Stop by and read the entire column on Baptists and immigration reform.  I’ve included a snippet below:

A look at history shows us that broad-based coalitions of “odd bedfellows”
sometimes are indeed able to work together to achieve a big goal.  An excellent
example is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was signed into law 20
years ago.  Baptists—notably the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty—played a critical role in that process to ensure that government not be
allowed to infringe on an individual’s religious freedom in the absence of a
compelling state interest.

However, RFRA almost did not become a reality. The idea of a legislative
remedy to the Supreme Court’s misguided ruling in Oregon Employment Division
v. Smith united diverse faith communities. The tricky part came when a
specific bill was introduced. RFRA was initially met with resistance from
pro-life groups.  Nearly three years lapsed before Congress finally passed RFRA
and the religious liberty bill was signed into law by President Clinton.

Sometimes, however, emerging movements and broad coalitions fizzle and fall
apart. Just a handful of years ago, national newspapers and magazines were
declaring the greening of evangelicalism. High-profile conservative evangelicals
were vowing to be better stewards and promising to mobilize their communities to
take political action to combat climate change.  In the end, the bipartisan
Climate Security Act, designed to modestly regulate greenhouse gas emissions of
corporations through a free market “cap and trade” system, was defeated.

In light of this historical backdrop, Baptists who are hopeful for
immigration reform should proceed with cautious optimism. Baptists did not quit
on RFRA when it died in 1990 and again in 1992. Rather, they participated in the
resurrection of RFRA on the third try.  Hopefully, Baptists and other Christians
will not abandon the cause of comprehensive immigration reform if confronted
with political roadblocks similar to those of the past that have led so many
briefly-energized evangelical voices to shamefully desert the environmental
arena since the supposed “greening” of evangelicalism.

Read the rest here.

Here’s a snippet:

Abortion, homosexuality and church-state separation.  These are all issues on which Baptists have made their diverse opinions loudly known to the public.  But predatory lending is definitely not an issue that many associate with Baptists.

Yet, Baptists in several states have been fighting against the wealthy and powerful multi-billion dollar predatory lending industry in recent years.

At a regional meeting of the New Baptist Covenant in Oklahoma City in 2009, participants learned about the dangers and growing popularity of payday loans, especially among the working poor.  Participants heard from Stephen Reeves, public policy director for the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, who offered the example of a military veteran who took out a $4,000 loan against his truck in order to help his daughter.  Unable to pay off the loan in full, the veteran was charged a $1,200 penalty fee per month. “He could pay $1,200 per month forever and never pay off that loan,” according to Reeves.

Keep reading here.

Usury – specifically usury that is legal  – is a rather important issue of fundamental fairness and justice that simply has not received the amount of attention and active emphasis that it is owed.  Let’s change that.

Here’s snippet:

With the nation’s economy on better footing, will more attention be paid to environmental issues such as climate change in 2013?  Will churches and denominations once again discover that climate change is a challenge that is not going away?  Will all involved begin to move from words to action?  Will Baptists begin to collectively make good on their past promises and commitments to care for all of God’s creation and be active participants in the search for solutions to environment-related problems?

I am hopeful that the answer to all of the above questions is yes.  And when speaking up, we Baptists should recover the language of eco-justice.  Forty years ago, American Baptists coined that term after attending an historic United Nations summit on the environment in Stockholm, Sweden.  American Baptist leaders such as Owen Owens and Jitsuo Morikawa invested much time and energy in the early 1970s to giving eco-justice theological meaning rooted in the Baptist tradition and our commitment to individual freedom.  Merging the concepts of ecological wholeness and social justice, American Baptists pursued an effective form of environmental engagement.

This type of environmental engagement would again be beneficial to Baptists looking to transform verbal commitments of days past into concrete action in the public square.  It is time for Christians in general and Baptists in particular to be leaders rather than followers when it comes to caring for God’s creation.

Be sure to read the entire column here and let me know what you think below.

Here is a short excerpt from that resolution:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that though we are to submit to the governing authorities and live quiet, peaceful lives (1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Timothy 2:1-6), we are to first show love and concern for all people according to God’s higher law as we love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we encourage Alabama Baptist churches and individual Christians to care for all of those in need as God places them in our path whether they are here legally or not; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all people in all circumstances praying that all come to salvation in Christ; and

The resolutions committee has apparently rejected the resolution.

