Baptist Press Stories for May. 10 2012 --------------------------------------- Obama re-election campaign embraces gay 'marriage' and mocks Romney stance http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37805 Land's apology accepted by African American pastor http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37804 U.S. split on homosexual behavior as sin http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37803 Brian Autry elected SBC of Virginia exec http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37800 Iranian pastor: I'm surrendered 'to God's will' http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37801 Despite Myanmar reforms, Christians on alert http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37798 BIBLE STUDY: Sunday, May 13, 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37806 FIRST-PERSON: Why not legalize gay 'marriage'? (part 1) http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37494 FIRST-PERSON: The marriage debate & the future of evangelical response http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37799 --------------------------------------- Obama re-election campaign embraces gay 'marriage' and mocks Romney stance By Michael Foust May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37805 WASHINGTON (BP) -- President Obama's re-election campaign has fully embraced his public support of gay "marriage" and seems poised to make it a general election issue -- even to the point of ridiculing Mitt Romney's backing of traditional marriage. Hours after Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to declare public support for the issue, his campaign sent out an email to supporters with the subject line "Marriage." "I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry," Obama said in the email. "... What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens." The email concluded, "If you agree, you can stand up with me here" -- and a link to donate money was provided. The Democratic National Committee also sent out an email from chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, embracing the issue. "Folks, this is what Democrats are all about -- and I'm so proud we have a president who's willing to stand up and say it," she wrote. "Let's join him. Show your support for marriage equality today." The issue of gay "marriage" was the dominant theme May 10 at BarackObama.com -- Obama's campaign website -- where visitors encountered a large picture of Obama with the words, "same-sex couples should be able to get married." The campaign also sent out multiple Tweets and Facebook messages spreading the president's position.
But perhaps the biggest embrace of the issue came in an Internet video where the campaign re-played Obama's statement and Romney's previous statements, and even twisted President Bush's words on civil unions -- all in about 90 seconds. The Obama re-election video ends with a clip of GOP presumptive nominee Romney at a Republican debate. Romney says, "Calling [a gay relationship] a marriage creates a whole host of problems for families, for the law, for the practice of religion, for education. Let me say this, 3,000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly." The video then ends with words on the screen: "President Obama is Moving us Forward." The implication: Romney is backwards. In fact, that's the name the campaign gave the video: "Mitt Romney: Backwards on Equality." Ironically, Romney's statement received significant applause at the debate and agreement among social conservatives. His "religion" comment was referencing court-ordered gay "marriage" in his home state of Massachusetts, when Boston Catholic Charities decided to shut down its widely praised adoption and foster care work rather than be forced to follow a state law requiring that children be placed in the homes of homosexual couples. He apparently also was referencing the fact that some Massachusetts public schools had read books about gay "marriage" to elementary-age children. The fast-paced video criticizes Romney's support for a federal marriage amendment. It also blasts his opposition to civil unions. It shows him saying, "I don't favor civil unions if they're identical to marriage other than by name." The video claims: "Even President Bush supported civil unions." It then shows a clip of the former president saying, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union." Bush, though, did not favor civil unions. The quote at issue is from 2004, when during an interview Bush said he did not believe a federal marriage amendment -- endorsed by the GOP platform -- should prohibit states from legalizing civil unions. Bush's full quote was, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." His spokespersons at the time said he did not favor such a law. Obama's stance makes it likely that the Democratic platform will also endorse gay "marriage" -- which would be a political first for either party. As Obama's campaign continued speaking out on the issue, Southern Baptist leaders did, too -- but in disagreement with the president. "It saddens me and grieves me that the president has endorsed same-sex marriage," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "This is an issue that every time the American people have had a chance to vote on, including [in North Carolina May 8], they have voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage as between a man and a woman." Dwight McKissic, an African American and pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, said Obama's announcement negatively impacted minority churches. "President Obama has betrayed the Bible and the Black Church with his endorsement of same-sex marriage," McKissic said in a statement. "The Bible is crystal clear on this subject, and the Black Church strongly opposes same-sex marriage. His endorsement is an inadvertent attack on the Christian Faith. McKissic added, "This means that parents are now going to have an extremely difficult time teaching their children that marriage biblically and traditionally is between a man and a woman, when the President that many love and admire is now on record endorsing sodomy. This is painful and shameful. The Black Church should galvanize, mobilize and address this matter with the same (if not greater) intensity, velocity and resolve as we did the Civil Rights Movement. If we don't, our children and grandchildren will pay a far greater price in suffering from a governmental sanction of same-sex marriage than we would have under segregation." Several SBC pastors made their thoughts known in Tweets. Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas Tweeted, "Let me appeal to all my pastor friends to clearly and unequivocally state your support of Biblical marriage. Don't sit this one out." Ronnie Floyd, pastor of Cross Church in Arkansas, said in a Tweet, "November 6, 2012, has now shifted from jobs, jobs, jobs; as an evangelical, it will now be about upholding the sacredness of marriage." Maxie Miller, African American church planting team strategist at the Florida Baptist Convention, wrote in a Tweet, "The President's position on same sex marriage is sad and disturbing." Gay "marriage" has lost in every state where it's been on the ballot -- [URL=http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37797]32 in all[/URL]. The latest loss came May 8 in North Carolina, where voters passed, by a margin of 61-39 percent, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. --30-- Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). Read Glenn Stanton's column, "Why not legalize gay marriage?" at [URL=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37494]www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37494[/URL]. -- End of story -- Land's apology accepted by African American pastor By Art Toalston May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37804 NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- A prominent African American pastor, Dwight McKissic Sr., has publicly accepted Richard Land's apology for remarks he (Land) made about the Trayvon Martin killing. [IMG=19200@right@180]"I fully accept his apology -- without hesitation, or reservation -- and appeal to all Christians, regardless of color, who were offended by his remarks to accept his apology and forgive him," McKissic wrote in a May 10 post at the SBC Voices blog (http://sbcvoices.com). McKissic said he previously had contended that Land should publicly apologize or be fired as president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, which Land has led since 1988. Land, on May 9, issued a five-part, two-page apology "for the harm my words of March 31, 2012, have caused to specific individuals, the cause of racial reconciliation, and the gospel of Jesus Christ." Land and McKissic were among 12 people at a May 2 meeting when African American leaders' concerns were voiced to Land -- a session that Land said helped him "understand in sharper relief how damaging my words were." The meeting spanned nearly five hours at the SBC Building in Nashville, Tenn. Land, on his "Richard Land Live!" call-in radio show March 31, had criticized the intrusion of politics into the Trayvon Martin case and had referenced President Obama and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson by name. McKissic, senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, opened his posting at the SBC Voices blog by citing the oft-quoted words about repentance and healing from 2 Chronicles 7:14. McKissic then wrote: "It was my contention that Dr. Richard Land needed to publicly apologize -- own and disown his words -- as it relates to the controversial racial remarks he made regarding the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman saga. If Dr. Land refused to own and disown his words prior to the SBC Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, in June of this year, I had planned to offer to the Convention a resolution requesting that the Convention own, and then disown Dr. Land's words and repudiate the racial comments he made concerning the Martin/Zimmerman case. Furthermore, it was my contention that Dr. Land needed to resign or be fired if he did not disown his own words before the June convention. Dr. Land has now taken responsibility for his words and has rejected them." McKissic said he had "a joyful heart and renewed spirit" upon receiving Land's apology from James Dixon Jr., president of the National African American Fellowship of the SBC. The apology, McKissic said, "reveals that Dr. Land has indeed owned and then disowned his words regarding the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case." McKissic then continued: "Be it known that in keeping with my word, and in light of Dr. Land's statement, I no longer am calling for his resignation, nor do I plan to submit a resolution to the June convention regarding Dr. Land. I fully accept his apology -- without hesitation, or reservation -- and appeal to all Christians, regardless of color, who were offended by his remarks to accept his apology and forgive him. My confidence in Dr. Land, in light of his apology, has been restored. As much as our land needs healing, Dr. Land and his family also need healing. Let's remember to pray for the Land family." Dixon, contacted by Baptist Press after Land's apology was issued May 9, said he would have no comment until after trustees of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission have completed the process initiated by their executive committee on April 18 regarding Land's comments. The ERLC executive committee also created an ad hoc committee to investigate allegations of plagiarism over material Land failed to attribute to a Washington Times columnist on the March 31 broadcast. Steve Faith, ERLC trustee chairman, issued a statement later on May 9 that the ad hoc committee is working "with due diligence and will bring a thorough and complete report to the ERLC Executive Committee who will prayerfully consider the findings. The ERLC Executive Committee will bring a report to the full board of trustees and then release a public statement by June 1. "It is important to understand that our Southern Baptist polity places Dr. Land under the authority of the ERLC trustees who are elected by and accountable directly to the Convention," said Faith, a retired pastor and Baptist association director of missions in Indiana. "The trustees are aware of their responsibility to the Convention and to the watching world." On Twitter, Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, said he was "proud of my friend & former teacher 4 this apology," while Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, said he was "Encouraged to see Richard Land's clear & unequivocal apology about his Trayvon Martin comments." For the Baptist Press story on Land's May 9 apology, which includes the full text of the apology, go to [URL=http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37795]www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37795[/URL]. Earlier Baptist Press reports on the controversy over Land's comments can be accessed at [URL=http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37620]www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37620[/URL]; [URL=http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37619]www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37619[/URL]; and [URL=http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37630]www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37630[/URL]. --30-- Art Toalston is editor of Baptist Press. -- End of story -- U.S. split on homosexual behavior as sin By David Roach May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37803 [IMGONLY=32574@right@250]NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- Americans are split on whether homosexual behavior is a sin, and many do not appreciate if a church teaches it is sinful, according to a recent survey conducted by LifeWay Research. The random-sample survey of more than 2,000 