Thursday, July 30, 2009

Flashy, cashy Rev. Ike is gone


Before current "prosperity gospel" preachers like Kenneth Copeland, Paula White and rightly-named Creflo Dollar hit our TV screens, there was the well-polished "Reverend Ike" calling his disciples to get wealthy by sending him money.

According to The New York Times, he has gone on to his "reward." Perhaps his prayer cloths will become collectors items on eBay now, giving his supporters another shot at some divinely-delivered cash.

The "prosperity gospel" is an oxymoron The first part is focused on oneself. The latter emphasizes self-giving. But selfishness and greed get excused in some church circles as long as they are neatly tagged as "blessings."

Saturday, July 25, 2009

In praise of editorial freedom


The editor was in Germany so the phone call to The Christian Index office was forwarded to me (the managing editor at the time). It was an influential pastor and elected leader of the Georgia Baptist Convention (GBC) wanting to spend some of his influence.

He had a news tip for me regarding the upcoming GBC presidential election: the current GBC president was not running for a customary second term and another pastor had been tapped for the position by the inner circle.

He instructed me to put the story on the front page of the next issue along with a letter of endorsement he was sending. He wanted me to stand guard over the fax machine for the next several minutes as the secret, crucial information was transmitted.

Then he said I needed to be sure that no other candidate's name would arise in print before the readers saw this planned nomination and endorsement.

I thanked him for sharing this information and affirmed it to be newsworthy. A story about the candidate's nomination would go in the next issue, I said.

Then, I added, his letter to the editor would likely be placed in the appropriate section of the following issue since that section for the upcoming issue was full.

He became agitated that I was not responding to each demand with a hearty "Yes, sir." I kindly explained that news (a candidate not running for a second term and another being nominated to take his place) is appropriate for the front page. The letter to the editor, however, was not. Neither would it be placed ahead of other letters.

His voice became more threatening telling me the convention owns the newspaper (as if I didn't know that) and how much influence he had in the convention, and so on. He wanted me to know that he could get this done with my help or not.

It was the beginning of the end — or ends. For me, it was the first step toward voluntarily leaving the historic newspaper and 18 years of employment with the convention.

Fundamentalism has no regard for a free press. Shaping and controlling the information getting to the people is an important tool for fundamentalists. (That's why bloggers drive them crazy; they can't control them.)

Also, it was the beginning of the end for any semblance of editorial freedom and fairness of news coverage for the venerable publication. The gifted editor (who was criticized by one pastor for being "too fair") was replaced by a loyal mouthpiece of the convention powerbrokers.

Now, a decade later and because of that earlier experience, I celebrate the editorial freedom granted to me by the Baptists Today Board of Directors, donors and subscribers.

They may disagree with my editorial positions or have different ideas about what topics deserve coverage. But our independence frees us from attempted intimidation or other efforts to control the flow of information to benefit one's political agenda.

Texas Baptist leader David Currie (a Baptists Today director), in praising Baptist media with genuine editorial freedom, said in a recent commentary: "All of us need to remember and cherish how special it is to be a part of a free Baptist movement — and to have an independent news source that provides us with all of the news accurately, good and bad, gratifying and heart-breaking."

Having seen the other side, I do cherish editorial freedom — and the responsibility that comes with it.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Roger's 'dangerous ideas'


Last night I shared with the congregation of Vineville Baptist Church in Macon, Ga., about the significant contributions of early Baptist leader Roger Williams. It was the first in a series of Wednesday evening presentations I will give over the next few weeks in recognition of the 400th birthday of the Baptist movement.

My already deep appreciation for Williams was increased a few years ago by reading Edwin Gaustad's superb biography released by Oxford University Press in 2005.

Well ahead of his time, Williams did not accept the religious practices and social behaviors of his day just because they were familiar. He examined them carefully in light of the biblical revelation that culminates in Jesus Christ.

As a result, Williams was stubbornly committed to the biblical concepts of human freedom and human worth. Such commitments would not mesh well with those who valued racial superiority and government-controlled religious practices.

