
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-04/12/2007

DISCLAIMER: Baptist Press should be credited for any reprinted stories that originate with BP.
Suggested credit line: Reprinted from Baptist Press (www.baptistpress.com), news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

Please note that Baptist Press periodically carries stories from other sources by permission. Individuals interested in reprinting non-BP stories should contact the entity where the story originated to seek reprint permission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

True Love Waits to expand anti-AIDS initiative in Africa
by Don Beehler
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--True Love Waits International will expand its abstinence-until-marriage message in six African countries, utilizing $950,000 in donor gifts to LifeWay Christian Resources' A Defining Moment capital campaign, LifeWay President Thom S. Rainer today April 11.

"Although HIV/AIDS is a concern worldwide, the most concentrated and high-risk area continues to be the continent of Africa, where the life expectancy in some countries has dropped from age 42 to as low as age 30," Rainer said. "We are very pleased to make this announcement today because we believe True Love Waits can be the answer for the AIDS epidemic on the entire continent."

Mike Arrington, a spokesman for the LifeWay capital campaign, voiced appreciation for "gifts of generous donors to A Defining Moment," enabling True Love Waits to expand "in a continent where AIDS is literally a life-and-death battle. God has given us a program that not only is very effective but also can easily be multiplied."

Since its introduction in Uganda 13 years ago, True Love Waits has been a catalyst for bringing people together to address the AIDS problem and spread the message of biblical purity to schools, youth groups and communities. In the years that followed, Uganda's HIV/AIDS infection rate dropped from 30 percent to about 6 percent of the country's 25 million people.

"Some leaders in Uganda say that this turnaround has literally saved a generation," said Jimmy Hester, co-founder of the True Love Waits movement. "We believe that expanding True Love Waits to other parts of Africa has the potential of dramatically lowering the HIV/AIDS infection rate in those countries as well."

Larry and Sharon Pumpelly, the missionaries who introduced True Love Waits in Uganda in 1994, are working with Hester and the LifeWay True Love Waits team on the multi-country expansion -– into South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho.

Hester noted that True Love Waits -- through the efforts of leaders in communities touched by the problem of sexual activity among the youth population -- can fight AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases as well as unplanned pregnancies and a number of emotional, social, psychological and spiritual problems by helping young people change their attitudes and behavior related to sexual expression.

Based on methodologies developed in Uganda, True Love Waits will establish an ongoing relationship with a key national champion in each African country who, in turn, will build a hierarchy of teams within the country. These teams will utilize a proven verbally based, culturally appropriate teaching approach to carry the True Love Waits message.

"This is an intentional effort to learn from the experiences in Uganda and apply those principles to other African countries, taking into account cultural differences that exist between these countries," Hester said.

A Defining Moment is a $29 million philanthropic campaign initiated by LifeWay to touch the nations for Jesus Christ. In addition to True Love Waits International, the campaign is raising funds for a new translation of the Chinese Mandarin Bible; a Leadership Training Institute that will train 10,000 pastors and staff in effective leadership, ministry and personal life skills; and discipleship training in Cuba, India and Kenya.
--30--

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Court ponders if abortion kills a human
by Erin Roach
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

ST. LOUIS (BP)--In a rare 11-judge hearing, a federal appeals court is considering whether physicians in South Dakota should be required to tell women seeking an abortion that they will be terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," and observers say the outcome could reverberate nationwide.

Oral arguments began April 11 before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which must decide whether an injunction imposed by a federal judge on a law enacted by the South Dakota legislature in 2005 was appropriate. The law would have required doctors to tell women verbally and in writing that abortion ends a human life, could cause depression and suicide, and ends a woman's constitutionally protected relationship with her unborn child.

"The South Dakota statute requires abortion doctors to enunciate the state's viewpoint on an unsettled medical, philosophical, theological and scientific issue, that is, whether a fetus is a human being," U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in Rapid City said in issuing the injunction days before the law would have taken effect. 

Schreier is still deciding the constitutionality of the law while the 8th Circuit decides whether the injunction is legal. In October, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit decided 2-1 that the law should remain blocked because it supplements factual information with a value judgment, as The New York Times described the judges’ ruling. But the full appeals court agreed to reconsider based on an appeal by the state.

