Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

Here’s my weekly article in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  Enjoy (or disagree, no problem!):

  “A Truce between Thanksgiving and Christmas” 

            For quite some time, I have been upset at the encroachment of the retailers and media in regard to engulfing Thanksgiving in favor of Christmas.  Yes, I know that most retailers have to make the vast majority of their sales in the latter weeks of the year or they will go broke.  And, yes, I understand that the field of advertising does what the retailers pay them to do.  But, that doesn’t make it any easier to try to “carve out” (excuse the pun!) a decent Thanksgiving when almost everything you see from Halloween on has to do with Christmas.

            Clearly, my frustration is going to accomplish no more than spitting into the wind in terms of trying to get Thanksgiving its just due.  Still, I do not want to cave in to the secularization of our society either, even though it is coming at us like a tidal wave.  But, is there another option?

            Maybe not, realistically.  However, in the interest of getting a spiritual creative alternative in front of at least a few of you readers, I am going to lay out what I view as a “best of both worlds” alternative.  See what you think.

            Allow me to provide a little historical perspective on things.  When I was young—admittedly now well over 40 years ago—there was a very clear line of demarcation between Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Thanksgiving got to do its thing—often with clear memories of what the Pilgrims had done in thanking God for their survival—and people did not really start thinking much about Christmas, which was still largely viewed as remembering the birth of Jesus Cjrist, until at least the first part of December.

            Now, of course, the day after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year and boasts the first of many Christmas parades.  In that light, our secularized version of Thanksgiving (often called “Turkey Day”) has become nothing more than a lead-in smaller holiday which gets people started in being “in the mood” to empty their wallets and fill their stomachs again a few weeks later in regard to X-mas (the secular version of Christmas).

            So, what can be done?  I can get on board with wrapping the two previous holidays up in one big package, but only under one crucial condition: throughout the entire five week or so period, we all must agree to be thankful to the Lord for the Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ (by His birth as the unique God-Man) into our world.

            As I see it, that effectively combines the true ideas behind Thanksgiving and Christmas.  It also keeps the secular from completely devouring the sacred.

            But, you might say, what about all the secular types who object to having a renewed focus on the spiritual side of Thanksgiving and Christmas?  Well, they are the folks who are always whining about the separation of church and state.  Yet, in the cases I’m talking about in this article, they were the ones who refused to allow the original cultural celebration of the two wonderful “holy days” (the origin of the term “holiday”) set aside to: 1) be thankful to God for our many blessings from him; and 2) remember the moment that literally changed history, the birth of Christ (i.e., the line of demarcation between B.C. and A.D. history).  I think it’s only fair for them to meet Christians in the middle and compromise for a change.

Coming Monday: Serious Thinking about an SBC Reform Agenda (III): “The Type of Candidates and Appointees Elected”

Serious Thinking toward an SBC Reform Agenda (II): “Assessing the SBC Bylaws”

From the quality of the comments related to the first installment of this series, I can already tell that, at the end, it is going to take multiple posts to sift and nail down the best proposals in a number of areas.  And, frankly, I, for one, am convinced that it will be more than worth the effort. 

Why?  My Dad was a career Army officer in the Corps of Engineers.  I heard him say a saltier variation of “Prior planning prevents poor performance” many times.  And, that he was right has been proven out to me hundreds–maybe thousands–of times in my career as a pastor, professor and administrator.  So, let’s do this right.

Well, on to a first look at the Convention Bylaws.  Again, I am simply laying out my ideas for your considration and “iron sharpens iron” interaction.  This is the “idealism” stage.  We are only answering the question “What, ideally, should be changed in the SBC Bylaws to make it the best and fairest governing document possible?”

I will begin with Point 5, B.  In my opinion, it should be clearly stated that amendments from the floor are in order to the “recommendations of entities and committees of the Convention… .”  This should be done because it’s the only way the Convention at large will be constantly reminded of its ultimate responsiblity/”power” to oversee the entities and committees.  It also should be done so that the entities and committees are reminded that they do not possess carte blanche “We will do what we dang well want to do, no matter what the Convention thinks” power.

Next, Point 10, C.  I would add the following sentence: “The nominating speech must include an honest evaluation of the nominee’s spiritual character, which could be agreed to by all who know the nominee well and serve with the person in ministry.”  This sort of point will be repeated more than once in what I will say below about all nominees for all positions.  In my opinion, this is the single most critical aspect of turning the SBC around from being dominated by a small group of power-thirsty, primarily fleshly, elitists to humble, Spirit-led leadership.  In fact, I think it would be a good idea to even be as specific as stating passages like Acts 6:4, Galatians 5:22-23 and Ephesians 5:18-6:9 as biblical “measuring sticks” for all nominees.

Next, Point 15, A.  Again, a statement requiring clear spiritual qualifications for serving on the Committee on Nomination.  Same reasoning as above.

Next, Point 15, C.  I would conclude the last sentence in this way: “… [N]o person shall be elected or appointed to serve on one of these bodies if that person’s spouse or any other close family member has ever been elected or appointed to serve on one of these bodies.”  This would prevent in the future the currently blatant nepotism of some of the powerful in the SBC.

Next, Point 15, E.  I believe that the current wording should be changed to something like the following for the purpose of clarification: “The committee shall recognize the principle that the persons it recommends shall represent the constituency of the entire Convention, rather than the staff of the entity or any interest group within the Convention.”  I would also add something like: “All parties considered for nomination must whole-heartedly agree to this requirement or they cannot be nominated.  And, if, after service begins, it is found out that any person was not truthful in making this commitment, he or she is automatically excluded from service in their current term and may never serve in any elected or appointed capacity in the Convention again.”  This is another way to guard the gate against trustees who come on board with hidden agendas.  Whatever CAN be done to remove politics from these roles MUST be done.

Next, Point 15, F.  I would add the wording “… or has ever received” here.  It would minimize the possibility of “payback” on a long-term personal vendetta, as may well be the case with one key BoT player at present.

Next, Point 15, H, last paragraph: I would change the wording to: “No person who has served on the board of an entity or on the Executive Committee shall be eligible to serve again on the board of any entity or the Executive Committee.”  This would be to prevent politically-motivated re-cycling, which, again, is rampant in the SBC.

