Good from Bad

We do not normally directly bring political matters to this site. I'd rather much more discuss matters of the faith and great works of literature, philosophy and film. However, when the newest round of Supreme Court speculation reared its head of Monday, I voiced to myself either the shear brilliance or supreme luck of George W Bush. I thought this man is either a Methodist Machiavellian or that God continues to smile upon his annointed. Nevertheless, when I found the following opinion on a politically conservative website and since this opinion so exactly mirrors my own, I decided to take break from routine and ritual and allow my "red-headed step child" out for an airing.

It all could have been a strategy. It wasn’t. But it would have worked as one.

By Matthew J. Franck

I have been thinking about why I am so confident that Samuel Alito will be confirmed comfortably by the Senate, with no filibuster attempt by the Democrats, indeed with a good slice of the Democrats voting for him, and probably after hearings that (alas) break no new ground in candor or "ideological" inquiry. And it occurs to me that the reason is summed up in two words: Harriet Miers.

I mean no disrespect to Ms. Miers, and more importantly, I do not mean to impute a cynically Machiavellian strategy to the president. But if George W. Bush, with or without the willing collusion of Harriet Miers, had planned for things to work out the way they have, they could not have done so more beautifully.

Rewind our recent history just a bit. When John Roberts was first nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on July 19, there were two immediate grounds for objection to him cited by the Left: that he was a man chosen to replace a woman, and that he would presumably move the Court rightward, based on what was known of his record. Roberts's obvious excellence by every measure that matters for service on the Supreme Court quickly made the "man replaces woman" issue go away, as it just seemed silly and petty to nearly everyone but the professional feminists. Within a day or two, all that mattered was the "balance of the Court" issue, and all attention turned to Roberts's judicial "philosophy," and to more specific questions of what he could or should be asked, how much he should be expected to respond, and what point on the continuum between pure speculation and solid certainty about his views would be reached by the end of his hearings. Through August one might have said the temperature of the debate moderated somewhat as the public responded very favorably to Roberts, but it still looked like he could face a tough gantlet to run in the Judiciary Committee.

Then came the death of William Rehnquist on September 3, with Roberts's hearings set to begin two days later. When the president quickly moved his nomination of Roberts from the associate's seat to the center chair of the chief justice, the case for Roberts actually became stronger among those naturally disposed against him, as many concluded that a "swap" of Roberts for Rehnquist would probably have a smaller impact on the future course of the Court's decision-making than if Roberts replaced O'Connor. Suddenly the Roberts hearings, already put off for a week, became a much less high-stakes affair, despite the formally greater importance of confirming a chief justice. Probably Roberts would have been just as cool and competent in any event, but some Democratic senators, on and off the committee, no doubt dialed back their Outrage-o-Meters. The final 78-22 vote on September 29 was a sign of how "safe" many of them felt with Roberts replacing Rehnquist, and the Washington Post's editorial the week before, chastising minority leader Harry Reid for opposing Roberts, had to be a sign of the same feeling in the liberal press.

But in the meantime, the chance for a second go at replacing Justice O'Connor produced a redoubled effort on the left to press for both a female nominee and a more "moderate" one than Roberts. Strangely, liberals could almost have thanked Chief Justice Rehnquist for dying in timely fashion and helping them dodge a bullet. The pressure in particular for the president to name a woman was ratcheted up considerably.

Now imagine if Samuel Alito, not Harriet Miers, had been nominated on October 3. The mere fact of his maleness would have been enough to set off the whirling dervishes of the Left, and his conservative reputation would have completed the escalation of the debate. Alito's many sterling qualities, beginning with his superb intellectual and experiential qualifications, would have been far less a part of the conversation if he had been nominated immediately after the similarly gifted and qualified John Roberts. His evident threat to the "balance" on the Court would have produced serious stirrings of filibuster talk among Democrats, and some Republican senators who had joined the Gang of 14 to forestall filibusters last spring might have been talked into acquiescing in the "extraordinary" character of an Alito nomination in early October, especially as liberal activist groups ginned up the talk of "right-wing robed radicals."

Instead we got Harriet Miers, whose recommendations seemed to be that she was female, known to and close to the president, and otherwise an enigma at best as a future justice of the Court. When her qualifications were rapidly assessed as falling well short of the standard set by Roberts, we were in for 24 days in which intellectual achievement, and the right sort of legal or judicial experience, suddenly looked like the most important things.

In the intra-party debate among Republicans, conservatives all but swore a blood oath that if the president would relent and withdraw the Miers nomination, they would fight like never before for his next nominee (assuming he or she measured up decently by the Roberts yardstick). "Moderate" Republicans like Arlen Specter began to talk about qualifications, and knowledge of constitutional law, as the foremost considerations. Perhaps most importantly, some Democrats, including key figures like Patrick Leahy, sounded some of the same themes, as did some major press outlets.

It's not just the withdrawal of the Miers nomination that benefits Judge Alito, by making his nomination possible. It's the fact that there was a Miers nomination at all that benefits Judge Alito, by making his confirmation a virtual certainty. He benefits from the contrast. He doesn't follow Roberts, whom he resembles in key respects. He follows Miers, than whom he could not be more different. Suddenly his great credentials for this job, which would have been greeted with a shrug on October 3, become the focus of attention on October 31. Politicians of both parties who spent October talking about the importance of constitutional law knowledge, of experience in appellate advocacy and/or judging, and of intellectual achievement, are hardly now in a position to downplay the obvious possession of all those qualities by Samuel Alito.

If I thought that President Bush was deeply cynical, and Harriet Miers a loyal lamb willing to be led to the slaughter in his service, I would suspect that they had a conversation in late September that set this all up. That the president wanted to nominate Sam Alito all along. That he and Harriet Miers were agreed on her lack of fitness for the Supreme Court, and foresaw the events that followed her nomination. That they deliberately created the conditions in which conservatives, moderates, and even many liberals would react to her withdrawal with relief and to the nomination of Judge Alito with gratitude and admiration. That the failed Miers nomination would make "it's gotta be a woman" go away as an issue for nearly everyone, and bring neutral questions of expertise front and center once again. That it would then be almost impossible for the president's opponents to generate the political momentum needed to defeat this nomination to the Court.

I don't think for a moment that these effects were foreseen and planned in the secret councils of the Bush White House. I'm not kidding; I really don't. It is contrary to everything we know about George W. Bush's head and his heart to suppose that he would trifle with the future of the Court, with the feelings of his friend and close adviser, and with the sympathies of his own partisan supporters, in such cavalier fashion.

But this president has shown an uncanny knack for recovering from his own mistakes, and turning defeat into triumph. It looks like he has done it again, this time with a reversal of field that makes his prior error of judgment look like it was made by a different person altogether, but that also turns that mistake to good effect. October turns out not to have been wasted time at all, but a month well spent on a debate that helps the president's new nomination tremendously. Samuel Alito was probably bound for confirmation anyway, but his path has been made measurably smoother by the fracas over Harriet Miers.

— Matthew J. Franck is a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University.

Reformation Day: Trick or Treat?

October 31st is not Halloween but Reformation Day.

This is the day that we celebrate the time in 1517 when a German Augustinian monk, professor and theologian teaching at the University of Wittenberg and preaching at "All Saints" Castle Church (this church was named "All Saints" because it was the repository of his collection of holy relics) decided to question the leaders of the Western Church's understanding of Scripture.

Yes, on "All Saints" Day, a German theologian who fancied the bottle a bit, decided to knock on the door of "All Saints" Church and say, "Trick or treat?"

The Treat was a better understanding of the gospel. The Trick was complete indifference for whether or not the church leadership agreed or disagreed.

For this "All Saints" prank (and "papering" the church door) Luther was labled a "drunk little monk", a "the Saxon Hus" and an arch heretic ... but at least he wasn't labeled a liberal.

So let us honor this occasion in a suitable way, in no particular order:

1) Watch the film, Luther.

2) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

3) Remember all who have come before: Luther, Kierkegaard, Kung, Paul, Jeremiah, Elijah, Moody, Marshall, XXXXX, XXXXX, Stagg, Whitsitt, and Elliott among others.

4) Pray to God.

5) Reflect on all the issues that separate you from other believers.

6) Reflect on all the issues that unite you with other believers.

7) Continue to remind yourself that whether you are in the minority or in the majority, your understanding of Scripture could be wrong.

How did Methuselah die?