Harold Cassidy, the chief counsel for several pregnancy care centers in South Dakota that have intervened in the case, said it's the first time a federal appeals court will address the question of whether an abortion terminates the life of a human being and the fact that an abortion ends a woman's relationship with her child. Cassidy also said it's the first time pregnancy care centers are directly pitted against an abortion clinic.

The care centers have complained repeatedly that the Planned Parenthood facility in Sioux Falls -- the only abortion provider in the state -- fails to provide meaningful information about abortion procedures, Cassidy said. The legislature passed the law to require that the doctors disclose relevant information, but Planned Parenthood says the law violates doctors' free speech rights.

"There is no medical data that determines when a fetus becomes a human being," Sarah Stoesz, chief executive of the three-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that filed the suit, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, adding that the law is meant to intimidate women into halting plans for an abortion and intimidate doctors into refusing to perform the procedure.

The Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the court brief in March on behalf of the Family Research Council.

"Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women would support a woman having access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision," ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence said. "Instead, the abortionists argue adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies."

ADF said that since abortionists stand to profit financially from a woman deciding to abort her child, a conflict of interest should prevent abortionists from speaking on behalf of women in court.

"Someone who has a financial stake in performing abortions should not be allowed to represent women in a case challenging women’s right-to-know laws," Lorence said. "Because an abortionist may earn a profit from women who abort their pre-born children, Planned Parenthood should be disqualified from representing the interests of women."

Cassidy emphasized the need to make an expedient ruling in the case, which isn't expected for several months.

"Every week, women are losing their rights in South Dakota, every week that this injunction is in place," Cassidy said in court, according to the Post-Dispatch.

The newspaper said the decision of the full appeals court to conduct the latest hearing "is seen by both sides as a sign that it may overrule the three-judge panel and allow the law to go into effect."

"We are concerned," Stoesz of Planned Parenthood said.

Larry Long, South Dakota's attorney general, said the appeal stemmed from the one dissenting view on the three-judge panel, which noted that the information doctors were required to disclose was factual. Long said the legislature had defined "human being" to mean a member of the species homo sapiens, which is indisputable, The New York Times reported.

Long said, according to the Associated Press, that depending on how the appeals court rules, "lots of other states could require physicians to tell patients the truth, which clearly they don't know."

Planned Parenthood fears that if the law is upheld, there is a "strong possibility that copycat legislation will be adopted in other states." If nothing else, the case could prompt pro-life legislators in the United States to draft more carefully their laws on abortion to avoid courts striking them down, Long said.

The case is Planned Parenthood v. Gov. Michael Rounds.
--30--


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Stem cell vote not veto proof
by Tom Strode
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

WASHINGTON (BP)--The United States Senate again has voted to fund stem cell research that destroys human embryos, but it also again has failed to do so with a majority large enough to overcome a veto by President Bush.

The Senate voted 63-34 for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act April 11. The bill would liberalize a policy instituted by President Bush in 2001 that prohibits federal grants for destructive embryonic stem cell research. The measure (S. 5), similar to one passed in January by the House of Representatives, would provide funds for research using stem cells procured from embryos stored at in vitro fertilization clinics. Extracting stem cells from embryos destroys the tiny human beings.

Senators also voted 70-28 for another stem cell measure, this one designed to promote efforts to derive stem cells with the qualities of those found in embryos -– and known as pluripotent cells -- without creating embryos for experimentation or destroying them.

Passage of S. 5, which pro-life advocates strongly opposed, was a foregone conclusion, but its supporters had hoped to gain a two-thirds majority to demonstrate the Senate had the ability to override a veto. The vote, however, would have fallen short of a veto-proof majority even if the three senators who did not participate had been present and supported the bill.

The House fell even further short when it approved its version earlier this year. The House vote was 253-174, leaving it more than 30 votes below a two-thirds majority.

It is expected representatives will vote, possibly soon, on the Senate version, which differs slightly from the House-approved bill.

The president reiterated after the Senate vote he would veto the measure if it reaches his desk. The White House had also used a veto warning before the House took its latest vote.

