Baptist leaders from all over North America met at the Carter Center and announced plans for a "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta. The event will be held January 30-February 1, 2008. Former presidents Carter and Clinton were among 80 plus attendees who are promoting this significant meeting. Baptists of all pedigrees participated in the groundbreaking meeting yesterday. "This has been been what may turn out to be one of the most historic events, at least in the history of Baptists in this country, and perhaps Christianity," Carter said.
There is hope that the World Congress Center will house 20,000 Baptists for the meeting. The tentative themes for the four plenary sessions are "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant," "Unity in Bringing Good News to the Poor," "Unity in Respecting Religious Diversity," and "Unity in Welcoming the Stranger and Healing the Broken-Hearted." There will also be breakout sessions dealing with issues of racism, religious liberty, poverty, AIDS, faith in public policy, evangelism, and prophetic preaching. Mercer University President William Underwood anticipates a great meeting, "I believe the convocation in January 2008 will be an important step in mobilizing 20 million Baptists to find a unified voice in addressing these critical issues. There is power in unity."
Upon receiving the news release about the Convocation, I became very excited about the possibilities of bringing traditional Baptists together to focus on issues that are of mutual concern. It encourages me that these voices will be heard loud and clear early in '08. It seems like whenever there is a need for a Baptist to comment on CNN, a Southern Baptist representative is chosen. This suggests to many viewers that the SBC speaks for all Baptists and this simply is not the case. This has been the voice heard most loudly when relating to public policy, social issues, and politics. It's time to offer an alternative and focus on the common ground Baptists have in relating to our world.
Oftentimes the general public thinks of Baptists in terms of "what we're against." Carter says the 2008 Convocation is an attempt to create a new Baptist voice to counter what he says is a negative and judgmental image of Baptists in North America. "The most common opinion about Baptists is we cannot get along. . . I have been grieved by the divisions of my own convention." Of course, he was referring to the SBC. There has been enough documentation and focus on Baptist wars to validate this perception. It is one that needs to be changed. The leaders of 40 Baptist organizations must feel the same way and are doing something about it.
There's an old saying that "where there are three Baptists, there are four opinions." It's no secret that Baptists can be an argumentative bunch and have strong opinions. Our historic belief in dissent and soul competency fuel the our differences when it comes to politics, faith, and government. I don't have any particular expectations of the 2008 meeting except that it will be refreshing to see so many different kinds of Baptists coming together under one roof for the common appeal of unity. It doesn't mean that everyone will believe exactly the same way or be asked to sign a statement of doctrinal accountability. I do hope that the areas of agreement will be highlighted and areas of disagreement noted and respected. It sounds like this is the goal Carter has set for the gathering.
The Carter Center gathering yesterday and resultant Celebration scheduled for 2008 may well be the beginning of a new Baptist voice. This is a time when one is desparately needed. A voice that calls for inclusiveness around the creed "Jesus Christ is Lord" and Baptist distinctives is a welcome one. It is possible to have a high view of Scripture yet disagree on interpretation. Agreement on every theological issue shouldn't be a test of fellowship. Unity doesn't necessarily require uniformity. So, bringing Baptist groups together should yield a healthy dialogue on the issues that matter.
It's noteworthy that no SBC representatives were invited to attend the Atlanta meeting. Keep in mind that this is the largest Baptist body in the world. Apparently, Carter and company didn't think they'd participate (maybe their withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance had something to do with that). Plus, the agenda of next year's meeting appears to deal with a more holistic view of humanity's problems and how Baptists can make a positive difference in the world. Southern Baptists have narrowed their list of social evils to abortion and homosexuality. They are also making sure that the members of their boards, agencies, and committees abstain from alcoholic beverages (I'm waiting to hear something about tobacco or obesity). While the first two issues are worthy of discussion, there are other areas that the Bible speaks more about that deserve attention. To that end, it sounds like this '08 Celebration will deal with broader themes that relate more to Jesus' life and ministry.
I'm cautiously optimistic about the value of bringing different Baptist groups together. Just from the press release, it sounds like a Matthew 25:31-46 kind of emphasis. I don't know what will come of it, but I do hope to be in the building to find out.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The Koran Controversy
Keith Ellison wants to put his hand on the Koran and be sworn in as a newly elected Congressman from Minnesota. Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college and wants to exercise his freedom of religion in beginning his work as a public official. To my knowledge, this kind of request has never been made and really is source of discussion for folks who are fearful of this precedent. Persons elected to public office have used the Bible in taking their oath of office for many years.
A Republican congressman from Virginia has been quite vocal in his concerns. Republican congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia sent a letter to his constituents indicating that Ellison's use of the Koran poses a danger to social and religious fabric of America. He wrote, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policiess that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped." Apparently, Goode believes that Ellison's swearing in with the Koran and the problem of illegal immigration are related. I don't understand all his arguments for this position, especially since Ellison meets the criteria for qualifying to serve in the position to which he has been elected. I don't think that is illegal. Goode must be reacting to a deeper seeded issue and that is the belief that America is a Christian nation and using the Koran violates that premise.
