the official "said at southern" logo

a truer truth has never been drawn!!!


[said at southern is a website that
"...helps...connect with other theologically minded Christians. We track over 150 blogs from students, faculty and alumni of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."
feel free to chek them out at www.saidatsouthern.com ]

(this plank in my eye ..it itches!!)
-stephen

an open letter to my fellow seminary students...

as i sat down to read today in the small commons area on campus, i struggled to find a place to sit my coffee and newspaper on the table in front of me.
why?
because the person across from me had his feet propped up on the table meant to be shared by the four chairs surrounding it.
another person joined the two of us with arms full of books, laptop, etc., and after several seconds of awkwardly waiting for the 1st person to move his feet, sat down bewildered. he eventually left still looking bewildered..

unfortunately, this is not uncommon behavior at a school that "equips pastors" and other ministers. i have been in seminary for four years, and these are a few of what i thought were "common sense" courtesy issues that are embarrassingly ignored on a regular basis.

• men, anytime you are going through a doorway, always look behind you to see if their is a lady or older person that you may hold the door for.
  
• anyone, if someone holds the door for you, "thank you" is the appropriate response.
  
• if you are strolling down the hallway or sidewalk with friends, it is impolite to not give way to someone walking the opposite direction and force them into the wall or mud because of your "offensive line" (see what i did there??)
  
• in the hallways and at the top and bottom of stairwells, particularly between classes, recognize that with so many students and so little space, that you may need to move your conversation from standing in the middle of the hallway to against the wall or somewhere else out of the way of the hundreds of people trying to get around you.
  
• in the classroom, once the professor steps up to the lectern, please stop talking.
  
• during the lecture... stop talking at a normal volume to your neighbor when you agree/disagree/have another thought about the topic. students are paying a lot of money and spending a lot of time expecting to be able to hear a professor without being distracted or unable to hear the lecture.
  
• before you ask a question in class, ask yourself "am i wanting to ask this question so everyone will see how much i know. or because i truly need clarification?"
  
• along those same lines, if you do have a legitimate question, but it is beginning to take up a large amount of classroom time, be considerate of the professor who has a syllabus to get through and the students who are paying to learn the information prepared for them by the professor and ask if the conversation can be continued after class sometime.
  (obviously, class discussion is part of the learning experience and the professor can discern if it is beneficial to continue the discussion during class or not)
  
• propping your feet up on the chair in front of you or on the partition is disrespectful to the professor/lecturer and to the custodial staff who has to clean up after you.
  
• guys, it is in the campus handbook... no hats in the classroom. if you didn't know that, now you do. if you did know that and you still do it, then you are not saying much for your integrity.
  
• ladies - take a look at this link and give your wardrobe a run down. i have seen many ladies on campus whose dress is a model of dignity and class. but unfortunately i have seen many who, intentionally or not, seem oblivious to the fact that their low cut and/or tight fitting tops and their tight and/or low cut pants/skirts that show or outline their undergarments are at best distasteful and at worse a stumbling block.

i started seminary in january of 2004. i am a lot different now than i was when i got here.
needless to say, we all go through changes. we mature. time moves on and for the most part... so do we. one thing anyone learns from living in an environment that includes so many different people from so many different backgrounds and cultures is that people are different. and different is not always bad! people are raised with different values and norms. i am not saying that we lose our personality and give up our freedoms to a bunch of "rules" or even preferences.

but if we are in seminary to be trained as ministers and servants, we might as well practice some door holding and ettiquitte while we are here. who knows... we may just have to use some of that in ministry.

"be open minded so i can keep mine closed"

in another display of the double standard that perfectly illustrates our cultures incessant misuse of the concept of "tolerance" i refer you to this story....

