Letters

Letters for Dec. 2, 2004

BWA vote was ‘ill-fated decision’

During the budget breakout session at the recent Baptist General Association of Virginia convention, budget committee chairman Darrell Foster stated that the BGAV had enjoyed a 99-year relationship with the Baptist World Alliance. He further stated that since it was the SBC’s decision to withdraw from the BWA that had caused the BWA funding shortfall, the logical way to increase BWA funding was to decrease the International Mission Board funding.

I’d like to remind those who made such an ill-fated decision and the messengers who voted its approval that the BGAV has had a much longer and more productive relationship with the SBC and the IMB than it has had with the BWA. I further remind them that the decision they made took funds away from active missionaries around the world and gave those funds to an organization that allows anyone with the name “Baptist” to be a part of their charade, whether they believe the Bible or not. To me it was like taking money away from missionaries doing God’s work and giving it to help the devil.

I personally believe that from the way the budget has been changed and manipulated over the past few years, and with the available “giving tracks” that severely reduce or altogether eliminate the SBC from receiving any funds, is confirmation that the BGAV leadership is attempting to move the BGAV further and further away from a good working relationship with the SBC.

And I’m convinced that the greater majority of committed (Christian) Baptists in our churches really don’t know how their mission dollars are being distributed. I pray that concerned pastors and messengers will have the courage to tell their church members the truth. I have already informed the members of the church I pastor.

Bill Sigmon, Ringgold

Italian naïveté

The request of Italian Baptist Union’s president to Baptist conventions in America, as reported in the on Nov. 18 requires a response.

I do not profess to understand all the complexities involved in the war in Iraq, and I am deeply concerned about the killing and maiming of peo-ple in this or any other war of conflict, but the naïveté of Italian Baptists is absolutely amazing.

The naïveté is expressed in at least these three statements: (1) “The war has caused terrorism to flare up in a land where there wasn’t any before ...”. The reason there was no terrorism previously is because of the policies of the dictatorial government of Iraq.

(2) “... meetings for reflection on the alternatives to war ... .” Sometimes there is no positive alternative to war unless you wish a restriction of freedom. Freedom of religion and freedom of the press are very important to me and to many Americans.

(3) “... to encourage the exchange coalition forces ‘for U. N. led peacekeeping forces’ to occupy the country.” It is my opinion that peacekeeping forces will possibly, even probably, fail and thereby return Iraq to the problem of regional warlords running the country.

England’s prime minister in the ’30s, Neville Chamberlain, thought he could appease Adolf Hitler and prevent World War II by giving Hitler whatever he asked for. After one meeting with Hitler in Germany Chamberlain returned to England claiming “peace in our time.”

How wrong he was. Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, and began World War II, which killed or injured many millions of people before victory was obtained by Allied forces in 1945.

My war was the Korean War, but I was stationed in Germany for three years (1952-55), where I saw firsthand the effects of war, even though the war had been over for seven years when I arrived in 1952.

Seeing that devastated country deeply scarred me about war, but not to the extent that I will embrace peace at any price. Sometimes there is no alternative to war if you wish to retain your freedom. May we rally around the words and concept of that early Virginia patriot Patrick Henry when he said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

John Harris, Richmond

Selling the centers

Recently some people have been critical of the Virginia Baptist Mission Board about its decision to sell the Baptist campus ministry center at the University of Virginia and at Virginia Commonwealth University. I understand their concern; however, we need to be open to the possibility that the current situation may be God’s will and that he may use the money from the sale of the centers to reach far more students without the centers than would have been possible with them.

As an example, during the early 1970s I was going through a crisis of faith. During that time, I felt suspicious of churches and would never have gone to a Baptist student center. But I was frequently in the university student center and other university facilities.

In those university buildings where I felt comfortable, I met representatives of Campus Crusade for Christ and other Christian student organizations who did not maintain student centers. Their representatives and ministers went out among the students, holding meetings and worship services in residence halls, student centers and other university buildings, thereby making themselves much more available to-much more approachable by-students like me, as well as students who were strong in their faith.

These Christian ministers and representatives, working without on-campus centers, also maintained strong relationships with various local churches. They always encouraged students strong in their faith and new believers to develop relationships with local churches and to attend church services on Sundays. The churches worked with the on-campus ministers and representatives reaching out to students in various ways, including providing transportation to and from their churches when needed (of course, these days, many students have their own cars).

Then as now there are many ways (including the Internet and many more broadcast opportunities) through which Virginia Baptists can reach out to students much more effectively, without an on-campus center, following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ.

E. Marshall Buckles, Richmond

Objectivity and advocacy journalism

Thank you for your editorial on page 2 of the Nov. 25 issue of the Herald. That editorial was an explanation of Herald policy regarding the commitment to and necessity of printing opinions and editorials from the broader perspective of Baptist life.

Although wonderfully written and most informative, it concerns me that writing it was necessary. Although the Herald is committed to and has maintained some semblance of objectivity and centrism amidst increasingly divided Baptists, I have to wonder if the challenges to Herald policy and practice suggest at least two possibilities.

One is that many people have no interest in objectivity or in any position broad enough to include the perspective of anyone but themselves and those who are in complete agreement with them. It seems that many would prefer that a newspaper advocate for specific agendas and opinions, namely theirs.

A second possibility is that we may have become so accustomed to “advocacy journalism” that we don’t really know what to do with someone or something that tries to walk the Jesus walk of neither condoning sin nor condemning the sinner. To be sure, Baptist Press has long since ceased to question any policy or person that weilds power in Southern Baptist life. What little I read of it proves it has deteriorated to the point of being an “advocacy journal” purporting to be news.

I pray that the Herald will never yield to that kind of pressure, not even the pressure of those with whom I agree.

Reginald Warren, Newport News