According to Gaustad, Williams and his wife, Mary, came from England to New England in 1631 to a warm welcome. The governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony deemed him "a godly minister."

But Williams did not stay in favor with government and church officials for long. Two primary convictions kept him at odds with those seeking to run the emerging government and the church.

One, Williams opposed the idea of an established church. Two, he (to quote Gaustad) "was especially troubled by the use of the Christian religion to do a very un-Christian deed: namely, depriving the Indians of their own property without due compensation or negotiation."

Roger Williams believed with all his heart that authentic faith could only be voluntary. He even opposed having sworn testimonies end with "So help me God" — noting that making an unbeliever swear to God was to cause the Lord's name to be taken in vain.

His emphasis on a personal affirmation of faith also led him to embrace believer's baptism as opposed to the common practice of infant baptism.

Williams believed that all persons are of equal value in the eyes of God. He embraced the affirmation of the disciple and early church leader Peter who said: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism." (Acts 10:34 NIV)

So, when expelled from the Colony, Williams wandered for weeks in bitter winter conditions before purchasing land from Native Americans that would become the modern city and state of Providence, R.I.

There Williams and others would work relentlessly to create a place of welcome for all persons. As a result, the governing documents of Providence guaranteed "liberty of conscience."

Williams spearheaded the founding of the First Baptist Church in America in 1638, a congregation that is still active in Providence. Though he did not remain a Baptist for long, his contributions cannot be diminished.

On more than one occasion, these convictions were called "dangerous" by those possessing political and religious power at the time. But thank God for Roger Williams' "dangerous ideas" that:
1. God shows no favoritism.
2. Faith in Christ is an individual choice.
3. Baptism is for believers.
4. The government should never force religious practices on a person.
5.In government and in church, there should be room for dissent and diverse opinions without suppression or exclusion.

As we mark the historic milestone of four centuries of the Baptist movement, Roger Williams' "crazy ideas" are worth embracing, celebrating and protecting.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Peer pressure not just for youth


"If everybody's mother let them jump off a cliff...?"

Well, something like that is the patented parental response to the adolescent urge to do and be just like one's friends. Peer pressure can be both a serious problem (leading to dangerous and destructive behavior as well as loss of identity) or a positive influence (if the peers push each other toward achievement).

While a real issue for many children and youth, peer pressure does not necessarily go away like pimples and giggles. Based solely on my ongoing observations in one setting, I am led to believe that peer pressure impacts many adults — often parents of adolescents — as well.

In the community where I live there is a remarkable sense of sameness among 30- and 40-something parents who drive almost-matching hefty SUVs with window stickers promoting their private school choice, their child's athletic prowess, their favored beach destination.

Social status in the community seems to rule much of young adult behavior including membership in country clubs, civic organizations and even churches.

There are still many who have yet to learn that our personal value comes from being created and loved by God — not from anything we can obtain or attain. One of the creative wonders of God is our unique individualism that cannot be masked by our silly attempts at social cloning.

Friday, July 17, 2009

The price of peace ... in Missouri


What is the price of peace? For Southern Baptists in Missouri the latest invoice is $100,000 according to a report from Baptist Press.

This bill comes after years of Missouri Baptist Convention leadership pouring lots of money into failed legal attempts to regain control of five breakaway agencies. Now, according to this latest report, the MBC Executive Board adopted the final report of a "Peace Committee" and approved expending up to $100,000 from reserve funds to "pursue biblical reconciliation between two conservative groups in the state."

Missouri Baptists seem to specialize in division. After fundamentalists took over the state convention, more moderate Baptists left. Some formed and affiliated with a state organization of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). Then, however, others formed a rival convention (the Baptist General Convention of Missouri) and kept trying to fund Southern Baptist missions even as SBC leaders sought to reject their gifts.

Then further division occurred within the conservative/fundamentalist element left within the now-smaller MBC. The Peace Committee was formed in April 2008 to referee between the fundamentalist "Save Our Convention" group and the real, real fundamentalist Missouri Baptist Laymen's Association — led by Roger Moran.

