Mississippi Baptists Remember Abortion Victims

I recently read this story from Baptist Press and found it especially noteworthy. The Baptist convention from Mississippi (my home state) has come up with a unique way to remember the lives that have been extinguished by Abortion, and at the same time to raise money, "to create a permanent endowment fund for pro-life projects, such as assisting with the operations of crisis pregnancy centers and other efforts for women with unwanted pregnancies."

What are they doing? They have built the "Memorial to the Missing," a 12-by-16 foot clear building, made of bulletproof glass to contain 50 million pennies. The memorial stands in front of the Mississippi Baptist Building, across from the Mississippi Capitol Building in Jackson. Visitors can contribute by dropping pennies into the memorial or by mailing them in to the Convention Offices. According to the report, over 26 million pennies have been collected to date toward the goal of 50 million.

Here's one of the coolest parts of the story, to me:

The Memorial to the Missing itself is weighty. When Mississippi Baptists finish contributing 50 million pennies -– $500,000 -– to it, it will weigh 156 tons or 312,000 pounds, roughly as much as 100 automobiles. Pylons driven 15 feet into the ground support the glass structure, built free of charge by a John Laws III, a Presbyterian layman who owns a construction company in Flowood, Miss.

I must say, I'm impressed by this effort and think it's a great idea to raise awareness and money to save these unborn babies. Jim Futral, the Convention's Executive Director-Treasurer had this to say: “We want people to know when they see the memorial that these children are not out of sight and out of mind.” It's most important to me to see that not only are Mississippi Baptists raising money, but they are also remembering these families and that lives are being impacted. This sunday, January 21st, Mississippi Baptist Churches will take a special offering "in remembrance of the unborn" and to go toward helping mothers choose life for their unborn babies.

Blogging on the Decline?

Recently I read an interesting post from Washington Post contributor Marc Fisher. You can find it here. This piece discusses media research that suggests that blogging is on the decline. It's no surprise to me, and I know that we have witnessed such decline even recently as a number of blogs in the SBC ghetto (for lack of a better word) have closed shop in the past few weeks.

Overall, the novelty of blogging seems to have worn off for many who have entered the forum. While this could be a good sign--and perhaps a sign of the free-market process whereby many blogs are culled so that the remainder are of higher quality, I am not convinced that this must be the case. While we may see an improvement in overall quality of the writing and content in the blogosphere, I believe that we've lost a number of good bloggers who have lost interest as well.

Perhaps the question is to be considered, "Is blogging ultimately a worthwhile pursuit?" Personally I maintain that the forum has great potential and there are worthwhile ideas being exchanged. However, I also recognize that many blogs are simply for people with too much time on their hands and too much "hot air."

At present there seems to be a lot of discussion that, while it may at some point prove worthwhile, currently amounts to a lot of wheel-spinning chatter. That is not to say that the issue of who will run the SBC and who will be welcome there is unimportant. There are a number of theological and practical points that need to be made with regard to this debate. Many of these points are in fact being argued even now. My concern however is that we are focusing too much on minutiae and, in so doing, losing sight of any bigger picture.

To me the current dialogue among many baptist blogs feels reminiscent of trench warfare. Both sides are quickly becoming more and more entrenched and consequently, little ground will be gained by either side anytime soon. It remains to be seen yet whether there will be changes made in the SBC as a result of the discussion here in the blogosphere. In short, there's a lot of talk, but will it amount to anything of substance? This is the real question.

Christmas Reading

I am a book aficionado. And now that my semester reading is done for seminary, I can actually get to some Christmas reading. I have a large stack of books that have been piling up in my apartment unread.

I just finished Joel C. Rosenberg’s most recent (nonfiction) book: Epicenter: Why the Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future. It was a quick read, and I was riveted. Perhaps later I’ll post my own review of it. I enjoyed this one, and will probably be reading the rest of Rosenberg’s political novels in the near future. I highly endorse this book.

Next I’m looking forward to reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. I greatly enjoyed The Tipping Point and in fact would consider it one of the best and most influential books I’ve read. It deals with issues in marketing, trends, and life in general. I remember one occasion, before I bought Blink, sitting in the aisle at Borders and reading the first chapter. Once again, I was riveted. I knew at that point that Blink would be a must-read.

I’ll also be looking forward to another book that I just recently got: Love Worth Finding: The Life of Adrian Rogers And His Philosophy of Preaching by his wife Joyce. I remember the only time I heard Dr. Rogers speak in person. He spoke for only about 20 minutes, and left me wanting more! I felt as though he’d only spoken for 5! Come to think of it, Ben Cole has a neat video on his blog about the life of Dr. Rogers. You might want to check it out. I might actually read this one next because I’m taking a preaching class this spring. I do believe that Adrian Rogers was one of the greatest preachers of the 20th Century without a doubt. I’m definitely looking forward to this read.

Third, I’m looking at reading Erwin McManus’s The Barbarian Way. I’ve been interested in reading this one for a long time now. I liked Eldridge’s Wild at Heart, though I was less impressed with his other works. I like the idea of an untamed faith. I’ve not read anything from McManus yet, but he seems to have some good stuff out.