We are all familiar with the name Methuselah. His name is synonymous with old-age. He is known as the longest living man recorded in Scripture, coming in at a whopping 969 years (Genesis 5:27).

Now I am not going to go into the subject of the possibility of someone actually living that long. I am not going into the subject of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures’ understanding of antiquity. That, in antiquity, the Ancient Near Eastern culture’s recorded great men of their antiquity as living hundreds and thousands of year is of no concern here. This article is not about the subject of inerrancy.

Rather, I am concerned with the subject as to how Methuselah died. Most people assume that he died of old-age. I mean, if someone today dies at the age of 96, we assume he died of old age. Now if a person died at the age of 969, then old age is a sure bet. … But is it?

Follow my math here:

Methuselah was 187 when he begat his son Lamech (5:26)

Lamech was 182 when he begat his son Noah (5:28-29).

At the time Lamech was 182 and begetting Noah, Methuselah was 369.

Now Noah was 500 when he begat his sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth (5:32), who we must assume were triplets.

At the time that Noah was 500 and begetting Ham, Shem, and Japheth, Noah’s father, Lamech, was 682 years old. Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah was 869 years old.

Now at the time of the flood, Noah was 600 years old (7:6) and his three sons were each 100.

In verse 5:30, Lamech is said to have lived 595 after the birth of Noah. If he was 182 at the birth of Noah, and lived 595 more years, then Lamech would have died at the age of 777 (5:31), five years before the flood.

Now Methuselah was 869 years of age at the birth of Noah’s three sons when Noah was 500. If the flood came when Noah was 600 and his three sons were 100, the flood would have come when Methuselah was 969. And, as Genesis 5:27 says, Methuselah died at the age of 969.

Therefore, Methuselah outlived his son, Lamech, by five years, and died the same year as the great flood that destroyed all life.

So my question is: HOW DID METHUSELAH DIE? Did he die of natural causes just before the flood or did he die as a result of the flood? The Bible is silent about this.

The Bible does not make any assertions about the faith of Methuselah, either positive or negative or righteous or unrighteous.

The answer to how Methuselah died must remain a mystery for some time.

The Gospel According to Anne

Congratulations, Ms Rice. Welcome to the kingdom. I beg your pardon as I take this opportunity to play one of my favourite Cliff Richard songs, who (by the way) is also a believer.

By David Gates
Newsweek

Oct. 31, 2005 issue - Sometimes Anne Rice won't leave her bedroom for days on end—and neither would you. Glass doors open onto a terrace that looks over the red-tiled roofs of La Jolla, Calif., to the Pacific Ocean. A live-in staffer brings meals to the table at the foot of her ornately carved wooden bed, which faces an ornately carved stone fireplace. She exercises in a huge bike-in closet. She's got two computers and enough books to last her a year. Splendid isolation? Splendid, sure. But she's often got family visiting in a downstairs guest suite, she reads The New York Times every morning—"Nicholas Kristof is a hero to me"—watches news "till I can't stand it anymore," and spends up to an hour and a half a day e-mailing with her extraordinarily faithful readers.

They've been worried about her. After 25 novels in 25 years, Rice, 64, hasn't published a book since 2003's "Blood Chronicle," the tenth volume of her best-selling vampire series. They may have heard she came close to death last year, when she had surgery for an intestinal blockage, and also back in 1998, when she went into a sudden diabetic coma; that same year she returned to the Roman Catholic Church, which she'd left at 18. They surely knew that Stan Rice, her husband of 41 years, died of a brain tumor in 2002. And though she'd moved out of their longtime home in New Orleans more than a year before Hurricane Katrina, she still has property there—and the deep emotional connection that led her to make the city the setting for such novels as "Interview With the Vampire." What's up with her? "For the last six months," she says, "people have been sending e-mails saying, 'What are you doing next?' And I've told them, 'You may not want what I'm doing next'." We'll know soon. In two weeks, Anne Rice, the chronicler of vampires, witches and—under the pseudonym A. N. Roquelaure—of soft-core S&M encounters, will publish "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," a novel about the 7-year-old Jesus, narrated by Christ himself. "I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.

Meeting the still youthful-looking Rice, you'd never suspect she'd been ill—except that on a warm October afternoon she's chilly enough to have a fire blazing. And if you were expecting Morticia Addams with a strange new light in her eyes, forget it. "We make good coffee," she says, beckoning you to where a silver pot sits on the white tablecloth. "We're from New Orleans." Rice knows "Out of Egypt" and its projected sequels—three, she thinks—could alienate her following; as she writes in the afterword, "I was ready to do violence to my career." But she sees a continuity with her old books, whose compulsive, conscience-stricken evildoers reflect her long spiritual unease. "I mean, I was in despair." In that afterword she calls Christ "the ultimate supernatural hero ... the ultimate immortal of them all."

To render such a hero and his world believable, she immersed herself not only in Scripture, but in first-century histories and New Testament scholarship—some of which she found disturbingly skeptical. "Even Hitler scholarship usually allows Hitler a certain amount of power and mystery." She also watched every Biblical movie she could find, from "The Robe" to "The Passion of the Christ" ("I loved it"). And she dipped into previous novels, from "Quo Vadis" to Norman Mailer's "The Gospel According to the Son" to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins's apocalyptic Left Behind series. ("I was intrigued. But their vision is not my vision.") She can cite scholarly authority for giving her Christ a birth date of 11 B.C., and for making James, his disciple, the son of Joseph by a previous marriage. But she's also taken liberties where they don't explicitly conflict with Scripture. No one reports that the young Jesus studied with the historian Philo of Alexandria, as the novel has it—or that Jesus' family was in Alexandria at all. And she's used legends of the boy Messiah's miracles from the noncanonical Apocrypha: bringing clay birds to life, striking a bully dead and resurrecting him.

Rice's most daring move, though, is to try to get inside the head of a 7-year-old kid who's intermittently aware that he's also God Almighty. "There were times when I thought I couldn't do it," she admits. The advance notices say she's pulled it off: Kirkus Reviews' starred rave pronounces her Jesus "fully believable." But it's hard to imagine all readers will be convinced when he delivers such lines as "And there came in a flash to me a feeling of understanding everything, everything!" The attempt to render a child's point of view can read like a Sunday-school text crossed with Hemingway: "It was time for the blessing. The first prayer we all said together in Jerusalem ... The words were a little different to me. But it was still very good." Yet in the novel's best scene, a dream in which Jesus meets a bewitchingly handsome Satan—smiling, then weeping, then raging—Rice shows she still has her great gift: to imbue Gothic chills with moral complexity and heartfelt sorrow.

Rice already has much of the next volume written. ("Of course I've been advised not to talk about it.") But what's she going to do with herself once her hero ascends to Heaven? "If I really complete the life of Christ the way I want to do it," she says, "then I might go on and write a new type of fiction. It won't be like the other. It'll be in a world that includes redemption." Still, you can bet the Devil's going to get the best lines.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

SBFM2005

Here is a brief commentary in the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men [and women] divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God [and man] for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter [depending on what you consider its “matter” to be].

God
There is one and only one living and true God. …The eternal God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes [This is incorrect: The Scriptures nowhere speak of God having three distinct personalities. God is only One person and we know Him by Father, Son and Spirit which are ALL one person. Jesus Christ, the Son, is the full revelation of God in His person. There are not two persons in Father and Son but one person. The Spirit and the Son are the Word and Breath of God the Father. They are breathed out by Him simultaneously. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. The error in believing God as three persons had developed in the change in language over the centuries. The Latin word, persona, which we get our word “person,” did not mean “personality” with which we now associate the word. God is One personality.], but without division of nature, essence, or being.

God the Father
God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace. …God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

God the Son
Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. …He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His death on the cross, He made provision for the redemption of men from sin [Oddly enough, there is nothing in this confession that addresses a particular view of the atonement. While it is generally true that conservative evangelicals hold to the penal substitutionary theory of atonement, there is nothing here that explicitly confesses that belief. This is one of the inclusive features of the 1924 and 1963 BFMs that made it such a wonderful document.].

God the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. …He exalts Christ. He convicts of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. …He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

Man
Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation [All this is true and does not necessitate the abandonment of the scientific theory of evolution]. …By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race [This is interesting. The use of “man” instead of “Adam” leaves possible the inclusion of a non-Augustine understanding of Original Sin.]. … The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood [not just by his blood (i.e. his death); the atoning work of Christ involved both His life and death.] obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

God's Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. …All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit will never fall away from the state of grace [This is incorrect: sanctification is an on-going process in the life of the believer. There are believers not eternally elected who are sanctified to some degree but then “fall away” and stop believing.], but shall persevere to the end.

