Disagreement Does Not Equal Racism

There's an interesting story over at Fox News's website in which former Law & Order starlet Angie Harmon rebuffed those who accuse others of racism because of their public questioning and criticism of President Obama. Some of those who accused Republicans of questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with President Bush are now busy questioning the racial tolerance of anyone who disagrees with the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Angie Harmon and Fred Thompson give me occasional hope for Hollywood!

WOPR, Johnny Cash, and Regenerate Church Membership

If I could start again, a zillion miles away,
I would save myself; I would find a way

–“Hurt” by Trent Raznor, covered by Johnny Cash, American IV: The Man Comes Around, ©2002, American Recording Company

The palpable agony in Johnny Cash's final album still haunts me nearly a decade after its release and Cash's death one year later. "Troubling" has been an apt word for the lyrical accomplishments of Johnny Cash, all the way back to his scandalous shooting (in the fictional lyrics) of "a man in Reno, just to watch him die," back in 1955. But American IV is, in my opinion, the most troubling project in Cash's career.

The lyrics of "Hurt" are certainly dark in and of themselves: "I hurt myself today to see if I still feel" are the opening words. To hear Nine Inch Nails perform the song is somehow less disturbing—young people often go through difficult seasons in their lives, and they occasionally tend toward unmerited melodrama. It is easy, therefore, to write off Nine Inch Nails's dissonant performance of "Hurt" as someone going through a phase (or a narcotic-induced stupor), but destined to sort it all out as maturity dawns and to discover that life isn't so dismal after all. But to hear the voice of a tired old man bringing forth such fatalistic and dark poetry is another experience altogether. It brings one to doom and loss not as the angst of overwrought hormonal excess, but as a final judgment upon the vanity of life from one who has lived long enough to have some credibility upon the subject. His final words, feverishly attempting to conjure up hope for self-salvation give us, in the end, more an unfulfilled (unfulfillable?) desire for "a way" than any tangible belief that such a way exists.

That the album includes a couple of songs hinting toward Cash's professed faith in Jesus Christ, to me, only makes matters worse. It places before us the proposition that the source of all of this angst is not one who has no hope merely because he hasn't looked for any. He has searched. He has engaged the Christian faith, and it has left him to face death in despondency. I don't know that Cash actually felt that way, but that is the inescapable message of his final recording project.

The final strains of "Hurt" put before us the idea of starting again, not as a belief in reincarnation, but as a hypothetical exercise. The author doesn't suggest that he's learned any concrete lessons that he could readily and easily apply. He makes no appeal to being wiser for being older. He doesn't know the way; he only knows all the more how important it is to try to save himself.

The image that these final couplets of "Hurt" place into my mind is that of Matthew Broderick, Ally Sheedy, and John Wood in the 1983 movie "War Games" standing in the bowels of Cheyenne Mountain watching the WOPR computer play "Global Thermonuclear War." The computer restarts the game over and over and over. It tries something different each time. Every plan ends in the annihilation of the world in this Cold War thriller. Finally, the computer compares the prospect of thermonuclear war to the game tic-tac-toe. "An interesting game," WOPR declares, "The only winning move is not to play."

Cash's final album seems to make the same observation about life.

Is the new birth in Jesus Christ a "winning move" in the game of life? No, I don't mean in the sense of Your Best Life Now. But can the Christian believer arrive at the culmination of earthly living genuinely singing "I Can Only Imagine" instead of "Hurt"? I'm convinced that genuine conversion makes that difference. I've seen it in the people of my church. You may be convinced as well. But the world around us is not. They hear too many who claim the name of Christ but who seem to lack confidence in Him as the answer to their problems in this life and beyond. Certainly something has been said about the relevance and reality of Christ as the Conqueror and conversion as a winning move when a purported believer utters something like "I focus on the pain, the only thing that's real."

I believe that this phenomenon of such an uncertain witness coming from self-identified believers has major implications for our fulfillment of the Great Commission as Southern Baptists. In 1735 a young John Wesley—missional, devout, and pious, but as of yet unconverted—encountered his own panic and despair in the face of death. A brutal Atlantic storm beat down upon his ship, threatening the crew and passengers with their imminent demise. Wesley's momentary angst dwelt upon his own mortality, but the enduring angst from that moment focused upon the difference between Wesley's reaction to the danger juxtaposed against the reaction of a group of Moravian missionaries in the ship. Wesley panicked; the Moravians sang and prayed very calmly. Even after the storm had passed, Wesley's disquiet about the contrast between himself and the Moravians remained. It persisted for a full three years until it drove Wesley in 1738 to the Moravian meeting at Aldersgate and to his own conversion.

The momentary angst of our contemporaries is focused upon their jobs, their 401(k) accounts, their upcoming tax bills, and their mortgages. This storm will pass...may already be passing. Will those who live across the street from Southern Baptists or who work in the next cubicle emerge from this storm with any enduring angst, any sense after weathering these storms together with us that they are lacking some peace that Christ has imparted to us? If so, this reality would greatly assist us in fulfilling the Great Commission in our land. Some Southern Baptists certainly are demonstrating Christ's peace in their lives, but we must face the fact that many members in good standing of Southern Baptist churches do not show the evidence of Christ in their lives because they do not have Christ in their lives.

Meaningful and biblical church membership takes the Johnny Cashes of this world and engages them with something more real than pain. If they remain unconverted, it calls them to conversion. If they have been converted but are walking disorderly lives, it brings them the encouragement and accountability and support that they need to find Christ's strength for victorious living. If they will have neither of these things, it refuses to ignore their troubles until and unless they address them.

This biblical covenant community of encouraging accountability is the way. It is not a means for saving ourselves, but a means of acknowledging that we cannot possibly do so and pointing us to the only One who can. It does not require going back to some imagined decision-point a zillion miles earlier in life, but demonstrates that life can change even now when the Creator creates us anew. It confronts us with a message that strips away the veil and demonstrates pain to be nothing more than "temporary light affliction" that, while quite real, fades into insignificance in comparison to the glory yet to be revealed.

The way was there all along, right under Johnny Cash's nose. Let's knock the dust off it and make sure that everyone else can see it better from now on.