Next, Point 15, K.  I would add a statement to this effect: “It is in order for any messenger to question the qualification of any nominee on a spiritual basis, given that spiritual maturity is the single most important qualification for any leadership role in the Convention.  This may be done either prior to the presentation of the Committee recommendations to the Convention as a motion or during the time set aside for discussion of the motion.”  As far as I can see, this is the only way for the Convention at large to have a veto over short-sighted choices that have oozed through the Committee.  It also will be a deterrent for a stacked committee to try to sneak through their unqualified/unspiritual or strictly politically-motivated “favored sons.”

Next, we skip down to Point 18, E, (9).  At the end, I would append words to this effect: “Such accountability requires that any entity trustee action may be voted on at the next Convention meeting by motion, with the outcome being affirmation or overturning of the trustee action.  In addition, such accountability requires that any doctrinally-related policy or guideline passed by entity trustees which extends beyond the bounds of the current version of the Baptist Faith and Message will automatically be voted on by the Convention at its next meeting, with the outcome being affirmation or overturning of the trustee action.”  This is the only way I can see to hold the trustees accountable in general and, specifically, to keep them from monkeying around with the BFM2000 whenever the whim strikes them (or the order comes down from a big wig), no matter what the majority of the SBC thinks (e.g., according to both the Lifeway survey on tongues and the Garner Motion).

Next, Point 18, E, (12).  I would change “adequate” to “complete and up-to-date.” With this requirement, we would have known the true state of the enrollment figures at SWBTS last year, instead of the flat estimates that almost surely made things look better than they were.  After all, if Ken Hemphill’s head was on the block after SWBTS dropped below the magical 4,000 enrollment figure, than even Dr. P would have to eat some major crow if it was known that, on his watch, the true numbers dropped below 3,000.

Next, Point 18, E, (14).  Something needs to be added to the effect that, if a request is made to an entity for minutes and that entity does not comply within 30 days, any such minutes will be immediately provided upon request by the EC.  This would prevent stonewalling fiascos, such as the several months that it took Paul Littleton to obtain the minutes of the SWBTS trustee meeting in which Dr. Sheri Klouda was hired.

Next, Points 19, 20 and 21.  Clearly-stated spiritual qualfications should be included, for the same reasons stated above.

Next, Point 23, B, (7).  To the end of the sentence, I would add wording to this effect: “… though it is required that an in-depth explanation of why formal action is not being taken on the referred matter be provided in writing to the Executive Committee, which will immediately be published by Baptist Press.”  Sadly, many greatly needed improvements die in the face of the comfortable status quo simply because there is not even the accountability required to explain a lack of action.

Next, Point 26, B.  I would change “consideration” to “implementation.”  If the SBC owns the entities, they, logically, should be doing the will of the Convention, not simply saying “Leave us alone.  We know what we’re doing,” even though recently what they have done clearly has not been what the Convention at large prefers in every significant case.

Also, under Point 26, drop down to B, (3).  I would change “any actions on the matter” to “all actions taken to implement the matter,” to be consistent with what I suggested above.

Finally, Point 26, C.  I would add these statement, or the like, at the end: “It is out of order for an entity head or trustee chair to use any of the entity’s allotted time to present their views in regard to any other action of the Convention.  If such happens, the chair will rule immediately that the entity’s remaining time for that annual meeting has been forfeited.”  Obviously, this would have spared the messengers a lot of ’unpaid for political announcements’ in San Antonio, as well as saving Al Mohler from himself in regard to what became his dogging anger out of control issue, which started on the podium in S.A. with his far less than Spirit-led display of immense displeasure at the passage of the Garner Motion.

Well, that’s what I see that, ideally, should be worked through in the SBC Bylaws.  Now, my highly intelligent readers, go me one better.  Based upon your prior observation and prayerful and thoughtful consideration, correct me or go beyond what I have laid out.  I await with prayerful anticipation your thoughts/counter-thoughts!

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Serious Thinking toward an SBC Reform Agenda (I): “Assessing the SBC Constitution”

Before beginning the task at hand with all due seriousness, a couple of comments should be made: 1) In a comment last week, Bob Cleveland rightly noted that this needs to be a series in its own right, not just a break in the my ongoing series on “The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today.”  And so it shall be.  We will let the brainstorming and hammering out of an appropriate agenda run its course in this series.  That will be followed by another series on thoughts about how to strategize and implement whatever seems to congeal as a duly debated Spirit-led agenda.  Then, I will get back to “The Holy Spirit…” series.

2) I must admit that I was slightly surprised at the Goergia Convention passing a resolution against blogging.  However, when I found out Bill Harrell was behind it and how he decided to use his “doctrinal sermon” to the Convention meeting to serve his own ends, I was even less surprised.  In regard to the resolution itself, you do not need to go any further than the section about criticism of entity trustees to find out what a primary motivation was behind the resolution: keeping trustees above criticism and without accountability to the SBC at large.  So, if we ever wondered whether SBC entity trustees are actually feeling the heat from SBC reform bloggers, that question has now been answered by Harrell and the others behind this resolution.

OK. As we begin this series, let’s briefly look ahead at the general sequence in which I am going to address relevant subjects.  In today’s post, I am going to look at what I think needs to be changed in the SBC Constitution, and how.  Wednesday, I will get into the SBC Bylaws.  Next Monday (after my Friday newspaper article, of course), I will deal with the type of candidates that we should be nominating and electing to key SBC roles.  Next Wednesday, I will briefly address several selected wider issues that are floating around out there, needing to be faced.  The Monday after that would then be an attempt at crystalizing the “agenda.”  But, of course, if one or more of these subjects “catches fire” in the comment stream, I may prayerfully push the timing of these subjects back as appropriate.  If I do so, please understand that it will be with the intent of getting the best “iron sharpens iron” sense in regard to whatever area is up for discussion.

Having said that, here goes in regard to the SBC Constitution.  Please note that I am listing each needed change separately, both to highlight all the areas and because they might well have to be treated separately (depending on how the attempt[s] to amend the Constitution would be handled).

