
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-11/11/2005

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.


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

MARRIAGE DIGEST: Maine pro-family groups now focusing on marriage amendment; conservatives win, lose in state courts
by Michael Foust
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

AUGUSTA, Maine (BP)--Having lost a vote to overturn the state's new "sexual orientation" law, conservatives in Maine now are focusing on passing a marriage amendment to the state constitution.

Maine citizens Nov. 8 voted to keep a new "gay rights" law that gives homosexuality civil rights status and prevents discrimination against homosexuals in employment, housing, education and public accommodations. The law had passed the legislature and was signed by the governor, but conservatives gathered enough signatures to force a "people's veto" that would have rejected the new law. But the veto, known as Question 1, lost by a margin of 55-45 percent.

"Though we are disappointed in the vote on Question 1, we remain committed to marriage as the beautiful and loving union between a man and a woman," Sandy Williams, chairman of the Coalition for Marriage, was quoted as saying in the Morning Sentinel newspaper. "And we'll keep working to promote that message and protect the children of the state of Maine."

But any amendment faces opposition in the state legislature. Just this summer, a marriage amendment fell well short of the two-thirds majority needed in the House of Representatives, failing even to get a simply majority. Fifty-six representatives voted for it, 88 against it. In addition, Democratic Gov. John Baldacci opposes an amendment.

"The governor's view of amending the constitution is it should only be done to broaden freedoms, not restrict them," Baldacci spokesman Lee Umphrey said, according to the Morning Sentinel. "At the same time, he has publicly stated he is against same-sex marriage."

Maine conservative leaders -- who fear the new law is the first step toward "gay marriage" legalization -- say Baldacci's position is inconsistent. If the governor is against "gay marriage," they say, then he should support action opposing it. Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, said in his weblog that he would be contacting Baldacci "to discuss how we are going to make sure this scourge doesn't come to Maine."

State law says constitutional amendments must initiate within the legislature. Therefore, an amendment cannot be placed on the ballot through the petition process, which conservatives in other states have uses. Nevertheless, Maine conservatives still have a powerful weapon with the "people's veto." If the legislature were to pass a "gay marriage" law, conservatives could collect signatures and attempt to reverse it.

ORE. AMENDMENT UPHELD -- An Oregon state court judge Nov. 4 upheld the constitutionality of the state's marriage amendment, dealing homosexual activists there another defeat. Homosexual groups had filed suit, claiming the amendment was unconstitutional because it changed state law in more than one way, banning "gay marriage" on the state level and also preventing local governments from recognizing "gay marriages" performed elsewhere. But Marion County Judge Joseph C. Guimond disagreed.

The amendment passed last November by a margin of 57-43 percent. Conservatives called the lawsuit frivolous; homosexual groups likely will appeal.

DOMESTIC PARTNERS IN ALASKA? -- The Alaska Supreme Court Oct. 28 unanimously ruled it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the partners of publicly employed homosexual couples, the Associated Press reported. The ruling apparently will force the state and cities to provide health insurance and other benefits to their homosexual employees.

But Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski and other Republicans say they will push for an amendment to the state constitution, banning such benefits. Alaska adopted a marriage amendment in 1998.

"In this case, the court has clearly overstepped its bounds," Becky Hultberg, the governor's press secretary, told KTUU-TV in Anchorage.

MICH. RULING HALTED -- The Michigan Court of Appeals Oct. 31 halted a lower court's ruling that had said the state's marriage amendment does not prohibit cities and government agencies from providing health insurance to homosexual partners, AP reported. The appeals court now will hear the case. Republican Attorney General Mike Cox has argued the amendment bans such benefits.

The amendment passed last November by a margin of 59-31 percent. At issue is a section in the amendment that says the "union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

N.Y. COURT SIDES WITH MARRIAGE -- A New York appeals court ruled Oct. 27 that New Paltz, N.Y., Mayor Jason West violated state law when he presided over several "gay marriages" in February 2004. In issuing its ruling, the court sided with a lower court that also had ruled West had no authority to conduct the ceremonies.

The lawsuit against West and the city was brought by the conservative group Liberty Counsel on behalf of Robert Hebel, a New Paltz trustee.

"Renegade mayors and rogue public officials do not have the authority to violate clearly established marriage laws," Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver said in a statement. "Preserving marriage is the social battle for this generation."

The court's ruling did not answer the question of whether "gay marriage" itself should be legal in the state. Lawsuits asking the court to legalize "gay marriage" are making their way through the system and likely will end up before the state's highest court.
--30--
For more information about the national debate over "gay marriage," visit www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage.


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

FIRST PERSON: <br>A democracy Jimmy Carter cannot support
by Morris H. Chapman
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Jimmy Carter, the globetrotting ex-president, spends a great deal of his time promoting democracy, as he sees it, around the world.

Interestingly, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical fellowship of churches in America, functions as a democracy. The majority of the messengers attending a given annual convention seek the mind of Christ and vote as a democratic body, an annual activity one would think Jimmy Carter would applaud. However, the SBC is a primary target of the former president’s harshest criticism in his latest book, “Our Endangered Values.”

What he writes is nothing new. Carter’s criticism of the conservative direction of the SBC is longstanding. In 1993, he and his wife publicly announced their allegiance with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (a breakaway group of liberals and moderates, formerly of the SBC but now stridently anti-SBC), and in 2000 he felt compelled to announce with fanfare once again his break with the SBC. 

For the record, individuals do not have membership in the SBC, but churches affiliate through their friendly cooperation with and financial support of SBC causes. Despite his claim that the other members of his church agree with him about the SBC, his church, Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia, continues to contribute financially to Southern Baptists’ cooperative missions, ministries and theological education.

