My friend Mike Ruffin made a Facebook status update that highlighted a recent article by Mercer University professor Dr. David Gushee.  I was simply going to respond in the comment box at Facebook, but I soon realized it just was taking too much room.  So, here is this simple blog article.

In summary, the article speaks of what "kind" of Baptist Dr. Gushee's is and his thankful heart because his home church of First Baptist Decatur, GA has moved to a place where "traditionalist limits to the full inclusion of women have been abandoned, on biblical grounds."  I appreciate Gushee's last small paragraph.  It simply says that continuity and change are "both grounded in Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture."  That is exactly how it should be. 

Of course, I disagree with him and his church's conclusions as to what the authority of Scripture teaches on this issue.  Yet, I found three interesting points concerning the article I would like to share:

1.  I am thankful that Dr. Gushee made his point without a verbal assault on the more conservative camp of Baptist life who love the Lord, love Scripture, and desire to obey it.  There is no question that Dr. Gushee strongly disagrees with my position and the position of the SBC, yet the tone of his article does not condemn or show condescension toward that group of folks.  And it certainly doesn't say silly, inappropriate, irresponsible things like so many articles of this sort are prone to do.  I am only speaking of this particular article.  I am not familiar with Gushee's other writings, he may very well be a conservative basher.  But concerning the article cited here, I am thankful for his tone.

2.  Once again we see that conservatives and moderates are ultimately both doing the same thing - basing their conclusions on Scripture and the teaches of Christ.  It becomes easier to see why both camps are tied strongly to their position and it becomes difficult to see why both are guilty of saying just downright mean things about the other when we consider that both are attempting to be true to Scripture.  Now, I personally feel that due to the moderate position on the inerrancy of Scripture that they are willing to overlook some things that inerrantists won't overlook.  Having said that, both sides love Scripture and want to be faithful to it.  We need to remember that.

3.  Although it is perhaps inevitable, I hate that Dr. Gushee defines the "kind" of Baptist he is through the lens of a gender issue.  This shows that moderates are more than willing to draw the line in the sand and say "this is who we are and what we are not willing to compromise."  Hey, I've got no problem with that.  Just so long as they understand that they cannot do that and still hold the flag of being "completely open minded", a common rallying cry against those who they see as being "fundamentalists."  Moderates are just as hardcore, perhaps even more so, about gender inclusion as conservatives are about the role of the pastor being reserved for males.  And they should be, if that is truly what they believe Scripture teaches. 

How about we try this.  Let's acknowledge that both sides are attempting to honor Scripture.  We can still debate, we can still discuss, we can still consider the issues.  But why don't we say that we are the "kind" of Baptist that loves the Lord Jesus Christ with all our heart and desires his name to be exalted in all the nations.  Let's focus our energies on accomplishing that and allow some of these "divisive" issues to not define and demarcate us, but to encourage us to learn more, grow more, love more, and think more.  If we never reach a position of agreement, that's ok.  But we can still all be the kind of Baptist that desires folks to be saved by the power of cross of Christ Jesus.    

*note - After reading through my article again, I wanted to clarify my last paragraph.  I am not suggesting that moderates and conservatives should forget our differences and be just one big happy group.  There are some important differences.  I am suggesting that we can still, as moderates and conservatives, be first defined on the common ground of our love for Christ and the desire to share his Good News.  In other words, gender should not be the first item of definition for either group.   

Everyday brings new experiences.  This past weekend Andi (my wife) and I were faced for the first time in our journey of parenting with the question of how to best respond to a 22 month old girl who was disobedient, resistant, and out of control.  It was a day unlike any other we have experienced in the 22 months since God blessed us with the joy of our daughter Callie Grace.  It was a day that all parents experience.  Callie simply was in a bad place all day long, becoming easily frustrated and uncharacteristically disobedient.  It culminated during a brief outing at an outdoor park with my brother, his wife, and their 1 year old boy.  When it was time to leave, Callie responded with a barrage of screams and refused to let us put her in her car seat.  Andi and I had to tag-team and hold Callie still in order to put the seat-belt straps around her.  For the duration of the 45 minute drive home, Callie was mostly screaming.  We were confused, puzzled, and searching for the best way to respond.  Add to all of this the embarrassment of having to cancel plans with my brother and his family due to our daughter who was unable to be comforted. 

