12 Witnesses

A few articles, in case you missed ‘em. Then I am out of town for a couple of days…

Play nice in the comment section.

Baptist Press: Chapel speaker amplifies stance; SBC’s Page sees “‘positive outcomes”

Ft. Worth Star Telegram: Baptist seminary president rebukes pastor

Dallas Morning News: Minister: Seminary censored sermon

Associated Baptist Press: McKissic responds to Patterson’s criticism of statement on tongues in chapel sermon

ABP’s coverage was first and not surprising.

Dallas Morning News raised an eyebrow. They cover big stuff within the convention. The Star Telegram has followed suit. Their article will be in print tomorrow morning, but as the DMN scooped them on the story, they put it up on the web immediately to compensate. Hey, I don’t blame them. I have been saying for months now that the web is the great equalizer.

What really got my attention was the coverage by BP. When BP is dealing with this issue, you know things are either too big to ignore (not that such has stopped them before) or things are changing.

The difference? Frank Page. He is talking about the situation, and when the Pres speaks, BP must cover it.

See what happens when you elect a President not chosen by the Inner Circle?

August 30, 2006

Dr. Paige Patterson

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

2001 W. Seminary Dr .

Fort Worth , TX 76115

Dear Dr. Patterson:

Thank you again for the opportunity to preach during chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and for the opportunity to enjoy lunch with you and Mrs. Patterson. I appreciate the email you sent regarding chapel on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 and I do find it fair and affirming of all parties involved, yet inconsistent with views attributed to you, views you’ve written, and other outstanding Baptist scholars, theologians, and preachers.

With regard to the “public criticism of the actions of a sister board”, the IMB policy regarding missionaries who practice a private prayer language is a public policy that is in direct contradiction to what many noted Baptist scholars and preachers believe about the practice of a private prayer language. My statement was designed to cause the students to critically think about whether or not the IMB policy lines up with Scripture, not to criticize the IMB. If addressing the policy violated SWBTS chapel protocol, and apparently it did, I deeply apologize for having done so. Please forgive me; I was unaware of this protocol. I was speaking from my faith tradition (National Baptist Convention), and cultural background that encourages addressing unbiblical and discriminatory issues prophetically and publicly. However, I do believe in submission to authority and I will submit to SWBTS protocol in the future to the extent that I am aware of it.

I am very comfortable with your decision to discontinue the video streaming of my message because again, I honor and respect your position of authority at SWBTS. Because I said nothing during my message that contradicted the Bible or the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, I fail to see how my comments are viewed as outside of the Baptist mainstream. I do believe that banning the free distribution of my message on the school website is a form of unnecessary censorship that is most unusual considering the fact, again, that many Baptist scholars and leaders (Dr. Billy Graham, Dr. Ken Hemphill, the late Dr. Jack Gray, Dr. Jerry Rankin, Dr. J.W. McGorman, Dr. Timothy George, and the current Southern Baptist Convention President, Dr. Frank Page as cited at the end of this letter) have expressed views similar to mine. Nevertheless, I value and love you and SWBTS, and I will continue to do so as I submit to your authority in this matter.

Just as you suspect that most of the faculty and trustees at SWBTS do not believe the Bible affirms a private prayer language, the leading evangelical African-American churches in America including Black Southern Baptists, would affirm the practice of a private prayer language by those who are so gifted by the Holy Spirit. They would certainly not invoke a policy denying freedom of a gifted person to practice a private prayer language. The practical effect of the IMB policy is treating adults as if you have authority over their private lives and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, beyond the boundary of Scripture. For those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I find it difficult to understand how we can hold that view and at the same time disregard or deny tongues or a private prayer language as a valid spiritual gift.

I remain committed to support and recruit students to attend SWBTS, but if the majority of the faculty and trustees believe that the Bible forbids the exercise of a private prayer language for those gifted by the Holy Spirit, this would be extremely alienating to the vast majority of evangelical African-American Christians, and many Black Southern Baptist Pastors and congregants, including those who don’t believe in or practice a private prayer language. The IMB policy is not in keeping with Baptist conviction regarding religious liberties and it encroaches upon the autonomy of the local church. It also prohibits and thwarts missionary endeavors for which I thought was the main purpose of the convention.