On Health Care Reform

I hear very little public conversation from Southern Baptist pastors on the question of health care reform, although it seems to be a major topic in our culture. I can surmise good reasons why we do not opine frequently and loudly on this issue:

1. Pastors have a sense that they are not qualified to speak about the nuances of health care, since these discussions often wander into jargon pretty quickly.

2. “Health care reform” is a topic likely to be divisive in any congregation that contains people from two or more of the following categories: employers, employees, government workers, medical practitioners, unemployed people, retirees. That's every congregation that I know, so pastors who aren't looking for yet another controversy are likely to remain mute on the question of health care reform.

3. The question of health care reform has become politicized, and therefore many pastors will perceive a danger of seeming to be affiliated with one political party or another based upon what they might say about health care.

In rebuttal, I would like to offer several reasons why pastors might want to try to form and publish an opinion on the matter of health care reform:

1. Intermingled with the biological, legal, and technological aspects of the discussion about health care reform are several profound moral questions. What level of health care do I as a Christian owe to my neighbor? As one whose citizenship is in Heaven, how much is it moral for me to take away from strangers in an effort to live on longer in this world? Who has the responsibility to provide for the care of my parents? For my children? Do we as pastors really find ourselves unable to address these questions for our congregations? Can we really say that these questions are irrelevant to the faith?

2. Sickness and death are prominent themes in the Bible and as pastors we have a responsibility to call people to a healthy biblical worldview regarding these issues as well as others. Whenever we have a health care discussion, we're really having a sickness and death discussion. Have our people accepted the fact that they are going to face death, and probably sickness as well? Is it not a matter of discipleship to cultivate in them a faith that survives that realization?

3. Money is another prominent theme in the Bible. What are just ways to earn it and just ways to spend it? If I spend $500,000 to extend my life by three days, is that good stewardship? If I spend $12,000 per year in order to have a health insurance plan that will subsidize my elective surgeries, is that good stewardship? What percentage of our Gross Domestic Product is it good stewardship for us to spend on drugs and procedures and tests? What if I am spending not my money, but somebody else's? Does that change things? Surely God has something to say about these questions.

4. The Bible strongly commends generosity. What is the role of charity in health care? Is the Bible silent to guide us in considering these questions?

It seems to me that this debate is in desperate need of the input of people precisely like Southern Baptist pastors, at least to place before people some of the clear teachings of the Bible to consider as we address foundational questions underlying our opinions about health care related issues.

Are We Returning to the Middle Ages?

After the recent flap about indulgences, today our friends over at the Dallas Morning News draw our attention to another positively Medieval idea now turbocharged with twenty-first century technology. Read the DMN's Bruce Tomaso's blog post: "Too busy to pray? For a fee, a computer will do it for you".

This sort of thing seems foolish to me, but if you believe in such a thing as private votive masses, this isn't too far of a stretch.

Chris Poe on Mark Dever and Baptism

I think one of the brightest new stars in the blogging firmament is Chris Poe. I really like his stuff. It may be unfair to brand him as "new" to blogging, since One Pilgrim's Progress has been around from as early as 2006. Nevertheless, his monthly average number of posts for the first three years of blogging might easily be counted on one hand of a farsighted carpenter, whereas since February he has been posting something substantive at least every other day.

His most recent post caught my attention because I can really relate. I tried to defend Mark Dever the last time he publicly owned his sincere convictions about credobaptism, and some folks tried to slap me around about it online. Now, Dr. Dever has rightfully broached the subject again and Chris has written a cogent defense of Mark's statement. My favorite section reads:

May we assume by these responses that these leading lights among the Reformed disagree with the following from Chapter 28 of the Westminster Confession of Faith?

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Chris's entire article is excellent. I highly recommend it.

2009 Baptist Renaissance March Madness Bracket

NOTE: I see that the Dallas Morning News religion blog has linked to this post. Thanks, Sam, for reading. But I hasten to note that I am writing here (a) with a good deal of mirth, (b) on a blog that, until the DMN links to it, is pretty much intramural in the Southern Baptist world. So, there are a lot of "inside" references that are not explained below. My apologies if you find it hard to follow at points.

Last year I revealed to the world my habit of picking a "Baptist Renaissance" bracket for each year's NCAA Men's Basketball tournament. The basic idea is to pick the winners based upon how closely each school can be connected to the subject that I occasionally teach: Baptist History. There are some exceptions, but in general, schools with a religious origin outrank secular schools, schools presently demonstrating some spiritual vitality outrank schools who have long ago departed their religious origins, Protestant schools outrank Catholic schools, and Baptist schools top the entire chart. I'll let you guess how well this normally matches the actual results of the basketball tournament. ;-)

First Round

Midwest Region

Louisville v. ?: The world does not yet know whether Louisville will face Alabama State or Morehead State in the first round. Yet there's very little suspense: the outcome probably doesn't matter much with regard to the actual fate of the #1 seeded Cardinals, neither does it matter for the Baptist Renaissance picks. Both Morehead State and Louisville were founded as religious schools, failed as religious schools, and were taken over by the state of Kentucky. Given the legitimate option to choose either, I'd be a madman not to take Louisville.

Siena v. Ohio State: Siena is a Franciscan Catholic school. Ohio State has been, since its inception, a state school. The pick goes to Siena.

Utah v. Arizona: Both institutions are state schools. Utah is, of course, the home state of the Mormon heresy. As a fellow Arkansan paying my respects to the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I give the Baptist Renaissance nod to Arizona.

Wake Forest v. Cleveland State: Cleveland State University traces its origins to classes launched by the Cleveland Young Men's Christian Association, although the university didn't flourish until bankrolled by Sherwin-Williams co-founder S. P. Fenn. Cleveland State, therefore, has some religious aspect to its founding. Wake Forest, however, was once a Baptist school, having been founded by the North Carolina Baptist State Convention. Wake Forest is the pick, in spite of what the school may be today.

West Virginia v. University of Dayton: Dayton is a Catholic school pitted against secular West Virginia. Every shot is a Hail Mary shot for them. Go Dayton!

Kansas v. N. Dakota State: Kansas is really close to Oklahoma, it is a state that opposes evolution, and a scant few miles separate it from a Southern Baptist seminary. N. Dakota, on the other hand, is a place where for ten months out of the year the water doesn't thaw enough to baptize by immersion. I have to pick Kansas.

