Dr. Frank Cox–He’s God’s Man!

Some people have asked me the reasons I am supporting Dr. Frank Cox. First of all, I believe he is God’s man for this time in our convention’s life. In all honesty I feel like a scoundrel as Dr. Johnny Hunt is a native North Carolinian and also is a friend. I on the other hand, have never even met Dr. Frank Cox. However, as Dr. Hunt, Dr. Cox states clearly exactly what he believes. Dr. Cox has consistently taken stands for the Conservative Resurgence. He has taken the hits that come with involving himself in local issues and has graciously responded. Dr. Cox will make a fine SBC President and will appoint men and women to the positions that believe the Book and wholeheartedly affirm, without caveats, the Baptist Faith and Message.

I encourage that you prayerfully consider Dr. Cox as you attend the convention this year. If you have further questions, I encourage you to visit this website for further questions and answers.

SBC Presidential Nominations

I remember years when I went to the convention and never used my ballot for anything but to raise it in a voice of acclamation for the one person who was nominated for the office of President of the SBC.  Well, it looks as if those days are over.  We already know of three people that have been announced as candidates for the position.  Frank Cox, as I have already stated, is the person that will receive my vote when that opportunity arises.  Frank Cox, Bill Waggoner, and Wiley Drake are the three names already being announced as nominees.

According to this news release we now have Avery Willis allowing his name to be entered.  Also, I understand that Johnny Hunt of First Baptist Woodstock announced Sunday evening to his church that he was considering allowing his name to be entered also.  Go to this video link at around the 7 minute mark and here Brother Johnny’s heart concerning our convention.

It seems that we are in for an interesting year at Indy.

Which Resolution do You Support?

We see that there are two resolutions saying some of the same thing.  First, I have signed onto this resolution of regenerate church membership.  I signed onto it for two reasons.  Reason #1 is the fact of trying to accomplish what the resolution calls for.  It seems that it will be hard to implement these changes in a large scale within the local church.  Reason #2 the SBCT convention passed this resolution at their convention this past November and had a large contingent of supporters.

Over at the Founders Blog you will find another resolution that seems to say the same thing.  Only difference it seems that the Founders resolution seems to focus more on the need for repentance than on anything else.  Do not get me wrong I do believe there needs to be repentence and you will never hear me say there is no need for repentance.  However, when it comes to cleaning up the church roles, I am not so sure that I had anything to do with it being in the shape it is in.  Also, it has been so long since churches took seriously their church roles, that it will take some time of teaching on regenerate church membership before one’s heart will be tender toward the Holy Spirit’s conviction.

Either resolution will be well received.  Tell me which one you would like or could you support both?  Also, I encourage you to click to the links and give your voice of support for either or both.

Duck and Cover! UPDATED

I have made some editorial changes for better readability.

I was born in 1959. Therefore, the mid 1960’s hold some of my first memories. One such memory is the discussion I heard from my father and aunt about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I remember sitting on the front porch hearing their political meanderings moving from that crisis to the Duck and Cover drills held in schools all across America because The USSR had nuclear weapons and they were pointed at major cities in the United States. During these drills, students were told what to do. For example, when the warning bells rang, students were to stop what they were doing and hide under their desk to await further instructions. I remember hearing, as I grew older, from others that were students in the 50’s about how afraid they were during those times. It seems that they were afraid that one day that they would hear the bells ring and it would not be a drill. It was during such times as this that people were encouraged to go out and build their own bomb shelters in their back yards. There were even recommendations as to what needed to be in the bomb shelter. It seemed that many in this time were warned of a coming disaster that everyone needed to be prepared and if you were not prepared it was your own fault if your family was lost to the coming doom. Some may argue that I am overstating the fear from that era, but one can think back eight years to the beginning of 2000 when the Y2K bug was propagated as a coming destruction. Countries that did not spend as much money on getting prepared fared as well if not better than countries that spent considerable amounts.

Racism: A double-edged knife

One thing that happened to me when I received Christ at twenty-nine years of age was my attitude toward people of various ethnic background changed. I was extremely racist in my attitudes and thoughts and I realized a love for people of opposite skin color that I never knew existed.

There was one item that caused me considerable floundering on my racist attitude and that was the racist attitude I experienced from people of the opposite race. I did have some friends that were African American before I got saved and all I heard them speak about was getting a ‘white girl’. I saw in military service the attitudes from some African American soldiers that African American girls were not even on their radar screens. They wanted only to be with ‘white’ girls. When I got saved this was an area that God had to deal with me on and I still find myself asking forgiveness for various thoughts that come into my mind.

