News & Commentary About All Things Baptist

Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, has weighed in on the new worship area for Pagans at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Spring, Colorado. According to the Associated Press article, the Air Force Academy already has worship facilities for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists.

Here is a snippet of Jeffress guest column over at the Washington Post:

…The decision by Air Force Academy officials in Colorado Springs to construct an outdoor space for the worship of pagan deities is an open invitation for God to send His harshest judgments against our nation.

As I read of the Academy’s plans to move stones to a nearby hilltop to facilitate the worship of pagans, Wiccans, Druids, and other earth-centered believers, I thought of the Old Testament story of King Manasseh who “did evil in the sight of the Lord. . . . For he rebuilt the high places and erected altars for Baal and made an Asherah as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them” (2 Kings 21:2-3).

God responded to Manasseh’s actions by announcing, “Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah that whoever hears of it, both his ears shall tingle” (2 Kings 21:12). God soon delivered on His promise by sending the Babylonians to invade Jerusalem. Apparently, God did not fully appreciate the merits of theological diversity.

What we label today as “pluralism,” God called “idolatry.” The first commandment from God was, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” There is no evidence that God has changed His mind on the subject. To openly violate this most basic law is to invite God’s judgment upon our nation. God has judged idolatry in the past through military invasions, earthquakes, a flood, and a mixture of fire and brimstone. The book of Revelation prophesies that God will employ the same agents of His wrath during the final seven years of earth’s history. There is no reason to think God is on hiatus during this present age.

“But doesn’t our Constitution demand that all religions be treated equally?’ you might ask.

Since God is not an American, there is no reason to think He has a particular affinity for our ideas about the separation of church and state. Nevertheless, although the First Amendment guarantees the right of every American to worship however they choose, it does not require government to provide a stone monument to facilitate that worship - even if the same government provides a chapel for Christians.

Apparently, Jeffress has a severe case of the “Religious Freedom For Me But Not For Thee”

Jeffress has peddled this same line of reasoning in the not-so-distant-past over at the blog Mainstream Baptist and in a sermon titled America is a Christian Nation.  Needless to say, Jeffress has been heavily influenced by revisionist amateur historian David Barton in his understanding of the First Amendment.

Jeffress might need a chat with the SBC’s ethics guru Dick Land.  I’m pretty sure that even Land’s version of accommodationism would not deny the free exercise rights of the Pagan cadets at the Air Force Academy.

For more commentary, see Texas Pastor Can’t Grasp The Basics of Religious Liberty.

The controversy surrounding the pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow likely needs no introduction.

Last week, a spokesman for the United Church of Christ railed against the decision of CBS to air the anti-abortion Tebow ad.  Arguing that the decision amounted to religious viewpoint discrimination, the UCC noted that CBS refused to air their commercial back in 2004, a commercial which featured bouncers in front of a church building turning away a gay couple.

Read the UCC statement here.

The controversy has taken a new twist as numerous media outlets, organizations, and personalities are now questioning the “truth behind Tebow’s tale.” From Salon:

While pregnant working as a missionary in the Philippines, [Pam Tebow] fell ill with amoebic dysentery and was treated with robust antibiotics, which she says doctors told her had caused fetal damage, but she refused their advice that she have an abortion for her own safety. Luckily, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy — and to a perfect anti-abortion tale.

Only, one detail has so far been excluded from Tebow’s public tellings of the story: abortion was, and still is, illegal in the Philippines. There isn’t even a single exception allowed for cases where the mother’s life is in danger.

In a letter asking CBS to determine whether the Tebows claims meet CBS’s own standards with regard to accuracy, Matthew Margo of the Center for Reproductive Rights writes:

…Abortion was criminalized in the Philippines in 1870. It has been illegal ever since.  Filipino law does not contain a single exception to its abortion ban – not even to save the life of the pregnant woman or to protect her health. Indeed, in 1987 – the year in question in the advertisement – the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines succeeded in making the Philippines constitution the first ever to recognize a government obligation to protect “the life of the unborn from conception.”

Physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked. Women who receive abortions – no matter the reason – may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years. Abortion is so deeply stigmatized in the Philippines that women who seek care for complications from unsafe, illegal abortions are routinely punished by healthcare workers, who threaten to report them to the police, harass them verbally and physically, and delay care.

