FRISCO—Baptisms among SBTC churches were celebrated during the Feb. 28 portion of the Empower Evangelism Conference in Frisco.

Churches were recognized for having led in the number of baptisms by attendance and also by total numbers.

Per capita leaders:

• 0-100 attendance: Christway Bible Church in Dallas; Pastor Terrence Shepherd, 50 baptisms.
• 101-250: New Life Baptist Church of Beeville, Pastor Jesse Berthold, 60 baptisms.  
• 251-500: The Church at Azle; Pastor Mike Miles, 165 baptisms.
• 501-750: Seoul Baptist Church of Houston; Young Chai, 218 baptisms.
• 751-1,000: The Connection Church of Kyle; Pastor Cole Phillips, 98 baptisms.
• 1,001-1,500: Keystone Church of Keller; Pastor Brandon Thomas, 204 baptisms.
• 1,501-2,500: Calvary Baptist Church, Beaumont; Pastor Nathan Cothen, 201 baptisms.
• 2,500+: Second Baptist Church, Houston; Pastor Edwin Young, 3,002 baptisms.

Total baptisms:

• First Baptist Church of Dallas; Pastor Robert Jeffress, 214 baptisms.
• Seoul Baptist Church of Houston; Pastor Young Chai, 218 baptisms.
• Champion Forest Baptist Church; Houston; Pastor David Fleming, 247 baptisms.
• Bay Area Fellowship, Corpus Christi; Pastor Bil Cornelius, 266 baptisms.
• First Baptist Church, Euless; Pastor John Meador, 305 baptisms.
• Sagemont Church, Houston; Pastor John Morgan, 398 baptisms.
• Community of Faith, Cypress; Pastor Mark Shook, 600 baptisms.
• Lake Pointe Church, Rockwall; Pastor Steve Stroope, 625 baptisms.
• Prestonwood Baptist Church, Plano; Pastor Jack Graham, 913 baptisms.
• Second Baptist Church, Houston; Pastor Edwin Young, 3,002 baptisms.

It’s not easy being Switzerland. A quick survey of the nation’s efforts to remain neutral during the wars of the 20th century shows deployments of up to 400,000 troops to guard their borders, interment of more than 100,000 soldiers and airmen from belligerent countries, and accidental and intentional border incursions that had Swiss pilots shooting down (and being shot down by) both Allied and Axis planes during the last world war. Of course, it was ultimately far to the nation’s advantage to have not been leveled or plundered by the armies that repeatedly swept across Europe. Many will be surprised to learn that Swiss neutrality was a heavily armed neutrality. Switzerland avoided becoming part of the German Reich by fortifying its borders. The point here is that neutrality is a complex commitment, one not easily kept. Many Swiss citizens sympathized with the cause and aspirations of their Teutonic kin. National neutrality was controversial even within the country. After World War II, Switzerland faced decades of criticism for its policy toward political refugees and its suspected cooperation with those who hid plundered riches in Swiss banks.

It is with apologies to the lovely (and well-armed) alpine country that I say that I think of Switzerland when I see the tortured neutrality many in our society try to adopt when faced with most controversial issues. Many opinion makers, and thus many Americans, lack the moral courage to take sides on the most crucial issues of the day. The problem is that none of us are ultimately neutral about those issues that impact our lives each day.

The delusion that we can avoid the battle seems to grow out of three common tendencies of our cultural character.

Moral Equivalence—While not a new preference, our culture’s desire to gloss over differences between one thing and another has become a phenomenon. I do remember college professors during the Viet Nam War that spoke of the roles played by the United States and the Soviet Union in the world as a morally similar duality. If someone mentioned the millions of Soviet citizens killed and jailed by their own regime, our professors would remind us of how our nation once treated American Indians. In this day, the viewpoint we once considered silly and marginal is mainstream among our nation’s opinion makers. The humiliating treatment of Moslem prisoners by American soldiers or accidental burning of a Koran is somehow supposed to explain everything from ramming planes into skyscrapers to the murderous ambush of relief workers.

