The current statement is included here:

http://www.cbfnc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1sFC6ojb-Ss%3d&tabid=254

The committee has been at work for a several years now and has produced this revision:

http://www.cbfnc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=8yecCUNauRk%3d&tabid=254

Two other Baptist bloggers, Aaron Weaver and Tony Cartledge have each written blogs about this effort and their posts are very insightful and detailed as to the differences, etc. Those blogs can be found here:

http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/

http://www.tonycartledge.com/

I share two concerns about this proposed document. First, I have some questions about including the Apostles Creed (although, curiously, it is not named). While I don't have any difficulty with the Apostles Creed personally, I find it interesting that a group of Baptists who consider themselves to be non-creedal would include a creed in their foundational document. I wonder if the text could be referenced, as the document does with the Baptist confessions that it mentions. But, I question whether the text of the Creed ought to be included and it is unusual for a Baptist confession to include the text of an ancient creed (The Orthodox Creed of 1678 notwithstanding).

Second, and more troubling, I have big problems with leaving out all references to priesthood of the believer, liberty of conscience, etc. This concept is at the very center of the Baptist tradition from my understanding of the primary sources which I have read. It is not some invented concept that Enlightenment-era American Baptists developed. It is the very heart of the tradition from John Smyth to the present. It is clear. Sometimes it is stated more blatantly than at other times. But, it is a thread that runs through all types of Baptists for 4 centuries of our history. It is seen in confessions of faith, writings of Baptist theologians and preachers, documents produced by local churches, and most importantly, the actions of Baptists as they have sought to live and give expression to their faith. How can you talk about salvation in the Baptist experience without starting with a sinner standing alone in fear and trembling before a holy God? What use is it to discuss religious liberty without first starting with an individual conscience opposed to the majority? How can you think of a democratically-run congregation without first starting with an individual conscience? And why encourage discussion in a Sunday School class unless we trust every individual to read the Bible privately and to interpret it as they see fit under the leadership of the Holy Spirit? These are not trivial matters. This is the very core of our tradition as Baptists.

The proposed CBFNC foundational statement needs a robust statement of this concept included. At the very least, they should bring the statement on priesthood of the believer which is in the current foundational statement into the revised version. Perhaps a good compromise would be to bring from the former document the entire section titled, “Our Principles,” which contains statements on the “Centrality and Authority of Scripture,” “Priesthood of All Believers,” “Autonomy of the Local Church,” and “Freedom of Religion.” The document is terribly lacking if something resembling this is not included somewhere. Without it, CBFNC will be saying to the world that we are something very different than what we have been.

The first Southern Baptist Convention meeting I attended as a pastor was in 1988 in San Antonio. I was also a Ph.D student at Baylor and had an interest in Baptist history. I recall the feeling of shock that I and thousands of other Moderates felt as we heard read and then saw passed the infamous resolution on the priesthood of the believer. I remember Randall Lolley’s protest as he led several others to the Alamo where they ceremonially burned their voting ballots in response to this egregiously terrible resolution. The ironic thing now 22 years later is that CBFNC is in danger of doing the same thing that the Fundamentalists did in 1988 to this cherished doctrine. The only difference is that at least the Fundamentalists left the terminology. The committee which has produced this revised document has not even done that!

"This is What a Preacher Looks Like"

