Gratitude is the catalyst for other noble virtues.  A grateful heart seems inordinately inclined to experience a myriad of positive emotions—from love, to joy, to empathy, to optimism, and on and on. This hypothesis is proved in both the positive (grateful people usually experience all of these) and the negative (stingy/selfish people experience few of them).

The great thing about gratitude is that it's self-generative. You may not feel particularly grateful, but if you start counting your blessings, you'll soon fill up with thankfulness.

Don't believe me? Try it. This Thanksgiving weekend, spend 10 minutes (OK, even five minutes should do) thanking God for your blessings. Don't ask for anything. Don't confess anything. Don't even praise God. Simply thank God.Then describe the change this small practice makes in your life.

This year, among a zillion other blessings, I'm thankful for:

My wife, Joanna, who happens to be my soulmate, best friend, encourager, comedian, and the love of my life.

Our daughters, Lindsay and Molly, and their husbands, Aaron and David, who have grown into delightful adult companions.

Potential, particularly the prospect of new life: Lindsay and Aaron's first child—and our first grandbaby—Ezra, whose anticipated arrival is early next year.

Extended family who are friends and longtime friends who are like family.

More than a dozen congregations that, from birth until now, have represented the tangible presence of Christ to my family and me.

My colleagues on the board and staff of the Baptist Standard, who daily express their fidelty to God's calling by faithfully serving God's people consistently and creatively.

Modern-day healers—doctors, nurses, medical technicians—who are fighting to save the lives of people I love.

Strong knees and healthy lungs, which allow me to keep running and allow me to kid myself into believing I'm much younger than 54.

The people who figured out all the details that enable me to record podcasts and play them in my car. (What's a radio?)

Enchiladas, iced tea, chips and salsa.

Chocolate cake, chocolate pie, chocolate-chip cookies, chocolate chunks in raspberry ice cream.

Music.

Books. Even digital books.

Fresh-green spring grass and golden autumn leaves.

The 2010 Major League Baseball season, even including four wish-we-could-take-back games in the World Series.

Boots that feel like a second skin.

Our back patio/porch.

Jo's chicken-noodle soup, with Ro-tell tomatoes and totellini.

Caps and sunscreen.

The beach. Any beach.

Well, I'm happy and all grateful now.  I'll be taking up my own challenge to spend time every morning expressing my thanks to God. I hope you'll join me. And if you discover any insights, comment on this blog and tell us about it.

In fact, a reader recently sent me a letter talking about the "liberal" Baptist Standard. I thought you might appreciate reading what he had to say and my reply. So, here you go. …

First, the letter

I read your editorial about the declining conditions in our convention, and this regret is shared by me. I wanted to kindly express some thoughts that might be helpful. I have wanted to commiserate with someone, close to my age, who went through the bitter split in the SBC that left many of us out in the cold. I am not a fundamentalist, but I am a conservative-moderate, whatever that means. I really do not know if the Baptist Standard mirrors the thinking of the BGCT?

My concern is that the Baptist Standard seems to have adopted the liberal view by featuring only articles written by liberals, or those with no political leanings. The only thing with conservative views is in the comments section. I have loved and enjoyed the Baptist Standard for 50 years, but I enjoy less with each issue. The recent elections showed that the majority of voting Americans are rejecting liberal policies. With this trend, the Standard, like the liberal media could find themselves irrelevant and become extinct.

I came from a family who voted Democrat, and I voted that way in two presidential elections. Here is where my former party has gone wrong, and changed from what my family supported.

Liberals in Christianity are usually liberal politically. The main area where they cause harm stems from their misunderstanding of the amendment regarding relations between the federal government and the public. They have inferred that it requires total separation between church and state in all situations, although the Constitution does not use the word “separation.” In addition, the Constitution does not pertain to what the individual states might do.

Supporting these distorted views places the Standard in the company of the ACLU and other socialist groups whose goals are weakening our nation and erasing God from the public sphere.

Liberals have many diverse ideas arising from the question, “What would Jesus do?“ They may say that any good-sounding thing is automatically what a Christian should do. Liberals think that conservatives are too hard-hearted, and conservatives think liberal ideas are squishy (and) sometimes conflict with common sense and Baptist practices. The word “liberal” sounds good on the surface, but their practices have been proven to keep people in poverty for generations, instead of teaching them how to rise above it.

The recent election shows that the majority voted against liberal principles and to return to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Republicans have had their problems, as when they also became big-spenders. They also must be held to higher standards. Liberals have painted themselves as more caring, but in reality, liberals have shown themselves less-generous in their personal giving than conservatives. They were happy to trade taxpayers’ money for votes from those who could not or would not provide for themselves.