However, I also believe that racism is as much alive within the African American community as it is in the Anglo community. It seems that some argue that African Americans cannot be racist because to be racist you have to be in a majority and African Americans are not in a majority. I am not sure how one would define racism but I believe I will use the definition found in Websters: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.“

According to this definition, it seems that Senator Obama received a pass on his recent racial slur. Notice what he says about his grandmother who is Anglo.

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity,” he said. “But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know. . .there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.“

Notice that Senator Obama fell into the classic definition of exhibiting a racial attitude. He believes, according to his statement, that because his grandmother is ‘white’ she displays certain traits that make here inferior to him. The Senator got a pass from the media on this and it seems that he has dodged this statement because I had to look to find it in a Google search.

What does that have to do with me as a Southern Baptist. It seems that Southern Baptist have taken a negative hit on racism in some of the post on the blog world. My friend and fellow blogger Bart Barber had some hurtful comments directed his way when he honestly said ‘Yes’ to the question; “Does racism exist in the SBC.” I am not one to place words in another’s mouth but what I understood Dr. Barber to say was that we all had racists thoughts to some extent. If an African American jokes that someone cannot sing or dance because they are white, then that is a racists statement. I am not offended by the statement, because I know I cannot sing or dance. I do not know if it is because I am white, but I know it just is not in me. However, after watching Dancing with the Stars, I must admit there are some dancing white boys on that program. I say that comical statement to point to you that the statement itself can be perceived as racist.

As we can go back and forth with the various racist statements that really are not offensive, I must confess that in Southern Baptist life I do see a place we can improve and make certain that our actions match our words. Brother Dwight McKissic pointed something out about his visit to the Executive Committee in Nashville. The highest ranking African American employed at the Executive Committee is the Head Custodian. According to the Richard Cliff at LifeWay we have 823,208 African American; 185,223 Hispanic; 75,937 Korean; and 23,743 Chinese members of our 16 million members. That means that the SBC is made up of 20% minority church members. I must admit that when I saw these numbers I was a bit embarrased that the highest ranking African American at the Executive Committee was the Head Custodian, when African Americans make up the largest minority population in the SBC.

I believe it is time for us to call on our convention leaders, in some way without developing a quota system, to bring balance to this discrepancy. Do I believe we have this imbalance because of racism? No, I do not. We all know how people get positions and it is mainly due to relationships formed in Seminary. Our seminaries have attracted mainly Anglo students. Our convention must take some blame for this. This resolution passed in 1995 certainly has not helped to recruit students to our six seminaries. I believe this correction can begin in our seminaries, in the recruitment of minority seminary students. According to this press release it seems that SWBTS is getting it. But, it must not stop there. I believe that our committees and entity heads must be open to moving minorities into various positions of leadership. I pray that as we move forward, we as a convention, will grasp that minority relations is more than just words presented at an annual meeting in the form of a resolution. We are Brothers and Sisters in Christ and we should trust the Christ living in all of those who profess Him.

Scriptural Truth

When I got saved, my late father gave me a Schofield Study Bible as a gift. He placed two statements in the front that I am sure he heard from someone. One statement was; “These pages will keep you from sin and sin will keep you out of these pages“. Another statement he placed on the front page was; “When you figure it out, it no longer is faith.” These two statements have served me well in my walk with Christ. I find myself returning to these two basic statements many times as I strive to follow God’s call as a pastor. This is one of those times.

It seems that some months ago there was a post by a fellow blogger that really caused one to stop and look at the issue of when life begins. You can see that article here. The article argues against the theological position of traducianism, which is an argument for original sin, and applies it to the argument for when life begins. In traducianism the argument is that when the male cell comes together with the female cell it is flesh and soul that is procreated. I do not have the intellectual knowledge or the time to argue every point of differences that one can argue for or against this view. However, as I was reading this blog article by another fellow blogger, I remembered this post.

It seems that Senators Clinton and Obama are having the same thoughts as the blogger in the first linked article as they prepare for Pennsylvania and the Christian Conservative votes in that state. Notice what Senator Obama said as he voiced his uncertainty of the beginning of life; “Is it when the soul stirs?” Then Senator Clinton said it this way; “I believe the potential for life begins at conception…. “For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about other lives involved……I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years,…that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision…” That, my friends, is the reason the argument that the Scripture is not sufficient to give us an understanding of when God implants a soul is such a dangerous argument to hold to. It rationalizes away the sin of murder. I like the way the author of this article says it;

…it is not up to biological sciences to make a definite judgement on questions which are properly philosophical and moral, such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare risk murder. “The one who will be a man is already one”.