Finally, if offered future opportunities to preach at chapel, I would submit my manuscript to you for your approval and would try not to veer from my approved manuscript. However, I do understand if I’m not invited again, and that would in no wise affect my love and respect for you and the school. My prayerful, moral, and financial support of you and SWBTS will continue whether or not I’m ever asked to preach again in chapel.

I am putting this statement on our website and will release it to those interested in the matter. I look forward to future fellowship opportunities with you and my tenure on the trustee board at SWBTS.

Sincerely In Christ,

Rev. Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Senior Pastor

Attached Notes:

A. In Reference to the Gift of Tongues and a Private Prayer Language

Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

What do we conclude? The apostle Paul clearly said “Do not forbid to speak in tongues”. “It would be a mistake for evangelicals to forbid others to speak in tongues” [1]

In a chapel service Dr. Paige Patterson stated there are two major approaches to the tongues doctrine. The first option is to hold that the concept of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is the same as that in Acts 2. The second option is to say that the Corinthian text refers to tongues as a “rush of indeterminate sounds for the purpose of praising God and for self-edification.”[2]

First Corinthians 14 provides evidence for private prayer languages, Patterson said. However, Paul says that this practice leaves the mind out of prayer, and he would rather pray with the mind.[3]

Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention

“Page cited 1 Corinthians 14 as a passage which may be interpreted to permit a private prayer language, while noting that he does not personally have a private prayer language.”[4]

Billy Graham is another Southern Baptist who has recommended tongues and charismatic signs and wonders. In his 1978 book, The Holy Spirit, he “endorsed laying on of hands, divine healing and tongues.” He said: “As we approach the end of the age I believe we will see a dramatic recurrence of signs and wonders, which will demonstrate the power of God to a skeptical world.”[5]

“Speaking in tongues is Holy Spirit inspired utterance that is unintelligible apart from interpretation, which itself is an attendant gift. It is a form of ecstatic utterance. The glossolist speaks to God rather than from God.”[6]

“Here was Paul’s consistent estimate regarding the relative values of these speaking gifts: prophesy was to be desired earnestly whereas speaking in tongues was simply not to be forbidden.”[7]

“Are we now going to set a policy that says if God in his sovereignty gives someone a prayer language, we are now going to disqualify them?” says Rick White, pastor of the 6,000 member Baptist-affiliated People’s Church in Franklin, Tenn. “My concern is, who’s next?” [8]

Recently, Kenneth S. Hemphill former president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote “Paul viewed ecstatic experiences as a very personal occurrence which were of value to the individual, but not for the church as a whole.”[9]

B. In Regards to the Policies of IMB and SBC

Timothy George states “many Baptists sense a kind of ghetto-ization of the Convention: an unhealthy and occasionally bizarre isolationist and sectarian-minded tightening of the boundaries on secondary issues (i.e., the IMB and ‘private prayer languages’). Were the phrase not used ad nauseum, I might be tempted to suggest that there are a number of conflicting paradigms within the Convention and that these conflicting paradigms are evident in the struggle over these secondary issues.”[10]

Timothy George continues “Very few Southern Baptists engage in speaking in tongues or other Pentecostal practices. But the charismatic movement has influenced Baptist life in music, worship, and spirituality, including distinctive forms of prayer. Occasionally, congregations have been ousted from Baptist associations over charismatic issues. But recent efforts to exclude from missionary appointment all who have a ‘private prayer languag’ seemed to many ordinary Baptists both intrusive and unnecessary. As one person said to me, ‘If we are serious about sharing the gospel around the world, shouldn’t we be glad that we still have missionaries who pray rather than setting up a bureau of prayer inspectors!’”[11]

Right. The overall impression I get from talking to my peers (mainly younger pastors) is outright confusion: “Why are they doing this? What are they thinking?” Furthermore, the IMB Board of Trustee’s rejection of those who practice a “private prayer language” is especially egregious given that Jerry Rankin, President of the IMB, is on record as saying that he practices a private prayer language. Furthermore, the overall dissatisfaction with this odd stance of the IMB trustees can perhaps be seen in the fact that Jerry Sutton, who favored a formal denunciation of private prayer languages, received the fewest number of votes of the three Presidential candidates in Greensboro , NC . There is a word our Convention needs to learn: adiophora.[12]

I concur with Joyce Rogers the wife of the late Adrian Rogers.

“Adrian Rogers would not have been a part of what is going on in some parts of our convention today, getting narrower and narrower about very highly interpretive issues,” “He would try to convince you of his view, but not to exclude you from service and fellowship, or to prevent you from going around the world with Southern Baptists to share the Gospel if you disagreed on these controversial issues,” Rogers said. “And I challenge you on his behalf to graciously work for unity in the body of Christ.”[13]

The seventeenth century English Nonconformist Richard Baxter is believed to have said (quoting Augustine) regarding adiaphora:

“In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Adiaphoron, pl. -a (Ancient Greek [lost font type]¡ “indifferent things”; German “Mitteldinge” “middle matters”) refers to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but are nevertheless permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.

New Testament examples of adiaphora are often cited from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. Some of this epistle was written in response to a question from the Corinthian Christians regarding whether it was permissible for a Christian to eat food offered to idols. In response, Paul replied:

… food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Corinthians 8:8-9 New International Version)

However, upon study of several other Pauline passages ones sees that Paul is not necessarily saying that there are such things as adiaphora. Elsewhere he says:

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:17 New International Version)

The adiaphora are morally acceptable or unacceptable by the Christian God based upon the motive and end of the doer. In this sense there are no indifferent things.

The issue of what constituted adiaphora became a major dispute during the Protestant Reformation. In 1548, two years after the death of Martin Luther, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V tried to unite Catholics and Protestants in his realm with a law called the Augsburg Interim. This law was rejected by Philipp Melanchthon, on the account that it did not ensure justification by faith as a fundamental doctrine. Later he was persuaded to accept a compromise known as the Leipzig Interim, deciding that doctrinal differences not related to justification by faith were adiaphora or matters of indifference. Melanchthon’s compromise, however, was rejected by the majority of Lutherans led by Matthias Flacius.

In 1577, the Formula of Concord was crafted to settle the question of the nature of genuine adiaphora, which it defined as “church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God.” However, the Concord added believers should not yield even in matters of adiaphora when these are being forced upon them by the “enemies of God’s Word”.

The Lutheran Confessio Augustana (Augsburg Confession) states that the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.

Calvinists, especially those who subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (see WCF 1.6, 21.1), distinguish between the elements or acts of worship as such (worship proper), and those things which are circa sacra, that is, the circumstances of worship. The elements of worship must be limited to what has positive warrant in Scripture. This is known as the regulative principle.

The circumstances of worship are adiaphora, although they must be done for edification and to promote peace and order (Cf. 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33; Romans 14: 19). According to the Westminster Confession chapter 20, section 2, the conscience is left free in general belief and behavior within the realm of whatever is not “contrary to the Word”. However, specifically concerning worship and religious faith, the conscience is free from whatever is “besides” Scripture; that is, it is free to worship and believe only according to whatever has positive warrant in Scripture.

_______________________

[1] Dr. Paige Patterson. Chapel Service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

April 4, 2006

[2] Ibid

[3] Dr. Paige Patterson. Chapel Service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

April 4, 2006

[4] James A. Smith Sr. Frank Page discusses SBC theological issues Florida Baptist Witness

[5] Graham, Billy. The Holy Spirit

[6] J.W. MacGorman. The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14. pg 81

[7] J.W. MacGorman. The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14. pg 88

[8] Anita Wadhiwani, The Tennesean, Proposed Ban on “tongues Prayer” divides Baptists. USA Today. 4/5/06

[9] Spiritual Gifts: Empowering the New Testament Church, pp 93,211
[10] Timothy George Timothy George on the Southern Baptist Convention: An Analysis Christian Culture July 26, 2006 @ 11:46 am

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] The Ghost of Adrian Rogers weighs in. Article Insight Monday Morning June 15 2006

It’s NOT censorship. At least, that’s what I was thinking until I read the Wikipedia definition of the word. You can click on “censorship” right here and read all about it.