Americans asked, "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" Forty-four percent said yes and 43 percent said no. Thirteen percent were not sure. Being a born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist Christian often corresponded with a negative view of homosexuality. Among those groups, 82 percent said homosexual behavior is a sin while 14 percent said it is not a sin. In contrast, 29 percent of all other religious groups said it is sinful and 51 percent said it is not. Men and Americans without a college degree were more likely to say homosexuality is sinful. Forty-seven percent of men said it is a sin, but only 40 percent of women. And 49 percent of those without a college degree said homosexual behavior is a sin, compared with 35 percent who have a college degree. "When asking questions like this to a general sampling of the population, it is important to note that people's definition of 'sin' may differ based upon their religious background and beliefs," Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research, said. "We intentionally used the word but also know it means different things to different people." McConnell noted that in 2011, Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll approached the question of homosexuality asking if it was "morally acceptable." "While we find 44 percent believe homosexuality is a 'sin,' Gallup reports 56 percent of Americans consider gay and lesbian relations morally acceptable," McConnell said. Respondents in the LifeWay poll also were asked the question: "If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church taught that homosexual behavior was sinful impact your decision positively or negatively or have no impact?" Only 26 percent of respondents said it would have a positive impact while 36 percent said it would have a negative impact. Nearly a third (32 percent) said it would have no impact. Of those who said homosexual behavior is sinful, a slight majority (54 percent) said a church teaching it is sinful would positively impact their decision to visit or join. But among those who do not believe homosexual behavior is sinful, 74 percent said a congregation teaching it is sinful would negatively impact their decision to visit or join. "Conversations about sin are inherently religious in nature," McConnell said. "Merriam-Webster tells us the use of the word 'sin' is religious or moral and often specifically refers to a 'transgression of the law of God.' It is no surprise, then, that the sharpest negative reaction to a church specifically teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin comes from the least religious, those who do not attend religious services." Regarding the effect of a church's stand on homosexuality, the survey found: -- Americans who never attend a place of worship strongly leaned negative in their response to the impact of a church teaching homosexual behavior is sinful. Those who never attend a place of worship were most likely to say this teaching would have a negative impact on them visiting or joining the church if they were considering it (72 percent) compared to only 21 percent of those who attend worship services more than once a week. -- Younger Americans took a more negative view of churches teaching against homosexuality. Those 18 to 29 (19 percent) were the least likely age group to say that a congregation teaching against homosexuality would have a positive impact upon their decision to visit or join. Those 65 and older were the most likely age group to say it would impact their decision positively (35 percent) and the least likely to say it would impact their decision negatively (29 percent). -- Men were more likely than women to look favorably on a church teaching homosexuality is sin. Twenty-nine percent of men and 22 percent of women said it would impact their decision positively. Thirty-four percent of men and 38 percent of women said it would impact their decision negatively. -- People in large (44 percent) and small (43 percent) cities were more likely to say a church's teaching against homosexuality would impact their decision negatively than those in suburbs (32 percent) and rural areas (26 percent). "Americans remain evenly split on the moral and religious questions of whether homosexual behavior is a sin," McConnell said. "It likely reflects different beliefs about Scripture and different beliefs about who defines sin." The online survey of 2,144 adult Americans was conducted Sept. 23-26, 2011, among a sample of an online panel representing the adult population of the United States. Responses were weighted by region, party, age, race, religion, gender and education to more accurately reflect the population and provides a 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed +2.2 percent. Margins of error are higher in subgroups. --30-- David Roach is a pastor and writer in Shelbyville, Ky. -- End of story -- Brian Autry elected SBC of Virginia exec By Brandon Pickett & Amanda Sullivan May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37800 GLEN ALLEN, Va (BP) -- Brian Autry has been elected as executive director of the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia (SBC of Virginia) in a unanimous vote by the state convention's Executive Board. [IMG=32573@right@150]Autry, 41, founding pastor of Parkway Baptist Church in Moseley, Va., will take office on May 16. "It's a great day," said Doyle Chauncey, SBC of Virginia's treasurer and interim executive director. "He's going to bring a different dimension to our convention. Our church planters are going to be extremely excited about a church planter who has been very successful. "I think it's an exciting new beginning for the SBC of Virginia," Chauncey continued. "We've had several new beginnings, and every new beginning turns out to be something that God's up to, and we later find out what it's all about." SBC of Virginia's former executive director, Jeff Ginn, left the post he had held for three years in August 2011 to become pastor of Istrouma Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, La., where he continues to serve. Chauncey, the convention's founding executive director, was named interim executive director upon Ginn's departure and the Executive Board immediately formed a search committee. The committee considered multiple candidates from across the nation but, in the end, unanimously voted to present Autry to the Executive Board. "Brian did not seek the position, but we sought him," said search committee chairman Kelly Burris, pastor of Kempsville Baptist Church in Virginia Beach. "He had been recommended to us by several people. The more we began to talk with him, the more impressed we were of the passion that he had for the SBC of Virginia." SBC of Virginia's president, Randy Hahn, pastor of Colonial Heights (Va.) Baptist Church, noted, "We've got somebody with experience with Virginia -- somebody with experience with the SBC of Virginia." Burris, in his presentation to the Executive Board prior to