Boston College v. University of Southern California: Last year I shunned all things Californian. But this year things are going to be different. On the one hand, you might expect me to pick Boston College, because it is a Catholic school. However, larger factors must be brought to bear here. Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage. California, on the other hand, has passed Proposision 8. This series of events puts me into a much more favorable state of mind toward California. So, in complete violation of the rules—and probably in a stroke of injustice against a school that may oppose gay marriage in favor of a school that probably supports it—I'm spinning my pro-California bias in favor of USC.

Michigan State v. Robert Morris University: Neither is a religious school. Robert Morris University was named after a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. Baptists love religious liberty. Religious liberty came through the First Amendment, which only exists because of the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence is somewhat a theological document. The pick goes to RMU.

West Region

University of Connecticut v. University of Tennessee-Chattanooga: Both are state schools. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, however, was founded by the Methodists. What's more, Chattanooga is the home of Moon Pies (I prefer the banana ones, thank you very much!), which may have no significance to Baptist Renaissance ideas, but matters a great deal to me personally. I'm going with the Mocs.

Brigham Young University v. Texas A&M: The Aggies are a state school, but they also are the home of one of the largest Baptist Student Ministry groups in the world. College Station and its environs are home to some of the stronger churches that we have in the Southern Baptist Convention. By the way, the inaugural graduating class at Texas A&M included none other than Edgar Young Mullins. On the other side of the court will be BYU. I'm personally willing to volunteer to pour cayenne pepper into their magic underwear before tip-off. Although Rufus Burleson spins in his grave every time he hears me say it, "Go Aggies!"

Purdue University v. University of Northern Iowa: Two state schools from the Midwest face each other on the court. From the perspective of the Baptist Renaissance, these schools look pretty much the same. But wait, there is a means for breaking this tie. The Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting has taken place twice in recent years in the Hoosier state. Have we ever met in Iowa? I don't think so. Therefore, I go with Purdue.

Washington v. Mississippi State: Mississippi has historically been among the strongest states for Southern Baptists. What about Washington State? Rumor has it that there are churches in Seattle, although I turn on my TV Guardian before I listen to sermons from up there. I'm going with the Bulldogs.

Marquette v. Utah State: Utah? Do you really have to ask? Marquette.

Missouri v. Cornell: I said some nice things about Cornell last year and picked them above Stanford. But Missouri is a good state in which a lot of God-fearing Baptists reside. We have a seminary in the state. I'm going with Mizzou.

California v. Maryland: This pick is entirely about Prop 8. I'm going with California.

Memphis v. California State University, Northridge: I've been giving California a lot of props for Prop 8, but it stops here. As important as it is, Prop 8 cannot overcome the fact that J. R. Graves, founder of Landmarkism is buried there(and as the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-discerning Wade Burleson will soon tell you in his new book, anybody who has the word Baptist in the name of his church is basically a Landmarker). Also, Memphis is the resting place for such grandees as R. G. Lee and Adrian Rogers. I'll pick Memphis.

East Region

Pittsburgh v. East Tennessee State University: Tennessee is the home of the SBC Executive Committee and Lifeway. Pittsburg is not. I'm going with ETSU.

Oklahoma State Univeristy v. University of Tennessee: Both are secular universities, but Robin Foster lives in the shadow of OSU and is a big Cowboy fan. So this one's for you, Robin. Go Cowboys.

Florida State University v. University of Wisconsin: I'm guessing that the Florida Baptist Witness will endorse the Seminoles, and I'm a fan of that paper. FSU over Wisconsin.

Xavier v. Portland St.: Catholic Xavier over very secular Portland State in very secular Oregon.

UCLA v. Virginia Commonwealth University: Virginia Commonwealth came into being upon the merger of Richmond Professional Institute and the Medical College of Virginia. The Medical College of Virginia was originally the Medical Department of Hampden-Sydney College. Hampden-Sydney College has an historical association with the Presbyterians. It is a weak link, but it beats anything UCLA has. I'm going with VCU.

Villanova v. American: Villanova is a Catholic school. American University has a long history with the Methodists. I'm going with American.

Texas v. Minnesota: Although I used to love to listen to a Minnesotan friend of mine utter the words "Golden Gophers" in a way that only a Minnesota accent can do, there are more Southern Baptists in Austin than in the entire state of Minnesota, I'm willing to wager. Longhorns get the pick.

Duke v. SUNY-Binghamton: Duke is a Methodist school. Binghamton is secular. The pick goes to Duke.

South Region

University of North Carolina v. Radford: This is a tough one. Both are secular schools. Both are in Baptist-heavy states (or heavy-Baptist states, perhaps!). But of the two states, Virginia has one state convention sacrificially forwarding a large percentage of its Cooperative Program giving to national and international causes. That's enough to make a tie-breaker for me. No slight against the North Carolinians, just a chance to pat the SBCV on the back for their generosity, and I'm taking it. I'm picking Radford.

Louisiana State University v. Butler: This might be a hard pick for some folks. Louisiana is a state that a Southern Baptist seminary calls home, as well as a lot of strong Baptist churches. Furthermore, LSU is a school known for drunken brawls, and that will endear it to some segments of today's SBC. But I'm choosing Butler. Ovid Butler founded the school as an explicitly Christian institution to train up abolitionist preachers and believers. Butler over LSU.

Illinois v. Western Kentucky: These are both state institutions. I'll pick Western Kentucky over the home of Rod Blagojevich and all of those other holders of high political office from Illinois for which he stands.

Gonzaga v. Akron: Akron was founded by the Universalists; Gonzaga by the Catholics. Go Gonzaga!

Arizona State University v. Temple University: A lot of people don't realize that there was a "Gospel of Wealth" long before there was Benny Hinn. Russell Conwell and his "Acres of Diamonds" sermon differed a bit in emphasis from the current super-heretical "Word of Faith" movement. He just thought that, if you were a good Christian, you'd embody the virtues of thrift, sobriety, hard work, and the like. For people like that, Conwell was certain, the world was your oyster. What does this have to do with basketball? Conwell founded Temple University (and is also half of the namesake of Gordon-Conwell Seminary). ASU is secular. I'm picking Temple.