Baptist Women in Ministry, an organization for which I have a tremendous amount of respect, sells a T-Shirt with the phrase, "This is What a Preacher Looks Like." I love that slogan. And, it has been promoted by BWIM very well via Facebook.
I teach Religion majors at Campbell University. Many of the students that I teach are female and most of them have a sense that God has called them to ministry. As 18 year olds, they do not know exactly what direction in ministry their calling will take. But, they have a deep sense that God has done something in their lives and following the call to ministry is their way of responding. I am supportive of women who have been called to ministry, whether it be to serve as a parish pastor, a chaplain, youth minister, missionary, or whatever form that call may take.
For the last two years almost, I have been engaged in a project to write the bi-centennial history of First Baptist Church in Raleigh. I am currently working through the period from 1911-1938. Today, I was reading old WMU minutes and came across an amazing entry from October 2nd, 1916. During the meeting on that day, Sallie Bailie Jones, one of the most important WMU leaders in the South in the early 20th century, spoke on the subject of "Women in Christianity." Listen to these words:
“Woman was created man’s equal and a high standard for womanhood was given in the Old Testament. Miriam, the sister of Moses, who led her people was as divinely appointed as Moses, and Deborah, the prophetess was the first woman to rule a nation by divine appointment. With the coming of Christ there came a higher life for women and the gospel of a risen Christ was first heard by the disciples from Mary Magdalene."
Now, this is not from the mouth of some wild-eyed radical feminist. This is from the Woman's Missionary Union that was part of one of the most prominent churches in the Southern Baptist Convention at the time. So, when some conservatives today say that it is God's intention that the woman should be "submissive" to the man, I think they would have a hard time convincing Sallie Bailie Jones of that!
"This is What a Preacher looks like!!"

Paige Patterson's Crusade

I haven't blogged in a while. I've just been so busy with other matters that I didn't have time to keep up with my blog. However, this event covered by Tony Cartledge is just too good to ignore. The title is "Warriors for Jesus." See Tony's blog here:

http://www.tonycartledge.com/

This speaks for itself. I'll just add this: (1) Dr. Patterson is probably in need of a good retirement plan. (2) Dr. Patterson could probably use some therapy. (3) I have never been so embarrassed to be a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theology Seminary. I may just take my diploma off my wall!

Laptop Use in the College Classroom

There are some courses in the university where laptops are essential items for students in the class. My class is not one of them. Generally, my classes are lecture-oriented with a measure of discussion. If I need to refer to something on the internet, I use my laptop to connect and then flash the material on the screen at the front of the room with the boxlight projector.

I never really cared about laptop use until about 3 years ago. I started noticing that my students were not paying attention as well with their laptops open and that I was having to compete with Instant Messenger, Facebook, email, and a host of other distractions. One of our other religion classes also had a minor incident of a student visiting a website that was a bit offensive to his fellow students.

At this point I decided to implement a policy (stated in my syllabus) that forbids use of electronic devices in my classes. This includes cell phones, mp3 players, iPods (amazing that I had a student once listening to her iPod while I was lecturing!). Of course, I do allow for laptops and recording devices if a student has a special need for its use.

This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education caught my attention today. It seems to confirm what I have suspected for some time now; that students make better grades if they leave the laptops closed and pay attention to the lecture.

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3662/when-shown-how-in-class-laptop-use-lowers-test-scores-students-stop-surfing

Students Stop Surfing After Being Shown How In-Class Laptop Use Lowers Test Scores
Professors increasingly frustrated by students who use laptops for non-class activities—like updating their Facebook pages—may be heartened by news from the University of Colorado at Boulder. A professor there has found that educating students about the negative effect that frivolous laptop use has on their performance reduces class time spent going walkabout on the Web.

Diane Sieber, an associate professor, teaches writing and ethics to engineering undergraduates. She told the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper that last semester, she identified 17 students in one of her classes who were using laptops most frequently. After the first test, she told them that they did 11 percent worse, on average, than their peers who did not have their faces in their computers as much.

Lo and behold, the number of laptop-nosed students dropped to a half dozen, and the test scores of those who stopped using their computers during class went up.
Ms. Sieber says she also tries to tell students about the effects their behavior has on others in the class. Students “ask their classmates, ‘Please don’t watch movies on your computer, because if I’m behind you I can’t focus,’” she told the newspaper.