My understanding was that censorship was someone outlawing a particular thought or idea in ANY & ALL venues. My paraphrase of Wikipedia is that censorship is the suppression of ideas, usually by a controlling agency, in an effort to stabilize culture by guiding it toward the agency’s ideal. I was especially drawn to this phrase: “Furthermore, discussion of censorship often includes less formal means of controlling perceptions by excluding various ideas from mass communication.” Well, that pretty much fits what happened to Rev. Dwight McKissic yesterday.

On the other hand, just because you have the right to an idea, and a right to express it, does not mean that you have the right to require someone else to promote it. Back to the first hand, though, McKissic was invited to speak by SWBTS, not the other way around.

We have the responsibility to execute the burdens of our offices. If SWBTS really disagrees with the content of a chapel speaker’s sermon, then they have the right to say so. The even have the right not to broadcast it on the web, if they feel it is their burden.

But let’s just say it out loud, shall we? I don’t believe them. I just don’t. I don’t feel that they are afraid of wounding some poor soul with bad theology. I believe they refused to post it on their website because it put them in the position of hosting someone who is undercutting the expressed views of Dr. Patterson and others concerning the issues now under discussion at the IMB. They now find themselves in a worse position, having to suffer the accusation of censorship.

It shows a lack of confidence in one’s own position when you have to shut down all other talk. It shows extreme confidence in one’s position to host an opponent and provide them the opportunity to oppose you in your own house.

We know that Dr. Patterson is not a Calvinist. Yet this year he has already hosted Drs. Mark Dever and Al Mohler. It was reported to me that he said from the platform that he was happy to say that he had now had his two favorite Calvinists speak in chapel. This exudes confidence in one’s position.

When McKissic speaks, however, the opposite reaction occurs. Rather than pride in the opposing viewpoint being hosted in one’s own house, we see the public opposition and tacit undercutting of Rev. McKissic.

I seriously doubt that Dr. Patterson, or anyone else at SWBTS, lacks confidence in their theological convictions in this area. So what about the situation rattles them?

I don’t think it has anything to do with theology. Theology is the whip used on Dr. Rankin and the IMB. Support for Dr. Rankin and the IMB rattles them all.

I have not received a call back from the office of the President. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath.

SWBTS has put a statement on their website entitled, “Statement regarding Aug. 29 chapel.”

In this statement, the rational given for not releasing the video of today’s chapel service is that SWBTS did not think it wise to facilitate criticizing other SBC agencies.

Hello? Anybody at the wheel of this boat?

If SWBTS is governed by such a principle, which would indeed be a good one, the why did Dr. Patterson, as President of SWBTS, circulate to the IMB Board of Trustees Dr. Keith Eitel’s now infamous white paper called, Vision Assessment? You may recall, (if not, please click the link and read) that this paper undermines Dr. Rankin and the overall vision of the IMB as it currently stands. Talk about a violation of this policy!

You may note that the paper was written in 2003, when Dr. Eitel was at SEBTS. It was circulated, however, under the letterhead of Dr. Paige Patterson, as President of SWBTS. I am having an image of that cover letter scanned and sent to me tonight. It should be right here by tomorrow morning.

If, then, SWBTS acts on a principle of not criticizing other agencies, why is it selectively implemented by the President on others opposed to his views and not on himself? I think such a principle is a great idea. If only we could get those tauting it to abide by its dictates. I know a great many who would be happy - and more quiet - if they would.

Once again, the broad issue is Sufficiency, but the particulars have brought us back to the IMB and the PPL policy. Along with that, comes the Baptism guideline. Note that one is a policy and the other is still a guideline - but that does not change the way they are implemented. The way I understand it, both are strictly interpreted.

For those who may have thought that we have forgotten the IMB, that Wade’s pleas for us to not rise to his defense, the diverted motion at Greensboro and the rise of other issues have caused us to walk away from these two standards of non-cooperation, I assure you all: We have never forgotten them, nor will anyone else.

Frankly, the IMB is on the clock. Counting down to San Antonio, we are waiting for them to move. There is PLENTY that we can do if these things aren’t handled well, and quickly, internally.

I am going to say something here to which I have alluded during the SBC wrap up. Bobby Welch is the reason that the IMB and not the Executive Committee has Wade Burleson’s motion. He felt it important to give the IMB BOT a chance to deal with its own house. That’s fine, and I don’t begrudge that a minute. I did at first, but Wade was willing for the motion to go to the IMB and it was his motion.