Syracuse v. Steven F. Austin: Syracuse, although few traces now remain, was founded by the Methodists. SFA is a secular institution. All other things being equal, that would make this match a shoe-in for Syracuse (together with their #3 seeding, of course!). But SFA is named after Steven F. Austin the Texas hero. And the planting of Austin's Colony in Texas brought religious liberty to what had previously been rigidly and intolerantly Catholic Spanish territory. I love religious liberty, so I'm picking SFA to win over Syracuse.

Clemson v. Michigan: I confess that I know very little about Thomas Green Clemson, but I was able to discover online that he's buried in a church cemetery. Besides, I like Clemson to win. I'll pick Clemson.

Oklahoma v. Morgan State: I'd take the Sooners over a lot of the other state schools in the bracket this year, but as luck would have it, Oklahoma faces Morgan State University. Morgan State was founded by the Methodists as the Centenary Biblical Institute, so I've just got to go with them.

Second Round

Louisville v. Siena: We have a seminary in Louisville. That counts for a lot. Go Cards.

Arizona v. Wake Forest: Wake Forest's Baptist roots dominate this match-up.

Dayton v. Kansas: Dayton.

USC v. Robert Morris: The patriot in me sides with Robert Morris.

Chattanooga v. TAMU: For my Baptist Aggie brethren!

Purdue v. Mississippi State: Personally, I'd rather the convention meet in Mississippi...so much closer. Go Bulldogs.

Marquette v. Missouri: Religious Marquette over secular Mizzou.

California v. Memphis: Go, Memphis State (that's what they were called when I lived in the area). The MidSouth region never would've had to have that Proposition 8 to begin with.

ETSU v. OSU: I'll take Oklahoma State, to further ingratiate myself to Robin Foster.

Florida State v. Xavier: Catholic Xavier over secular FSU.

VCU v. American: Methodist American Univeristy over secular Virginia Commonwealth.

Texas v. Duke: Private quasi-religious Duke over state-school Texas.

Radford v. Butler: Butler's mission was pretty neat. I'm going with Butler.

Western Kentucky v. Gonzaga: Gonzaga.

Temple v. SFA: Did I mention that Conwell was a Baptist? Temple.

Clemson v. Morgan State: Morgan State, former seminary for African-American preachers, for the win.

Sweet Sixteen

Louisville v. Wake Forest: And here we arrive at one of my inconsistencies. Wake Forest represents where the SBC would be but for the Conservative Resurgence. Louisville always reminds me of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which made one of the more radical turnarounds in the story of the Conservative Resurgence. I know that the University of Louisville is not the same institution as SBTS, but SBTS will never have a basketball team in the NCAA tournament. I'm going with my heart over my head, and I'm picking Louisville over Wake Forest.

Dayton v. Robert Morris: Dayton is a religious school, so it vanquishes good old Colonial hero Robert Morris.

Texas A&M v. Mississippi State: Aggies over Bulldogs.

Marquette v. Memphis: The Landmarkers versus the Catholics? The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Memphis.

Oklahoma State v. Xavier: Sorry, Robin, but OSU is a secular school. Xavier.

American v. Duke: Methodists versus Methodists. But one group of Methodists is from Washington D.C. Right now, I'm inclined to vote against everything coming from there. Duke.

Butler v. Gonzaga: Ovid Butler's Protestant vision over Catholic Gonzaga.

Temple v. Morgan State: Temple.

Elite Eight

Louisville v. Dayton: If I'm basically equating Louisville with Southern Seminary, then I must follow the logic of my illogic. Cardinals win.

Texas A&M v. Memphis: Oooooohhhh. Tough one. J. R. Graves v. E. Y. Mullins. Historically, Mullins won. But I love to fulfill people's stereotypes, just to see what they do. I'll take J. R. Graves and Memphis.

Xavier v. Duke: Which boils down to siding with Luther or Leo X. I'll go with Duke.

Butler v. Temple: I'll go with Temple's Baptist heritage here.

Final Four

Louisville v. Memphis: Many would say that I have to take J. R. Graves over Louisville, but you've got to remember that Thomas Treadwell Eaton lived in Louisville, too. I'm taking Louisville.

Duke v. Temple: Temple will find "Acres of Diamonds" on the court against Duke.

Championship Game

Temple (87) over Louisville (63)

And if it really happens that way, and THESE predictions of mine come true, then Tracy and I are taking over from Jack and Rexella.

An XML Schema Declaration for a Sermon

Just something I've been working on for a project (I DO do more than blog, you know). Anyway, the following is code I've developed to try to put together an XML schema defining a sermon. Any ideas?

I know that, theoretically, OSIS could be employed to encode a sermon, but that's not a very satisfying solution. Sermons have elements peculiar to sermons. A good XML representation of a sermon should know the difference between a point and a conclusion.

I only took two preaching classes in seminary, and they were a long time ago. I may very well have missed something important. So if this code is helpful to you, then I'm glad for you to use it so long as you give me credit. And if you can help me make this code better, I welcome the help.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<xs:schema id="Sermon"
    targetNamespace="http://tempuri.org/Sermon.xsd"
    elementFormDefault="qualified"
    xmlns="http://tempuri.org/Sermon.xsd"
    xmlns:mstns="http://tempuri.org/Sermon.xsd"
    xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
    xmlns:osis="http://www.bibletechnologies.net/2003/OSIS/namespace"
>
  <xs:import id="osis" namespace="http://www.bibletechnologies.net/2003/OSIS/namespace" 
             schemaLocation="http://www.bibletechnologies.net/osisCore.2.1.1 - 06March2006.xsd"
             />
  
  
  <!--Definition of simple elements-->
  <xs:element name="author" type="xs:token"/>
  <xs:element name="version" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>
  <xs:element name="decisions" type="xs:nonNegativeInteger"/>
  <xs:element name="title" type="xs:token"/>
  <xs:element name="text" type="xs:token"/>
  <xs:element name="centralIdeaOfText" type="xs:string"/>
  <xs:element name="thesis" type="xs:string"/>
  <xs:element name="objective">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:attribute ref="majorObjective"/>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>
  <xs:element name="createdDate" type="xs:date"/>
  <xs:element name="occasionStart" type="xs:dateTime"/>
  <xs:element name="location" type="xs:token"/>
  <xs:element name="description" type="xs:string"/>
  <xs:element name="occasionsPreached" type="preachingOccasion"/>
  