It has been proven from history that true democracy cannot endure indefinitely. The cost of out-promising others to buy votes will eventually break the nation. Liberals voted for Barack Obama and influenced young and inexperienced people to elect the first black president, as if this would assuage any guilt about being racists. This mistake of the electorate has caused deep and irrecoverable damage to our nation.

If you think these thoughts have any validity, you might convey them to decision- makers, for the long-term interests of the Baptist Standard and Baptists in general. We should all be “Fair and Balanced,” as Fox News is. People detest the fact we have a state-controlled media instead of a free-press as America has always desired.

Next, my reply

Thanks for your letter. I’m grateful for your desire to communicate with me, even though it is apparent we don’t agree on all things, or at least you don’t agree with the diversity you see reflected in the Standard.

I wish to be neither defensive nor argumentative, so forgive me if either of those traits surface in my reply. Your letter raises accusations that call for a response, and I can’t respond without seeking to explain why the Standard is as it is and why I do what I do.

First, I’m a bit confused by your charges of “liberalism” with regard to the Standard. “Liberal,” “conservative” and other terms flew about during the “Baptist Battles” that divided the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970 and ’80s and early ’90s and split the Baptist General Convention of Texas a dozen years ago. Those issues are past, and we have moved on. If you were to quantify the content of the Standard, you would see that the vast, vast majority of it focuses on the work and ministry of the churches, as well as the missions and ministry efforts of the BGCT and its agencies and institutions. We just don’t think about “liberal,” “conservative” and divisive politics when we edit the Standard.

You said we feature “only articles written by liberals, or those with no political leaning. The only thing with conservative views is in the comments section.” For our news, we either write the news ourselves (and neither Ken Camp, George Henson nor I are liberal) or utilize Religion News Service and Associated Baptist Press, both respected news organizations that seek to interview sources that represent the spectrum of opinion on the subject or development being covered. I edit the comments pages, and you noted conservative material appears there. I don’t evaluate the comments according to their place on a political spectrum, but rather whether they have something interesting to say that will make our readers think about the issues, whether or not they agree with the writer.

You implied that, somehow, the recent vote of the American people should dictate the Standard’s coverage or tone. If your logic were consistent, then two years ago, the Standard’s coverage should have tilted the opposite way you advocate. And you can be certain the leanings of the American voters two years from now will have much more to do with the state of the economy than with moral convictions about right and wrong or political philosophies about more or less government. So, your line of reasoning would set us up for inconsistent moral relativism that is unconscionable in a religion newspaper like ours.

In the most recent election, I voted for both Republicans and Democrats. I’m not partisan, and I vote for the candidate whom I perceive to have the strongest, most consistent character. I’d much prefer a mix of government leaders who are principled rather than partisan and who will be morally and intellectually consistent. Unfortunately, those people are in short supply today, particularly because the pull of both parties steers them toward short-term goals, such as re-election, rather than long-term goals, such as the good of the city, state or nation.

You stated you feel I am a “liberal” because of my views on the relationship between church and state. Actually, my views closely reflect several of my historic Baptist heroes:

·      Thomas Helwys, one of the first two Baptists, who died in London’s Newgate Prison because he dared to tell King James I that God, and not a monarch, is Lord of the conscience.

·      Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in America, who also founded Rhode Island Colony as a sanctuary for people of all faiths (he pointedly included “Turks,” the term then used for Muslims) and even people of no faith. He consistently preached that, to be authentic, faith must be free and uncoerced.

·      Obadiah Holmes, a colonial pastor who was imprisoned and beaten by the authorities in Massachusetts Bay Colony for refusing to register as a pastor and for ministering as a Baptist and not a Congregationalist.

·      John Leland, a Virginia pastor who convinced James Madison to include the religion clause—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”—in the First Amendment.

·      George W. Truett, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas for 47 years, who, in 1920, delivered from the steps of the U.S. Capitol the greatest speech on religious liberty ever uttered from human lips.

·      James Dunn, executive director emeritus of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, who has dedicated his life to protecting religious liberty for all people and, as a corollary to that, preventing the unhealthy and corrupting intermingling of church and state.

I stand with these champions of religious liberty, and I am unmoved by claims of currently popular historical revisionists who seek to reinterpret our nation’s past to give Christianity hegemony over the consciences of all Americans. Do I wish every person were a Christian? Absolutely. Do I think Christianity should have special status in our nation? Absolutely not. In principle, this would violate the conscience of millions of people, which inherently is wrong. In practice, it would lead to the kinds of religious strife, and potentially even civil war, that has ripped apart other societies the world over. 