From Cross on details about the rejection:

I spoke to several people who were in the room and I heard their response as to why the resolution was dismissed. I will not share specifics, but it appeared to me (and this is just my judgment – I might be wrong) that the concern for the law of the state was higher than concern for God’s command to actively love all people, regardless of the consequences.

It also appeared to me (again, I could be wrong) that they were more concerned with having political access to Republicans than they were with clearly affirming a path of action for Baptists to obey the clear mandate of Scripture to love their neighbor as themselves.

I am not saying that all on the committee thought this as I believe that some wanted to approve the resolution. But, it seems that the voices against it were louder than the voices for it since the resolution did not make it out of committee.

Read the entire post here.

History tells us that Rev. Cross’ judgments are much more likely to be right rather than wrong.  Southern Baptists—especially at the state level—have many of the same problems as the Republican Party.

And in Alabama, Jim Crow has been replaced with Juan Crow.  Southern Baptists were instrumental in making that happen.  So, it comes as no surprise that Alabama Baptist leaders have rejected this resolution.

Alabama needs more Southern Baptists like Rev. Alan Cross.

Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary declared the 2012 election to be “an evangelical disaster.”  Dr. Denny Burk, also of Mohler’s Southern Seminary, called last Tuesday night “a disaster for social conservative causes.”

However, Mohler & Burk are getting a little push back from fellow evangelical Matthew Anderson of the popular blog Mere Orthodoxy.  Anderson is a younger conservative thinker who has demonstrated an ability to critique other conservatives.  In his latest post titled “The Election Disaster? Social Conservatives and Hope,” Anderson wrote:

1)  The willingness to dub this a “disaster” actually reinforces the identification of evangelical conservatives with Republicans in the public square, an identification that seems like is bad for everyone involved….

2)  It actually may be a pretty unsophisticated analysis….While Mohler dubbed this election a “seismic moral shift in the culture,” that presupposes not much had gone on in America since in between the last election.  And that this election happened out of nowhere.  The reality is that this game has been afoot for a while, and taking one election and responding like this simply confirms for most people how out of touch conservative evangelicals actually are.

And here is Anderson’s prescription:

What conservatives need is someone who can speak with authority about conservatism, who understands it well enough that they can cheerfully and graciously interact with those who disagree with us and win them to our team….What people want is not handwringing when things don’t go “our way,” but hope.  And a sober and serious assessment of how things look along with something like a strategy to turn them around that stays true to our principles.  Or maybe I speak too broadly.  So let me narrow the scope:  that is what I want from an evangelical leadership, not the sort of handwringing that we are currently experiencing.

…In the suggestion that this election was a “disaster” for social conservatives lay the seeds of fear and the beginnings of a less-than-cheerful oppositionalism to the President’s policies for the next four years.  But we as Christians are called to a politics of hope and that must frame our public discourse.  Not the sort of sentimentalized bastardization of hope that attaches it to the rise and fall of political, social, or moral orders.  But the hope that endures well beyond them, that cheerfully faces a world that is hardly to our liking and entrusts our children to the providential care of the loving and triumphal God.

Politically, there is likely very few areas of agreement between myself and Anderson.  Yet, I can respect someone who calls out his side for sounding a bit silly.  Unfortunately, both sides—left and right, Democrats and Republicans—have a penchant for overreaction.

Hyperbolic “chicken little” rhetoric harms the cause of civil discourse in the public square.  And a lack of civility makes pursuing the common good rather difficult.

Take for example Denny Burk’s reply to Anderson in which he doubled-down and asserted that  ”America–with wide-eyed realism–reelected the most…anti-religious liberty candidate in American history.”

I realize it’s cool to say someone is the most something in American history.  Such a comment—if meant to be taken seriously—reveals someone who would be well-served to take a Poli Sci or History course or two.  Do conservatives like Burk have any inclination about the state of religious liberty in this nation prior to World War II?  Sheesh.

Again, this type of rhetoric is not helpful.  Kudos to Anderson for reflecting on the rhetoric of his conservative friends in the aftermath of last Tuesday.