When a same-sex couple asked Christian photographer
Elaine Huguenin to photograph their commitment ceremony,
Huguenin declined, citing conflicts with her personal beliefs.
The couple took action, however, filing a
complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division.
Now Huguenin’s studio Elane Photography is being tried
under state anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation
discrimination.

to recap, a couple asked if a photographer would photograph their wedding.the photographer (who is not obligated to accept any offer from anyone) says no because the content of the photo shoot conflicted with her "personal beliefs".

so now the couple is filing an injunction that would prohibit this photographer from ever refusing her services to same sex couples.

so the personal beliefs of the photographer in how she runs her own business are less important than the couple's values who were never promised service in the first place?

lets look at what has happened in finer detail.

a same sex couple were denied services of a photographer, because the photographer disagrees with their lifestyle. the photographer did not try to keep them from their having their 'commitment ceremony'. she simply turned down their offer to pay her money to photograph this event.

notice this... the event will take place anyway. the couple did not lose the ability to have their ceremony photographed. they were not forced to not have their ceremony because the photographer did not agree with their lifestyle. they can simply move on and ask someone else to take pictures. their "right to have pictures taken" at their same sex ceremony was not taken away.

but what about the photographer. if the plantiffs have their way, she will be forced to act against her conscience. her right to disagree with and not contribute to same sex unions would be overruled. she faces loss of income, fines, or worse if she refuses to live in a way that she believes is contrary to her value system.

this goes beyond issues of homosexuality. change the "social situation" to whatever you want.
if a muslim photographer were asked to photograph a christian baptism, he would be well within his rights to refuse his services. can you imagine the outcry if he was forced by law to photograph this ceremony that was contrary to his faith?

it is becoming more and more acceptable in the court of public opinion for one party's belief system to be violated so that another's can have their ***wants***.

it seems everyone's "rights" to not have their "rights" to be denied applies to everyone except those who disagree with you!

as john mellencamp put it"...this is ouuuuur country!!"

foundations of sbc churches..

following my last post on the "baptist" (by name) meetings held in atlanta recently, i have read and had some discussions on what it is that southern baptists believe.

over 150 years have passed since the SBC formed, but we can take a look at what the churches who started the convention believed.

church historian timothy george writes:

By the nineteenth century, Baptists had produced
many [confessions such as]... the Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, a document printed for the Philadelphia Baptist
Association by Benjamin Franklin in 1742.
By the 1830s it exerted a magisterial influence
among Baptists North and South. At the founding meeting
of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, each of the 293
"delegates," as they were then called, who gathered in Augusta,
Georgia, belonged to churches that embraced this confessional standard.

[full article in its entireity is found here]
-Copyright (c) 1999 First Things 93 (May 1999): 17-24.

to read the confession of faith that represented the churches who formed the southern baptist convention, click here:

ht: tom ascol

baptist by name; relativist by belief

in my "history of the baptists" class today, my professor, dr. tom nettles shared excerpts from this news story concerning the new covenant baptist celebration assembly of baptists in atlanta last week led by former president jimmy carter.

here are some excerpts:

Baptists must stop trying to convert everyone to faith in Jesus Christ
and realize that there are multiple "good" interpretations of Bible
passages that appear to exalt Jesus as the only way of salvation,
panelists said Jan. 31 at a session called "Can We All Get Along?
Finding Common Ground with Other Faiths."

In dialogue with people of other faiths, Christians must appreciate
diversity and recognize that trying to bring all people to faith in
Jesus ruins what Gerald Durley, pastor of Providence Missionary
Baptist Church in Atlanta, described as the beautiful mixture of
religions in the world. He compared the religions of the world
to a vegetable soup in which diversity enhances the flavor.

while we should not persecute or hate anyone because of their religious beliefs, it is outrageous that a self-professed christian would say that religions of false gods whose practioners are headed for an eternal torment are "flavor enhancing.

i am dumbfounded when, at a baptist gathering, the idea that there are other valid interpretations of the scriptures that "appear" to claim jesus is the only way of salvation is uttered as an acceptable way of thinking.

All Christian witnessing must be based on personal experience
rather than dogmatic appeal to absolute truths, [david]Currie said.