One of the grave problems in America today is that partisan networks, such as Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, and their radio counterparts have set the tone for public, much less political, discourse. Their adherents have come to think the only way to be “correct” is to be as partisan as they. So, someone who likes Fox thinks the Standard is too liberal, while someone who likes MSNBC thinks it is too conservative. Actually, we stand in line with historic, non-partisan free presses and the Baptist principle of honoring soul competency and the priesthood of all believers. Maybe this doesn’t fit the spirit of the times, and perhaps it has contributed to our circulation decline. However, my calling is to be true to my prayerful, Scripture-based assessment of God’s leadership and the historic Baptist distinctives I uphold. I much prefer that route than to seek approval of a fickle populace, which votes one way and, two years later, another, based primarily on that in which they place their trust—their economic well-being.

Well, this letter has gone much longer than I intended. But I wanted to respond carefully and faithfully to your concerns. I doubt I have changed your mind, but I hope I have given you a clear view into mine.

Conversations with scores, probably hundreds, of Texas Baptists—from all over the state and all kinds of churches—point to several root causes of the apathy that has weakened the Baptist General Convention of Texas. They include:

Culture

We live in a post-brand age. People aren't brand-loyal anymore, whether it's Chevrolet, Wheaties or Sears. Like so many other trends, this cultural transition has crept into the church. The result has impacted denominations across the Christian spectrum, and Baptists are not immune. We live in a post-denominational society. This trend started with young people, but their elders seem to be flowing with it, too. So, even people who formerly ate and breathed Baptistness aren't so sure anymore.

Options

This probably is a corollary to the culture/post-denominational trend. Now, both individuals and congregations can choose from myriad options for their engagement, support, collaboration and, yes, loyalty. If you're of a certain age, you remember when almost all Baptists spouted "parachurch" as an epithet. We understood why individuals might join churches of another denomination, but parachurch organizations were considered pariahs. They were the almost-evil questionably cultish groups that siphoned away unsuspecting Baptists. Now, they're the clear-eyed, cutting-edge, energetic-and-creative stars of evangelical Christianity. Even churches of pure Baptist pedigree are working with nondenominational ministries (we don't say "parachurch" anymore) to carry out wonderful works of missions, to collaborate in evangelism, to care for the poor—you name it. 

Competition

Some of the best-run, most creative businesses in America are publishers, music producers and other organizations that produce ministry and training resources for individual Christians and congregations. Once upon a time, Texas Baptist congregations only bought and/or ordered their Bible study, training and missions resources from national and state Baptist conventions. Now, it's an incredibly competitive field. Without the constraints of anti-parachurch sentiment and the baggage of bureaucracy, the products offered by many of these resource sources are perceived as  superior to denominational options.

Quality

This perception may not be fair, particularly to individuals involved, but a perception persists that the Baptist brand is lower-quality than many other options, in terms of both products and services. To a significant degree, this gets back to the old adage: "You get what you pay for." As the Cooperative Program has declined, the BGCT Executive Board has trimmed its budget time and again. The practical result at the program and product level is that Executive Board staffers have been forced to continue ministries with severely limited resources—fewer ministry-level staff, fewer assistants, less money in program budgets, less money for events, less money for marketing and promotion. Despite what some may think, the convention cannot maintain quality across the broad spectrum of programs with fewer resources.

Conflict

Even though the "Baptist battles" ended at the national level two decades ago and a competing convention split from the BGCT a dozen years ago, the detritus of conflict remains. For the most part, churches decided which "side" they were on by about 2001 or 2002. But the fatigue of the conflict—as well as the perception that it continues—has worn on Baptists' nerves. Those who feel strong sympathy for the Southern Baptist Convention but remained affiliated with the BGCT have grown weary of the state convention's disaffection with the national group. And those who are estranged from the SBC often feel our state convention hasn't distanced itself enough. So, the BGCT is "too liberal" for some and "too conservative" for others. Obviously, both tensions cannot be resolved simultaneously. And the result of ongoing tension is, you guessed it, apathy.

Customization

A parallel issue with conflict is  customization. Society has become uber-selective. We're accustomed to customization of just about everything—a computer, a church service, a convention. You can custom-design your sneakers online and order custom-fit name-brand jeans. But conventions take place in collaboration, and they run counter to the customization people expect in our consumer-driven culture.

Identity

This is our own fault. Years ago, we started calling everything the BGCT's Executive Board does and all its staff and programs "the BGCT." Several reasons contributed to this practice: First, it's easier to say "the BGCT" than "the BGCT Executive Board." Second, the Executive Board provides much of the governance function for the convention as a whole and its staff puts on the convention's annual meeting, so the two seemed almost interchangeable. And third, the Executive Board promotes and manages the convention's unified budget, the Cooperative Program, so giving the Executive Board the identity for the convention as a whole was effective marketing. 