While I have no personal knowledge or assurances (nor would I ask for such, nor would Dr. Page ever give such), I am confident that if the IMB does not tend to its house and tender a satisfactory report in San Antonio, Dr. Page will not stand in the way of the convention sending this to the EC.

If you don’t know what that means, you need to re-read what I have written about the EC. The poll that is up on the right of the screen? The answer, despite what many of you say, is the EC. I promise. They have the power and they execute their responsibilities. If this goes to the EC, change will be coming, as it has come this year already.

How’s that for turning the conversation back to SBC politics?

Did you hear that? Anyone feel a tremor?

Today, Tuesday, August 29, 2006, Rev. W. Dwight McKissic set off the political equivalent of nuclear device as he preached the chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

For those of you who have been wondering where the SBC political scene has been over the last month, get ready. This next month should be full. Here’s the kick off.

McKissic is an alumnus of SWBTS and a newly elected member of the Board of Trustees for that austere institution. (It’s my alma mater as well.)

In chapel today, McKissic, who is pastor of nearby Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, revealed that he learned to speak in tongues while at SWBTS and still engages the practice to this day.

More to the point, McKissic said that there is no sound Biblical reason for a policy to exist within the SBC that would eliminate a private practice of glossolalia. Any policy that does exist, does so outside of Biblical authority and should be removed.

He then admitted that he was sure he was not a popular man at the moment, but followed by saying that popularity was not his concern. His concern was that we would think and act according to the directions of Scripture alone.

Can I get a “booya” for Sufficiency?

Now, here’s the really fun part!

I wasn’t watching this chapel service while McKissic was preaching. I received a call from a friend who was watching it, and rightly thought I would be interested. The description I gave you just now is his, not mine.

I know. You are thinking, “Art, this is not like you to not go to the source yourself.” Indeed, good reader, you are correct.

Unfortunately, I am unable to do so. I went to the Chapel service page on SWBTS’ website, but the chapel service was not up yet. This is not normal. Usually, it is up quickly. In fact, in the announcement, it says that,”audio and video recordings of each chapel service will be archived immediately after each service is over. The archived videos will be viewable from the seminary’s Web site, but only the audio recordings will be available for download.”

As of now, there is nothing yet available on this page: Chapel Archives.

As I was perusing, my friend called back. He had wanted to review the service, and had called SWBTS to find out why it wasn’t up, yet. He was told that the AV room received a call immediately after chapel, telling them not to post the service until it had been reviewed.

I know. You are thinking, “Art, this is not like you to not call yourself and get the reason the chapel service is not linked.” Once again, good reader, you are as right as the rain.

I did call, and asked for the man in charge of such things by name. No answer.

I made another call to the office of the President. Everyone must be at lunch. I left a message and asked for a return phone call.

Is this Missional? You tell me.

We met last Saturday morning, at 9:00 am in the Sanctuary. We divided up and went out to meet our neighbors in our “hood,” which is in transition. That means, old white folks are leaving and younger families of diverse ethnic heritage are moving in.

You may be saying, “Hey, canvassing the neighborhood is not new!” You would be right. It’s anything but new. So what’s the big deal?

I encouraged our people to give and not take from our neighbors. We want to leave the impression that we are here to serve. Here’s what I told them:

1. Don’t collect information. People who collect information want something from you. I want your vote, your money, your attendance … something. Instead, we want to give. Give them your name. Give them the name of your church and point to it, so they know where they can come for help. Give them the idea that we are here to help. Give them a way to contact us if they need help, or know someone who needs help.

2. Don’t try to go in a house or get into a deep conversation. If they invite you to do either, feel free. Whatever you do, don’t make them feel that you are taking their time or privacy.

3. Do engage them in a friendly way. “Just out meeting the neighbors,” and good neighbors bring cookies - so we had a few prepackaged cookies to give away.

4. Give them a brochure of the church that lets them know what we are doing and what they might receive from us.

Amazingly, every person received all 43 of us well. It was interesting to note how people responded to folks knocking on the door who were genuinely giving things away. Not the kind of giving that is intended to hook you and make you give more to them than you get in the end. Rather, the kind of giving that is intended to make you receive with no strings attached.