As the number of wireless-enabled classrooms increases—at Boulder it has gone from about 15 percent to about 85 percent in the last several years, according to the report—the laptop-related challenges facing the people up at the front of the room has gone up as well. Several law-school professors, The Chronicle has reported, have banned laptops from their classrooms. Laptop-free zones have been ordered by law-school instructors at Florida International, Georgetown, and Harvard Universities, and the Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin.

But other instructors find bans hard to enforce, and also find that Web access can enrich classroom discussions. A recent survey of 29,000 students at 85 law schools supports this notion. It may be that treating students as grown-ups and letting them see for themselves what helps and what hurts them in class, as Ms. Sieber has done, results in students who make smart decisions. —Josh Fischman


-->

What is Their "Fair Share?"

The Republicans (the party of choice for rich C.E.O.s) has been complaining about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to the levels that they were during the Clinton administration. This will be a change of 35% to 39.5%. Some wackos have even being calling President Obama a "Socialist."

Oh really?

Get this. At the end of Ronald Reagan's first term in office do you know what the tax rate was for the wealthiest Americans? 50%

Do you know that under Richard Nixon the tax rate for wealthy America was 70%?

Under Dwight D. Eisenhower the rate was 91%.

Above is a chart prepared by Moveon.org to show a comparison between what President Obama is trying to do and the tax rates that existed since the Great Depression.

With the latest news of AIG bonuses being paid out with taxpayer money, it is time for all Americans to stand up and say "enough!"

It is time for the wealthiest 1% of American society, as well as the large corporations to pay their fair share back to society.

Oh, and by the way, the Obama budget cuts taxes for 95% of all Americans. That's how it should be. The wealthy ought to pay more than the middle class. It's not socialism. It's common sense!

Rush Limbaugh and the Religious Right

Robert Parham, Executive Director of the Baptist Center for Ethics has an excellent editorial on Rush Limbaugh and the Religious Right that appeared in the "Washington Post" today. I wanted to promote it through my blog today as well. He raises a good question: Why does the Religious Right embrace Rush Limbaugh so heartily when Limbaugh's life and thought are so obvioulsy contrary to basic Christian morality?

Here's the link:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/03/limbaughs_unrighteous_hold_on.html

Here's the article:

Robert Parham
Limbaugh's Unrighteous Hold on Christian Right

Rush Limbaugh told what he thought was a joke to a cheering crowd at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative activists and politicians. In his rambling remarks televised on FOX News, Limbaugh said that when Larry King died, he went to heaven and was met at the gates by Saint Peter. King's one question was: "Is Rush Limbaugh here?"

"'No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King,'" said Limbaugh, pretending to be Peter.

"So Saint Peter begins the tour," said Limbaugh. "Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says, 'Rush Limbaugh.'"

The audience laughed.

Limbaugh said, "And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says, 'I thought you said he wasn't here.' He said, 'He's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh,'" said Limbaugh.

The crowd erupted with laughter, applause and hoots. Conservatives thought it was hilarious that God would envy the rival deity named Rush Limbaugh. Not a boo, not a hiss, not a grumble was heard from the crowd.

While CPAC was a secular event, it was an event sponsored, supported and attended by Christian Right organizations and leaders. The CPAC program listed as co-sponsors: Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council and Liberty University's law school. Exhibitors included the Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Council and Regent University's Robertson School of Government. Focus on the Family held a reception for former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

No doubt, a lot of conservative Christians were in the room. Days later, no Christian Right leader has objected to Limbaugh's claim to be bigger than God, a claim similar to what John Lennon said in 1966.

When Lennon said, "We're more popular than Jesus," Bible-belt Christians roared with anger. They burned Beatles records, banned Beatles songs on the radio and boycotted Beatles concerts. They tolerated no rival claims to the messiah. When Limbaugh uttered a parallel claim, those who see Christianity under attack offered no response. No cry of cultural hostility toward religion was heard. No demand for an apology boomed from pulpits. No boycott was launched.

Why is that?

