The Inmates ARE Running The Asylum!

I don't normally chime in on politically charged issues on this page. I like to keep it light, informative and just plain fun. However, recently I saw where two Mayor's on "Official" city letterheads took on a highly successful, ethically impeccable, and extraordinarily clean and courteous business that produces some of the best fast food chicken in the world because of the religious views of its owner.


Now I am not here to talk about the issue on which they spoke out, i.e., "Gay Marriage." In my view they are entitled to hold whatever opinion they want and to express that opinion.  You should also NOT try and draw any conclusions as to my own views on that issue from anything I write here. 


Here's the deal, the owner and founder of Chick-fi-la is a devout conservative Christian holding very traditional and orthodox Christian beliefs. When he started his business he decided that it would be a grand experiment. He would run his business base on good sound business principles and (this is important) as long as they do not violate his conservative Christian convictions.  He did this and he did it successfully and in this regard more people should follow his example.


Now, many years later his business is thriving and his convictions are still in place. Because of this he is interviewed and asked about the role of his Christian convictions in his business and he opening and honestly answers each and every question. Then, during the course of the interview he is asked his view on "Gay Marriage" and he just as openly and honestly answers the question as he has every other question he has been asked. So far, so good . . .not a problem.  You need to read what he actually said to get the context. That's something apparently neither the mayor of Chicago or Boston has done . . . but then they are politicians and might not know the meaning of information it it true context.


Let's see what he did not say. He did not say that Chick-fi-la would not hire someone who is in a gay marriage, he did not say he would not serve someone who was in a gay marriage. Fundamentally what he said was that he did not believe that Gay marriage was legitimate under the principles laid down in the Bible. His view is that True marriage (some would say traditional) marriage is between one man and one woman. He is not commenting on "Gays" in particular, in polygamy, serial marriages, living together without benefit of marriage or any other of issue on which I am certain he has equally strong views. 


You may feel that what he believes about these and any other issues you want to take up are important and maybe they are. But, for me, the issue is not what he believes but what these Mayors did. In their effort to be supportive to the Gay community which is within their rights they did something more egregious and dangerous. They did not express a personal view of support nor did they express their personal objection to his viewpoint. They did not just say "I for one" (individual) will not patronize his business and urge all you who agree with me to do the same.  No they engaged in what is essentially official oppression.


How you ask? Here's how . . . when they reached down and picked up the official letterhead of the city of which they are Mayor, wrote their views upon it, signed their name to it as Mayor of the city, and released it to the press the were guilty of Official Oppression. They are entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to use their office in that kind of way. Today it is Chick-fi-la, who will it be tomorrow?   I believe the City Councils of both cities should reprimand them both . . . not for their views but for the way the chose to use their office . . . they used it as a means of official oppression of a lawfully established business.


We cannot tolerate official oppression at any level of government. The government is there to serve ALL the people and not just the people with whom the Mayor agrees. As an officer of government they may certainly express personal views. They cannot, however, be allowed to do so in their official capacity.


There are a lot of reasons for objecting to these Mayors or any other government officials injecting themselves "officially" in any of these kinds of things.


Martin Niemöller spoke for me and thousands of men like me when he said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something--but then it was too late.


I do not want the government singling out one company or individual for attack. If there needs to be a policy then let the appropriate governmental body develop one. If there needs to be a law then let the appropriate government legislative body enact one. Let it be done in the "people's houses" (legislative bodies) after appropriate debate and discussion . . . . Not Mein Führer issuing and edict. This is the big issue here and a slippery slope we do not want to go down!


It is fine for non-governmental  groups to oppose or support Chick-fil-a or any other business whose business model they do or do not like. It is not ok for Government officials to do so.

It is my experience that most of us can find a way to work it out. Truth is most of us are "a little bit country and a little bit rock-n-roll." That is, we want to live our lives somewhere in the middle. We do not want extremes to rule the concourse of our lives. And yes, I am aware that might mean that extreme in my mind might be a little to the left or right of where I am on an issue. But that's what makes for the debate isn't it  . . . and debate is a good thing.