It is posted below in full:

By Aaron Weaver

Recently, two Baptist-affiliated universities filed a federal lawsuit against the Obama Administration.  Houston Baptist University and East Texas Baptist University are challenging the constitutionality of the controversial “contraception mandate” of the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”) requiring most health care plans to cover—with no co-pay—Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods.  In a press release, the presidents of these Texas schools explained that their “religious convictions prevent them from providing their employees with access to abortion-causing drugs” and that the lawsuit “aims to preserve their religious liberty and the right to carry out their missions free from coercion.”

These Baptist universities are not the first to file a lawsuit.  Rather, their suit marks the 32nd challenge to the mandate.  Nor are they the first Baptist-affiliated institution to do so.  Back in February, Louisiana College filed one of the first lawsuits challenging the mandate on religious freedom grounds.  However, Houston Baptist and East Texas Baptist are the first to appeal extensively to the Baptist tradition when making their case against the mandate.

Eric Rassabach of The Becket Fund, the group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of the universities, pointed out in the press release: “Baptists in America, by virtue of their history, are particularly sensitive to coercive government actions that infringe on religious liberty.”  Citing Roger Williams’ persecution at the hands of the Puritans, Rassabach added, “We shouldn’t have to fight for that same right today.”

East Texas Baptist president Samuel Oliver also appealed to Baptist history and particularly the legacy of George W. Truett.  He stated, “Baptists have always advocated religious liberty, and religious liberty is what is at stake in this situation.”  As he did during his congressional testimony earlier this year, Oliver quoted Truett who famously remarked “A Baptist would rise at midnight to plead for absolute religious liberty for his Catholic neighbor, and for his Jewish neighbor, and for everybody else.”

Truett made this statement during a now historic sermon delivered on the steps of the United States capitol on May 16, 1920.  Immediately prior to making this statement, Truett preached: “the Baptist will whole-heartedly contend that his Catholic neighbor shall have his candles and incense and sanctus bell and rosary, and whatever else he wishes in the expression of his worship.”  Oliver’s repeated reference to Truett and the historical context of this quote begs the fun question: What Would Truett Do?

Clearly the presidents of East Texas Baptist and Houston Baptist believe they have a definitive answer to that question.  I’m far from convinced.  Why?  Because we do know what George Truett did not do.  While Truett was in Europe preaching to the troops during World War I, he did not voice his support for pacifists from peace churches who refused to pay federal taxes.  These pacifists rightly recognized that their tax dollars would be used to fund the war.

Federal courts have repeatedly rejected the religious liberty claims of war tax resisters.  Just two years ago, an Arizona federal court dismissed the claim of a Quaker who argued that the use of his income taxes toward military spending substantially burdened his religious freedom in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  These Texas Baptist schools are also making RFRA claims.

How is this contraception issue distinguishable from that settled war tax issue?  Moreover, how is health care coverage distinguishable from salary and other employee benefits?  Are the consciences of these Baptist institutions violated when an employee uses his or her paycheck to make a morally objectionable purchase or decision?  Is religious liberty really endangered when the government requires a Baptist university to contribute to a health care plan where religious convictions are onlyoffended if an employee makes an independent decision to use a health plan to cover a medical treatment deemed morally objectionable?

These are not black and white issues.  Church-state relationships are indeed severely complex in our increasingly pluralistic society.  Together, we have to grapple with these tough issues and proceed carefully with an awareness of attempts to politicize these complex and developing issues for partisan purposes.  And, if we are going to trot out powerful quotes from beloved Baptists like George Truett, we ought to be willing to take seriously the entire witness of these prophets or religious liberty.  After all, Truett stood adamantly opposed to tax dollars—directly and indirectly—used to support religiously-affiliated schools.  He called his fellow Baptists clamoring for Caesar’s coin to “speedily repent of such inconsistent course, and go and sin no more!”

During that panel discussion, Dr. Mark Coppenger made the following comment:

“Sometimes I say Muslims can’t build cars but they can sure blow them up,” Coppenger said. “Well, we can blow up candidates and we can blow up movies and we can blow up a variety of things, but can we build them? Can we build political engagement at the very best levels?” (Associated Baptist Press)

Coppenger is a Vice-President and Professor of Christian Apologetics at Southern Seminary.  He was the president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary from 1996-1999.

I sent this tweet to @mcoppenger tonight:

What I found most disturbing was that Coppenger admitted that this comment is something he sometimes says!  WOW!

While I have received no response, I hope Coppenger will apologize for his comment.