In “Our Endangered Values,” he espouses values that are not mine, likely not yours, or those of a majority of Americans in general or Southern Baptists in particular; the “our” is a limited constituency at best. Nevertheless, in light of the recent media attention, Carter’s views are worth revisiting for the sake of clarification and distinction. 

ON ABORTION:
At multiple annual meetings, the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists who were present repeatedly expressed a belief in the biblical value of human life. Interestingly, this is a belief which Carter also professes.

"I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought on by a combination of human errors,” he has stated, adding, “I have never believed that Jesus Christ would approve ... abortions.”

However, his public record doesn’t match his private beliefs.

While governor of Georgia, Carter publicly supported family planning programs that included abortion. Writing the forward, he also endorsed a book titled “Women in Need” advocating a woman’s right to abortion. As president, he organized the White House Conference on Families in 1979, which stated the right to abortion as a national priority. Finally, he hired Sarah Weddington as a White House staffer -- the lead attorney who argued for abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that made abortion legal.

Clearly, his stated beliefs don’t match with his public practice, and his de facto support of abortion rights certainly doesn’t reflect the values of most Southern Baptists.

ON HOMOSEXUALITY:
The overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists believe in the biblical guidelines for human sexuality, including those dealing with the sin of homosexuality. These beliefs have been expressed through resolutions, in our statement of faith and also in our national ministry efforts to promote chastity before marriage, encourage faithfulness in marriage, and to reach out to help homosexuals who desire to leave that lifestyle.

Carter, on the other hand, sends a mixed message on the issue -- having declared that he personally believes that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, while also publicly advocating civil unions for homosexuals.

In 1992, Carter served as the honorary co-chair of a fund-raising dinner for one of the nation's leading homosexual advocacy groups, the Human Rights Campaign. Not surprisingly, he believes that a marriage amendment to the U. S. Constitution is unnecessary. He has stated that homosexuality is a sin, but sees nothing wrong with a “Christian” homosexual being ordained. In fact, he compares the sin with adultery, but forgets that Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11, NKJV).

Moreover, he stated to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s general assembly that homosexuality is one of several issues that “in God’s eyes fade into relative insignificance, as did circumcision in the first days of the early church.” If they could speak, I don’t think the former residents of Sodom and Gomorrah would agree.

His criticism of the SBC leadership on the issue of homosexuality is particularly harsh, lumping us in with groups that “have chosen gays and lesbians as the foremost targets of their denigration” as a result of our “increasingly narrow and rigid definition of the Christian faith.” His characterization is grossly unfair, but if Southern Baptists must suffer his wrath for adhering to a biblical position on the sin of homosexuality -- stating the necessity of turning from that sin, as with any sin -- then so be it.

ON THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN:
In Southern Baptist life, only local churches have authority to ordain men and women to church office and the convention has not restricted churches in this action. Based on our understanding of the Bible, the majority of Southern Baptists strongly embrace women in ministry, but reserve pastoral leadership for men. Carter decries this democratically arrived at position as the primary reason he “decided to sever my ties” with the SBC.

ON THE SBC’S RECOGNITION OF THE COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE:
Carter makes the outlandish claim that by encouraging women to submit to their husband’s "servant leadership," as taught in Scripture, conservative Christians somehow want to subjugate women like those in some Islamic nations.

In the article on the family in the SBC’s statement of faith, he apparently missed the language about “equal worth” of the husband and the wife before God, or the statement that the wife “being in the image of God as is her husband” is “thus equal to him.” He also ignored the charge to husbands that they should love their wives to the point of dying for them as Christ sacrificially loved the Church.

Christ doesn’t seek to subjugate us, and neither is that the intent of our statement of faith with regard to the relationship between men and women.

ON OUR STATEMENT OF FAITH:
A consensus of Southern Baptists attending an annual convention endorsed a statement of faith called the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message. It is not a “creed” as Carter erroneously claims.

He also misrepresents one change to the wording as a “substitution of Southern Baptist leaders for Jesus as the interpreters of biblical Scripture.” He uses the general public’s lack of understanding about liberals’ misuse of the language defining Jesus Christ as “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.” Carter and other liberals use this language as a means to deny the truthfulness of certain passages, by stating, “My Christ would never ...,” as if Christ was someone other than revealed in the Bible, or that Jesus could be someone different for each of us depending on how we choose to define Him.

ON THE WORD OF GOD:
“Our Endangered Values” is full of confusing commentary. To his credit, the former president admits “there were a few inconsistencies” between what he professed to believe privately and his public actions. Further, his claim to be guided by the “Holy Scriptures” conflicts with his cavalier treatment of the biblical text. At once he quotes “Saint Paul” as authoritative and then dismisses other portions of Paul’s writings as culturally conditioned. Therein lies the greatest difference between Jimmy Carter and the vast majority of Southern Baptists -- he believes that the Bible “contains” the Word of God, but we believe that it “is” the Word of God.

ON DEMOCRACY AND THE SBC:
Certainly, he has been benevolently active since departing the White House. Southern Baptists applaud his work with Habitat for Humanity and his humanitarian efforts abroad. Through the Carter Center, he has aspired to promote democracy around the globe -- a worthy goal.

However, it is unfortunate that in his post-partum relationship with Southern Baptists he continues to repeat old complaints about the SBC rather than move on in his relationship with his new faith group.

While it is unfortunate, given his track record, it is not surprising.

What is surprising is that a man who professes to be devoted to democracy, and travels the world as the champion of democracy, decries the same democracy when it is faithfully exercised by Southern Baptists to declare <FONT face=times new roman size=3><U>our</U></font> values.
--30--
Morris H. Chapman is president and chief executive officer of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. He served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1990 to 1992.

