S.B.C. = Select Beings

As an 88-year-old lady and a member of my (SBC) church, I think we should be “S.B.C.”

It could stand for “Southern Baptist,” “Sweet Believers,” “Second Born,” “Some Bodies,” “Select Beings.”

Now you name some?

S.B.C. could be comfortable with those letters all over the world, and Praise the Lord, we are.

Mary King


Mormon ‘pointers’

In response to Mr. Turner’s advice to our Mormon friends (ABN, May 31, 2012), I would suggest that the SBC leadership could take some pointers from the Mormons. As pointed out in Mr. Turner’s opinion piece, Mormons have had a strong presence within our government for a long time. However, they have had the good sense to accomplish this without directly involving their official church organization in the dirty business of politics. Let’s get back to promoting Christ through our state and national organizations and leave the politics to individuals.

David Rauls


Open/close communion

I have been on vacation and just came back and read the ABN. I was surprised to find the support of open communion (ABN, June 14, 2012). However, our church (First Baptist Church of Lowell) has been a strong supporter (and usually outnumbered) of the belief of open communion. We felt like we stood alone with most SBC churches. I like what Wyman Richardson said about open communion: “that it makes the door wide as the door to heaven and that open communion demonstrates the love that Christ has for all of His church.” I believe that when people are not offered communion (though believers) in a local church it sends a message that you are not good enough to be one of us … it appears to foster a sense of arrogance/pride … something I could not personally see Jesus doing. I know the other side and their arguments, but open communion seems to us at FBC, Lowell, the Christ-like thing to do and practice.

Gary E. Thomas



God help us!

Bob Hartsell’s letter “Presidential position” in the June 14 issue of ABN seems plausible at first reading, but upon reflection reveals a flawed understanding of our U.S. Constitution. He attempted to convince us that President Obama’s approval of same-sex marriage was only support of  “… the right of same-sex couples to marry and be treated as equal citizens under the law.” The presidential oath, he says, was to “… defend the Constitution of the United States” and not the Bible. Mr. Hartsell further indicated that the president was not endorsing same-sex marriage as a way of life. I wonder what Hartsell thinks the present administration’s endorsement of June as “gay pride” month signifies if not an endorsement of same-sex marriage as a way of life.

There is no mention of marriage in the constitution, and especially is there no right given by the federal government to regulate marriage. All powers not specifically given to the three branches of federal government are reserved for the states. Therefore, the states have the right to have state constitutions define marriage. Thankfully, we have done that here in Arkansas. By an overwhelming majority, our state has come down on the side of God’s definition of marriage (which is the only legitimate one).

The same reasoning used by Mr. Hartsell would nullify any ban on polygamy, which is also on the liberal agenda. Muslims will be clamoring for this new definition of marriage just as homosexuals have done. According to Mr. Hartsell’s reasoning, they have a rightful constitutional claim for “liberty and justice” for their view of marriage.

I believe the Founding Fathers could not imagine this country allowing and promoting the abominations now done by our federal government. God help us!

Larry Fisher


'Massive' Propaganda

This is in response to the letter regarding homosexuality and the Constitution (ABN, June 14, 2012). I think it is a massive stretch of propaganda to claim that the Founding Fathers were demanding that moral perversions were to be institutionally protected by law. On the contrary, virtually all the major leaders who laid the foundation for our nation agreed in explicit quotes that the Constitution can stand as a success only as long as we remain a moral people, and no longer. For example, John Adams remarked in 1789, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Thomas Jefferson, who has ironically become the poster boy for judicial activism (on account of his letter to the Baptists about the separation of church and state, but who hated judicial activism with a passion), famously suggested that homosexual soldiers ought to be castrated. We have other more popular and traditional perversions, such as polygamy and prostitution, that are abolished by our laws under the Constitution, so why should we show favoritism to the homosexual crowd ahead of the prostitutes and the polygamists? What’s next on the agenda – people who want to marry their dogs? When will enough be enough? Our civilization is being wrecked by this kind of hypocrisy. Just my 2 cents as a fellow American and Christian, and that and a couple of bucks might buy you a mocha.

Stephan Allsup
Little Rock

Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Next 5 Entries »