…Given this context, it raises questions about whether physicians in the Philippines would have urged a married pregnant woman to illegally terminate her pregnancy in 1987.

Now, enter high-profile California attorney Gloria Allred.

Allred has written a letter to CBS asking if the corporation will “still insist on running this anti-choice commercial if it turns out to be misleading advertising?”

Does this commercial for mandatory motherhood contain corroboration that Pam’s doctor suggested that she commit the crime of having an illegal abortion in the Philippines?  If the ad omits the fact that abortion was illegal at that time and place isn’t the ad in fact misleading?  Also if the ad omits to state that Pam could have been sent to prison for 2-6 years for having an illegal abortion there, isn’t that misleading?  Was her choice to give birth an alternative chosen because it was more practical and less risky, (given the illegality of the abortion procedure) or was her choice simply a matter of faith?  Also who were the doctors who would have performed her abortion or who advised her to have one since they could have lost their license to practice medicine or been sent to prison for performing an abortion?

Allred asks some pretty decent questions that deserve answers.

When Pam Tebow “chose life,” what kind of “choice” did she really have?

I have no problem with pro-life ads.  I have no problem with the UCC ad either.  Better, in my opinion, than the countless beer and sex ads that CBS regularly airs.   However, when pro-life and pro-choice organizations address this culturally divisive subject, I think honesty should be a priority.

Jim Denison, theologian-in-residence for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, has an interesting column over at Associated Baptist Press.  You’ll want to read the entire article for the full context.

Here’s a snippet or two from The Meaning of Massachusetts:

This seismic shift from objective ethics to personal morality has affected every part of our society. Take abortion as an example: A majority of Americans continue to believe personally that abortion is morally wrong, but more than half favor keeping abortion legal….The reason for such private/public disparity is clear: most Americans think that society has no right to legislate personal morality, even behavior with which they disagree personally.

….

The good news is that our pluralistic, relativistic, consumeristic 21st- century culture looks very much like the culture in which Christianity was birthed. The Roman Empire was filled with philosophers debating the nature of truth, from Platonists and Aristotelians to advocates of the Greek pantheon, the mystery cults, and the Stoics, Epicureans, Cynics and Skeptics.

In such a maelstrom of mindsets, Christianity showed it was right by proving it was relevant. The church could not make child abandonment illegal, but it could rescue abandoned babies. It could not legislate against slavery, but it could buy slaves and free them. Early Christians demonstrated God’s love in theirs. They took to heart Jesus’ promise, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35).

The message of Massachusetts for Christians is clear: the best way to get God elected the King of our culture is for us to elect him the king of our hearts.

I think the era of the Early Church has passed….

Individual Christians and Christian churches played a significant role in the Abolition Movement.  Again, individual Christians and Christian churches/organizations worked to enact laws criminalizing child abandonment/neglect.  In fact, the Christian Life Commission of the BGCT played a key role in getting child support legislation passed in the late 60s/early 70s which for the first time made both the father and mother equal in responsibility to their child under the law.

The United States is not the Roman Empire.  We as citizens are certainly not without a voice.  We are not powerless.  And unlike the Christians in the Early Church, we are not a persecuted minority.

The idea of Christian Citizenship has always played a prominent role in Texas Baptist life.  One former director of the BGCT’s Christian Life Commission bluntly explained this biblical idea almost 30 years ago:

In a sense, no one can be a good Christian in a democracy without being a good lobbyist…to stay out of politics is a cheap cop out….biblical theology clearly calls Christians to political action, to attempts to influence legislation, to lobbying.

I have no desire to “get God elected the King of our culture” through the political process.  However, I don’t think we should convey the message that political apathy is acceptable.  We must apply our Christianity in the public square.  We do have social obligations and responsibilities.  I’m not completely sure what Denison is getting at in this essay but I don’t think he’s calling on Baptists to accept these social obligations.

I’m no communitarian.  But I’m also no fan of a misguided form of individualism that lacks a practical social ethic.  I think it has been demonstrated throughout U.S. history (Abolition Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Environmental Justice Movement, etc.) that Christians can affect social change and society can be transformed through active involvement in the political arena as both individuals and communities of faith.