Agenda Item 1-  Article IV presently reads: “While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organizations, associations, or conventions.”  At the end of the sentence, I think something like the following wording should be added: “… although it is completely appropriate for the Convention, which owns all its entities, to require whatever accountability is deemed necessary of entity trustees and adminstrators by the vehicle of motions passed by the Convention.”  My reasoning here is that, while accountabilility is assumed by the SBC Bylaws to be present, there is presently no mechanism to hold entities accountability.  Thus, trustee/administrator accountability in the SBC is currently no more than a ”lip-service” sham of a concept, no matter what howls to the contrary are forthcoming.  (To demonstrate this, we do not need to go any further than the utter refusal of the trustees of NAMB, IMB and SWBTS to re-visit their short-sighted policies on speaking in tongues, even after they heard that the results of the Lifeway survey put them in a minority position among SBC pastors on these issues.  There is currently no accountability to the will of the SBC, just to those who wielded the power to get the particular trustee appointed and their political perspective.)

Agenda Item 2- Article V presently reads: “The term of office for the president is limited to two (2) years, and a president shall not be eligible for re-election until as much as one (1) year has lapsed from the time a successor is named.”  In my view, the possibility of re-election should be prohibited by shorteing the wording to the following: “… and a president shall not be eligible for re-election.”  After all, if, in a Convention of over 6 million active believers, we do not have enough leaders who can handle the presidency without “good ole boy” retreads, we are in the deepest kind of trouble in regard to our leadership.

Agenda Item 3- Article VI, 1, (3) reads: “Board members having served two (2) full terms of four (4) years shall not be eligible for re-election until as much as two (2) years have elapsed.”  I believe this sentence should be deleted, which would effectively limit board members to one four-year term of service.  Again, re-cycling board members is limiting other extremely well-qualified SBCers from the blessings and responsibilities of such service.

Agenda Item 4- Article VI, 2, (3) allows two terms of service for entity trustees and only one year is currently necessary until a trustee can be re-elected.  Again, I would limit service to one four-year terms, without possibility of re-election.  My reasoning is the same as above.

Agenda Item 5- In light of what I have said above, I would delete Article VI, 2, (4), since it speaks of re-election after two four-year terms of service.  Please see my reasoning stated above.

Agenda Item 6- Article VI, 3 currently reads “No trustee of a board, institution, or commisision, or a member of the Executive Committee, shall be eligible to serve for more than two consecutive terms.”  I would change that to “… serve for more than one term,” with the reasoning being the same as I have stated several times now. 

As I’m sure you can tell from what I have laid out so far, my two biggest areas of concern have to do with: 1) term limits for all elected personnel, which will minimize, even if not fully prevent, “power bases” with their own agendas contrary to that of the SBC at large from forming; and 2) accountability “with teeth,” in which all board members and entity trustees and administrators must comform to, and abide by, the decisions of the SBC.

In preparing to close, as Agenda Item 7, I would like to float the most radical idea of everything I have said so far.  I believe that the presidency of the Convention should be on a rotating basis among the following five categories: 1) pastors of “small” churches (less than 200 attendees); 2) missionaries (from either IMB or NAMB); 3) pastors of “mid-sized” churches (200-999 attendees); 4) professors at one of the SBC seminaries or SBC state convention-related colleges or universities; and 5) pastors of “large” churches (1,000 or more attendees).  In regard to my reasoning here, I am leaning on figures Les Puryear obtained from Lifeway.  Of the 40,186 local churches in the SBC, 83.4% (33,522 congregations) have less than 200 attendees, while 15.2% (6,100) have between 200 and 1,000 attendees, and only 1.4% (564) have more than 1,000 attendees.  In my view, something is terribly wrong with an organization that simply ignores well over 80% of its makeup (with the 15.2% of “middler” churches being in essentially the same boat!).  What kind of elitist organization will only consider electing their presidents on a strictly “bigger is better” mentality, especially when the “bigger” represents only 1.4%?  Likewise, how can we continue to ignore the visionary leadership for church planting and missions that representatives from NAMB and IMB could bring to the table, as well as the studied perspectives offered by wise veteran scholarly professors.

In closing, you may have noticed that I did not mention entity administrators in that rotation.  And, that is for a crucial reason, as far as accountability is concerned.  If an entity administrator is elected as President of the SBC (as Paige Patterson was from 1998 to 2000), there is a clear conflict of interest.  The Convention President appoints those who appoint the trustees of the entity where he serves.  And, in case you haven’t noticed, there is already plenty of reason to think that certain trustees are accountable to the entity head instead the other way around, as it is supposed to be.  Thus, we can avoid all “appearance of evil” simply by not allowing entity heads or senior administrators to serve as SBC President under any circumstances.

Now, it’s your turn.  Tell me what you think.

Coming Wednesday: Serious Thinking toward an SBC Reform Agenda (II): “Assessing the SBC Bylaws”

Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

Happy day after Thanksgiving!  The following, as always, is my weekly article in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  Enjoy!

                              “Weakness” 

Last Tuesday morning, I went to take my first complete physical in many years.  I was apprehensive given that, by age 58 (where I am), some very strong people have broken down physically, if they are not already dead from cancer or heart disease.

Well, the physical went very well.  All body parts are functioning fine and, other than the need to keep losing weight and get the blood pressure down more, the doctor gave me a clean bill of health.

As a result, I was feeling pretty good about myself.  I even started thinking that I was probably in better shape than the majority of men my age, which was pretty good since, a year earlier, I had been in pretty rough condition (e.g., 289 pounds, sky-rocketing blood pressure and headaches).     

It was in that semi-smug frame of mind that I arrived back at my office in the late afternoon.  But, that quickly changed.  By about 5:30, I had begun to feel flushed, if not fully feverish.  Still, I was determined to hang tough through our Tuesday night men’s group meeting.  After all, I had gritted my teeth through discomfort or even pain quite a few times over the course of my course.  I could definitely do it again.

Where did this knuckle-headed macho approach to illness come from in my life?  All the way back in my childhood.  Through all 12 grades, I almost never missed school due to sickness.  And, I had a paper route from the seventh grade all the way through high school, with the only time I can recall ever boy throwing papers (except when I had to be out of town) was when I broke my hand in a football game on Friday night.

Apparently, even having bronchitis at least half a dozen times, pneumonia twice and almost dying of viral pneumonia back in 1991 still did not get through my thick skull that you should take care of yourself when you get sick, so as not to make the illness worse.  I still preferred the “tough it out” approach.  I still had to show how strong I am.        

What an idiot!  If I were to be asked what my advice would be to someone who had the symptoms I had last Tuesday afternoon, I would immediately answer that he or she should immediately go home and go to bed, calling the doctor’s office as soon as was practical.

