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!!"
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
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!
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!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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
-->
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
-->
Monday, March 16, 2009
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!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 19, 2009
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
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
Friday, January 09, 2009
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
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
Saturday, January 03, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
"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!
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!
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
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.
Monday, November 24, 2008
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!
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!
Friday, November 14, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
President-Elect Obama
I am overcome with emotion and pride for my country right now. I haven't felt as proud to be an American since that July night in 1969 when Neil Armstrong stepped down onto the surface of the moon.
Last summer while I was at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowhsip meeting in Memphis, I went to the National Civil Rights Institute built around the Lorraine Hotel where Dr. King was killed. I literally stood feet from the spot where he fell to an assassin's bullet. I remember thinking how historic it would be if Senator Barack Obama would be elected president in a few months.
In his last speech in 1968, literally the evening before Dr. King was killed, he said these words:
"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!"
I realize that "we, as a people" in that immediate context, referred to the African-American people for whom he was working. But, if I may, I'd like to interpret those words tonight a little bit more broadly. "We, as a people" refers to all Americans and tonight all Americans are standing on the mountaintop with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and all the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Our nation is truly better tonight because of this election!
Last summer while I was at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowhsip meeting in Memphis, I went to the National Civil Rights Institute built around the Lorraine Hotel where Dr. King was killed. I literally stood feet from the spot where he fell to an assassin's bullet. I remember thinking how historic it would be if Senator Barack Obama would be elected president in a few months.
In his last speech in 1968, literally the evening before Dr. King was killed, he said these words:
"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!"
I realize that "we, as a people" in that immediate context, referred to the African-American people for whom he was working. But, if I may, I'd like to interpret those words tonight a little bit more broadly. "We, as a people" refers to all Americans and tonight all Americans are standing on the mountaintop with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and all the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Our nation is truly better tonight because of this election!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thank You Martin Luther!
On this evening, exactly 491 years ago, Martin Luther nailed his "95 Theses" to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. The "95 Theses" concerned the sale of indulgences (forgiveness of sin in return for a certain amount of money) which, given his shift in theology, particularly his doctrine of salvation, Luther thought was reprehensible.
I have sort of resisted saying that this act "started" the Reformation because I usually like to give some credit to "pre-Reformation" reformers like Hus and Wycliffe. Nevertheless, Luther's protest against the sale of indulgences was the spark that was needed that set off the powder-keg in the 16th century called the Reformation.
And so, this evening, I think it is good to remember and celebrate the life and work of this great man, Martin Luther!
I have sort of resisted saying that this act "started" the Reformation because I usually like to give some credit to "pre-Reformation" reformers like Hus and Wycliffe. Nevertheless, Luther's protest against the sale of indulgences was the spark that was needed that set off the powder-keg in the 16th century called the Reformation.
And so, this evening, I think it is good to remember and celebrate the life and work of this great man, Martin Luther!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
It Is a Sad Day For Me
I've been in a melancholy mood today. My mother and father are moving today from the home they have had since 1967 on Trexler Avenue in Rockwell, NC. They have made a decision to move to Aldersgate, a Methodist retirement center in Charlotte. They are getting along in age and although still healthy, they are thinking about the future. There are many reasons why this is the right thing to do. And, I have no doubt about that. In fact, their house sold in 1 week without even having to list it with a realtor! And that was in this current real estate market! It is the right thing for them. They will have a very nice apartment and when they need it, they can transition to a room in the nursing home. Furthermore, it is probably the last really big gift my parents can give to me and my sister (who lives in Charlotte). We will not have to be faced with the terrible question of "what do we do with daddy?" or "what do we do with mama?" So, this definitely is the right thing to do.
Still, I am sad today. For 41 years that little house on Trexler Avenue was my "home." There have been 41 Christmas gatherings there. From sleepy Christmas mornings that suddenly became magical when we realized that Santa had visited, to Christmases of recent years when "mom" and "dad" have become "maw-maw" and "paw-paw." I brought my first high school sweetheart over to that house to meet my parents. I brought friends from college home for weekend visits to that house. I brought my wife Pam to that house 20 years ago all the way from Texas to announce that we were getting married. Every inch of the backyard and the field beside our house still bears the marks of sandlot baseball or football games or lazy summer days playing with neighborhood friends. The walls in that house bespeak many, many happy times. There were also times when we cried together when grandma died or when granddaddy died and other deaths that touched our family. There were stressful times when mom and dad worried about how the next bill would get paid or how they were going to have the money to send my sister and me to college. But, overall, that house is testimony to a wonderful childhood with the best parents that I could have ever hoped for.