Former Baptist pastor and now convicted-murderer Matt Baker was sentenced earlier today to 65 years in prison.

After the sentence was handed down, victim impact statements were read.  Below is the transcript of the impact statement read by Kari Baker’s mother Linda Dulin.  I watched on my TV as Dulin read this powerful statement.  At several points, she asked Matt Baker, who had his head hung down, to look at her.  Here it is:

Love Trumps Evil

You took her from us, Matt. You discarded her like she was yesterday’s trash. You murdered the mother of your children. …You really can’t look at me, can you?…You took (Kensi and Grace’s) mother and then fed them lies.

…Thank goodness this journey doesn’t end here. …You see, Matt, you were never going to win this one. You spent your life preying on innocent people. …But love trumps evil. Do you hear me, Matt? Love trumps evil.”

When I see Kari again) she’s going to run toward me and knock me over and smother me with kisses. …God told us he would never forsake us and he hasn’t. We have felt his arms around us through this entire process.

…We are so very blessed. We are blessed. So, what do we do now? Well, first we thank God for bringing us here to this place. …But next, Jim and I commit our lives to Kensi and Grace. …We can’t give them back their mother, but we want, more than anything in this world, for them to be whole and healthy. You poisoned them.

You taught them to hate. But it won’t last. It won’t last….You have to spend many years in prison. What you did was horrific. It was horrific, Matt. And I believe you’re capable of much more evil….But….we have to step out and forgive. So, we do. We forgive. Because that’s the only way, Matt. …Love trumps evil.”

In the aftermath of the stunning victory of now Senator-elect Scott Brown in Massachusetts, one prominent Southern Baptist megachurch pastor took to Facebook to offer a “HALLELUJAH”

Steve Gaines, pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church outside of Memphis, Tennessee and successor to the late Adrian Rogers, had this to say on his public Facebook page:

“Well Hallelujah!  We have a conservative senator in Massachusetts!  The liberals have awakened the sleeping giant called “normal people.”  Marriage is for 1 man & 1 woman; babies are for nurturing, not murdering; govt’ should be little, not gigantic; and free enterprise is better than socialism/communism.  Normal people, it’s not too late for America.  The Wizard of Oz of liberalism has been exposed!”

Scott Brown is a long-time supporter of abortion rights.  He’s a pro-choice Republican.  He is, however, against partial-birth abortions and a proponent of parental consent/notification laws.

On the subject of gay rights and the legal status of same-sex couples, Brown is a supporter of civil unions and during the campaign noted that he “[has] the same position as Barack Obama.”

And of course, Brown posed nude in Cosmo magazine back in 1982 - talk about Family Values…

It’s interesting that what passes for “conservative” nowadays among Southern Baptist megachurch pastors (or at least among this particular SBC megachurch pastor) is support for abortion rights and civil unions.  My my my, has the tent become quite a bit bigger overnight among the fundamentalist elite in the SBC?

Nah.  But what we do have here is just another example of the blind loyalty of Southern Baptist leaders to the GOP.  Baptist Press -the PR arm of the SBC - regularly hammers pro-life Democrats for supposedly, somehow compromising their pro-life convictions in this complex health care reform debate.  Meanwhile, one of the SBC’s most prominent pastors showers a pro-choice, pro-civil union Republican with nothing but love.

Wonder if we’ll see Baptist Press weigh-in with some negativity directed towards the social views of Scott Brown?  Doubt it.

Wearing a multi-colored tie emblazoned with the word “FAITH” and a Icthus (fish), former Baptist minister Matt Baker was convicted of murdering his wife, Kari Baker, by a jury in Waco, Texas just a few minutes ago.

Baker’s conviction undoubtedly rested primarily on the testimony of his parishioner and former mistress Vanessa Bulls.  Here’s some background information from ABP:

WACO, Texas (ABP) — The star witness at the trial of a former Baptist pastor charged with murdering his wife in 2006 testified Jan. 19 that the accused planned the crime, hoping to make it look like a suicide, and afterward told his ex-mistress that he drugged his wife with sleeping pills and smothered her with a pillow.