Problem is, the BGCT Executive Board has had its share of problems, from a questionable church-starting program, to personality clashes, to continual cutbacks. And during the years of political conflict, the identification of the annual meeting and the Executive Board that put it on as "the BGCT" turned many people and churches off. But the BGCT is so much more: About 5,700 congregations, scores of associations, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 institutions—universities and seminaries, child-care agencies, hospitals, senior-care organizations, financial agencies. All these are "the BGCT" as much the Executive Board. But too many Texas Baptists don't see that, and they equate one organization that has faced recognizable challenges with the whole.

Otherness

Because of the Texas Baptist convention's size, the diversity of our population, the vast geography of  our state and decades of political activity, increasing numbers of Texas Baptists feel what happens at the convention level has little to no impact on their churches and communities. They feel they can do and/or acquire just about everything "the BGCT" offers anyway. So, they don't need "the BGCT." For many reasons, they feel apart from the convention.

All these reasons for and causes of apathy illustrate why the Baptist General Convention of Texas—all of us—must focus on the greatest needs of or state: New churches to reach our rapidly escalating unchurched population, education to train pastors and church staff as well as vitally informed lay leaders, and benevolence to serve the millions of hurting, hungry and hopeless people our society is leaving behind. If we will focus on ministry that meets the greatest needs and conduct it with excellence, we will have a chance to re-inspire Texas Baptists and re-involve them in the work of our convention.

@font-face { font-family: "Calibri"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }@font-face { font-family: "Lucida Grande"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

On the up side, the Texas Rangers appeared in their first-ever World Series after 39 seasons of futility. As the Dallas Morning News reported the other day, prior to this year, the Rangers' most memorable moments were pitching ace (and current Rangers president) Nolan Ryan feeding batter Robin Ventura a knuckle sandwich on the top of the head and outfielder Jose Canseco bouncing a ball off his head into homerun territory.

But this year, the Rangers did what nobody dreamed possible. They won the American League West, walloped the Tampa Bay Rays and the hated New York Yankees in the playoffs, and then took on the San Francisco Giants in the World Series.

Pitching rules, time heals

Unfortunately, great pitching trumps excellent offense. In four out of five games, the Giants got the better of the pitching duels. In this season, Tim Lincecum, Madison Bumgarner and Matt Cain silenced the Rangers' mighty bats. Our team lost. 

Time heals old baseball wounds. So, eventually our memories will hone in on the bright spots of the Rangers 2010 season. We'll remember Josh Hamilton's splendid season at the plate and in the field. We'll recall how pitcher Cliff Lee lived up to all expectations in the decisive series with the Rays and Yankees. We'll revel in the memory of excellent starts by C.J. Wilson and Colby Lewis and fantastic closes by Neftali Feliz. We'll smile at the pleasant surprise of first baseman Mitch Moreland's play. And I'll savor the recollectyion of excellent play by outfielder David Murphy, who's an even greater guy off the field.

 Dallas who?

But, of course, if time erases bad memories, we won't recall this year's Dallas Cowboys. At all.

Maybe everyone was crazy from the heat, but back in the preseason, almost everyone picked the Cowboys to contend for the Super Bowl. The thought of the ’Boys becoming the first team to both host and play in a Super Bowl seemed both fantastic and entirely reasonable. 

But then they had to actually go out on the field and play the game. What a horrible mess. They're 1-6, and I saw fans sitting in Cowboys Stadium with bags over their heads. 

God & games

 A friend from out state sees theological implications in our autumn of defeat. Moments after the Rangers lost the Series, he sent me an email.

He wrote: "How could God allow the Left Coast liberal, gay-lovin', wine-sippin', kooks of San Francisco to wallop the God-fearin', flag-wavin', boot-stompin' Texans? And with a Bush looking on?
 
"Does this mean that God lives in San Francisco, wears a beret, and is more mellow than we thought? Is he sending a pointed message to conservative Texas?
 
"With the Cowboys in self-destruction, this must mean the almost-end of the Texas world. Only Baylor's football success can save the state now."

Fortunately for my spiritual sanity, I don't believe God cares who wins in sports. And if God did care, then (a) Baylor and Notre Dame would take turns winning the national championship, and (b) soccer would be God's game. Think about the demographics: Jesus taught that God cares most for "the least of these" in the world. Soccer is far and away the most popular game among the world's poorest people. 

All of this is speculation, of course. Like wondering how many angels can play rugby on the head of a pin. 

But when spring training starts next February, you can bet plenty of Rangers fans will be praying for another trip to the World Series.

Start by getting over the irony: Starbucks is telling its baristas to slow down. The folks whose coffee amps up the world every morning (and much of the rest of the day, for that matter) is telling its employees to put on the brakes.