Interestingly, elected officials don't have to use the Bible at all when they are being sworn in. Article VI of the Constitution indicates that elected officials are bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the constitution, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust in the United States." We have seen the Bible used in these solemn occasions so often that many assume that it is a necessary part of public office. It is not. Only allegiance to the Constitution is warrented.
To be honest, seeing someone being sworn in with the Koran is quite a reality check. It is somewhat unnerving, especially with all the problems and emotions tied up with Muslim extremists and terrorism. Many people have a direct correlation with Islam and planes flying into those twin towers on 9/11. The extremist faction of Islam deserves this kind of scrutiny, and unfortunately those who are carrying out their religion peaceably get stereotyped by the violence seen on TV. So, whenever we hear about someone being a Muslim there is a heightened sense of awareness. Now there is someone who will be in a position of power and leadership who openly embraces a key symbol of Islam during a swearing in ceremony. It will be interesting to see whether Ellison's religious views take more notice that his political ones. Time will tell.
Dr. Walter Shurden, Executive Director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University expresses an important truth in regard to Ellison's choice. "I believe that we Christians have a hard time understanding that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation but a constitutional republic that allows religious freedom for all its citizens" (The Baptist Studies Bulletin, December 2006). His view is that Baptists have been on the forefront of the fight for religious liberty in this country and should defend Ellison's right to express his religion any way he chooses.
There is a sense that because Baptists have become bigger and more influential that we have forgotten what it is like to be in the minority. We must continue the fight for religious expression in our country, especially as the issue comes into focus with this swearing in ceremony. The vast majority of politicians have placed their hand on the Bible before taking office, yet this did not prevent some of them from becoming politically, financially, and even morally corrupt while they represented the ones who put them in office. Apparently, it was easier for them to put a hand on the Bible than live out what it says about treating others and offering justice to those in need.
Let Ellison use the Koran. He was duly elected by his constituents. Let this also be a wakeup call to take our beliefs and values as seriously as he is doing now. We are a diverse nation and need to celebrate our differences of opinion, especially as it relates to religious. Remember, it's not about religious toleration. It's about religious liberty.
A Republican congressman from Virginia has been quite vocal in his concerns. Republican congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia sent a letter to his constituents indicating that Ellison's use of the Koran poses a danger to social and religious fabric of America. He wrote, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policiess that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped." Apparently, Goode believes that Ellison's swearing in with the Koran and the problem of illegal immigration are related. I don't understand all his arguments for this position, especially since Ellison meets the criteria for qualifying to serve in the position to which he has been elected. I don't think that is illegal. Goode must be reacting to a deeper seeded issue and that is the belief that America is a Christian nation and using the Koran violates that premise.
Interestingly, elected officials don't have to use the Bible at all when they are being sworn in. Article VI of the Constitution indicates that elected officials are bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the constitution, "but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust in the United States." We have seen the Bible used in these solemn occasions so often that many assume that it is a necessary part of public office. It is not. Only allegiance to the Constitution is warrented.
To be honest, seeing someone being sworn in with the Koran is quite a reality check. It is somewhat unnerving, especially with all the problems and emotions tied up with Muslim extremists and terrorism. Many people have a direct correlation with Islam and planes flying into those twin towers on 9/11. The extremist faction of Islam deserves this kind of scrutiny, and unfortunately those who are carrying out their religion peaceably get stereotyped by the violence seen on TV. So, whenever we hear about someone being a Muslim there is a heightened sense of awareness. Now there is someone who will be in a position of power and leadership who openly embraces a key symbol of Islam during a swearing in ceremony. It will be interesting to see whether Ellison's religious views take more notice that his political ones. Time will tell.
Dr. Walter Shurden, Executive Director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Mercer University expresses an important truth in regard to Ellison's choice. "I believe that we Christians have a hard time understanding that the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation but a constitutional republic that allows religious freedom for all its citizens" (The Baptist Studies Bulletin, December 2006). His view is that Baptists have been on the forefront of the fight for religious liberty in this country and should defend Ellison's right to express his religion any way he chooses.
There is a sense that because Baptists have become bigger and more influential that we have forgotten what it is like to be in the minority. We must continue the fight for religious expression in our country, especially as the issue comes into focus with this swearing in ceremony. The vast majority of politicians have placed their hand on the Bible before taking office, yet this did not prevent some of them from becoming politically, financially, and even morally corrupt while they represented the ones who put them in office. Apparently, it was easier for them to put a hand on the Bible than live out what it says about treating others and offering justice to those in need.
Let Ellison use the Koran. He was duly elected by his constituents. Let this also be a wakeup call to take our beliefs and values as seriously as he is doing now. We are a diverse nation and need to celebrate our differences of opinion, especially as it relates to religious. Remember, it's not about religious toleration. It's about religious liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