A biblical worldview is a bit more discerning, judgmental if you prefer. Some things are called bad and some things are called good by the God who gets to say what’s bad or good. He’s the God who orders things, distinguishes one sort of thing from another. Our tendency to avoid sounding harsh by softening evil and slandering the innocent is not a godly one.

Moral Disinterest—Our society is interested in the moral significance of some things, dog fighting and executive bonuses, to name a couple. But we trend toward impartial about some things that should matter to us very much.

All of us have a vested interest in the success of marriage as an institution, for one example. Yet, legally we pretend that divorce is very often preferable. Our nation is committed to no-fault divorce as a nearly national policy. In effect, we believe divorce is a palliative for any discomfort from boredom to disappointment. In doing so, we unconsciously endorse increased poverty, a larger prison population, and less effective public education. We prefer these things to choosing marriage over divorce.

Our communities also suffer negative effects from the rising rate of unwed mothers. Yet we speak without disapproval, even happily, of unmarried celebrities who bear children. In some places, pregnant high school students who follow the example of American royalty are given baby showers and receive other kinds of affirmation of their condition and the behavior behind it. We are a society committing suicide when we will no longer stigmatize behavior that harms both actor and audience.

Moral Blindness—When we will not call one thing more right or wrong than another; when we will not discourage destructive behavior, we must craft a moral code that makes our confusion sound reasonable. We encourage evil and call it good. The U.S. Senate recently upheld a rule that will require institutions like Southwestern Seminary to provide abortion-causing medicines to their employees. The 51 senators who voted for this did so partly in the name of compassion for women. Other examples include state endorsement of same-sex marriage and our culture’s growing antipathy toward the biblical practice of Christianity.

If Switzerland’s political neutrality is difficult to maintain when the battle begins, moral neutrality is nearly impossible to maintain. Take for example a decision last fall by U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz. Gen. Schwartz was concerned that some supervisors (that can be anybody above airman first class) were not maintaining “government neutrality regarding religion.” His answer was a memo that forbade the “actual or apparent use of their positions to promote their personal religious beliefs.” He further noted that while commanders are responsible for chaplaincy programs and that such programs are “vital to commanders’ support of individual Airmen’s needs,” commanders must “refrain from appearing to officially endorse religion generally or any particular religion.” Do you see the dilemma? This vital program cannot be endorsed by commanders because it appears to support religion generally. The memo pretty well says that by advising commanders to not even notify airmen of the programs offered by the chaplain corps.

This not neutrality; it is hostility, perhaps, unintended, toward the everyday holding and practice of personal faith. If the freedom of Air Force personnel to practice their own faith is important to morale, then that practice must be overtly approved by officers in addition to chaplains. Can a Christian supervisor keep a Bible on his desk or bookshelf? Can he attend services without it being an “apparent” endorsement of religion? Whatever reasonable answer the general might give to such questions will be different from the answers offered by various freedom from religion groups.   

So neutrality is a bigger can of worms than many think. We might mean “undecided” or “nice” or even “ignorant” when we say that we don’t take sides, but I maintain that a brief examination will show that we do take sides. Our undecided stance may simply be a conviction to let someone else blow while we bend his way. A neutral person will not likely vote based on pro-life or pro-family convictions. Neither is he likely to disapprove of immoral behavior, or even categorize much behavior as immoral. He’s taken sides without any doubt but his set of convictions was decided at a meeting he chose not to attend.  

And Switzerland? The Swiss did not want Hitler to rule all of Europe because that would include their own country. The very fact that the Swiss did not want to be part of a German empire, however they may have felt about the fate of other nations, means they were not morally neutral during the war. The Swiss also accepted tens of thousands of Jewish refugees during the war—not a morally neutral act.

They had a stake in the way things would turn out and surely by the last couple of years saw an Allied victory as preferable. It’s hard to imagine even Swiss political neutrality long surviving a final German victory.  

So pick a side during this election year. Drop this “undecided” or “not taking sides” or “it doesn’t matter” nonsense. All candidates for offices ranging from sheriff to president are not the same. They don’t believe the same things and they won’t do the same things. You do have a series of choices to make, choices that reflect what you’re willing to call good or bad. Those choices get clearer as you learn more about the people and issues. Do a little homework. Sort through the noise of advocates and advertisements and listen to what these people have said and done. You have values even if you’re hesitant for others to know what they are. Vote based on what you believe because you surely do have a dog in this fight.

Passivity is not an option for Christians. Passivity turns into approval and approval fertilizes active evil. Romans 1:32 is a startling and compelling verse that comes after an escalating series of condemnations beginning with those who “merely” suppress the truth, growing into idolatry and blooming into all kinds of debasement. But the final condemnation of this fall is reserved for those who “not only do [such things as hate, slander, and ruthlessness] but give approval to those who practice them.” All kinds of harmful things can fairly be called the status quo in our culture. To sit out the battle is rightly interpreted as giving approval to however things turn out.

En nuestras iglesias locales tenemos que reconocer que existen dos realidades que siempre están presentes. La primera es, que la iglesia tiene una misión clara para estar aquí en este mundo; pero a la vez reconocemos que hay una lucha que siempre está por delante.

Esta misión está basada en Mateo 28:18-20 y todos la conocemos como la Gran Comisión.

“Y Jesús se acercó y les habló diciendo: Toda potestad me es dada en el cielo y en la tierra. Por tanto, id, y haced discípulos a todas las naciones, bautizándoles en el nombre del Padre, y del Hijo, y del Espíritu Santo; enseñándoles que guarden todas las cosas que os he mandado; y he aquí yo estoy con vosotros todos los días, hasta el fin del mundo. Amén.”

La misión es clara y la Gran Comisión nos da las pautas para poder existir aquí en este mundo.

La otra cara de la moneda es que tenemos que reconocer que al vivir en este mundo se nos presenta una lucha tremenda que siempre está por delante. Efesios 6:12 nos habla de esta lucha:

“Porque no tenemos lucha contra carne y sangre, sino contra principados, contra potestades, contra los gobernadores de la tinieblas de este siglo, contra huestes espirituales de maldad en las regiones celestiales.”

Esas son las dos realidades que están presentes en cada una de nuestras iglesias. Sabemos que debemos poner en práctica la Gran Comisión, pero a veces la iglesia local pone en práctica la
Gran Omisión. Sabemos que el Señor nos ha llamado a evangelizar a los perdidos y discipular a cada nuevo creyente para que vivan una vida abundante en Cristo y que sean maduros para trabajar eficazmente en la iglesia. Pero a la vez, reconocemos que tenemos una lucha continua con Satanás. El diablo siempre quiere desviar, molestar, dividir y estorbar la vida de una iglesia local. 1ra de Tesalonicenses 2:8 nos dice:

“por lo cual quisimos ir a vosotros, y yo Pablo ciertamente una y otra vez; pero Satanás nos estorbó.”

Cada cuerpo de Cristo tiene metas y propósitos en cuanto a su comunidad, pero mientras esté obedeciendo la Palabra de su Creador, se encontrará con muchos ataques del enemigo. Se puede decir que realmente hay dos tipos de planes en este mundo: El Plan Satánico y el Plan de Dios. Creedme que el diablo tiene un plan para la iglesia local en este mundo. Veamos algunas tácticas que el diablo usa para estorbar a nuestras congregaciones:

• Satanás van cegando los ojos de los incrédulos. (2 Corintios 4:3,4)
• Satanás va robando la Palabra de Dios cuando llega al corazón a las personas no salvas. (Mateo 13:19)
• Y Satanás usa la falsedad para asolar a la iglesia local continuamente. (Mateo 13:37-40)

Pero ahora vemos el Plan Divino que es nuestra misión: de ser la sal de la tierra y la luz del mundo. Mateo 5:16 nos dice:

“Así alumbre vuestra luz delante de los hombres, para que vean vuestras buenas obras, y glorifiquen a vuestro Padre que está en los cielos.”

El Plan Divino que es nuestra misión tiene que ver con la victoria. Romanos 8:37 nos dice:

“Antes, todas estas cosas somos más que vencedores por medio de aquel que nos amó.”

La iglesia de hoy tiene que tener su mirada siempre en Cristo. Cuando estamos en Cristo vamos a vencer y siempre vamos a ganar la batalla. Recordad que para Dios no hay nada imposible. Ya es tiempo que nuestras iglesias locales sean fuertes, crecientes y victoriosas. Esa es nuestra misión aquí en este mundo.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—In a new video posted to Pray4SBC.com, Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright explains his perspective on the Great Commission Baptists name option to be presented at the SBC annual meeting in New Orleans.

“I hope this video today will be just another way of helping you have a greater understanding of how God led in this process,” Wright said in the video recorded at the SBC Building in Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 21, the day after the task force he appointed to study a name change delivered its report to the Executive Committee.

Wright said the task force had seen God move in a unifying way in their midst as well as when they reported to the Executive Committee.

“All along it has been our hope that God would guide us in coming to a decision that would give a greater ability and opportunity for Southern Baptist Christians to reach that community where God has planted them,” Wright said.

“And if that regional name has been a hindrance, we were just studying how could that barrier be removed so that more people could come into the kingdom of Christ, come to faith in Christ by a ministry that really focuses on the Great Commission,” he said.

Wright said he could think of no greater descriptor than Great Commission Baptists to tell who the convention is and what their mission is while maintaining the legal name of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The task force started out exploring a legal name change, he said, but they began to have a “great unity” that altering the legal name was not the best approach.

“Think about a couple of scenarios. First of all, our founding in 1845 was actually approved and the charter was given by the state legislature of the state of Georgia,” Wright said. “Because of that, we have been grandfathered in when it comes to nonprofit regulations and what is asked for in nonprofit entities or organizations.”

All sorts of legal challenges could stem from a legal name change, he said. Also, what has joined Southern Baptists together has been voluntary cooperation through the years.

“Say the Southern Baptist Convention in June in New Orleans and then a second year—as it would be required to change the legal name, a second year—say it was overwhelmingly approved by the Southern Baptist Convention,” Wright said in the 12-minute video.

“Because of the autonomy of our entities, of our state conventions, of our local churches, you could have 10 states that decide to adopt that new legal name of the Southern Baptist Convention, whatever it may be. You could have 20-something states that decide they’re going to stay Southern Baptist,” he said.

“The potential for division, the potential for legal issues, the potential for problems with wills and gifts that have been designated to the Southern Baptist Convention, it just goes on and on and on. We just felt like that would not be healthy for the convention, nor would it be wise.”

A motion to change the name of the convention has come up 13 times since 1903, Wright said, and the task force hopes that by studying the issue and communicating the findings to Southern Baptists the idea will be settled in a lot of people’s minds for years to come.

At the same time, the Great Commission Baptists descriptor could give freedom to church plants and entities to describe who they are at any rate of speed they choose. It may be a 10- to 20-year process of incorporating a new name by which Southern Baptists are known, he said.

“When you think about the legal name change of GuideStone from the old Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the legal name change of LifeWay from the old Sunday School Board, it’s been a 10- to 20-year process for those of us who grew up understanding the old names to begin to adopt and adapt in our everyday conversation the new names,” Wright said in the video.

“So I really believe that with God’s Spirit leading, as more and more feel that this is an opportunity to describe who we are, it can become second nature in thinking of Southern Baptists.”

No one would be forced to use the new descriptor, Wright said. It would simply be an option for voluntary cooperation as the Holy Spirit guides, he said.

“Wouldn’t it be an exciting day within our convention if what people think of most of all is that those folks in their mission, in their actions, in what they are focused on, are all about being Great Commission Baptists?”

Wright encouraged Southern Baptists to become more acquainted with the conclusions reached by the task force by reading coverage in Baptist Press and their state convention newspapers before gathering to vote on the issue at the SBC annual meeting in June. Task force members paid their own way to meetings, with no Cooperative Program funds for the process.

To watch Bryant Wright’s video on the name option, visit pray4sbc.com.