Heisman winner has priorities in order

This week has been a real black eye for sports news. On Monday Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months for his involvement in financing a dog fighting ring. After an embarrassing defeat to the New Orleans Saints on Monday night, Falcons coach Bobby Petrino shocked his boss, players, and fans by tendering an immediate resignation to take the head coaching job at the University of Arkansas. On Thursday senator Mitchell released a list of those in MLB against whom he has evidence of using performance enhancing drugs.

With all of that negative press attention on the sports world, we need to believe that there are still some heroes and role models we can believe in. Perhaps Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow fits the bill.

Click Here for full story

via Baptist Press (BPNews) on 12/10/07

NEW YORK (BP)--Football rates a mere fourth on his list of priorities behind God, family and academics. Even so, in New York City Dec. 8 Tim Tebow became the first college sophomore to win the famed Heisman Trophy in the 70-plus years of the award.

Heisman winner has priorities in order

Is Mormonism Christian?

There has been a lot of news coverage this week about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's speech about the role his faith will and will and will not play in his administration, if he is elected. Romney is a Mormon seeking to overcome concern from many, especially evangelicals, about whether they should vote for a Mormon for president. Many comparisons have been made to John F. Kennedy's speech after receiving the Democrat nomination, about why his Catholicism should not be an issue.

I personally like the fact that Romney is a devout Mormon. The Mormons have a reputation for sharing many of the same values that evangelical Christians do, and in some cases actually living out those values more faithfully than we do. They teach, preach, and live family values, and the sanctity of human life. Just as Joe Lieberman's Jewish faith was not an issue for me in the last election, Mitt Romney's is not an issue for me in this election. I think both men share what we have come to call Judeo/Christian values. Most Mormons I have known personally have been kind decent people. However, just because we share many of the same values does not mean we share the same doctrines.

The teachings of the Mormon church are very different than those of historical Christianity. In the last couple of days Baptist Press has published a series of articles addressing those beliefs. If you think Mormons are just another Christian denomination, worshiping the same God and the same Jesus you do, you need to read up.

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part I)

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part II)

Is Mormonism Christian? (Part III)

What to Say to Mormons When they Knock on your Door | Online Book

Is Mormonism Christian?

What is the Cooperative Program?

I had a church member email me today and ask me what the Cooperative Program is. If you don't know either you shouldn't be embarrassed. But I should. Sometimes as pastors we don't talk about the Cooperative Program very much, and if we do mention it we don't explain it to our people very often. After all, it's not in the Bible, although you can certainly find the principles behind it in Paul's collection from the churches of Asia Minor for the church at Jerusalem.

Here is my answer to the email.

The Cooperative Program is how Southern Baptists fund missions, Christian education (i.e. Baptist Colleges and seminaries), and other ministries of the denominations. Each church decides when they prepare their budget how much they are going to give. It can be a fixed amount, or a percentage of receipts. That money is sent to the State Convention, in our case, the Georgia Baptist Convention. Each state convention decides when it prepares its budget how much it's going to pass along to the Southern Baptist Convention.

The state conventions help pay salaries for Associational Missionaries, they help provide training and assistance to local churches, they may, in cooperation with an association, or with the North American Mission Board, or both, plant new churches, and they support the Baptist Colleges in that state. In our case that is Truett McConell, Shorter, and Brewton Parker. Formerly Mercer, Tift College, and the GA Baptist School of nursing were also Baptist Colleges. The last two are no longer in existence, and Mercer is no longer affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Convention.

The money that gets sent on from the state funds the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, and our six seminaries and any other national agencies.

In many other denominations, missionaries have to go from church to church raising support from individual churches. When the money runs out, they have to come home on furlough to raise more money. In Southern Baptist life, missionaries come home on regularly scheduled furloughs, and they do visit churches to solicit prayer and support of our mission boards. But they aren't soliciting just for themselves, but for all of the missionaries in the board's employ. In this way all of our churches are cooperating to support our missionaries, seminaries, and other agencies, thus the cooperative program. The agencies are also cooperating, rather than competing with one another for contributions from churches. The State Conventions are cooperating with each other in supporting the Southern Baptist Convention. You might say the missionaries are also cooperating also, in that they raise money for a pool that supports everyone, rather than just their particular ministry. This system (along with the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offerings) has allowed us to send out more missionaries than any other evangelical denomination.

For more information click here.

What is the Cooperative Program?