Below is the full-text of Rev. Yarber’s letter:

An Open Letter to Dan Cathy
From a Concerned Baptist Pastor
July 19, 2012

Dear Mr. Cathy,

I don’t expect you to remember me.  You and your father spoke at chapel during my freshman year of college in 2000.  You both spoke of how being a Christian business person involves loving your neighbor and serving God and your customers faithfully.  Since I had recently received an award from the college I was invited to attend a small group discussion with you and some of the college trustees.  At that time I was impressed by your compassion, faithfulness, and good humor.  Even though I do not eat at your establishment because I am a vegetarian, I have always spoken highly of you, your father, and your restaurant based on those initial experiences.

Since that day in chapel I have served as a minister in local Baptist churches, attended seminary, became ordained, and earned a Ph.D. in religion.  I am now the pastor of a Baptist church in North Carolina.  I have committed my life and vocation to scholarship and ministry, faithfully translating and interpreting scripture and seeking to live as Jesus taught.

Imagine my disappointment when you recently made a public statement against gay marriage.  You see, in addition to faithfully serving the local church as an ordained Baptist minister for the past twelve years, I am also in a committed relationship with a woman.  My partner is professor of Christian and family ethics at a local university.  We are currently working to expand our little household by adopting a child, something that I know is dear to the heart of your family.  Based on our vocations and callings, it is clear that Christian and family values are very important to us.

So, I simply want to ask why you think it is so important for us not to get married?  Do we not deserve the same rights as you and your family?  Are we not also your neighbors?  You see, I could understand if you simply have a theological problem with gay marriage.  Unfortunately, many Christians feel this way.  I do not interpret scripture or the message of Jesus in this manner, but I respect the freedom of your conscience to do so.  What I don’t understand is why your theological stance should impact citizens in our country from receiving the same rights that you and your wife receive as a married couple.

Did you know that, upon marriage, couples are granted over one thousand rights and privileges by the government?  Examples include the right to file joint taxes, the right to receive a deceased spouse’s social security, employee benefits for federal workers, COBRA, and many more.  Why do my partner and I not deserve these rights?  Our relationship is committed and covenantal.  We both work hard.  We are citizens and Christians just like you and your wife.  But because we cannot legally marry, we do not get to enjoy these 1,000+ rights.  It is also worth noting that extending these rights to same-sex couples would not take your rights in any way.

I am not asking you to change your theological position on marriage.  I disagree with you and I do not think that your stance is a faithful interpretation of scripture, but I respect your right to your beliefs.  What I ask is that you remember what you preached about when you spoke at chapel twelve years ago.  I ask you to consider what it means to love your neighbors.  Some of your neighbors are LGBT and you have made it clear that your political position entails withholding over one thousand federal rights from these neighbors.  What do you think Jesus would say about that, Mr. Cathy?

If you’re interested, the church I pastor is Wake Forest Baptist Church at Wake Forest University; you’re welcome to worship with us if you’re ever in town.  We are the only Baptist church in the country with two lesbians as head pastors.  I serve a diverse congregation; many of our members are LGBT families raising children.  And I refuse to look into their eyes and tell them that their families do not deserve the same rights as your family.  For me, that is unethical.  It is un-American.  And it is unchristian.  I ask that you thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the magnitude of the statements you have made and ask yourself and your company: what does it mean for us to love our neighbors?

With Hope and Peace,

A Concerned Baptist Minister
Rev. Dr. Angela M. Yarber
Pastor for Preaching and Worship
Wake Forest Baptist Church at Wake Forest University

[Editor's note: The mission here at www.thebigdaddyweave.com has—for many years now—been to cover Baptist-related news and voices not already reported on elsewhere and to provide a forum for discussion on Baptist topics.  In the aftermath of the Richard Land-Plagiarism saga, I was forced to strictly moderate comments due to a flood of nasty replies. However, I'm now removing comment moderation and invite all readers to comment and offer their own response—agree or disagree—to Rev. Yarber. Thanks.]

Established in 1812, FBC Raleigh has gained a reputation over the years as one of the most prominent Baptist churches in the state of North Carolina.

My dad – Dr. Doug Weaver – wrote the foreword to Jonas’ Nurturing the Vision: First Baptist Church, Raleigh, 1812-2012.

Glenn Jonas is the Charles B. Howard Professor of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion in the Divinity School at Campbell University.