Moran is well known in Southern Baptist circles for his guilt-by-association attacks on a wide range of fellow Baptists. His latest target is fellow conservatives with ties to the emerging church.

"I'm just happy it turned out the way the Lord sees it to be," said Jody Shelenhamer, a member of First Baptist Church in Bolivar and the board member who made the motion to create the Peace Committee, according to the report. "...You spend your money where your priorities are, so I'm very excited about the willingness to spend some money to make this a priority to pray and to reach reconciliation with any brother or sister who may be offended. I think we need to do that in the whole state. I love that we're going to get together and pray and try to have some church health.

May they live happily ever after.

What?

The report continues: "In introducing the report to the Board, (Chairman Jeff) Purvis (pastor of First Baptist Church in Herculaneum-Pevely, Mo.) acknowledged that not all the issues between the groups have been resolved."

Uh, oh.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Bless Arthur


Arthur Blessitt quickly became one of the more recognizable figures of the "Jesus Movement" (hippie Christians) of the late '60s and early '70. He helped to make Christianity cool for young people of that era — like me.

We put his little round "Smile, God loves you!" stickers on our cloth-covered "Good News for Modern Man" New Testaments. Along with "One Way" T-shirts and Ichthus medallions around our necks, we were styling for Jesus.

Of course, Blessitt is best known for walking around with a large cross ... and walking, and walking, and walking, and walking...

My only personal encounter was brief and by accident. In an oddly fitting event, the Southern Baptist Convention held its 1989 annual meeting in Las Vegas.

Blessitt was invited to address a pre-convention evangelism conference. At the conclusion, Blessitt took up his cross and headed down the Vega Strip with hundreds of preachers in tow — handing out New Testaments and Gospel tracts to suspects like me in non-preacher attire.

I was headed from my hotel pool to the mall at that time in search of air conditioning and a Schlotsky's original sandwich. Getting there was nearly impossible due to Blessitt's followers attempting to gang-save me several times.

While Blessitt has received his share of praise and criticism (some well deserved) over the decades, I'm not standing in judgment. He may be odd, but such could be said of most Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist. Undeniably, however, he is persistent.

From Christmas 1969 through June 2008, he walked over 38,000 miles with his familiar large wooden cross. For those interested in the details, he has written a book about his journeys titled "The Cross."

"One of the privileges of carrying a cross around the world is meeting all kinds of beautiful people," said Blessitt in an interview related to the release of his book. Then he added the following explanation:

"Just as Jesus related to all people, I have tried to do that myself as I carry his cross. In our world today, it seems few of us desire or are able to relate to various kinds of people. I’ve had encounters with world-famous people like Pope John Paul II, Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat. I’ve also shared meals with the poorest of the poor, the homeless. I’ve slept in remote villages where mine was the first white face any of the people had seen. And always, I have been awed by the beauty and joy of the children. In God’s view (and in mine), all of these people are equally valued and equally loved."

Good point, Arthur. Makes our "normal" lives seem quite boring in contrast. Walk on.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The stars have dimmed

Throughout my youth the Major League Baseball All-Star Game was a television event not to be missed. It was the rare opportunity to see the best players in baseball at one time.

Additionally, National League hitters would step to the plate against American League pitchers — for the only time that year other than the World Series: Mantle v. Gibson, Clemente v. Catfish, etc.

They all got together for one big night: Aaron, Killebrew, Koufax, Robinson et al. Just to see them on one field was a thrill.

Fast-forward to 2009. I will probably watch some of tonight's All-Star Game unless a more thrilling episode of "House Hunters" in on HGTV. The luster is gone.

It has nothing to do with my love of the sport. I watch more baseball on TV and in person than ever before.

But in an effort to reach new fans and boost television ratings, MLB keeps adding gimmicks that water down the experience for those who truly understand and enjoy this remarkable sport. For one, having uninformed or understandably biased fans pick the starting players is a joke.