Here is my answer to the mayors and everyone else: If you are pro "Gay marriage"  and don't like Truett Cathy's views . . . don't eat at Chick-fi-la . . . don't support them by patronizing them. If you are not pro "Gay marriage" and agree with Truett Cathy . . . then support them by eating there. If you don't care one way or the other what Truett Cathy thinks do what you want. As Shakespeare might say, "To eat or not to eat, that is the question."  You make the call based on your appetite, your convictions or any other reason you choose. I'll do the same.

Happy Birthday America!

This week we will be celebrating the 4th. of July or as I prefer to call it, Independence Day! Independence Day is one of my favorite holidays and one that I believe every American regardless of station of life ought to be able to enjoy.  I love John Adams' original idea of how to celebrate the occassion. After the Declaration of Independence was signed He said that every year thereafter people around the United States would celebrate the occassion with parades, fireworks, music, toasts, speeches, etc . . .  and so we should and so we have.

Now in 1776 while there were a few small celebrations the event was largely just another day in the life of the people of the new country. A war was still raging and that took center stage at the time. However, in 1777 an eleaborate celebration was staged that contained many of the elements included in today's celebrations. There it was, Adams' picnics, fireworks, fun & games, cannons being fired and speeches being made as a nation celebrated it birthday. Let's celebrate and not castigate!

I know I will be continuing that tradition albeit celebrating by means of modern technology in patriotic events being held all across the country.  In every case there will be as Adams predicted, "fireworks, music, toasts, speeches" and everything will be decorated  in red, white and blue and a large dose of capitalism as venders hawk their goods. But my focus will be on celebrating the nation's birth and the concept of "We the People of the United States" and the establishing of "A more perfect Union."

I hope that every American and friend of America will celebrate the day for what it really is: the anniversary of our  declaration of our independence as a nation and our intention of forming a  "more perfect union". . . a distinctively American Republic with a governement, as Lincoln would express it, "of the people, by the people, for the people."

May we take this day to recommit ourselves to see to it that this governemnt does "not perish from the earth" and remains committed to the proposition that "all men are created equal by their creator." Franklin's challenge when he said in answer to a question by a Mrs Powel, "A Republic, if you can keep it” still applies today.

The Fourth of July . . . Independence Day . . . should be a day of national unity. It should be the one day out of the year where we put aside our religious and political differences; cast aside our economic and cultural distinctions; and abstian from vitriolic speech. I hope that the media, both national and local will join in the celebration and refuse to carry or broadcaste anything that doesn't exhault America. Let them show us the national celebrations as they take place in the smallest of hamlets to the greatest of cities.  Let them show us at our best. They can go back to the other on July 5th.

Let's make it the one day of the year when we stand up and say with heart felt pride, "I am proud to be an American," and to paraphrase Lee Greenwood, I will gladly stand up, next to you and extol her on this one day. Make no mistake about it, I love this land we call the USA.  May she continue to enjoy God's blessing.

So it is that I invite both the rich and poor, the famous and obscure, the conservative and liberal, the learned and unlearned, the powerful and the weak, the healthy and the infirm, . . .  I invite us one and all to stand together and Pledge our Allegience to our flag, sing our national anthem and say as with one voice, "I am proud to be an American!"

Father's Day is a Coming . . . So What's It To You?

Father's Day is this coming Sunday.  I want to thank all you dad's out there who do so much to make your children's lives richer. Don't let anyone or anything minimize your role as a Dad. You may well be the single most important person in your child's life. This will be true whether your children are small or grown.  They will feel your influence in their life as long as they live and long after you are gone. You may not really be a Superman but in their eyes, if you do it right, you'll always be the super man in their life.

Father's Day is significant to me on a number of levels.  When I was a kid it was just another day second to just about every other "special" day on the calendar. It certainly played second fiddle to Mother's Day.  However, as both myself and my children have grown older the day has become more important to me than when I was a child.

First, Father's Day reminds me that I am a father, albeit one whose children are grown. I often reflect back over my years of parenting wonder if I was the best dad I could have been. I have long since concluded that the answer to that is "probably not."  Oh, I think I did the best I knew how and as the number of children grew so did my "dad" skills. I really need to apologize to my oldest children. In many ways they were a part of my learning curve.  When they were born they were sent home with us and no one gave us an instruction book . . . we had to learn on the fly.  However, as I reflect on my children I can say without reservation I am very happy and proud of the adults they have become. So I may not been the best dad but I did the best I knew how and I was as a preacher friend of mine often said, "adequate."

For me Father's Day is a day of  both Thankfulness and Sadness. I am thankful for my own father. He was the most patient man I ever knew. From my earliest years I was always welcome in his work space. He never gave me many principles of life to learn. Instead, he went one better. He allowed me to watch him as he lived out his own principles.  Most if not all the commendable qualities I have I learned by just being with him as he went about the business of living life. To be sure he had his flaws but his nature and character just made the flaws seem insignificant. It's hard to believe that this Sunday he will have been gone for 29 years and yet I still learn from him.

Perhaps the reason Father's Day evokes memories of my father that are so poignant to me is that it was on June 19, 1983 that he died. I was saddened all the more because in was also Father's Day. While I took solace in the fact that he was that day spending Father's Day with his father and his Heavenly Father I still wished he was spending with me. I have wished that every year since. As I said in a previous posting . . . he was in every way my hero.

I was 36 years old, just a year older than he was when I was born, when he died.  In those 36 years he never had much in the way of material things to give me. Oh he did the best he could and often better than he should to give me what I needed but those material things were not the real gifts. He gave me something far more valuable . . . he gave me as much of himself as he could and far more than I ever realized. The older I get the more of him I see in myself. Today there is just a whole lot of him in me.  

In my 65 years I have met many men who were giants among men. Some have been men of power and others men of wealth; some men of great intellectual prowness and others with unrivaled talents; some were great benefactors while others were strong leaders . . . but I have never met a man more significant to my life that the man I call Dad.  He really did show me how to live and how to die.  I remember saying just that in my prayer at his graveside as I thanked God for this man I called "Daddy."  I said then and believe now that "in living his life he taught me how to live and in his experience of death he showed me how to die." I believed that then and I believe it now.

I don't particularly have any words of wisdom to impart about Father's Day itself nor do I have any list of principles that if followed will make you a great dad. I would just encourage every dad to not just give your children things. And don't just give them the things they want. Give them what they need . . . a Dad. Give them as much of yourself as you can. Believe me, there will come a day when both you and they will be glad you did.

So to all you Dad's out there I say . . . HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!

My Memorial Day Hero . . . My Dad!



Mom and Dad: Their Wedding Day

 Today my mind has turned to the holiday we are celebrating . . . Memorial Day.  I was reminded by a relative that "Soldiers don't start wars; Politicians start wars...Our soldiers just do their part to protect the rest of us."  I don't know whether or not this statement is totally accurate but I do know that Soldiers don't start wars but when wars begin it is the soldier who protects the rest of us. For that I am grateful beyond words to express it. I am grateful to the soldiers who have stood ready to defend this nation through years of peace and for those who faced-down our enemies in time of war. From the men who wore the Continental Blue of the citizen soldiers in Washington's army to those now wearing the camouflage of today's military I am grateful.

On a personal level I could mention Samuel Appleby and his service in George Washington's Continental Army, or Robert Appleby who fought in the war of 1812. I might mention Robert Key who died in Natal, Brazil during WWII or perhaps Bob Appleby who laid down his life in Korea. Then there is Charley who died aboard the Kitty Hawk during the Vietnam War.  So many in our family have served with distinction.    However, when I think of soldiers I always think of my own father.

As a child I used to play with his medals and campaign ribbons. I didn't know or appreciate what they represented then like I do now. Then they were just another plaything for me. Today they serve to remind me of just how much of a hero my dad was.