Why is it that the Christian Right reacted with such reverence to a man who, through thinly disguised humor, disclosed his prideful self-perception and espoused a worldview that counters the biblical witness? Are they afraid of Limbaugh? Are they afraid of his followers who pack their pews?

What explains the fact that Limbaugh can speak untruthfully, and yet he goes unchallenged by conservative Christians? He certainly spoke untruthfully at CPAC when he said that conservatives did not see other people with contempt. Yet he exhibited contempt in his comments about Senators Harry Reid and John Kerry.

When Limbaugh asserted that President Obama "portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night," that he wants to destroy the United States and that he was fueling "class envy," his untruthfulness went unchallenged. Limbaugh claimed, "We don't hate anybody." Yet he proceeded to speak hatefully about Obama, defending his statement that he hoped Obama failed, which was hardly endearing speech.

If truth telling isn't a conservative value, what about unbridled greed? Is greed a Christian concern? Limbaugh defended greed. He defended the conspicuous consumption and the corporate mismanagement of Merrill Lynch's former CEO John Thain as a way to defend capitalism.

Limbaugh asserted the primacy of excessive individualism. Again and again, he preached a radical individualism--the rights of the individual are transcendent. Never did he advocate sacrifice for another or urge his audience to avoid the pursuit of one's rights for the well-being of others.

Limbaugh's agenda had no room for the parable of the Good Samaritan, perhaps no longer a valued Christian narrative. Is Rush Limbaugh's agenda in sync with the moral values and vision of conservative Christians?

Given the thunderous silence of Christian Right leaders about Limbaugh's worldview, one wonders if talk radio's man of excessive individualism and political extremism has replaced the biblical witness as a moral compass.

Robert Parham is executive editor of EthicsDaily.com and executive director of its parent organization, the Baptist Center for Ethics.

Frank Schaeffer takes on the Republican Party

Franky Schaeffer's father and mother were "founders" of the Religious Right in America, along with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye, and James Dobson. Franky Schaeffer was right along side of them in the decades of the 70s -90s. As late as the 2000 presidential election he was still trying to get Republicans elected.

That was then. Now, he has completely turned his back on the Religious Right and the Republican Party. In 2007 he wrote a book called "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, And Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of it Back."

In the link below, Schaeffer, now a blogger for the Huffington Post, slams the Republican Party and more particularly Rush Limbaugh. He takes them all to task for creating the mess the nation is in both economically and militarily and then having the audacity to hope that the president "fails" in his attempts to lead our nation out of the crisis. He calls Rush Limbaugh the new "Hanoi Jane" in American society.

Good for him! It is encouraging to see more and more Americans (especially former Republicans) standing up to oppose the failed economic and military policies that the last 8 years brought us! And all the Republican leadership can do is say that they hope the president fails! Will the "real" patriotic Americans please stand up?

Strong stuff! Read the post for yourself here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/open-letter-to-the-republ_b_172822.html

Al Mohler and the Nemesis of Liberal Theology

Yesterday, Robert Parham had a very good article on the financial problems that many seminaries and divinity schools find themselves in right now, particularly with our nation's economic crisis. You can find the article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1127

Parham called attention to an earlier blog written by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY in which Mohler essentially argued that the decline of mainline denominations and seminaries is due to the liberal theology embraced by such institutions. Here is the link to Mohler's blog:
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1127

Mohler echoes a familiar theme here. During the takeover of the SBC by the Fundamentalists, the mantra was always that the SBC was in danger of embracing liberal theology and if it did so, it would decline. Therefore, the Fundamentalists needed to "save" the SBC. Well, they saved it all right! Now, the SBC itself admits that it is in decline. See the story here: http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2009/01/stemming-sbc-membership-declin.html

Mohler wrote his blog in April, 2008. In December, 2008, Southern Seminary announced that it expected a budget shortfall of nearly 9%. Just a few weeks ago, Southern announced a layoff of 35 administrative staff positions.