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

Same 8 countries named as worst violators of religious liberty
by Staff
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

WASHINGTON (BP)--The State Department maintained the status quo in its yearly report on international religious liberty, naming for the second consecutive year the same eight governments to its list of the world’s worst violators of religious freedom.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam had been redesignated as “countries of particular concern” (CPCs), a classification reserved for governments practicing or permitting particularly severe violations of religious freedom.

The State Department, however, refused to include three other countries -– Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan –- recommended for CPC designation by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan panel that advises the executive branch and Congress.

“The omission of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan from the CPC list is particularly troubling and a discredit to Congress’ intent in passing the International Religious Freedom Act,” USCIRF Chairman Michael Cromartie said in a written release. “Turkmenistan, among the most repressive states in the world today, allows virtually no independent religious activity. The government of Uzbekistan places strict restrictions on religious practice and continues to crack down harshly on individuals and groups that operate outside of government-controlled religious organizations.”

The State Department is in late-stage discussions with one or two possible CPCs and could make additions to the list at any time, said John Hanford, ambassador at large for international religious freedom.

While major violations of religious freedom still exist in Turkmenistan and Pakistan, both governments have made progress, Hanford told reporters when the report was released Nov. 8, according to a State Department transcript.

“Last year, the &#91;Turkmen&#93; government substantially revamped laws regulating religious activities,” he said. “They decriminalized violations of religious policies. They released all religious prisoners.”

Pakistan’s government “has maintained its public calls for religious tolerance,” Hanford said. Its other steps have included “attempting to curb sectarian violence and encouraging reform of the public education curriculum designed to end the teaching of religious intolerance,” he said.

Among the CPCs, Vietnam “has made some very significant efforts to improve religious freedom,” Hanford said. China and Saudi Arabia have shown a “willingness to engage” with the United States on the issue and have made “important releases of religious prisoners,” he said. Hanford also said there is hope for progress in Sudan, now that a peace treaty has been signed.

The other CPCs -– Burma, Eritrea, Iran and North Korea -– have demonstrated no willingness “to engage in any meaningful way on religious matters,” Hanford said.

The CPC list is dominated by communist and Islamic regimes. China, North Korea and Vietnam have communist-controlled governments, while Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan have Muslim-dominated regimes.

The types of religious groups undergoing persecution varies. While Christians are targets for repression in many countries, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baha’is and others also are persecuted under some regimes.

In its response to the report, the USCIRF cited the State Department’s failure to act decisively regarding Saudi Arabia after naming the country as a CPC for the first time in 2004. A year after the designation, Rice approved in September a 180-day waiver of action on the Saudi regime. The USCIRF urged the Bush administration to use the extra time to work with the Saudis to bring about clear progress.

The International Religious Freedom Act -- the 1998 law that established the system, the ambassador’s post and the commission –- requires the administration to act to bring change in CPCs. Under the IRFA, the State Department has 90 days to designate the policies it will utilize with the CPC designees. The IRFA requires the president to take specific actions against governments designated as CPCs. He is provided a range of options, from diplomacy to economic sanctions. The president also has the authority to waive any action.

In addition to its CPC designations, the State Department listed the following categories and the governments, including CPCs, that fit within them:

-- Totalitarian regimes that seek to control religion: Burma; China; Cuba; and North Korea.

-- Regimes that repress non-approved religions: Eritrea; Iran; Laos; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; Uzbekistan; and Vietnam. 

-- Governments that fail to protect religious groups: Bangladesh; Egypt; India; and Sri Lanka.

-- Governments with discriminatory legislation against minority religions: Azerbaijan; Belarus; Brunei; Indonesia; Israel and the occupied territories; Malaysia; Pakistan; Russia; and Turkey.

-- Governments that brand some minority religions as “cults”: Belgium; France; and Germany.

The State Department also cited five countries for significant improvements: Georgia; India; Turkmenistan; United Arab Emirates; and Vietnam. 

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is a commissioner on the nine-member USCIRF. He served from 2001-04 as an appointee by President Bush. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist named Land in July to the commission for another term.

The State Department’s full report may be accessed online at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/.
--30--


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

Commission urges U.S. to press China for religious freedom
by Tom Strode
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

WASHINGTON (BP)--The United States government should communicate a “consistent, candid and coordinated message” to the Chinese regime that it needs to reverse the deteriorating conditions for religious freedom and other human rights in the world’s most populous country, a bipartisan commission has recommended.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, reporting on its two-week trip to China, found a crackdown continues on unapproved religious groups and urged the federal government to take a variety of steps to influence reform under the communist regime.

“The commission continues to find that the Chinese government systemically violates the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, contravening both the Chinese constitution and international human rights norms,” USCIRF Chairman Michael Cromartie said at a Nov. 9 Capitol Hill news conference at which the panel’s report was released.

“Moreover, on the basis of our trip, as well as ongoing analysis, the commission has concluded that the scope of political openness, public activism, civil and individual freedoms is actually now narrowing,” Cromartie said. “Economic freedom, as some had hoped, has not -- has not -- led to more religious and political freedom and human rights protection.”

The Chinese government especially suppresses Protestant Christians and Roman Catholics in unregistered, or underground, churches, as well as Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims and the Falun Gong, a meditation sect.

The commission and members of Congress called on President Bush to press Chinese leaders for change on religious liberty and other human rights when he meets with them soon in Beijing. The president will leave Nov. 14 for a multi-nation trip to the Far East and is scheduled to be in China Nov. 19-21.

“I urge the president to speak out boldly, not privately,” Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Va., said at the news conference. He also said members of the Bush administration and Congress should “meet with the dissidents” whenever they go to China.

Bush told reporters the day before the report’s release he would raise religious liberty as an issue with Chinese President Hu Jintao. “I will continue to remind President Hu about, for example, my personal faith and the belief that people should be allowed to worship freely,” Bush said, according to The Washington Times.

Among the USCIRF’s recommendations to the U.S. government:

-- Urge Beijing to end its suppression of religious groups and its efforts to force religious adherents to renounce their beliefs, and to release prisoners held because of their faith.

-- Bring up China’s human rights abuses before United Nations bodies and at other multi-national meetings.

-- Implement a March agreement with China in which parents would have the right to educate their children based on their religious beliefs and underage children would have the liberty to practice their faith.

-- Name a counselor for human rights and the rule of law to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

-- Make the furthering of the rule of law a greater priority in its relationship with China.

-- Continue to press Beijing to protect North Korean refugees who flee to China for asylum.

-- Promote programs involving U.S. human rights experts and Chinese officials on international standards for the freedom of religion.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a USCIRF commissioner, told Baptist Press all of the recommendations are important, “because together the whole is more than the sum of the parts. And we hope that taken together that these policies will be a tsunami wave that will go over &#91;the&#93; top and then undermine the levees of intolerance and persecution.”

Land, one of seven commissioners on the two-week trip in August to China, said after the news conference the report is “a candid assessment of what we found when we were there, that there is significant religious repression and significant discrimination and persecution of people of religious faith who refuse to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and live within the government’s onerous and repressive regulations.”

The USCIRF delegation met with representatives of the government-sanctioned Buddhist, Catholic, Islamic, Protestant and Taoist religious organizations but was denied access to several prominent leaders of unapproved religious groups. Government officials attended all of the commission’s meetings with religious leaders, Cromartie said.

The delegation met with government officials, in addition to approved religious leaders, and traveled to Beijing, Urumqi, Kashgar, Chengdu, Lhasa and Shanghai.

The USCIRF’s report was released on the same day Bush met with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader, The Times reported. It came a day after Cai Zhuohua, 34, leader of an underground Beijing church, was sentenced to three years in prison for printing Bibles illegally, Reuters News Service reported. His wife, Xiao Yunfei, and her brother, Xiao Gaowen, were given two-year and 18-month sentences, respectively, by a Chinese court, according to Reuters.

In addition to Wolf, House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Reps. Tom Lantos, D.-Calif., Chris Smith, R.-N.J., and Mark Kennedy, R.-Minn., spoke at the news conference and applauded the commission’s report.

Representing the USCIRF at the news conference in addition to Cromartie, vice president of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Land was Preeta Bansal, a constitutional lawyer in Washington.

Land served on the nine-member USCIRF from 2001-04 as an appointee by Bush. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist named Land in July to the commission for another term.

The USCIRF advises the White House and Congress on the condition of religious liberty in other countries. The president selects three members of the panel, while congressional leaders name the other six.

The USCIRF’s report and recommendations on China may be accessed online at its website, www.uscirf.gov.
--30--


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

N.C. evangelist tweaks motion; creates momentum of support
by Norm Miller
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

WINSTON SALEM, N.C. (BP)--In a conciliatory effort to unite Southern Baptists in North Carolina, evangelist Ted Stone has changed his proposed motion so that its impact is delayed.

Stone’s original motion would have called for an immediate abandonment of three out of the four Cooperative Program giving plans from which North Carolina churches now choose. Passage of the motion would have forced the budget to be re-written overnight during the state convention's annual meeting.

Stone' new motion would still abolish the multiple giving plans, but not immediately. Instead, Stone says, his motion will ask the BSCNC's board of directors, executive and budget committee to present at the 2007 meeting a biennial budget that would include a single giving plan in which the SBC would receive at least 35 percent of the dollars. The plan also would provide Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute with contributions not less than the total amount allotted to the smallest Baptist college in North Carolina.

Stone wants to restore the traditional single giving plan to the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina’s Cooperative Program budget. As of now, one plan gives nothing to the SBC while another one gives only 10 percent. He will present his motion at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina's annual meeting Nov. 14-16 in Winston-Salem.

“I’m trying to allay the fears of those who had thought my original motion might be too much too soon," Stone told Baptist Press.

Proposed budget changes would take effect in 2008. Currently, the convention offers four giving plans: Plan A (the original CP plan) and Plan D, through both of which the SBC receives 32 percent. Plan B apportions 10 percent to the SBC while Plan C gives nothing to the SBC but allots 10 percent to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a group that broke away from the SBC because of disagreement with the election of conservative leaders. Plans A, B and C give 68 percent to the state convention budget, while Plan D trims the state allotment in favor of special ministries and Fruitland Baptist Bible Institute.

Allan Blume, executive vice president/treasurer of Conservative Carolina Baptists, said Stone's motion “calls for a clear direction that we are going to one giving plan and are going to increase support of the Southern Baptist Convention. Conservatives will stand together on that." Blume serves as pastor of Mount Vernon Baptist Church in Boone, N.C.

“I’m excited about what Ted has done and I’m sure conservatives across North Carolina will support him,” Blume told Baptist Press. “I’ve gotten calls from lots of people, and those who have already heard about this are very enthusiastic.” 

Blume said most of the tension in North Carolina concerning Stone’s original motion was not about the intent of it, but its immediacy. 

“I think we all want to be sure we’re not making major changes too hurriedly, and we want to be sure that what is done will not hurt any of the good things in the state that we want to stay in place,” Blume said. 