their May 8 vote, noted various goals that Autry had for the SBC of Virginia. "He wants to plant strong churches that stay strong," Burris said. "He wants the SBC of Virginia to mentor and encourage courageous leaders; to lead the Southern Baptist Convention in planting ethnically diverse congregations; to advance Christ's mission -- the Great Commission -- by mobilizing followers of Jesus; to see our members become our missionaries." Autry said he is optimistic about the opportunity to serve the SBCV's churches. "I look forward to seeing how God is going to continue to use the SBC of Virginia as a marvelous coalition of churches of great Kingdom impact and advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ," Autry said. Autry has been part of the SBC of Virginia for 16-plus years. He began working for the convention in 2000 as the student evangelism director. In 2002, he left that role to plant Parkway Baptist, which recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. "We have an average of 900 people in attendance each weekend and a little more than 1,000 members," said Derek Futrell, Parkway's pastor of worship and missions. Ginn, SBCV's former executive, praised the board's decision, describing Autry as "wonderfully suited to this new, vital role. He is teachable, experienced, proven, fruitful, visionary and creative. Add him to the mix of the SBCV's current staff and unique vision and it is a winning combination. I rejoice to hear the good news and back it 100 percent." In addition to his work with SBC of Virginia, Autry was a missionary with the North American Mission Board from 2000-05. His ministry reaches further back than that, having worked as associate pastor of students and education at Kempsville Baptist Church from 1996-2000. Autry graduated from James Madison University in 1992 with a bachelor of science in both psychology and political science. He earned his master of divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina in 1996. In 2002, he received his doctorate from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a focus in evangelism, church growth and church consulting. Autry and his wife Jennifer have three children: Melissa, Mark, and Jenna. --30-- Brandon Pickett is director of media services for the SBC of Virginia; Amanda Sullivan is a writer for Innovative Faith Resources. For more information about the SBC of Virginia, visit www.sbcv.org. -- End of story -- Iranian pastor: I'm surrendered 'to God's will' By Michael Foust May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37801 TEHRAN (BP) -- The jailed Iranian pastor who could be executed for converting to Christianity has released a public letter asking for continued prayers and saying that while he wishes to be released, he has surrendered "to God's will." [IMGONLY=32374@right@250]The letter from Yousef Nadarkhani was translated into English by Jason DeMars of Present Truth Ministries, an organization that has been working to free Nadarkhani, who was sentenced to death in 2010 for converting from Islam to Christianity. The case dates back to 2009. His first name also can be spelled "Youcef." "First, I would like to inform all of my beloved brothers and sisters that I am in perfect health in the flesh and spirit," the letter began. "And I try to have a little different approach from others to these days, and consider it as the day of exam and trial of my faith. And in these days which are hard in order to prove your loyalty and sincerity to God, I am trying to do the best in my power to stay right with what I have learned from God's commandments. "I need to remind my beloveds, though my trial … has been so long, and as in the flesh I wish these days to end, yet I have surrendered myself to God's will." Without naming names or countries, Nadarkhani acknowledged that "various churches" and "famous politicians" have asked for his release and that human rights groups worldwide have sided with him. Officials with the United States and United Kingdom have called for his release. "I do believe that these kind of activities can be very helpful in order to reach freedom, and respecting the human rights in a right way can bring forth great results in this," Nadarkhani wrote. But Nadarkhani, again without mentioning names, seemed to criticize Florida pastor Terry Jones, who in April burned several copies of the Quran. Jones, who pastors an independent church, said he took the action to draw attention to Nadarkhani's case. Jones' action didn't get much attention in the United States but Iranian politicians noticed, and one called for Jones to be executed, The New York Times reported. "Insulting the belief of other nations or people, whether they be a majority or minority, is not accepted and is an unworthy deed, specifically for those who have this teaching to love and respect others more than themselves and treat them the same as you want to be treated," Nadarkhani wrote. "Then, burning and insulting is not a reverent behavior for a Christian, but it's worthy to be in obedience to the Word of God and humble ourselves to glorify God." Nadarkhani said he prays for the leaders in Iran to "rule the country according to the will of God." He also asked for prayer. "I ask all the beloved ones to pray for me as the holy word has said," Nadarkhani wrote. "At the end I hope this be prepared as soon as possible, as the authorities of my country will do with free will according to their law and commandments which are answerable to." Nadarkhani's stance against Iranian officials has inspired Christians worldwide. In September, Nadarkhani was given four chances to recant his faith in court and refused each time. His case then was referred to the ayatollah. The American Center for Law and Justice reported one of his court exchanges. "Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?" Nadarkhani asked. "To the religion of your ancestors, Islam," the judge reportedly replied. "I cannot," the pastor responded. Following is the full text of his letter: "Greetings from your servant and younger brother in Christ, Youcef Nadarkhani. "All those who are concerned and worried about my current situation. First, I would like to inform all of my beloved brothers and sisters that I am in perfect health in the flesh and spirit. And I try to have a little different approach from others to these days, and consider it as the day of exam and trial of my faith. And in these days which are hard in order to prove your loyalty and sincerity to God, I am trying to do the best in my power to stay right with what I have learned from God's commandments. "I need to remind my beloveds, though my trial … has been so long, and as in the flesh I wish these days to end, yet I have surrendered myself to God's will. "I am neither a political person nor do I know about political complicity, but I know that while there are many things in common between different cultures, there are also differences between these cultures around the world which can result in criticism, which most of the times response to this criticisms will be harsh and as a result will lengthen our problems. "From time to time I am informed about the news which is spreading in the media about my current situation, for instance being supported by various churches and famous politicians who have asked for my release, or campaigns and human rights activities which are going on against the charges which are applied to me. I do believe that these kind of activities can be very helpful in order to reach freedom, and respecting the human rights in a right way can bring forth great results in this. "I want to appreciate all those are trying to reach to this goal. But at the other hand, I'd like to announce my disgust at insulting words or activities which make stress and trouble, which unfortunately are done with the justification (excuse) of defending human rights and freedom, for the final result is so clear and obvious for me. Insulting the belief of other nations or people, whether they be a majority or minority, is not accepted and is an unworthy deed, specifically for those who have this teaching to love and respect others more than themselves and treat them the same as you want to be treated. "Then, burning and insulting is not a reverent behavior for a Christian, but it's worthy to be in obedience to the Word of God and humble ourselves to glorify God. "I try to be humble and obedient to those who are in power, obedience to those in authority which God has granted to the officials of my country, and pray for them to rule the country according to the will of God and be successful in doing this. For I know this in this way I have obeyed God's word. I try to obey along with those whom I see in a common situation with me. They never had any complaint, but just let the power of God be manifested in their lives, and though sometimes we read that they have used this right to defend themselves, for they had this right, I am not an exception as well and have used all possibilities and so forth and am waiting for the final result. "So I ask all the beloved ones to pray for me as the holy word has said. At the end I hope this be prepared as soon as possible, as the authorities of my country will do with free will according to their law and commandments which are answerable to. "May God's Grace and Mercy be upon you now and forever. Amen. "Youcef Nadarkhani" --30-- Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- Despite Myanmar reforms, Christians on alert By Vishal Arora/Compass Direct News May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37798 KAREN STATE, Burma (BP) -- Amid global euphoria over reforms in Burman-majority parts of Burma, life has changed little for 3 million-plus Christians and other minorities left to suffer from one of the world's longest running civil wars. Headlines around the world hailed the May 2 induction of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi into parliament as the beginning of a new era in Burma, officially known as Myanmar. But for the 150,000 internally displaced people (IDP) living in eastern Karen state's 4,000 IDP camps, life is still about landmine blasts, gun and mortar attacks, and the possibility of intensified warfare between armed insurgents and government troops. President Thein Sein, a former military general, has introduced political reforms -- the release of hundreds of political prisoners, new laws allowing labor unions and strikes and a gradual easing of media restrictions -- and reportedly has ordered troops to stop offensives in ethnic areas, but senior military officials have not heeded his orders. As part of its reform initiatives, the government is trying to ink ceasefire agreements with such ethnic groups as the Karen National Union (KNU) and the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO). Karen rebels, however, believe the talks are a government strategy to buy time and prepare for a showdown. "We have seen similar efforts by the government in 1949, 1963, 1996 and 2004, but each time talks broke down," said Saw Htee Ler, a rebel leader with the Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), the armed wing of the KNU, which has been fighting for autonomy for more than five decades. The government strategy, Ler added, is to engage the KNU in peace talks so that the military can bring supplies -- arms, ammunition and food -- into KNU-controlled areas without clashes. "They have been able to freely bring in supplies in huge quantities without our men attacking them due to the tentative peace agreement reached in January," Ler said. "They seem to be getting ready for major military operations against us in the near future." Aw John Nay Moo, a Karen commando from the KNLA's "Special Force," said the KNLA is still recruiting and training people. "Peace talks do not mean our struggle is over," Moo said. "We need to be ready all the time for a possible clash." CHRISTIAN CIVILIANS TARGETED Most Christians in Myanmar are from the ethnic minority groups of Karen, Karenni, Kachin and Chin peoples and are predominantly Baptist. It is estimated that roughly 1.4 million Karens and Karenni, 1.1 million Chins and 900,000 Kachins are Christian. While it is largely a struggle for self-determination in all ethnic states in which all civilians suffer in the crossfire, the Burman-Buddhist dominated Burmese troops often are accused of being harsher on Christian civilians than on their Buddhist counterparts. Ler, who was guarding a base on a hill about 30 minutes from an IDP camp, said military personnel target civilians because they are seen as the strength of the KNU. "And Christians are targeted simply because their [government troops'] religion is Buddhist," he said. Ler said he had seen pictures of burned churches and received reports of such incidents. Moo, the KNLA commando, agreed that Christian civilians were attacked more than Buddhist civilians. He cited a 2007 incident in Pekey Der village in Papu District under the KNLA Brigade 5 area, where troops burned down a church and "defecated on the Bible." Moo said he learned of the incident from the church pastor. Ler and Moo, who said they are Christians, said they joined the KNLA to protect their land and people. Naw K'nyaw Paw, an executive member of the Karen Women Organization who just returned from a trip to several Karen villages, said many Christians install Buddhist statues and keep Buddhist pictures in their homes to prevent attacks. "A Christian-majority village under the KNU Brigade 1 area has turned into a Buddhist village, and the church there has been converted into a Buddhist temple, just so that government troops will not attack them," Paw said. Saw Tu Tu, head of the Karen Refugee Committee, said that while all civilians face attacks, troops will not kill a Buddhist monk. "Military personnel usually take shelter in Buddhist temples," he added. Some churches, meanwhile, are attacked out of misunderstanding, Tu said. "KNLA soldiers run to hilltops -- that's where churches are normally