  <!--Definition of attributes-->
  <xs:attribute name="majorObjective" default="Evangelistic">
    <xs:simpleType>
      <xs:restriction base="xs:token">
        <xs:enumeration value="Evangelistic"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="Consecrative"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="Ethical"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="Doctrinal"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="Supportive"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="Devotional"/>
        <xs:enumeration value="Programmatic"/>
      </xs:restriction>
    </xs:simpleType>
  </xs:attribute>

  <xs:attribute name="reference" type="xs:token"/>
  <xs:attribute name="translation" type="xs:token" default="NASB"/>
  
  <!--Definition of complex elements-->
  <!--Sermon Header-->
  <xs:element name="head">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:sequence minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1">
        <xs:element ref="author" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"/>
        <xs:element ref="text" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"/>
        <xs:element ref="title" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="centralIdeaOfText" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="thesis" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="objective" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="0"/>
        <xs:element ref="createdDate" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"/>
        <xs:element ref="occasionsPreached" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <!--Abstract Elements-->
  <xs:element name="inlineElement" abstract="true">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
        <xs:element ref="blockElement"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="blockElement" abstract="true">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>
  
  <!--Content Elements-->
  <xs:element name="p" substitutionGroup="blockElement"/>
  <xs:element name="em" substitutionGroup="inlineElement"/>
  <xs:element name="i" substitutionGroup="inlineElement"/>
  <xs:element name="strong" substitutionGroup="inlineElement"/>
  <xs:element name="b" substitutionGroup="inlineElement"/>

  <xs:element name="blockquote">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="blockElement"/>
        <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
        <xs:element ref="ul"/>
        <xs:element ref="ol"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="li">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="blockElement"/>
        <xs:element ref="blockquote"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="ul">
    <xs:complexType mixed="false">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="li"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="ol">
    <xs:complexType mixed="false">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="li"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="explanation">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:complexContent>
        <xs:extension base="blockElementContainer">
          <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
            <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
          </xs:choice>
        </xs:extension>
      </xs:complexContent>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="illustration">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:complexContent>
        <xs:extension base="blockElementContainer">
          <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
            <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
          </xs:choice>
        </xs:extension>
      </xs:complexContent>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="application">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:complexContent>
        <xs:extension base="blockElementContainer">
          <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
            <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
          </xs:choice>
        </xs:extension>
      </xs:complexContent>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="transition">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:complexContent>
        <xs:extension base="blockElementContainer">
          <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
            <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
            <xs:element ref="application"/>
            <xs:element ref="explanation"/>
            <xs:element ref="illustration"/>
            <xs:element ref="scriptureReference"/>
          </xs:choice>
        </xs:extension>
      </xs:complexContent>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="point">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:sequence minOccurs ="1" maxOccurs="1">
        <xs:element ref="pointStatement"/>
        <xs:choice minOccurs ="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
          <xs:element ref="blockElement"/>
          <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
          <xs:element ref="pointGroup"/>
          <xs:element ref="explanation"/>
          <xs:element ref="illustration"/>
          <xs:element ref="application"/>
          <xs:element ref="transition"/>
          <xs:element ref="ol"/>
          <xs:element ref="ul"/>
        </xs:choice>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="pointStatement" type="xs:string"/>

  <xs:element name="pointGroup">
    <xs:complexType mixed="false">
      <xs:choice minOccurs ="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="point"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element type="osis:osisCT" name="scriptureReference" />
  
  <xs:element name="introduction" substitutionGroup="transition"/>
  <xs:element name="conclusion" substitutionGroup="transition"/>

  <xs:element name="body">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
        <xs:element ref="transition"/>
        <xs:element ref="pointGroup"/>
        <xs:element ref="inlineElement"/>
        <xs:element ref="blockElement"/>
        <xs:element ref="ol"/>
        <xs:element ref="ul"/>
        <xs:element ref="scriptureReference"/>
        <xs:element ref="explanation"/>
        <xs:element ref="illustration"/>
        <xs:element ref="application"/>
      </xs:choice>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>

  <xs:element name="sermonBody" substitutionGroup="body"/>

  <!--Definition of complex types-->
  <xs:complexType name="preachingOccasion">
    <xs:all>
      <xs:element ref="description"/>
      <xs:element ref="location"/>
      <xs:element ref="occasionStart"/>
      <xs:element ref="decisions"/>
    </xs:all>
  </xs:complexType>

  <xs:complexType name="blockElementContainer" mixed="true">
    <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
      <xs:element ref="blockElement"/>
      <xs:element ref="blockquote"/>
      <xs:element ref="ul"/>
      <xs:element ref="ol"/>
      <xs:element ref="pointGroup"/>
    </xs:choice>
  </xs:complexType>
  
  <!--Definition of root element-->
  <xs:element name="sermon">
    <xs:complexType mixed="true">
      <xs:sequence minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1">
        <xs:element ref="head"/>
        <xs:element ref="body"/>
      </xs:sequence>
    </xs:complexType>
  </xs:element>
</xs:schema>
©2009 C. Bart barber

Please Don't Vote for My Blog

Self-promotional posts are popping up everywhere now that Tony Kummer has launched his annual Blog Madness competition. I notice that Tony has posted me in the East division, although I've never lived east of the Mississippi River. Oh, well…who says these things are supposed to make sense?

Anyway, please don't vote for me. It goes against my heritage. I graduated in 1991 from Baylor University. I shouldn't be in the competition at all, but since Tony has listed my blog, I am under obligation to go out in the first round.

The Most Important Thing Happening Right Now in the Southern Baptist Convention

Pretty pretentious (or portentious?) title, huh?

The most important thing happening in SBC current events right now is the Executive Committee's consideration of whether Broadway Baptist Church, Fort Worth, TX, is or is not in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention. Why do I believe this to be the most important thing presently ongoing in the SBC?

Do I believe that this case is important because homosexuality is the most important issue presently facing our convention? No. The SBC's answer to the question of homosexuality is, for the moment, clear. We'll see where it stands one generation from now, with researcher after researcher declaring an upcoming generation of "evangelicals" who are "more tolerant on issues such as gay rights and homosexuality" (John Turner, quoted in Christianity Today online article here). But I think we have reason to hope that the Southern Baptist Convention is distinct enough from evangelicalism at large to stick with the Bible while evangelicalism slides off into public relations. Whatever. But my point here simply is that the SBC, before showing Broadway Baptist Church the door, is already sufficiently on-the-record on the question of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is an important issue, but not nearly the most important issue facing us at present. But there are issues involved in this case that are very important for Southern Baptists.