But, did I take my own advice?  No—that would have been too smart—and non-stubborn.  So, I went on to the men’s meeting, which proved to be a big mistake.  The main course in the meal served at the meeting was chili.        

So, as you have probably already guessed, one bowl of chili and one unpleasant trip to the bathroom later, I was hurriedly making my way home, complete with chills and a stomach that was in terrible shape.  It turned out to be a nasty stomach virus, which really knocked me for a loop.  In fact, I was not really that close to 100% again until Sunday morning.

In between, I was pretty weak.  And, I do not like the feeling of being weak.  After that bout with viral pneumonia, when I had fever well over 104 for four days and had to be packed in ice daily to reduce the fever and potential for organ damage, it took me a whole month to get up to speed enough to go back to work.  It was probably 10 days before I could take a decent deep breath.  I hated it—it was embarrassing.  I felt like a free-loader.

But, I have finally figured out my biggest attitudinal problem in all those instances.  I was trusting in human strength, when I should have been trusting in divine strength in the midst of my human weakness.  You see, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that our weakness is the channel through which His power can flow, if we allow that by humble faith in Jesus: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness…  For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:9, 10). 

Bottom line: All those times I was trying so hard to tough it out in my own strength, I was actually resisting God’s desire to use His power to strengthen me through my weakness, including times of illness.  What a slow learner I am spiritually sometimes!  But, “better late than never.”

How about you?  Do you look to the Lord in faith in your time of weakness or are you just trying to tough it out in your own strength like I mistakenly did for so long?

Coming Monday: Break in series (Continued): “Further Thoughts toward an SBC Reform Agenda”

Break in series (Continued): “Thankful Reflections on 2007 So Far”

Often, reflections on notable things that have taken place during that calendar year are the kind of thing that is done around New Year’s.  And, I may well choose to do something of that sort that extends beyond thanksgiving at that time.  However, in honor of the day that is set aside as Thanksgiving, I would like to take this natural opportunity to lay out a number of things for which I am particularly thankful and grateful in 2007.

For this purpose, I am thinking/writing in three categories: what has happened this year so far in: 1) my personal life; 2) my ministry; and 3) the Southern Baptist Convention.

In my personal life, things have changed a great deal so far in 2007.  Physically, on January 1, I still weighed about 275 and have lost about 20 pounds since through a lot of walking, running and bike riding and trying to watch what I eat (though volume is still an issue!).  As a result, the first complete physical I had had in probably 20 years gave me a complete clean bill of health.  This is a stark change for the good from the fat, out-of-shape slob I was last January, when I had a physical episode that really scared me.  Praise be to God for helping me get my “temple” (1 Corinthians 6:19) back into more Temple-like condition!

Spiritually and emotionally, I don’t think I have ever walked more consistently, or closer, with the Lord.  Coming to grips with a number of unresolved emotional issues and some related anger has helped a great deal.  But, consciously coming to the place where I realized that I had no excuse not to be walking in the power of the Holy Spirit moment-by-moment, by faith (Galatians 5:5-6, 16), has been transforming.  I still don’t always do it, but there has been vast improvement on that front and I am deeply grateful for the Lord’s patience with me.  I have been a Christian for over 37 years, but this current year has been revolutionary on the spiritual and emotional fronts!

Relationally, the Lord has been incredibly gracious to draw me closer to everyone I love.  Though my communication with my kids, who live and work from 250 to 1,450 miles away from me, is still not what I ideally want it to be, it has come a long way in 2007, especially from where it was as recently as just over a year and a half ago, when I was still pretty deeply depressed and withdrawn.  And, at the moment, I am looking forward with great joy to some unhurried time with loved ones around Thanksgiving and Christmas.

By the way, I’m grateful for how my kids are doing in early adulthood.  My oldest, Joanna, 26, won a competation among representatives of every advertising firm in the Los Angeles area last Spring.  And, my son, Tim, 21, survived almost a year of managing a clothing store in the Magazine District in New Orleans–growing up a lot in the process–before relocating to Dallas.

But, the big recent news in my family is that my middle child, Natalie, 24, just got engaged.  I’m not sure what the date is going to be yet.  In fact, I have not even met her husband-to-be, Ian Lopez (whom she met through her church in Irvine, CA), even though they have dated for a couple of years, because they are half a continent away.  But, I’m hoping that will be rectified before New Year’s.  In the meantime, I am adding Ian to the list of what I am grateful for this Thanksgiving!

In the ministry area, there has been radical change in regard to Comal Country Church in the 16 months during which I have been pastor.  And, by the Lord’s grace, most of the good stuff has happened since January. 

Last Summer and Fall, I had come in and gotten the church’s Constitution and Bylaws done and the first lay leaders and annual budget (for 2007) had been put in place.  However, with the clarified vision and strong emphasis on expositional preaching, a number of people left and giving/finances strongly resembled a sinking ship.

Praise God that the ship has righted!  Three weeks into the eleventh month of the year, our giving is stable and has been adequate for everything we have needed.  Also, attendance is up nicely and we have seen a good number of people come to Christ this year, with about 15 baptisms (in the beautiful, but cold, Guadalupe River).  We also have gotten cranked up a women’s group, children’s church, youth group and gospel music jam, to add to the continuing strength of our men’s group.  Also, the Holy Spirit has given me a voice in my preaching moreso than I can ever remember, which is a great joy, but equally humbling.  Overall, I am deeply grateful for a group of believers that can handle a pastor with my quirks and who, hopefully, are learning to appreciate that I have a teacher’s head and a pastor’s heart!

In wider ministry, it was exciting to see my contributions (the notes on “Genesis 12-50″ and “Revelation”) published in the recently-released Apologetics Study Bible (B & H, 2007).  Thanks be to God for the opportunity and to General Editor Ted Cabal for his gracious friendship! 

Hopefully, the Popular Dictionary of Apologetics (Harvest House) and the Holman Study Bible (B & H), to which I have also contributed, will both make their appearances fairly soon.  It was a joy to work with both editors: Ergun Caner for the PDoA and Ray Clendenen for the HSB!

In regard to the SBC, this year has been a very stretching time for me.  Coming into this year, I had only the experience of reading Wade’s blog and attending the SBC meeting in Greensboro (at which I had presented the motion that eventually, after the Executive Committee action in February, became the basis for what is now widely known as the Garner Motion in San Antonio).  But, what a whirlwind ever since!

First was the invitation to do a presentation at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit in Arlington, TX last Spring.  What a blessing it was to meet some who have become true friends since and especially to watch the Spirit-led humility of Dwight McKissic.  I praise God for a man who has become a spiritual hero to me!

Then, of course, there were the events in San Antonio.  When I went, I had no idea what to expect.  I was not part of some strategy at all.  All I knew was that some resolutions had been offered and one or more motions might be made.  But, I had no idea that my long-time friend, Rick Garner, would make his motion and that he would ask me to be involved in helping craft his wording in speaking for the motion.  The rest is now history, as they say, and I am truly thankful to have providentially run into Rick and been involved.

Next in time was the starting of this blog in mid-Summer.  I was convicted to do it and it took more faith and courage than anything I had ever done.  Relatedly, I am very thankful to the Lord for seeing me through to this point in this endeavor.  Now, I have taken more heat in doing this than in my entire life of carefully avoiding conflict combined.  But, even through the immense flak generated by my posting the open letter of the anonymous professor, the Lord has been so gracious in encouraging me (and my friend) in regard to laying out the truth about things that previously has been the subject of much behind closed doors whispering, but had not been addressed openly, at least not by someone in the SBC academic community.

Now, finally, I have the opportunity to be one voice in attempting to crystalize an agenda for needed SBC reform.  It is not something that I would have preferred to do, if it was obvious that somebody else was going to undertake the process in a timely manner.  However, it is very much needed and, if my meager efforts can provide any kind of a catalyst toward hammering out such an agenda (and ideas for how to implement it), I will be filled with joy.  But, whatever happens in this area in the weeks that remain in 2007 and the earlier part of 2008, I am very thankful to the Lord for a way to try to make a difference.

On that issue, the SBC currently has its fair share of problems due to one group which did crystalize its self-serving agenda and strategy and, to a large degree, play it out to perfection… until the Fall of 2005.  By God’s grace, it is time that another vision–one which will return the power to the rank-and-file of the SBC and return the glory to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the place of a handful of human leaders–be heard.  As I close this post, I must thank the Lord in advance for whatever that vision will turn out to be and however He chooses to make it happen.

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Break in series (Continued): “First Thoughts toward an SBC Reform Agenda”

Ben Cole’s challenge to Wade Burleson last week on SBCOutpost to flesh out an agenda for reform in the Southern Baptist Convention did not go unnoticed.  However, since it may well be that Wade sees himself more as a voice crying in the wilderness in regard to the International Mission Board, which he still serves as a trustee, though currently under censure, and, as a result, would prefer not to start the in-print discussion of such a needed agenda, I am crazy enough to do so.

No, it is not that I fancy myself in any “leadership” role in such a reform movement.  It is simply that somebody needs to get that ball rolling.  It is entirely true that, after a while, even the most legitimate criticism(s) being offered without helpful ideas as to how to fix the problem(s) get old… and get tuned out.

And, I am under no illusion that this is going to be done quickly.  Hence the above title: “First Thoughts… .”  At this juncture, I think I will do at least four posts on this subject (as I will explain more below), though that may lengthen as readers give their own “iron sharpens iron” input in response to what I lay out.

Before proceeding, I want to ask up front that you be patient with me.  I’m hardly a stranger to conventional “agendas,” having chaired many meetings as both a pastor and an academic dean and having the responsibility of setting the agenda for all those meetings.  However, I have never attempted anything like this before.  And, in a gross understatement, there is a lot riding on the shaping and communicating of a well-thought-out agenda for the reforms that are currently strongly needed in the SBC.

All I am going to do today is to lay out the areas in which the kinds and levels of reform are needed.  Then, I am going to skip a post on Wenesday, since almost everybody who might normally be reading will be focusing on Thanksgiving and their families.  Also, my Friday posts are almost always a re-printing of my weekly local newspaper article.

But, starting next Monday, I will be laying out my thoughts on the reforms needed in the SBC Constitution and Bylaws; in regard to the spiritual quality of leaders and trustees that the SBC needs to elect and appoint; and the spill-over effect that these areas have on SBC ministries, whether SBC entities, churches or missionaries and some general thoughts on how those areas can be corrected.  In the process, other areas crying out for reform may show themselves.  So, as I said, I am planning on doing four posts on this subject, but I reserve the right to extend things, if ideas start to “hatch” or helpful debate catches fire in one or more areas.

It is, of course, a basic fact of history that Martin Luther’s nailing of his “Ninety-five Theses” on the door of the church at Wittenberg became the spark for the Protestant Reformation.  However, it is sometimes forgotten that those theses were only about the abuse of indulgences in the Catholic Church.  Over the ensuing several years, the scope of Luther’s critique expanded greatly, given how bizarre Catholic medieval theology had become as well as the level of corruption of the papacy and the rest of the church heirarchy.  In that light, how sad it would have been if Luther and the other early reformers had continued to be narrowly focused on the problem of indulgences!

In parallel, every necessary reform movement starts somewhere, usually in regard to a narrow area that sparks heated emotion.  And, in the case of the SBC, the current calls for reform probably started with Wade Burleson’s reaction to the high-handed actions of the IMB Board of Trustees in the Fall of 2005, publicly aired through the starting of his blog (although Marty Duren had undoubtedly already softened the ground somewhat by starting the original SBC Outpost).

But, as important as Wade’s concerns were, and still are, it has now been long since realized that, in the big picture of the SBC, they are but one small, though tragic, part of an overall pattern of widespread fleshly abuse of power and arrogant unaccountability to the people of the SBC.  As a result, even though I respect Wade Burleson immensely, whatever Wade chooses to do or not do, the time has certainly arrived to start the grassroots debate over what the reform agenda needs to be.

Why do I say “grassroots?”  Because the powers that be have heard the cries of “foul” in regard to their championing of the narrowing of the doctrinal parameters beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, as well their ways of doing/not doing things for a couple of years now.  And, basically, their response has been, in effect, to try to silence the mounting dissent (with the undertone being “Who are you, peons, to criticize SBC royalty?”).  And, although it has now become evident that many second-tier SBC leaders do not agree with what their more powerful “peers” have done, and are doing, they are all too afraid to stand up and do what is needed to show the way and lead in reforming the SBC.

Bottom line: Until one or more of those leaders grows a conscience and a backbone (hopefully, through faith and dependence on the Holy Spirit) that moves them beyond their current “go along to get along” fearful, dysfunctional self-protective posture, the already significant impact of reform thinking at the grassroots level must continue.  And, I earnestly pray that my next several posts, beginning the discussion of an SBC reform agenda, prove to be of some help in that regard.

Coming Wednesday: Break in series: “Thankful Reflections on 2007 So Far”

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Fridays are for Newspaper Articles

By now, you know the following is my weekly article published in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian:

                                “Walking”            

It is my conservative estimate that I have walked—or run, since I did run a 5K race last month—between 1,200 and 1,300 miles since last November, when I started walking in earnest.  That means that, if I had started walking in San Antonio along Interstate 10, I would have gotten all the way through West Texas, New Mexico and Arizona by now and be somewhere out in the California desert between the Colorado River and Palm Springs.           

That’s a lot of miles walking—not to mention a couple of pairs of totally worn-out walking shoes!  And, those miles have afforded me the opportunity, when I wasn’t talking on a cell phone, to do quite a bit of praying and thinking.           

I am grateful that I can multi-task while walking (or running).  My “walk” with the Lord has definitely deepened because of the way I invest my time while hoofing the roads near where I live.           

As I have thought about it, this is my best guess as to why the Apostle Paul chose to employ walking as an analogy for the Christian life in Ephesians 4-5.  You see, if you look at a map of the Mediterranean Basin and trace Paul’s travels from the Book of Acts, he apparently walked several thousand miles on his missionary journeys (see Acts 13-21).  Undoubtedly, he also had plenty of time to think and pray as he moved along the roads connecting all those cities throughout the Roman Empire.           

But, I think there is another obvious reason why Paul utilized walking as his figure for a proper understanding of Christian living.  When you are doing the kind of walking that he was, you know where you started and, to truly get anywhere, you must have a pretty good sense of where you’re headed and what it is going to take to get there.  Of course, since you don’t know for sure what you are going to encounter along the way, you cannot know how long it is going to take to make the journey.           

In my observation, that is, in fact, pretty much the way the Christian life develops, at least if you are trying to live it in a responsible way.  You should begin by understanding your starting part: you are justified (declared righteous) through faith in Jesus Christ and His payment for your sins on the Cross (Romans 5:1).  And, you also should quickly come to know where you are headed: being glorified in the presence of the Lord (Romans 8:30)—in heaven or when Christ comes back.           

“In between”—the journey itself—is the tough, and unpredictable, part.  Like walking or driving in the Hill Country, you might have the spiritual equivalent of falling rocks, low water crossings that are at high water stage, deer running out in front of cars (I hit one when I lived here back in the late ’70s and it totaled the car!) and on and on.  There may be spiritual “scenic routes” (i.e., very indirect ways of getting there).  You simply do not know what to expect.             

But, like my walking time—and, more and more, my driving time—there is the wonderful opportunity to pray and think as you proceed.  That means that, even if the obstacles which inevitably pop up are highly frustrating, they do not have to be unprofitable.           

What do I mean by that?  Simply that it is possible to learn and grow spiritually from everything that we encounter in life, no matter how utterly aggravating the situation might be.  Just as the level of my physical fitness is dramatically better than it was a year ago from the 1,200-1,300 miles of walking I’ve done during that time, so will the maturity level of my spiritual life grow correspondingly if I will but choose to walk step-by-step with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16).

What is the biggest sticking point that keeps Christians from walking in the Spirit?  Well, for me, the hardest part of physical walking is getting off my rear end and getting out there and putting one foot in front of the other for the first few steps.  Could it not be that many Christians are the same way: spiritual “couch potatoes” who are just too lazy to start walking those first few steps by faith?

 

 

Coming Monday: Break in series (Continued): “First Thoughts toward an Agenda for SBC Reform”

Break in series (Continued): “More Midstream Musings”

Increasingly over the years, I have had more people tell me that they think that I am a visionary.  While I truly wish that was significantly true–and, from time to time, I even pray that the Lord would make me more visionary–I think that I am actually minimally visionary and much more a “big picture” thinker, who also happens to have some ability in connecting the two.

In that regard, I tend to absorb the details that everybody else is focusing on, then fairly naturally and quickly back away and consider what the event(s) currently in the white-hot glare of the spotlight mean against the wider backdrop of more or less related events.  Of course, that does not mean my putting together of the puzzle pieces is any more accurate than anybody else’s (though I have been fairly close to right a fair amount more often than not over the years, although most of what I was thinking in those situations was unpublished, just laid out to friends and colleagues).

Of course, let me tell you up front that I truly hope some of the things I am about to say are not true, or do not come to pass.  But, at the moment, the following are my considered, though “not a prophet or a son of one,”  takes in these areas.  See whether you agree or disagree with my reworked quotes and related thinking:

With every action, you are stirring up what will likely be an opposite and equal reaction- This, of course, is a rough application of Newton’s Third Law to wider life.  Allow me to muse a tad as to how it applies to the SBC here and now.

The last time the International Mission Board trustees pulled a major league bonehead stunt was in the Fall of 2005.  What they did not foresee happening was that the adding of the two “apocryphal” policies on baptism and private private prayer language was the arrogant over-the-top action that would bring about the strong reaction(s) of: 1) getting Frank Page elected president of the SBC in Greensboro over two candidates hand-picked by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler respectively; and 2) the almost 58% majority passage of the Garner Motion on the BFM2000 in San Antonio.

Now, the IMB BoT has effectively “martyred” Wade Burleson.  Can they really be so short-sighted as to not realize that, in doing so, they may have cost Al Mohler the presidency of the Convention in Indianapolis?  What were they thinking?!  After all, this is a role Mohler desperately wants, so that he can be prez when the SBC is in Louisville the next year. 

Yes, “the natives (on the SBC reservation) are restless” and the IMB (and SWBTS, I might add) trustees have done absolutely nothing to soothe their unrest.  In fact, they have done exactly the opposite.  How can we explain that?

Power corrupts and absolute power blinds the powerful.  With all due respect to Lord Acton’s timeless quote, this is a rip-off that desperately needs to be chewed on in the SBC right now. 

Think about it: Leaders are strong-willed people.  Leaders who stay in power for very long, even if subconsciosuly, surround themselves with people who not only think like they do but, to keep their jobs and curry favor with the powerful one, morph into “yes men.”  As a result, before long, all the power broker hears is ego-stroking: how wonderful he is and how stupid or crazy anyone is who disagrees with the leader–even if they know down deep that it is the powerful one who is out of bounds on more and more issues (and that he can’t see it because he is blinded by his ego).

In other words, because power fans the flame of pride, and, over time, the possibility of anything humbling getting through to the power broker dies like the embers of a fire, there is a fairly certain outcome for those who stay in power without very close and constant accountability: power profoundly blinds the powerful.

Suffice it to say that the current situation in the SBC has more or less devolved into a “might makes right” landscape.  It’s like the parent whose only answer to every “Why?” question from the kids is “Because I say so,” which, by interpretation, means, “It doesn’t matter if I’m really right; you must live with it as ’right’ because I say so.”  And, because the parent is angry, perhaps even surly, when he or she says this, the kid clams up and loses all respect for the parent.

In the SBC, just about all the true power brokers have left is raw power.  Their repeated, often angry, abuse of power in situations when it was not right or warranted has lost the respect of all but their most blind unthinking followers. 

Now, this does not mean that there are not many, many who appreciate greatly and respect what these leaders accomplished two or three decades ago–myself included.  But, thinking people only respect those are truly respectable and trust those who are truly trustworthy.  Amd, frankly, those who demand the ascendancy of their own narrower viewpoints and courses of action in the face of what is clearly the view of the majority of Southern Baptists (e.g., the Lifeway survey on tongues/private prayer language) are not acting in ways that engender either respect or trust.  Like selfish little children, they want their way and, in their arrogant blindness, that is reason enough why.

All that is necessary for the triumph of fundamentalist encroachment in the SBC is for non-fundamentalists to not even care enough to stand up and be counted.  Edmund Burke may have rolled over in his grave on this one.  But, again, this is an application of his timeless words that must burn into our minds and hearts in the months ahead.

My friend, and fellow blogger, Bob Cleveland, has just laid out his thoughts on the SBC more and more painting itself into a “corner of irrelevance.”  While I completely agree with Bob that it is happening, I must say that I am most concerned because I think that is precisely the way the SBC power elite want all reform-minded Southern Baptists to think.  Why do I say that?

Well, the more you think of the SBC as irrelevant, the more you tend to remove yourself from involvement in the processes of who gets elected to what position, what motions get introduced–generally, what directions things are going to go in the future.  What happens then?  It just effectively hands things over to the high and mighty and their ever-narrowing perspective without opposition.  In other words, the more each of you ceases to care about what has been, and is currently being, crammed down your throat, the easier it is for them to cram the next issue down the throats of those left who do care.

Yes, I hate that Wade is having to endure this completely unjust pain–and, I have had some of a lesser nature inflicted on me.  But, all of what has happened does not add up to anywhere close to suffcient reason to pack your bags and walk away.  Do you not remember that the energizing of a relatively small number of messengers in Greensboro and San Antonio (given the 6 million plus in the SBC) made a huge difference?  And, the encouraging events in the state conventions in Missouri and Arkansas, and some other behind the scenes events, are making it begin to appear that the actual numbers of remaining hard-core Resurgence types are like the Wizard of Oz (i.e., sounding much bigger and stronger only because well-positioned and louder).

In conclusion, let me say that I think that there are a huge number of Southern Baptists whose consciences are pretty much exactly where I have tagged things in this post.  More and more of you have let me know that, in one way or another, over these past months.  However, a fair number of you need to trust the Lord to help you “grow a backbone.”

Be brutally honest with yourself: How much good does it do for you to agree with my analysis, or that of some other reform blogger, if you are not willing to do anything about it?  Your fear-frozen–or ceasing-to-care-anymore–inaction is effectively the same thing Edmund Burke rightly contends allows very bad things to happen.

Boys and girls, as I’ve said before, I am, in the flesh, a chicken–a 250-plus pound coward.  But, by faith, the Holy Spirit has given me a voice–and a backbone.  And, He will do the same for you too, if you ask Him to–and trust Him to do it.

Coming Friday: “Fridays are for Newspaper Articles”

Break in series (Introduction): “Beyond the Overkill, a Ray of Hope”

(A Prefatory Personal Word: Dear Readers, Thank you for your great patience with me this last week!  I got sick as a horse last Tuesday afternoon and was not 100% again until Sunday morning–fortunately, in time for the last baptism [of five people!] of the Fall in the beautiful Guadalupe River.  Even today’s post is going to be short, in comparison to my standard fare, because I am trying to ease back into things without pushing too hard and possibly causing a setback [something I've tended to do coming back from illness in the past].)

As were many of you, I was stunned and saddened by the IMB trustees’ decision to censure their fellow trustee, Wade Burleson.  Especially now that Wade has posted his side of the story, stating for all to see what he had made clear to the powers that be on the Board that was he was willing to do to avoid the censure vote, this is going to be a public relations disaster among all except the most angry and vindictive wing of the Second Phase of the Conservative Resurgence. 

I would not be surprised if a fairly high number of those trustees who voted for censure (we will, of course, never know who they are because of the BoT policy gagging all such information from public consumption, in order to muddy the waters of individual trustee responsibility/accountability) have had serious second thoughts about that vote, since most apparently did not know the whole story of what Wade had offered.  However, I do not know if that means the vote would be different if it were taken this week, even with “the rest of the story” out on the table.  It may well be that the determination to “get” Wade Burleson for keeping the SBC public informed in regard to what is really going down politically with the IMB BoT was so fierce that the power brokers really didn’t care what onlookers thought, other than to make a statement that any dissenting voices among our trustees will be crushed, no matter how much public support you have.

At the moment, a close-up shot of this situation does not easily produce “a silver lining” to this lightning strike.  In fact, about all I can see close up is a few additional openly disgruntled trustees and Wade’s dogged determination to stick by his guns in continuing to attend BoT meetings (at his own expense) and blog about what is taking place.  And, like William Wilberforce’s perseverance in opposing the slave trade in the British Empire, I pray Wade’s will be rewarded with the needed reforms of the IMB trustees and some of their policies. 

But, beyond this classic example of the angry wielding of power in overkill, there is great reason for hope when we look through a wide-angle lens.  I will cite three instances for your consideration, one of which goes back awhile, with the other two being quite recent.