built – to take a strategic position when military personnel launch attacks on them," Tu said. "And troops think the bullets are being fired from the church, and they retaliate." In "White" and "Brown Zones," where the government has full or partial control respectively, the medium of instruction is Burmese and not the Karen language, Paw added. "They don't even teach Karen history," she said. "The government is clearly seeking cultural uniformity. We fear that we will be assimilated into the Burman culture if we give up our struggle." Women suffer more, Paw said, noting that government soldiers force local people, including women, to work as their porters, and women are often harassed sexually. Some cases of extortion by KNLA soldiers also have come to light, but most Karen people believe these are isolated cases and maintain that KNU's policies strictly prohibit unethical practices. The religious dimension of the conflict can be seen in the origin of the KNU. On Christmas Eve of 1948, Burmese forces launched a mortar-and-gun attack on a church in Mergui, author Ashley South writes in his book, "Ethnic Politics in Burma: States of Conflict." Scores of Karen were killed or injured. This was followed by deployment of Burmese troops in Karen state in January 1949. The KNU was then formed, followed by the KNLA. In 1961, then-Prime Minister U Nu's government passed the State Religion Bill in a joint session of parliament, making Buddhism the state religion. This deepened the conviction of the ethnic minorities that the government was being used as a tool for Burmanization and "occupation" of their areas. This followed the formation of the KIO, comprised mainly of Christians, and its armed wing, the Kachin Independence Army (KIA) in Kachin state, bordering China. In predominantly Christian Kachin state, government troops have attacked KIA soldiers and civilians since a 17-year ceasefire broke down in June of last year. The fighting has since displaced more than 75,000 people, according to the Kachin Development Networking Group. Most recently, Burmese troops fired mortar shells in the area around the city of Laiza on April 26 despite ongoing peace talks. The shelling killed two children and injured two civilian adults in Kone Law village, Kachin News Group reported. The same day, heavy fighting was reported near the northern town of Laiza, KIO's main base, as rebels sought to block attempts by the Myanmar army to deliver reinforcements and supplies to a strategic army position. Around 3,000 government forces have moved into locations around Laiza, according to Agence France-Presse. "They are preparing to attack the KIA base in Laiza ... they have reinforced a lot of troops and sent a lot of artillery but have not attacked yet," an anonymous official was quoted as saying. Some, however, are still hopeful of a peaceful resolution in ethnic states. Nyo Ohn Myint, a senior member of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party, who is helping the government establish peace with ethnic armed groups, said there is a deep-rooted mistrust between the two sides that is hindering peace talks. He said a change in the relationship between the two sides may not happened for several years. Amid conflicting media reports on how reforms have impacted ethnic minority states along the country's borders where most Christians live, Compass Direct News met the displaced civilians and rebels from the KNLA at an IDP camp on a hill surrounded by landmines. The 3,000 people in the camp live in a forest area unofficially designated by the army as a "Black Zone," an area entirely under the control of rebels. Government troops stationed not too far from the hill can shoot on sight not only at Karen rebels but also civilians. "I have no idea about the reforms being introduced in 'Burma proper,'" said 59-year-old Pohla Win, a lay leader of a Baptist church in the camp. "I have just heard about it on BBC Burmese radio." Win was seated on the floor of his house, made of bamboo and dry leaves, overlooking the Salween River where Karen children were swimming. "I and my family will be killed on the way if we attempt to go back to our village," he said. Win said he fled his village in 1985 after government troops launched an offensive in the area. But he arrived in this camp 18 years later, running from one village to another, walking on terrain where landmines had been laid by both the military and the rebels. Most of the families here had similar stories of how they reached the camp. There is relative peace in the state after a tentative agreement was reached between the KNU and the government in January. "Government check-posts are now less strict, and there are fewer clashes between troops and Karen soldiers," said Paw of the Karen Women Organization. But there is "absolutely no change" in Black Zones, she added. In February, more than 1,100 new refugees, about 450 of them Christian, arrived at the seven refugee camps in Thailand, "which shows there were clashes between the troops and Karen soldiers after January's peace agreement," said Tu of the Karen Refugee Committee. This is in addition to the existing 74,000 registered and 53,000 unregistered refugees in those camps. The Karen are among six other non-Burman ethnic groups -- including Karenni, Kachin, Chin, Mon and Shan -- who do not see their land as part of Burma. During British rule, which ended in 1948, the states where ethnic people lived were collectively known as "Frontier Areas" and were administered separately by the British, as opposed to "Burma Proper," which was, and is, home to ethnic Burmans, mostly Buddhist. After independence -- while ethnic minority leaders were discussing with their Burman counterparts conditions under which they could join the new Union of Burma -- Frontier Areas were presumed to be part of the union under the leadership of Prime Minister U Nu, a Burman nationalist. Civil wars erupted and continue today. President Sein is from the Union Solidarity and Development Party, which won the majority of the seats in parliament in November 2010 elections, which were seen as rigged. A source close to the government said the split between moderates and hardliners in the military was real, and that the hardliners were perhaps trying to send a signal to the president that the military "old guard" is still in power. The country's constitution gives more power to the military than the civilian president and reserves one-fourth of seats for military officials in legislative bodies at all levels. With ethnic armed groups saying they are prepared to take on the military, the possibility of a full-fledged war and an unprecedented toll, therefore, cannot be ruled out even if it is against the will of Sein. --30-- Vishal Arora, based in Delhi, India, writes for Compass Direct News. Compass, based in Santa Anna, Calif., reports on Christians worldwide who are persecuted for their faith. Used by permission. -- End of story -- BIBLE STUDY: Sunday, May 13, 2012 By Staff/LifeWay