Associated Baptist Press
December 10, 2008 · (08-121)
David Wilkinson, Executive Director
Robert Marus, Acting Managing Editor/Washington Bureau Chief
Bob Allen, Senior Writer
In this issue
President Bush discusses faith in TV interview (542 words)
'True Woman' movement seeks counter-revolution to feminism (774 words)
Mo. appeals court hears latest round in Windermere dispute (774 words)
Guest opinion: Public ban on Christmas symbols (764 words)
President Bush discusses faith in TV interview
By Bob Allen (542 words)
WASHINGTON (ABP) -- In a television interview broadcast Dec. 8, President Bush said he doesn't know if God wanted him to be president, doubts the Bible is literally true, agrees you can believe in God and evolution simultaneously and believes Christians and those of other faiths pray to the same God.
In the segment for ABC's "Nightline," Bush said he is "not so presumptuous as to be God" in knowing whether God picked him out of all the people in the world to be president.
"I just can't go there," he said. "I'm not that confident in knowing the Almighty to be able to say, 'Yeah, God wanted me, of all the other people.' But, you know, did God want me to be president? I don't know."
Bush said that, had he been asked if he believed God told him to run for president and guaranteed he would win, he would have replied emphatically. "The answer is absolutely not," he said. "Did it help to know that prayer would inform me during tough moments? Absolutely."
Bush described the Bible as "an amazing book," and ABC's Cynthia McFadden asked him if the Bible is literally true.
"You know, probably not," the president said. "No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."
Bush said it is possible to believe God created the Earth while accepting the science of evolution and that Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God.
"I do believe there's an Almighty that is broad and big enough, loving enough that encompass a lot of people," he said. "I don't think God is a narrow concept. I think it's a broad concept. I just happen to believe the way to God is through Christ, and others have different avenues toward God, and I believe we pray to the same Almighty. I do."
The president added that does not mean he and the leader of the Taliban worship the same deity.
"I'm not so sure he's praying to a God," he said. "I think anybody who murders innocent people to achieve their objective is not a religious person. Now they think they're religious and they may play like they are religious, but I don't think they are religious. They're not praying to the God I pray to, the God of peace and love."
Bush said he is sometimes unfairly painted as viewing people who are not Christians as inferior to him. While he was governor of Texas, he said, a reporter asked him if you have to believe in Christ to go to heaven. Bush said he told the reporter the Bible says that, but Billy Graham once told him not to play God. The writer left out the Billy Graham part, and a lot of people in Texas read in their newspaper, "Bush to Jews: Go to hell."
"It was unbelievably unfair, but it's an interesting lesson, that you cannot underestimate how people can misread religion and religious intent," the president said. "I'm sure people will say George Bush is a Christian and therefore he can't possibly relate to me or he doesn't like me, or he thinks I'm condemned. I'm sorry that's the case, because that's not the way I feel."
Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
'True Woman' movement seeks counter-revolution to feminism
By Bob Allen (774 words)
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (ABP) -- A group of conservative Christian women is seeking 100,000 signatures on a "True Woman Manifesto" aimed at sparking a counter-revolution to the feminist movement of the 1960s.
Introduced at a gathering of more than 6,000 women in early October, the document calls not for equal rights, but instead proclaims that men and women are created to reflect God's image in "complementary and distinct ways."
That includes the idea that women are called "to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church."
"That is very explosive stuff," organizer Mary Kassian described the campaign Nov.25 on a radio program hosted by Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "It is countercultural, because the world would be screaming at us, women would be screaming at us: 'What are you doing? All those rights that we fought so hard for, how can you say 'ust give that up and say that men are to be the heads of the homes?'
"The basis on which we do that is because we believe that is taught in Scripture," Kassian explained. "And we believe that is a blessing for women and not a curse against women, and that actually when we live according to God's design, we find blessing and peace and wholeness in our lives."
The idea for the True Woman '08 Conference held Oct. 9-11 and webcast from Schaumburg, Ill., came as Kassian -- an author, speaker and distinguished professor at the Louisville, Ky.-based seminary -- and Christian radio broadcaster Nancy Leigh DeMoss discussed how feminism revolutionized women's lives.
Recognizing that revolution began with a meeting of only a few women, they asked why there couldn't be a similar movement sparked by a meeting of women driven not by feminist ideals, but by teachings of the Bible.
"We are believing God for a movement of reformation and revival in the hearts and homes of Christian women all around this world," DeMoss said in the conference's closing address. "I just believe there is a massive women's movement of true women in those millions of women who are able to capture all kinds of battlefronts for Christ."
DeMoss said there are "a lot of truly desperate housewives" in homes and churches, who are not finding fulfillment in what God intended for them to be.
Kassian told the gathering that women have come a long way in the last 50 years, but not always in the right direction. While they may not have been able to identify the source of their values, she said, the idea of complementary roles for men and women was part of the social landscape until after the 1950s.