The Senate-passed bill "crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling," Bush said April 11 in promising a veto. Bush has said other forms of stem cell research -- ones that don't destroy embryos -- should instead be promoted. He also has said the unused embryos could be adopted by infertile couples instead of destroyed.

Pro-life leaders expressed dismay at the Senate action, which followed 20 hours of debate over two days, but were grateful the vote fell short of the supporters' goal.

"I am disappointed that the vote was that close to two-thirds," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, "but I am gratified that there is still not a veto-proof majority in the United States Senate in favor of legislation that would use federal tax money to destroy the lives of our tiniest human beings to seek potential treatments and cures for older and bigger human beings."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement, "Rather than defend human dignity, a majority of senators approved legislation to force taxpayers to fund research that requires the destruction of human life." Perkins said he welcomed "the ethical stand" 34 senators took in voting against the bill.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) applauded the vote, but the specter of a veto prevailed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called S. 5 "an important bill that offers real hope to millions of American suffering from debilitating diseases and conditions. As Americans wait for progress, our scientists and innovators are marking time, waiting for President Bush to keep hope alive."

Stem cells are the body's master cells that can develop into tissues and other cells, providing hope for the treatment of numerous afflictions.

ESCR advocates contend stem cells from embryos possess more therapeutic potential than their non-embryonic counterparts. Foes of federal funds for ESCR not only oppose such research because it destroys embryos, but they point out embryonic research has yet to treat any diseases in human beings and has been plagued by the development of tumors in lab animals. 

Unlike research using embryos, extracting stem cells from non-embryonic sources –- such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow -– has nearly universal support. Such research, which is funded by the federal government, does not harm the donor and has produced treatments for at least 72 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. Just dates before the vote, a study out of Brazil was released showing that 13 of 15 type 1 diabetic patients were seemingly cured with a procedure using their own stem cells (sometimes called adult stem cells).

The breakdown by party on S. 5 was:

-- Voting "yes:" 44 Democrats, 17 Republicans and two independents;

-- Voting "no:" 32 Republicans and two Democrats.

The lone Democrats opposing the bill were Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The GOP members who voted for the measure were Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee; Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch, both of Utah; Richard Burr of North Carolina; Thad Cochran and Trent Lott, both of Mississippi; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine; Judd Gregg of New Hampshire; Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas; Richard Lugar of Indiana; John McCain of Arizona; Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both of Alaska; Gordon Smith of Oregon; Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania; and John Warner of Virginia.

The senators who did not vote were all Democrats: Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Johnson is seeking to recover from a brain hemorrhage suffered in December.

Last year, the Senate passed a similar bill with a 63-37 vote in July before Bush vetoed it. The latest action showed ESCR advocates had gained some votes, but not enough, even after Democrats gained control of the Senate in November's election.

The other bill passed by the Senate April 11 is the Hope Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act (S. 30). Known as the HOPE Act, the bill seeks to advance embryonic-like stem cell research without harming the donors, although it permits the extraction of cells from "naturally dead" embryos.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission declined to take a position on the legislation because of uncertainty over when embryos are "naturally dead."

Land and ERLC bioethics consultant C. Ben Mitchell issued a statement April 11 before the Senate vote. They said they could "neither endorse nor oppose &#91;S. 30&#93; in its current form." They commended the bill sponsors' attempts to promote ethical research but expressed concern the measure may "tacitly authorize the destruction of so-called 'low grade' but viable embryos, not just deceased embryos."

The Senate's two independents – Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both of Connecticut –- joined 26 Democrats in voting against S. 30. Supporting the legislation were all 49 Republicans and 21 Democrats.
--30--


--------------------------------------------------------------------

ERLC refuses position on alternative bill
by Tom Strode
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

WASHINGTON (BP)--The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission declined either to support or oppose an alternative stem cell bill approved by the Senate April 11.

ERLC President Richard Land and biomedical consultant C. Ben Mitchell issued a statement prior to the Senate vote commending the bill sponsors' efforts to advance ethical research but expressing concern the measure might implicitly affirm the destruction of some human embryos.

The Senate voted 70-28 for the Hope Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act (S. 30). Known as the HOPE Act, the bill is designed to promote efforts to derive stem cells with the qualities of those found in embryos –- and known as pluripotent cells -- without creating embryos for experimentation or destroying them.

