Associated Baptist Press
March 18, 2009 · (09-39)
David Wilkinson, Executive Director
Robert Marus, Managing Editor/Washington Bureau Chief
Bob Allen, Senior Writer
In this issue
Judge: Controversial home-school ruling hinged on mother's church (582 words)
Evangelical groups protest new religion law in Kyrgyz Republic (615 words)
Church arson investigation brings new charges against former pastor (320 words)
Opinion: Why I am a heretic (1,231 words)
Judge: Controversial home-school ruling hinged on mother's church
By Bob Allen (582 words)
RALEIGH, N.C. (ABP) -- A North Carolina judge, whose recent ruling that a home-schooling mother must send her three children to public school stirred national controversy, said in a written order March 17 that his decision was based largely on concern that the woman's church is a dangerous cult.
Controversy erupted after Wake County Judge Ned Mangum ruled in a divorce case March 6 that Venessa Mills of Raleigh, N.C., must stop home schooling her children and send them to public school.
A March 11 story on the conservative website WorldNetDaily.com quoted Mangum as saying the mother had done a good job at home schooling, but it is time for the children to have a "more well-rounded education" in public school.
The order outraged home-school advocates, who said it violated her parental rights.
A friend of the mother, and a home-schooling mother of four, started a website called Homeschool Injustice to urge supporters to pressure public officials to have Mangum removed from the case.
The story appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer, gained the attention of Focus on the Family's CitizenLink action center and earned a link in the March 13 Drudge Report.
The editor of the North Carolina Baptist newspaper weighed in March 12 with a blog saying the ruling "raises the warning hackles of home-schooling families the nation over."
"I am not one who sees the tentacles of government under every bed, but home schooling has been proven a solid, effective and character-building method of education for the past generation," wrote Biblical Recorder Editor Norman Jameson. Jameson said parents are the best judges of how to educate their children and described Mangum's order as "scary stuff."
In his written court order, however, the judge said the two parents disagree about the children's education, leaving it up to the court to decide what is in the best interest of the minors.
Mangum said Thomas and Venessa Mills were happily married for many years, but the relationship began to change in 2005 when she left the church they attended together to join the Sound Doctrine Church, a Washington state group that witnesses described in sworn affidavits as a "cult."
One witness, a former member of the Sound Doctrine Church, told the court the group is run by fear and manipulation and is not a healthy place for children to grow up.
An online tract for the Sound Doctrine Church says what most churches have is not love, but rather "a thin veneer of polished flattery and token socializing."
"In order for Jesus to give life to our Bible studies, we must allow him to drive nails into our hands and feet," wrote former Sound Doctrine pastor Timothy Williams. "We must permit our very hearts and lives to be taken. If you are not willing to allow this to happen concerning your understanding of the Bible -- indeed, in everything you think you understand -- then you will not enjoy the love at Sound Doctrine Church."
Robyn Williams, the blogger who worked to mobilize support for Venessa Mills, said the wording of the final order is "substantially different" from the judge's earlier verbal ruling and attempted to "destroy the character and credibility" of the mother.
"The whole order is blatantly intended to shift the focus away from the issues of justice regarding home schooling, financial support, and adultery -- and instead use 'shock and awe' tactics to pull attention into a mudslinging free-for-all against Venessa Mills' church and religious beliefs," Williams wrote.
Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
Evangelical groups protest new religion law in Kyrgyz Republic
By Bob Allen (615 words)
(ABP) -- Evangelical leaders in the Kyrgyz Republic are protesting a new religion law they say significantly restricts religious freedom in the officially secular country.
A new law, titled "On the Freedom of Worship and Religious Organizations," took effect Jan. 16. The measure's stated intent is to address concerns about terrorism and other illegal activity by groups posing as religious organizations.
The former Soviet republic's constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the government has largely avoided meddling in religious affairs since the Central Asian country -- formerly called Kyrgyzstan -- gained independence in 1991. In recent years, however, officials have begun to restrict radical Islamic groups considered to be threats to national security.
Evangelical leaders, however, say the law ostensibly aimed at curbing religious extremism goes too far in restricting legitimate religious freedom.
The Evangelical-Christian Churches of the Kyrgyz Republic released an open letter March 15 voicing concern about the new law. The coalition, which includes the Kyrgyz Union of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists, said its members had repeatedly offered suggestions and proposals to government officials that were completely ignored in the new law.
The evangelical groups said the law infringes on religious liberty and contradicts the Kyrgyz Constitution. The leaders highlighted several concerns with the legislation. They include:
-- Its definition of rights and duties of local government to include ensuring "spiritual safety," a concept that evangelical leaders said is "too indistinct" and could open the door to excesses by local officials.