Vanessa Bulls was the 27th witness to testify against Matt Baker. The graduate of Baylor University and George W. Truett Theological Seminary was pastor of several Baptist churches in Texas before his arrest in September 2007, 18 months after the death of his wife, Kari.

The prosecution rested its case at the end of the day Jan. 19. The defense began calling witnesses the morning of Jan. 20. Baker has denied killing his wife in several high-profile media interviews, including CBS News “48 Hours” and the March 2008 cover story of Texas Monthly.

And more background from the Waco Trib:

As Baptist minister Matt Baker was plotting the death of his wife in 2006, according to his mistress, Vanessa Bulls, he sent her the lyrics to a song called “Dirty Little Secret.”

Bulls kept her and Baker’s alleged secret until Wednesday, when the Harker Heights middle school teacher testified in gripping detail about her four-month affair with Baker and how she said he drugged and smothered Kari Baker as their two children slept down the hall.

Bulls, 27, told the jury that Matt Baker spoke harshly of his wife and their life together and considered several methods of killing her.

His options included tampering with the brakes on her car, a drive-by shooting, and hanging her and making it look like a suicide, she said.

“He said he wanted her out of his life,” Bulls said, adding that Baker said he could not divorce because it would kill his career.

It was also reported by the Waco Trib that Vanessa Bulls has been placed on administrative leave with pay pending “the outcome of an investigation” from her position as a seventh-grade language arts teacher  at Easter Hills Middle School in Harker Heights, Texas.  Bulls continued her affair with Baker for several months after the murder.  Legal scholars have said that Bulls could face criminal prosecution in light of her testimony.  See below:

Vanessa Bulls may have opened herself up to potential criminal prosecution by testifying that she repeatedly lied to law enforcement officials looking into the death of Kari Baker. But she likely isn’t on the hook for as much as people might imagine, legal scholars said.

Bulls was granted immunity for testimony she gave to a grand jury last March. There is no indication, though, she received immunity for testimony she offered Tuesday during Matt Baker’s murder trial.

If Bulls does not have an agreement that shields her from criminal liability arising from her testimony, prosecutors could pursue charges against her.

See also:

Jury deliberating in ex-minister’s murder trial (Washington Post)
Deliberations Begin in ‘Murdering Minister’ Case (ABC News)

**Post was written last night (1/15) and posted 1/16 due to technical issues**

Many of you have surely been following the coverage of the devastation in Haiti.  As I type this, I too am watching the coverage on a couple of cable news networks.  A moment ago I received an e-mail from the Baptist General Convention of Texas with the following quote from Bill Arnold, the Texas Baptists Disaster Response Coordinator:

At this time, we are gathering donations to be used by Texas Baptists disaster relief to meet the needs of the people who are suffering in Haiti.  This is an opportunity for Texas Baptists to minister in the name of Jesus to people who are suffering and who do not have the hope of Christ in their lives. We hope that in addition to meeting human needs that everything done will bring glory to God. In the end, we hope to see that more Haitians have come to know the love of Christ.”

I don’t know but the word OPPORTUNITY just did not settle well with me.

The word opportunity generally has a positive connotation.  In fact, the primary definition of opportunity is:

1. A possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances

I just don’t see what is positive or favorable in the set of circumstances that the Haitian people are having to deal with.  How is this terrible tragedy an opportunity?

I also wonder how non-evangelicals and particularly those with ties to Haiti would respond to Arnold’s characterization of this tragedy as an “opportunity for Texas Baptists.”

I don’t argue that a distinctly Baptist Christian witness should be divorced from social efforts including disaster relief.  But if Christian relief groups do not intend to exploit this disaster or any other disaster for evangelistic purposes, they probably should be careful not to portray this disaster or any disaster as an “opportunity” for ministry.

The award-winning documentary by EthicsDaily.com titled Different Books, Common Word: Baptists and Muslims will air on a number of ABC-TV stations across the country this upcoming Sunday, January 17.

Different Books, Common Word will air Sunday at 12pm in Richmond, Virginia on WRIC and at 12:30 on KXXXV in Central Texas (Waco, Temple, Killeen, Fort Hood).  In Waco, KXXV is Ch. 5 and Ch. 1005 (HD).