Passage of the HOPE Act followed immediately after the Senate's 63-34 vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 5), a bill that would provide federal funds for stem cell experimentation that results in the killing of embryos. S. 5 would OK grants for research using stem cells procured from embryos stored at in vitro fertilization clinics. Extracting stem cells from embryos destroys the tiny human beings.

President Bush has promised to veto the embryo destructive measure, which is similar to one he rejected in July and which would liberalize a policy he instituted in 2001 to bar federal funds for research that destroys embryos. Bush, however, endorsed the HOPE Act in a statement after the Senate votes.

The ERLC, long an opponent of embryo destructive research and federal funds for its support, could not do so, because of uncertainty about one aspect of the legislation. The HOPE Act permits the extraction of cells from "naturally dead" embryos, but Land and Mitchell said they are concerned "it is impossible to determine accurately when the death of the embryo actually occurs."

Other pro-life advocates also approached the bill carefully.

"We are neutral on S. 30 because, while it holds the ethical line, we want to be sure its safeguards are observed in practice," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a written statement.

The National Right to Life Committee simply said it "had no objection" to the measure.

Here is the full statement by Land and Mitchell on the HOPE Act:

"While we affirm the ethical principles that inform S. 30, we can neither endorse nor oppose it in its current form. We applaud the bill sponsors' efforts to chart a path toward therapies and cures while trying to protect nascent human embryonic life from destructive research. On the face of it, the bill's 'natural death' requirement seems to navigate this difficult territory. 

"We are deeply concerned, however, that given our current understanding of the development of the early human embryo, it is impossible to determine accurately when the death of the embryo actually occurs. The bill's definition of 'natural death' is: 'having naturally and irreversibly lost the capacity for integrated cellular division, growth, and differentiation that is characteristic of an organism, even if some cells of the former organism may be alive in a disorganized state.'

"As we understand the state of the science, it is impossible to know precisely which living cells of an early embryo are necessary to sustain embryonic life. We are concerned, therefore, that the bill in its current form would tacitly authorize the destruction of so-called 'low grade' but viable embryos, not just deceased embryos.

"The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission remains firmly committed to the ethical advance of science, the development of treatments and cures for suffering humanity, and the protection of the dignity of every human being from conception to natural death."

The Senate's two independents -– Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both of Connecticut -– joined 26 Democrats in voting against the HOPE Act. Supporting the legislation were all 49 Republicans and 21 Democrats.

The House of Representatives has yet to vote on the bill.

Mitchell is director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, as well as associate professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Both are located in suburban Chicago.
--30--


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapman shares views on NOBTS blog
by Michael McCormack
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

NEW ORLEANS (BP)--Few Southern Baptist ministers have had such long-term ministry experience and influence on SBC life as has Morris H. Chapman, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee.

And from that unique perspective on Baptist life, Chapman offered his thoughts on the Southern Baptist Convention's present state and future challenges as a guest on New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary's Baptist Center blog.

A native of Kosciusko, Miss., Chapman professed faith in Christ when he was 7. He answered the call to vocational Christian ministry at the age of 12. He earned both the master of divinity and doctor of ministry degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He served as pastor of four churches -– three in Texas and one in New Mexico. Under his leadership, each church demonstrated strong support for Cooperative Program giving, baptism and evangelism.

He served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1990-92 and in October 1992 he became president and chief executive officer of the Executive Committee. Since then, Chapman has continued to lead at the denominational level just as he did as a local church pastor.

As a guest blogger on the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry's website, Chapman addressed many of the current issues facing the Southern Baptist Convention.

Responding to questions by the moderator, Chapman addressed the "greatest" issues facing Southern Baptists, the convention's greatest strength, weakness, challenge and opportunity. Not surprisingly, his responses drew connections between each.

"The passion for, experience with and funding of world missions has been and is the greatest strength of the Southern Baptist Convention," Chapman said. "In Southern Baptist churches, God continues to stir the hearts of increasing numbers of church members of all ages to go wherever He leads to witness to the saving power of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ultimately, Southern Baptists' passion for missions grows out of the conviction that the Bible is God's Holy Word, Chapman said, conceding that those strong biblical convictions often lead people outside the convention to characterize Southern Baptists as "narrow-minded, unengaged in today's culture and apathetic to the world's needs."

