Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Part 2 – In this post, we continue the story of the fundamentalist take-over of the IMB, specifically the decision to require all missionaries to sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We will see the consequences, and we will see just how honest Rankin was about the rationale and consequences of this move.
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

Now of course it’s not a bad idea to have general standards of doctrine for those who are employed by the IMB and sent across the world for the purpose of sharing their beliefs. However, these individuals already go through a litany of other procedures during the process to become missionaries with the IMB: documenting their own life journeys, writing confessions of faith, multiple interviews, training, etc. Not only that, but the requirement to sign any document like the one affirming the 2000 BF&M did not exist until 2002. Former IMB president Keith Parks (1981-1992) explained how Rankin’s policy is different from previous precedent. Parks told the Baptist Standard that, “Previously, SBC missionaries were asked in the interview process if they were in ‘substantial agreement’ with the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Now missionaries are being asked to sign in affirmation of the document. Furthermore, they are also being asked, Rankin told the Baptist Standard, to conduct their ministry work “‘in accordance with’ the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Tom Daniel, a former IMB missionary who refused to sign the 2000 BF&M wrote this:

In the Spring of 2002, the International Mission Board asked personnel to respond to 2 related issues: belief consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message; and signing an affidavit binding one's future ministry to its contents. The issues differ, as one is related to content of BFM and the other is related to freedom to interpret the leadership of the Holy Spirit (whether according to the whole counsel of God or the SBC-approved statement of faith).

The more I learn about this, I’m not only upset but baffled by this change in policy. These devoted missionaries already go through a litany of application and confirmation procedures, take leaps of faith to devote their lives to ministry, and many of them put their lives at risk. Why in addition ask our missionaries to sign the 2000 BF&M when their selection process is already so careful, intimate, and involved? Many missionaries, especially now in the day of the church-planting movement, are themselves pastors of international churches – so how can they be required to affirm this confession when no pastors stateside are? Rankin could argue all he wanted that this new policy was not a doctrinal litmus test for the IMB’s missionaries in an effort to further the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. However, the effect of the policy is still to actualize the controversial 2000 BF&M with all its political baggage in the ministries of each of these missionaries and at the same time to purify the IMB from missionaries who do not conform to the fundamentalist-crafted creed-like document.

In February of 2002, Rankin had told the press that it was only “pure speculation” that missionaries who refused to sign it would be terminated. But Rankin turned their speculation into reality (which he and the IMB board of trustees probably intended from the outset). The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) recognized the new policy for what it was, even creating a transition fund to help support missionaries who might lose their jobs because they could not sign it.

A year and four months later, the IMB then issued a May 5, 2003 deadline for missionaries to affirm the BF&M, according to a 2003 Christianity Today article from that month.

Tragically, missionaries were indeed terminated for their refusal to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. Christianity Today reported that by May 2003 thirteen missionaries had been fired and thirty missionaries had resigned or retired early. These numbers would rise.

Rankin’s response was brutal: “These missionaries are supported by Southern Baptist churches and should at least be willing to conduct their work in basic agreement with what Southern Baptists confess they believe.” Really? Is the 2000 BF&M really what all churches who freely affiliate with the SBC and who send funds to support missionaries “confess they believe”? Such a proposition is preposterous. The BF&M in any version has never a rallying point or a unifying creed for SBC churches. And far from being a document solely highlighting Baptist distinctive and beliefs, the 2000 BF&M was a controversial document to begin with which, as noted previously, the Baptist General Convention of Texas had actually rejected altogether.

Many of these terminated or resigned missionaries raised poignant and legitimate questions to Rankin and his of the board of trustees, such as:

§  How can the elite group of people at a convention of who crafted the 2000 BF&M claim to represent all Southern Baptists? Furthermore, how can that one document be the measure of our devotion to missions and common Baptist ideals?

§  Are not our consciences free before God and not subject to human beings?

§  How can they ask us to sign a document written by humans and revised already three times in the lifetime of some of these missionaries?

§  What gives SBC powerfuls the notion that they can use us as pawns in their political games?

Rankin wrote one missionary couple, the Dixons, that they were being terminated. He wrote that it was because of their “unwillingness to be accountable to Southern Baptists who send and support.” The Dixons responded in an open letter:  “Does the Holy Spirit Himself act always ‘in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith and Message?’…We need only witness events in China to discover that He does not: women serving as pastors, evangelists, church planters!”  You can read the rest of their open response to Rankin here: You also can find a list of the missionaries who were terminated or resigned early and read more of their stories, including open letters to Rankin and IMB trustees here [1].

Those missionaries who have signed in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M of course should not be judged. They acted as their consciences and faith permitted.

 I also respect the right of fundamentalists to hold their beliefs – but not their militancy. I think I understand their beliefs and where they’re coming from. But fundamentalism, similar to the 2000 BF&M itself, was constructed in terms of very American issues, a century old knee-jerk reaction to liberal theology and the perceived threat of modernism. As a missionary couple who refused to sign it noted, the BF&M is “culturally biased” and “culturally constructed” document! Many missionaries wanted to know how they can be expected to sign, much less conduct their future ministries according to such a document.

 But the militancy of leaders like those in the IMB lust after conformity and drive them to push for doctrinal rigidity especially in what should be non-essentials. This ideological warfare against traditional Baptist freedoms and against moderates (and really against even non-fundamentalist conservatives too) must stop.

What do these tragic bits of recent history have to do with us? I think the connections are drawn easily enough by our readership – those same militant leaders are gaining increasing control over OBU. As we’ve seen in the last couple years at OBU and through the documentation of this blog, this ideological warfare against non-fundamentalists is not merely a distant threat. It’s knocking down the doors on Bison Hill, which is why we’re trying to learn from history and be an advocate for OBU excellence before it’s too late for academic freedom and liberal arts high education.

For additional reading about this event, scroll to the bottom of this page for a list of articles.

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

In this series, I will take us through a story documenting the conservative resurgence/fundamentalist takeover of SBC missions. As a story these posts are not intended to stand alone, so I hope you will stick with me this week and follow along.

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

In 2002, then-president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board (IMB) Jerry Rankin sent a letter to all IMB missionaries worldwide (some 5,100 individuals at that time) “requesting” they sign a document. What was this document and to what did it ask missionaries to commit? Why were missionaries being asked to sign it? Was it really a request? What would the consequences be of signing it or not signing it? And what do these decade-old events have to do with OBU now in 2012?

  In the next several posts we’re going to look at the history of this event and its consequences. During my research, I’ve discovered these events to be yet another tragic chapter in the development of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. I hope you’ll bear with me through these next posts through which we will see what the actions taken in January 2002 and forward by Rankin and the IMB have to do with our effort to Save OBU.

Having been involved in multiple opportunities to volunteer with and work alongside of dozens of Southern Baptist-affiliated missionaries, both overseas and here in the US, I can attest that these are in general courageous and devoted people. Many risk their lives on a daily basis to serve others around the world in places that are hostile or dangerous. All choose to forsake a “normal” American life near to family and friends and a familiar culture. In my experience, my friends who are missionaries, even those who may have doctrinally fundamentalist leanings, seem freer often than Southern Baptists at home from the embattlements of SBC politics – it’s my personal thought that they are more focused on the real center of Christianity, and not as much on peripherals or non-essentials. However, unfortunately they have not been unaffected by these political games nor by the fundamentalist take-over of the SBC, as we will see.

The SBC does not - well, cannot - require autonomous individual churches, associations, or state conventions to adopt the BFM as their statement of faith. Nor do all congregations agree with the statement in its entirety themselves.

Nevertheless, administrators of Southern Baptist missions organizations, specifically the IMB, now require their personnel to sign a document which affirms the 2000 BF&M [1]. But what of traditional Baptist beliefs such as freedom of conscience before God and the priesthood of all believers?

In January of 2002, then IMB president Jerry Rankin wrote a letter “requesting” that all IMB missionaries sign a document affirming the 2000 BF&M. Such a move was unprecedented in IMB policy, as we will explore in the next post. Missionaries were allowed to note points of disagreement with the 2000 BF&M, but were still expected to sign the document. If a missionary noted disagreements, according to Rankin they would be “counseled” by regional IMB leaders. Mark Wingfield (Baptist Standard) summarized the situation concisely in March of 2002:

Rankin recently wrote to IMB missionaries around the world, asking them to sign a statement indicating their agreement with the controversial 2000 Baptist Faith & Message crafted by SBC leadership but rejected by the [Baptist General Convention of Texas] as an un-Baptist creed. Missionaries who do not agree with every part of the SBC's faith statement will be allowed to note areas of disagreement and then will be ‘counseled’ by regional leadership, Rankin has said. While Rankin has not publicly said what will happen to missionaries who do not sign, numerous reports from missionaries on the field indicate they perceive the mandate as threatening their employment (emphasis added).

A month after this new policy’s implementation, Rankin told the press that it was “pure speculation” that those missionaries who do not sign will be fired. The Baptist Standard paraphrased IMB trustee, Rev. Tim McCoy, who said, ‘“employee policies also forbid missionaries from repeatedly advocating views that are contrary to those outlined in the Baptist Faith & Message’” (emphasis added). So, ostensibly, if an IMB missionary believes that women can be ordained ministers and admits as much on multiple occasions, s/he will face consequences. Or, if an IMB missionary simply cannot sign the document to begin with, s/he will also face consequences. However, Rankin and the trustees had not yet publically declared what these consequences would be, even after the policy was implemented. Rankin admitted as of February 2002 that, “‘We haven't talked about the consequences,’ [Rankin] said. ‘We may have to deal with that in the future.’”

Surely they must have something in mind? It is difficult to believe that Rankin and his board never collectively thought through what they will do to missionaries who cannot sign the document before implementing this policy in January.

Rankin further commented that he "hopes no ‘minor detail of disagreement’ would prevent someone called by God from fulfilling his or her missionary assignment…‘To me [Rankin], it is untenable that a person would be disobedient to their call.’”

Rankin’s comments highlight an interesting picture. For Rankin it is “untenable” that missionaries would be “disobedient to their call” to missions, but it is not untenable that they would be disobedient to their God-given conscience and spirit freedom in signing the document. Such is the nature of militant fundamentalism. It’s obvious that Rankin’s comments blatantly demonstrate his hope that some missionaries’ commitment to their divine call to ministry will override their individual consciences and concerns with the 2000 BF&M, in strapping them in their work with a document many will not be able to agree with either in principal or in particular. They were trapped because if they refused to sign, they no longer have the organizational apparatus or funding to support their ministry overseas, effectively grounding them stateside and ending their overseas ministry.

But extreme consequences were just “pure speculation,” right? These missionaries wouldn’t really be terminated from the IMB for conscientiously refusing to sign this document? To do so would be an un-Baptist violation of freedom of conscience, right?

Many missionaries did not feel comforted by Rankin’s words. To Rankin’s and the IMB board of trustees’ chagrin, the Baptist General Convention of Texas was already forming a safety net for missionaries they anticipated would be terminated for not signing or who would resign early rather than violate conscience:

 “More than 60 IMB missionary couples already have indicated to a BGCT missions study committee that they will not sign the faith statement and fear for their jobs. Excerpts from some of their comments were read to [BGCT] Executive Board members [on] Feb. 26 [2002],” Wingfield further reported in February.

Tomorrow, we continue the sad story of how politics and fundamentalism won out over mission priorities and engagement.
_____________

[1] The IMB’s domestic counterpart, the North American Mission Board, also now requires all missionaries who receive 100% of their support through NAMB to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. However, this amounted to only 50 or so personnel, since most NAMB missionaries are also funded through state conventions and local associations who freely affiliate with the SBC. The documentation and journalism mainly covered the events surrounding the IMB, so that’s where we will focus for these posts.

OBU's Peers: Texas Baptist Schools?

OBU's Peers Series:
Intro: Who's In the Same Boat?
OBU's Peers: Nondenominational Colleges?
OBU's Peers: Nearby Baptist Colleges (Ouachita and Southwest Baptist)?
OBU's Peers: Texas Baptist Colleges?
OBU's Peers: Union University?


**Please circulate widely among faculty/students at BGCT schools, OBU alumni in TX, and TX Baptist friends in general.**

This week, we're looking at how OBU's peer institutions are faring with respect to academic freedom.  To review, we already know that formerly Baptist schools like Stetson and Furman, to say nothing of Wake Forest and Baylor, broke free of convention control before the fundamentalists could undermine them.  A more relevant ex-Baptist peer institution is William Jewell College, which continues to raise its profile as a leader in Christian liberal arts education without having to kowtow to the Missouri Baptist Convention.  On the other hand, OBU is in no serious danger of becoming as thoroughly fundamentalist as Brewton-Parker or Truett-McConnell, two Georgia Baptist colleges that do not even pretend to be legitimate academic institutions anymore.

We've been looking a little closer home in our search for schools in the same boat we're in: trying to preserve academic freedom, rigor, and integrity while having to satisfy an increasingly fundamentalist state convention.  Nondenominational Christian colleges (and seminaries) have flourished since the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC ushered in the slow, painful degradation of Baptist higher education.  And these institutions have maintained their Christian character, something fundamentalist sympathizers claim Baptist schools would lose without being "doctrinally accountable" to state conventions.  Nearby SBC schools such as Ouachita Baptist Univ. and Southwest Baptist Univ. have held their own, with "the other" OBU doing a better job protecting academic freedom and SBU surviving with a more conservative ethos, but no Georgia Baptist Convention-style assault on the institution.

Today we look south to Texas.  As with the past couple days, my aim here is not really to provide in-depth reporting about the state of academic freedom at other Baptist schools.  Rather, I want to invite constituents of those schools into our conversation so that we can learn more about how they protect academic freedom, the degree to which it has been preserved or undermined, and how these schools relate to their state conventions.  As our readers have done the past few days, forwarding this page to friends at Wheaton, Gordon, Biola, Ouachita, SBU, etc., I encourage you to help get the word out to the BGCT schools.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas
One of the few holdouts in Southern Baptist life, the BGCT resisted repeated and determined attempts by fundamentalist to take control of the state convention as they did everywhere else (Virginia being the notable exception).  Thankfully, Texas Baptists did not have the appetite for fundamentalist politics or tactics.  Many of our friends at Texas Baptists Committed were actively involved in the effort to preserve historic Baptist freedoms from fundamentalist encroachment.

In 1998, hard-liners formed their own state convention, the Southern Baptists of Texas, as a fundamentalist alternative to the still-conservative BGCT.  Most major players in SBC life from Texas are from fundamentalist SBTC churches (including, for those keeping score at home, OBU's favorite token black chapel preacher, Rev. Dr. Voddie Baucham).  Even as fundamentalists continue to try to destroy the BGCT using deceptive tactics such as infiltrating churches, the BGCT continues to coordinate the collective ministry of Texas Baptists. Though not without problems of its own, the BGCO embodies missional engagement and ecumenical spirit.

Baptist Colleges in Texas

The SBC website lists a dozen Baptist colleges in Texas.  Let's divide them into categories based on affiliation:

The College at Southwestern
This one doesn't really count, since it's not affiliated with a state convention.  But after the Takeover, all six SBC seminaries decided to start undergraduate programs, supposedly to make a boatload of cash to subsidize the seminaries provide a sufficiently fundamentalist education because convention-controlled colleges could no longer be trusted to do so.  Apparently, degrading graduate education wasn't enough for them, so they opened fire on undergraduate education as well.   Operating under the auspices of the seminaries made accreditation -- which certain seminaries almost lost and these undergraduate programs surely could not attain on their own -- a non-issue.  The College at Southwestern has a distinguished professor of homemaking (I swear I am not making this up), along with 11 other (male) professors.

Southern Baptists of Texas Convention Schools
The SBTC controls Criswell College and Jacksonville College.  Criswell College, as I understand it, started off under the auspices of the First Baptist Church of Dallas.  After several problems with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Criswell barely managed to get its accreditation renewed.  Its trustees include SBC celebrities such as Paul Pressler and Richard Land.  Criswell's president, who left the school in 2008 but returned in 2010 after it separated from FBC Dallas, is a past trustee of Southern Seminary where he was an accomplice in young President Al Mohler's "reforms."  So clearly this place really doesn't care about academic freedom.

The SBTC's other institution is Jacksonville College, a two-year school.

Baptist General Convention of Texas Schools
The BGCT is affiliated with Baptist University of the Americas, Baylor, Dallas Baptist, East Texas Baptist, Hardin-Simmons, Howard Payne, the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, and Wayland Baptist.

Houston Baptist, which is considering a name change, is a BGCT affiliate but is also "fraternally related" to the SBTC.  I'm not sure exactly what that means, but hopefully someone will clarify.

All but BUA and Wayland are CCCU members.  (Notably, Criswell and Jacksonville are not.  Maybe the CCCU is too liberal for them.)

Now, most OBU people will recognize some of these schools as our competitors in NAIA athletics.  But since a number of OBU students and alumni are from Texas, my hunch is that some of you will have considerable knowledge about each of these BGCT institutions.  I regret that I don't have time to investigate these schools as rigorously as I researched the Georgia schools for our Downward Spiral Series a few weeks ago.  But if it becomes relevant, we will dig as deeply as we need to in order to learn what we can from these schools' experiences.  My hunch is that they have not had problems recently, but please chime in to set the record straight where I am missing important nuances or even facts.

Academic freedom should be well protected at BGCT schools, because the schools do not have a fundamentalist state convention to appease.  The Baylor situation is a bit more complicated, as it is now a world-class research university.  The liberal arts colleges, however, may indeed be relevant peers to OBU because of their Christian character and relationship to a Baptist state convention, even though none appear in the Forbes rankings of 600+ colleges.  While I'm sure that, like OBU, each of these universities has a conservative ethos and a proven commitment to Christianity, I would not assume they have had problems with academic freedom in the past 10 or 15 years.

It's interesting to imagine what problems OBU might have avoided if it were affiliated with a convention like the BGCT.  For one thing, our current provost never would have set foot on campus, on the basis of convention affiliation alone.  SBC climbers and power brokers absolutely detest the BGCT (but they can't live without the BGCT's sizable contribution to the SBC's coffers in Nashville).  OBU wouldn't have to pander to SBC fundamentalists out of a desire for self-preservation (or to appease the BGCO).  The Class of 1959's statue of James Ralph Scales, a true champion of pre-Takeover Baptist higher education, wouldn't seem like such an ironically cruel joke.  Heck, you might even be able to buy a non-fundamentalist classic book on campus!

In closing, I want to thank our BGCT-affiliated friends for taking the time to read this post and learn about our movement.  You are invited to join us on Facebook and Twitter.  We welcome your support in our fight to preserve academic freedom, integrity, rigor, and relevance -- just as we would gladly stand in solidarity with you if you ever face fundamentalist encroachment.  Our readers have kept this page alive in Wheaton, Arkadelphia, and Bolivar this week.  Let's light up the state of Texas and let the world know that authentically Baptist Christian liberal arts education is our heritage and one we will fight to protect!

SaveOBU@gmail.com

Houston Baptist University Considers Name Change

A lot of you may have already heard about this, but it was news to me when I read it two weeks ago.  Houston Baptist University, affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, is considering a name change that could include dropping "Baptist" from the school's name.

Half a century after being founded by the Baptist General Convention of Texas as "a Christian college of the highest order," Houston Baptist University may soon erase the religious designation in its name. 

Saying that the Baptist tag creates a barrier for potential students, university officials are exploring a name change for the 51-year-old school - a prospect that concerns some alumni who fear HBU's religious identity would be de-emphasized.

Photo credit: Houston Chronicle

The tone of the article makes it seem like it's pretty much a done deal, pending action by the school's trustees next month.  The name change committee notes that both the geographical and denominational labels could be hindering HBU in its effort to become a national, comprehensive Christian liberal arts college.  Unlike OBU, where an overwhelming majority of students are Southern Baptist, only about a third of HBU students are.

The name change issue has come up before, but now, under President Robert Sloan's robust leadership, HBU seems ready to expand its profile beyond the sprawling Houston suburbs.  Having commissioned a study regarding the school's name recognition, HBU found that while most people know about the larger and more prominent Rice University and the University of Houston, relatively few people knew much about HBU.

While OBU draws extensively from Tulsa, OKC, smaller towns in Oklahoma, as well as the Dallas and Kansas City suburbs, HBU students are almost exclusively from three surrounding counties.  Proponents argue that a name change could help expand the school's geographical reach.

As for the "Baptist" part, we already know the name carries some baggage.  While we here at Save OBU are exceedingly proud of Baptists' rightful heritage, even the SBC itself acknowledges that the term connotes intolerance, anti-intellectualism, and even a racist past.  One progressive and brilliant thing HBU has done is allow a few non-Baptists Christians to serve on its Board of Trustees.  In fact, HBU is the first BGCT school to make this move.  Since some measure of theological diversity is actually tolerated in the BGCT (unlike in the uniformly conservative BGCO, where moderates are unwelcome and marginalized), there is little fear in sharing university governance with Christians from other denominational families in recognition of the need to attract students and faculty who may not be Southern Baptists.

Naturally, there are some who fear that taking the "Baptist" name away will invariably dilute the school's religious character.  Name change proponents dispute this charge, pointing out that the school's core mission will not change and that one of the proposed new names is "Morris Christian University" (in honor of founding father and major donor Stewart Morris).

At the moment, OBU clearly has much bigger problems on its plate than whether or not "Oklahoma" and "Baptist" are limiting its reach.  So we are not even interested in discussing a name change here.  It's less relevant, anyway, because we already have more of a regional and even national reach than HBU.

But it is a little sad to compare the differences in governance and administration between OBU and HBU in light of recent events.  With administrative leadership free of fundamentalists to appease and deliberate efforts to join the top tier of Christian colleges, HBU is on a dramatic upward trajectory.  OBU has made good on efforts to bolster enrollment and expand its programs and facilities, too.  But the recent personnel and policy mistakes have taken a toll not only on our reputation.  Appeasing fundamentalists consumes too much time and energy, and makes it impossible for OBU to move forward.  At present, it's all we can do to avoid moving backward.

OBU Chapel: Compulsory, Sexist, and Fundamentalist as Ever

It's really beyond the scope of Save OBU to say much about OBU chapel services, especially since many of our supporters have not attended them in years.  But insofar as chapel services reinforce OBU's descent into fundamentalism, we will make note of them.  This especially important because we are trying to make the case that OBU's troubling trend is systemic and organized, and not just a result of one or two powerful men's personal preferences.

Until today, I had not heard the name Voddie Baucham in over a decade.  But I am absolutely certain he spoke at chapel when I was at OBU.  (Who could forget a name like Voddie?)  Actually, as I've perused lists of recent and upcoming chapel speakers, it's amazing how much recycling goes on.

Now, I have always believed that making religious worship compulsory was bizarre and counter-productive.  But as I experienced OBU as a student and then as an alum, I have come to realize that OBU is surprisingly authoritarian and somehow gets near-universal conformity with minimal questioning.

Why the fuss about today's chapel speaker, then?  Because Voddie Baucham is not your typical Baptist minister.  Instead of partnering with the mainstream Baptist General Convention of Texas, Baucham's congregation is part of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.  Whereas fundamentalists succeeded in taking control of the BGCO and most other state conventions, they failed to take control of the BGCT.  So they formed an alternative state convention, putting politics and fundamentalist dogma ahead of mission and ministry cooperation.  Even now, the SBTC encourages "stealth" fundamentalist pastors to remake churches from within and endorses ethically dubious tactics to lure unsuspecting congregations away from the BGCT.

Thus OBU has given a platform to someone who openly loathes Southern Baptists' long history of mission and ministry cooperation in Texas and felt so strongly that the conservative BGCT was not conservative enough that he aligned with a controversial splinter group.

Here is Rev. Baucham on CNN in 2008 lamenting the fact that Sarah Palin left the kitchen to pursue a career of public service.  You have to watch this (it starts about 1 minute into the video).  It's pretty breathtaking.  The anchor (who knows her Bible better than most) is truly taken aback.

Apologies to all if Rev. Baucham has miraculously moderated his extreme views in recent years and preached an inspiring sermon in Raley Chapel today.  But somehow I doubt that's the case.  It's just a shame that the Raley Chapel pulpit continues to be a platform for extremism, sexism, and fundamentalism.