Stone’s decision has “disarmed or eliminated that objection of moving too quickly, but at the same time has kept the ultimate purpose and intent to get back to one giving plan without people wondering whether it will be a workable solution,” Blume said. 

By directing his motion to the board of directors and the budget committee, Stone’s motion will “allow these committees to be more careful and thoughtful with more time to be sure it works across the board," Blume said.

BSCNC President David Horton, pastor of Gate City Baptist Church in Greensboro, N.C., said, "I’m grateful the revised motion allows two more years in budget cycle to consider all the changes that must occur for us to go back to a single giving plan.'

“I’m supportive of the motion, and I believe it is the right step for North Carolina Baptists to take. From what I’m hearing from other conservatives, they feel very strongly about it, and I believe the motion has a very good chance of passing on the floor of the convention.”

Citing the 1995 election of Greg Mathis as president of the BSCNC, Horton expressed his gratitude for a growing conservative trend in state convention leadership. 

“North Carolina has always had grassroots Baptists who believe the Bible is inerrant," Horton said. "But we’ve had trouble electing conservatives to positions of leadership. But I think we’re making great strides in becoming the kind of convention grassroots Baptists in our state have always wanted.” 

Mathis, pastor of Mud Creek Baptist Church in Hendersonville, N.C., told BP, “I think there are many conservatives who appreciate Ted’s willingness to &#91;revise his motion&#93;. It’s a good move on his part, and I appreciate it.

“I’ve said all along that budget changes are better through a slow, methodical careful process. I think many North Carolina Baptists would like to commit to a serious research and study of the possibility of going back to a single giving plan,” said Mathis, who also serves on the BSCNC budget committee.

Mathis said Stone has “put the budget process back in the hands of the budget committee to commit to a single-giving plan. I know he had quite a few supporters, but this approach and process is a better way to go about it.”

Stone believes the “short delay in the effective date of my motion will give our board of directors and budget committee sufficient time to plan for budget changes so as not to hurt any worthwhile missions efforts in the state.

“However, the requirement for an increase from the present 30 percent to 35 percent, and perhaps a higher amount if the dollars are available, will send the message to our national partner, the Southern Baptist Convention, that we are back on track.”

Stone said he “looks forward to the day that loyal Southern Baptists in North Carolina can give our rightful share of supporting the new challenges of the mission field around the world, and the new challenges to strengthen our six growing Southern Baptist seminaries that are doing such a superb job of preparing thousands of those called to serve our Lord Jesus.”

While some have opined that a segment of SBC churches in the state might withdraw from the BSCNC should the motion pass, Stone said, “I’m not only appealing to Southern Baptists in North Carolina who use the name conservative, I’m appealing to those who are Bible-believing and Bible-practicing Southern Baptists who may bear the label of moderate to come together under the umbrella of the Cooperative Program where we can learn true cooperation and strengthen missions in this state and around the world.”
--30--



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

Churches endorsing homosexuality could be excluded in N.C.
by Michael Foust
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (BP)--Churches that approve homosexuality or are affiliated with groups that do so would be excluded from membership in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina under a motion expected to be debated at the convention's annual meeting Nov. 14-16 in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The motion would address a controversy from this summer when the convention's committee on nominations rejected board of trustee nominees from churches affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists, a group that condones homosexuality and supports "gay marriage." The rejected persons had been nominated to the Mars Hill College board of trustees.

Bill Sanderson, pastor of Hephzibah Baptist Church in Wendell, N.C., and president of Conservative Carolina Baptists, will bring the motion, which would require amending the convention's articles of incorporation. It has the support of convention President David Horton.

"It would bring a great deal of clarity to the stance of the convention," Horton, pastor of Gate City Baptist Church in Jamestown, N.C., told Baptist Press. "The Alliance of Baptists has made statements that do endorse the homosexual lifestyle.... We just feel that is out of step with the Bible and certainly out of step with what North Carolina Baptists believe on that issue."

The Alliance of Baptists formed in 1987 out of a disagreement over the continued election of conservative presidents by messengers to the annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention. Known initially as the Southern Baptist Alliance, today the group claims more than 120 churches, although North Carolina has the most of any state at 23. In recent years, the organization has become increasingly liberal in its views on homosexuality. For instance:

-- In April 2004, the Alliance adopted a statement supporting the legalization of "gay marriage." "We affirm that the Alliance of Baptists supports the rights of all citizens to full marriage equality," it read, "and we affirm anew that the Alliance will 'create places of refuge and renewal for those who are ignored by the church.'"

-- At the Alliance convocation in April of this year, Alliance Executive Director Stan Hastey delivered his “State of the Alliance Address,” in which he said the organization eventually would be vindicated for its liberal views on homosexuality. "In the Jesus movement, 'there is no longer Jew or Greek ... slave or free ... male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus," he said, according to a transcript on the group's website. "Some day, some blessed day, the same will be said of gay and straight. We are on the right side of history."

-- April Baker, an openly lesbian minister, preached at this year's Alliance of Baptists convocation. Baker is co-pastor of Glendale Baptist Church, an Alliance-affiliated church in Nashville. In 2003, Baker delivered a lecture on homosexuality and the Bible at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tenn. She began her lecture by asking students to consider their beliefs about several statements, including, "There are occasions when a couple could benefit from living together prior to marriage" and "The Bible is clear in setting forth a Christian sexual ethic." She then said, "&#91;T&#93;here really aren't any right or wrong responses to these statements" and then added that there was room "for a variety of opinion.... No one has the truth. We're all seeking truth."

Sanderson said his motion is not saying that "we don't love the homosexual."