However, rebutting such post-denominationalism views, Chapman underscored that, "No denomination is better positioned to demonstrate the love of Christ and his power to save mankind than Southern Baptists."

Yet, Chapman noted that Southern Baptists suffer when those biblical convictions are inappropriately expressed.

"Our greatest weakness is the tendency to 'defend' our faith with a degree of severe and unforgiving dogmatism that in part creates a negative view of the Convention and helps perpetuate the idea that we are little more than a denomination of prohibitions," Chapman said.

Chapman repudiated internecine attacks and called for a renewed commitment to speaking truth in love among Southern Baptists as well as with those outside the convention.

"In the Convention there appears to be a growing fondness for casting stones at each other, judging one another and building our reputations at the expense of others," he said. "A divisive culture has been sown among Southern Baptists that does not honor Christ when measured against the Word of God."

Though Jesus expressed righteous indignation while on earth, those instances were quite rare, Chapman said, adding that among Christ's followers today, expressions of indignation should be no less rare.

"We are doing ourselves, our denomination and our Lord an injustice if we let the world see only our dogmatism without seeing the love of Christ," he said.

The greatest threat and the greatest weakness are inextricably bound, according to Chapman, who described the threat as "the gradual deterioration of the collective heart that at one time beat steadily and strongly with a sacrificial love for Jesus and the unsaved."

Pointing out that divisions within the convention will splinter the collective heart for ministry, Chapman explained that the Baptist Faith and Message represents a consensus about core beliefs and is not meant to be an exhaustive statement on every doctrinal issue.

"The Convention is a network of churches that voluntarily bands together for the principal cause of world missions.

"If we insist that every doctrinal nuance debated among Southern Baptists is a core belief, sooner or later our missionary force will be depleted and the unsaved will be abandoned," Chapman said.

If those divisions can be erased, he offered, then the greatest opportunity for the convention becomes a united effort to equip Southern Baptists to better impact the world in the 21st century.

Responding to other questions, Chapman shared his views about such issues as the resurgence of Calvinism within the convention, churches adopting ruling elders and the emerging church movement.

However, Chapman sees the greatest theological issue facing Southern Baptists as the "sole sufficiency of Christ for salvation."

"In the future, when a tidal wave against Christ and Christ alone as the way of salvation threatens to sweep our witness off the face of the earth, I believe we will pinpoint this moment in history as the beginning of a rising tide," Chapman said. "We have less time than we think to fortify our witness for the ridicule and disdain that will come first upon the organized church, make its way through the ranks of nominal Christians, and finally slam against the people who are guided daily by the Holy Spirit and whose only desire is to honor Christ and Glorify the Father."

Chapman sees this coming barrage as particularly perilous for Christians striving to keep one foot planted in the Kingdom of God and the other in the world. 

"&#91;They&#93; are going to be shocked that their faith will not stand up under the barrage of ridicule," he said. "This reason alone is enough to cause us to fall on our faces before the Lord, confess our disobedience and unashamedly profess to the world that He is our Savior and Lord."

"We were honored to have Dr. Chapman as a guest host on the Baptist Center blog," said NOBTS Provost Steve Lemke, who serves as acting director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry. "His answers to our questions provide valuable insights on some of the opportunities and tension points in Southern Baptist life. Our students and all our readers will appreciate his candor and unique perspective on these crucial issues."

Past bloggers who have addressed these same issues include SBC President Frank Page; Rick Lance, executive director of Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions; Emil Turner, executive director of Arkansas Baptist State Convention; and missiologist Ed Stetzer of the North American Mission Board. These responses are archived on the Baptist Center blog. For more information on the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry's blog and upcoming events, go online to baptistcenter.com.

In addition to serving as guest host on the Baptist Center blog, Chapman posts comments periodically on his own website, www.morrischapman.com.
--30--


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Land tackles liberal-conservative divide
by Dwayne Hastings
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Is America really a divided nation?