The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body [not just a local body, as you will see further down; the Church is also understood as the entire body of believers at any point in time. This limited understanding of the church is a remnant of the SBC’s early Landmark influence.] of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel…and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth [The “gospel” is mentioned 3 times in this confession but is never once define. What do Southern Baptists consider the Gospel to be?]. …This church is an autonomous body. …The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ, which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.

Baptism & the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water [not just immersion]. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming [I prefer the term “communion” over the term “Lord’s Supper.” It is during Communion that we remember what Christ did to reconcile us to God. It is during Communion that we remember what Christ did to reconcile us to our neighbor. It is during communion that we remember that Christ will return and we shall be fully reconciled with God and Man in Jesus Christ. During Communion we who are in Christ commune with God in Christ and commune with our neighbors in the Church (the body of Christ) who are in Christ. While such communion with others in Christ is administered on the local level in the local church, the spiritual reality is that we commune with all believers at all times who have ever or will ever be in Christ. This communion anticipates the final state of when Christ returns and all believers will eternally commune with other believers and God in Christ. … Also, Communion should not be restricted to just “members of the local church”; it should be offered to all believers who profess relation to God through Christ. This “member” idea is another remnant of SBC Landmark influence.].

The Lord's Day
The first day of the week is the Lord's Day [Sunday is the traditional “day of rest” Baptists. The Sabbath was instituted by God for man to rest from the weariness of this world. It is an element of God’s grace for those who bear his image. Jesus’ example was that when He wanted to work on the Sabbath He did so. When Jesus wanted to rest and it wasn’t the Sabbath He did so. Jesus often worked on the Sabbath and withdrew to a quiet place to rest when He needed the rest. Leonard Sweet refers to these as “instant Sabbaths.” For those who wish to serve the Church in SBC churches, Sunday is rarely a “day of rest.” We receive our ultimate “rest” both physically and spiritually in God.]. …It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead [and foreshadows and anticipates the ultimate “rest” that we shall receive at the consummation of all things in Christ.] and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion.

Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. …Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly [and physically] …the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell [“Hell” refers to the place of punishment both temporal and eternal. Temporal punishment is the physical and spiritual conscious punishment for sins against God and Man. Eternal punishment is described in the Scriptures as “destruction” and “the second death.” The unbeliever will be annihilated and punished with non-existence for all eternity.] and …The righteous… will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven [not just heaven, but also Earth] with the Lord.

Evangelism & Missions
It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations … to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by personal effort.

Education
The cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence … there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. …The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists [and not by the shifting wills and beliefs of the school trustees, the school president, the local body of believers and the majority’s consensus].

Stewardship
God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual; all that we have and are we owe to Him. Christians have a spiritual debtorship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talents, and material possessions.

Cooperation
Christ's people should … organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. …Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations [Yes, and if we can cooperate with Roman Catholics on moral goals we can surely cooperate with other Baptists on soteriological goals.].

The Christian & the Social Order
Every Christian is under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in his own life and in human society. ... The Christian should oppose in the spirit of Christ every form of greed, selfishness, and vice [Yes, however, there are both kingdom goals (“the will of Christ”) and kingdom methods (also “the will of Christ”). I take the term “in the Spirit of Christ” as referring to the Christ-like manner in which Christ proclaimed the gospel (i.e. the kingdom of God) in both word and deed. The kingdom of God can only be realized by the methods of the kingdom. No other method is granted by God. Therefore, no matter how good are the intentions of those who pursue the goals of the kingdom of heaven must do so by the methods of the kingdom of heaven or their striving is in vain.].

Religious Liberty
Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. …A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal [this obviously needs further explanation].

Family
God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society [I am somewhat skeptical about this assertion; I do not see such a statement proclaimed in Scripture.]. …Marriage is the unity of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime [Therefore, even if gay couples think they are married they are not God does not recognize their marriage.] …The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image [Good.]. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. …Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.

A Quick Thought

Someone asked me recently whether I held to an Old-Earth Creation or a Young-Earth Creation.

I said , “Young-Earth; 4.57 billion years and not older than that.”

Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

The missis and myself had the pleasure of seeing the new film, Wallace and Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

Now both of us are Wallace and Gromit fans, having enjoyed the three short films, so our standards and anticipation were quite high. Safe to say that neither were disappointed.

This is a wonderful film that deserves repeated viewing. I would suggest that this is probably one of the best films I have seen this year. Yes, better that Brothers Grim, Fever Pitch and Song of Bernadette, but not as good as Spirited Away. Oddly enough, both the top two are “animation”.

I would recommend this film to all. It is a G film for the kids but more than enough jokes to please parents and non-parents alike. Also, there are a few slight innuendo jokes that will pass over kids’ heads but are hilarious none the less.

Here is the Ebert Review for all who are interested.

Evolution, the Gospel, and the Baptist Press

Recently I have been tackling the issue of Evolution and Fundamentalistic Christianity. Actually, I have been wrestling with this issue for years now. Up until recently my focus has been on the belief that evolution and conservative Christianity are incompatible subjects. Since I believe that this is not the case I have sought to change the conservative Christian mindset on this subject. While I am in no way desiring that people should hold to evolution as I do, I do desire that conservative Christians at least allow other Christians to hold the theory of evolution without referring to them as liberal, errantists, or , even worse, unbelievers. This has been my goal.

However, two other aspects of this issue have gained my focus:

First, I am amazed that so many of our conservative leaders and scholars devote so much time to this issue. With all the problems in this world and in this country, it somewhat amazes me that people can spend so much time on this subject. Then again, what am I doing?

Perusing the various conservative leaders’ work on this subject, many of them see evolution as the source (or, at least, excuse) for all of modern life’s problems. Such is not the case but that is what many appear to believe publicly.

However, among the SBC leaders there have been two reasons given that we all should dislike about evolution. The first reason was given during the early days of the fundamentalist movement. Evolution was called a lie because it reduced man’s importance to the level of animal and denied he was made in the image of God. Such was not the case and this argument dropped by the wayside as the old fundamentalists did. However, the resurgence of fundamentalists into the SBC leadership under the dubious issue of biblical inerrancy precipitated a “revival” of the fundamentalist attack on evolution. This time the theory that had gained wide acceptance by the overwhelming majority of believers (including the majority of conservative believers) was being attacked on the basis of being contrary to the Bible, therefore, all who believed in evolution believed the Bible to be erring. Such was not the case but there you are. Now we are seeing a barrage of fundamentalist books and news stories articulating to the public and all the other Bible-believing Christians that evolution is contrary to the revealed Scriptures of the Creator.

The second aspect of this issue that has amazed me is one that has only recently come upon me.

Whenever I discuss this issue with other seminarians who are surprised at my belief in evolution and Biblical inerrancy, they almost always ask how I can agree with a theory that argues that man is not created in God’s image. I usually answer that I do not believe that the theory of evolution does contradict the revealed truth that humans are made in God’s image.

Yes, reasons Christians give for being against evolution are many: inerrancy, “miracle” creation, image of God … okay, the reasons are three. But there is one reason to be against evolution that I never hear from conservative Christians. Yes, I do have one problem with the theory of evolution that it is currently espoused.

In college, I read a book by William Golding called The Inheritors.

In this book, eight Neanderthals encounter another race of beings like themselves, yet strangely different. This new race, Homo sapiens, fascinating in their skills and sophistication, terrifying in their cruelty, sense of guilt, and incipient corruption, spell doom for the more gentle folk whose world they will inherit.

Now the subtle yet subversive point of this book is its title derived from the Bible, Matthew 5:5; this is the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says, ‘Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.’

Yes, there is a real problem with the current theory of evolution that argues for “the survival of the fittest”. Now I happen to believe that there is a way around this problem but there is still an idea in our world that the strong inherit the earth. Now I do not necessarily blame Darwin for this belief. The history of humanity (and its pre-history) suggests that this world is run by the aggressive use of force. Darwinism did not event “survival of the fittest”; it merely found a naturalistic basis for it.

Yet, as the Sermon on the Mount illustrates, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world and is based on laws and rules and commandments at antithesis to the rules of this world. The kingdom is based on peace, meekness, patience, joy, love, poverty and such a kingdom comes at a snails pace but lasts for eternity. This world is based on war, brute force, impatience, misery, hate, wealth and such a world comes quick but lasts only a moment. The kingdom of God is totally at odds with this world and this is the good news. The Kingdom of Heaven has come and is coming and was inaugurated by the coming of its king, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ-figure, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Incarnated God-Man, and the kingdom will find its perfection when Jesus returns. The Kingdom of God IS the Gospel. And the fact that the kingdom of heaven was based on meekness and the like was foolishness to the Greek mind and a stumbling block to the Jews. Yet there it is.

And it is still foolishness to this world and much of the Church. It is amazing, ironic and sad that the most famous use of the rules of the Kingdom of God were applied by the Hindus and Muslims of India under Gandhi.

The most famous American example was by Baptist pastor Martin Luther King Jr.

Unfortunately, King appears to have been the last prominent liberal Christian to use the kingdom method. From the 19th century onward (and particularly today), the liberal wing of the American Church is more interested in pushing forward their agenda and the kingdom by means at odds with the kingdom. Very ironic.

And, unfortunately, much of the conservative wing of the American Church has never taken an interest using the kingdom methods. Each time the conservative churches have moved toward the kingdom of God, the fundamentalist wing has taken over and pulled them back. It is interesting that the conservative resurgence leaders used the most worldly of methods to get their way and now are trying, like the liberal churches, to push their vision of the kingdom upon the American culture. And it is failing as well.

Both groups suffer from impatience and the unwillingness to let the “foolish” methods of the kingdom bring the kingdom to this world. Unfortunately, the kingdom can only come by means of the kingdom. All other methods will fail.

Watching the fundamentalist leadership’s efforts of using brute force and overwhelming power to effect change for the kingdom of God is both sad and disheartening. It is painful to see people who are certainly believers and certainly members of the kingdom of God use the most un-gospel-like methods to proclaim the gospel … if, in fact, they do know what the gospel is.

So it does not surprise me at all that most conservatives do not see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with evolution. Most conservatives don’t see “survival of the fittest” as a problem with the gospel! The last 40 years of Southern Baptist History seems to suggest as much.

All of this is to say that I wanted to know how many articles in the chief Southern Baptist Convention news and propaganda outlet, the Baptist Press, mentions the subject of “evolution.” I was under the impression that they mention the subject a lot. It appears that at least once a week some article out of Southern Seminary will be about the evils of evolution. So I researched the past five years of the Baptist Press and found that they only mention evolution in Evolution – 250 articles. So, yeah, about once a week.

...

Then I thought … hmm, how many articles has the Baptist Press mentioned other subjects in the past five years.

For example:

How many articles mention the “gospel”? 4269

How many articles mention Jesus? 6339

How many articles mention Faith? 6008

How many articles mention God? 10851

How many articles mention the Bible? 5215

How many articles mention the Kingdom? 1699

How many articles mention Salvation? 1598

How many articles mention Grace? 1546

How many articles mention Sin? 1264

How many articles mention Evil? 766



So that’s all interesting, but ...


How many articles mention Abortion? 1232

How many articles mention Homosexuality? 885

How many articles mention Poverty? 370

How many articles mention the Supreme Court? 1352

How many articles mention Judge? 1148

How many articles mention the Courts in general - 2220



Interesting where our priorities are located, but …


How many articles mention Republicans? 745

How many articles mention Democrats? 502



Okay, but ...


How many articles mention the Resurgence? 217

How many articles mention Liberal? 791

How many articles mention Conservative? 1386

How many articles mention Moderate? 341




But we are a Christian group standing on the shoulders of giants, so ...



How many articles mention Luther? 223

How many articles mention Calvin? 129

How many articles mention Barth? 8

How many articles mention Augustine? 50

How many articles mention Kierkegaard? 2

How many articles mention Niebuhr? 6

How many articles mention Darwin? 76



Okay, let’s delve a bit deeper ...


How many articles mention Dr. Al Mohler? 709

How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 678

How many articles mention Dr. XXXXXX? 38

How many articles mention Judge Paul Pressler? 61

How many articles mention Bobby Welch? 330

How many articles mention Rick Warren? 384

How many articles mention John Piper? 72



I won’t interpret this data; you can do that on your own. I am just relieved that evolution is not as big an issue as I feared. That’s good news.

On The New NEBTS Teaching Policy

To the NEBTS Family and the Korean Students as well:

Here at Northeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the thriving metropolis of Shelby, NC, we take great pains and liberties to follow the Word of God and the Bible in how we lead our and other people’s lives. To this effect we have been advancing our Kingdom Challenge program to bring the seminary and the surrounding properties more in line with the reactions of the convention and their understanding of the Bible ... which is the correct understanding of the Bible ... this year. Since the Biblical revelation plainly states that the proper gender for leading, teaching, pastoring, and deaconing is the male gender, the seminary, in accordance with the will of its nine trustees, has limited the role of teaching doctrine to men ... to men. Therefore, all NEBTS professors of the feminine gland who are currently teaching doctrinal classes such as theology, biblical studies, hermeneutics, history, spiritual formations, ethics, missiology and German will be asked to resign effective at noon tomorrow or face a heresy hearing at 1pm tomorrow.

For those women professors (or rather that woman professor) who are currently teaching theology and who are currently tenured, special arrangements will be made.

Though many of the three hundred year old songs that we sing in our churches and at chapel contain many doctrinal statements (such a grace, love, and God), our convention leadership hasn’t yet convinced the laity that leading worship is a type of teaching. Since we cannot convince the laity that female music ministers aren't sufficiently unbiblical enough, women will still be graciously allowed to teach men music.

Therefore, from this point on, all tenured women professors teaching theology (that means you, Dr. Mindy McConnell) will have to sing their lessons out to the male students of their class in contralto, mezzo-soprano or soprano. Male students will have to respond in bass, bass-baritone, baritone, tenor or countertenor. No falsetto, because the Bible speaks against homosexuality. And, of course, no recitatives.

Musical accompaniment must be provided by either a piano or organ (old ladies for piano and organ players are preferred); guitars, drums, and tambourines are prohibited. The music must be traditional and not contemporary, or a traditional song set to contemporary music (traditional songs are those written before 1945; comtemporary songs are those written after 1965. All songs written in between are moderate and aren't popular anyway). Male-female duets are prohibited in accordance with Scripture. Those students breaking this commandment will be stoned before chapel the following day. Dancers will get stoned after chapel. Students who are stoned will not be given food to satiate the munchies ... but professor of Christian Ethics Dr. Bugg Dooby will be there to mess with your heads.

Any questions or comments regarding the new policy should be addressed to Dr. Al Cuckold, chairman of the Ethical Conduct Committee. Students wishing to appeal an answer from the Ethical Conduct Committee may do so by asking the Executive Vice President and Provost, Dr. Al Cuckold.


Dr. Al Cuckold
Seminary Presdent

FIRST-PERSON: A creationist watches ‘Bugs Bunny’

In honor of Columbus Day ...

Oct 3, 2005
By Ronald Morris

SHELBY, NC. (BP)--There are many tensions between so-called "flat earth creationists" and "round earth creationists," those who believe the earth is flat and those who accept contemporary theory of the earth as round.

For a long time, I believed that Scripture was silent on the question of the shape of the earth. After all, the Hebrew word for “corners” or “quarters”: kanaph, kaw-nawf' means “an edge or extremity” (“the edge of a wing, of a garment or bed-clothing, a flap, of the earth, a quarter, uttermost part, wing”, for example). The Greek word for “corners”: gonia, means, “an angle, corner, quarter”. In recent months, however, as I have been teaching through the Ancient Near Eastern cosmology of the Bible and working on a lengthy article on general revelation, I have slowly changed my mind. The main issue for me is not the exegetical arguments for the use of the word "corner" (although there are some compelling evidences there for a flat, four-cornered earth in the Bible).

[Here are other scriptures of the Bible that indicate a flat earth with ends, edges, 2 verses that say the earth is a flat 2-dimensional circle (like a coin), that the earth is immovable, set on pillars or foundations. (Dan 4:10-11, Isa 40:22, Prov 8:26-28, Mat 4:8, Job 38:13, Job 11:9, Deu 13:7, Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8, Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47)]

I think, however, what convinced me that the earth is much flatter than we've been told was watching a Looney Tunes starring Bugs Bunny called Hare We Go. In this cartoon short, Bugs Bunny, as mascot, accompanies Christopher Columbus and his crew as they sail the ocean blue to America in 1492, but Columbus gets all the credit for discovering the continent. Specifically, the problem for Christian theology is the part where Christopher Columbus insists that the world is as round as his head. The King replies by hitting Christopher Columbus on the head with a mallet, saying, "It (the world) is flat like your head.” Bugs demonstrates the planet's roundness by tossing a baseball, which comes back from the other direction, covered with travel stickers. You may laugh at the cartoonish gag involved, but, if we are to believe the unquestioned assertions of modern myths of atheistic “science”, then, theoretically, if one could throw a baseball far enough at the correct gravitational position, then such a baseball could indeed be tossed in one direction and be caught from the other. This is the logical conclusion of the belief that the earth is round. Yet such an idea is foreign to our God-given awareness of creation. Flying baseballs with covered travel stickers?! Is this the earth God created and declared good?

Due to recent and rapidly expanding discoveries in physics, astronomy, geology, topography, and other major disciplines, hundreds of scientists are leaving the “round-earth” reservation. No longer able to adhere to an untenable theory with inexplicable gaffes and holes big enough to fly the Challenger space shuttle through, these scientists are conceding the point that the only plausible explanation for an intricately designed universe is a flat earth. It should be noted that many of these converts to flat-earth thought are not Christians or even religious; they are simply scientists who feel they can no longer deny and suppress the incontrovertible scientific evidence.

For several decades diehard “round earth” scientists have enjoyed the censorship of all their critics in America’s public education. Nothing but the spherical theory of the earth has been allowed into public school classrooms. All other explanations for the shape of the earth have been banned under the presumption of unconstitutionality - as if our Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching anything but the cockamamie theory of a round earth. Instead of questioning established assertions and seeking evidence to the contrary, which has always been the nature or true science, the science propagated in today’s public schools demands students’ blind allegiance to present and popular hypotheses. It does not teach students to be inquisitive but inflexible; it does not teach students how to think but what to think.

In a desperate attempt to protect their monopoly on public education and to discredit the growing chorus of dissenting voices among distinguished scientists, liberals are trying to frame the growing debate over the “spherical earth” and the “flat earth” as a debate between enlightened intellectuals and unintelligent religious fanatics. By doing so, they hope to fool the public into believing that only the obtuse object to the harebrained “round earth” theory.

Why, one wonders, are so many today so determined to keep all evidence of the Bible’s validity out of the public school classroom? Is it, as they portend, to protect the purity of scholasticism? Or is it something most sinister, such as “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18)? According to the Apostle Paul, men’s denial of the truth of God and His creation is not only inexcusable (Romans 1:19-20) and idiotic (Romans 1:21-22), but indicative of “a reprobate mind” (Romans 1:23-32). Thus, contrary to popular opinion, it is not smarts but sin that is behind the expulsion of the flat earth from our public school classrooms.

I find the primary texts for understanding the shape of the world are Isaiah 11:12: “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 7:1: “And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” Job 38:13: “That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?” Jeremiah 16:19: “O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.” Daniel 4:11: “The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:”

Saint Augustine (354–430) questioned the existence of a spherical earth, arguing against the idea of people inhabiting the other side of the earth and called them a "fable" (De Civitate Dei, xvi, 9).

Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men.

Since these people would have to be descended from Adam, they would have had to travel to the other side of the Earth at some point, which is a universally absurd proposition; Augustine continues:

it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.

In the current era, Samuel Shenton of the International Flat Earth Society has studied much of the so-called “evidence” that has come in the wake of the advent of the space program. Following careful research into supposed NASA photographs of earth from deep space, Shenton concluded: "It's easy to see how photographs like these could fool the untrained eye".

And yet, if Christians are ever to provide a "counter-theory" to the Pythagorean astronomy myth and the heliocentric model of Copernicus, we must account for a world that certainly does seem spherical, not only in terms of the obvious mathematics, but also in terms of (often even more suspect than mathematics) human experience.

I am more and more convinced that flat earth theory answers these questions in a way that is faithful to Scripture, the historic confessions of the Christian church throughout the ages, and to the longings of the human heart for a God who created a world he declared "four-cornered."

This doesn't mean we have a ready-made scientific answer for every possible objection to a four-cornered understanding of the earth, sitting on pillars, with the domed-firmament of the cosmos above. Sometimes we must recognize that we are not at the point where we can know exactly how the shifting standards of science fit with divine revelation.

More important is the fact that we have an account of creation that answers the most basic questions of all human beings, an account that resonates with our human experience of both dignity and grandeur.

Christians should recognize that to us has been revealed the "mystery" of the purpose of creation (Eph 1:9-10). We know that the Wisdom that ordered the cosmos, the Word that called the stars together, is a Person -- our King Jesus. We should recognize that the ends of the earth have been created as an inheritance for Jesus (Psalm 2:8). He has been appointed "the heir of all things, through whom He also created the world" (Hebrews 1:2).

It should boggle our minds when we look at the far-off images from the Hubble telescope to recognize that these stars – hundreds of miles beyond our reach - have been formed for Jesus and will be reconciled by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:19-20). This means we should learn to interpret all of reality in terms of how it fits with God's overall purpose to "sum up all things in Christ" (Ephesians 1:10). As the believing community, we have the interpretive grid for this -- the Scriptures and the Spirit whereby we share "the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16). In so doing, let's remember to train up our children to recognize the “spherical earth” theory for what it is. But let's also remember to never be ashamed of what Scripture tells us -- that long ago in an ancient land a king and a queen stood on a six-day old, flat earth, and God called it "good." That might not fit with your local high school's geology textbook. But it makes better sense than Bugs Bunny.
--30--
Ronald Morris is dean of the School of Cosmology and senior vice president for academic administration at Northeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The Arky-Arky Song

Hello, boys and girls. This is your old pal Dr. Plenty Pentecostal.
This is a song about Aimee Semple McPherson - No! This is a song about Noah!
That's right: it's the "Arky-Arky Song".

God said to Noah, "Go build and arky-arky.
Fill it with animals: the ones that go 'Moo!', 'Barky-barky!'
It's gonna rain and get pretty darky-darky"
God's gonna wipe out the earth.

I don't think your charismatic enough.
That's right: I'll teach you to be charismatic.
...
I'LL TEACH ROBERT SCHULLER TO SUCK EGGS!!!
Now, boys and girls; let's try it again.

God said to Noah, "Bring'em in by twosie-twosie."
Noah to God said, "But I'm just a Jewsy-Jewsy."
God said to Noah, "I'm not to choosey-choosey."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.

If you ain't the granddaddy of the Four-Square Gospel!
Mmm, the people of the Southern Baptist Convention ... they don't know that their liberal ...
That's very funny ... salvation without baptismal regeneration ...
I TOLD YOU I'D SHOOT! BUT YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE ME! WHY DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE ME!

God said to Noah, "It's 'bout to get funky-funky.
Tie down the animals, especially the monkey-monkeys.
It's gonna rain and kill all the honky-honkys."
God's gonna wipe out the earth.

Cry Happiness released

Boston-based rock band, Miles From Land has released their first album, Cry Happiness.

Who are Miles From Land?

"we are from the backyard. the corner where the rocketship stands. we grew up listening to science. love. math. action. squint tightly. the flashes are really sounds. this is just a smokescreen. an oilslick. a diversion to keep you occupied."

I have the privilege of being friends with one the band members for almost a decade now. I am going to purchase my copy this week.

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

As I have mentioned previously, I am on a quest to find a more effective means of evangelizing. The source of this venture stems from my focus on the current evangelical crisis that has been affecting the Southern Baptist Convention. This search for a solution to the evangelical crisis is the logical outcome of my criticism (both positive and negative) of that institution and the evangelical wing of the American Church as a whole. If one is going to criticize a movement or institution, it is always good to offer or suggest solutions to the problem that is being analyzed. Unfortunately, the solution to a problem is usually a more difficult beast to tame while pointing out a problem is simply capturing the animal (this is why Clyde Beatty was greater than Frank Buck).

The process of my exploration into the solutions for the evangelical crisis have taken many avenues: history, theology, philosophy, politics, and, of course, Scripture, to name just a few. I’ve also been reading many books about evangelism and ascertaining from various evangelism professors and evangelists about their views on the subject. I’ve also been testing my theories about evangelistic methods both in theory and in practice. By this I mean that I have begun to explain some of my findings on the subject to various people more active in evangelism than myself and, also, suggesting these methods of evangelism to various individuals for real like practice. The response I have received in theory has been quite positive. Most individuals have agreed with much of my findings in either theory or in experience or both. Still, the ultimate test of my theories will be with positive evangelistic results, i.e., conversions: the proof is in the pudding.

Now during the progression of my research and thought, I have frequently encountered the phrase “preach the gospel”. Every time I read or hear and evangelist, professor, author, or denomination or seminary leader speak about the issue of evangelism or the Great Commission (i.e., our purpose as believers of this age), I always hear that we are supposed to “preach the gospel.” Well, the meaning of “evangelism” is to “preach the gospel (or the good news)”. As evangelicals we are to “proclaim the good news”.

…

The odd thing about this notion in our day is that most people do not seem to have any idea of what the “gospel” is. And I am not just talking about the everyday churchgoer; I’m talking about seminary students, pastors, church leaders, professors and even evangelists. And I will throw myself in on this pile. I had some second thoughts about my understanding of what the gospel is. I mean, if we are charged to go out and proclaim the gospel, it behooves us to know what it is. Therefore, I began to research the Bible and my various secondary theological books and ascertained what the gospel actually is … and it surprised me. It surprised me because my prior conception of the gospel was very limited; I had only recognized part of the gospel message and, therefore, my thinking along these lines was only partial.


Part of the problem comes from the fact that all of the New Testament writers have a different take on the gospel. Each writer emphasizes a particular part of the gospel which is somewhat different from the other writers. None of these aspects of the gospel is contradictory to the other but rarely are they complete. Some are more general while others are more specific. What occurs is that we believers latch on to one author’s emphasis (for whatever reason) and take it as our own and reject all others.

The other part of the problem stems from the first: we are not educating our brothers and sisters in Christ as to what the gospel actually is. I think that if we did educate them about the complete extent of the gospel then we might alleviate many of our current church problems (including our evangelistic problems, though I do not think that this knowledge in itself would solve the current evangelical crisis. While the content of our message is undoubtedly important and plays a significant factor, the context of our methods is my primary focus in researching this issue).

When I understood what the gospel actually was, much of the rest of the New Testament began to fall into place. In fact, much of the Old Testament began to fall into place. Yes, I did indeed move again a tad bit to the left. Perhaps that is one reason we do not emphasize other aspects of the gospel. Who knows!

Now I suppose you are all wondering what my new found understanding of the gospel is. Well, I am not going to tell you; I want you to tell me.

I want you to tell me in toto, WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

I really want believers to think about this. I really want believers to go back to the Scriptures. It appears that we are mostly ignorant on this pivotal issue and no one appears to think it necessary for us to know.

So, if you know, please comment.

Fear, Faith and the Proper Perspective: Christians and Catastrophe

Update: Hey, Dr. Mohler is making the same argument today that I made on the September 2nd. Read is article: FIRST-PERSON: Nineveh, New Orleans, & the City of Man. All in all I think that my article was not too bad.

For the last three days I have seen a rise in the concern and anxiety of many people in this country, people I know and people I see on the television and at the gas stations. While I do expect such fear on the part of those whose relationship to God is less than that of a believer’s, I am somewhat aghast at the seeming doom and gloom that has gripped many of my fellow believers.

Many people are worrying about gas prices and the state of the economy. Other people are mightily concerned about various hurricane aftermath issues. Yes, I have heard many people rightly distress about this situation. Many have said that New Orleans will be utterly abandoned and never rebuilt. People on the far left are blaming global warming and people on the far right are warning about the opening of apocalyptic seals.

While I do not want to belittle the current situation along the Gulf Coast and in the rest of the country, I do wish to put events into their proper perspective. I would also like to put these matters into their Biblical perspective. It behooves us to do so.

First, while the destruction of a city is a horrible event, it is not an event that rarely occurs. In fact, numerous small and large cities have been destroyed across history and continents by man (wars and bombings) and by nature (tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, mud slides, etc.)

Here is a brief list:

- South East Asia by a tsunami in late 2004. In fact, much of Southeast Asia and India are frequently devastated by storms and floods. The substandard housing and poverty stricken populace makes the disasters that more devastating.

- Financial District of Manhattan was devastated on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists.

- Sarajevo by war in 1995

- Mexico City was devastated by an earthquake in 1985 in which 25,000 people died.

- Beirut by Civil War in the 1980s.

- Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Allies in 1945

- Much of London was destroyed by the Germany during the Battle of Britain.

- San Francisco as destroyed by an earthquake in 1906.

- Atlanta, Richmond and most of the Southern United States in the 1860s by Civil War.

- Washington D.C. was destroyed by the British during the War of 1812.

- Rome has been destroyed numerous times by fire and war.

- Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE.

- Jerusalem has been destroyed numerous times over the course of history.

- Sodom and Gomorrah by the Lord God.

- Babylon and Nineveh have been destroyed numerous times.

And these are just the disasters I could think of off the top of my head. More thorough research would undoubtedly yield hundreds if not thousands such destructions.

Again, I do not want to diminish recent events, I simply want to put them in their proper historical perspective and, more importantly, ease concerns.

Second, there are many people who are concerned about the price of gas and the state of the economy.

There are several points to be made about the gas issue:

A) Relatively speaking, the price of gas has been much, MUCH worse than it is right now.
B) The same economists that predicted the current increase in gas prices have also rightly predicted that the gas bubble will burst and prices will drop dramatically.
C) In the short term, we can get oil from other countries. We have enough clout around the world that we will be able to get the needed oil.
D) Milk is MUCH more expensive than gas right now. For the last year the price of milk has sky-rocketed. Gas has only now reached the level of the price of milk. Now I drink far more milk than use gas to drive. I’ve been paying through the nose this past year on milk and I haven’t complained. Well, that’s not completely true: I complain about milk when someone complains about gas.
E) For the past five years we have been “suffering” from deflation. This means that the price of most goods and services has been dropping. Yes, we have been able to buy more for less these past five years. Therefore, we shouldn’t complain when milk and gas (and bottled water) goes up.


There are several points to be made about the economy:

A) Our economy is in good shape.
B) If our economy did not destroy itself because of 9/11 then I doubt this natural disaster will kill us.
C) The natural state of the economy is that it continues to grow. In all capitalist systems, the economy continues to grow and improve. Even in the worst recessions and depressions, a look at the overall trend of the market shows that capitalistic economies will always economically improve.
D) Every natural and man-made disaster that has befallen our country has been followed by a boom in the economy. Perhaps the worst disaster that ever befell our nation was the American Civil War. Half the country was destroyed. New Orleans, Atlanta, Richmond and many other major cities were all destroyed. However, this dismal period was quickly followed by the greatest expansion of economic growth and greatest rise in standard of living than any period in our history. From the outset our nation was one of phenomenal economic power; we were already had one of the greatest economies in history at our foundation. Following our Civil War, America became the greatest super power the world has ever known and had the greatest economy in history. I am not concerned.

Third, and this is the most important point to be made, Jesus explicitly told us not to worry or be anxious. There is a fundamental reason for this that strikes at the very heart of who we are and who God is.

In his two volume theological masterpiece, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Reinhold Niebuhr writes about anxiety and how it effects our faith and relationship with God. Niebuhr gained his understanding of “fear/anxiety” from Soren Kierkegaard’s work, The Concept of Anxiety. Kierkegaard's idea of anxiety is of the existential dread of man facing his own moral inadequacy - paradox of free will but the inevitability of sin - "man is most free in the discovery that he is not free" - man's achievements contained seeds of won destruction.

Niebuhr argues that man, as a creature whose existence paradoxically combines spirit and matter, can sense his own "finitude and fragility" in the universe. As spirit, man transcends nature and so is free. But as a creature, he is part of nature's order and so is bound. As both free and bound, a person inevitably experiences anxiety - annihilation and meaninglessness threaten all of his hopes, achievements, and affections. In this state of anxiety the Satan tempts man to deny his limitations through prideful assertions of his will that provide an illusion of control and meaning or to violate his freedom through sensuality. Man can only ease his anxiety and pretension through faith in God rather than self, that faith is always imperfect (imperfect faith being, for Niebuhr, the essence of "original sin").

Hear are some Scriptural passages that speak about fear and faith:

Matthew 6:25-34 – “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day [is] the evil thereof.”

Matthew 10:28-31 – “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

Luke 12:4-7 – “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.”

Luke 12:22-32 – “And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body [is more] than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more [will he clothe] you, O ye of little faith? And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

Matthew 14:28-32 – “And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.”

Mark 4:37-40 – “And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?”

Luke 8:23–25 – “But as they sailed he fell asleep: and there came down a storm of wind on the lake; and they were filled [with water], and were in jeopardy. And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased, and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.”

1 Peter 3:14 – “But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;”

1 John 4:18 – “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.”

Rev. 2:10 – “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”

Now, as I said, Jesus told us not to worry, fear, or be anxious. He plainly stated that fear is evidence of a lack of faith. However, while fear is evidence of a lack of faith, I do not believe that being fearful is a sin. Rather, being fearful is the occasion to sin: one could sin or not sin. Regardless, since fear is the opportunity to sin, we should not put ourselves in that opportunity. We are often told by our pastors and leaders to avoid situations in which we might find ourselves tempted to sin. Let’s follow their advice and not fear; “sin is crouching at the door …”

Thus, Jesus tells us not to fear but to have faith. Furthermore, if Jesus, as the God-Man and the Second Adam, is to be our prime example as to how to live and relate to our surroundings, we should take notice that He never feared or worried. The closest He ever came to fear was prior to His arrest while praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:44). The word Luke uses to describe Jesus’ state of mind is agonia, agony, anguish, i.e., mental distress. This word only appears here in the New Testament and, therefore, is not the Greek word commonly used to describe fear, phobia. While this is mental distress, it is doubtful whether fear, as explained above, is present and it is certainly true that no sin is committed. While this may have been torment and a mental struggle within the God-Man to face the apex of His mission, Jesus Himself neither feared nor worried. Therefore, neither should we.

In conclusion, while I understand how non-believers can worry and fear the future and the things that go bump in the night, I do not believe that believers should.

The destruction of a city is horrible but is to be expected every now and again in a fallen world. More cities will be destroyed in the future, rest assured.

Our economy is strong and we should not fear a capitalistic doomsday on the near horizon.

Lastly, as believers, we should never fear or worry or be anxious; God is in complete control of our situation and will not fail us. Jesus taught us not to fear and led by His example. Fear is the occasion to sin; we should avoid the occasion to sin.

So fear not, have faith, and put your selves in the proper perspective.

SBC Heresy Trials

As many of you may know, I have been chronicling the on-going Evangelical Crisis and the demise of the idea of the Conservative Resurgence as a historical opportunity of effective evangelism. My criticism of the Conservative Resurgence has been manifold, but primarily focused on the methods by which the Resurgent leaders purged the convention of those with whom they disagreed. But another criticism has been the assumption made by the Resurgent leaders and Southern Baptists in general that God would bless correct theology. The argument raised by the Resurgent leaders was that if the SBC continued its “liberal” drift then our body’s effectiveness at evangelism would slide and giving to the Cooperative Program would falter. As recent statements from the SBC suggest, despite the Conservative Resurgence and its “conservative” shift, we are now in an Evangelical Crisis and our Cooperative Program proceeds are at an old time low. These are two developments that did not occur during the SBC’s “moderate” years.

My focus on these two developments has not been to point fingers at the Resurgent Leaders and say that these outcomes are their fault. No, I honestly do not believe they are really responsible for these problems. Rather my focus has been on the Resurgent claim that their beliefs about the faith would prevent such negative outcomes.

However, while I have been criticizing the SBC for its pre/assumptions, I have not yet produced my answer to solve the problem of the Evangelical Crisis. For many months now I have been considering the problem and I think that I have an answer.

I originally came up with several practical solutions that the SBC could adopt without necessarily drifting to the “moderate” side of Christendom.

Let me be clear: I do not think that the SBC has to become more “liberal”, “moderate” or “conservative” in order to be more effective at evangelizing. While I consider myself “conservative” and well within the orthodox tradition of the faith, many individuals of a rather more “ignorant” nature when it comes to particular “technical” aspects of our faith, would see me as a “moderate” at best and a “liberal” at worst. Such terms are so influx from time to time, from place to place, and from person to person, they are largely losing their meaning to me. However, while I have significant differences with the SBC about what constitutes “proper” theology and an even greater difference of opinion on the methods that we as believers use to insure “proper” doctrine is maintained, I do not really care whether or not the SBC generally believes what I believe. Their theological beliefs are not necessarily the problem and the current situation would probably not change if they theologically drifted to another place on the Christian theological spectrum.

Since we have a “conservative” convention, let’s play with the cards dealt to us. Therefore, what are some practical solutions that the SBC can implement?

1) We have more women in the church than men but the dominant theological position within the SBC somewhat limits the variety of ministry roles a woman can pursue. Therefore, we are limiting the ministerial role of over half our body. Now I do not expect that the SBC will start recognizing women as senior pastor, but I would like to see the SBC publicly push to have more women in the ministry. Make a grand commitment to invite, educate, and promote women into Southern Baptist ministries.

2) This will probably be the most difficult task. Reconcile with other evangelical groups (such as the CBF and BWA) for joint ventures of Kingdom building. We do not have to agree 100% with every person in order to evangelize. Heck, we join with Roman Catholics to promote moral issues in this country but we refuse to join other Baptists to promote evangelism. Let’s rethink this.

3) Let’s start and promote evangelistic groups and missions (without Cooperative Program funds) that can be ministered by “moderates” in the SBC. Without using CP money, the SBC can allow “moderates” in the convention to seek funds and support outside the CP. This way we can have ministry positions for “moderates” but still not be accused of financially supporting their beliefs.

4) This is a good one. For many decades until the late eighties and mid-nineties, SBC missionaries would help build hospitals and medical centers for the poor. There is a Baptist hospital in Asunción, Paraguay. The thinking up until the Resurgence was that by building hospitals in heavily populated areas, the missionaries could witness to those individuals who came to the hospital for cheap treatment and these people could be introduced to the local Baptist churches. This was the thinking for much of the modern era. However, many moderate and liberal theologians and missionaries began to rediscover the local church as the New Testament focus of missions. They soon began to alter the way in which they did missions. In time, this paradigm shift in thinking came to the Resurgent SBC and its mission boards. They soon arrived at the same conclusion as the liberals and moderates and proceeded to focus solely on the local church. And now you know one of the main causes of the SBC church planting movement. A very successful movement, I might add, that needs to be encouraged and continued. However, with this renewed focus on the local church, the SBC, which was continually losing and continues to lose funds in the Cooperative Program, the decision was made by the International Mission Board to cut many of the medical ministries regardless of how effective they were in evangelism. Therefore, the Baptist Hospital in Asunción, Paraguay had to find support outside of the SBC .., which they did. And they continue to lead people to Christ today … without SBC help. Now in the United States, we are rapidly facing a healthcare crisis; a fact admitted by politicos on the right and left. God, through Christ, is the savior of both the spirit and the body. As His servants on earth in this age, we are both capable and duty-bound to minister to the spiritual and physical needs on man. Therefore, I suggest that the SBC begin to start cheap medical ministries for the poor in order to bring their spirits and bodies to Christ. We have had success in the past with these methods and there is a current need for healthcare in this world that Christian ministers should fill. I would never suggest either abandoning or even limiting our church planting plans, but I do think that there are untapped seekers in this country that can reached through ministering to the body.

These are a few of the broader solutions I am suggesting in order to solve the current the Evangelical Crisis (there are others but I am saving them for later). These solutions are largely aimed at the SBC and are offered as something the SBC can do as a body. However, I do believe that there is an overall larger solution to the Evangelical Crisis; a solution that cannot be reached by the SBC as a body but by the believer as a member of the body of Christ. My solution will have to wait for another time when I have finished my research and contemplation of the various aspects of this issue.

Part of my research has involved an analysis of how various parts of Christendom have understood the faith. This area of exploration has brought me in contact with George Shriver’s “Dictionary of American Heresy Trials”; a very extensive treatment on cases of heresy in America. A large proportion of which have to do with struggles for control of what will be taught in seminary; perhaps there is inevitably a conflict between the conclusions of learned individuals, and the demand that a seminary which is the primary training ground for a group’s future ministers should teach in accord with the beliefs of the group, however ignorant that group is.

I thought the Southern Baptist entries were quite interesting, though I myself might have explained the positions of the individuals on trial with greater clarity.

Anyway, this is the point of this post. What I found most interesting is that three of these professors (Stagg, Moody and Elliott) are intellectual heroes of mind. Small wonder, eh?

