The Texas Baptists and Their Liberal Stance on Abortion

It can normally be assumed that Baptist churches will oppose abortion, but many Baptists in Texas would be surprised at the stance their leaders have taken on this issue.  The Baptist General Convention of Texas (we know it as the BGCT) would have a lot of explaining to do if the members of its churches bothered to read the BGCT website.

In the "What we Believe" section of the BGCT homepage, we see this message:

In the sanctity of human life: Messengers to BGCT Annual Meetings have clearly stated their position regarding the issues involved in the sanctity of human life.

OK.  That's not helpful, at all..  Let's dig deeper.

Further investigation brings us to something called the 'Christian Life Commission' which is a group that informs the BGCT on ethical matters.  Here's what they have to say:

Aborting a developing life should he regarded as an extreme act undertaken only under extreme circumstances...cases in which abortion might be contemplated include pregnancies which result from rape or incest. When carrying pregnancies resulting from rape and incest to term is so traumatic as to destroy the emotional health of the mother, abortion might he considered as a regrettable alternative. Abortion might also be considered in cases of severe and chronic mental illness in which pregnancy imminently and severely threatens the life of the mother for reasons not related to rape or incest but which are equally devastating to her mental and emotional stability...While we reject the practice of abortion, there may be rare circumstances described above in which Christians prayerfully choose abortion as the least tragic choice.

I'll bet this would shock a lot of Baptists if they knew about it.  It's right there on the BGCT website with no disclaimer of any sort.

For record, I think that killing an unborn child because they are the product of rape is nonsense.  I know people who were born as products of rape, and I don't think they should have been killed for the convenience of the parent.  I understand how horrible rape is, but compounding that problem by killing a baby isn't the answer.  And counseling is a fine option for parents who might feel emotionally unstable after giving birth to such a child - and it's something that most churches are well equipped to do.

So, fellow Baptists, help me out.  Have I missed something - am I misrepresenting the Texas Baptists?  (I don't want to be unfair to a group that does so many other things well.)  Or does the BGCT have a skeleton in its closet?

Why Jane Austen is the Greatest Writer Ever

Happy Valentines Day.  Instead of my usual V-day rant (which you can find, here) I'm going to tell you why Jane Austen is the best writer in literature.

I love Michael Crichton intellectual thrillers.  And I want everyone (particularly those in government) to read Hugo's Les Miserables and see what I see in those blessed pages.  And nothing warms my spirit like reading an installment of Sherlock Holmes.  But, as great as those books are, they are not as impressive to me as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.  Here's why.

It was the 90s when I was introduced to Austen.  The music of Nirvana was liberating us from the "synthesizer-itis" our generation had succumbed to in the 80s.  Megadeth and Mortification were hardcore bands, and anyone who called Metallica a "metal band" was probably a sissy who collected dolls and thought ponies were cute.  Films like Natural Born Killers  and The Crow (along with the classic horror films), and shows like The X-Files were regulars on my TV, and I had already been reading Stephen King's intense stories since middle school.

Pictured above: Hetfield (from Metallica) being about as hardcore as someone's grandma. [Source]

I dreaded "girl books," and  I remember doing a lot of intense eye-rolling on the day Pride and Prejudice was handed out in class.  I sat in my seat like a prisoner in cell and waited for the guard to come over to my bunk with my last meal.  I would have preferred hard labor.

I scanned the back of the book.  The protagonists were named Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, and I gathered that they would end up together after a few misunderstandings and some red herring suitors.  How long was this book?  Couldn't I just skip to the end?  Wasn't Anna Karinina enough punishment for one year?  Shouldn't these boring books be spread out a little more?

So I begin reading.  Sort of.  I put it off, mostly.  I didn't care that Darcy didn't dance at the party (I wouldn't have either).  Oh, big surprise, Elizabeth has a few other gentleman callers and her designated boyfriend might not get to marry her!  I totally didn't see that one coming.