-- Its definition of a "sect" as a religious movement that separates from a confession for "reasons of dogma" in a way that "contradicts the interests of society." Evangelical leaders said the term "sect" has no place in a secular state and puts the government in the position of differentiating between legitimate and unacceptable doctrines.
-- Its ban on the involvement of children in religious organizations. Evangelical leaders said that is the same tactic used during Soviet times to forbid children of believing parents from attending church services, robbing children of religious freedom and denying parents the right to bring up their children according to their beliefs.
-- Its ban on "persistent activities directed at the conversion of believers from other faiths (proselytism)." Evangelical leaders said that flatly contradicts the Kyrgyz Constitution, which says the government will establish no state religion and that individual liberties include the right to change one's religion or belief.
-- Its increase from 10 to 200 the number of members that a religious body must have before it can be officially registered. Evangelical leaders said that, in the past, it was difficult even to ask 10 people to publicly state their creed, because it made them subject to difficulties. Increasing that figure, they said, will make it impossible for many Kyrgyz religious organizations to register and operate legally.
In its current form, evangelical leaders said the law will "cause tension and conflict in local situations," put the republic behind other nations in church-state relations and make it harder for religious organizations to gain or retain registration.
Bordering China in Central Asia, the Kyrgyz Republic is roughly the size of South Dakota. About 80 percent of its 5.3 million citizens are Muslim. Estimates of the Russian Orthodox population range from 11 percent to as low as 8 percent. A small Protestant population includes 48 registered Baptist churches, according to the United States State Department.
Islam is practiced widely in both urban and rural areas around the country, while Orthodoxy is predominantly practiced in Kyrgyz cities with larger ethnic Russian populations. Tensions exist in some rural areas between conservative Muslims and foreign Christian missionaries, as well as members of traditionally Muslim ethnic groups who convert to another religion.
Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
Church arson investigation brings new charges against former pastor
By Bob Allen (320 words)
BELTON, S.C. (ABP) -- A Southern Baptist pastor accused of setting fire to his own church March 8 now faces additional charges of breach of trust and filing a false police statement.
On March 13, sheriff's deputies in South Carolina charged Christopher Patrick Daniels, 40, with making a false report about vandalism at Blue Ridge Baptist Church in Belton, S.C., where he was pastor, the Anderson, S.C., Independent-Mail reported March 16.
The newspaper quoted deputies as saying that Daniels filed four incident reports with the Anderson County Sheriff's Office claiming gang-related vandalism at the church between Dec. 13 and Jan. 23.
Television station WYFF-4 in nearby Greenville, S.C. reported that investigators say the church was vandalized once by someone else in December before Daniels called in four more reports of vandalism, each time filing an insurance claim.
On March 12 the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division announced an additional charge against Daniels of breach of trust with fraudulent intent, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The arrest warrant said Daniels received more than $5,000 belonging to the church for his personal use between Jan. 6 and March 9 of this year.
The new charges are on top of a charge of second-degree arson, a crime that carries a sentence of up to 25 years.
Police arrested Daniels after he reported that he unlocked the church March 8 and found it filled with smoke. It was determined early that the fire was intentionally set after investigators found evidence they said pointed to Daniels.
As of March 16, Daniels was being held at the Anderson County Detention Center in lieu of bonds totaling $40,000, according to the Independent-Mail.
Blue Ridge Baptist Church, formerly known as Triangle Baptist Church, was reportedly Daniels' first congregation, and he had been there less than a year. The church, formed in 1900, is affiliated with the Southern Baptist and South Carolina Baptist conventions.
Bob Allen it is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.
Opinion: Why I am a heretic
By Miguel De La Torre (1,231 words)
(ABP) -- Yes, I am a heretic -- but then, I'm getting ahead of myself.
As some of you might remember, I recently wrote what turned out to be the most controversial column in the history of Associated Baptist Press. It was based on one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament -- the Gospel story of Jesus calling a woman from another culture a "dog."
Yes, I know that Jesus and the Canaanite woman both probably had the same skin pigmentation. I used the modern label "woman of color" to describe the woman because the Jews of that time thought of themselves as superior to the Canaanites, much the same way some in the dominant culture look down at people of color in today's society.
Not only did it inspire what turned out to be -- by far -- the longest comment thread ever on ABP's site, but it also inspired quite a bit of conversation in the Baptist blogosphere. While, as an educator, there are few things I desire to do more than generate conversation, much of it, in this case, was bombastic.
I was accused, in the story's comment section alone, of "reprehensible" theology, of spouting "theologically dishonest trash," of dragging Jesus Christ into the gutter" and of being "a thorough-going pagan who has no relationship with Jesus." And that was just in the first six of 45 comments!