Southern Baptists

George B Foster (1858-1910). Ordained as a Baptist minister, taught systematic theology and later philosophy of religion at the Divinity School of the U of Chicago. By 1895 he had abandoned orthodox Christian theology; by the early 1900’s he believed that Christianity was no longer a live option; God became ‘the ideal-achieving aspects of the cosmic evolutionary process.” The Baptists Ministers’ Conference condemned his 1906 book The Finality of the Christian Religion, voting 48 to 22 that its views were ‘contrary to scripture and …subversive of the vital and essential truths of the Christian faith.’ The 1909 book ‘The function of religion in man’s struggle for existence’ aroused even more controversy; Foster declared publicly that he was still a true historic Baptist because “Baptists hold to the right of private interpretation of Scripture, freedom of thought and speech, and the privilege of every man to hold communion with God without the mediation of a priest.” The Minister’s Conference voted on 26 June to expel him; however, he never surrendered his papers of ordination and he continued to teach at U of C. The case served to clarify and widen the split between conservatives and liberals, particularly among the Baptists.

Mercer University (1939). 13 University students filed charges against 4 professors, again primarily around issues of modern biblical criticism (Mercer is Baptist) and around the issue of evolution. Resignations (under pressure) due to doctrinal irregularity had occurred in 1894, 1905, 1906 and 1924. A 10-hour trial was held on 20 March. The faculty were accused of denying the existence of demons, the blood Atonement of Christ, conversion from sin, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, hell, the Genesis account of creation, and the molding of Eve from the rib of Adam; and of saying that the Bible contained contradictions. The trustee investigative committee however refused to condemn them and simply issued a caution; the majority of students also supported the professors.

Frank Stagg (1911- ). Professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; investigated in 1956, apparently due to his writings on racial justice. Letters were solicited commenting on his views, which reveal six issues:

- undue emphasis on the New Testament, particularly on the human elements as opposed to the divine elements
- his view that the Trinity was unbiblical
- his view of the atonement as ‘transactional’
- his view that God’s wrath was the consequence of sin rather than a response to sin
- his ‘too psychological’ explanation of demons
- views on particular biblical passages

Stagg was called before the Trustees to respond, and then acquitted. He stayed at NOBTS until 1964, went to Southern Baptist and remained there until his retirement in 1982.

Robert Briggs (1915 - ). Briggs taught at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In 1960 an investigation was begun into the teaching of Briggs, William Strickland and Harold Oliver for “the application of radical Existentialism and so-called Bultmanianism.” Over the next three years an extended struggle took place to resolve the questions of the academic freedom of the faculty versus adherence to the Abstract of Principles which all faculty members had signed on appointment; no formal charge of heretical teaching was ever made. In 1964 Briggs resigned; shortly thereafter he took a post at Vanderbilt University, and then moved on to the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. Oliver resigned and went to Boston University; Strickland resigned in 1966 to go to Appalachian State University. Briggs’ opinion of the situation was that his colleagues accepted the claims of historical-critical research but were unwilling to deal with its implications for understanding religious authority and truth. He later wrote Interpreting the Gospels, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1969.

Louisville 13 (1958): Forced resignation of 13 faculty members from Southern Seminary for unorthodoxy.

Theodore R Clark (1912 - ). Clark taught at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; he was dismissed in 1960 primarily as a result of the publication of his book Saved by His Life (Macmillan, 1959). The trustees did not make clear the nature of their complaint but said that “His recently published book is one of several instances in which the board had been confronted with questions as to limitations in the area of communication with students and hearers as well as content of lecture materials.” Clark himself seemed genuinely surprised, puzzled and grieved over the controversy.

The book was a meditation on salvation, including a long prayer and several hymns written by Clark. The book aimed to put more emphasis on Christ’s life as a vehicle of salvation, rather than his death; and objected to the theology of some popular hymns about Christ’s death. Clark also emphasized the personal, existential self-giving of God over God’s transmission of propositional truth, and made other comments about the dangers of “Jesusolatry”.

The process appears to have been obscure; it is not clear that the Board ever met with Clark or that the faculty were aware that an investigation was underway. The Dean, J Hardee Kennedy, had written an approving review of Clark’s book and does not appear to have participated in the dismissal. Clark took an appointment at Pan American College in Edinburg, Texas.

Ralph Elliott (1925 -- ); dismissed from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1962 over conflict about contemporary biblical criticism. In the 1950’s Southern Seminary had 13 simultaneous forced resignations over the issue (the ‘Louisville 13’); Elliott had been at Southern but moved to Midwestern shortly before the ‘massacre’. He was described at the time as ‘quite conservative in the larger world of biblical scholarship, a moderate in SBC religious ranks, and quite liberal in comparison to … most SBC pulpits'. He was tried twice: in 1960 after publishing The Message of Genesis: A theological interpretation, he was examined by the board of trustees who supported him, 14 to 7. The conservatives were unhappy with this result and passed a motion at the 1962 Southern Baptist Convention rejecting theological views which “undermine faith in the historical accuracy and doctrinal integrity of the Bible” and requesting trustees of all SBC institutions to address situations where such views were being taught; simultaneously, elections at the convention changed the balance of trustees at Midwestern. The new board met for a second trial; they agreed with Elliott on 9 out of 10 points, but they failed to agree on republication of the book – the trustees didn’t want to take responsibility for banning it, and Elliott refused to ‘volunteer’ not to seek its republication. The board then dismissed him by a vote of 22 to 7. Elliott moved to the American Baptist church and continued his career. Shriver notes that the second trial did not involve a disagreement over content, but a disagreement about whether the board could control publication of views in order to protect the position of the seminary; one explicitly said that “as long as it is a matter between a professor and his student what he says, that is one thing. But when he puts his beliefs in writing where everybody can read them – as in The Message of Genesis – that’s another thing.”

Dale Moody (1915-1992). Taught at Southern Baptist Seminary. Aroused controversy as to whether he supported the Baptist principle of ‘perseverance of the saints’ (drawn from Hebrews 6:4-6). He was accused in 1961 of teaching that it was possible for a person ‘once saved to be lost’ but was acquitted. In 1979, Moody proposed revision of the Abstract of Principles on this point; the University then said it did not wish to inhibit faculty freedom but would not extend his teaching contract past normal retirement age unless his teaching on this point was more traditional. Moody argued that his reading of the principle was in line with the original Biblical texts and the argument continued for roughly 3 years. On 17 November 1983, Moody gave a talk on the topic “Can a saved person ever be lost?”; whereupon the Arkansas Baptist State Convention asked the university to terminate him (he was already at retirement age). The University employed him until 1984 but refused to give him a further contract.

Paul Simmons (1936 -- ). Professor of Christian ethics at Southern Baptist Seminary, 1970 – 1992. He was attacked not for theological beliefs but for ethical positions, particularly in the areas of abortion, elective death and homosexuality, even though these were "solidly grounded in thorough research and careful biblical exegesis." This occurred in a general atmosphere of “fear, indoctrination and intimidation” led by the rising fundamentalist wing. In 1987 the Trustees reviewed Simmons’ positions, said there were no grounds for dismissing him but asked that he ‘moderate his public involvement’ in the debate on abortion. In 1989 he was accused of saying that Jesus was sexually active but this was proved false. Pressure to remove Simmons for his position on abortion continued and in 1992 the President attempted to offer him a financial package to leave, which Simmons refused. Following a further controversy about a film used by Simmons in a lecture, the Trustees proposed sanctions which Simmons was unwilling to accept, and he resigned.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 1985-94. Investigated for allowing teaching contrary to Biblical inerrancy. In 1987 the Trustees announced a hiring policy that would include only orthodox inerrantists; whereupon the President resigned. The school has declined; the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has declared it deficient, AAUP has censured it, multiple resignations were submitted in 1991 and the school has been placed on probation (i.e. just short of loss of accreditation). Between 1985 and 1994, 27 of the 34 faculty and 13 of the 16 administrators resigned.

Molly Marshall (1949 -- ). Resigned from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1994; now at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (American Baptist, not Southern). A heresy trial was in the offing at the time of her resignation with the outcome largely predetermined; Shriver describes it as tied in with the ‘takeover’ of the SBC by the fundamentalists in the 1979-1990 period. The Seminary statement at the time of her resignation says that the president had determined that her views were ‘significantly outside the parameters of the Abstract of Principles’ although it did not specify; sources involved in the affair supposed it related to (a) the atonement (b) salvation only in Christ (c) ‘whether those once saved will persevere to the end’ (d) whether feminine language and concepts can be applied to God (e) the authority of Scripture. It is also possible that her status as a woman pastor and other gender issues played a role.