"It is never appropriate to be dogmatic in one's convictions," he said.
"God is truth. I don't know all truth. So what I bear witness to is what
I have experienced in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and
that's as far as I can take it."

my question to mr. currie would be:
"if christian witnessing should be based on personal experience rather than a 'dogmatic appeal" to absolute truth', how can you be certain that your personal experience is valid? what if someone else claims to have salvation based off of their faith in islam? how can you know that your assurance that you are saved is worth anything? how do you know that your "experience" was valid? what is your personal relationship with jesus based on? how do you know what is pleasing to jesus? how do you know what disobedience is?"

When audience members asked about evangelism, Currie said Jesus
did not tell people what to do with their lives until they asked. He said
the most effective evangelistic technique is to remain silent until an
unbeliever specifically asks about the Gospel.

"For the most part ... the most effective evangelism slogan I know is
'love people and shut up.' That is good evangelism. And when you love
them, ultimately they'll ask you why and then you can tell them.
But if you start telling them before they ask, they're not going to
hear you."

ummm... "jesus did not tell people what to do with their lives until they asked"?
have you *read* the new testament?
sure there are instances where non-believers are searching and when they know they are around a believer they may ask some questions- but what we see in the new testament is the believing community being intentional about sharing the gospel, not waiting for someone to ask.
yes we should love people unconditionally, but part of loving them is being concerned for their soul. i have loved and cared for many people who were lost who never asked about the gospel except to tell me they dont want to hear it.

i wasn't sure what to expect from this gathering. i had my guesses, but i certainly had no idea that this type of post-modern, relativistic conversation would take place. not only is this kind of talk not baptist, it isn't even christian.

people do not have to be southern baptist to be christian. but they must at least affirm the exclusivity of the gospel.

for more on this meeting go here:

the "hard" questions -rape and abortion...

one of the more common objections to a pro-life stance is

"what about cases such as rape, incest, etc.?"

these are questions that do not have easy answers, but they have answers none the less.
rape and incest are horrible tragedies and ones we should never take lightly. for a woman to be violated in any way is a horrible and terrible thing. so we should never respond to these questions coldly or callously, as if the integrity and person hood of a woman who was raped is less important than an unborn child.

one response ,among others, is that rape and incest are horrible evils, but the answer is not to commit a second evil by killing a human life.

along these lines, there is more helpful information found here. i hope this article and its parent site can prove helpful to you as you engage in this delicate and often passionate discussion.

...it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions
do not happen as a result of any of these [rape, incest, fetal
abnormalities]reasons.
In fact, according to a study in Family Planning
Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute,
which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less
than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for
all of these reasons combined.

If the woman does become pregnant, a rare but possible occurrence,
she may be made to feel twice as tainted when society is not prepared
to cope with the circumstances of this child's conception. Counselors
and abortion providers encourage abortion as the perfect "solution."
Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for
something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father.
Once again the mother is pitted against her child.

Subjecting her to an abortion only compounds the initial violence
of the rape. Only in this second tragedy, the woman becomes the
aggressor against her own child.

Although research in this area is limited, at least two studies done
with women who've become pregnant following a rape have clearly
shown that women who aborted their children feel twice victimized
and angry about the abortion (Mahkom, "Pregnancy and Sexual
Assault," Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers
of America [1979], pp. 53-72).

Women in one study who carried their babies to term,
although frightened at first, felt they had done the more
positive thing by giving their children life; they felt they
had turned something awful into something good
(Mahkom and Dolan, "Sexual Assault and Pregnancy,
" New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University
Publishers of America [1981], pp. 182-199).

barbaro and roe vs. wade

because barbaro is back in the media spotlight and last week was the 35th anniversary of roe v. wade, i am re-posting this post that i wrote a year ago ...
[edit:] in case the youtube link at the bottom does not work for you, you can still get a much less gruesome but very much powerful reminder of what is at stake, take a look at this. ]
________________________________________________

in case you missed it, barbaro, last year's kentucky derby winner was euthanized yesterday. if you missed it, you're power must have gone out, and your paperboy must have called in sick.i was literally amazed yesterday, when for over the course of several hours there was a continuous "ticker" running at the bottom of the t.v. screen giving the apparently earth shattering news that barbaro was dead.