Here are some reflections that have been important to me and I hope will be encouraging for those of you who have young children.

First, the reality of embarrassment has to be dealt with immediately by the parents.  It is of course natural to be concerned about disrupting others and fearing that folks will mumble under their breath about how you have no control over your children.  Yet, the root cause of the embarrassment and concern will usually be driven by pride, an extremely important issue that is not only unbiblical, but will lead to an unhealthy paradigm shift in understanding what successful parenting looks like.  That shift will ultimately result in behavior modification as the final foundation for good parenting.  Parenting does not begin and end with behavior modification and yet many of our most devoted Christian parents are stuck in that way of thinking about their children.  If we can just get them to act right at home and in public, then we will be successful parents.  Amazingly, this mindset even creeps into church ministries.  Several times I have been congratulated on a successful youth ministry because the youth were "acting so well during the church service."  This must be examined and discussed openly by both parents for many reasons, but here are two quick ideas to remember.  First, pride is the very reason for our sin-cursed condition.  It was pride that Satan used as his first attack mode in the Garden of Eden and it is pride that Satan still uses to muddle the hearts of minds of Christians around the world.  Nothing can be deadlier for parents than responding to our children out of an arena of pride.  To do so will inevitably cause parents to miss the essential element of working through difficult issues which is to understand the heart.  All behavior stems from the heart, on this the Bible is clear.  So, when we resort to parenting means that stem from pride, those will always stop short of reaching the heart of the child and will be concerned only with the behavior.  Second, behavior modification is only one step removed from a works-righteousness theology.  To put it simply, "if we act right, then we are right" is a brutal misinterpretation of the message of Christ for both salvation and for parenting.  Of course we want our children to respond and behave correctly, but we want to move deeper than just surface behavior.  We want to move to the heart.  That is where the Lord looks when he views his children, that is where we are to look when we view ours (1 Samuel 16:7).

Second, Callie's behavior last weekend should move my mind to remember the dreadful human situation called sin.  Callie was responding to her situation from a singular point of view; her own.  For that moment at the park, the instruction from her parents was vastly overshadowed by her own desires and wants.  The result was a fierce response of anger and emotion.  This is not a child thing.  This is a human thing.  Perhaps adults, at times, have a more sophisticated method of dealing with not getting our way.  Yet, at other times, our reaction is just as primeval as a 22 month old.  I wonder how many Christian homes have a hole in the wall or broken piece of furniture because of an angry, selfish fit that resulted in an outward, aggressive action.  Every act of disobedience, whether from an adult or child, moves the cross of Jesus Christ once again to the forefront of our lives and our purpose.  Sin can only be dealt with by Christ himself.  My little girl needs Jesus Christ to save her.  Not that her actions and behavior will become magically perfect when one day God's grace moves her to repentance.  But her rebellion should cause me to remember that all people are sin-cursed, all people need Jesus Christ. 

Third, I have to place the situation in its proper context.  To put it mildly, things have been a bit displaced at the Meade house lately.  As anyone who has visited our house knows, Andi and I place a big priority on making sure our home is in order, both in terms of neatness and schedule.  Simplicity is big.  For a while now, due to some uncontrollable circumstances including several weeks of struggling with health issues, our house has been not quite what it normally is.  That's ok.  That's life.  The day before the incident with Callie was especially difficult.  Thus, as parents we must not pretend that all behavior exists in a vacuum.  Although still wrong and disobedient, Callie's desire to get things her way for a while is more understandable given her immediate context.

Fourth, Andi and I must clearly decide and know the biblical response to Callie's future disobedience.  This is not the article to address those responses, but suffice it to say that it is imperative for Andi and I to consult Scripture first and foremost in our discipline.  Not our pediatrician.  Not Parents Magazine.  Not the advice of our family.  Not the latest children's psychological movement.  We first go to Scripture.  When we truthfully and honestly search Scripture for parenting responses that are pleasing to God, it might (and probably will) be challenging to embrace.  My hunch is that more Christians turn a blind eye to Scripture when it comes to responding to their children than perhaps anything else.  We trust it for salvation.  We trust it for teaching about God.  We trust it for dealing with grief.  But not so much when it involves our children.  That, we conclude, is better left to professionals or our own personal judgment.  Be cautious parents.  Scripture alone must be our first means of developing a response to our children.