Southern Seminary is not the only theological school in the SBC fold with financial problems. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is encountering a financial crisis of sorts in which the president has announced that he will take a 10% salary cut and require faculty members to follow with a 5% decrease. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, is cutting approximately $4 million from its budget and has closed the child care center on campus due to budget shortages.

Granted, the decline of the stock market and our nation's financial crisis have contributed to the crises that these schools are faced with. However, I believe that if I were the president of Southern Seminary, I'd write a blog retracting my earlier argument that the decline of mainline denominations and seminaries is due to an embrace of liberal theology. Perhaps there are other factors that need to be examined.

Bibb County Georgia Public Schools and the Inauguration

It seems that when President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in as president tomorrow, there will be some school children in Bibb County, Georgia who will not be allowed to see it. There have been enough parents complaining about teachers' plans to have the children watch the swearing-in ceremony and Obama's inauguration speech that the school system is going to provide alternative learning activities for those children whose parents object. The story listed below indicates that the parents were concerned that seeing a new president sworn in and giving his inaugural address to the nation is not and "educational activity."

My friend, Amy Morton, in Georgia first blogged about this. You can see her blog here: http://georgiawomenvote.blogspot.com/2009/01/alternative-reality-school.html

Part of me is suspicious about this. Is the concern of the parents really that the activity is not "educational" enough? Or, is there perhaps a bit of racism in the background? I would like to think that this is not racially motivated. But this is Georgia after all. And racism is still alive all over the nation, but especially is it still rampant in the deep South.

But perhaps it is best to think better of these parents. So, the concern that viewing the inauguration of a new president is not and "educational" activity seems to me to be very wrong. Tomorrow's swearing in of Barack Obama is historic. On the steps of the nation's capital, built by slave labor, the first African-American president will be sworn in. It is as historic as watching Neil Armstrong take that "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" step in
1969. In fact, it represents a cultural shift of epic proportions in our nation's history. That may make it even bigger than Armstrong's leap.

So, I hope that those good citizens of Bibb County, Georgia who are objecting to this activity will reconsider and allow their children to witness this historic moment tomorrow.

http://www.macon.com/198/story/590053.html

The Dinosaur's Death

I've always been intrigued by the mystery of what happened to dinosaurs millions and millions of years ago. Did they become extinct as a result of some sudden cataclysm? Or, was their extinction a gradual process? I am not a scientist or the son of a scientist so I'll leave the speculation to my colleagues in the science department.

For some time now I have said to my Baptist history classes that the SBC is a dinosaur and it doesn't know it. We can now see that the SBC is truly in decline both in numbers as well as in giving. The SBC will never again be what it once was. Thank God!

The "Controversy" has taught many of us that God's tent is much, much bigger than Southern Baptists. The Baptist tent is bigger (Freewill Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Candadian Baptists, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Nationial Baptists, Hispanic Baptists, etc. etc.) But, beyond that, the Christian tent is larger than just Southern Baptists. I think it took the Controversy over the last 30 years to teach many Southern Baptists this valuable lesson. Sadly, however, there are still many, many Southern Baptists who just don't get it.

Robert Parham, director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, has a great editorial today on Ethicsdaily.com analyzing the slow death of the SBC. It is worth the read. Thanks Robert for a great piece! I include it below:

http://ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=11546

New Leadership and Theological Transformation Might Reverse SBC Decline

Robert Parham
01-09-09
Reversing the Southern Baptist Convention’s decline and loss of influence will demand new leadership and theological transformation, two very unlikely possibilities in the next decade. The SBC’s numerical slide and besmirched image took some 30 years to achieve and cannot be undone by a quick makeover.


After a decade-long internecine war, fundamentalists defeated the feckless moderates and took control in the early 1990s of SBC agencies and seminaries. Their successful campaign was built on two promises.



One promise was that the SBC would enter a golden age of growth when Southern Baptists read the Bible literally and had conservative positions on issues like women and abortion.