"We do -- but we don't love the sin," he told BP. "And that's true of all of us."

Sanderson's motion would amend the articles of incorporation to read:

"Among churches not in friendly cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. Such actions include: 1) official public statements affirming, approving or endorsing homosexual behavior, 2) ordination of those whom the church knows have not repented of their homosexual behavior, 3) any pastor of the church performing or the church providing facilities for a marriage or other ceremony, blessing or union of persons of the same sex, 4) affiliating with, contributing money to or maintaining membership in a group which the church knows affirms, approves or endorses homosexual behavior, and 5) accepting as members those whom the church knows have refused to repent of sin, including homosexual behavior. The Board of Directors shall apply these provisions, subject to the right of a church to appeal to the next session of the Convention."

Sanderson said the motion allows disassociated churches to appeal to the entire body and ask to be reinstated.

"But if they're found to be &#91;affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists or a similar group&#93;, then that means that they would not qualify to be a standing member of our state convention," he said.

The controversy began this summer when the committee on nominations rejected board of trustee nominees who were members of an Alliance of Baptists-affiliated church. That action led to charges that the committee was making new unpublished requirements for board members.

Jeff Long, chairman of the committee on nominations, told BP the committee was following a 1992 state convention policy that stated the convention would not receive contributions from churches which endorsed homosexuality.

"That's the precedent we worked from -- that if we weren't going to receive funds from a church that publicly endorsed homosexuality, then how, therefore, could we allow a nominee from a church that publicly endorsed homosexuality?" asked Long, pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church in Gastonia, N.C. 

But despite the controversy from this summer, Long said the committee unknowingly approved two board of trustees nominees who are affiliated with Alliance churches. Those nominees will be in the committee's report Nov. 14-16. The committee, he said, failed to discover that the nominees came from Alliance-affiliated churches, and they slipped through.

"And because people make recommendations with names and they don't include the other information &#91;as to whether the nominees are Alliance-affiliated&#93;, nobody caught it," he said. "It wasn't caught on my part until &#91;Oct 31&#93;."

He said it was "too late in the process" to correct the inconsistency.

So, what would happen to the two nominees if Sanderson's motion passes?

"That's a constitutional nightmare for a lawyer," Long said.
--30--


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

FIRST-PERSON: Television's impact on teens
by Kelly Boggs
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--A recent national study concerning the media’s influence on teen behavior has some activist groups up in arms. 

A spokesman for one organization is alarmed because kids are “bombarded by images” which are influencing their behavior. This representative believes the pervasive nature of these enticing images is leading kids to conclude that “everybody does it.”

Another group contends that every movie depicting the activity should be given an R rating. Their argument is that the earlier a young person is exposed to this behavior, the more likely he or she will try it.  

So, what is this behavior that researchers say shows up in 74 percent of movies and is also depicted on TV and promoted in magazines?

Smoking. 

“Exposure to Movie Smoking: Its Relation to Smoking Initiation Among U.S. Adolescents,” a study conducted by Dartmouth Medical School, appears in the November 2005 issue of “Pediatrics” (the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics).

Interestingly, a study released Nov. 9 by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicates that 77 percent of prime-time television programming contains “sexual content.” Sexual content included discussions about sex to scenes including everything from kissing to intercourse.

Kaiser studied a sample of a week’s worth of shows airing on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, PBS, Lifetime, TNT, USA Network and HBO. It found that programs averaged five sex scenes per hour. According to the study, the number of scenes involving sex has nearly doubled since 1998.

Media watchdog groups said the study proves there is too much sex on TV during the hours that kids could be watching. 

One conservative organization expressed concern, stressing that research clearly indicates that young people who have repeated exposure to media with sexual content become sexually active at an earlier age.

While the study did not offer an opinion on whether sex on TV is harmful to children, lead researcher Dale Kunkel said it's generally established that TV influences kids. 

"Their sexual knowledge, attitudes, behaviors are all shaped in part by the characters in stories that television conveys," he said.

However, the notion that something should be done about the sexual content on television was pooh-poohed by Jim Dyke, the executive director of TV Watch, an advocacy group made up of major media corporations that "advocate parental controls and oppose government intervention" into TV programming.

“Some activists will only see another opportunity to push government as parent,” Dyke said, “but parents make the best decisions about what is appropriate for their family to watch....”

The initial response by liberal groups to these two studies, released within days of each other, has been that more must be done to remove depictions of smoking from movies, but that sex-saturated television is nothing to be concerned about. 

When it comes to smoking, American society has waged an-all out war against lighting-up for the past 40 years. Cigarette packages must carry warning labels, and advertising of tobacco products is banned on television and radio. public service announcements remind everyone of the dangers of smoking.  

Our culture does everything in its power to discourage people, especially teens, from puffing on cancer sticks. 

The result? Smoking is viewed negatively by a majority of Americans. So much so that on Nov. 8, voters in Washington State passed a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places.

However, when it comes to the subject of teen sex, society seems to be, at best, ambivalent.

Media and advertising aimed at teenagers is saturated with sexually charged imagery. Yet anyone who even suggests a curb to the titillating content is labeled prudish. 

The main message American society sends to teens about sex is “be safe, be responsible, be ready.” Liberals scoff at the suggestion of promoting sexual abstinence as the best policy to teens. 

If anti-smoking groups had taken the “safe and responsible” approach that current American society does toward teen sex, then smoking would not be viewed as the unhealthy vice that it is. 

When Americans get as alarmed about sex-saturated media as they do about smoke-filled movies, then and only then will we begin to see a society, and teenagers, that respect sex as a precious gift to be shared by a man and a woman only in marriage.
--30--


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

Carson-Newman to honor disputed author Ralph Elliott
by Tammi Reed Ledbetter
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--The man whose view of biblical authority triggered an outcry among conservative Southern Baptists is being honored by Carson-Newman College as its 2005-06 distinguished alumnus.