Inter-league play is another bad idea. Sure, it was neat seeing Jeter, Tex and A-rod at Turner Field recently. But it will make the World Series less special if (OK, a real big "if") the two teams surge in the second half and face each other in the Fall Classic. (My Sunday school teachers taught me to believe in miracles.)

So to see players from the two leagues on the same field now is no big deal. (And, worse, inter-league play has created an unbalanced schedule meaning that teams playing for a division title are not facing the same competition.)

And with the way players move from to team to team now, some of the All-Stars may have to look at their jerseys to remember which league they represent this year.

Of course there are other gimmicks like the atrocious designated hitter rule that has turned the AL into pseudo-baseball. Managers in that league no longer "manage" — just keep roll. Gone is the art of a double-switch or having to handle a bullpen.

Increased television exposure may have lessened some interest in the All-Star Game, but I doubt it. Watching more baseball on TV seems to increase the interest.

In Denver recently, I met Braves fans from places like Montana and Utah whose allegiance was built during the Super Station era of nightly televised games. That loyalty caused them to travel good distances to see their favorite team.

Baseball is a perfect game. After all of these years (with high tech equipment and high-powered athletes), a soft grounder to short still makes for a close play at first. Pitchers and hitters — set 60 feet and six inches apart — still battle without distinctive advantages over the other.

But like everything else in life, the imperfection comes from our human engagement. That is, when we start messing around with stuff.

Since we (in Macon, Ga.) lost our minor league team to Rome, Ga., a few years ago, I guess the All-Star Game is my best baseball option tonight. It might even be fun to watch. Indeed, a lot of talent will be on hand.

Perhaps I'll stick with it longer than the interminable home run derby last night.

At the least the All-Star Game is filler until the real stuff gets going again — when I'll be looking for opportunities to catch as many games as possible in the big stadiums and small parks along the way.

[PHOTO: Friday night rain delay at lovely Coors Field in Denver, one of the best baseball experiences in America.]

[Now for matters of greater interest and substance, keep following Tony Cartledge through the Holy Land at this link.]

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Believe it or not


You can call me lots of things — but gullible is not one of them. I have never assumed that new products work as magically as the late pitchman Billy Mays said they did.

One adage I've long taken to heart: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

TV-pushed products, through 60-second ads or 30-minute infomercials, probably vary in quality. (Don't think I've ever order one.) But there is one aspect that always turns me away — aside from the announcer's intensity.

It's the added: "And that's not all." After making great claims for a new product, an offer of another great product "for free" is thrown in. The "bonus" always makes me think the primary product must come up short of its claims.

One approach to being a wise consumer involves references. We find out what kind of experiences others have had with a product or service.

The emergence of the Internet widened the circle for feedback. Various forums allow for a wide range of individuals to offer praise or condemnation of just about anything being offered for sale.

But now this:

A recent article in Parade magazine (if you can believe them!) claims that companies now pay about $1.6 billion a year to get persons to post positive views about their products in online forums.

You mean the guy in Jersey who just put the best set of tires he has ever owned on his Mustang may have been paid by the tire manufacturer for saying so? You mean the cruise line may have paid the well-traveled couple to claim that their ship surpasses the competition by many knots?

Social websites like Facebook are also formats where paid-endorsers readily sing the praises of particular products and services, according to the article. The Federal Trade Commission is considering its regulation options.

"When you're being paid to promote a product, you usually have to disclose the relationship between you and the advertiser," an FTC official is quoted as saying.

Hmmm. That must be why infomercials put "paid endorser" on the bottom of the screen when an aging TV or movie star pumps their goods.

Oh, well. Even in the more trivial aspects of life, belief is not so easy.

Belief is an important part of our lives. The challenge is in the discernment — making wise choices about what to believe.

[PS: Travel through Israel with Tony here.]

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

A blog about blogging


Online editor Bruce Gourley urged me for years to add a blog to the Baptists Today website. He found an ally when Tony Cartledge became a contributing editor.

Tony had been blogging as editor of the Biblical Recorder in North Carolina. So he was ready to keep writing web logs.