Biblical Church Discipline and Regenerate Church Membership are among them. The very heart of this case is the idea that Broadway Baptist Church is responsible for those whom it admits into membership. Reports indicate that one of the most important questions posed in the last EC meeting simply asked Broadway's representatives something along the lines of, "If you knew for certain that a person seeking membership were an ongoing, active, unrepentant homosexual, would you still receive that person into membership?" It is a good question, and the committee did not receive a good answer, to my knowledge.

Broadway's defense, up to this point, has been that it has never taken any sort of a vote to place the church in favor of homosexuality. Unless it does something like that, Broadway's representatives argue, it has not "act[ed] to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." (SBC Constitution, Article III). I'm hoping that the Executive Committee is preparing to decide that a church is indeed acting to affirm, approve, or endorse behavior when (a) the church knows full well that its members are engaged in that behavior, and yet (b) no disciplinary action whatsoever is taken by the church with regard to that behavior—no preaching, no formal disciplinary action, not even any passing over such a one for positions of responsibility in the congregation.

I believe that this action, if taken, will be an important milestone in our needed strengthening of biblical ecclesiology within our convention. It will be a clarion call to our churches to remember that membership does matter and that we are indeed responsible for the spiritual health of all of those who are members in our congregation. Particularly this is true for those of us in church leadership "who will give an account" (Hebrews 13:17) for these folks. At least with regard to homosexuality, the message from our convention will be clear: Loving and redemptive discipline toward known practicing homosexuals in the church is the only biblical option for our churches.

That lesson, once learned with regard to homosexuality, needs to be extrapolated to a great many public and grievous sins that muddle our testimony of Christ, weaken our evangelistic effectiveness, and diminish the holiness of the Bride of Christ.

And that brings us to the final reason why this is the most important thing happening right now in the Southern Baptist Convention: Because this question is all about the local church. We've had a Conservative Resurgence among our national institutions. Similar things need to happen in some of our state conventions. Discussions are underway regarding a Great Commission Resurgence to serve as extension and successor to the Conservative Resurgence. These are all good things. But none of them are the thing that we need most.

What we need is a Local Church Reformation, fomented by Personal Revival for some, and Regeneration for others. To the degree that the case of Broadway Baptist Church reminds us about how profound is the need for reformation and revival in our churches, this is a good thing—indeed, it is the most important thing happening right now in the Southern Baptist Convention.

UPDATE: As it so happens, the good folks over at BaptistTheology.org have just posted an article by Dr. Gary Ledbetter entitled "Is There a Church within Your Church?" I just read the article and I see that it addresses some of the same points that I have addressed in this blog post. The major difference is that Gary's article is so much better written.

The Revolution and the First Great Awakening

Today's article in The Washington Post by Phillip Pan gives us an empathetic look at “Georgia, a Nation Stalled On the Road to Democracy.” The subtitle hints at the broader principle extrapolated within the body, “Fragility Is Norm for States in Transition.”

Although Frank Lambert (Inventing the Great Awakening) provides valuable insight into the promotional genius that people like George Whitefield employed to promulgate the gospel in the 1700s, his suggestion falls short that the Great Awakening was more a media event than a widespread phenomenon of spiritual transformation. America after the Great Awakening was simply too different from America before the Great Awakening for it to have been anything less than a life-changing event for those involved. Denominations split. Vast migrations from denominations like Anglicanism to groups like the Baptists forever changed the religious shape of our soon-to-be nation.

First Great Awakening revisionists like Lambert, Jon Butler (who has called for disuse of the term “Great Awakening” altogether), and Joseph A. Conforti notwithstanding, I not only believe that the Great Awakening as traditionally described was a real event, but I further side with Alan Heimert and William G. McLoughlin (against Christine Leigh Heyrman and Christopher Jedrey, for example) in seeing the First Great Awakening as instrumental in the creation of the United States of America. McLoughlin's description is fitting: The First Great Awakening was "the key which unlocked the door to the new household of the republic."

What does this have to do with Georgia? Everything. Our national ambition under George W. Bush has been to export democracy to the world. I'm a big fan of democracy, and if our nation believes in it, we ought to be willing to export it. Certainly despotism and collectivism have their flaws writ large on the history of the modern era. Yet I think a despondency is palpable and growing in reaction to the fact that democracy does not quickly and readily succeed in every soil into which we plant it. Eastern Orthodoxy may want an alternative to Stalinism, but it will not soon lose sight of the English King James I's poignant observation that non-episcopal religion “agreeth as well with a monarchy as God and the Devil,” and vice-versa.

The soil in which democracy thrives is evangelical Christianity. Exporting democracy is no good reason to spread the gospel abroad, any more than it makes sense to purchase the Happy Meal just for the toy, but I do believe that the spread of political freedom cannot possibly succeed among people who are in bondage spiritually. This is not only a good explanation for the struggles to implement democracy in Russia or Georgia, but is also a good cause for us to pray all the harder about the future of our own nation of people migrating further away from the core truths of the First Great Awakening.

The Wisdom That Leads to Salvation

Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3 are important ones. We can aptly summarize the period in Southern Baptist life from 1979 through 2000 as a wrangling with the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16. All Scripture is indeed inspired by God and consequently is inerrant. Our convention is healthier for having affirmed that truth, which is still under attack from elements within the SBC.

As important as verse 16 is, verse 15 is also very important. Therein Paul reminds Timothy of how the young Christian first came into the faith—through the operation of the Bible in his life. The Scriptures, Paul flatly states, "are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation." This powerful truth does not only pertain to Westerners or those who grow up in a "Bible" culture; it is true for all people. The wisdom that leads to salvation does not come from the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Tao Te Ching; it comes from the Bible. Nor does the Bible require the help of any other writing to lead people to salvation.

A cogent illustration of this truth comes in the story of Christianity in the Korean Peninsula. The latest post on the ACB blog tells the amazing story of Christ's work in Korea. The history of that movement has been of interest to me for several years. Journey over to the ACB blog and enjoy Mike Morris's excellent paper (OK, the length restrictions over there make it something of a paper-ette).