A list of upcoming airdates is here.  Check to see if and when Different Books, Common Word is showing in your area.

Read a review of Different Books, Common Word here.

The trailer is below:

Different Books, Common Word

More clips from the documentary and related articles are here.

The Brookings Institution has unveiled a new statement concerning religious liberty titled Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law. This joint statement was put together by a diverse group of religious and secular leaders.  As I mentioned in my post yesterday, Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest University played a key role in crafting this statement.  In fact, the joint statement was produced by the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.  Rogers is scheduled to speak about the statement during a panel session today along with Charles Haynes (First Amendment Center), Colby May (ACLJ) and Marc Stern (American Jewish Congress).

Several Baptists in addition to Rogers served on the Drafting Committee including:

• J. Brent Walker, Executive-Director, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
• K. Hollyn Hollman, General Counsel, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
• Oliver Thomas, Attorney
• Richard Land, President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

Other groups represented on the Drafting Committee include the Seventh-Day Adventists, American Jewish Committee, Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Anti-Defamation League, National Council of Churches, Islamic Networks Group, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and more.

Below are a few snippets:

The drafters of this document often disagree about how the law should address issues regarding the intersection of religion and government. For example, some of us are actively urging the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse certain decisions in this area, while others of us are vigorously opposing such efforts. Nevertheless, we have come together to provide a summary of how the law currently answers some basic questions regarding religious expression and practice in public life. However much we differ about what the law should be, we agree in many cases on what the law is today.

Our description of current law should not be taken as a collective endorsement of all of the activities the law allows. Some of us would take that position; others would not. This document describes what is legally permissible, not necessarily what is desirable.

The joint statement answers 35 different questions such as “May religious groups and people participate in the debate of public issues?,” “May religious beliefs inform public policy?,” “Does the First Amendment place restrictions on the political activities of religious organizations” and “What kinds of activities are prohibited by the ban on religious discrimination as applied to the secular nongovernmental workplace?”

For those interested in what a diverse group of scholars agree that the law says on religious liberty questions, this is an extremely helpful resource.  Check it out.

Congratulations to  Melissa Rogers who was awarded the Abner McCall Religious Liberty Award by the Baylor Alumni Association on Saturday, December 22.  My dad and I were in attendance for the event.

From BAA:

About a hundred people gathered at the Hughes-Dillard Alumni Center on Saturday, December 19, to celebrate the accomplishments of two impressive alumni. Family, friends, and Baylor supporters attended a luncheon to honor Melissa Rogers ’88 with the McCall Religious Liberty Award…

In her comments to the crowd, Rogers said, “For a lawyer who is a Baylor graduate to receive an award in Abner McCall’s name is just an unbelievable honor.”

Rogers is the director of Wake Forest University Divinity School’s Center for Religion and Public Affairs and as a nonresident senior fellow within the Governance Program of The Brookings Institution.

“I do not consider myself in the company of previous recipients—such as James Dunn and Ed Gaustad,” she added. “I consider this a time of inspiration and a goad to try to carry the torch of religious liberty as ably as they did and do.”

The snippet above does not mention that President Obama appointed Melissa Rogers to his Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

In an event sponsored by The Brookings Institution and moderated by senior fellow E.J.  Dionne, a joint statement concerning religious expression in the United States will be unveiled tomorrow by a diverse group of religious and secular leaders including Melissa Rogers.  Here’s a description of the statement and event:

This document does not focus on what the law should be, but rather what the law is today. The joint statement seeks to provide accessible and useful information for Americans about this area of law, and enrich the conversation surrounding religious liberties.

Signatories will discuss current legal protections of religious expressions, including issues such as religion and politics; religious gatherings on government property; chaplains in legislative bodies, prisons and the military; and religion in the workplace. They also will discuss the history and future of common-ground projects in the religious freedom field.

The event will feature a diverse group of panelists/presenters including Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, Colby May of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress and Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest University.

I will post a link to and a snippet from the joint statement once it is online.

After a holiday sabbatical during which much writing and research was done, thebigdaddyweave will again feature posts on a more regular basis.