Ralph Elliott, now living in Rochester, N.Y., will receive the award next April. He is a 1949 graduate of Carson-Newman, which is affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention.

After teaching Hebrew at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Elliott was enlisted in 1958 as one of the first faculty members of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where he taught Old Testament. In his book “The Message of Genesis” published by Broadman Press imprint of the Baptist Sunday School Board in 1961, he denied the historicity of Adam and Eve, rejected the Genesis flood as worldwide and asserted that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by natural causes.

How Elliott’s legacy is viewed depends on whom you ask, but conservative, moderate and liberal sympathizers agree that his first book moved the debate over scriptural integrity to a national level in the Southern Baptist Convention.

In a booklet widely distributed by those opposed to the SBC’s current leadership, titled “The Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention,” editor Rob James wrote of the “unexpected furor” surrounding Elliott’s work which brought the “inerrancy issue” to the forefront. “It was not a radical work, nor was it intended to be,” James, a longtime professor at the University of Richmond, stated.

“It was a simple, straightforward survey and theological interpretation of Genesis. Elliott said Genesis was written by a number of different inspired writers, rather than following the traditional view that Moses wrote it,” James explained, and Elliott held that “the first eleven chapters of Genesis were divinely intended as a symbolic account rather than as literal history.”

Millard Berquist, then-president of Midwestern Seminary, called Elliott’s manuscript “one of the finest pieces of biblical scholarship produced by Southern Baptists.” Today’s MBTS president, R. Philip Roberts, however, finds it more accurate to describe Elliott’s work as “Midwestern’s contribution to the controversy” that prompted the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message doctrinal statement. Later, a more concise expression of confidence in the Word of God occurred with the 2000 BF&M revision, Roberts added.

Baptist historian Jerry Sutton stated in his book, “The Baptist Reformation,” that the emerging conservative reformation might have been stopped if Midwestern and trustees of the former Sunday School Board had concluded Elliott’s writings were “incompatible with Southern Baptists’ doctrinal confession,” while also acknowledging other theological problems.

Ultimately, Elliott was fired for insubordination when he refused trustee demands that he not republish the work that had brought protest to both Midwestern and the Sunday School Board. He went on to pastor American Baptist churches and serve in various educational administrative positions with schools of that denomination.

Former Carson-Newman President Cordell Maddox, in an announcement circulated about Elliott’s selection as a distinguished alumnus, said he is “an outstanding graduate who has served in many important positions of leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention and American Baptist Convention.”

Walter B. Shurden of Mercer University’s faculty and a former Carson-Newman faculty member, stated, “Never encumbered by ambition, status or security, Dr. Elliott has set an example for all Baptists by his quiet courage, a courage that refused to permit political tides to silence his convictions about the truth of Holy Scripture as he interpreted it.”

Former Midwestern Seminary trustee Roger “Sing” Oldham, pastor of First Baptist Church in Martin, Tenn., called the selection of Elliott “disappointing, but not surprising” in light of other concerns he has expressed regarding Carson-Newman College.

“I don’t know the criteria upon which he was chosen and it could be that he has had a conversion back to radical fidelity to the Scripture -- in which case this could be a positive thing -- but based on what I know of him it is disappointing.”

In the Carson-Newman announcement circulated to alumni, Amy S. Reed, associate director of alumni relations, relayed the results of the 2005-06 Alumni Awards Selections Committee and stated that the action was approved by the board of trustees.

C-N alumni relations director David Buchanan declined to name members of the selection committee and referred calls to the public relations director who was unavailable. A committee of alumni and college representatives screen nominations from alumni, faculty, administration and staff, alumni chapters or friends of the school before making the selection that is forwarded to trustees for approval.

Elliott will join 133 alumni or friends of Carson-Newman College who “through their achievements in a profession, human service or religious endeavors or through faithful service to the college, have brought honor and distinction” to the school, according to the website at www.cn.edu. Other notable C-N distinguished alumni are Dal Shealy, former CEO of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the late Homer Lindsay, longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla.

Located in Jefferson City, Tenn., Carson-Newman College reports an enrollment of approximately 2,200 students. The current president is James S. Netherton. The school was founded in 1851 as a seminary to offer educational opportunities to Baptists in the region, with a name change some 30 years later that broadened the educational opportunities it offered.

Carson-Newman College, with a 33-member board of trustees, is one of four Christian education institutions affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention. According to Oldham, 14 of the CNC trustees are from the 26 churches in the Tennessee Baptist Convention that openly identify with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. By comparison, eight of the 38 Belmont trustees, one of the 23 Harrison-Chilhowee trustees and none of the 36 Union University trustees are from CBF churches in Tennessee.

With Belmont University deciding not to remain an affiliate institution of Tennessee convention, messengers to the annual meeting may allocate to Carson-Newman and Union University a half million dollars each from the reallocation of $2.3 million in Belmont funding.

TBC President Roger Freeman told the convention’s Baptist & Reflector newsjournal, “It is right and appropriate for a large portion of these mission funds to go to Union and Carson-Newman, Christian institutions which are seeking to strengthen their commitment to Baptist identity in biblical beliefs, Baptist leadership, and Cooperative Program support.”

Todd Stinnett, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Morristown, Tenn., not far from the Carson-Newman campus, said the selection of Elliott as a distinguished alumnus is pertinent to upcoming state convention’s annual meeting. He noted in an online commentary for Concerned Tennessee Baptists (www.concerned tnbap.com) that the Tennessee convention’s education committee report offered assurance that each member of the religion faculty of Carson-Newman believes the Bible to have God as its author, salvation as its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter, quoting from the Baptist Faith and Message.