How did our crazy day with Callie end?  It ended with Callie, at some place in her heart, realizing that she had crossed the line.  We know this because she said "Hi Daddy, Hi Mommy, love you" about 2 million times during the last 5 minutes of our trip.  She went to sleep with no trouble at all that night.  Another day, another learning experience, another offering of grace from God.  Thank heavens for that.                   

I am posting videos of some "life-changing" moments for me.  You can view the first and second one here and here. 

Here is video number three and I remember seeing this Motown performance for the first time in Danville, KY.  When I saw him do what he does from 3:39 on, I was forever changed. 

In the July 26th, 2010 edition of Time Magazine, Bobby Ghosh reports that out of 5 million Muslim women in France, only 2,000 of them wear the much debated full-face Islamic veil.  The veil is so alarming to the French Republic that the politics have turned heavily in recent weeks to passing law that would ban the veils once and for all.  The most quoted reason for the protest is, of course, the oppressive nature of the veil and the message it conveys about women.  Ghosh in his article sarcastically asks if "anyone asked these women if they feel oppressed."

These kinds of issues are difficult.  I did some research on the obligations from Islamic Law concerning the full-face veils and even among practicing Muslims there is sharp disagreement.  Some will hold that the veils are only optional for Muslim women.  A second group believes they are not required but strongly recommended.  A third group understands the modesty laws concerning women to necessitate the wearing of full-face veils.  From what I can understand, the first and second options are the most widely held opinions among modern practicing Muslims.  This, in part, explains why out of 5 million Muslim women only 2,000 wear the covering. 

The extraction of religious and ethical standards from any people group for the enforcement of a different set of standards from an outside culture is a reality that at times is certainly warranted, but that always and only should come due to the most obvious and egregious of circumstances.  In other words, we better be darn sure that we are correct in forcing the replacement of another group's way of life with our own.  We can all cite the various times when history has shown this to be necessary and effective.  In this particular situation, I probably find myself agreeing with those who dislike the use of full-face veils.  However, for those women who are free to do otherwise but make the choice to wear them, their reasons for doing so are hard to refute.  Some explanations, such as the desire to prevent themselves from being just a sexual object to guys, present feminism with a problem as most feminists, regardless of coercion, typically speak against the use of veils.  In any event, it looks like Muslim women who live in France now don't have much of an option.  Take the veil off or come under the scrutiny of the French Republic.  All for your own good, of course.           

An important and interesting Supreme Court ruling was decided on June 28th, 2010 concerning the Hastings College of Law, a school within the University of California, and a student organization called the Christian Legal Society.  The case seemed important enough to me that I took the time to read the 85 page majority opinion of the court and dissenting opinion.  I thought it would be helpful to summarize in very friendly laymen terms what I consider to be the key elements of the case and make some brief commentary.

The Hastings College of Law has established a means to officially recognize student groups on campus called the "Registered Student Organization" (RSO).  Any student group who wishes to enjoy the benefits offered by Hastings must submit an application for inclusion in the RSO.  Benefits include, but are not limited to, the availability of campus meeting space and materials, the use of the college's means of communicating agendas, meetings, etc, and at times the access to special funds for traveling and other purposes for student groups.  When CLS applied for RSO recognition, their application was rejected on the grounds that it violated the school's Nondiscrimination Policy.  They were the first student group in the school's history to be turned down.  Specifically, the reason for the rejection was the requirement for all CLS members to sign a Statement of Faith which among other things, rejects homosexuality as immoral behavior.  The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ruling from the lower courts that Hastings did not violate the First and Fourth Amendment by refusing CSL a RSO status.  

As I suspect many cases at this level operate, the thrust of the decision ultimately falls on how the court interprets one critical factor of the case.  That critical factor in this instance is the difference between the Nondiscrimination Policy and the alleged "All-Comers Policy" that Hastings asserted has been in place all along.  Although the two seem to be fairly identical in nature, they actually convey quite different things.  The Nondiscrimination Policy offered by Hastings falls in line with many other colleges and schools in terms of what it is meant to protect, with a few differences.  The "All-Comers" policy on the other hand is fairly unique to Hastings and asserts that every student organization must accept anyone into their student group.  Period.  Now, here is where things get interesting.

The Supreme Court, despite the request of CLS, did not consider the Nondiscrimination Policy in their ruling.  Only Justice Stephens attempted to bring that particular policy into his ruling, ineffectively.  Instead, the Court considered only the All-Comers policy because the policy was joint stipulated by both Hastings and CLS.  So, according to the majority opinion, CLS cannot joint stipulate to the fact of the All-Comers policy and then try to circumvent said policy after the proceedings have begun.  Thus, the majority opinion is written by only taking into consideration the All-Comers policy and if Hasting's actions constitutionally violated that policy alone. 

Justice Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, disagrees with the majority opinion concerning the denial of considering the Nondiscrimination Policy.  Although he agrees that join stipulation is a crucial thing that must be upheld, he disagrees with the full implications of this particular joint stipulation in the arena of the All-Comers Policy.  Listen to what Alito says:

"I agree that the parties must be held to their Joint Stipulation, but the terms of the stipulation should be respected.  What was admitted in the Joint Stipulation filed in December 2005 is that Hastings had an accept-all-comers policy.  CLS did not stipulate that its application had been denied more than a year earlier pursuant to such a policy. . .Indeed the parties did not even stipulate that the accept-all-comers policy existed in the fall of 2004."

Thus, according to Alito, if the Court were to recognize the absence of the apparent all-comers policy in 2004 and instead recognize the Nondiscrimination Policy in its stead, the outcome of the opinion would have surely been different.  The reason is because basic Nondiscrimination Policies have been routinely upheld by the courts to mean something very different than just "anyone can join, anyone can participate."  The Court has previously recognized that "the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints."  Expressive association is the key phrase there.  For these reasons, Alito almost humorously summarizes by saying, "it is no wonder that the Court makes no attempt to defend the constitutionality of the Nondiscrimination Policy."

So, at the end of the day the Court's decision is riding on the legitimacy of their refusal to take into consideration the Nondiscrimination Policy and the date of the awareness of the so-called "all comers" policy.  If the All-Comers policy is accepted and the Nondiscrimination policy is not considered, as the majority has done, then it is difficult to argue with the decision.  If the reverse is true, then it would be difficult to uphold the decision.

As for me, Hastings seems to be more concerned about religion than they are the actual historical enforcement of an all-comers policy.  Their decision to create and stick to this policy might leave them with unwanted results.  Already, in order to consistently apply the policy and avoid further legal entanglements, school officials have been meeting all RSO groups to make sure they begin rigidly adhering to the standard that has been set; a standard that all civil society understands is not only impractical, but harmful.  The school, by definition, must now allow those who are in favor of using animals for cosmetic testing to be included in an animal rights group.  A hard conservative must be allowed in a pro-democrat organization.  And so on.  Headaches could abound for everyone and it is primarily because the school does not want a conservative, Christian based organization doing what it does on campus.  It is the classic "pick any color you want so long as it is black" motto.

How will this decision affect the lower courts?  Some Christian commentators are concerned that lower courts could take this ruling and run with it in ways that are not consistent with the specific issues of this case.  Christian groups could be denied recognized access to organizations because of the Supreme Court citing over and above the actual policies in place at the school. 

There are other equally interesting aspects to this case that I don't have time to write about here, such as the argument that a public school should not be considered the same as the public square, or the differences between conduct and status.  Regardless, I think one clear aspect of this case is the continued scrutiny of religion among the people and if this ruling has any future influence on other judges and courts, times will continue to become more difficult for the conservative evangelical Christian who operates based on the words of Scripture.  Of course, that is exactly what Scripture tells us to expect.