In the 1950s, for example, the Cleaver family in TV sitcom "Leave it to Beaver" exemplified the ideal suburban family. In contrast, she said, during the last decade media images overwhelmingly portrayed women as being in charge, while men were "marginalized and de-masculinized" into characters that are whiny, needy, not-too-bright and totally unreliable.
Kassian said even Christian women have been influenced more by feminism more than they realize, including the idea that patriarchy -- the idea of submitting to male authority -- is the source of all their heartache and problems.
Kassian told radio host Al Mohler the solution is not going back to the 19th century but to Scripture. Instead of "wimpy women," she said the movement is out to recruit women who are "doctrinally strong and theologically strong" and who will "study and search Scripture and come to scriptural conclusions."
"I believe part of the reason the feminist movement was so successful throughout the '60s was that you had a whole culture that was just living by [a] Judeo-Christian framework in the '50s, without really thinking about [it]. And then when feminism came in with these new ideas, a lot of Christian women even began to embrace them," she said.
"We are interested in a countercultural movement," Kassian said, that looks nothing like "Leave it to Beaver" or the 1950s.
"True Woman is taking the Bible and God's plan for womanhood and applying it to my life today in this millennium, in this year, and for what that looks like for single women, for married women, for women at all stages of life," Kassian said.
Mohler, along with Kassian a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, termed the manifesto "a very important document."
"These are shots that ought to be heard around the world." Mohler said.
The effort has a long way to go before reaching its goal of 100,000 signatures. As of midday Dec. 10, the number of online signers stood at 2,667.
Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
Mo. appeals court hears latest round in Windermere dispute
By Vicki Brown (774 words)
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (ABP) -- Both sides in the legal dispute between the Missouri Baptist Convention and a breakaway agency faced tough questions at a recent hearing before an appellate panel.
The Nov. 25 argument in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District concerned Windermere Baptist Conference Center, which removed itself from the fundamentalist-controlled convention's control in 2001. Two members of a three-judge panel suggested that messengers to the 2000 MBC annual meeting did not fully understand the charter under which Windermere would be governed when they approved making the center a separate entity.
The appellate judges also suggested that the convention's attorney at the time should have added restrictions on Windermere in the original charter if the convention did not want Windermere trustees to have the power to make charter changes.
Western District Chief Judge Thomas Newton, Judge Joseph Dandurand and Judge James Welsh heard the case. A decision likely will not be handed down until after Jan. 1.
The appeal hearing is the latest round in legal action the MBC took against Windermere, the Baptist Home, Missouri Baptist University, Word & Way and the Missouri Baptist Foundation. The suit is an attempt to force the entities to rescind changes they had made in their corporate charters that allowed trustees to appoint their own successors rather than the convention doing so.
The Baptist Home retirement-home system changed its articles of incorporation in 2000 to elect its own trustees. The other four entities took the same action in 2001. The convention filed suit on Aug. 13, 2002.
The latest argument came on an appeal of Cole County Judge Richard Callahan's ruling that Windermere's trustees acted legally when they changed the center's articles of incorporation.
His decision centered on two main aspects of the convention's contention -- corporate membership and a contractual relationship with Windermere. The judge ruled the MBC is not a member of Windermere's corporation and that no contract exists between the two entities.
In the latest hearing, lead MBC attorney Michael Whitehead centered his appeal argument on membership. He argued that Windermere had granted the convention the right to vote for its trustees. Therefore, he said, the MBC was a statutory member of Windermere's corporation.
When Judge Dandurand questioned the membership claim, Whitehead acknowledged that Windermere's charter states that the corporation has no members.
Whitehead suggested that former MBC executive director Jim Hill deliberately included the no-member clause so that trustees could take over control of the conference center. However, Judge Welsh pointed out, the convention itself drafted Windermere's charter.
Windermere attorney Jim Shoemake argued that messengers to MBC annual meetings are delegates, and that delegates cannot be members under Missouri law. He noted that if a corporation has no members, the directors may amend the corporation's articles unless the charter specifically requires approval.
Windermere's purpose clause does not say that the conference center was created for the convention, but for Christian purposes, Shoemake said. That purpose has not changed, despite the convention's inability to control Windermere's leaders, he argued.
"But that agreement didn't work out the way messengers thought it would, did it?" Judge Dandurand countered.
"After all that has taken place, I would say that's probably true today," Shoemake responded.
Judge Welsh pointed out the case's legal complexity. "How do you expect those folks [messengers] to understand?" he asked.
Shoemake responded that the Baptist Home had made the same changes a year before Windermere did, so messengers were already aware of the issue. Nonetheless, during the 2000 MBC annual meeting, they still voted down a motion to delay the final approval of Windermere as a Missouri Baptist agency separate from the MBC Executive Board.