I may not be able to get to all of these until spring break, but I definitely think that this will make my break go quickly. This will certainly make my Christmas at my in-laws’ (this is my first married Christmas – pray for me brethren and sistren), but I’ve no doubt this will speed things along.

Merry Christmas all!

The Last Days

Since finals are over now, I've had a little free time and have begun reading a new book byJoel C. Rosenberg. I've been impressed by Rosenberg's work, I read one of his novels and am currently reading his nonfiction work entitled Epicenter: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Well Change Your Future. It makes for quite an interesting read so far, and it's gotten me thinking, "are we really living in the end times?"

I recognize that this question has been asked for a long, long time by an innumerable number of believers. Every generation has had people who believed they were living in the last days. Jesus warns that no one knows the day nor the hour except the Father in Heaven, but warns us to be vigilant (Mt. 24; Mk 13).

Rosenberg brings together some points that I found quite interesting. First, he discusses the "political earthquakes" that have been shaking the middle east in the past several years (it's interesting that he quotes several different news sources that all use the same "earthquake" language). He also points to the rise of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose goal is to get nuclear weapons and unleash them upon Israel. Rosenburg says of Ahmadinejad, "He told associates that he believed the end of the world was just two or three years away. He said he believed he had been chosen by Allah to become Iran's leader at this critical hour to hasten the coming of the Islamic messiah known as the Twelfth Imam or the Mahdi by launching a final holy war against Christians and Jews." This sounds like it fits quite well with events depicted in Judeo-Christian apocalyptic accounts (Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation). The Twelfth Imam is a "messiah" (jewish word is "christ") - if he is a false messiah he is "anti-christ." I've somehow not heard anyone make that connection yet, but it's probably just that I've not been looking or listening to the right things at the right time.

Ahmadinejad has declared that he wants to start a holy war with his nuclear weapons in the next two or three years (i.e., 2007-2009 - he was elected in 2005). He has declared that he wants to destroy Israel (the "little satan") and America (the "great satan"). During the next two or three years the following are scheduled to happen -- George W. Bush leaves office, a new president is elected, US troops begin to leave Iraq(?), British PM Tony Blair leaves office. This removes some of the personalities with the strongest motivation to fight the forces of radical Islamic terrorism. Will the next leaders be willing to give them control of the middle east? The fictional future that Rosenberg portrays in his novels indicates that he believes our leaders will not have the will to stop them.

My point with this post is not to speculate about when Christ is coming back or the order of events surrounding his return. Rather, I'm simply asking a few questions. If He is coming back soon are we ready and waiting or are we preoccupied with other things? Will we be living in comfort, insulated from the World up until then? Will we continue to live as we have, or will we begin to have an end-times mindset that places our own comforts on the back burner? I know it was an eye-opener for me. I haven't been living as though I expected Christ to come back in my lifetime. I think that many others like me have been lulled into a false sense of comfort. We just assume that life will continue on just as it always has because it always has.

At first, when I began reading and began to realize that the end could be near, I was a bit unnerved. Then I recognized that there is nothing I can do to stop or forestall it. God will send Christ back when the time is right, and only He knows when that will be. Ultimately I know that things will get bad (whether or not we'll be here remains to be seen), but in the end Jesus will prevail and set up His eternal reign on earth. Let not your hearts be troubled, but let's at least recognize that we are in a time and geo-political situation that could be just what the Bible describes. Are we ready?

Still alive an Blogging

Well, I've not posted anything in some time, but I am still alive. I've not been on a "blog fast" per se, it's just that other things have taken my attention of late. Like many others I get tired of hearing about how busy we all are, and so I'll not say that "I've been busy" (haven't we all?). Lately there seems to have been little in the blog world to interest me, and more and more in other spheres that has grabbed my attention.

I'm formulating some thoughts for new posts and should be working on some things soon--my last final exam is tomorrow, so we may see something here before the end of the week.

Which Is More Important: Being Right or Being Righteous?

Recent news from the annual SBTC meeting has raised quite a bit of discussion. Of interest is the discussion on Art Rogers’s Twelve Witnesses blog. After reading this discussion, I was prompted to read and discuss the 2006 resolutions from the SBTC meeting. A pastor friend of mine pointed out some surprising resolutions, which I believe merit closer scrutiny. First off, these resolutions merit scrutiny because they were discussed and examined by committee members and then, presumably, the voting body present at the meeting. Secondly, they represent the views of a significant portion of Southern Baptists (significant, though I could not give any specific number or percentage).

Here are some of the resolutions: (for further reference see the SBTC 2006 Resolutions [pdf format]). Bold emphasis mine.
Resolution #2 “On the Sufficiency of the Word of God for the Entire Christian Life”
The resolution runs into trouble about second resolution statement:

RESOLVED, we call on Texas Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is righteous, and that fallen human beings lack righteousness; and be it further

WHAT? The Word of God is certainly inspired, but not righteous, nor is IT righteous ALONE. Friends, the Bible tells us what is and is not righteous, but I know of nowhere in the scriptures that Bible is called righteous, much less exclusively holding such an attribute (an attribute of God no less). Let us continue:

RESOLVED, we encourage Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is able to redeem sinful human beings, and that they may look nowhere else than to the Bible for the source of redemption; and be it further

Did I miss something? Whatever happened to “What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus?” Now the Bible (a Holy book and the Word of God) is able to save us? Should we put our faith in the Bible or in the God that it tells us about?