In spite of Carson-Newman’s pledge that “every student leaves the classroom with a strong faith in the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible,” as Stinnett quoted from the report, he questions why the college would want to honor someone like Elliott. “One would think that Carson-Newman would want to honor someone who has spent his career defending the Bible’s inerrancy and historicity, but with the selection of Dr. Elliott for this most distinguished award they have done just the opposite.”

Stinnett added, “It appears as though Carson-Newman is attempting to represent themselves one way to TBC messengers, while acting in a completely different manner towards alumni, faculty, and other friends of the school.” He called on messengers to pray about the school’s relationship with the state convention and prepare to ask “some difficult questions of the school’s leadership.”

“As far as his being representative of what Southern Baptists were, are and will be in the near future, I do not think there would be anyone who would be less likely to have been chosen than Ralph Elliott,” Oldham added. “The fact that they chose him says an awful lot about where they are. If they think his contributions to biblical scholarship are laudatory then whoever the selection committee is and the approval committee among the trustees are clearly out of touch with who Southern Baptists and Tennessee Baptists are.”
--30--


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

Inerrancy, patriarchs affirmed in B&H Genesis commentary
by Kelly Davis
Date: November 11, 2005 - Friday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--About 45 years ago Broadman Press published a commentary on Genesis which sparked a theological controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention that lasted several decades. The commentary by a Southern Baptist seminary professor denied that Adam and Eve were historical persons or that God really commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.

Much has changed in the SBC since 1961, especially regarding Genesis.

Broadman & Holman Publishers this year has released the final volume of a two-volume commentary on Genesis by Kenneth A. Mathews -- the 35th volume in The New American Commentary series from the trade and academic books division of LifeWay Christian Resources since 1991.

Ray Clendenen, general editor of the series, said these volumes offer readers a different approach to the exposition of the Bible.

“The focus of The New American Commentary is a holistic approach, in that we look at a biblical book such as Genesis as a whole while commenting on individual verses,” said Clendenen, who has worked at Broadman & Holman for 13 years.

As the commentary writers worked on particular paragraphs or sections of their book, they aimed to explain how that section functions within the whole book and also what that book means in the context of the entire Bible.

Mathews also is the commentary series’ associate general editor and serves as professor of divinity in Old Testament and Hebrew at Alabama’s Beeson Divinity School and as Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. 

Mathews explained that the Genesis volumes give detailed attention to the literary shape of the text because “it is essential for understanding the original theological message of the passage.”

The commentary, in its literary-theological analysis, moves toward understanding the message of Genesis in the wider context of the Christian proclamation, which Mathews, as a Christian interpreter, underscored as paramount.

“After establishing the meaning of the passage in its original setting, the commentary pursues how it contributed to the revelation of the Christian faith,” Mathews said.

Genesis is traditionally sectioned into two major parts, so the second volume picks up at Genesis 11:27, a natural division in the 50-chapter book.

“The theological message is divided like that because the first 11 chapters of the book are essentially a preamble to the rest of the Bible, explaining why humanity needs redemption,” Clendenen said. “You’ve got the problem at the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. You finish reading the first 11 chapters and you come to the conclusion that we are really in a mess. We need some help.

“So God calls Abraham in Chapter 11 and the rest of the Bible is the story of God’s redemptive solution. From the beginning of Genesis, you get death in the Garden of Eden and then at the end of Genesis, you find Joseph in a coffin in Egypt. So it’s like a great episode of a story. You can’t help but say, ‘What's going to happen next?’” 

Clendenen explained that the 40 scholars serving as authors and editors of the NAC series are determined to produce volumes wholeheartedly committed to the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

“Biblical inerrancy is important not just because that’s what the Southern Baptist Convention has determined it believes. It is also what Christians through the centuries have believed,” Clendenen said, and more importantly, “If the Bible is the inspired Word of God as Jesus and the biblical writers affirm, then what it says is true in every sense -– it’s inerrant.” 

Mathews added, “Since we are convinced of the full trustworthiness of Scripture for faith and practice, we focus on the finished form of the text, that is, as the text stands.” 

In the past, the major critical issue in the second half of Genesis has been the reliability of the account of the patriarchs. Since 1961 biblical critics have questioned not only whether Abraham and his descendants acted as recorded in Genesis, but whether they existed at all except in the minds of storytellers a thousand years later. The commentary confirms the truth of the recorded patriarchal accounts, and Clendenen said the patriarchs do match what scholars know from other sources concerning the second millennium B.C. and what was happening at the time.

Mathews added that the patriarchal narratives are critical to understanding the salvation God has provided through Jesus Christ, noting that the New Testament begins with the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 

“The identity of Jesus is tied to the ancestors of Israel, the father of the Hebrew people,” Matthews said. “When the Apostle Paul appeals to an exemplar of saving faith, he points to the faith of Abraham and explains that the promise of blessing intended for all peoples is fulfilled in the Christian church made up of Jews and Gentiles.”

The commentary presents the traditional evangelical view of the historicity of the patriarchs, and Mathews substantiates the case by using ancient Near Eastern evidence and textual work of Hebrew exegesis.

“The commentary strives to respect the text as the Word of God and to hear its voice first and foremost,” Mathews said. “The commentary is devoted to serving the wider church community through scholarship that will better equip Christian preaching and nurture the people of God.”

The New American Commentary on Exodus by Douglas Stuart will be available in May 2006.
--30--