Here is a snippet from the foreword:

In recent years, the writing of local church history has increased dramatically in terms of the quality of research.  Professional historians have been called upon to use their craft to tell a church’s story in proper historical context.  The histories are not simply “three cheers” for what a church believes it has accomplished, but the narratives have been honest assessments of the successes and failures of church life, the difficulties and the joys of doing ministry.

…As you read the history of First Baptist Church, Raleigh, you will learn just how important the church has been to the history of Baptists in North Carolina.  The histories of the church, Meredith College, Wake Forest University, and the news journal Biblical Recorder are inextricably intertwined.  For example, Thomas Meredith, editor of the Biblical Recorder and one of the organizers of the North Carolina Baptist state convention, was an influential church member.  Many of the church’s pastors were connected to Wake Forest; almost all of the editors of the Biblical Recorder joined the congregation.

One of the most influential women in Southern Baptist missions history, Fannie Heck, and other women involved in North Carolina missions were church members as well.  Even prominent political figures–Governor W.W> Holder and more important, the church’s history is filled with the story of the commitment and service of “nameless” faithful believers, those Christians whose testimonies will not be found in textbooks or general history books, but whose experience of faith is the story of most Christians who follow Jesus.

Jonas tells the Baptist story well.  He puts the church’s history into the larger historical contexts of America, Raleigh, and Baptist life.  He highlights the role of women, a corrective to the way older histories were written, and he understands Baptists and the importance of freedom to the Baptist witness.  Jonas is not afraid to mention difficult struggles in the church’s history, but he also is gracious and celebratory of the church’s achievements.

If you enjoy reading Baptist history, do yourself a favor and get this great book from Mercer University Press.

Be it further RESOLVED, That we oppose all effort to provide government endorsement, sanction, recognition, acceptance, or civil rights advantage on the basis of homosexuality; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we oppose lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces

Fast-forward to 2010.  Richard Land, the SBC’s chief “ethicist,” penned a letter to members of Congress asking them to oppose legislation to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.  Land wrote:

The admission of openly homosexual individuals into the military would engender sexual tension and thereby negatively impact troop morale, unit cohesion, and order.

A few months later, a group of retired military chaplains that included numerous Southern Baptists issued a letter warning that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would curtail religious freedom and impact military readiness.

The next month, as the effort to repeal picked up steam in Congress, Richard Land urged a filibuster.  He said, “I’ve never known of a better excuse for a filibuster than to stop the Congress of the United States from essentially destroying the greatest military force our nation has ever known.”

When a U.S. federal judge ordered the military to suspend enforcement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy later in October, Col. Keith Travis, a Southern Baptist chaplain team leader, stated: “We are greatly concerned about the impact [the ruling] will have on religious liberty in the military.”

After the Senate finally passed the DADT repeal, Richard Land exclaimed, “This is a very, very sad day for America.”  Land – who has often claimed over the years to have his “hand on the pulse beat of where Southern Baptists are” – stressed that he had “heard from privates and seamen all the way through generals and admirals that [the DADT repeal] will cause significant numbers of people to resign from the military — in the middle of two wars.”

18 months after the repeal, we get this AP headline: “As gays serve openly, few problems for chaplains.”

Here’s the opening paragraphs:

Wrightstown, N.J. • Col. Timothy Wagoner has been an Air Force chaplain for 20 years, serving a denomination — the Southern Baptists — that rejects same-sex relationships.

Yet here he was at the chapel he oversees, watching supportively as an airman and his male partner celebrated a civil union ceremony.

“I wouldn’t miss it,” Wagoner said at the McGuire Air Force Base chapel, days later. “I don’t feel I’m compromising my beliefs … I’m supporting the community.”

Wagoner didn’t officiate at the ceremony — he couldn’t go quite that far. But his very presence at the gathering was a marker of how things have changed for active-duty clergy in the nine months since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was repealed and gays could serve openly.

Col. Wagoner oversees five other chaplains.  Later in the article, Col. Wagoner explains his presence:

“As a Southern Baptist, why was I here? I was here to lend support,” Wagoner said. “I was here supporting Airman Umali. I’ve worked with him. He’s a comrade in arms.”

“I’m also supporting Chaplain Reeb,” he said. “She gave a beautiful ceremony.”

The Southern Baptist Convention has the most military chaplains of any faith group with 450 on active duty (just over 15% of all chaplains).

The SBC needs more Col. Wagoners.