Fundamentalists believed the decline in mainline Protestantism resulted from liberalism, such as the critical study of the Bible and ordination of women. A conservative worldview was the best defense against decline.



If the first promise was theological, the second promise was organizational. Fundamentalists claimed that conservatives were neither hired at seminaries nor appeared on convention programs. They said they only wanted parity in positions.



Parity soon turned to purity, driving out those who were neither theological conservatives nor supporters of the Christian Right.



Without a counterbalancing force, fundamentalists quickly marched into an anti-everything posture. The SBC launched a boycott against Disney. It adopted a faith statement against women working outside the home. One seminary president made anti-Catholic statements on national TV, saying the Pope preached a false gospel. Leaders made anti-public school declarations, calling for an exodus of Christian students from public education. Others implied that the Democratic Party was against God.



Purity and negativity had dire consequences. Churches backed away from the SBC; even conservative churches dropped Baptist from their name. SBC-affiliated state conventions turned toward their own priorities. Fearing fundamentalist control, Baptist universities, such as Belmont University, sought autonomy. Attendance at the annual SBC meeting plummeted. Attempts to rally Southern Baptists to baptize more converts and to grow churches flopped. The promised golden age never happened.



Even if rank-and-file Southern Baptists had the power to hold accountable those who presided over the denominational fall, reversing the situation would require fundamental theological changes.



Positive growth requires that an authentic inclusivity must replace a rigid exclusivity for women in leadership. Civil ecumenical and meaningful interfaith engagement must supplant arrogant theological purity. A genuine commitment to non-partisanship must be swapped for the claim that God’s Only Party is the GOP.



Finally, reversing the decline would require Southern Baptists to redefine how they determine God’s favor. The current measurement of success is numerical growth, which the SBC does not have, meaning the denomination is out of favor with God, according to the body’s own definition.



A broader theological definition of faithfulness and cultural engagement would go a long way toward reversing decline, something that a new generation of leaders might advance.



Robert Parham is the executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics.



Requested by the editorial page of the Tennessean, this column appeared on Tuesday, accompanying the newspaper’s own editorial about the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention and another column by Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research.


Copyright © 2002-2008 EthicsDaily.com

A Century of the Gideons

As I write this I am sitting in the lobby of my hotel in New York City. I am attending the American Society of Church History winter meeting, which meets every year with the larger American Historical Association. I love NYC. But I also love being in the company of so many historians.

So, with history on my mind, I came across this story. The Gideons are one hundred years old. Here's the story:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/nationandworld/ci_11346492?nclick_check=1

The Gideons International is an organization of lay people devoted to distributing Bibles worldwide. I appreciate the fact that it is an effort of laity and not clergy. I have also enjoyed hearing the incredible stories told by Gideons of how the Bible has impacted the lives of those who have at times literally stumbled upon it in a hotel room. Even today, as I checked into my hotel and opened up the desk drawer, there was a Gideon Bible.

And so, here's a word of congratulations to the Gideons for their good work of distributing Bibles around the world for a hundred years.

"AUgusteen" or "A-GUST-in?"

For centuries scholars have been trying to figure how the great Bishop of Hippo's name should correctly be pronounced. I, of course, pronounce it the correct way: "AUgusteen," with the accent on the first syllable and a long "e" sound at the end of the name. Several of my colleagues on the theology side of the aisle insist that the correct pronunciation should be "A-GUST-in" with the accent on the second syllable and the last syllable pronounced as the word "in."

I remember a professor in seminary that used to pronounce the name the way my theology colleagues pronounce it and then he would add, "or "AU-gus-teen" for those who are intellectually challenged!" (I'm not sure those were the exact words but it was something to that effect). With a professor that insistent on a particular pronunciation, I wonder why I chose the alternative, although I could have been in the category he described who used the "AU-gus-teen" pronunciation.