I reluctantly agreed to write two blogs a week. Tony suggested that I do them on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. (Math never was my strong suit, so I fell for it.)

Alternating blogs with Tony has been an enjoyable experience over the past couple of years. He is more faithful than me to post new material even in the midst of vacations or other travel.

Here are a few observations about this unique communications outlet that has gained some of my attention since Aug. 14, 2007.

One, blogging three times a week is the maximum. My original goal of two would be preferred. My friend Ed Grisamore, a newspaper columnist, tried a daily blog. It lasted for a year before burnout got him. Now he is back at a more reasonable pace.

Two, blogging is a lot like preaching. Sometimes you have something to say and sometimes you just have to say something. (Like today when a publishing deadline is breathing down my neck.)

Three, the feedback, even when limited is appreciated. It is interesting that responses come in the form of posted remarks, private emails and discussion in other online forums.

There is also joy in bumping into people who tell me they read the blog regularly but have never responded.

So many thanks to all who visit this blog regularly and occasionally. I enjoy this creative outlet (on most Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays) and appreciate those who dare to respond.

Especially, I'm grateful for those who post responses to my blog — even those who think I'm Tony, or post in Chinese, or strongly disagree with my conclusions. Even my friend in Collinsville, Ala., who always tells me what to read and do — just in case all my ideas have dried up.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

How we work today


With widespread Internet access and hand-held communication devices, the good news is many of can work just about anytime and anyplace.

The bad news, of course, is that we can work just about anytime and anyplace.

One summer, as a mid-teen, I was offered work salvaging building materials. The long-haired Vietnam vet who hired me would buy and tear down old government buildings to sell the lumber, copper, windows, doors and other usable materials.

Two strapping men — about twice my age and size — were already on the job. They could swing sledgehammers, back out nails and stack reclaimed materials at blazing speed.

So at the end of the first day, my new employer — who paid those two men a whopping $3 an hour — told me I was worth about $1.50 an hour to him. My self-esteem crashed.

In hindsight, however, I saw his point. He was not talking about my value as a human being, but my value to his business. The other guys could simply produce more of what he needed in a given hour.

Though I have worked many jobs at an hourly wage, my professional career has been salary based. But, even then, success was often measured by the number of hours “at work.”

The late pastor Brantley Seymour, with whom I worked at the First Baptist Church of Roswell, Ga., in the summer of 1978, taught me much. He had a gifted staff of creative and capable ministers.

“I never tell a professional to get to work,” Brantley told me one day. “Professionals should be self-starters.”

A professional who is lazy, undependable or irresponsible should no longer be an employee, he explained. As a recent college graduate headed to seminary, I took his point to heart.

Over the years, my own supervisory style has become one that focuses on effectiveness, efficiency and productivity over busyness. And my personal approach to work causes me to be more demanding of myself than those to whom I am accountable.

But advanced communications technology is impacting the daily work habits of many in ways not previously known. It creates both wonderful opportunities — as well as new challenges.

Instant communication increases the expectation that a message — regardless of what day or time of day it is sent — deserves an immediate response. And, even when “off” from work, it is hard for many of us to have devices like BlackBerrys out of our reach.

Cell phone and email messages are often a mixture of personal and professional correspondence — making it hard to give attention to one while ignoring the other.

So the lines between work and personal time get blurred — requiring our careful attention to finding the right balance in our daily lives. Even vacations — times that refresh us to be more productive workers — can get cluttered with attention to work no matter how far we roam from home.

Yet being able to work in coffee shops, or airports (as I’m doing at this moment), or late at night in the comfort of a recliner is a great advantage. But it does seem filled with potential for abuse.

Being keenly aware of this dilemma created by growing communication technology and seeking a proper balance in our management of time seem to be the right course of action to me.

But for those who don’t clock in at 9 and out at 5 on weekdays — or can leave work behind on evenings and weekends — there is more consideration to be given to the important question of how we work. Everything from health to priorities becomes part of the equation.