A recent Wall Street Journal article says  the Seattle-based coffee seller has told its ever-friendly baristas to quit pouring up multiple cups and focus on brewing no more than two drinks at a time.

Employees  reportedly are stressing out over the go-slower order. They're worried longer lines will frustrate customers. And since they're on the front line of consumer coffee sales, they'll get an earful while they pour a cupful. 

But the Starbucks brass are concerned about quality control. They hear the gripes when orders aren't filled properly or when tepid lattes underwhelm. So, they're operating on the theory that overall satisfaction will improve when the baristas have time to pay attention to each customer. 

Nope to multitasking

I don't know if Starbucs consulted Douglas Merrill, but he surely would back the bosses. Merrill is the former chief information officer at Google, and he earned a doctorate in psychology and cognitive sciences. He's a brain expert.

Merrill told the Los Angeles Times multitasking doesn't work. "Multitasking usually makes you less efficient," he said. "The brain is especially inept at memorizing bits of information."

This is disappointing news. But it's not exactly surprising. I like to think I can multitask, and so I often work on email while I'm on conference calls. And I can't tell you how many times I realize I've zoned out on the calls, especially when a crucial email crops up. 

This also is why my wife, Joanna, has been on me about talking on the phone while driving. I usually try to reserve bi-tasking when I'm on not-too-busy country highways with a list of calls to make. But I probably should cut it out altogether.

Slow is better

Starbucks started out encouraging baristas to fix as many drinks as they could (not literally) juggle. And it turns out that wasn't such a good idea. Go slow is better.

And that's probably a pretty good life lesson. How often do folks mess up parenting, marriage or friendships because we try to focus on too many things at one time. It's bad enough when you forget where you were reading in an email because you were listening to a client on the phone. But the damage can be much longer-lasting when you get in the "Uh-huh" mode and zone out on your child or your spouse. For one example. You can think of others.

We also do this with God, of course. How often are your prayers interrupted because you're thinking about work? OK, maybe that's just me, but I doubt I'm alone.

Life is fast. But maybe we'd be better at it if we figured out how to slow down and focus on one thing at a time.

When you return to your alma mater for homecoming, you desperately want your school to win. But you know you can't pray for that. At least not out loud. Over a public-address system. With fans from the opposing school in the stands.

Even when a nice Baptist school like Hardin-Simmons is playing a public school like Sul Ross State University, you know invoking divine partisanship is just not right. The 27th verse of the third chapter of little-known epistle, III Rockne, states: "God is no respecter of teams. In Christ, there is neither Fighting Irish nor Buckeye, neither Longhorn nor Sooner, neither Crimson Tide nor Bayou Bengal. All are one."

So, whether I want to or not, I can't pray for the HSU Cowboys to prevail over the SRSU Lobos. (And if I did decide to pray for a football game, I'd save my prayers to ask God to help HSU defeat its nemesis, the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Cru.)

In a fit of theological irony, I've been praying about what to pray when the announcer shoves a mic in my face. Here goes …

Almighty God, Maker of Heaven and Earth,

Thank you for creating autumn and its golden afternoons—radiant respite between blazing summer and howling winter.

This October Saturday, we thank you for Hardin-Simmons University and for Sul Ross State University, schools that brought us together. Thank you for James B. Simmons, whose philanthropy helped launch HSU, for John and Mary Hardin, whose generosity enabled it to survive the Great Depression, and for Gov. Sul Ross, whose leadership impacted our state. Thank you for the faculty, staff, trustees, students and donors who have shaped these fine schools. And thank you for the stewardship of these universities—influence that spans generations and geography.

This afternoon, God, thank you for football. It’s why we’re here. We revel in the glory of the game, and we’re inspired by school spirit. We’re here to cheer our teams, and we pray you’ll help us cheer vigorously and with gusto. But help us remember it is a game, and Lobos and Cowboys are not enemies. Give us grace to treat each other well. Whether or not the calls go our way. No matter who wins or loses.

Lord, we know football is ferocious. These young men have assembled to knock the living daylights out of each other. May their hits all be clean, and may the strength and the suppleness of their young bodies suffice to endure the blows. Please don’t let them get hurt.

Meanwhile, Lord, may they gain many yards, score many points and give us myriad opportunities to cheer.

Guide the officials, God. Help them see clearly, for where there is no vision, fair play perishes.

Also, Lord, bless the World Famous Cowboy Band, cheerleaders, dance squads and students. This contest wouldn’t be the same without their enthusiasm and noise.

When we leave, God, grant us safe travels to our homes. And when this game is but a memory, help us to see we live in a world much more violent than football, infinitely more desperate than fourth-and-one, and tragically more tenuous than a goal-line stand. So, lead us to conduct our lives with even more passion than we bring to this game. And may that passion focus on serving others in your name, in which we pray.