When I got to the second half of the book I started to notice two things.

First of all, Jane Austen is funny - really funny - but it's not easy to pick up on her subtle humor.  (When British people are subtle, it's really subtle.)  I started to notice that she was making fun of her own storyline and the entire genre of romance literature with each line.  This piqued my interest.

Then, the characters began to unfold.  I thought I knew Darcy.  I didn't.  He turned out to be a very complex person, and one of the most interesting characters in all of literature, to me.  And Elizabeth won my respect with her deep thoughts and clever ways.  But it took time.  The book very slowly sheds light on these two people and their true selves.  Just like people in real life, the characters in Pride and Prejudice could not be understood easily.

And I started to root for Mr. Darcy.  "Don't do that, Elizabeth!"  I would say out loud, "Darcy is the right man for you!  Leave that other guy alone!  He's a loser!"

Then I would ponder what kind of a sissy I had become.  I was rooting for the designated couple in a girly romance book - surely this was an action restricted to lonely old ladies!  But, alas, there I was, reading the book into the night to be darned sure that she hooked up with my man, Darcy, and not that other loser.  I felt like I understood Mr. Darcy, and could imagine wanting a girl like Elizabeth to fall for me.  (And when I married my beautiful wife, this came true!  But, I digress.)  I went to class and pretended that I had hated the book, but I secretly loved it.

I've read/watched/endured other romance stories and very few (if any) of them are enjoyable to me.  Romantic stories are terribly predictable and tend to include the same stock characters (sometimes, the same actors over and over in the same roles with the same other actors...) going through the tired old motions again and again.  Without interesting characters such a story has no value, and that's why Jane Austen is the greatest writer ever - because she was the first storyteller to make me care about an old-fashioned love story.

Useless Ministries - Misguided Men's Manuals

Many men's ministries manage magnificently.  Minor men's malapropisms may mistakenly mislight, mayhap. Moreover, misaligned masculinity might make more misogynists.  (Meh.)

(Apparently I can't write an entire blog entry where each word starts with the same letter without it turning into nonsense.  I'm going to stop trying, now.  However, you are welcome to attempt to write a clever comment using some form of alliteration if you think you can.  I look forward to reading your efforts while I sip my coffee and watch the snow.  Moving on.)

Books directed at men have become very popular in the religious sections of bookstores.  It started with Wild at Heart, a book that tells men not to act like sissies and is oddly popular with women (I know ladies who read it over and over again and keep it by their bed like a smutty romance novel), and the movement grew large enough to justify its own section of Christian bookstores.

Of course, there are times when men and women need to be ministered to in different ways.  For example, according to TV, every man is a boorish and insensitive slob who can't do anything as well as his graceful and clever wife; it's good for men to be told that they are not limited to such an emasculated existence.  But often times I see books directed at men that have no reason to be limited to a male audience.

I first noticed this five years ago when a friend handed me a book and said, "This book is about how to live like a man.  You should read it."

I stared at him.  Was he questioning my manhood?  Did he think I spent my time living like a woman?  (You see, these books don't always make good gifts.)

There was only one way to settle it, really.

Anyway, I started reading.  According to the authors of the book, men should stand up for what's right and always live by their convictions.  Boring.  Everyone knows that.  But I couldn't figure out why this was a book for men.  Are women expected to be lukewarm toward their convictions?  Should the ladies just flounder about during moral crises until a man can show up to handle things?  And why did such an obvious and simple book require two writers?  Did they take turns with one man writing the book while the other man kept track of both of their wives' spiritual agendas?

To be fair, I don't think that the authors ever thought of that.  They probably just wondered what kind of literature might help men out, and a call to action and moral vigilance was their response.  It's actually a good lesson.  But it's a good lesson for everyone, and there's no reason to limit encouragement to one group when it's content is not exclusive to them.

Am I saying that people shouldn't write books directed at specific demographic groups?  No.  I'm saying we should write better ones.