It seems that if we are going to be truthful to the Scripture we need to stop trying to figure out how God takes the immaterial and places it within the material. If we can take Jesus’ words, “Before Abraham was I AM” John 8:58 we would have to ask when the immaterial substance of God was placed within the material substance of Mary. We do not ask about that. Why? Because God was from the beginning. If that is the case, and it is, then why do we need to question when God determines to place an immaterial soul into the material matter known as humans when he has already told us “Before I formed the in the belly, I knew thee” Jeremiah 1:5?

Roosting Chickens

In the rural area that I grew up there was a saying that meant something for us. Whenever we would do something that we did not know what the outcome would be my father would always say, “The chickens have not come home to roost, yet.” This saying meant that it was too early to make an assessment of a situation because everything was not completed that would affect the outcome.

So it is with the new move of our Women’s Missionary Union in North Carolina. According to this report it seems that one former WMU-NC Executive Director has taken issue with the leadership of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. The author of this report seems to purport a falsely held understanding of reason WMU-NC left the Baptist Building in Cary. He reports that the Missions Extravaganza was WMU-NC’s “first meeting since the group was required to give up its office space and all Baptist State Convention (BSC) support in order to retain its autonomy.” What is a falsely held understanding is that WMU-NC was not ‘required’ to give up its office space. The ‘requirement’ of office space came when WMU-NC chose to leave the Baptist Building. The former executive director makes a reference to the unnecessary task that is before the BSCNC and that is beginning another women’s ministry organization. The task is completely unnecessary because had the WMU-NC grasped the truth of the role of the BSCNC executive director their autonomy would have remained intact along with their payroll, fleet car privileges, office space, and their place in the annual NC Missions offering. Read the arrogance of this statement by a former executive director made at the previous Missions Extravaganza; ““Some think we no longer need WMU,” she said, “that some other women’s program can take our place.” This appears to be a reference to the newly established task force, headed by former WMU-NC President who was also former NCBSC 1st VP Phyllis Foy.

In another article on the latest WMU-NC gathering we see more of this rhetoric from the current executive director.

Some things have been said that are absolutely not true,” Fulbright said, things that have caused hardship in some churches. “We want to express our apology for any difficulty you have gone through or may be going through,” she said, “and to remind you that WMU was born in adversity.

Notice something about that first phrase–is does not identify what has been said that is not true. This is the same problem the leadership of the BSCNC had in trying to resolve the issue that led to the WMU-NC leaving the building. In the meeting that was held at East Taylorsville Baptist Church back in October, everytime Dr. Brian Davis expressed what was taking place, Mrs. Fulbright responded with, ‘you are correct but that is not how we see it.’ She even acknowledged that Dr. Davis correctly assessed the impasse and wanted to state the WMU-NC’s side and was given free opportunity to express their differences. The only things she said were not correct was issues concerning who the WMU-NC wanted to partner. Something she acknowledged did not come from the leadership of the BSCNC. It comes a time that someone needs to ask; “What things have been said that are not true?” It seems that if an untruth has been stated that caused autonomous churches hardship, please release this information and let’s get to the bottom of it. This, my friends, is a serious charge.

Another item of importance seems to be overlooked. According to the WMU-NC, they would need approximately $1.2 million in order to accomplish their task. Of this $1.2 million, the BSCNC was supplying approximately $900 thousand through the NC MIssions Offering and the rest would be supplied through the BSCNC budget. Well, the WMU-NC stepped out and re-established the Heck-Jones Missions offering. This Offering was promoted and received in churches throughout NC and has $336 thousand coming into their coffers so far. Mr. Fulbright said;“It’s not enough, not yet, but God is providing for our needs in other ways”. One-third of the WMU budget was received in one offering and she is espousing that God is providing for needs in other ways. I am not saying that God is not going to provide, His word tells us He will. In Psalm 37:25 David writes, “I have been young and now I am old, I have never seen His seed forsaken or the righteous begging bread.” I am questioning that $336k is sufficient for their needs at this moment, where was the other $600k going when they were in the baptist building, and their payroll, office space, printing needs, insurance, and salaries were being paid from the BSCNC budget?