It is easy to come to that conclusion if you're watching cable news shows with their "24/7 shouting matches," Richard Land observes.

While the news programs have value, "Americans are being led to believe the nation is more divided over the issue of religion than it actually is," Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said in an interview.

Land, whose new book, "The Divided States of America? What liberals and conservatives are missing in the God-and-country shouting match!" was released this month, believes there is room for "balanced discussion of serious disagreements" and there is "common ground" that can be reached without necessitating compromise.

In fact, when it comes to God's proper role in American life, many on both the right and the left have it wrong, Land said.

It is not a lukewarm middle-of-the-road position he is staking out, Land said, but a reasonable position supported by history and Scripture. He finds fault with those who warn that "theocrat bogeymen" prowl the countryside and who grouse that faith in public life invariably leads to a theocracy. And he criticizes those he calls "Christian reconstructionists," whose aim is to rewire the U.S. government to favor the Christian faith above all others.

Some Christians, Land said, make the mistake of allowing patriotism to become an idol. "If you make nationalism your ultimate value, then you have made it your religion, you have made it your god," he said. "Yet Christians are taught to have no other gods before our God, who is the one true God. We must always give our ultimate allegiance to God, not to any country, even America.

"We have to cultivate the posture and the habit of someone like Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to make sure he was on God's side, which is very different than assuming that God is on your side," Land said, suggesting the problem with many liberals "is that too often they do not think that God has a side."

"He does," Land added.

Land's posture on the God's rightful role in America was the spark that led him to author The Divided States of America?

The book, released by Thomas Nelson Publishers, asserts that "it is possible to affirm and practice belief in God while simultaneously practicing a rigorous separation of church and state."

"My goal in this book," Land said, "is to get people to think about the role that religion should and should not play in America's future and to help people understand that there is more agreement on that matter than many think.

"I want to help liberals understand I do not want state-sponsored religion any more than they do because state-sponsored religion destroys religion and it interferes with what some have called the 'sacred sanctuary of the soul,'" Land continued. "No government has a right to interfere with a person's relationship with God. That is between them and God, and it must be wholly voluntary."

The majority of Americans do not want the government promoting religion, but neither do they want the government censoring and suppressing religious expression, Land said. "They want the government to acknowledge and protect their right to express their values and their beliefs in the public square -- whatever those beliefs and values are," he said.

America's founders were, for the most part, operating from a Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview. "Some of them were very serious Christians," Land said, "and some of them were not," but the writers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution "sought to wed those Judeo-Christian values with enlightenment ideas of self-government."

They were not seeking to establish a "Christian nation," Land said. Americans live under a pluralistic model, he said, where everyone has the right to express their own faith and the government is obligated to "make sure everybody plays fair -- that the minority does not get to silence the majority and the majority is not allowed to silence the minority."

"People should not have to accept my opinion just because it is faith-based, but because it is faith-based does not disqualify it from the debate," Land said.

"As believers, we have an equal opportunity to make our case in the public square, just as does a nonbeliever," he continued.

"To be told you cannot bring your religious convictions to bear on public policy issues because that would be a violation of separation of church and state is just nonsense," Land said, adding, "It boils down to discrimination against people who have religious convictions.

"In our country's history, religion has always played a major role. And I believe it always should, particularly in a country that is as religious as America is," Land said.

Land's new book, The Divided States of America? has garnered endorsements from a diverse audience, with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Harvard University professor Peter Gomes and Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, among others, expressing appreciation for the book's call to readers to search for common ground despite the din of the ongoing "God-and-country shouting match."

Land probes the question of "what God really does have to do with America," suggesting both sides in the debate are wasting "precious time and resources" in endeavors that threaten to "take the place of the kind of moral and spiritual reformation that we so desperately need."

"It is a fallacy to assume that the government and the courts can produce a moral system in people or do much more than help preserve a decent moral environment," Land writes.

"Even if our government permitted it, which it doesn't, you can't simply declare this country to be one that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority. It can only become such a country through transformation of hearts and minds. It is not the government's job to do that any more than it is the government's role to prescribe or to prohibit religion."
--30--
"The Divided States of America? What liberals and conservatives are missing in the God-and-country shouting match!" is available at LifeWay Christian Stores and other major booksellers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What language does God speak?
by Erich Bridges
Date: April 12, 2007 - Thursday

RICHMOND, Va. (BP)--It was no sin to be uneducated in the red-dirt countryside my Georgia kin farmed generations ago.