Amen.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently published results of its U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey.  On average, Americans correctly answered half of the questions about basic religious knowledge.

Think you can do better? Take a short version of the quiz here.

Misleading headlines

The quiz made headlines because atheists/agnostics scored highest and Jews and Mormons also scored higher than Protestants of all varieties and Catholics.  Results like that are a headline-writer's dream.

But, as Jim Denison, president of the Center for Informed Faith and theologian-in-residence for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, correctly notes, the broad results are misleading.

For example, white evangelical Christians scored  higher on questions about the Bible and Christianity (an average of 7.3 correct answers out of 12 questions) than did atheists and agnostics (6.7 correct answers). However, Mormons—whom most evangelicals don't consider Christians—scored the highest in this category, with an average of 7.9 correct answers.

Atheists and agnostics made up for lost ground in the other categories. They earned the top scores on questions about world religions and religion in public life. They significantly out-paced both Protestants and Catholics.

Excuse; no reason

As Denison accurately reports, the vast majority of people actively affiliated with a faith rarely, if ever, read about other faiths. That's a valid reason for Christians' poor overall score, but it's hardly an excuse. And Denison would agree.

The Pew survey illustrates the fact churches need to do a much better job educating Christians—not only about the Bible and tenets of our faith, but also about the beliefs of others. If we want to be effective at reaching others with the gospel, we must know and understand them. We can't expect to convince Muslims, atheists or agnostics about the truth of our faith if we're ignorant of theirs.

So, take the test and see if you need to brush up on your knowledge of religion.

Hawking is a British scientist, widely considered to be one of the most intelligent people alive today. He achieved worldwide fame in 1988 with the publication of A Brief History of Time. Now he has written The Grand Design: The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. It will be released in the United Kingdom and the United States in the next few days.

 According to news reports about Hawking's new book, the theoretical physicist argues God is not necessary for the universe—even for intelligent life on a very hospitable planet.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in an excerpt published by The Times of London. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going."

Hawking follows the logic of probability: Given the presence of billions of solar systems, each with billions of stars, it's only logical that at least one planet revolving around one star would contain all the necessary ingredients for developing and sustaining life.

Hasn't everyone who gazed at the sky on a clear night wondered if other life exists "out there"? Hasn't everyone who learned something of the vastness of the universe entertained impossible-to-fathom thoughts about infinity, "the beginning," God, humanity and the meaning of creation?

So, hats off to Hawking for wondering those questions from a scientific standpoint. But his arrogance is stunning. 

His logic tells him the infinite opportunities for life revolving somewhere around billions of stars means God is unnecessary. Yet that line of thinking fails to disprove the existence of God, just because Hawking posits life could develop out of infinite numbers of opportunities.

Hawking's arrogance and absolutism are the elements that give science a bad name among many religious people. 

Science does a fascinating job of exploring the "what" of the universe and even a credible job of explaining the "how." But it's lousy at ascertaining the "Who" and the "why."

And that's where faith and revelation come into play. I might read The Grand Design, just as I read A Brief History of Time years ago. In the meantime, however, I'll continue to read the Bible—particularly the first two chapters of Genesis and the first chapter of John—which moves my soul when it explains Who created the heavens and the earth and tells me why.

Comedian/author John Hodgman posed that question in a rerun episode of my favorite program, National Public Radio's This American Life. (OK, enough with the links already, but these will get you going. The main one is "episode," because it takes you to the actual presentation of this question.)

 So, which would you choose? Take a moment to decide. …

If you follow the typical trajectory, Hodgman explains, you come up with an answer very quickly. Then, almost immediately, you start explaining why—either in your head, if you're reading this by yourself, or to others, if you're discussing the question. Next, you very likely will begin thinking of all the reasons you should choose the other superpower. And, ultimately, you very likely will switch.

Hodgman illustrated with a taped man-on-the-street conversation. The guy followed the "typical" scenario to the T. 

How fast? What about your briefcase?

A few caveats or, more precisely, answers to questions Hodgman gets all the time: If you choose to fly, you can travel 1,000 miles per hour, but you can only carry in flight what you can carry now while you walk around. If you choose invisibility, the clothes you are wearing turn invisible, but anything you carry will be visible, and you still make the same sounds you make when you're visible.

Hodgman's piece started out funny. That's because grownups talking about and choosing superpowers is funny.

But as I anticipated—because, I hate to admit it, this wasn't the first time I'd ever thought about the fly-vs.-invisibility conundrum—the conversation turned serious.

More background: According to thousands of informal interviews, the majority of men choose flying, and the majority of women choose invisibility. 