The Beauty of Evangelicalism

As all around us the Great Baptist Re-Think takes place, and another generation determines, one-by-one, whether we were right or wrong to maintain separation from other denominations on the definitive issues of our doctrine, I have taken the role of someone defending the Baptist ideas. I believe that they are both biblical and important enough to warrant our division from other believers who disagree.

One regrettable side effect of taking that position is the likelihood of leaving the false impression of being curmudgeonly toward all who are not Baptist.

It is a bit like the way I am made to feel sometimes with regard to the King James Version of the Bible. I love the KJV. Ask me to quote a scripture that I memorized in childhood, and I'm going to quote KJV back to you, probably. To this day, I cannot find within me the will to read Psalm 23 "straight" from another translation. I always wind up with some sort of a hybrid, eliminating some of the more awkward archaisms but always coming out with "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death," and things like that.

But I've encountered those people along the way in ministry who are KJV-only people. They may like my preaching and like the church, but they don't like my reading the NASB. And so some sort of dialogue always ensues. And the thing that I hate about it is that those discussions inevitably make me out as the enemy of the KJV.

I'm not the enemy of the KJV. I'm also not one who possesses a sour attitude toward other non-Baptist believers. I love the brothers and sisters whom we have in Christ. I love them enough to try as best I can to get them to come into obedience to Christ in those areas in which they are in sin. I hope that they will love me enough to do likewise, for I am not without my own flaws.

Just as Baptists are not entirely right, non-Baptists are not entirely wrong. On the distinctive doctrines of our faith, Baptists are biblical and right, but we've ranged beyond these things and have been in error many times in our history. There's ugliness in Baptist history, and there's beauty in evangelicalism. Ecclesiology is an important part of the faith, but the faith is so much more than ecclesiology. And there are real treasures for us all in the broader world of evangelicalism.

One good example of that beauty is, in my estimation, the life and work of Rich Mullins. Although I disagreed with some of his commentary, I've found in his songwriting a glorious exaltation of the Lord coupled with an authentic connection to the human condition. Perhaps what I appreciate the most are the incredible one-liners that Mullins crafted into so many of his songs. So, for today's post, I share with you some of my favorite witticisms from the ministry of the late Rich Mullins:

• Everybody I know says they need just one thing, but what they really mean is they need just one thing more.

• What I'd have settled for, You've blown so far away; what You've brought me to, I thought I could not reach.

• They worked to give faith hands and feet, and somehow gave it wings.

• They said, "Boy, just follow your heart," but my heart only led me into my chest.

• When my body lies in the ruins of the lies that nearly ruined me.

• Now Jacob got two women and a whole house full of kids, and he schemed his way back to the Promised Land. And he finds it's one thing to win them, and another to keep them content…

• If these, our hells and our heavens, are so few inches apart, we must be awfully small, and not as strong as we think we are.

• If there's a better world and a brighter day, even brighter than the one we live in, we'd all be fools to think that it could be made by the wills and the hands of foolish men.

There are many more, but these are enough to get things started. Feel free to post your own favorites in the comment stream.

One Thing I Love About Facebook

Denny Burk has posted a link to the video "Twenty-Five Things I Hate About Facebook". Yes, I pretty much hate every single one of those things about Facebook. In fact, I'm a pretty bad Facebooker. I'll do friends. I'll do the occasional chat. I don't do applications. The IT-guy in me just automatically refuses when faced with ominous prompts about giving access to my profile to things I don't know and trust. So, I don't do flair, don't do bumper stickers…don't do a lot of things. Facebook has its annoyances.

But there is one thing that I really love about Facebook. Facebook smashes your entire world together. Your church friends, your non-church friends, your past, your present—it all comes colliding in Facebook. That reality makes it just a little bit tougher to be living a double life. Not impossible—I know that there are ways around this. But just a little bit tougher. And I'll take that as an improvement.

So to all of the members of the FBC Farmersville Facebook group: Your pastor is watching. And, of course, I know that you are watching me. Just please disregard those skinny, geeky pictures that my college roommate put up. ;-)

Do You Believe in Miracles?

The title of this post is both a personal question which I profoundly answer in the affirmative and the title of television documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The journalists involved in the production of this show masterfully strip away the lamb's clothing from Canadian native Benny Hinn to reveal the soul of a wolf and the tastes of a fat cat.

My introduction to the documentary, and some portion of my interest in it, can be attributed to the prominent role that Mississippi evangelist Justin Peters plays in it. Peters is a Southern Baptist, a SWBTS graduate, and one of our convention's most valiant warriors against the sinister dealings of fraudulent hucksters like Hinn.

Fraudulent? I'll be that most of my readers were with me on that one all along. But sinister? Yes, it is sinister, and perhaps more so than you realized.

The word of faith movement is sinister because it is a confidence game. The people involved lie in order to take people's money. The documentary takes you through a few days in the lavish life of Benny Hinn, thanks to whistleblower-provided internal records. I doubt that many of my readers have ever experienced a week like that.

The word of faith movement is sinister because it hurts people. Desperate people who place their hope in a fraud eventually become devastated people. The documentary takes you through the story of a young crippled girl named Grace. If you aren't weeping at the end, then you haven't a heart. And if Benny Hinn were sitting beside you at that moment, he would get an earful, at least.

There's a third sinister aspect to the word of faith movement, but you won't find it in the CBC documentary. If you invite Justin Peters to your church to offer his Call for Discernment seminar, you and the remainder of your congregation will learn that the word of faith movement is spreading heresy. Perhaps it is because so much of what they do is so flamboyant that so many of the things that they say and teach escaped my notice for so long. But they haven't escaped Justin's notice, and he presents the multifaceted heresy of these modern-day Marcions in Italian wool not by use of bald accusations, but in the miscreants' own words, often with accompanying video.

This third grievance toward the word of faith people may seem to some a less weighty charge than some of the others. If so, that is only because we so easily succumb to carnality. Stealing people's money is a horrible thing, all the more when it is done to the most vulnerable among us and in the name of Christ. Telling the sick to forego legitimate medical treatment while they innocently give their hearts over to your sham is a perverse crime of its own. But we will all lose both our money and our lives on some day coming. To preach or teach heresy, however, is an eternal crime of the highest order, and never, never, never is a victimless offense.