The Nov. 25 hearing marked the second MBC appeal in the seven-year legal action. In 2005, appellate judges sent the initial case back to Cole County after the convention appealed former Cole County Judge Thomas Brown's March 11 dismissal of the legal action against the university.
Judge Brown ruled the Executive Board and six churches that filed the original lawsuit did not have the legal right to do so, and he applied the ruling to all five institutions. The appeals court overruled the Cole County judge on the Executive Board's standing, but upheld his decision regarding the six churches.
The MBC filed separate legal action against the conference center in 2006 for selling property as part of a refinancing plan. That case has been suspended pending the outcome of the appeal of the original case.
Judge Callahan suspended legal action involving the other four institutions until after the Windermere appeal process has been completed. He had decided to try each of the five separately.
-- Vicki Brown is a Missouri-based freelance writer.
Guest opinion: Public ban on Christmas symbols may be great faith gift
By Norman Jameson (764 words)
(ABP) -- No trees adorned with twinkling lights will bless -- or aggravate -- visitors to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's two main libraries this year, according to a Dec. 5 story in the Raleigh News and Observer.
After many years of displaying Christmas trees in the libraries, this year the trees are stuck in storage because some library employees and patrons were bothered by the Christian display, according to Sarah Michalak, UNC's associate provost for university libraries.
Puritans temporarily banned Christmas celebrations in Boston in the 17th century. Since then, of course, our nation has gladly taken the Christian holy day to heart and even recognized it as a federal holiday.
Now, the tree ban at the libraries is another drop in a steady stream of protest that overtly Christian symbols (not that a decorated tree is overtly Christian) are unwelcome in many public venues of our pluralistic society. America hosts both adherents of many religions and advocates of none. More and more of them seem to resent the historic willingness of our society at large to accommodate the Christian celebration in December.
This could be a good thing.
I have reached an age at which it is too late to die young. During most of my life, Christian friends have lamented that Christmas is becoming too secularized; it is losing its religious meaning; businesses have appropriated the religious symbols of Christmas until they are nothing more than decorations to sell merchandise.
Saints have morphed to Santas; tributes are diluted to toys and holy days are simply holidays. And all this seasonal fiscal flavor is salted with crèches, camels and caravans; stars, sheep and shepherds; wise men, mangers and drummer boys.
If, as the English proverb says, familiarity breeds contempt, it is logical that Christmas symbols floating in the marketplace unattached to their religious meaning will themselves become meaningless.
Can it be that, when Christians advocate for symbols of faith in public venues, we contribute to the emasculation of their meaning?
As Christians, we want to live in a society that respects our right to believe and practice that belief in public as we see fit. That was easier when our nation was considered "Christian." Although unspoken and certainly unlegislated, there was a long era when being a Christian was "required" for a healthy business or election to political office or even to secure many jobs unrelated to religious work. It was an identity that greased the wheels of social interaction.
Christians felt good about that because we lived in a geographically massive Christian enclave that stretched 3,000 miles between two oceans. Non-Christians gritted their teeth and bore it during public prayers at football games or to open city-council meetings. To do otherwise would create a stink and backlash that would be unhealthy for business and for seamless meshing of societal gears in the PTA or grocery store.
Those days are gone as more non-Christians react negatively to overt Christian presence and pressure in public venues. Surprised and resentful that others would react negatively to a century or more of tradition and to our well-meaning and harmless efforts to infuse the atmosphere with happy reminders that Christ has come, we Christians have had our own negative reactions in return.
Perhaps we are reacting to the time 20 centuries earlier when the first Christians could only identify themselves covertly to each other, with a subtle fish drawn in the sand or a cross etched in a doorpost or woven discretely into a bracelet or necklace. No one joined the early Christian church to gain a political or commercial advantage. No one corrupted Christian observances with garish, impotent, ubiquitous displays whose purpose is to lift dollars from our pockets via gift purchases to "honor the Christ child" who would rather we feed his sheep.
What will it mean if the public forum gradually closes to overt displays of Christian symbolism?
Perhaps those consumed with consumption can continue their mind-numbing, bank-breaking bondage to "the holiday season," and those who celebrate the Christ of Christmas can busy ourselves with service and worship undeterred by the annual indigestion over how our special day has been corrupted.
Let those harried by holidays be tethered to expectation in an atmosphere absent symbols of our faith. It is not destructive to us. If Christian Christmas displays must disappear from courthouse lawns and public buildings and school houses, it will add spiritual meaning to displays of Christmas joy in the places where they belong: in the churches, yards, homes and hearts of people who truly love the Christ child.
-- Norman Jameson is editor of the Biblical Recorder, North Carolina Baptists' newspaper. This column originally appeared as a Dec. 5 post on his blog, Spoke'n.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment