Few stories in the media gain as much attention as those of abuse of a child, whether the abuse is physical or sexual. The recent flurry of stories of sexual abuse in major universities underscores this fact.  

Interestingly, the head football coach and the president of a major university lost their jobs over allegations of child sexual abuse, even though they themselves clearly did not abuse anyone. The offense, in the eyes of the public, was the failure of persons in the university to report the abuse to the proper authorities.

All institutions, not just universities, can be subject to instances of child abuse.  Churches in particular are very susceptible, primarily because churches have a number of children in the facilities and activities by the very nature of the church’s mission. Whether we are talking about a rural church with less than 100 members, or a megachurch with thousands of members, the same exposure exists.

It is absolutely essential that pastors and staff, as well as lay leadership, know and understand the laws regarding the reporting of child abuse, and also that the church have policies implemented to help guard against child abuse.

Fifty years ago there was seldom a media account of child abuse. Probably the primary reason was the failure of the child to “tell,” and the attitude in many American families that these matters were best dealt with privately and kept inside the family structure. But attitudes change. Today most states, including Texas, have laws requiring the report of child abuse to proper authorities. And with or without such statutes, public attitude dictates that child abuse should be brought into the open, the child given help and counseling, and the perpetrator dealt with by law enforcement.

Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code contains Texas law regarding report of child abuse. A pastor might do well to keep a copy of that law in his study. There is one basic rule to follow: Nobody has the right to sit on a report of child abuse.

Every citizen, regardless of his or her position in life, has an absolute duty under the statutes to report child abuse to the proper authorities, whether witnessing the event or being given an account of the event. It is not enough to tell the parents. The report must be made to the proper agency, including the police, sheriff, or child protective services (CPS).

Failure to make a report to the proper authorities is a Class A misdemeanor in Texas, and a person violating the reporting statute could receive as much as a year in jail.

A pastor or staff member learning about child abuse might feel it sufficient to report the abuse to the child’s parents and let them deal with the situation. Not so.

While the parents should most certainly be told of the abuse, the pastor or staff member has a legal obligation to report it to the public authorities and cannot meet that obligation by simply telling the parents.

An investigation of the abuse should be left to the authorities. However, the church officials should inquire far enough into the facts to determine if a staff member was involved, or if a church member was involved, so that proper action can be taken within the church by church officials.

There are two sections of Chapter 261 that are important. First, nobody may claim that the information is privileged. Communications made to pastors (and to attorneys and doctors) in confidence are privileged under Texas law… but not as to communications of child abuse! Further, Texas law gives civil and criminal immunity to persons who make reports of child abuse to the proper authorities.    

Every church should have rules in place to minimize the opportunity for abuse and to deal with child abuse that occurs in the church. The small church that has no rules can undoubtedly contact one of the larger churches for help in drafting rules, since most large churches already have such rules in place. In addition, the SBTC can undoubtedly be called upon for assistance. As an example, one rule often found is that at least two adults must be present when children are in a church activity, whether in Sunday School or on an outing.

There is a caveat for church officials. Do not try to counsel with the child or parents regarding the abuse, unless there is someone on staff who has intense training and experience in the area. CPS has trained employees who are skilled in handling such matters; and only trained and experienced counselors should function in this area. The responsibility of the pastor and staff is to report the abuse and remove any offender from a position in the church involving children, which may necessitate removing the offender from the church entirely.

One last matter: Make notes. Keep a written record of the events reported to you as pastor or to a staff member. Note the dates and times of all events, including when it was reported by you to the authorities and parents, and to whom it was reported. Under Texas law, an individual may be called upon to testify in court about the child’s outcry, i.e., what the child initially said to the pastor or staff member when it was first reported by the child. Notes that refresh one’s memory are extremely important. In addition, these notes will help protect the church and church officials if it is later claimed by anyone that the church simply sat on its hands and did nothing.

For additional information one can read Chapter 261 of the Family Code, as well as reading the article on child abuse by the Texas attorney general, found online at oag.state.tx.us/victims/childabuse.shtml.

—Don Metcalfe is a state judge, a member of the SBTC Executive Board and is a deacon at First Baptist Church of Dallas. He has been a judge for 28 years, the last 16 as a senior district judge, sitting by judicial assignment in courts throughout Texas.

Polite conversation among many is to avoid religion and politics. Unfortunately, those two topics are at the top of the list for discussion during this election year.

Politics has always had a seamy side. There have always been those who will use any means possible to gain power. Occasionally there are those who enter politics with pure motives but often even they are sullied by their involvement.

Baptists historically are divided into two main camps when it comes to politics. Some seek to stay as far away as possible. Others look for opportunities for involvement. Those wanting a piece of the political action may want to do so for the cause of Christ. They see advancing a biblical morality as a part of being salt and light. Someone wrongly has said you can’t legislate morality. Actually, all legislation is morality, it is just a matter of whose moral code you use.

For the first part of the 20th century, the Southern Baptist Convention was seen as the Democratic Party at prayer. For almost the last 50 years many Southern Baptists have reversed their identification to the Republican Party. To be closely identified with one political party can hinder our witness.

If anyone thinks the Kingdom of God is going to be ushered in by a political party or candidate, they need to clear their heads. Our answer is not in a victory in the next election cycle. We need a spiritual renewal among God’s people. We need a 2 Chronicles 7:14 type repentance that will bring God’s favor.

All of this said, there is still a place for participation in the political process. The American system of self-government is an experiment that allows us to express our beliefs through the ballot box. As good citizens of this country in obedience to Romans 13 and other scriptures, we have the privilege to influence the direction of our government. If we abdicate the right of exercising our faith in the public square, we may end up like Nazi Germany, Communist China or worse.

Recently, an Executive Branch administrative ruling placed undue requirements on people of faith. Faith-based ministries are being told to provide contraceptives and abortifacients through insurance coverage. The Southern Baptist Convention’s insurance provider, GuideStone, would be required to provide for the “morning-after pill” and other abortion-type drugs. Richard Land, president of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is calling for civil disobedience.

The ruling is a violation of the civil rights of the unborn baby. Vying for the life of the baby is a vitally important matter that should be a core conviction for all believers. There is another challenge that virtually rises to the same level. The recent ruling that mandates faith-based ministries to provide a morally unconscionable service infringes upon our religious liberty. If we lose our religious liberty we will have a greatly diminished ability to advocate for the life of the unborn.

The first step we are to take is pray. I pray for the president daily. I pray for God to have mercy on our country in the legislative and administrative march away from biblical morality. I pray for spiritual renewal among believers. The real problem we face is apathy about personal and congregational holiness and obedience in the communities of faith. I pray for a spiritual awakening of those who do not know our Lord and Savior. Prayer is not a last resort; it is the first step.

Secondly, we should seek to influence public policy. Don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good. Saying you are going to focus only on spiritual matters may sound pious but without helping to preserve the freedoms that we have, it may result in all of us doing ministry under a repressive regime. You can’t let politics become your ministry but speaking up and showing up can be done without hindering your witness.

Finally, support candidates on the issues. It is like the uneven analogy that asks, “Would you rather have a really proficient non-believer as a surgeon or a wonderful believer who is a poorly skilled doctor?” While I would prefer to have a candidate who affirms the Baptist Faith and Message, I will support a candidate who stands for principles that more closely reflect biblical principles than the other candidates. Our choice may end up being the lesser of the two evils. In our system of government we can’t abandon our responsibility before God.

Religious liberty is a God-given right that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. I have been to Lebanon, India, Cuba and other countries where they don’t have the privileges we enjoy. We are able to embrace the unengaged because we have religious liberty. These two are not mutually exclusive. They are necessarily complementary.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Southern Baptists must decide whether they are satisfied with a “presumable encroachment of Calvinism” in their leadership and their seminary graduates, Baptist paper editor Gerald Harris wrote Feb. 9, drawing responses from several SBC entities.

In a column titled “The Calvinists are here,” Harris, editor of The Christian Index, newsjournal of the Georgia Baptist Convention, set forth statements about Calvinism and quoted Southern Baptists on both sides of the issue.
“… It appears that some of our institutions and agencies are giving, at the least, tacit approval to Reformed theology or are, at the most, actively on a path to honor, if not implement Reformed theology and methodology in their institutions,” Harris wrote at ChristianIndex.org.
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was cited in the column as “a particular source” of recent graduates espousing Reformed doctrines.
“There is a growing perception that Southern Seminary has become a seedbed for a brand of Calvinism that is quite different from the Reformed theology of its founder, James Petigru Boyce, and also a training ground for Reformed church planters,” Harris wrote.
In response, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Seminary, told Baptist Press, “I have no idea what Dr. Harris has in mind with this comment, and only he can explain it. The theological standard at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is the Baptist Faith & Message and the Abstract of Principles, upon which the institution was founded, and on which the first signature is that of James Petigru Boyce.”
The North American Mission Board was included as an example of Calvinistic infiltration because a recent issue of its On Mission magazine highlights several church planters, “two of whom could be seen as Reformed in their theology.”
Harris also pointed to NAMB's decision to include St. Louis as one of its focus cities in the Send North America church planting initiative.
“In St. Louis NAMB will encounter a Baptist association that has already launched 15 church plants, seven of which are listed as Acts 29 Network churches,” Harris wrote, characterizing Acts 29 as “admittedly evangelical, missional and Reformed in its approach to church planting.”
Mark Driscoll, founder and lead visionary of Acts 29, “seems to have a significant influence in the lives of some Southern Baptists,” Harris wrote, spending several paragraphs on the controversy surrounding Driscoll's latest book, “Real Marriage.”
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and its president, Danny Akin, are mentioned in connection with Driscoll. Specifically, Harris insinuates that Driscoll's book is given credence by an endorsement from Akin and his wife Charlotte.
“In recent years Driscoll has been a chapel speaker at SEBTS and his influence at the seminary cannot be ignored,” Harris wrote.
The newspaper editor ended his column by addressing the possibility that Southern Baptists will move toward changing the name of the convention when they gather in New Orleans in June. He suspects the proposed name will be the Great Commission Baptist Convention.
“If that is the suggested name and if we dare vote for it to be our new appellation we dare not defame it with half-hearted evangelism and church plants that wither away in five years,” Harris wrote.
In response, Akin of Southeastern Seminary told Baptist Press the editorial is not on target.
“Gerald Harris has been my friend for many years and my love and gratitude for him is immense,” Akin wrote in a statement. “However, I would respectfully disagree with him and others that evangelical Calvinism is a threat to the health and future of the SBC. Our real problem is we all are in desperate need for a heaven sent, Holy Spirit revival that will set on fire our cold and carnal hearts.
“Further, my wife and I made clear in our endorsement of Real Marriage that we appreciated much of its content but also strongly disagreed with certain sections of it.
“And, Mark Driscoll, who is my friend, has not been on this campus in almost four years. To say he has significant influence on our campus would simply be inaccurate. When his ministry and methods are discussed in classes along with many others, they are analyzed and critiqued in the light of God's infallible and inerrant Word,” Akin wrote.
“Some of what he teaches we affirm. Other aspects of his teachings are rejected when shown to be incompatible with biblical revelation. I believe that is what Southern Baptists expect of a theological institution that is passionate for the Great Commission and sees itself as a servant to train effective and well informed ministers of the gospel,” Akin wrote.
Mike Ebert, vice president of communications at the North American Mission Board, also disagreed overall with Harris.
“Gerald Harris is a friend who has a passion for evangelism and missions, but unfortunately this column is long on suspicion and innuendo but short on facts,” Ebert wrote in a statement to BP. “If one wants to write a column stating his opposition to Calvinism and back it up with Scripture, that is a legitimate approach.
“If someone wants to express concern that the SBC is moving toward Calvinism, he should state those concerns honestly and explain why he sees it as a problem. But to weave together a series of unrelated examples and imply that SBC entities are being infiltrated by Calvinists whose goal is the 'encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life' evokes the McCarthyism of the 1950's,” Ebert wrote.
“If the SBC needs to have a conversation about Calvinism, let's do it in a way that builds up the Body of Christ and doesn't tear down with unsubstantiated accusations and unfounded fears. Unfortunately, I don't think this kind of article builds up the kingdom,” Ebert wrote.
LifeWay Christian Resources was mentioned in the column because of its new Bible study curriculum, The Gospel Project, which Harris expects to be “marked by an unmistakable Reformed theology” when it premiers this year. The advisory board for the curriculum “for the most part looks like a Who's Who of Reformed theologians,” Harris wrote.
Marty King, corporate communications director for LifeWay, told Baptist Press the entity deeply regrets that The Index published “false accusations without offering any evidence of their truthfulness.” King said The Gospel Project is not marked by Reformed theology but is “LifeWay's response to churches asking for a more in-depth Bible study curriculum.”
“The Index editor made no effort to ask LifeWay about his concerns and didn't even ask for samples of the new curriculum which are available at GospelProject.com. It appears he simply repeated rumors, gossip and conspiracy theories he'd apparently read on the Internet. He has done his subscribers, LifeWay and Southern Baptists a great disservice,” King said.
In a blog post Feb. 9, Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, which was cited in the column, said Calvinism is the new Baptist bogeyman, a nonthreatening issue that distracts the convention from real dangers.
In the past, those who preached against the Purpose Driven movement and the emerging church movement ultimately drove out a generation of Southern Baptists who otherwise were sympathetic with the convention, Stetzer wrote at betweenthetimes.com. Most SBC Calvinists, Stetzer wrote, affirm the current Baptist Faith and Message, want to reach people for Christ and desire to cooperate in SBC life.
“Preaching against bogeymen gets the big amen at some meetings and in some publications, but we should take notice—those meetings are getting older and smaller every year,” Stetzer wrote.
Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay, told SBC Voices eight of the 11 advisory council members are Southern Baptist, and LifeWay did not ask them if they were Calvinists. The members were asked about the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and “the conversations were about how we could structure this curriculum in a way that points to Christ, not Calvinism,” Wax said.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Trustees of LifeWay Christian Resources voted to continue selling the new NIV Bible in LifeWay stores, approved a new vice president for its largest division and elected new board officers.

Meeting Feb. 13-14 at LifeWay offices in downtown Nashville, trustees heard a report from a special task force appointed to follow up on a non-binding resolution approved by the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention that requested LifeWay consider not selling the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible in their stores.

Committee chairman Adam Greenway, a member of First Baptist Church in Mt. Washington, Ky., told the board “vast amounts of scholarly research and other relevant information was gathered and studied … and a number of subject matter experts addressed the task force.”

Greenway said LifeWay received support for continuing to carry the 2011 NIV from R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Jimmy Draper, former president of LifeWay; George Guthrie, professor of Bible at Union University; and Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, which translated the new NIV.

Greenway, who serves as senior associate dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism at Southern Seminary, also told trustees, “Messengers to the 2011 SBC annual meeting were encouraged to vote for the resolution based on incorrect information.” As an example, Greenway said the 2011 NIV contains no gender-neutral wording for the names of God. The 2011 NIV, Greenway said, “follows translation methodologies that are embraced by the overwhelming majority of Bible translators in the world.”

“It is not that we are endorsing the 2011 NIV,” Greenway said. “We endorse what we publish, and the translation we publish is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. That is the translation that we endorse.” Greenway told trustees, “We do not believe the 2011 NIV rises to the level to where it should be pulled or censored or not carried in our retail chain.”

The task force and the trustee executive committee both unanimously approved the following recommendation: “It is recommended that trustees reaffirm the decision of LifeWay to continue to carry the 2011 NIV alongside other versions of the Holy Bible.”

After a few minutes of discussion, the motion unanimously passed.

Greenway said many of the differences between the 2011 NIV and the 1984 NIV involved such changes as “brothers” to “brothers and sisters.” One example is Luke 17:3, which the 2011 NIV renders, “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.”

Greenway did address 1 Timothy 2:12, which has been the most discussed passage among 2011 NIV critics. The 2011 NIV rendered it, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” The 1984 NIV translated it “have authority.” The verse, some said, takes sides in the debate over female pastors by allowing a female pastor to say, “I’m not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.”

The committee did examine the passage closely, Greenway said.

“The issue comes down to the Greek, and very conservative inerrantists, Greek scholars [on the Committee on Bible Translation], believe that the more literal translation of the Greek there is the word ‘assume,’ and it is left to the interpretative community to understand what ‘assume’ means,” Greenway said. “Is that a change from some renderings of the past? Yes. But again, our issue should not be merely to maintain traditional translations; it should be to always more fully get to the accuracy and intention of what God originally inspired through those who penned the Scripture.”

Greenway added, “We are not giving a stamp of approval. … We are simply saying from a retail perspective, we do not believe that we should cease carrying and make available to the public the 2011 NIV.”

Several “highly respected conservative” scholars have endorsed the 2011 NIV, Greenway said, among them: Darrell Bock, William Mounce, Rod Decker, Daniel Wallace, Timothy George and Tremper Longman. The MacArthur Study Bible—with notes by John MacArthur—also will be available in the 2011 NIV in 2013.

CHURCH RESOURCES VP
In other news, trustees unanimously elected Eric Geiger as the new vice president of the organization’s church resources division (CRD) which produces a vast array of discipleship materials and training events for Bible studies, Vacation Bible School, leadership development, music and worship, and the family.

Geiger comes to LifeWay from Miami, where he served nine years as executive pastor of Christ Fellowship Miami. During that time, the church grew from a weekend attendance of 1,200 to nearly 8,000 and was recognized as one of the fastest growing churches in America.

Geiger co-wrote the book “Simple Church” with LifeWay president Thom S. Rainer who said he was drawn to Geiger to lead CRD because of his passion for the local church. “Eric Geiger is sold out to the bride of Christ,” Rainer said.

That commitment was evident as Geiger shared his testimony with trustees.

“In the end, the church will endure, not LifeWay,” he said. “I want our people to wake up every morning and think about how best to serve the bride of Christ, not about LifeWay. We do not exist for ourselves, but to serve the churches.”

During his president’s report, Rainer said the state of LifeWay is healthy.

“We are living in a negative time, when our churches are struggling, killing a child in the womb is morally acceptable, and, the American family is under attack,” he said. “But instead of lamenting the times, we should focus on the Source of our strength in the midst of this urgency.”

“The state of LifeWay is healthy, and I don’t know any place I’d rather be than here because we have opportunity to make more of a difference in this time of urgency than perhaps at any time in our nation’s history,” he said. “God has placed us here for such a time as this.”

Rainer said while other Christian publishers no longer exist, “LifeWay continues to move forward by making tough decisions, because if we keep doing the things we have been doing, we will not see the future God has for us.”

Rainer cited several examples of new initiatives and tough decisions including the growing partnership with Sherwood Pictures, producer of the “Courageous” movie; the new curriculum called The Gospel Project that goes deeper into the biblical text and is already being piloted by 2,000 churches; and, LifeWay’s decision to withdraw from a relationship with Susan G. Komen for the Cure because of Komen’s relationship to Planned Parenthood.

Ending that relationship “was the right thing to do,” Rainer said, “even though we may sustain financial losses because of it. I regret the losses, but not the decision. As a result, people know they can trust LifeWay to take a biblical stand.”

Rainer said several options are being reviewed for use of the special pink Bibles that were removed from store shelves earlier this year because they promised a donation to Komen for every Bible sold. He assured trustees the Bibles would be used to bring comfort to those suffering through breast cancer, not destroyed.

In other business, LifeWay trustees:

• Elected new board officers including Greenway as chairman; Mark Dance, pastor of Second Baptist Church, Conway, Ark., as vice chairman; and, Rick Geist, a financial advisor and member of First Baptist Church, Seminole, Okla., as recording secretary.
• Approved a report from the board’s audit committee that showed an “unqualified opinion or clean audit” from Ernst & Young accounting firm.
• Discussed and approved responses to eight motions referred to LifeWay by the Southern Baptist Convention during last summer’s meeting. The responses will be reported to the 2012 SBC in New Orleans, June 19-20.
• Heard reports from each of the organization’s vice presidents regarding progress and plans for ministry advance.
• Recognized seven retiring trustees who are ending their board service.

—With reporting by Michael Foust,associate editor of Baptist Press.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article with endnotes explores diverse views of the doctrine of election, including Calvinism (also called the “doctrines of grace”), within the Southern Baptist Convention. The article is reprinted from the June 2010 edition of SBC LIFE, journal of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee. The writer is Roger S. Oldham, vice president for communications and convention relations with the Executive Committee.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Southern Baptists are a diverse people. Nowhere is this diversity more apparent than on the subject of election.

The Preamble of the Baptist Faith and Message, which is, itself, an integral and important part of the confession of faith, sets forth several parameters for what the Baptist Faith and Message seeks to accomplish. Specifically, it identifies “certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.” (1)

The Preamble also stipulates that the Baptist Faith and Message is not a comprehensive statement of Baptist beliefs; (2) rather, it is a consensus statement of faith. (3) As a consensus, it states those “certain” doctrines around which we can find common ground with fellow believers.

Among these “certain definite doctrines” is Article V, “God's Purpose of Grace.” The wording of the Article is loosely based on the New Hampshire confession of faith (1833), as modified by J. Newton Brown in the Baptist Church Manual in 1853. (4) It has changed only slightly in the three versions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, and 2000). (5) It currently states:

“Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

“All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”

While Southern Baptists have stated their general agreement on this doctrine, they continue to debate the specifics of what it means and how it works. Identifying Calvinism as a “second-order” doctrine, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted that “Calvinists and Arminians may disagree concerning a number of vital and urgently important doctrines — or, at the very least, the best way to understand and express these doctrines. Yet both can acknowledge each other as genuine Christians.” (6)

As a consensus statement, the wording of Article V is general enough to point to the common ground upon which those of a more Calvinistic persuasion and those of a less Calvinistic persuasion can find general agreement for cooperation in those Kingdom ministries which draw Southern Baptists together.

“ELECTION” IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT

“Election,” the opening word of Article V, is a word that elicits strong emotional and theological passions. The related words “eklektos” (adjective), “eklegomai” (middle-voice verb), and “eklogee” (noun) are found 51 times in the New Testament. They are translated “choose” or “chosen” slightly more than half of the time and “elect” or “election” in the remaining instances. One or more of these words is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter, 2 John, and Revelation. (7)

The first two of these words are found on the lips of Jesus 19 times in the Gospels. Seven of these are recorded in the Olivet Discourse (three in Matthew 24, four in Mark 13): “Unless the Lord limited those days, no one would survive. But He limited those days because of the elect, whom He chose” (Mark 13:20).

Perhaps the most well-known passage in the Gospels comes from the parable of the vine (John 15). In concluding this extended metaphor about true discipleship, Jesus said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you. I appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you” (John 15:16).

Peter referred to the scattered tribes as the “elect” of God (1 Peter 1:2), identified them as a “chosen generation” (1 Peter 2:4-9), and urged them to “make their calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10). James asked, “Didn't God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith?” (James 2:5). John identified the recipients of his second epistle as “the elect lady and her children” and concluded his letter by greeting the “children of her elect sister” (2 John 1, 13). The angel referenced those who attended the Lamb as the “called and elect and faithful” (Revelation 17:14).

These words occur an additional fifteen times in the epistles of Paul. Not only has God “chosen the world's foolish things to shame the wise” (1 Corinthians 1:27); He “chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). Paul reminded Timothy of his willingness to “endure all things for the elect” (2 Timothy 2:10). Referencing the Old Testament narrative of seven thousand men who did not serve Baal (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 9:4), Paul reminded the Romans, “In the same way, then, there is also at the present time a remnant chosen by grace” (Romans 11:5).

Clearly, the word “election” is woven throughout the text of the New Testament. Though the word calls up differences of interpretation, the word itself is not a word Baptists should either fear or casually dismiss.

INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE WORD 'ELECTION'

A review of four recent Baptist systematic theologies reveals a wide range of interpretations about election.

Millard Erickson's “Christian Theology” has been widely used as a textbook in Baptist theology classes. His book contains a chapter on predestination and election. After laying a seven-page foundation of the “historical development of the doctrine,” he described “differing views” of this important biblical doctrine. Using the word “nettlesome” (8) to describe the variety of opinions about election, he concluded the chapter with his “suggested solution” — “The position taken herein is not that those who are called must respond, but that God makes his offer so appealing that they will respond affirmatively.” (9)

James Leo Garrett, longtime distinguished professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, arranged his chapter on election in three divisions: Old Testament teaching on election; New Testament teaching on election; and “systematic questions with historical and contemporary answers.” (10)

He set the framework for his discussion by acknowledging that “the doctrine of election presupposes a personal God who has a saving or redemptive purpose for his human creatures and who is able to work out such a purpose for and among human beings in the created order and within history.” (11) In the final section, he posed seven questions to which he gave a range of answers that demonstrate the diversity of interpretation Baptists hold on this subject.

The questions he listed included:

— Does election necessarily imply reprobation?

— Does election embrace all humankind, or is election limited to certain human beings?

— Is election only a call to service, or is it also a call to be the redeemed people of God?

— Does the doctrine of election hinder or help the proclamation of the Christian gospel to all human beings?

— Is election primarily God's choice of certain individual human beings or of an elect people? (12)

Viewing election as “a bridge between the doctrines of the Christian life and of the church,” Garret “left unresolved the thorny question as to whether election is not or is conditioned upon God's foreknowledge of human responses.” (13)

Unlike the previous two authors, who expressed varying degrees of concern about the Calvinistic perspective of the doctrine of election, Wayne Grudem, who is a thorough-going Calvinist, laid out the case for his theological position in his Systematic Theology. In his Introduction, he acknowledged that one's view of the “extent of the atonement” may “fall somewhere between” a “major doctrine” and a “minor doctrine.” (14) He later urged “caution” regarding making “belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy.” (15)

Nevertheless, embracing the “Reformed position” (16) on this and its related doctrines, (17) Grudem presented the case for the theological affirmations of what are commonly called “the doctrines of grace:” 1 — the total depravity of humanity; 2 — unconditional election by God; 3 — limited atonement (an atoning death of Christ for the elect only); 4 — irresistible grace; and 5 — perseverance of the saints. (18)

At the same time, he emphasized that the doctrine of election was “something brought about by a personal God in relationship with personal creatures.” (19) He added, “Not only do we make willing choices as real persons, but these choices are also real choices because they do affect the course of events in the world.” (20)

These choices “affect our own lives and they affect the lives and destinies of others. … The implication of this is that we certainly must preach the gospel, and that people's eternal destiny hinges on whether we proclaim the gospel or not.” (21)

In a massive missive, Kenneth Keathley, dean of graduate studies and professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, contributed the chapter on salvation in “A Theology for the Church.” (22)

In the opening section of his chapter, he followed Erickson's and Garrett's model by presenting an historical review of the various perspectives on the doctrine of election. He then adopted Grudem's method of laying out a logical, systematic argument for the position he espoused, what he called the “concurrent” or “congruence” perspective of election.

Arguing that “Scripture presents predestination and human freedom as twin truths in tension,” Keathley contended that “the Bible teaches both that God sovereignly and unconditionally chooses to elect for salvation and that each individual person freely decides to accept or reject Jesus Christ as Savior.” (23)

In contrast to Grudem's conclusions, Keathley asserted five corollaries of the Congruence model of election: 1 — “salvation is a sovereign act of God from beginning to end;” 2 — “God desires the salvation of humanity;” 3 — “God purposes the salvation of the elect but only permits the damnation of the unbeliever;” 4 — “each person has the freedom to choose or reject salvation;” and 5 — “election originates, is accomplished, and will be consummated in Jesus Christ.” (24)

This brief review demonstrates the breadth of opinion Baptists bring to the subject of election. As Mohler noted, “these differences can become so acute that it is difficult to function together in the local congregation over such an expansive theological difference.” (25) But, he hastened to add, “such ecclesiastical debates, while understood to be deeply important because of their biblical nature and connection to the gospel, do not constitute a ground for separation among believing Christians.” (26)

A CONSENSUS OF THE BIBLE WORD 'ELECTION'

At issue for Southern Baptists is this: can a theological détente be reached between those who are deeply committed to Calvinism and those who are equally committed to a non-Calvinistic perspective of election? Some say no; but our history says yes.

Pastor and author Jim Elliff introduced an illustration of a “three-legged stool.” (27) His three-legged stool is summarized in a simple three-word sentence, “God saves sinners.” He wrote:

“To put it so that the emphasis is not misunderstood perhaps it should be written: GOD saves sinners. Thus the Initiator of salvation is given greater visibility. He does it all. But to fail to emphasize the word 'sinners' would make the sovereignty of God seem less gracious, so we will write it: GOD saves SINNERS! Will that do? No, because the action God takes toward us is too precious and freeing to be diminished in the least. So, let us write a completely emphasized version: GOD SAVES SINNERS! Then we must underline it — and continue to underline it without ever becoming casual or passive with the theme!”

Though Elliff wrote from the Calvinistic persuasion, this brief sentence is one Baptists of every conviction should be able to embrace. The sentence lays out three truths: 1 — God, as the subject of the sentence, takes the initiative in our salvation; 2 — as the direct object of the verb, sinners are recipients of the action God takes; and, 3 — the active verb “saves” demonstrates that our salvation is not something we do for ourselves; it is what He does on our behalf.

Paul's personal testimony of conversion affirms and personalizes these three simple, interwoven truths: “'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners' — and I am the worst of them” (1 Timothy 1:15). They are the heart of the testimonies of countless saints of God. And, they are the soul of the consensus statement in Article V. I am deeply moved each time I read the eloquent words of this article:

“Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.”

Through His loving favor and gracious mercy, God has done for the sinner what no sinner can do for himself. Paul said it so clearly — “But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses and sins. By grace you are saved!” (Ephesians 2:4-5)

A COROLLARY TO THE WORD 'ELECTION'

As a natural corollary to our salvation in Christ, the second paragraph of Article V points to the security of the believer.

“All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”

In John 10, Jesus described what theologian/teacher Roy Beaman called the “double divine grip” of eternal security. (28) Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish — ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. The Father and I are one” (John 10:27-30).

An evangelist spoke of a father and son approaching a busy intersection. In my own mind, I go back to numerous instances when, as a boy, my dad and I approached the busy intersection near our home. My dad would always say, “Here, son, take my hand.” I would reach up to clutch his hand, only to find and feel that he had already reached down to grip my hand tightly in his.

That which the Lord initiates, He completes (Philippians 1:6). Though the human heart is “prone to wander,” (29) the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit is both the “down payment” (“earnest,” KJV or “guarantee,” NIV) and the “seal” of the believer's redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14; 2 Corinthians 1:22). He assures the believer that the Lord will never leave nor forsake His own (Deuteronomy 31:6-8; Joshua 1:5; Hebrews 13:5).

Though the word election calls up a variety of perspectives on the nature of human responsibility and divine sovereignty, the word itself points to the fact of the believer's “blessed assurance.” Hymn writer Fanny Crosby said it well, “Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine! Oh, what a foretaste of glory divine! Heir of salvation, purchase of God, born of His spirit, washed in His blood.” (30)

CONCLUSION

Since differences over the doctrine of election can lead to “wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God's people,” (31) it is a doctrine that is feared by some and avoided by others. One should approach the study of this subject with a spirit of humility toward oneself and Christian charity toward those who may hold different perspectives.

Biblically understood, it brings great comfort to the believer that God is always in control, no matter one's circumstances, and that our salvation ultimately depends on Him, not us. It gives assurance to the human heart that we are “protected by God's power through faith” (1 Peter 1:5). It thrusts the believer into the mission field of this fallen world.

Above all else, it creates a sense of awe and wonder at God's infinite wisdom and matchless grace. The Just One has redeemed the unjust unto Himself — for time and eternity!
–30–
1. Baptist Faith and Message Preamble, p. 6.
2. Preamble, p. 5, #3: “That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility.”
3. Preamble, p. 4, #1: “That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.”
4. William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, pp. 360-361.
5. For a comparative reading, see www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp.
6. R. Albert Mohler, “The Pastor as Theologian,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Danny Akin, p. 931.
7. A personal word count from George Wigram, The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, s.v., “eklegomai,” “eklektos,” and “eklogee,” pp. 228-229.
8. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 924.
9. Ibid., p. 927.
10. James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, volume 2, pp. 432-454.
11. Ibid, p. 433.
12. Ibid., pp. 442-454.
13. Ibid, p. 454.
14. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 30.
15. Ibid., pp. 601-603.
16. Ibid., p. 600.
17. Ibid., pp. 596-603; 674-684.
18. While Grudem does not lay out these classical statements in a single chapter, he addressed his affirmation of each of these statements in different sections of his book as follows: total depravity, p. 497 (and see footnote 13); unconditional election (pp. 674-679); limited atonement (pp. 594-603); irresistible grace (p. 700); and perseverance of the saints (pp. 788-809).
19. Ibid., p. 674.
20. Ibid., p. 675.
21. Ibid.
22. Kenneth Keathley, “The Work of God: Salvation,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Danny Akin, pp. 686-764.
23. Keathley, p. 718.
24. Keathley, p. 722.
25. Mohler, p. 931.
26. Ibid.
27. Jim Elliff, “A Three-legged Stool: All Sides of God's Salvation Process,” www.ccwonline.org/3legs.html, as of May 15, 2010.
28. Classroom discussion, Th.D. seminar in Systematic Theology, MABTS, spring 1983.
29. Robert Robinson, “Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing,” Baptist Hymnal, 2008 edition, Hymn #98, stanza 3.
30. Fanny Crosby, “Blessed Assurance, Jesus Is Mine,” Baptist Hymnal, 2008 edition, Hymn #446, stanza 1.
31. Grudem, p. 603.
Roger S. (Sing) Oldham is a member of Long Hollow Baptist Church in Hendersonville, Tenn., the SBC Executive Committee vice president for Convention Relations, and executive editor of SBC LIFE.

AUSTIN—Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has joined with 11 other state attorneys general in a letter urging the Obama administrative to drop the controversial “contraceptive mandate” requiring religious employers to subsidize contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs.

“The more we learn about Obamacare, the more unconstitutional it becomes,” Abbott said in a statement. “This mandate is a stunning trampling of freedom of religion by forcing religious-based hospitals and clinics to act contrary to their religious doctrine. These mandates force religious organizations and hospitals to subsidize products and moral judgments that clearly violate their beliefs.”

The letter, addressed to the secretaries of health and human services, labor and the treasury, said the group was writing “to express our strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring religious employers that provide health insurance coverage to their employees to include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and related services. Should this unconstitutional mandate be promulgated, we are prepared to vigorously oppose it in court.”

The Obama administration found little support among pro-life groups when it announced on Feb. 10 that its contraceptive mandate would be altered to shift the responsibility to offer free contraceptives—including abortion-causing drugs such as “ella” and Plan B—away from religious organizations to their insurance carriers.

The White House claimed the move accommodates religious groups who objected to the earlier version of the mandate, while pro-life groups accused the White House of mere accounting trickery that guarantees the same outcome—universal contraceptive coverage.

The new policy, the White House said, would allow religious institutions to avoid offering contraception in their insurance plans. Instead, the new plan “ensures … (the) insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge” by directly contacting women employed by religious organizations that object to offering contraception coverage.

Obama said in announcing the changes, “The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services.”

But pro-life advocates took little time in countering, noting that the costs to insurers of providing contraceptives freely would be passed on to religious organizations that pay for group coverage.

Also, self-funded insurance plans, such as those offered by the Southern Baptist Convention’s benefits entity, would be forced to comply as an insurance provider.

Richard Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Baptist Press, “It is an attempt to deal with a matter of religious conviction with an accounting gimmick.”

Self-funded plans like that of GuideStone Financial Resources, which insures 60,000 Southern Baptists and their families, pays benefits directly instead of using a third-party insurance company as the source of benefit payments.

“This self-funded approach to healthcare coverage, which is common among many historic and large church plans, was completely ignored by the President in his comments,” GuideStone President O.S. Hawkins said in a statement following Obama’s announcement.

The controversy began when the Department of Health and Human Services in January finalized a rule requiring private insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including “emergency” ones such as Plan B and “ella” that can block implantation and kill the embryo—an action that pro-life groups and many Christians view as an early abortion. The drugs would be free for employees.

The HHS rule included an exemption for most churches, but that exemption does not cover Christian colleges and schools or faith-based hospitals and social service programs. Programs such as Catholic Charities, Prison Fellowship and GuideStone Financial Resources would be affected. GuideStone’s Hawkins released a statement before Obama's press conference saying simply, “we will not provide abortive contraceptives.”

Land and others said that an insurance company's money is fungible, and that a religious employer would still be providing the funding to pay for an employee’s abortion-inducing drugs.
Hawkins called it an “approach that does not address the issues at hand for Southern Baptists who oppose so-called contraceptives that can and do cause an abortion.”

“The President's statement today,” Hawkins said, “is an insulting affront illustrating a basic lack of understanding that this issue will not be solved by sleight-of-hand word games. It is a fundamental matter of religious liberty that threatens the very coverage of those dedicated persons who serve our churches and affiliated organizations. GuideStone will never depart from the core convictions it has held dear for decades regarding the sanctity of life.”

Said Land, “Obama showed a total lack of awareness of self-funded insurance programs like GuideStone … GuideStone cannot comply with this, because GuideStone would be forced to pay for abortifacients, which we find unconscionable.”

“This administration,” Land added, “has shown a very disturbing trend of when religious freedoms collide with sexual rights, sexual rights trump religious convictions every time. If the insurance company is forced to provide the coverage, the insurance company is going to pass the cost on to the person paying for the insurance—us.”

Senate Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan told LifeNews.com: “This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs,” he said.

Yet Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, applauded the Obama move.

“In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women's health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work,” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said. “We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman's ability to access these critical birth control benefits.”

—Compiled by TEXAN staff and Michael Foust of Baptist Press

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration found little support among pro-life groups when it announced on Friday that its controversial “contraception mandate” would shift the responsibility to offer free contraceptives—including abortion-causing drugs—away from religious organizations to their insurance carriers.

The White House claimed the move accommodates religious groups who objected to the earlier version of the mandate, while pro-life groups accused the White House of merely appearing to accommodate religious objections.

The new policy, the White House said, would allow religious institutions to avoid offering contraception in their insurance plans. Instead, the new plan “ensures … (the) insurance company will be required to offer contraceptive care free of charge” by reaching out to women employed by religious organizations that object to offering contraception coverage.

Obama said in announcing the changes, “The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services and no religious institution will have to provide these services.”

Pro-life advocates said the costs to insurers of providing free contraceptives and abortifacients would be passed on to religious organizations in paying for group coverage.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Baptist Press, “It is an attempt to deal with a matter of religious conviction with an accounting gimmick.”

Also, the changes don’t address self-funded plans like that of GuideStone Financial Resources, which insures 60,000 Southern Baptists and their families. GuideStone pays benefits directly instead of using a third-party insurance company as the source of benefit payments.

“This self-funded approach to healthcare coverage, which is common among many historic and large church plans, was completely ignored by the President in his comments,” GuideStone President O.S. Hawkins said in a statement following Obama’s announcement.

The controversy began when the Department of Health and Human Services in January finalized a rule requiring private insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including “emergency” ones such as Plan B and “ella” that can block implantation and kill the embryo — an action that pro-life groups and many Christians view as an early abortion. The drugs would be free for employees.

The HHS rule included an exemption for most churches, but that exemption does not cover Christian colleges and schools or faith-based hospitals and social service programs. Programs such as Catholic Charities, Prison Fellowship and GuideStone Financial Resources would be affected. GuideStone’s Hawkins released a statement before Obama's press conference saying simply, “we will not provide abortive contraceptives.”

Land and others said that an insurance company's money is fungible, and that a religious employer would still be providing the funding to pay for an employee’s abortion-inducing drugs.

Hawkins called it an “approach that does not address the issues at hand for Southern Baptists who oppose so-called contraceptives that can and do cause an abortion.”

“The President's statement today,” said Hawkins, “is an insulting affront illustrating a basic lack of understanding that this issue will not be solved by sleight-of-hand word games. It is a fundamental matter of religious liberty that threatens the very coverage of those dedicated persons who serve our churches and affiliated organizations. GuideStone will never depart from the core convictions it has held dear for decades regarding the sanctity of life.”

Said Land, “Obama showed a total lack of awareness of self-funded insurance programs like GuideStone … GuideStone cannot comply with this, because GuideStone would be forced to pay for abortifacients, which we find unconscionable.”

“This administration,” Land added, “has shown a very disturbing trend of when religious freedoms collide with sexual rights, sexual rights trump religious convictions every time. If the insurance company is forced to provide the coverage, the insurance company is going to pass the cost on to the person paying for the insurance — us.”

Senate Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan told LifeNews.com: “This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs,” he said.

But Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, applauded the Obama move.

“In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women's health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work,” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richard said. “We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman's ability to access these critical birth control benefits.”
–30—

—Compiled by Jerry Pierce of the TEXAN with additional reporting by Michael Foust of Baptist Press

Following is the complete statement from GuideStone Financial Resources:

GuideStone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest church plans in the nation, was distressed to hear that the President's comments do not take into account the needs of many of the oldest and largest church plans in the nation. GuideStone's medical plan, like that of many other established church plans, is self-funded which means it pays benefits directly instead of using a third-party insurance company as the source of benefit payments. This self-funded approach to healthcare coverage, which is common among many historic and large church plans, was completely ignored by the President in his comments.

The comments today appear to reflect a narrow and inadequate approach that does not address the issues at hand for Southern Baptists who oppose so-called contraceptives that can and do cause an abortion. Even more troubling is that the broader issue of religious freedom was only given lip service but no serious consideration in the President's remarks.
As stated by GuideStone's President O.S. Hawkins, “The President's statement today is an insulting affront illustrating a basic lack of understanding that this issue will not be solved by sleight-of-hand word games. It is a fundamental matter of religious liberty that threatens the very coverage of those dedicated persons who serve our churches and affiliated organizations. GuideStone will never depart from the core convictions it has held dear for decades regarding the sanctity of life.”

KANSAS CITY, Mo.—The trustees of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (MBTS) Friday accepted the resignation of seminary president R. Philip Roberts effective Feb. 29 during a called meeting at an airport hotel.

Robin Hadaway, associate professor of missions at the seminary, was named acting president, accordingto trustee Kevin Shrum of Madison, Tenn., interim chairman of the board who acted as the sole spokesman for the meeting. Former chairman Wayne Lee of Southlake, Texas, resigned but remains a board member, Shrum said.

Roberts was facing questions over misuse of seminary resources and verbal abuse of seminary staff. He was president for 11 years. The resignation was announced in the afternoon by means of a press release after a morning trustee vote to express lack of confidence in the executive committee failed.
–30–
Allen Palmeri is associate editor of The Pathway (www.mbcpathway.com), newsjournal of the Missouri Baptist Convention.

FLOWER MOUND—If your wife is years ahead of you in spiritual head knowledge, don’t let that keep you from being the spiritual leader in your home.

That is part of what Texas Rangers right fielder David Murphy said God is teaching him in his 11th year as a follower of Christ and his seventh year in Major League baseball.

Murphy and his wife Andrea answered questions about their marriage during a portion of the morning worship services at RockPointe Church in Flower Mound on Jan. 29 to kick off a sermon series on marriage. The couple shared frankly about the perceived glamour of a Major League life, and the reality.

He’s on the road three months a year and another four months of Big-League grind leaves little family time.

The past two seasons—with consecutive World Series appearances—an extra month of postseason play has cut into the offseason.

And during the season when he’s home, “he’s not really home,” Andrea said, explaining that he leaves for the ballpark in the early afternoon.

“I am thankful for the offseason because we do have about four months of him being home all the time. So I guess some people live for the weekend; I live for the offseason,” she said.

‘A GOOD PERSON’
Murphy, who grew up Roman Catholic, said Andrea asked him, as Baylor freshmen on a first date, if he considered himself a Christian.

“At the time I said, ‘I go to church. I believe I’m a good person.’ So I really didn’t think a whole lot of it. As we continued to date God continued to work in my heart and about a month or two later she invited me to a Monday night praise and worship service called Touchstone. And it was that night that God just really convicted me. I just felt a huge void and a hole in my heart that night. I just kind of started to think there is a difference between being a good person and being a Christian.”

Over coffee, “I came to faith in Jesus that night,” Murphy said.

ACCOUNTABILITY
With a career that involves frequent travel, a married couple must talk more than most, Murphy said.

With Andrea at home with their three young children, “if we don’t speak a lot when I’m on the road, I think it’s human nature that things are going to start going on in her mind. So basically, we talk on the phone a lot. We use the computer, we see each other on our iPad or on Skype or however we can.”

Murphy said he and another well-known Christian in the clubhouse, All-Star left fielder Josh Hamilton, have a special bond as believers. (Since this story was posted, Hamilton admitted to a relapse in his ongoing struggle with alcohol and drugs after reports of him drinking at a Dallas restaurant surfaced.)

“I look to him for accountability. I try to be an accountability partner for him as well. And I try to love on all the guys,” Murphy said. “Obviously, it’s a world where if you try to be over the top with guys you are going to get turned away pretty quickly. But if you lead by example and love on the guys, hopefully God will work on their hearts a little bit.”

Asked what God is teaching them right now, Andrea Murphy responded, “A lot recently. I think right now, probably the hardest thing for me has been being David Murphy’s wife. It’s really hard to be labeled that. I love my husband very, very much. But it’s hard, one, to live in someone else’s shadow. But it’s hard to live in your husband’s shadow. And I feel like people don’t really see me for me. And what I didn’t realize is there is a whole level of pride that I didn’t realize I had until I started feeling this way. So it’s been really hard for me to lay that down and to see beyond myself, truly.”

Also, she said she is learning that her children and her husband are not hers but God’s.

“For both us lately, we’ve been trying to let each other have the freedom to be who God created us to be. Most of the time I want to keep him in a little box. I want him to be just what I want him to be and ‘he can’t do this or that,’ and there’s plenty of things that I would like to change,” she said, causing a chorus of laughter.

For David Murphy, “I need to really step back at times and realize that she’s not here to just to love me when I need it, or ‘Hey, I’ll go play baseball, you watch my kids,’ that sort of thing.

“Her main dream her entire life has been to be a mom. And we have three kids and it’s awesome. But at the same time, she went to Baylor to be a doctor. And that’s something she also dreamed of her entire life. And we got to a point when we realized we were going to get married, that, ‘Hey, something’s gotta give here.’ … So, I need to remember that a lot and how selfless that she has been letting me go out there and live my dream.”

Also, Murphy admitted that he, too, puts his wife in a box created by his expectations.

“I’m somewhat of a perfectionist and a lot of times I don’t see things from her point of view; I see things from my own and I don’t understand that she’s a woman. She sees thing differently than me, she wants different things than me.”   

LEADING AT HOME
Murphy said after struggling for years, he is finally learning how to lead spiritually.

“Andrea has known the Lord since she was 5. I came to Christ when I was 19,” Murphy said. “And for a long time I was intimidated by the fact that she knew more than me or had grown up in a better background and I was intimidated thinking, ‘How can I come into this family and be the spiritual leader?’ I think when it really comes down to it, God put us together for a reason and it doesn’t matter if she knows the Bible better, it doesn’t matter what her past has been like and the same thing for me.

“All that matters from here on out is what we’re going to do with what we have. And I have a great wife. I have three incredible kids. And I have a responsibility; this family has a responsibility. So I’d say I just desire to lead in the way that God desires me to lead.”