Because so much has happened in between, it is hard to believe that the SBC meeting in Greensboro, NC was less than a year and half ago.  It was there that the first major backlash against what I have termed elsewhere the “apocryphal” policies passed by the IMB BoT in the Fall of 2005 took place.  Both the election of Frank Page over two hand-picked CR II candidates and the motion I offered (which, after Executive Committee action, led to the Garner Motion in San Antonio) were, to a significant degree, reactions against the overreaching of those in power, notably in the IMB BoT. 

At this point, it very much remains to be seen what the reaction will be this time–to this very recent, heavy-handed attempt to silence and discredit Wade Burleson.  However, given the exploding numbers of those who trust Wade’s version of what the deal is with the IMB BoT far more than that of IMB trustee chair John Floyd, Jerry Corbaley and company, it has now been assured that there will be fireworks in Indianapolis in June 2008. 

To be specific to what just happened, whatever was previously being planned–and I know some were already in the works–in regard to resolutions and motions dealing with ways to make entity trustees truly accountable (i.e., instead of the current situation, in which they are supposed to be, but there is no way to actually hold them accountable) to the will of the SBC at large, that number will now be far greater.  In addition, the number of voters who will be energized to attend and vote in favor of such resolutions and motions will also be considerably larger–mostly due to their horror at this classic example of blatant vindictiveness and wielding of crushing power which was completely unnecessary (i.e., overkill).

The two much more recent examples offer tangible hope that reform is occurring in at least some grassroots circles in the SBC.  The de-throning of the Roger Moran-related leadership by the Missouri Convention was a major set-back for the CR II at the state level.  What happened?  Well, there definitely was a well-organized group who campaigned against Moran et al.  However, in the big picture, it is a classic example of what happens when two things occur: 1) things go too far in one direction; and 2) the rank-and-file are excluded from say-so on the direction of things. 

In other words, the Missouri vote was a desperately needed course correction.  And, in the end, the clear majority, who do not want a narrowing, fundamentalist power-in-the hands-of-a-few approach running the show in the SBC, made their will known.  Hopefully, power brokers elsewhere among Southern Baptists were listening.

In the last–and most recent–example, the Arkansas Convention came within 28 votes (out of 608 cast) of getting the two-thirds majority needed to change the state Constitution’s current (dating back to the early 1970s, apparently) Landmarkist statements rejecting open communion and alien baptism.  And, when a state where Landmarkism has historically been quite strong only votes 36.8% in favor of the position on baptism currently favored by most CR II leaders and reflected in the recent IMB BoT policy, that tells me that these powerful leaders are seriously misreading the mood of the SBC.  Instead, they are reading onto the denomination what they want to see–their own views–all the while that at least noteworthy pockets of the grassroots are apparently choosing to look at things quite differently.

In conclusion, it certainly could still happen that the SBC meeting in Indianapolis will be little more than a coronation ceremony for Al Mohler.  But, from what I have just written, you can tell that I think that smug conclusion might still be a tad premature.  There remains a whole lot more water to go under the bridge before next June.

Coming Wednesday: Break in series (II): “More Midstream Musings”

Fridays are for…. Newpaper Articles

I apologize for not posting Wednesday, but I, as they say down South, “in low cotton” physically.  Following, as on most Fridays, is my weekly article which appears in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian (which I’m very glad I had written before I got sick!): 

                     “God behind the Seen” 

            To me, the biblical Book of Ruth is much more significant than the slender four chapters between Judges and 1 Samuel in the Old Testament of your Bible.  In what at first looks like nothing more than a charming little story primarily about two women, Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi, the reader perceives the unseen hand of God at work in beautiful and amazing—if very subtle—ways. 

            It is this window into the invisible providence of God that provided the title for this article.  But, I admit that I merely ripped it off from a commentary I wrote on Ruth, which was published by Baker Books in 1995, then issued in a second edition by Christian Focus Publications in Scotland in 2003: God behind the Seen. 

            I am drawn to that idea that God is at work in the unseen realm of life.  You see, the Lord is “the same, yesterday, today and forever.”  So, that is just as true today as it was when the events recorded in the Book of Ruth took place—perhaps 1,000-1,200 years before Christ.  Let’s think about it together for the remainder of this article.

            In the Book of Ruth, bad things happen when we people who know better do not seek the Lord’s guidance when making crucial decisions (1:1-5).  Please notice that God is not mentioned—or even implied–in that entire scene.  Doesn’t that sound way too much like the disastrous consequences for which God gets blamed when many believers go out on their own (i.e., without God’s leadership or blessing) today?

            But, even when it looks like there is no way out—no hope (Ruth 1:6-22)—the Lord is still there, protecting us.  That is still true even when all we do is blame Him for our problems.

            Fortunately, while we are focusing on trying to survive, if we trust Him, even the small things stack up for momentum in the right direction, which is precisely what happened when Ruth found herself in Boaz’s field in Ruth 2.  The translations of 2:3 which leave the impression that Ruth got there by “luck” or “chance” miss the point of the Hebrew wording.  The original Jewish audience would have automatically picked up on the fact that God led Ruth there, not just to meet her immediate physical needs for food, but also to meet Boaz.  Similarly, with each of us, small things can be turning points in our lives.

            Then, in chapter 3, Ruth proposes marriage to Boaz, based on an important family-related law stated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.  Some have tried to read into Ruth 3 sexual panky-panky that simply is not there.  Here are two godly people seeking to do the right thing in the right way—with discretion.  Similarly, the Lord works in our lives as we seek to approach finding solutions to difficult problems in our lives the same way.

            In Ruth 4:1-12, we find the funniest scene of the book.  An unnamed kinsman traps himself in an embarrassing “look before you leap” situation, which turns out in the best interest of Ruth and Boaz, because it clears the way for them to get married.  In much the same way, carefully doing your homework and taking courage, rather than being controlled by short-sighted greed and relying on “being at the right place at the right time” is what the Lord blesses in our lives and works to bring to fruition.

            The rest of the narrative is a true-life “happy ending” (4:13-17).  But, with the family tree at the end of the book (4:18-22), we come to realize its wider purpose: it is the claim to the throne of King David (4:22).  This is his family, several generations earlier, and the events that allowed David to be born.   Thus, through this historical wide-angle lens, we see how seemingly (at the time) small details stack up to make a very big difference! 

Could not much the same thing be happening with you or me right now, but we simply do not have the eyes of faith to see it?  Lord, open our eyes to your powerful, if subtle, working in our lives “behind the seen!”