Is it better to have rights, or to be right?

Charge against anti-abortion truck driver dropped | ajc.com

Last week I had the chance to join the staff of the Henry County Pregnancy Resource Center for their weekly "Pastor Prayer Time." I shared a little about that experience here. After our visit I received an email copy of our prayer list, and another email from the HCPRC about a man who had been arrested for driving a truck depicting pictures of aborted fetuses. I placed a link at the bottom of my previous post that not only tells that story, but shows pictures of the truck. I was glad to see in today's news that those charges have been dropped. However, I have mixed feelings about the whole issue. As I see it, there are two separate issues involved. The first issue is the right of Americans to freely express their opposition to abortion, and to seek to persuade others to embrace that position. The second issue relates to the ability of Christians not only to defend the lives of the innocent, but to be able to effectively share the gospel in our culture.

Free Speech

Should an anti-abortion activist have the right, under the first amendment, to display pictures of aborted, fetuses, including bloody, dismembered limbs and headless torsos, on public streets? Freedom of speech is not absolute. The courts have held that communities may limit speech that is considered obscene by community standards. Unfortunately, the definition of obscenity seems to move along a very uncertain sliding scale. What is obscene in one city or state is often ruled not to be obscene in another city or state. And even in the same geographical areas what is obscene in one decade may not be considered obscene in the next decade. I can understand why the courts lean toward allowing rather than limiting speech when the obscenity of the material is open to debate.

I wonder if the purpose of the speech should not be given as much weight as the relative obscenity. Consider the reasons of the founding fathers for including freedom of expression in our Bill of Rights. It seems apparent that having gained their liberty from a monarchy, they wanted to be sure that the people would always have the freedom to hold their new government accountable for its action. Secondly, having gained their independence from a nation with a state church, they wanted to preserve the rights of the citizens of this new nation to worship as they see fit. Therefore the first amendment seems primarily intended to protect political and religious speech. As Christians we are appalled when pornographers and strip club owners hide behind the first amendment. I don't think any of us believe that the founding fathers intended the first amendment be used to protect the right of citizens to profit by promoting the objectification of women and the cheapening of God's great gift of human sexuality. Certainly this type of obscenity should not enjoy the protection of the first amendment, and citizens ought to have the freedom to move about the the community without being involuntarily exposed to such offensive material.

But can the same principle not be said to apply to Operations Rescue's moving billboards? Shouldn't citizens be able to drive down the street without being exposed against their will to such grotesque images? I am a pro-life Christian who finds abortion abhorrent, and yet I don't want to see these trucks in my neighborhoods. But the difference here is not just the level of obscenity, but the purpose of the speech. These images are being used not to profiteer, but in an effort to sway public opinion on an issue with both political and religious implications. With that in mind, I have to say that though I don't wish to see this truck in my neighborhood, I do think Operation Rescue and their driver deserve the protections of our first amendment. Gwinnet County was right to drop the charges against this driver. Now they need to repair the damages they did to this truck, and apologize to the driver.

Christian Witness

This type of speech should be protected. That doesn't make it smart. I know some argue that some who see these images may choose to carry a child to term rather than to have an abortion. I suppose that may be so. But I can't help but think we lose the right to be heard with much of the populace when we result to such grotesque means to get our message across. Certainly images like these have their place. It would be very appropriate to use them in counseling literature in a place like the Henry County Pregnancy Resource Center. When it comes to putting them on the side of a truck and driving around town, I can't help but think that such in-your-face offensive displays simply reinforce the public perception that Christians are a hateful, self-righteous, arrogant hoard. Not only do such displays keep us from being able to engage in meaningful dialogue about the sanctity of human life, but they also close the door for sharing the good news of the gospel. They bring up not the images of a people filled with the love of God seeking to save children, but militants like Eric Rudolf filled with hate seeking to bomb clinics.

Operation Rescue, I hope you will keep your vulgar truck out of my neighborhood. However, if I see it I won't be calling my local sheriff.

Is it better to have rights, or to be right?

Al Mohler on The Golden Compass

Dr. Albert Mohler is the current president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a former editor of the Georgia Baptist newspaper, The Christian Index.

If you can't see all the text below, scroll down to the bottom of the post. There you will find a horizontal scroll bar that will let you move the text over to the left so you can see it all. Or you can click on the link to see it in a Full Window.

Al Mohler on The Golden Compass