granted, i live in louisville kentucky, home of the kentucky derby in the land of horse racing. but as i got online, it was on the front page of all of the major news sites. then as i turned on the television is was on *all* of the major networks. today, it was on the cover of national newspapers.in the span of 12 hours i saw two separate "heart wrenching" stories of how the death of barbaro was profoundly impacting the country. fans in tears. endless flowers, and countless over sized cards expressing condolences.

i have nothing against animals. i would even call myself an animal lover (except for snakes).my best friend from my childhood was my black lab, "buffy". i found her when i was seven years old, and we were thick as thieves until she died after my sophomore year in college. we had to have her "euthanized" after she was hit by a car. old age and a bad leg had made her too slow to run from the cars that she was usually scared of. there was no way for her to recover, her body had been crushed, so we had her put to sleep. and i cried. i was over 20 years old and i sobbed.

i say this to make clear that i understand loyalty and devotion to animals. i know what it is like to love an animal.but yet i do not understand how our country can show so much grief and attention to a horse that was by and large unknown to anyone outside of its owners and caregivers a year ago.here are some excerpts written on the death of this horse :

Barbaro's death is not for the sports pages. It goes on page
one and also Editorial. People who haven't been to a horse
race in their lives feel undone by the loss.

Animals get hurt being what they are. Horses run on stilts for legs.
If horses didn't run on ideal conditions on a race track, they would
try to split the wind on a lumpy field on the other side of nowhere.

The loss of Barbaro's life is unsettling for two reasons. One, we got
to know the horse. We saw him blast through the starting gate, then
shake off that violent encounter, and start running as best he was
able again. We saw him fall. We saw him taken from the track by van.

We followed the surgeries and were gladdened by the rehabilitation.
We saw him wobble from a barn with casts on both right-side legs.
We saw the limp. The appetite. The bright eyes. We saw what was left
of the one hoof, it looked like a peg.

Another reason the loss felt so heavy was because we've
had animals. Few animals are cowards. Some are born sneaky.
But not even chickens are chicken.
– jay cronley espn.com

So many people felt a stake in Barbaro's recovery. They imagined
his pain, grimaced each time he faltered, took heart as each day
passed and he was still alive, making painfully slow progress.

The 2006 Kentucky Derby winner's fight for survival was their fight,
a symbol of strength, courage and comfort -- and, more than anything
else, a source of inspiration. He was, after all, winner of the world's
most famous race, in a sport desperate for a superstar...

"Certainly, grief is the price we all pay for love," co-owner
Gretchen Jackson said. We just reached a point where it was
goingto be difficult for him to go on without pain," Roy Jackson said.

"It was the right decision, it was the right thing to do. We said
all along if there was a situation where it would become more
difficult for him, then it would be time."

When Barbaro broke down... [w]ithin 24 hours fans across the
country seemed to be caught up in a "Barbaro watch." Well-wishers
young and old showed up at the New Bolton Center withcards,
flowers, gifts, goodies and even religious medals, and thousands
of e-mails poured into the hospital's Web site. The biggest gift has
been the $1.2 million raised since early June for the Barbaro Fund,
money to be put toward needed equipment such as an operating room
table and a raft and sling for the same pool recovery Barbaro used
after his surgeries.
- associated press

and now... the contrast:

As we soberly mark the 34th anniversary of the judicial atrocity
known as Roe v.Wade, the sheer number of innocent victims of
that act of judicial tyranny overwhelms our everyday experience.
Even under the most conservative of estimates (and we lack
certainty because we do not have a national, uniform mandatory
abortion reporting requirement), somewhere between 40 and
50 million unborn children have died under this nation’s regime
of abortion.

To put that number in some context, the best estimateis that the
total war dead, of all causes, for all of America’s major and minor
wars since 1775 is 1,329,991 or an amount equal to just one year
of Roe’s infernal tally.