Stuck on the outskirts of Dallas's bustling suburbs, the community of Farmersville generally keeps people overcommitted and under-rested. It is not an easy thing to get our people back on a Monday or a Tuesday after a full day of Sunday activities. Yet Justin's conference maintained an astounding following for five full sessions (he can do it in as few as three). I highly recommend him to you for use in your church, not for his sake, but for the sake of your members who dabble in a little Hinn or Copeland or Osteen or other TBN trash during the week. Do it for the sake of the Truth whom they need to learn to discern as different from these snake-oil salesmen.

Two Birds with One Stone

In one fell swoop, I have finally fulfilled my obligation to Praisegod Promotions contest winner Chris Bonts and launched the first substantive installment on the Association of Convictional Baptists. Find the post here.

A Great Post by Tom Ascol

Here Dr. Ascol reminds us that abortion is a demographically skewed phenomenon in our world. It disproportionately slays blacks and (as Dr. Ascol correctly indicates) women.

On the Christian Use of the Name "Allah"

One small facet of the discussions in the past year over deceptive or syncretistic approaches to Moslem evangelism has dealt with the use of the name "Allah" to refer not to the false god worshipped by Moslems but to the One True God who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Many have demonstrated that, in Arabic, no other good word exists by which to refer to God, and that Arabic Christians have long employed the name "Allah" to refer to the True God.

I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the employ of the name "Allah" in those contexts, so long as differentiation is clearly made to ensure that the hearer knows that we as Christians reject the false Islamic deity promoted by the false prophet Mohammed in the false scripture the Qur'an. We are sometimes led to believe that, of course, this is always done and that nobody anywhere would ever conceive of trying to blur the lines of distinction in order to bait-and-switch potential Moslem converts.

But, as I have given the matter more thought, I find that I have a question nagging me. I can see why, in an Arabic-speaking place like Saudi Arabia, missionaries might have few good choices other than to employ the Arabic name "Allah" when speaking of the Christian God. But a great deal of Moslem evangelization takes place in areas other than Arabic-speaking countries. In fact the book The Camel itself reminds us that not only is Arabic not the first language of many Moslems, but that an innumerable population of Moslems don't even speak Arabic at all.

So, in a non-Arabic-speaking population that has no linguistic limitation requiring the use of the Arabic name "Allah"—populations in which the word "Allah" is no less a loan-word from another language than the English word "God" would be—what good reason, other than trying to confuse Moslems and blur the distinctions between the Christian God and the Moslem god, would there be for bypassing the "heart-language" words available to describe God in favor of the foreign word "Allah"?

Wrapping Your Mind Around Something Enormous

Imagine a guy—let's call him John. John's a lucky guy. He's a very lucky guy. Imagine that John won $1 million in a lottery. Got it in your mind? John won $1 million in the lottery.

But wait, let's imagine that John is even luckier. John wins $1 million in the lottery every day. That's right. No day goes by in which John doesn't win $1 million in the lottery. Can you imagine?! John's really lucky, and John's really wealthy.

Let's further imagine that John has absolutely no expenses. His housing is provided. His food is provided. His clothing is provided. Everything is provided for John. He spends no money on anything. So, John's NET income is $1 million every day.

Because he doesn't have to spend his winnings, John puts his $1 million in an enormous vault in his home. Each and every day, John puts another $1 million into his vault.

Now, imagine that John was born in the year 0 BC. Although Jesus very well may not have actually been born that year, let's pretend that our imaginary John actually was born that year and has lived all of that time—through the glory and fall of Rome, the barbarians, the Moslem invasions, Charlemagne, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the discovery of the New World, the American Revolution, the World Wars, all of it—and he's depositing into his vault $1 million every day.

Finally, imagine that we called upon John in 2008 to fund the recently passed economic stimulus plan.

Guess what? John doesn't have enough money.

Change in Direction

Today marks the launch of a new blog maintained by the Association of Convictional Baptists (see here). Also, some of you may have noted my addition to the band of brothers at SBC Today, noted in a post titled "Change We Can Believe In" or something like that. Finally, although we know that every Southern Baptist pastor 40 and over, of course, tends to suffer with geriatric dementia and other ailments that make them of no importance to our future, those of my readers younger than 40 may remember that I indicated in December (see here) that I wished to make major changes in my manner of blogging. Today, those changes become a reality.

The Future of Praisegod Barebones

The format of this blog will remain the same. I will post posts. I will be very lenient in having your comments. The only thing that will change is the subject matter. I will be posting here regarding (a) things about me, (b) things about FBC Farmersville, (c) things about secular politics, (d) anything else that doesn't fit elsewhere. Praisegod Barebones is my personal blog and will continue to function in that manner.

A Partnership with SBC Today

As a member of the SBC Today "staff," I will be contributing at that site with articles and video items related to current events in the SBC and beyond from a genuinely Baptist point of view. I've contributed the occasional item over there in the past, and I already have a wonderful fraternal relationship with the SBC Today gentry, so I have nothing but optimism for our future partnership over there.

A Brand New Blog

Today I announce the launch of the Association of Convictional Baptists blog. This blog will embody the approach that I detailed in my December aspirations linked above. An introductory post is already up over there. I'll be posting something substantive in the next few days, followed at irregular intervals by other authors' posts.

The ACB blog employs a platform known as BlogEngine.NET. I hope that it presents a good user experience for everyone. It is an open-source blogging platform written in C#.NET, which is one of the programming languages in which I have attained proficiency. Thus, I've been able to tweak the BlogEngine.NET platform a bit to make it do what I like (and to shake out some of the bugginess that plagued it in its original incarnation). Because this platform doesn't have the same robust track record as WordPress or Blogger or Typepad or the like, I am interested in hearing whether it fails you in any way. Feel free to indicate any problems with the blog in the contact page.

As the opening post on the ACB site declares, I'm trying to design that blog as a blog built for readers. I'm guessing that blogs have lots of people reading who never post a comment. Rather than design the blog for the author's benefit or the benefit of those who comment, I'm trying to design the format of that blog with the reader in mind. I hope that you will be edified (and if it is compatible with being edified, pleased) with the results.