Thursday
Feb122015

CP commitment should be unwavering

I was blessed to read the article in the Jan. 15 Arkansas Baptist News concerning First Baptist Church, Alymra, and their longtime commitment to give 30 percent of undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program. Their example of sacrificial giving and trust shown to our state convention and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is to be commended. While most churches are not able to give 30 percent, it might surprise some of our readers to know that in the not-too-distant past, the percentage giving by Southern Baptist churches averaged more than 10 percent. Today’s average is around 5 percent. In recent years, the traditional Cooperative Program giving channel through our state conventions has been criticized by many influential leaders in the SBC. Every SBC church benefits directly or indirectly from the ministries of our state convention. Our state conventions and associations contribute more to strengthening our common theological convictions, missions support and education, evangelistic zeal, disaster relief efforts, social ministries and public perception than any other element of SBC life.

When I was serving with the International Mission Board (IMB) of the SBC, we were told that when encouraging churches to support the Lottie Moon (Christmas Offering for International Missions), we should remind them to not take that money from their Cooperative Program giving. Now North American Mission Board and IMB missionaries are being told to go to individuals and churches to solicit funds for their direct support and their budget items outside the money given to the Cooperative Program through the state conventions. Many churches are giving directly to the SBC Executive Committee. I am afraid we are going down a slippery slope to a societal giving approach in the SBC. The Cooperative Program was developed as one of the finest methods of missions support in history. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to make the mistakes of the past.

Ron West
Little Rock

Thursday
Oct162014

A case for the King James Version

I would like to respond to Dr. Gore’s well-written article (“Baptists Ask” column: “Why do some Baptists only use the King James Bible translation,” Page 5) in the Oct. 2 Arkansas Baptist News.

There are some substantial arguments for usage of the King James Bible.

There are philosophical arguments. Would God not protect and superintend the transmission of the original text?

There are logical arguments. Perhaps the reason that some manuscripts or fragments on which modern versions are based are in good shape is that they were used very little. They were used very little because they were deemed inaccurate by early Christians.

There are textual arguments. These relate primarily to the New Testament. The traditional text of the New Testament is represented by the Received Text. It is far more representative of the type of Greek used in New Testament times. For example, Greek in the first century used a moveable “nu” – this is similar to our “n.” It is a spelling variant. Its usage in the Received Text is proportionally similar to that found in New Testament times. While this variation has no effect on meaning, it would seem to indicate the meticulous degree to which the text was very carefully and accurately transmitted.

Bill Chambers
Newport

Thursday
Oct022014

Modesty and church dress

Churches do not preach and teach about modesty today. The dress code of Christian men and women in church is very troubling to me.

It hasn’t been but a few years ago that ladies and girls would never wear clothes to church like they do today. I speak mainly of the skirts and dresses being too short; some even wear short shorts. Any clothes that bring sexual attention to the body should not be worn.

Parents, pastors and teachers need to teach the church what God’s Word instructs us about modesty.

Please read Genesis 2:25 and 3:7, 10; 1 Timothy 2:9-10, and Matthew 5:28.

Raymond Moore
Benton

Wednesday
Jul162014

Ed Stetzer opinion in the ABN

So Ed Stetzer, on the basis of his argument about the Hobby Lobby case, would allow a company owned by Jehovah Witnesses to not insure for blood transfusions for their employees? (Baptist Press link). Would companies owned by Scientologists not have to cover psychiatric services for their employees? Would companies owned by Christian scientists not have to cover medical doctors for their employees, only Christian science practioners? Also, does this company cover ED treatments for men while objecting to reproductive coverage for women? Why cover any sexually related treatments? I think the ACA is right in setting out what fair minimum coverages should be for all employees, period. The female workers in any company in which they work deserve the right to coverage for reproductive medicines and treatments determined by the woman and her physician.  

Ronald Ford
Simpsonville, Ky.

Thursday
Jul102014

Who will pay for this?

Do compassionate Southern Baptists and other evangelicals who favor open borders and amnesty for illegals have no compassion for American citizens who are not working because they cannot compete with illegals who work for far less?

Who will pay for all this? American taxpayers – more and more of whom cannot find jobs? With loans from China? How long before the American dollar is no longer acceptable and our economy collapses under the strain of a debt we cannot pay?

Instead of forcing overburdened American taxpayers to pay for the breaking of our own laws, those who favor such lawlessness should themselves take care of the illegals – just as the Good Shepherd did – who are flooding our borders and will destroy our economy and our country. 

Gwen Carpenter
Magnolia