Christian Resources May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37806 NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- This weekly Bible study appears in Baptist Press in a partnership with LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. Through its Leadership and Adult Publishing team, LifeWay publishes Sunday School curriculum and additional resources for all age groups. This week's Bible study is adapted from the MasterWork curriculum. Bible Passages: Nahum 1:2-3,5-8; Romans 2:5-11,3:5-8,5:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:5-11 Discussion Question: Why are Christians reluctant to consider wrath an attribute of God? Food for Thought: Don't we tend to think of God as a loving, doting Father who cares for and watches over us like little children instead of thinking of Him as an angry Father who seeks to punish us for our misdeeds? Let's be honest. We like to think of Him as loving and caring rather than One who seeks retribution for our wrongdoings, because it makes us feel better. The truth is that there are more references in Scripture to His wrath than there are to His love (A.W. Pink, The Attributes of God, p. 75). We can see His wrath as early as Adam and Eve's banishment from the Garden. Though we may think of wrath as an attribute of someone who has lost control, God's wrath is always judicial, that is, He is the judge handing down justice and is entirely in control. For the Christian, however, this is the good news about God's wrath: Jesus Christ, through His death on the cross, stood between God's wrath and us. "If we are Christ's, through faith, then we are justified through His cross, and the wrath will never touch us, neither here nor hereafter. Jesus 'rescues us from the coming wrath.'"(1 Thessalonians 1:10, HCSB) MasterWork is an ongoing Bible study curriculum based on works from a variety of renowned authors and offers pertinent, practical messages that adults will find uplifting and enriching. The list of authors and their books to be studied in upcoming months can be found at LifeWay.com/MasterWork. Other ongoing Bible study options for all ages offered by LifeWay can be found at LifeWay.com/SundaySchool. --30-- Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- FIRST-PERSON: Why not legalize gay 'marriage'? (part 1) By Glenn T. Stanton May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37494 EDITOR'S NOTE: This column originally was posted in Baptist Press in March but is being re-posted in light of President Obama's support for gay "marriage." Read part two at [URL=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37509]http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37509[/URL] [IMG=32295@left@120]COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (BP) -- U.S. Rep. Barney Frank infamously asked a question earlier this decade that has become one of the central questions surrounding the same-sex "marriage" debate: "How will my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?" It gets asked constantly and is meant to be a discussion-stopper. But the problem is that it sees marriage as purely a private relationship, hermetically sealed off from all other parts of community life. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of what marriage actually is -- not just in our country, or for people of faith, but across all human cultures. Marriage is what anthropologists call a "human universal" because it is found in all human cultures throughout time. And it exists as a heterosexual institution throughout the world and history, not in the majority, but exclusively. But the real answer to Congressman Frank's question is quite simple: "Your same-sex marriage will do nothing to impact my marriage. But your marriage is not what we're debating in our nation. We are debating whether it is wise to radically and permanently redefine marriage in our nation for everyone. And that is quite significant indeed." First, same-sex "marriage" not only redefines marriage wholesale for everyone, but it actually deconstructs humanity itself. That's a very strong and consequential assertion, but that is exactly what it does. Same-sex "marriage" essentially creates genderless marriage by saying 1), the fundamental male and female nature of humanity doesn't matter in any way, and 2), the different parties to a marriage are wholly interchangeable. Male and female as the basic foundation of family -- as well as society -- simply become preferential, like your taste for Rocky Road or Butter Pecan ice cream. Solely a matter of personal taste. [IMG=32246@right@150]But the way this really deconstructs humanity is that it says that you as a husband or father, or you as a wife or mother, have no real meaning or significance in your fundamental humanity -- a humanity which always reveals itself as either male or female. In fact, same-sex parenting says your essence as a man or woman is found only in your reproductive material. What does a lesbian couple ask from a man in order for them to become parents? Only his sperm. In fact, this fact has been clearly admitted by lesbian activists in products they can purchase for the babies. A t-shirt or infant onesie proudly declares, "My Daddy's Name is Donor." No joke. And two men who want to become parents must go next door and borrow only an egg from the female half of humanity. "Want any help mothering your child?" the woman might ask. "No, we just got everything we need from motherhood thank you!" Same-sex "marriage" and parenting reduces male and female/fatherhood and motherhood to microscopic reproductive material. How do you feel about that as man or women raising boys and girls to be good men and women? What kind of world will they enter adulthood in? And because same-sex "marriage" declares humanity wholly genderless, it also redefines the family. If male and female are merely sentimental ideas, with no practical, essential qualities for family, then family, parenting and kinship radically change. An important 1996 essay in the gay magazine OUT makes this clear, admitting that legalizing same-sex "marriage" is "a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. ... Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical and transformative as the religious right says it is." (emphasis in original) They go on to say that same-sex "marriage" will be "one of the great social experiments in this nation's history," ensuring that "[r]ather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men -- some of whom have raised the concept of the 'open relationship' to an art form -- could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts." Same-sex "marriage" would redefine parenting, transforming it from a biological into a legal institution. Even today, saying a child has a right to a mother and father has been deemed hate-speech. [QUOTE@left@180=" Even today, saying a child has a right to a mother and father has been deemed hate-speech."]But same-sex "marriage" is also threatening religious liberty. Activists have tried to comfort religious folks by saying "your pastor will never be forced to perform same-sex weddings" -- as if that is as far as religious faith goes. But there is a growing list of real-life ways that citizens' and organizations' rights are being trampled. Here are only a few. -- Catholic Charities had to shut down their large-scale adoption work in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. because they refuse to place children in same-sex homes and because they believe orphaned children should get a mother and father. -- Wedding photographers in New Mexico were charged with violating state anti-discrimination laws because they refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. -- The Salvation Army in San Francisco lost a $3.5 million contract providing important social services to the poor because it refused to provide domestic-partner benefits. -- Churches in Canada have been threatened because they refuse to allow same-sex wedding parties to use their social halls. -- A lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint against a Methodist facility in New Jersey because it denied their request to use the group's boardwalk pavilion for their commitment ceremonies. The couple won. Chai Feldblum was recently appointed by President Obama as a commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). When asked what she thought about the intersection of religious freedom and gay rights, she bluntly said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win." She stunningly elaborated, "Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner." Same-sex "marriage" is not just about one's personal marriage. It is fundamentally about how we define and understand marriage, family and humanity itself. And for the first time in the history of our nation, religious freedom is being asked to move to the back of the bus. And the reason is to make room for sexual and familial experimentation. --30-- Glenn T. Stanton is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo., and is the author of the new book, "The Ring Makes All the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage" (Moody, 2011).Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- FIRST-PERSON: The marriage debate & the future of evangelical response By Ed Stetzer May. 10 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37799 NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- After both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pushed for acceptance of same-sex marriage Sunday (May 6), North Carolina reversed the trend and became the 30th state to amend its constitution to define marriage as an act between one man and one woman. Now President Barack Obama has affirmed his support of same-sex marriage. The president's statements should come as no surprise. His refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act and his comments about "evolving" on the issue both pointed toward this event. I Tweeted recently that I expected such a move from the president. The only remote surprise is the timing of his announcement. I, like many others, expected this announcement after he had won a second term in November. This announcement accelerated the timeline of an inevitable conversation. So how do we as evangelicals respond? Last year I wrote a brief post on the future of the evangelical response regarding homosexuality after Starbucks' Howard Schultz withdrew from speaking at the Willow Creek Leadership Summit. In that post, I listed five principles to consider about the issue of homosexuality and evangelical churches. Those principles still apply today. The issue is not going away, and you cannot ignore it or seek to downplay your views. Since Stonewall, the gay rights movement has continued to gain influence. Evangelicals have responded poorly at times and earned a reputation for intolerance. Now, as they seek a more biblical and grace-filled response, we cannot erase our past mistakes. However, we can control our attitudes and responses in the future by being clear and gracious at the same time. The culture sees this as a "justice" issue -- Christians discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristics. Christians have always believed and taught that God's standard and intent is a man, a woman, a marriage and a lifetime. To us, that just makes sense, but to an increasing number in our culture, this is simply discrimination. President Obama clearly justifies his reason for supporting gay marriage because of the Golden Rule -- the idea that we should treat others justly, as we would want to be treated. Though it is easy to make the case in the church that homosexual practice (and marriage) is incompatible with scripture, it will be an exceedingly difficult case to make in today's culture. I mention in "Subversive Kingdom" an example of running for school board. A half a century ago you would not have been considered for public office in most communities without a strong record of service in and loyalty to a local church. Today that same qualification, if the church teaches biblical truths about homosexuality, is a detriment to one's candidacy in many areas of our country. This will become more of an issue in days to come. Building bridges and showing grace and love is lacking, needed and essential when dealing with people with different views and values. Many Christians are more concerned that they take every opportunity to clearly condemn homosexuality. Simply put, I do not think you or I need to begin every conversation with a statement of our opposition to homosexuality. We can, indeed, show some grace to those who struggle while believing what the Scriptures clearly teach. At the end of the day, all evangelicals will still have to deal with an issue on which the evangelical view is perceived as narrow and bigoted. Evangelicals will continue to be pressured to accept a worldview rooted in cultural acceptance rather than biblical revelation. While President Obama's thoughts on certain issues may evolve, the biblical teaching has not. We can listen to Dan Savage and decide to "ignore" the Bible's teachings on homosexuality, or we can live with the fact of what the Bible teaches and recognize that, because of such, our reputations will suffer. Christians have said a lot of unhelpful things about the subject over the years -- but that does not mean we cannot say helpful things now. The most helpful truth is the biblical truth. In the midst of a complicated issue, we need to admit to poor engagement in the past, speak of the complexities of the issues involved, but always point to biblical truth and change that can be found in Christ. --30-- Ed Stetzer is president of LifeWay Research. This column first appeared on his blog at EdStetzer.com. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- Copyright (c) 2013 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press 901 Commerce Street Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: 615.244.2355 Fax: 615.782.8736 email: bpress@sbc.net