Then there was this one guy. When the lady and two teens (one was her son) knocked on his door, he was so willing to talk. She said he kept engaging her on a deeper and deeper levels, so she just kept engaging back. After a while, he prayed to receive Christ.

As if that weren’t enough, he dropped this bomb: He said he had been praying for God to send him someone, because he knew he was separated from God, but just didn’t know what to do. He said that our church member was an answer to prayers. Talk a about a divine appointment. Talk about a Macedonian call. Somebody tell me God doesn’t send out His children to those who are calling out for salvation. Booyah! (Yes, we’ll be following up.)

Giving and giving, until you give away your faith. That’s awesome.

What really thrilled me is how excited everyone else was about engaging our neighbors. We are responsible for two neighborhoods: The one in which we worship and the one in which we live. For some, it is the same neighborhood. I see our people looking at our neighbors with a whole new perspective.

It’s bueno!

It is time to engage our culture. Despite all of the protests, complaints, petitions, political actions and the elections that go with them, our culture continues to slide.

The most recent evidence of this is this: The “Plan B,” or, “day after emergency contraceptive pill,” has just been approved and will soon be legaly available to women over the age of 18 without a prescription. You can read about it at webmd.com.

As always, our culture moves, step by step, further down the path of personal destruction in an effort to eradicate the consequences of a life lived outside of the leading of God. They know no better and we can expect nothing less. Without the leadership and guidance of the Holy Spirit in their lives, it is impossible to expect that they would act in a way that is holy and, therefore, beneficial to them and the rest of us.

When are we going to engage our culture with the Gospel, and quit beating them up with it - saying that they should come to us. It’s time to go to them.

From time to time we all get tired of the negative that can swirl around convention politics. Over the last week or so, I have tried to focus on a couple of really encouraging stories that will inspire you. This is another one.

FBC, Euless has invited John Meador, who is deaf, to pastor their church. Chased him, actually, until he finally relented to them and the Lord. This is not a deaf ministry church, either. Deaf ministries are great, and I am thrilled that they exist. The outstanding thing about this story is that his deafness is a non issue. They are pursuing him as a loving, genuine pastor who loves the Word and exegetes it clearly. Period.

Read the whole story:

Answered Prayers

(HT: My Mom!)

PS: There are a few things that are brewing in the SBC. I will be bringing them to you at the appropriate time.

PPS: Bonus points if you can tell us the “Conservative Resurgence” connection in this story. Ben, you are excluded from playing.

One of the least known, best things our church and our convention does is the “Adopt an Annuitant” program, administered through Guidestone.

Many retired pastors and their survivors were unable to lay aside retirement income while they did ministry in a different time. Most of the options available to me were never available to them. As a result, many of them don’t have enough to make it, day to day.

I am told that we are currently helping about 2,200 “adoptees” on a regular basis. We also help many one time needs of catastrophic illness or other things that would send poor preachers and their wives or widows over the edge. These fellow workers live on a tight fixed income, and a little turbulence is enough to cause major disruption in their lives.

Brothers and Sisters, this program is a legacy of which our denomination can be proud. These folks have served the Lord faithfully for years, pouring out lives of sacrifice, and we are able to help them in the sunset of their years on this earth.

I was told by someone at Guidestone that my church has just reached the $10,000 mark in giving to this program over the last seven years. We don’t give much, really, but we send a check every month. Apparently, consistency is MUCH more important than big donations. Just in case you don’t know, I’ve been here a month, so you can chalk this mark up to the kindhearted nature of my church - not me.

Interested in doing something positive related to the SBC? Check out this link:

Adopt an Annuitant

I would like to challenge you to consider putting just a small amount in your budget for this program next year. You will be amazed what a little faithfulness will do.

While indulging my aforementioned favorite sin, gluttony, I was introduced to something in the way of food service which I had never before seen. A pickle bar.

Bowden McElroy took me to Goldie’s hamburger restaurant around the corner from his office today. Their “schtick” is this Pickle Bar, which I immediately informed Bowden would be making the blog. I took a phone pick with my handy, dandy Treo (got yours yet, Micah?) and offer this image to you.

It was filled with four huge bowls, each overrun with different types of pickles.

Wow. No word yet as to whether this particular bar is addressed in Resolution #5.