.- Nikolas T. Nikas ,president and general counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund,
a public interest law firm that advocates for life-affirming policies regarding abortion,
human cloning and embryo research, and end-of-life issues.

i understand loving an animal. i understand people reacting to it. i understand the public display of sadness.what i do not understand, is with as much outcry against the war in iraq, the rising death toll of our troops, and the demands to get out to save lives...i do not understand the relative silence where there should be outrage, grief, and action.

the following is not for the weak or faint of heart. i debated whether or not to even link to it.
but i do so with hopes that these images will spread and help stop the killing of human beings... babies, whose worth is not determined by success on a race track, but by being an image bearer of god.

i cannot stress enough the sensitive nature of this video. it is graphic. it shows aborted children. the only reason i link to it is for the purpose of showing it to those you know who hear abortion and think "woman's choice" with no thought of the death of a human. i am repulsed by the images. but i am more repulsed that what is shown in these images is legal.i strongly advise expectant parents not to watch.a graphic video of the horror and violence of abortion. viewer discretion is advised.

HT: justin taylor

2 former presidents and a novelist = new baptist identity?

former presidents jimmy carter, bill clinton, and crime novelist john grisham will be among those in atlanta this week to discuss unity among baptists.

Carter said he had been praying for a new willingness
among Baptists to come together and even set an
example for other denominations that are on the
brink of dividing over conflicting issues such as the
ordination of gays.

read the full story here

im not sure if the national media will pick up on this or ignore it, but it should be interesting.

stop with the forwards!! -email integrity

i have recently been receiving a ton of email forwards about how america should rally together and stand against a muslim being president, yet another reason not to vote for barack obama.

let me set the record straight...

barack obama is not muslim. in fact...(from CTV)

"I've been to the same church -- the same Christian
church -- for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing
the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful
in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the
family Bible.
Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some
silly email ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this
is all crazy. Educate."

Obama is referring to a debunked chain email circulating
widely on the Internet that suggests he is hiding his Islamic
roots and may be a terrorist in disguise. It says he was sworn
into the Senate on the Quran and turns his back on the flag
during the pledge.

There are some truths in the email's details. Obama's middle
name is Hussein. His father and stepfather were Muslim. And
he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim
country. But he attended secular and Catholic schools, not a
radical madrassa.

though it could be debated whether or not the "christian church"
obama attends is what most people think of when they hear
"christian church" - it is not a muslim organization.
the chicago sun-times reports

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama belongs to the United
Church of Christ, one of the country's most racially diverse
and liberal Protestant denominations -- the first to ordain
an openly gay minister and to call for equal marriage rights
for all people, regardless of gender.

The UCC prides itself as being "out front" on social justice
issues, battling civil rights, women's rights and gay rights ahead of
the mainstream. One Sunday hymnal equally celebrates male and
female images of God.

The UCC was formed in 1957 by a merger of churches
from Congregational, Christian, Evangelical and Reformed
traditions. The denomination traces its roots to Christians
who ordained the first African-American minister (1785)
and the first woman minister (1853).
It's also home to the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, the world's
largest gay and lesbian church. Obama and his wife, Michelle,
are members of Trinity United Church of Christ,
a South Side [chicago] church led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr...

so obama is not the picture of conservative evangelical christianity, but he is not a muslim.
so now that we are informed, it would be irresponsible,slanderous, and lying if we continue to perpetuate these false facts via conversational gossip at the water cooler,church, or by email.

we don't have to like obama, and we don't have to vote for him. but if we are christians, we are obligated to tell the truth when confronted with error-not pass it on.

getting past the credentials...

any commentary on candidates for the 2008 presidential election should not be considered an endorsement or otherwise.. this is simply an exercise in promoting informed decision making.

mike huckabee, a favorite of many evangelicals for u.s. president, was a former baptist pastor before he was the governor of arkansas. because huckabee has "baptist minister" in his credentials, many evangelicals have hitched their wagon to his campaign. but does simply having held a position mean what we assume it means?

a friend passed along this article [baptists not on board]on candidate mike huckabee and after reading it, i came across this one [the false conservative]. both of them raised my eyebrows because i had never heard much of this information. and i wonder if many of huckabee's supporters have heard it either.

granted, the tone of the articles will be colored by the agenda of the author, but at the most basic level, facts are facts and certain actions of the past do not seem to line up with what assumes from a "conservative" nominee.