It was as if I was being called a "dog" (sorry - I couldn't resist the irony).
As I read everything people said about me, I did agree with one accusation I saw repeated several times: that I am a heretic. I am a heretic because I read Scripture for what it says, not what I want it to say. (Never thought being literal would get me into trouble with conservatives and fundamentalists -- go figure..) Scripture states, plainly, that Jesus called this woman a "dog."
Now, to be sure, mine was a "non-traditional" interpretation of this passage. Traditionally -- or, at least, in the 30 or 40 years since white American evangelicals have come to the consensus that racial and ethnic prejudice is sinful -- evangelicals have dispatched with the passage by saying Jesus was simply being sarcastic in calling the Canaanite woman a "dog."
I acknowledge that this is certainly a legitimate way to approach the text. But I don't think the way I approached the text is any less legitimate, nor does my approach take the text less seriously than the "traditional" interpretation. No matter how much we try to explain the passage away, a plain reading of it remains problematic.
And, if you actually read the column carefully, you'll notice I never said Jesus was a racist or a sinner. I simply raised the question. But at the very least, he was tempted, as he was in the desert and as he was in Gethsemane.
Many also thought I was being heretical by implying that Jesus learned something from the Canaanite woman's persistence in demanding aid from him. But do the Gospels themselves not tell us that the fully human Jesus, as he grew into his divinity, "increased in wisdom and stature and favor with God" (Luke 2:52)?
We Christian heretics struggle with Scripture and, if need be, reject passages that are in contradiction to the Gospel message. These are passages like the ones about smashing babies' heads against rocks (Ps. 137:9); today we call that "crimes against humanity." Or the ones with instructions on how to set up a harem (Lev. 18:18); my wife won't let me be that biblical. Or even the ones ordering God's people to put disrespectful teenagers to death (Lev. 20:9), although, as the father of two teenagers, I am often tempted to take this passage literally. Note: I'm using humor here.
So what do we do with biblical passages that seem to run counter to the Gospel message of salvation and liberation? We do what Jesus did.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reinterprets the Hebrew Scriptures to bring them in line with the Gospel message, clearly telling his followers to reject those passages that bring subjugation or death to others. Specifically, Jesus said in Matthew: "You heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist evil, but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other (Matt. 5:38-39)." According to Jesus, the biblical mandate of Exodus 21:24, which literally calls for "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," had to be rejected by his followers. In short, Jesus is calling his disciples to renounce a segment of Scripture (a-HA! - this might help me deal with the book of Joshua).
We Christian heretics are those who are thrown to the lions because we refuse to place God and Caesar on the same level. The early martyrs of the faith were persecuted for being "atheists" who refused to believe in Caesar's religion. They recognize that they couldn't serve both God and mammon, for they would end up loving one and hating the other.
Likewise, today's Christian heretics prophesy against a Christianity that fails to challenge our privileged position, but rather justifies the American empire. (So how close is the American flag to the altar in your church?).
We Christian heretics believe the Word of God is inerrant; however, we believe the interpretations given by humans to God's Word are not. Whether they are conservative or liberal, American or liberationist, all interpretations fall short of the glory of God. And if you come across anyone who has Scripture or God all figured out, I suggest that you hold your wallet and soul tightly -- for you are at risk of losing one, if not both.
Just as the religious leaders of Jesus' time crucified him on the charge of blasphemy (Matt. 26:65), so would today's Pharisees crucify him again if given an opportunity. Why? Because they would not recognize him among the dogs he hangs out with, nor would he them (Matt. 7:21-23).
So, yes, I am unapologetically a Christian heretic.
Although I am no Christ, I follow his footsteps with all my heart and mind, using his own form of heresy as my model. Maybe this is how we discover our salvation, through a heresy that refuses to fuse and confuse the interpretations of the American empire with the Word of God.
Now you have to forgive me -- for I am, after all, an ordained Southern Baptist preacher who received his Southern Baptist Theological Seminary diploma from the hands of Bro. Al Mohler himself -- But altar calls are automatic with me. I know most of us have given our hearts to Jesus; now I ask if we are willing to walk down the aisle and give our minds to Jesus. This means that we are willing to read, to question, to wrestle, to struggle, and even to confess we don't have all the answers (and maybe not even some of the answers).
The good news is that Jesus is not afraid of our honest inquiry. He is also patient when we get it wrong (and we all do). The real question here today is if you are willing to be the sister or brother in Christ of a heretic dog like me?
-- Miguel De La Torre is associate professor of social ethics at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment