Notre Dame Deserves Special Bowl Invite

I am gloating..big time gloating. The mid-shipmen ended a losing streak of 43 seasons that last saw Roger Staubach as the Navy quarterback in 1963. Notre Dame, one of the nation's most traditionally over-rated football teams has now lost 5 home games and has an abysmal record of 1 win and 8 losses. The Notre-Dame-addicted Regis Philbin may need therapy, or a lifeline of oxygen after this season (bless his heart).

It is probably wrong to be this happy over someone else's agony of defeat...but somehow, I still want Notre Dame to go to a bowl game, just so they can meet the guys at Appalachian State. (Insert evil laugh here) There is something about "Mountaineers vs Irish" that sounds like "Hatfields and McCoys." No offense to the program at Appalachian State, but they'll get little respect from the major bowl committees despite a winning record and two previous, back-to-back NCAA Division 1-AA championships.

On behalf of Appalachian State and my bowl recommendation, I'd buy this T-shirt:
How many batteries does it take to beat Notre Dame?
One - Double "A"

Tailgating - now, there is a food phenomena that has Baptist written all over it (without the beer, of course). Why didn't we think of that?!

Mark Lowry Hits the Hot Buttons...and Makes Us Laugh

I've always thought that Mark Lowry's sense of humor ought to be something that we should use to inoculate every Baptist minister. Here's why:

HT: Charles at BlogItch

Remember, I warned you all about the old guy learning how to add YouTube vidoes here. I feel so technically enlightened that I'm almost ready to take on the flashing 12:00 on my vcr. Who knows, I might even learn how to cook something besides popcorn in the microwave!

Persecuted Religious Conservatives

I just finished reading Ken Connor's, Worldviews matter, editorial over on the Baptist Press site. I had to stop at the end of the first sentence, "In America, it has long been a popular sport to demean and ridicule the faith of religious conservatives" and take a deep breath. Actually, Ken, some religious conservatives have brought some of that sport on themselves, don't you think? Let's review a few examples:

• Westboro Baptist Church - Civil Suit - Baltimore Sun
  
• Ted Haggard - Christianity Today
  
• Larry Craig - Uses campaign money for legal defense - Judicial Watch
• Steven Flockhart - Fabricated credentials and money mis-management
  
• Richard Roberts - New York Times

Religious conservative groups and leaders who are in the public eye and do stupid things will get press coverage and their faith will be associated with whatever variety of stupidity is involved. Unfortunately, the rest of us get lumped in with those whose stupidity makes headlines. Connor's point may be that the press goes into a feeding frenzy when a high profile conservative leader is accused of something/anything (rightly or wrongly), and I must agree with him on that. High profile religious conservative leaders who venture into the realm of governmental politics are on shaky ground in my opinion, not because they choose to voice their positions on issues but because they focus on one party/candidate or another as an endorsed solution.

There is a basic lesson for religious conservatives and religious conservative leaders: Don't Mess Up, the World is Watching! There is a second lesson to be learned from this that too many who find themselves under attack and in the headlines seem to miss, transparency and honesty from the day one of being accused is essential. Hiding behind an attorney or holding back information feeds skepticism over an individual's credibility...and the press seems to be quite adept at rooting out scandal, and have gotten even better at it since the WaterGate era. Efforts to cover-up indiscretions are like throwing gas on the flaming fires of media frenzies.

My 'sport' with religious conservatives is that the actions of a few have seriously diminished the reputation of the rest. I consider myself a refugee of sorts from the religious conservative crowd primarily because I see religious conservatives flaunting their positions of authority and influence to guide their flocks blindly into territory we should and can avoid (particularly politics). Which leads to a third lesson we should all learn: If you fall into the category of religious conservative leader, be extremely cautious before throwing the first stone. The credibility microscope will reveal flaws and those flaws can/will make headlines. Is that fair? Probably not. Is it a reality we need to grasp? Definitely!

I would contend that even though is is extremely challenging to do so, religious conservatives suffer from their inability to get headlines for the good things that they/we do. Chances are we'll struggle on offense because we have so much more experience and expertise being defensive. Worldview does matter. Christian Worldview headlines matter more, but those require more work than we seem to be able to muster.

Lonnie Wilkey on the Baptist Faith & Message 2000

Please read Lonnie Wilkeys' Random Thoughts About the Baptist Faith and Message. Lonnie sums up things with far less emotion than Larry Reagan or me. I particularly like the following,

"I personally think those who hold leadership positions should come from churches that support the work of the convention with monetary support. But to do so would make CP giving a “litmus test.” The same goes for the Baptist Faith and Message. I honestly believe that most people affirm what Baptists believe or they wouldn’t be Baptist. Why they would choose not to publicly affirm the BF&M is an individual decision. If that question keeps someone from being appointed, it too becomes a litmus test."

Well said, Lonnie. I appreciate your gracious reflections.

All this talk about litmus tests is making me hungry. I simply must do some research on litmus tests for fellowship supper... there is a Baptist chemistry presence there that is worthy of study.

Using the Baptist Faith and Message as a Means to Divide Tennessee Baptists

There is an Associated Baptist Press story online, Tennessee Baptists gear up for struggles over trustees, that I recommend as balanced assessment of what we may see this year at the Tennessee Baptist Convention. It speaks of a certain level of disinterest of some of our church leaders to continue battles that aren't significant to ministries in our local churches. It also refers to the "aggressive tack" of Larry Reagan, pastor of Adam's Chapel in Dresden, Tennessee.

I have taken quite a bit of time to mull over the angry sentiments that I read from Pastor Larry Reagan over at Concerned Tennessee Baptists regarding those who have been nominated for Tennessee Baptist Convention positions who chose to say they did not or would not affirm the BF&M2000. Pastor Reagan's passion is not something I want to question or offend, but I want to walk around a few things that he has to say that I find worrisome. You can read the full context here and here...but allow me to focus on this:

"Our failure to require doctrinal accountability in the past has caused great harm to God’s work in Tennessee. The messengers from the churches understand this clearly. Last year we affirmed the BF&M 2000. This year we must enforce that affirmation. It is time to show up, stand up, and speak up. It is time for changes to be made. If our executive leadership continues to resist the enforcement of doctrinal accountability, then it is time for a change in executive leadership.
We have many great servants in positions of leadership in the TBC. They are working hard to lead the TBC by biblical principles. They deserve executive leadership that agrees with the churches. Doctrinal accountability matters!"

Last year, the Tennessee Baptist convention did affirm the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 by a considerable majority. Now, according to Pastor Reagan, agreeing with that document is apparently a litmus test to be used to determine if an individual is "doctrinally accountable". Larry, I am sorry. Some of these individuals are hardcore Cooperative Program supporting Baptists who believe they are accountable only to God and His Word. If that somehow makes them doctrinally un-accountable, I think a different label (besides doctrinally accountable) is needed. Some of us who affirmed the BF&M 2000 did so because we felt it was important for the world to have something more abbreviated than the entire Bible to understand who Southern Baptists are and what separates us from other denominations. If agreeing to the words on the BF&M2000 is all that it takes to indicate that someone is doctrinally accountable, then I suggest we entertain a motion at the TBC to trim a little fat off the Bible and reduce it down to a few key verses in the New Testament.

Let me put it this way. I attend Baptist churches who are passionate about introducing Jesus Christ to a lost world and leading people to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. If someone who receives Christ in our church chooses to align him/herself with a Southern Baptist Church, then I would hope they would find a place where that person can set roots and grow in their relationship with Christ through Bible study and fellowship with other Christians. Being there, they will witness and learn of Baptist life, our ordinances, and our tradition of cooperative ministries with other churches. If that Christian finds another place to set roots and grow in a fellowship that doesn't include "Baptist" on the church sign or perhaps in another denomination, I will not condemn them because they choose not to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message, nor will I consider them any less Christian or less doctrinally accountable. Unless Brother Reagan is reading a different Bible, I am pretty sure that there is nothing in the Bible that commands us to go into the world and make BF&M2000 Baptists of every creature.

We as Baptist have a great tradition of arguing over our confessions, creeds, and statements of faith. I believe that we, as Baptist, benefit from having a statement of faith so that others will know the general principles of our beliefs. We produce these statements (and have for over 100 years) with the understanding that as fallible creatures that any creed we produce will not be infallible or inerrant. I want that debate to go on as long as there are Baptists walking the Earth. I do not, however, believe that there is anything worse than using a confession or creed to label another Christian as a fundamentalist, liberal, moderate, godless-CBF-er, progressive, evangelical, democrat, republican, independent, emergent, or doctrinally un-accountable. God will not bless efforts of any group to divide the Tennessee Baptist Convention further by declaring that some denominational document created by the hands of well-meaning men will somehow make us better Baptists or Christians. It might help us to understand how a diverse group of believers manages to cooperate in ministry without beating each other up with our Bibles. I sincerely doubt that the God of my Bible concerns himself with any man made creed...particularly if that creed is intended to somehow "enforce" anything.

To my brother in Christ, Larry Reagan, I pray that you will focus your passion on winning souls for Christ rather than wasting God's time trying to "enforce doctrinal accountability". God is quite capable of dealing with the sins of man and those called to minister to His flock. Let's not lose focus on God by pushing away fellow Christians (and Baptists) by creating new labels for individuals who do not believe the BF&M2000 to be infallible or inerrant or the litmus test for their personal relationship with Christ. I believe deeply that my brother Larry Reagan and I are on God's side. I sincerely wish that Brother Reagan would embrace my questioning of any creed as acceptable behavior in God's sight as I accept his passion for fundamentalism to be blessed by God.

I do want someone to be accountable for the menu at the meetings surrounding the TBC. .. nothing ruins a good fellowship worse than a caterer who doesn't understand the Baptist metaphor of Dunkin Donuts. *smiles*

Who Will Blog This Year's Tennessee Baptist Convention Meeting?

As much as I would like to, I cannot be a part of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's annual meeting and conservative takeover re-resurgence in Kingsport this year. Last year, Jeff Wright did a great job blogging from Jeff Wright's Blog. Likewise, Steve Weaver provided his perspective on the actions of the annual meeting. If the Kingsport convention center doesn't block his access, I am hopeful that Tim Ellsworth will jump in and blog from this year's convention.

A couple of last year's blogs seem to have vanished in to blog-oblivion, but that happens. Anyone know if either Mark Beach or Danny Chisolm are blogging from new sites?

Are there new (or used) bloggers amongst us who plan to post from the 2007 Tennessee Baptist Convention in Kingsport? Please let me know. I hope to pull together thoughts from a variety of people in attendance. I would hope that the Baptist & Reflector will join the blogging community as well...it is very 21st century.

And someone, please, blog/affirm that we are being fed physically as well as spiritually at the TBC. I'd hate to think that such important coverage is going to waist.

Baptist University Students Win Stock Market Challenge for Second Consecutive Year

Three Union University business students won the Fifth Third Bank Stock Market Challenge earlier this week here in Nashville. Twenty-five teams from private and public Tennessee universities participated in the competition. By the way...last year, the Belmont University team took top honors. Has anyone alerted Carson-Newman that next year is their turn?

Congratulations to Union University and to Belmont University. Tennessee Baptists have plenty of reasons to be proud of your accomplishments.

Welcome, Visitors from Time.com

To all of you who happen by the Refugee Baptist via this story, welcome. I dont't generally make a habit of telling people to 'put a sock in it' (although I am often tempted). Stick around. We'll make a place for you at supper. You can bring dessert.

More Tennessee Baptist Convention v. Belmont University Information Released

Just a week or so ago, before one of the Baptist & Reflector press deadlines, Belmont filed a response to the Tennessee Baptist Convention's lawsuit. I have asked my TBC Elder friend to see if he can divide the 53 page document into smaller pieces. I found a link to the full document on the Tennessean web site yesterday evening. There are communications between the Tennessee Baptist Convention and Belmont University that the messengers at this year's TBC annual meeting need to read before they vote to spend any more money on legal fees. No kidding. All we have heard so far from the Belmont Study Committee focuses on the missing-in-action, 1951 document that the TBC committee wants to use in a high stakes gamble. Folks, there is evidence in Belmont's response that demands your attention. I doubt seriously that we will read anything but one side of the story in the Baptist & Reflector and there is something terribly wrong with that when there are hundreds of thousands of missions' dollars at risk.

By the way, I do not blame Lonnie Wilkins for the lack of balanced coverage on the Belmont vs. TBC issues. I suspect that he has orders not to discuss the lawsuit. And, in fairness to Mr. Wilkins, I understand that the folks at Belmont University were given similar instructions several months ago.

Tennessean Interviews Belmont Students About TBC Law Suit

Colby Sledge, staff writer for the Tennessean, writes: Most Belmont Students Don't Pay Attention to Lawsuit. One of the students interviewed for the article had this to say,

"Mikey Brackett, a senior majoring in religion and the arts who transferred to Belmont two years ago, has spent much of his time trying to rebuild the Baptist Campus Ministry after many of its leaders graduated. That put the BCM behind to begin with, and the lawsuit didn't help. "People thought, 'The Baptists? Aren't they the ones who are suing us?' " Brackett said."

I would surmise from that conversation that Tennessee Baptists aren't exactly helping the students who belong to the Baptist Campus Ministry. I would love to ask someone in the Tennessee Baptist Convention what they have against the Baptist students on Belmont University's campus? It is one thing to have issues with the university's administration and trustees...it is shameful to think that Baptist students at Belmont do not have convention support for their ministries.

Should the Tennessee Baptist Convention receive a monetary judgment from Belmont University, I find it ironic that there will be families of Baptist students whose monies will be repaying 50+ years of gifts that other Tennessee Baptist families contributed. It makes my head spin.

Tennessee Baptist Convention's Gambling Budget

I must be reading something wrong in the Baptist and Reflector (print copy only). There is a line item in the Tennessee Baptist Convention's proposed Cooperative Program Budget for something called the Belmont Study Committee. Last year, this line item was three quarters of a million dollars ($750,000). This year's Budget Committee Recommendation is Three Quarters of a Million Dollars ($750,000). I am not the best mathematician in the pew, but that sounds a lot like 1.5 MILLION Dollars in Cooperative Program funds from the people sitting in the pews of our TBC churches.

Before my blood pressure gets the best of me, I want to get the following off my chest just to get some perspective on the Study Committee's allocation:

1. We have yet to see anything that resembles accountability or an accounting of where those mission dollars for the Belmont Study Committee have gone. We do not know if the $750,000 allocated last year was fully expended or if some of those funds have been carried over. Just how much studying does $750,000 buy a Baptist convention, anyway? I think we have a right to know.

2. At the last gathering where the Belmont University situation was railroaded discussed, we were told by Clay Austin that the chances of winning the case against Belmont University were something like 50-75%. The committee has had a year+ to study the situation. From what I am hearing, the odds have changed significantly. Are we as a convention ready to gamble with another $750,000 if the odds have worsened? And do not let anyone sugar-coat this, or lie to you...this is a gamble.

3. Our statewide Golden Mission Offering goal for 2007 is $ 1,640,000. The amount allocated this year to the Belmont Study Committee is 45.7%, nearly 50%, of the total goal amount for the statewide mission offering. I may be the only Tennessee Baptist who is having a problem with that... but I am not willing to stand by and let it happen repeatedly without letting someone understand that I believe there are "liars and thieves" among us, and they aren't on the Belmont side of the aisle.

4. I believe you can get a sense of an institution's purpose, mission, and priorities by looking at where they choose to invest the gifts that they receive. The chart below lists selected budget line items from the proposed 2007-2008 TBC budget:

Belmont Study Committee	$750,000
TN Missions/Ministry Worship	$620,082
TN Missions/Ministry Prayer	$488,224
TN Missions/Ministry Fellowship	$583,207
Harrison Chilhowee Academy	$483,618
TN Baptist Adult Homes	$267,466
TBC Meeting & Committees	$360,511

From that chart, I am not seeing priorities that match up with my concept of putting my money where my heart is. Is the Belmont Study Committee a higher priority than our total budget allocation for TN Missions and Ministries Prayer??

There was a day when Tennessee Baptists fought against those in our state house who wanted to bring gambling to Tennessee in the name of supporting education for our students. I never thought that I would see the day when Baptist infighting would distract us from stopping gambling from becoming legal in Tennessee. Now, we appear to be willing to gamble with $1.5 Million Dollars of Cooperative Program dollars in hopes of winning the Belmont Lottery. I find that utterly disgusting. I am counting on the fired-up bunch of conservatives who will rule the convention after this year to demonstrate how Bible-believing men will correct this error in our ways. Surely the new and improved, conservative resurgent budget will be void of gambling dollars and focused on missions and ministry.

One last thing... In light of my personal annoyance with the name "Belmont Study Committee", can we simplify that to just "BS Committee?"

Tennessee Baptist Headline That Made Me Smile

Up front. This is nitpicking, but it brought on a smile. The Baptist & Reflector's headline: Swanberg, Vines, Brunson, headline Tennessee Baptist Pastors Conference. It is just that Swansberg is from Louisiana, Brunson is Florida, and Vines is from Florida...all pastors, but not Tennessee Baptist Pastors; headlining the Tennessee Baptist Pastors Conference. For you in the back row, I could draw you a picture. Hey, I warned you this is nitpicking.

I would love to be in the room when Dennis 'the Swan' Swansberg speaks. He is amazing. All of you who are planning to attend will be blessed with his humor and inspiration. Encourage him to do the Obituary for the Pillsbury Doughboy. Take a hanky, you'll need it to wipe away tears of joy. I promise.

Will has not yet taken issue with the B&R's failure to print the menu for the pastor's conference...more proof that the state paper doesn't have its priorities straight (you cmay laugh now).

More Evidence That Baptist Pastors Should Not Control the Purse Strings

The (now) Rev. Bible Belt Blogger writes, "Crooked preacher gets 50 months in federal pen". If you thought the Peter Principle was bad, I'm thinking this crooked-preacher-guy wrote the Judas Principle.

Baptist Pastor Political Endorsements - Neither Biblical nor Baptist

After some sort of endorsement of Mitt Romney, Don Wilton has withdrawn that original endorsement. Don, bless his heart, is pastor of the mega-First Baptist Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina and former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention.

I fully support brother Wilton's right to choose whatever candidate that he chooses to support. I believe that the Bible expects us, as Christians, to be a part of the civil process that forms and maintains our government. I resent very much the fact that brother Wilton (and any other pastor) uses his position of popularity and influence to PUBLICLY announce who he will/might/won't support. I am pretty sure that brother Wilson is well informed of the polity of Baptist life. Baptist churches function without a ruling organization to mandate how they function and that each Baptist church is autonomous. To even imply that one speaks with such authority, particularly when it comes to politics, is akin to heresy within the historical context of Baptist autonomy...and that is exactly what a public endorsement does.

I consider it naive to think that the endorsement by any Southern Baptist or Tennessee Baptist (ad nauseum Baptist) is somehow an endorsement by the individual church members who make up our individual churches, but that is exactly what is happening. The press does not make a distinction between your endorsement as a high profile leader in your city/state/region and what your denominational brothers and sisters may endorse.

And get this shocker: every Baptist isn't a republican or conservative or democrat or liberal. Efforts to pigeon-hole all Baptists as some sort of mindless zombies who vote en masse for whoever some high profile leader endorses are sadly misguided. Granted, as a denomination Baptists tend to lean more toward conservatism...but there are actually classical liberal Baptists and libertarians (gasp) around (just don't tell the fundamentalist among us).

If there is one thing that I believe ISN'T Baptist, it is one Baptist attempting to speak for other Baptists. Baptists are an independent-minded (and often ornery) yet cooperative bunch of folks who do not need any leader to tell us who to vote for. My advice to any Baptist minister who is contemplating an endorsement: Get on with your ministry. Shut Up when it comes to public endorsements of candidates. Don't do it. It is an abuse of power and authority. It is neither Biblical nor Baptist.

Jeff Wright summed it up much more concisely.

Pass the mash potatoes please. All this screaming has made me hungry.

Would Someone Please Tell Richard Land to "Put a Sock in It"

Acording to a post on ethicsdaily.com, Richard Land call Mormonism "the fourth Abrahamic faith". Richard Land is the president of the SBC ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and apparently is attempting to do one of the most dangerous things one can do in Baptist life: speak for other Baptists.

I need to dig up a copy of Dr. Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults and send 'ole Richard a copy.

It's like this: if it is called Network 21 or International Dreambuilders and the products are from AmWay, it is still AmWay. This "fourth Abrahamic faith" crap smells worse than week-old, spoiled towels leftover in a baptistry dressing room.

Moving the Tennessee Baptist Convention to the 21st Century

Will and I had a great dinner last night in Nashville and he asked me to put down in words some technology ideas for Tennessee Baptists. I promised no war stories about my experiences in Southeast Asia with an IBM punch card machine called Elvis, but reference that memory only to let readers know that technology isn't all that new to this old f*rt.

Will pointed me to today's article in the Baptist state paper, The Baptist and Regurgitator (I think that is the name, anyway *grin*). There's a story about the upcoming convention in east Tennessee at the Kingsport Convention Center. The article speaks to the shrinking numbers in attendance each year and bemoans the projection, "the attendance to be less than it was in 1998." Ron Stewart, our fearless fundamentalist leader, is quoted: "I believe the Lord is working with us to create a convention that is able to minister to the constantly changing culture of the 21st century." Well, fundamentally, I agree with brother Ron.

Here is my top 5 list of suggestions to get the Tennessee Baptist Convention out of the Gutenberg era into something beyond the current century's Gutenberg Project decade:

1. For less than 1/10th of the money that the TBC is wasting on lawyers to sue Belmont University, the entire Tennessee Baptist Convention annual meeting could be made available via streaming video to anyone in the convention who wanted to watch on a cable-speed Internet connection. I'd guess that some would be willing to pay a subscription for such a service. The technology is affordable and available NOW.

2. If the TBC wants to demonstrate real leadership, allow churches to securely register messengers as online participants in the meeting. A unique ballot code could be distributed to those who are validated through their respective churches and when it comes time to vote during the convention, many could submit their votes electronically. I'll be the first to offer up the argument that this system might be manipulated...but it couldn't be as manipulated as votes in 1980's era SBC meetings where leaders held up color-coded cards telling their constituent blocks just how to vote on issues. The technology is affordable and available NOW.

3. The state paper could easily host moderated discussions using the current space they are wasting on the TBC web site to regurgitate the print edition. Many newspapers have opened up online articles for follow-up questions and comments. These comments could easily be moderated so that just the views of whatever flavor of leadership is running the convention would actually show up on the web site. The technology is affordable and available NOW.

4. Open up the TBC's newspaper to churches in the convention to electronically post praise and prayer requests. There are great things happening in our churches AND in our institutions that members in TBC churches should be allowed to read. There is certainly no room for such requests in the murdered-tree (i.e. print-version) version of the B&R and I am sure that the B&R staff is not large enough to cover all of our churches in this constantly changing culture of the 21st century. Allow some democracy into the world of Baptist state paper journalism, it could be a breath of fresh air instead of the staleness that we witness currently. And, again, the technology is affordable and available NOW.

5. Let's be honest with one another and realize that an annual (i.e. one meeting each year) is hardly realistic with the pace of change in the lives of our churches in the 21st century. Even if we stick with one face-to-face fellowship meeting each year, there is absolutely no reason that a quarterly electronic meeting couldn't be organized so that more of our members can be involved at some level. Let's be creative and innovative in the way we do committee meetings...Cracker Barrel will survive without us. And if this old man can understand enough to make it work, I would not entertain the nonsense that too many churches wouldn't be able to participate...that is fresh-off-the-steeple pigeon poop. And, (you guessed it), the technology is affordable and available NOW!

We could start with the basics and advise all Tennessee Baptists that the little tray that shoots out from their personal computers ISN'T a holder for a coffee cup. I'd even be willing to propose reconstituting the 19th century's WCTU. Listen to the Baptist sound of this: Wholesome Computer Training Union.

One visit in three years for $240,000

It is the best chancellor's gig in the country if you ask me. Bible Belt Blogger reports that Oral Roberts (the 89 year-old, senior version) has been paid $80,000 per year as the university's chancellor yet just this week made his first trip to campus in three years. The Associated Press story covers the rest. At a chapel service on Monday, the senior Roberts proclaimed, "the devil is not going to steal ORU." From what I read, it isn't the devil who has been accused of stealing from the university.

I contend that this is just one more example of a religious institution discovering the meaning of the The Peter Principle.

Notre Dame Discovers Reason For Losing Record

I'll stick with SEC football. They don't make excuses but they do tend to beat each other up every Saturday.

Hat Tip: My friend, the Photoshop Guy

Exclamation Point or e-Scream-ation Point?

Good read and wild comments over at Grace and Truth to You!

Some Baptist Kids WILL Have Sex

I read Kelly Bogg's article, Please, Portland, Let Them Be Kids, over at Baptist Press with shock, concern, disgust, and frustration. At the heart of Bogg's editorial is this:

"The Portland (Maine) School Committee Oct. 17 voted 7-2 in favor of allowing King Middle School to make birth control pill and patch prescriptions available to its students, even if the parents don't approve it."

First of all, I want to go on record to say this is wrong...but not for the reasons you might think. I believe this is wrong because it is the responsibility of parents to take care of birth control education for their children and it is NOT the school system's job. I believe this is wrong because there are (evidently) parents who refuse to educate and discipline their 10-15 year-olds about sex and then blame the school system for unwanted pregnancies. I believe that issuing birth control methods to 10-15 year-olds without parental permission is wrong because it encourages (some) parents to neglect their sex education responsibilities for effective birth control and NOT because it encourages their children to have sex. I believe this is a wholesale condemnation of our churches, faith-based institutions, and families for passing-the-buck to public/governmental agencies where those public/secular agencies have NO business getting involved. This is wrong, wrong wrong! (Whew! That felt good!...but I am not finished.)

Now, on to Bogg's opening question: "Should a public school encourage students to engage in risky behavior that is also illegal? (my emphasis)" I am pretty sure that Bogg's is telling us that it is illegal for 10-15 year-olds in Maine to have sex. Great. Let's incarcerate every boy and girl who is unfortunate enough to get caught having sex...that'll show em! It continues to amaze me that we attempt to legislate sex between two people who want to have sex, regardless of their age. Although I agree with society's desire to prevent kids from having sex, passing a law to make it illegal does not address the deeper instincts that result in violating the law. Why not place the parents of these sexually active kids in stocks on the public square? We would have about as much success with that as we would if it were illegal to take more than one piece of pie off a desert table* at a Baptist fellowship supper. Some kids, even kids who know better, WILL have sex! Making it illegal for a hormonal kid to discover that tab "A" goes into slot "B" hasn't fixed much of anything.

The sad reality of having sex today is that there is not only the risk of pregnancy but there is risk of contracting a life threatening disease. I am asking myself, "Who gets to decide how we (as a society..and as Christians in society) minimize those risks?

Here is the frustrating part of Bogg's article: He asks (rhetorically) if the next step beyond the school sanctioned safe-sex initiative are future safe-smoking or safe-drinking or safe-cheating initiates? I would hope that doesn't happen either...but even if it does, it still doesn't resolve the sex issues. Throwing up smoking, drinking, and cheating smoke-screens is simply an additional confession that we do not know how to resolve those issues either and that we would rather condemn those who are taking drastic actions to resolve a life-threatening/life-producing problem that a single act of sexual intercourse can cause than offer up an alternative solution.

Oddly enough, Boggs and I are on the same side. Neither of us want kids having babies or having sexual intercourse. Sadly, neither of us can prevent that, sitting here in the cheap seats. As far as I can tell, we differ in that I am not willing to condemn the Portland, Maine school system for trying to fix something that the rest of us haven't been able to (or are unwilling to) fix. Boggs says, in his conclusion: "It truly is a bad idea." Boggs also presents a good case for why the Portland solution isn't likely to work. I am not crazy about the idea myself and I tend to agree with the implementation problems. I will not, however, let someone throw stones at an effort to fix a problem without offering up even a hint of how to resolve it. The theory that "kids will have sex" is NOT a theory...the reality is "some kids WILL have sex".

...even Baptist kids
Back in the old days when we used to sweep pregnant 15-year olds off to a relative in another state so they could spare the hometown family embarrassment, it was my pastor's daughter and my best friend who "did it" and to their surprise, delivered a 6.5 lb creature into the world nine months later. They knew that "dong it" was wrong. They also learned that there are consequences. There isn't a happy ending to this story. My friend ended up a single dad at 19. My pastor's daughter self-destructed into the world of alcohol and drugs. Before he died, my old pastor referred to the pregnancy as "the awful embarrassment" that ruined his ministry. From where I am seated today, we haven't made a lot of progress since that era in addressing children having sex with children...but we can sure tell you what we don't believe will work.

And while I am ranting over what I believe is wrong, I confess that I do not have a magic solution to offer to all the people in Portland (either)...and because I do not have a solution, I support their efforts to resolve the issue the best way they know how. I pray that this is a wake-up call for all Christians to find solutions even if it means talking openly and honestly and frequently about sex in church.

*For the record: I WILL take more than one piece of pie off the desert table.