One other item of interest has to do with something reported. It seems that the WMU-NC has had a great year even though there was such controversy within their organization. It seems that the WMU-NC added 138 new mission organizations in the past year. This seems to have been a great addition. My question concerning this report would be who the organizations are? According to the WMU-NC website there are currently six mission organizations that WMU-NC is together in partnership. Now, they are telling us that they have added 138 new missions organizations and they are over $900k in making their budget. There appears to be one of two things that are at work in this announcement. Either these 138 new missions organizations are associated with WMU-NC in name only, or WMU-NC is living off of excess funds that they have received. If the former is true, then we have a serious problem concerning this announcement. If the latter is true, then the BSCNC was presented a false concept by former executive director/treasurer Dr. Roy Smith when he presented his motion on Wednesday AM of the convention meeting arguing that the WMU-NC was in desperate needs of the $500k that he recommended go back into the NC Missions Offering. Either way, whether the former or latter, there seems to be some issue concerning financing the ministry of the WMU-NC .

Of course, the WMU-NC is new in their endeavor and I do pray that God will bless them as they proceed. I do like the song played as the ladies walked around thanking those in attendance. I also would like to call their attention to the first verse in the song.

Run your car off the side of the road
Get stuck in a ditch way out in the middle of nowhere

It seems that if one accidently runs one’s car off the side of the road in a ditch your true friends will be there to bail you out. The BSCNC has been there, and is still there, to get the ladies of NC Baptist Churches out of the ditch, but the WMU-NC leadership has gotten in the car with others and driven off, leaving this car loaded down with NC Baptist women who love missions for the rest of us to get out of the ditch. The BSCNC has organized a task force and it appears that a recommendation may be before the convention in October. When it comes before us this car, left there by others, will have been pulled out of the ditch by their friends. As for the future of the WMU-NC, it is still to early to tell as the chickens have not come home to roost.

“How Could it Be?” Part II

In Part I, you will notice that I referenced a story which moved me to tears as I thought of the heartache and grueling decisions that had to be made to right a wrong. It seems that anytime something needs to be righted it does take heartache and tough decisions. Well, as I re-visit a situation that is current in SBC life I find myself asking the same question that is the title of this post–How Could it Be?

It all began for me in November 2005. I read of accounts of a trustee with the IMB stepping forward and making public items that were discussed in private. It seems that the news was not concerned about a trustee publicly releasing items discussed in private as they were about the issue of “dissent”. This dissent, was something that we Baptist hold dear and here was a trustee that was being squashed, according to the various press coverage, by the system that wanted to keep people under their thumb. The first thing I asked myself had to do with the direction the President, Dr. Jerry Rankin, wanted to go in the matter. The reason I wanted to find Dr. Rankin’s position had to do with the items the trustee was classifying as the “narrowing of parameters”. One doctrine was the doctrine of a Private Prayer Language (PPL). You see, this was something that was revealed to the SBC world about Dr. Jerry Rankin at the time he was announced as the choice of the FMB (Foreign Mission Board is what the International Mission Board was once called.). However, and the way that Dr. Rankin’s election to the post was satisfied, it was agreed that this would never be an issue for Dr. Rankin because he always had this in the privacy of his own devotional life. He never taught this doctrine, and because he only used it privately, it would never be an issue in terms of his employment.

After a period of time there were news reports about a public blog where this trustee opined wildly about the Conservative Resurgence and used some very harsh language concerning Crusading Conservatives. To his credit the trustee went back and changed some of the language as to not make it so harsh. However, this post was a gauntlet being thrown down for the rest of the Board of Trustees and across the convention.

From the IMB decision arose a group of concerned Southern Baptist that this person was being falsely accused and should be protected. This group came together in Memphis and placed in writing the Memphis Declaration. This is where the subtle change in the message was placed in writing to rally the masses. In this story we see the beginnings of information management as the media is manipulated for the cause. The change, you will notice in the story, has moved from the right of public dissent to the narrowing of parameters.

Thus, it seems that we have this tragic accident that has happened–for the first time in the history of the SBC a trustee has been recommended to be removed–some say for reasons of revealing private information and others say it is because of the trustee’s desire to dissent. However, we now see the rallying cry of this group and that is the “narrowing of parameters”. People flocked to the defense of this trustee for various reasons, but I will narrow (no pun intended) it to two. One, has to do with Doctrine. There were some, and I believe the majority of those that jumped on this ambulance, that saw the IMB policies as going outside the BF&M. These policies were implemented, we were told, by a small group of people that were Landmark in their doctrine and wanted to narrow the parameters to meet some Landmark doctrinal position. This position, we were told, was being implemented in order to accomplish two things. First it would keep the SBC under the control of a few people, mainly one sitting as President of another entity in Texas. Second, it would get rid of Dr. Rankin at the IMB something, we were told, was a desire of a small few in leadership on the IMB BoT.