I dialed my parents' phone number last night for the last time. I wanted to see how mom and dad were doing. "I don't know if I'm going to get to bed at all tonight," my mother said. "There is still so much to do!" I'd heard those words before. Late nights doing laundry so that we would have clean clothes to wear. Late nights grading papers so her students would have an idea of how they were doing in her class. Late nights cooking for a church covered-dish lunch. Those words were familiar sounding. But, for me, calling the phone number for the last time was emotional. And, talking to momma over the phone was emotional as well. I remembered the week I went to basketball camp the summer of 1969 when I got so homesick that I had to put quarters in a pay phone and call momma. I remembered all the nights from college that I called home to share what was going on in this new academic community I had joined. I remembered calling from Texas so homesick when I first went to seminary in Fort Worth. I have a lifetime of memories calling that number.
A few weeks ago, I moved some furniture to our house which became bedroom suits for my daughters. I was last at the house a few days after that for some more things. I loaded up the van with as many of my dad's tools as I could get and carried them home to Buies Creek. As I put them all up in my toolshed last Saturday, I couldn't help but think that one day my daughters will be gathering my things and splitting them up as well. And one day my daughters will be saying good-bye to the old homeplace also. I guess that's how life goes. We move from one stage to another.
Still, I'm a bit melancholy today.
Still, I am sad today. For 41 years that little house on Trexler Avenue was my "home." There have been 41 Christmas gatherings there. From sleepy Christmas mornings that suddenly became magical when we realized that Santa had visited, to Christmases of recent years when "mom" and "dad" have become "maw-maw" and "paw-paw." I brought my first high school sweetheart over to that house to meet my parents. I brought friends from college home for weekend visits to that house. I brought my wife Pam to that house 20 years ago all the way from Texas to announce that we were getting married. Every inch of the backyard and the field beside our house still bears the marks of sandlot baseball or football games or lazy summer days playing with neighborhood friends. The walls in that house bespeak many, many happy times. There were also times when we cried together when grandma died or when granddaddy died and other deaths that touched our family. There were stressful times when mom and dad worried about how the next bill would get paid or how they were going to have the money to send my sister and me to college. But, overall, that house is testimony to a wonderful childhood with the best parents that I could have ever hoped for.
I dialed my parents' phone number last night for the last time. I wanted to see how mom and dad were doing. "I don't know if I'm going to get to bed at all tonight," my mother said. "There is still so much to do!" I'd heard those words before. Late nights doing laundry so that we would have clean clothes to wear. Late nights grading papers so her students would have an idea of how they were doing in her class. Late nights cooking for a church covered-dish lunch. Those words were familiar sounding. But, for me, calling the phone number for the last time was emotional. And, talking to momma over the phone was emotional as well. I remembered the week I went to basketball camp the summer of 1969 when I got so homesick that I had to put quarters in a pay phone and call momma. I remembered all the nights from college that I called home to share what was going on in this new academic community I had joined. I remembered calling from Texas so homesick when I first went to seminary in Fort Worth. I have a lifetime of memories calling that number.
A few weeks ago, I moved some furniture to our house which became bedroom suits for my daughters. I was last at the house a few days after that for some more things. I loaded up the van with as many of my dad's tools as I could get and carried them home to Buies Creek. As I put them all up in my toolshed last Saturday, I couldn't help but think that one day my daughters will be gathering my things and splitting them up as well. And one day my daughters will be saying good-bye to the old homeplace also. I guess that's how life goes. We move from one stage to another.
Still, I'm a bit melancholy today.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Elizabeth Dole's "godless" ad
Today, the Elizabeth Dole campaign put up an ad that is sleazy, makes false claims, and is beneath the dignity of a United States Senator. But, she's behind in the polls and facing possible defeat from State Senator Kay Hagin so the ad smacks of desperation. The fact that Elizabeth Dole is one of the least effective senators in North Carolina history should be what voters are focused on. The fact that even though she grew up in North Carolina, she has lived her adult life outside of the state except when she moved back here to run for Senate should be a matter for the voters to focus upon. The fact that during the six years she has been in the Senate she has hardly visited the state of North Carolina and done absolutely nothing for the state should be the focus of the voters. But instead, in order to hide a shameless lack of effectiveness as a senator, she pulls out a sleazy ad like this.
See the ad for yourself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag
Now for the facts:
(1) Kay Hagan is a devout Christian who teaches Sunday School and is an Elder in the First Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, NC. Furthermore, she lives out her faith in practical ways. A family tradition with her husband and children every Christmas morning is to go to the Bell House in Greensboro, a residential facility for severely mentally retarded adults where they cook Christmas morning breakfast for the residents and staff.
(2) The fundraiser in question was held in September and was hosted by more than 40 hosts including Senator John Kerry and furthermore, Hagan has never in her life heard of the "Godless PAC." This is more "guilt by association" that Republicans are playing as desperation "hail Mary" passes.
Don't let Elizabeth Dole get away with this sleaze. Vote for Kay Hagan and put a North Carolinian in the Senate who will truly work for our state.
See the ad for yourself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lf2vDk-4Ag
Now for the facts:
(1) Kay Hagan is a devout Christian who teaches Sunday School and is an Elder in the First Presbyterian Church of Greensboro, NC. Furthermore, she lives out her faith in practical ways. A family tradition with her husband and children every Christmas morning is to go to the Bell House in Greensboro, a residential facility for severely mentally retarded adults where they cook Christmas morning breakfast for the residents and staff.
(2) The fundraiser in question was held in September and was hosted by more than 40 hosts including Senator John Kerry and furthermore, Hagan has never in her life heard of the "Godless PAC." This is more "guilt by association" that Republicans are playing as desperation "hail Mary" passes.
Don't let Elizabeth Dole get away with this sleaze. Vote for Kay Hagan and put a North Carolinian in the Senate who will truly work for our state.
Friday, October 17, 2008
John McCain "Pals Around" With Terrorists
Most intelligent Americans think that the McCain/Palin suggestion that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" (in reference to several professional contacts with William Ayers) is simply put, a bunch of horse hockey. The story has been investigated thoroughly by major, reputable investigative journalists and there is simply nothing there. Ayers does not advise Obama. Ayers is not going to have a role in his administration. He is, at the very most, simply someone that Obama knows from Chicago.
Using the McCain campaign's twisted "guilt by association" tactic though, let's talk about G. Gordon Liddy. Those of you that are my college students may not know who he is. He was one of the Watergate conspirators, in fact, the only one that was "unrepentant." He was a true believer in Nixon and what Nixon was doing in the White House. He was the chief operative of the "White House Plumbers" group organized out of the Nixon White House to do domestic and political "dirty tricks" on political opponents. Ultimately, this is where the Watergate break-in came from.
But let's look at bit closer at G. Gordon Liddy. He spent 4 1/2 years in prison for his role in the break-in. He is a convicted felon. Furthermore, he admits in his own autobiography that he once planned to assassinate liberal columnist Jack Anderson with his Watergate co-conspirator E. Howard Hunt. On his radio talk show during the seige on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993, he made this statement to the Branch Davidians, "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." And, perhaps worst of all, he once conspired to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. where the classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored.
Yes, you heard it right. G. Gordon Liddy was convicted felon, Watergate conspirator, who plotted to kill another American and plotted to fire bomb a Washington, D. C. building. And, he advocated the use of violent force against the American government at the Waco Branch Davidian seige. There are other things about him as well. He is not a nice person to say the least!
And now the clincher. In 1998 G. Gordon Liddy hosted a fundraiser in his own home for the re-election campaign for ???? You got it! John McCain!!! (here's the source: Kamen, Al (March 9, 1998), "A Host With Conviction", The Washington Post: A17) And, over the years, he has referred to McCain as his "old friend" and has contributed thousands of dollars to McCain's campaigns, including at least $1000 in 2008.
So, if Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" for his supposed association with a man who is a "domestic terrorist," what makes John McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy any different?
(For a good source that pulls these facts together, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy#cite_note-5)
Using the McCain campaign's twisted "guilt by association" tactic though, let's talk about G. Gordon Liddy. Those of you that are my college students may not know who he is. He was one of the Watergate conspirators, in fact, the only one that was "unrepentant." He was a true believer in Nixon and what Nixon was doing in the White House. He was the chief operative of the "White House Plumbers" group organized out of the Nixon White House to do domestic and political "dirty tricks" on political opponents. Ultimately, this is where the Watergate break-in came from.
But let's look at bit closer at G. Gordon Liddy. He spent 4 1/2 years in prison for his role in the break-in. He is a convicted felon. Furthermore, he admits in his own autobiography that he once planned to assassinate liberal columnist Jack Anderson with his Watergate co-conspirator E. Howard Hunt. On his radio talk show during the seige on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993, he made this statement to the Branch Davidians, "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." And, perhaps worst of all, he once conspired to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. where the classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored.
Yes, you heard it right. G. Gordon Liddy was convicted felon, Watergate conspirator, who plotted to kill another American and plotted to fire bomb a Washington, D. C. building. And, he advocated the use of violent force against the American government at the Waco Branch Davidian seige. There are other things about him as well. He is not a nice person to say the least!
And now the clincher. In 1998 G. Gordon Liddy hosted a fundraiser in his own home for the re-election campaign for ???? You got it! John McCain!!! (here's the source: Kamen, Al (March 9, 1998), "A Host With Conviction", The Washington Post: A17) And, over the years, he has referred to McCain as his "old friend" and has contributed thousands of dollars to McCain's campaigns, including at least $1000 in 2008.
So, if Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" for his supposed association with a man who is a "domestic terrorist," what makes John McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy any different?
(For a good source that pulls these facts together, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy#cite_note-5)
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I Need a Caption for This Picture
This photograph was captured last night at the end of the debate between Senators Obama and McCain. You supply the caption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)