Many rural folks worked too long and hard in those days to get very far in school, assuming there was a school to attend. If, however, you got the precious opportunity to learn and you let it pass by ... well, that was just ignorant (pronounced "IG-nernt" in those parts).

That's about where Americans stand today when it comes to the study of languages other than English: willfully ignorant. It's hurting our future –- and our participation in spreading the Gospel around the world.

In a recent column, I quoted a Time magazine story about the skills students need in a globalized world. "Kids are global citizens now, even in small-town America, and they must learn to act that way," Time reported. "Mike Eskew, CEO of UPS, talks about needing workers who are 'global-trade literate, sensitive to foreign cultures, conversant in different languages' -– not exactly strong points in the U.S., where fewer than half of high school students are enrolled in a foreign language class...."

The personal and social benefits of learning to speak another language are well-documented: better overall academic scores, better career prospects, increased cross-cultural understanding, greater potential to contribute to an interdependent world.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, strategic analysts talked about how important it was for Americans to study foreign languages to strengthen national security and represent U.S. interests abroad more effectively. College-level language studies spiked -– at least for a while. 

But foreign language study at the high school level continues to limp along. Of the students who pursue any foreign language at all, more than 90 percent choose Spanish, French or German. Relatively few achieve real fluency. Non-Western languages? Many schools don't even offer them.

We're not alone in our linguistic isolationism. Two years ago, the British government dropped its requirement that public school students ages 14-16 study at least one foreign language. "Of course, the numbers (studying a language) went into a free-fall," reported The Economist magazine in an editorial on the sorry state of language skills in England. 

The writer sarcastically added: "Brainy Britons may master several tongues; the others will continue to converse with mankind in God's own language, English."

We know God speaks other languages, of course. But if we don't bother to learn some of them, how serious are we about communicating His saving love to all nations?

True, English still dominates international communication in many fields -- science and technology, transportation and trade, popular culture. Besides hundreds of millions of native English speakers, an estimated 1.5 billion people speak it as a second language. It continues to spin off fresh dialects across the globe as new English speakers mix in words and idioms from their native tongues.

However, the status of English as a "global language" may be peaking, predicted British linguist David Graddol in a major study on the future of language, published in the journal Science in 2004. 

Most global population growth is occurring in Asia and Africa. In the mid-20th century, nine of every 100 people in the world grew up speaking English as a first language. That number is expected to fall to five in 100 in 2050. By then, English, Spanish, Hindi/Urdu (major languages of India and South Asia) and Arabic will claim about the same number of native speakers –- roughly 500 million each, according to Graddol's study. Mandarin Chinese, by far the most-spoken native language today, will continue to be the global leader with more than 1.3 billion native speakers.

More and more people will find it essential to speak several languages in order to participate in the global economy (translation: get and hold a decent job) and communicate with others in their own countries and beyond.

"Native English speakers -– particularly monolingual ones –- have been too complacent about the status of their language and the lack of need to learn other languages," Graddol said. 

What does this mean for mission-minded Americans? It's high time many more of us committed ourselves to learning the "heart languages" most of the world's people use when they speak, listen, think and learn. That challenge applies not only to international missionaries, but to you and me. If we make the effort, God will open the minds and hearts of immigrants next door and lost peoples across the world to us as we share the Good News of Jesus.

I'm ashamed to admit that after many years of international travel and trying to understand the world, I have yet to learn a second language with any degree of fluency. If they were still around, my rural Georgia kinfolks would call that "IG-nernt."

But it's not too late for me, I hope. And if I have anything to do with it, my children and their children will speak at least two languages fluently. I urge you to set the same goal for yourself and your family. 

In today's borderless world, it's basic training for life and ministry.
--30--
Erich Bridges is senior writer with the Southern Baptist International Mission Board. To comment on this column visit CounterCultureBlog.com. To hear an audio version, click on http://media1.imbresources.org/files/24/2424/2424-8828.mp3