We go into the 2006 convention in Greensboro with the rallying cry of cooperation and CP giving is huge. The presidential candidate is Dr. Ronnie Floyd, and his commitment to the SBC is called into question because of the less than 1% CP giving ratio of the church he pastors. While Dr. Floyd certainly could have done much better in his CP giving ratio we must remember that his SBC commitment is seen in his giving directly to the various entities. Could it be that Dr. Floyd’s CP giving isn’t as much of a picture of his commitment to the SBC as it is his disagreement with Arkansas Baptist giving plan? However, Dr. Floyd was painted as some out of touch Mega-church pastor that could care less about anyone else. Also, when Dr. Paige Patterson and Dr. Al Mohler endorsed Dr. Floyd the die had been cast. It now was argued that the narrowing of parameters was in full force. Since the IMB has brought about PPL and Baptism as an issue, the Calvinist are next to be voted out. That was the banner cry heading into the 2006 convention.

Dr. Frank Page is the nominee that Burleson shopped around to find. With the seemingly endorsement of Dr. Morris Chapman, this group met in their hotel suite with their new President and laid hands on and anointed their new leaders that would help them implement the changes they so desperately wanted. However, there was emerging within the leaders of this group a curious doctrinal deficiency that Southern Baptist held tenaciously onto in the past that those who signed on were about to notice. One was alcohol, and the other was ecclesiology.

At the 2006 convention Ben Cole, a leader at the Memphis convocation, along with Tom Ascol, President of the Calvinist organization Founders Ministry, argued in support of a resolution on alcohol. This argument elicited some excitable statements by veteran SBC observers. I remember sitting in the SEBTS alumni luncheon on that Wednesday and hearing Dr. Danny Akin express his distress at sitting in a SBC convention meeting and hearing SBC pastors argue for the use of alcohol as a social beverage. The icing on the cake for this convention was the blog post by the trustee that was supposed to be tragically attacked in this narrowing of parameters scene, where he purportedly used wine as a device to lead someone to Christ. People who thought they were signing onto a movement with other Biblical inerrantist were beginning to question exactly who exactly this was.

Ecclesiology became another area that was beginning to come to the forefront. It seems that it began with the idea that the seating of the universal church was in the present. It has now moved to the offices of the local church and how there is no prohibition in gender for the Senior Pastor. It seems that the argument of the local church has moved forward in the same principles of the alcohol argument. The alcohol argument was basically, you cannot find in the Bible ‘Thou shalt not drink’. The argument for the local church has moved from, you cannot find in the Bible, ‘the local church is my church’ and since that is not there, you certainly cannot find that the Senior Pastor is not an office in the Scripture. Thus, if the Senior Pastor is not referenced in Scripture, there can be no prohibitions on the office because the Bible doesn’t even mention the office.

Identity Revealed

This brings me to the conclusion of this post. It seems that many who were commenting in the beginning trying to defend this trustee now are no longer defending. Why is that? Well as in Part I of this series, the Van Ryn family realized this young lady they had nurtured back to health for five weeks was not part of their immediate family, it seems that statements and positions by this former trustee indicate this is not part of the immediate family–doctrinally. The real problem in question has to do with things being said. In a comment stream here (second comment to a John), he says that he voted against the BF&M 2000. But, in a post here (in the opening paragraph), he says that he voted for the BF&M 2000. Regardless of that inconsistency, that gives the appearance that the former trustee will say whatever he needs to say in order to favor his audience, there is now a promotion of women pastors. Many who once said, I am for you and will follow, are now having to reassess their positions.

As the Van Ryn’s some are now saying, you must believe I am an idiot because I cannot identify someone that is an inerrantist. The Cerak family responded with love and compassion toward their family because they knew what they were feeling as they realized that the daughter they thought was theirs was alive, but was in reality dead. Both families came away from this tragedy stronger in their faith and much more in love with our Lord. But they acknowledged that one they thought was their family, in reality was not.

It is the same with some that responded to what you perceived was a tragedy, but you now realize that the injured was not part of the doctrinal family you have known as the SBC. Allow me to commend you on nurturing our Brother and being there for him. However, it is okay for you to now acknowledge what he has acknowledged–he does not embrace the BF&M 2000. Some may still be hanging on because you are still hung onto the question; “How could it be?”. That is okay, also. Back away and re-look at the posts that you see coming from this blog and you will observe the doctrinal slide toward the left. Then venture to this blog and view the post by this author and you will observe the vitriol and vengeance toward an entity president that has been duly elected by the BoT who are authorized to be in their positions by the convention.

As you review and wonder about the outcome. Let me encourage you to go ahead and release these Brothers that are doctrinally members of another family. We do not desire to see harm come to them, but we must release them to their doctrinal family where they will be better nurtured and cared for simply because they are not doctrinally a part of our family.

“How Could it Be?” Part I

The title of this post were the words of the sister of the late Laura Van Ryn who was one of five Taylor University students tragically killed in an accident back in March, 2006. The Van Ryn, and Cerak families told their stories on NBC Dateline and also have book about this case–Mistaken Identity. What a wonderful story of God’s people setting straight a terrible mistake and the pain that one goes through trying to sort the circumstances in order to arrive at the truth.

It seems this mistake occured on the side of the road after the accident and was further exacerbated by the trustworthiness of both families. This speaks more of the families faith than it does to their naivety. These families trusted the people that told them of these tragedies. In listening to the stories one can grasp how these various situations kept building until it was discovered by one that questioned enough to cause doubt. While the Van Ryn family is to be commended because they looked after and treated as one of their own someone they had never met before. They also should be commended for their compassion and their exuberance to do, as Lisa Van Ryn said, “the right thing”.

For the purpose of this post I want to focus on these two families, and in Part II I will make an application using this example. I want to call attention to a couple of Christian families that faithfully and fervently serve our Lord. These two families were united by something that was beyond anyone’s comprehension. They also handled the entire situation with Grace and compassion. Lisa Van Ryn asked the lady she thought to be her sister Laura, to say her name. This young lady said “Whitney”. She then asked her to say her parent’s names. Whitney responded “Newell and Colleen”, which there was no way that Laura would know that. However, Lisa responded by encouraging her and telling her she was doing well. She did not make an issue out of it with Whitney because she did not want Whitney to be upset any further. Notice the exchange during the Dateline story;

Matt Lauer: When I read that, Lisa, it knocked the wind out of me. But you know what else I thought? What a fabulous response you had. What a moment of generosity that was to Whitney. You didn’t get up and run screaming down the hall and create more trauma for her.

Lisa Van Ryn: Well, I loved her. We loved her.

Lisa Van Ryn: We—

Don Van Ryn: And still do.

Lisa Van Ryn: Yeah. I mean why would I do that to her? She had become a dear friend and basically a sister.

Susie Van Ryn: She was a sister.

Lisa Van Ryn: Yeah.

Notice Susie Van Ryn’s statement. “She was a sister.” She is speaking of the relationship that born again believers enjoy in Christ. A sister, that is what she was to them. That was not some foreign person that we could abandon in a time of need. She was a sister. What an act of grace and humility.

The story then moves to the hurt and pain that it took to right the wrong. What a heart wrenching job it must have been to actually dig up a daughter someone else buried. While the Cerak family moved from horror to hope to hallelujah to hope, the Van Ryn family moved from hope to hallelujah to horror to hope. These families have lived an unimaginable tragedy and I pray for God’s grace in their lives as they move forward. I believe the book will be a great closure for both families as they move forward with their lives. But, oh, what a powerful testimony of faithfulness to God and His sovereignty.

As Gail and I watched this story I had a thought of the similarity for another situation. That thought will be shared later. Right now, I just ask that we all take time with our Lord and lift up these two families.

Oh, I am also going to purchase the book.

Dr. Frank Cox has my Vote

On June 10, 2008 during that morning session, probably, we will have a time that the convention will elect her next President.  When that time comes, I will punch my ballot for Dr. Frank Cox.  Oh, my wife and my daughter, if she is elected a messenger from our church, will also punch their ballots for Dr. Cox.

I am voting for Dr. Cox for three reasons.  First, I have prayed about this decision and I believe that God is leading me to vote for Dr. Cox,  I believe Dr. Cox has presented himself as a man of God that desires to do what is right for the Southern Baptist Convention.  Dr. Cox has served our convention well on the Executive Committee.  He also has never been afraid to take a stand on something that he believes in.  Dr. Cox, as I remember, stood and spoke at a convention when he was serving on the resolutions committee.  He spoke against a Christian Education resolution and he did it with integrity.  His point was that he served on his school board and was able to make changes and be light in the public school system.  This was not a popular stand for him but he stood without flinching.