We’re doing ok with the rest of the resolutions, which are emphasize the importance of the study and application of the Word of God. I want to comment again on a couple of things. I totally agree that we should give the Bible precedence over any other reading, studying, or singing material. We definitely ought to live, worship, disciple, and minister according to the Word of God, although we must remember that we worship not the Bible itself, but Jesus Christ, without whom there would be no need for such a book.

Q: How did this slip by so many people? Was this an accident or was there something that I missed. I read the Observations (the WHEREAS statements), so I think I got the context, but I still don’t see a reason to elevate scripture to the role of Savior.

The third resolution of the SBTC was concerning Tongues and a Private Prayer Language.

The resolutions are as follows:

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention meeting in Austin, Texas, November 13-14, 2006, declare that Southern Baptists in Texas typically believe that the modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we are opposed to unscriptural teaching relating to speaking in tongues, whether such speech be done in private or public; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention not knowingly to employ consultants and ministry staff who participate in or promote views or practices contrary to the position described herein; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to be patient, kind, and loving toward one another (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) regarding this ancillary theological issue, which ought not to constitute a test of fellowship; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to refocus their attention upon the public and intelligible proclamation of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the divine Trinity, Who became a man, died on the cross, and arose from the dead, so that those who believe in Him may have eternal and abundant life.

Now for my question: Why? I don’t mean the observations (the WHEREAS statements), I mean why the whole resolution on this. I understand that the issue was brought up recently and has been a big deal, but it is an issue that divides, and needlessly so. I read the resolutions that say that "this ought not to constitute a test of fellowship," but they've left no room for those who wholeheartedly embrace the private prayer language. They include the cessationist and open but cautious, but exclude continualists.

My personal views on the private prayer language (and a number of other charismata) would best be described as an “open but cautious” view. I am not a cessationist, nor an avid continualist. One of the central issues that faces the SBC today and various state conventions and associations down to the personal level is a single question. The question here is whether it is more important to be right or more important to be righteous. The two are not always mutually exclusive, but in this instance, as with a number of non-essentials, the question is valid.

We must ask ourselves if it is more important to cooperate with others who may disagree with us on non-essential issues (I’m talking about others of like faith here) to further the work of the Kingdom or if it is more important to be right on the non-essential issues. If being right is more important, then we’re in the wrong. Are we so fixated on the small issues that we lose sight of the big ones? How much have churches grown in the SBTC this year? How many new people have we reached with the gospel? Can cooperating with other churches improve these areas? How many people will be saved by denouncing a private prayer language? Surely that will make people run to our churches! (I think not).

The other resolutions (on which I will not now comment at length) include topics of: Alcohol, Immigration, Wal-Mart (will a boycott follow?), North Korea (I definitely agree with boycotting them), The CP, and The conflict in Darfur.

In conclusion I have to say this; we ought to continue to carefully consider the issues that we give weight to. I agree that a number of these issues are important and should be addressed, but others may be best left without an official position. If we are obsessed with being right, how far will we go to make sure that we are always right? Will we exclude anyone who disagrees with us? When that happens we will end up alone and powerless to bring about any change in our world. Let us remember that it is through our faith and our unity (i.e. cooperation) that we are able to be God’s agents for change in this world.

A New Day, and we're still alive

I’ll admit, I was feeling a little low yesterday. Partly because it’s that time of the semester at seminary, but the other part was due to the changes going on in our government. The Democrats won both houses of Congress, beating out, in many cases, individuals that I thought better qualified to represent the American people. The other big change was the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. That made me sad too; he has been a stalwart defender of the President and of our military and has been just the right man to lead the War on Terror and our armed forces.

Today is a new day, however. The people have spoken and placed Capitol Hill under new management. I’m willing to give the incoming congress a chance—it’s not like I have much of a choice. In light of things I’ve said before, I’ll also restate my conviction that we must submit to those who rule over us (cf. 1 Peter 2, Romans 13), and pray for them. I’ll also remind readers that if we ever become dissatisfied with our leaders we live in a nation where it is we, the people, who choose them.

I’m excited about the new Defense Secretary Dr. Bob Gates. He is currently the president of Texas A&M, and my Aggie friends speak highly of him. I pray that he will do as good a job as Rumsfeld has done these past six years. I look forward to his leadership.



Finally, I’m reminded of two things: The first is that God is still in control and was not caught off guard by anything that has in recent days. In fact, God rules the rulers of nations. Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will."
The second thing I'm reminded of is that I ought to pray more for my leaders. It’s odd that what seems like a conservative defeat would encourage such, but then again not. May God continue to bless us and may we continue to seek Him and bless His name.