And Hodgman's conclusion, with which I wholeheartedly concur: Choosing invisibility would be the most dangerous. To your soul.

More than idle speculation

Invisibility is inherently tempting. If you could be invisible, you truly could find out what you're like when no one is watching. It's also potentially dispiriting. If you're invisible, you might find out what people say about you when you're not around. 

I tried this question on my wife, Joanna, and our friends Marc and Vicki. Within a couple of minutes and without my prompting, the conversation turned to the dark side of invisibility. The temptation. The potential for harm—to others and to ourselves.

We decided, given the choice, we'd prefer flying. And besides, in Dallas traffic, that certainly has its up sides.

Ask away …

So, go ahead and try this question on your friends or Bible study class. Don't push the conversation. Just see where it leads. And you may discover an opportunity to talk about temptation, human nature, sin and playing it "safe." Like flying 1,000 miles per hour without a helmet.

It also denies a principle Baptists have championed for 400 years.

You know the story: Muslims have applied for permits to build a mosque about two or three blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. New York city authorities have moved ahead with the process. Because of the pain and anguish inflicted by Islamist terrorists who crashed two airplanes into the World Trade Center towers Sept. 11, 2001, many people have opposed a mosque so near ground sanctified by the blood of the crash victims. Now, politicians from all over the country have jumped into the fray.

This is a tender situation. Our wounds have not healed in the nine years since senseless violence turned the world upside down. For many of us, the crashes in New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania turned 9/11/2001  into one of the saddest days of our lives. Even those of us who did not lose someone we knew personally still grieve deeply for the loss of life.

Intense turmoil

The tragedy has been fraught with religious turmoil, too. The terrorists who commandeered those planes slaughtered innocent lives in the name of Allah. In the meantime, others have committed suicide bombings and waged war and instigated other acts of terrorism in the name of Allah. So, many people—including millions of Americans—have assumed Islam is a hateful, terrorist religion. No wonder they feel revulsion at the thought of an Islamic mosque so near a place so sacred.

If you step back from raw emotion, however, you realize judging Islam by terrorists is like judging Christianity by the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations or other racist hate groups. They do not represent your church or mine, or the way we understand how Christians should behave. And the Islamist terrorists do not represent peace-loving Muslims the world over, and particularly here in America, where so many have proven themselves to be loyal and patriotic citizens.

And they are citizens whose constitutional rights are protected as stringently and explicitly as the rights of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics and anyone else.

Religious guarantees

The First Amendment guarantees that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Telling a congregation of Muslims they cannot build a mosque is prohibiting their free exercise of religion—even if the desire to do so is completely understandable.

If Baptists or Catholics were attempting to build a church on that spot, the point would be moot. But because Muslims are asking, then refusal is patently discriminatory.

Baptist role models of liberty

Baptists, of all people, should stand with Muslims in their right to build a mosque. Our early history was written with the blood of martyrs who fought for religious liberty—first for themselves, but for all people.

The founders of the Baptist movement, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, were English Separatists who fled to Amsterdam, Holland, for religious liberty. Through their reading of Scripture, they became what we know as Baptists. When Helwys returned to England, he wrote a tract directed to King James I, declaring the king is not sovereign over individual conscience, and all people should be free to worship God as they see fit. King James (yes, that King James) threw Helwys in Newgate Prison, where he died.

A few decades later, in the New World, the first Baptist in America, Roger Williams, and his family were thrown out of Massachusetts Bay Colony for refusing to allow the Congregational Church to baptize their infant child. They would have died in the dead of winter had not the local Native Americans rescued them. 

Williams went on to found Rhode Island, where he also started the first Baptist church in America, First Baptist of Providence. In the Rhode Island charter, Williams stated his Baptist principles—religious liberty for all people. He guaranteed that Baptists, Quakers, Jews, Catholics, even unbelievers, should be free to worship—or not—as their consciences dictated. And, lest we think he just didn't know about all religions, Williams specifically advocated religious freedom for the people he called "Turks"—Muslims.

Another Baptist minister, John Leland of Virginia, helped convince  James Madison to secure the guarantees for religious liberty in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Live up to legacy

So, Baptists' clear legacy is to stand with all people—even people whose religion mystifies and scares us—to ensure their right to worship when and where they feel they should. 

This is hard, especially in such a tender and sensitive place and time. But the surest test of character happens when the issues are complicated, when the majority doesn't understand, when most is at stake.

A new USDA study estimates a middle-income two-parent American family that had a baby last year will spend $286,050 on the child before its 18th birthday. Add a second child, and that total will reach almost $600,000.

Talk about sticker shock. That doesn't even include the entire last year of high school plus college—arguably the five most expensive years of parenting.

Robert J. Samuelson, a columnist for the Washington Post, reports on "America's Parent Trap."

 "These dry statistics ought to inform the deficit debate, because a (U.S.) budget is not just a catalogue of programs and taxes," Samuelson notes. "It reflects a society's priorities and values. Our society does not—despite rhetoric to the contrary—put much value on raising children. Present budget policies punish parents, who are taxed heavily to support the elderly. Meanwhile, tax breaks for children are modest. If deficit reduction aggravates these biases, more Americans may choose not to have children or to have fewer children. Down that path lies economic decline."

Fertility and economy

Samuelson goes on to analyze the connection between national economies and fertility rates—the average number of children per family. Some of the developed countries with the lowest rates—such as Japan (1.2), Italy (1.3) and Spain (1.3)—are struggling economically.

The U.S. rate is significantly better—2.1, which provides enough children to replace their parents. That rate is propped up by Hispanics (3.0), who compare favorable to whites (1.9), blacks (2.1) and Asian Americans (2.0). Unfortunately, 40 percent of U.S. babies are produced by single mothers, meaning many of them are born into poor homes.

"We need to avoid Western Europe's mix of high taxes, low birth rates and feeble economic growth," Samuelson observes. "Young Americans already face a bleak labor market that cannot instill confidence about having children. Piling on higher taxes won't help." He particularly lambastes portions of the U.S. tax structure that punish families who are raising children in order to favor the elderly.

Samuelson's column is fascinating, and it illuminates several important aspects of the national discussion regarding budget deficits and tax structures. The other end of the child-rearing equation focuses on the economic advantage of children. Sure, they're expensive to raise, but the future of our national economy depends upon them growing into productive adults who contribute to marketplace vitality and the tax base.

Inestimable worth

Still, I couldn't help but also read Samuelson's column and the USDA report  more personally—as a parent and expectant grandparent. And that's where dollars and cents are only part of the equation.

Try to imagine raising children at a rate of $300,000 per child. Then be add—and I'm estimating here—at least another $100,000 to cover the senior year of high school and four years of college.

Daunting isn't it? If parents waited until they could "afford" children, the planet's population would shrink drastically. 

But as a father, I've never felt I could afford not to have children. (Pardon the double negative there.) The quality of Joanna's and my lives has been enriched exponentially by the presence of our daughters. The financial cost of raising them pales in comparison to the bountiful rewards of their love, laughter and vitality. 

 Children are a blessing from God. An expensive blessing, yes. But also a blessing of incalculable worth.

We gathered from all over the globe for the 20^th Baptist World Congress this summer in Honolulu.

We are members of conventions and unions—such as the Baptist General Convention of Texas—affiliated with the Baptist World Alliance. We arrived from scores of nations, speaking a symphony of languages and reflecting a rainbow of skin tones. We assembled in a spirit of Christian love and goodwill. We sang, listened to sermons, prayed, made new friends and talked about many of the most significant spiritual and moral issues affecting our planet today.

Of course, the Hawaiian islands are lovely. Temperatures this time of year vary from lows in the mid-70s to highs in the mid-80s. I know; I know: Texas topped the century mark day after day while we were away. The Hawaiian landscape is lush and green. The people are friendly and gracious.

But the main reason we experienced a bit of heaven was how we felt when we praised God together. For more than 30 years, I’ve earned my keep by using words to convey the world of faith, particularly the Baptist corner of it. So, my inability to tell you how it feels to sing praises with people from so many lands in so many languages frustrates me to no end. But if you had joined me and watched the tears stream down my cheeks, you would have known. Besides, you would have felt it, too.

At the BWA Congress, I understood why so many biblical images of heaven depict singing praises to God. All people were created to praise and glorify God. And when we assemble with sisters and brothers from around the globe and sing, I can imagine the eternal joy we will experience when we all get to heaven.

Likewise, in a more earthly mode, we were up to heavenly good when we planned together how we will spread the gospel and meet deep human need, as well as when we expressed Christian unity in the bonds of love.

As a Baptist from the United States, I particularly enjoyed the BWA meeting because the strife and rancor that has marked our sector of the Baptist world for several decades is both absent and irrelevant. Hallelujah!

Baptist Standard Managing Editor Ken Camp and I attended the Baptist World Congress specifically so we could help tell the BWA story by writing articles on all that transpired in Honolulu. (We offset much of the expense by cashing in accrued air miles to cover some of our flight expenses.) We teamed up with our New Voice Media partners from the Religious Herald in Virginia and Associated Baptist press to provide most of the coverage that came out of the BWA news office.

You can read those articles on this website. Many of them rotate down the center of the homepage. To see all of them, click the “Baptists” link on the right side of the homepage.

Meanwhile, I’m going to take a week of vacation.

Aloha and mahalo!