On my final exam in my Reformation class last week, I decided to put my students to the test. An identification question on the test read: "The Correct Pronunciation of the name “Augustine.” The students were then required to explain to me the correct way to pronounce the name. Interestingly, not a single student disagreed with my pronunciation!

I also decided to consult my dissertation advisor, Dr. Bill Pitts, of Baylor University because I figured that he would surely know the right pronunciation. He also agreed with me. He indicated that: (1) the most practical reason for the accent being on the first syllable of the name is to prevent confusion with the "Augustan" age of Roman literature, the era of Emperor Augustus Caesar when the finest of Roman literature flourished; and (2) during the 18th century in England the best writers modeled themselves after the "Augustan" writers in classical antiquity. Consequently, the 18th century is called the "Augustan" period in English Literature. So, Dr. Pitts concludes: "unless one is willing to ignore a huge branch of humanities—namely, literature—it is best to reserve that pronunciation for these two eras of enormously productive literature while using the traditional pronunciation for our most influential theologian."

That settles it for me! I shared all that with my theologian friends and even that won't convince them. I'm open for suggestions!

Balthasar Hubmaier

It was my church history professor and mentor in seminary, W. R. Estep that first introduced me to Balthasar Hubmaier. The first time I saw his name in writing I thought, "how do I prounce it?" But, it didn't take too many class sessions in Dr. Estep's course on the Anabaptists before the name became so common that all of us knew how to pronounce it.

The brilliant Hubmaier was born around 1481 in a small town called Friedberg just outside of Augsburg. He attended the University of Freiburg and there came under the tutelage of the great Catholic theologian Dr. John Eck. Hubmaier completed both the bachelor’s and master’s degrees then followed Eck to the University of Ingolstadt where he received the Doctor of Theology degree. Eck once called Hubmaier the most brilliant student he'd ever been associated with. Because of his great preaching ability and keen theological mind he accepted appointment as preacher at the cathedral in Regensburg in 1516. Five years later he became a parish priest in Waldshut and there came into contact with Ulrich Zwingli and the Swiss Reformation. Two years later, he became publicly identified with Zwingli’s reform in Zurich, but soon developed Anabaptist ideas.

Along with his preaching, Hubmaier’s pen became a powerful voice for spreading Anabaptist ideas. Soon, he came into conflict with Zwingli and in late 1525 Zwingli had both Hubmaier and his wife arrested. He was forced to enter the pulpit of the Fraumünster in Zurich and recant publicly. As he began to speak instead of recanting he said, “Oh what anguish and travail I have suffered this night over the statements which I myself have made. So I say here and now, I can and I will not recant.” Zwingli immediately stopped Hubmaier and had him arrested again. This time he underwent torture at the hands of Zwingli and eventually produced a written statement recanting of his Anabaptist ideas.

In early 1526 he left Zurich for Nikolsburg in Moravia where once again he took up the Anabaptist cause, this time with greater force than before. Moravia was one of the most tolerant regions in Europe and Hubmaier had a great amount of freedom to preach Anabaptist ideas there. It is estimated that more than 6,000 were baptized in the one year of Hubmaier’s ministry in Nikolsburg. But this year of relative peace was not to last long. The fortune of Anabaptists in Moravia soon changed and Hubmaier was arrested, taken to Vienna, and burned at the stake on March 10, 1528. Although tortured mercilessly for several days before his death, this time he refused to recant. He was urged to confess to a priest and receive last rites before his execution but he steadfastly refused. An eyewitness to his execution described Hubmaier’s death this way:

To the people he said, “O dear brothers, if I have injured any, in word or deed, may he forgive me for the sake of my merciful God. I forgive all those that have done me harm.”

While his clothes were being removed: “From thee also, O Lord, were the clothes stripped. My clothes will I gladly leave here, only preserve my spirit and my soul, I beseech thee!” Then he added in Latin: “O Lord, into thy hands I commit my spirit,” and spoke no more in Latin.

As they rubbed sulphur and gunpowder into his beard, which he wore rather long, he said, “Oh salt me well, salt me well.” And raising his head, he called out: “O dear brothers, pray God that he will give me patience in this my suffering.”

As his beard and hair caught fire, he cried out, “O Jesus, Jesus.”

Associated Baptist Press has this story today about the original writings of Hubmaier: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3667&Itemid=53.

It seems that in just a few months all the writings of Hubmaier are going to be accessible on the internet. Great news about this nearly forgotten Anabaptist reformer! I have told my classes for years that if Hubmaier had lived out his full lifespan his influence in the 16th century might have rivaled that of Luther and Calvin.

Good for Decatur FBC!

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article about FBC Decatur and its pastor, Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell. She was selected as the church's first ever female pastor last year. Furthermore, the church, with 2700 members is the largest Baptist church in the South to be headed by a female pastor.

Her presence as pastor of such a prominent Georgia Baptist church has been a thorn in the flesh to the Fundamentalists who control both the SBC and the Georgia Baptist Convention. So, it remains to be seen what action, if any both entities will take toward FBC Decatur. Knowing Fundamentalists as I do, I suspect both entities will seek some kind of "punitive" action toward the church. After all, they can't possibly be seen cooperating with a church that (in their twisted way of thinking) so violates the letter of scripture!

The article can be found at this link:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/living/stories/2008/11/23/decatur_first_baptist.html

The best quote in the article is this: "If they would like to ask us to leave the Southern Baptist Convention, I think that’s fine,” Roper said. “I think our new minister is wonderful.”

Good for you Ms. Roper! And good for you all FBC Decatur! What a wonderful example to the rest of the Baptist world!

Is This the Future of the BSCNC?

Several bloggers last week, most notably Tony Cartledge, have already included stories about the recent action of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. Here's Tony's blog with the wrap-up:

http://www.tonycartledge.com/2008/11/bscnc-to-no-longer-tolerate-cbf.html

From my point of view, I found one portion of the convention positive since it approved the new relationship between the five colleges and universities and the convention. However, I thought the discussion about the CBF and the giving plans last Wednesday to be particularly nasty. I left the convention thinking to myself that after 15 straight Baptist State Convention meetings, this will probably be my last. I know where I'm not wanted.

I was resolved to all this as I returned home. Then I read Tim Rogers' blog:

http://rebekah1.wordpress.com/

I know Tim. I've always had a cordial relationship with him. I find his blog to be interesting. But he has a paragraph in his recent blog that I found to be chilling. He says:

"Also, there needs to be a call now to the head offices in Cary that NC Baptist have clearly stated we are not CBF. Thus, an employee at the convention offices should be a member of a NC Baptist church not one that is dually aligning themselves with the CBF and the BSCNC. We had the clarion call today during the budget vote that we will not even give you an opportunity to send funds through us to the CBF. We certainly should be able to say we want you attending a BSCNC church."

First, I don't know what the "head offices in Cary" means but I assume he means the BSC Executive Director/Treasurer, Milton Hollifield. And, I'll let slide the fact that the plural of "Baptist" is "Baptists" with an "s" added on to the end. But, more importantly, is Mr. Rogers calling for the termination of all BSC employees who belong to churches that may have a few members who choose to give through their church to CBF? I know some segments of the conservative movement in the BSC want a "pure" convention or to put it another way, a convention that promotes only their understanding of theology and the Baptist tradition. But, seriously, is there now going to be an attempt to purify the employees? Perhaps so. Is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 next going to be imposed on convention workers? Maybe. Is this where the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina is headed? Is the tent going to be drawn even narrower? Surely, Mr. Rogers is not advocating the mass termination of these employees at the BSC, however many there may be.


I imagine that it would be a terrible thing to be terminated from one's employment. That would especially be the case with the current problems in our economy. Where's the compassion?