My father was, I believe, typical of most of the men who became soldiers in his day (1942-45). He was not a career soldier . . . he was a farmer/mechanic born and raised in central Texas. But, the nation called and off to Fort Sam Houston he went where he became a part of the United States Army Air Force.

After a brief basic training and some advanced training in B-17's it was off to England by way of Iceland. He arrived in England and was assigned to the IX Army Air Force where he served as a crew chief  for the 52nd Wing's 315 Troop Carrier Group's 34 Squadron. Make no mistake about it . . . this was not a transport outfit . . . . it was a combat squadron!  These men flew un-armed and un-armored aircraft at slow speeds and low altitudes into heavely occuppied areas under heavy enemy fire.

During his 13 Campaigns he saw it all. He dropped paratroopers early on the morning of D-Day (the Normandy Invasion) and for a week during the famous Market Garden (A Bridge Too Far) receiving the Air Medal for his involvement. He supplied Patton's 3rd army and flew out wounded soldiers. I recall his only comment about these young men was as he shook his head, "They were just boys." He truly knew and appreciated the cost of war. He was 29 years old when he entered the service and most of the men he carried into battle and brought out again were under 20 years of age . . . . mere boys in his eyes. When the war ended he flew liberated prisoners of war back to England.

Dad never said much about the war. I recall on one occassion asking him about his war experience that he replied, "I have already had to live that war once and I don't feel like reliving it today." Then he would tell me about some funny non-combat war experience with a few of his friends and I'd catch a glimse in his eye that he was now a time-traveler in his own past. I was to learn more about his wartime experiences after his death when I attended one of his outfit's reunions. It has been through my contact with the men with whom he served that I learned just how much of a hero he truly was.

When the war ended and his services were no longer needed he went home and took up where he left off . . . . he opened a small mechanics shop and life went on. I don't think anyone ever said, "Thank you for your service" to him . . . . but then he never expected it. After all, in his mind he was "just doing what had to be done."

Dad has been gone since 1983 and he is still my soldier hero. Today, I say, "Thank you for your service."

Married For A Life Time . . . How Does That happen?

Today I attended a reception for some friends who were celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. It was a great time with them, their families and friends celebrating together. I congratulate them on 50 years together and send my best wishes for many more years together.

While I was sitting there enjoying the food and festivities my mind flashed back to an experience I had sometime around 1991 or so. Another couple I knew was celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary and I had stopped at a PharMor store to get a card. When I handed the cashier the card she looked at it for a moment and then said, "I didn't know people actually stayed married that long anymore."

It does appears to be the exception rather than the rule in our day. But, even in our cynical and jaded times it does still happen . In fact, in 4 years my wife and I will actually be celebrating our own 50th. wedding anniversary. So yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus and yes people do stay married to each other for a lifetime. Oh I know it is becoming less common than it once was but it does still happen.

I suppose if you were to ask people in general how it is possible for people to stay married for so long you'd get a number of responses. Chief among the answers would probably be that they stayed together because "they loved each other."  Now I would hope that couples who get married actually love each other or at least believe that they love each other at the time they married.

After nearly forty years of active ministry I have never counseled a single couple or performed a ceremony for a couple who did not profess their love for each other. However, I know that many of those marriages ended in divorce within a few years . . . some within a year. There are, no doubt, a lot of reasons for those marriages not succeeding. Apparently while "love" may have brought them together it was not enough to keep them together.

Now I don't want to get involved today in a long discussion of was it really love or was it lust that brought them together. Nor do I want to explore whether it was "real" love or an infatuation or perhaps obsession with each other that brought them together. I don't even care whether or not it was an "arranged" marriage." Those may be interesting and profitable discussions for another time but don't really have much to do with my curiosity today.

I actually know a few couples who admit that when they married they did not love each other. In one case the marriage was a way out of a bad home and they other because there was no home. These were marriages of convenience. The remarkable thing is that one couple has been married for more than 50 years and the other more than 45 years. Love for them came later. So much for being in love explaining why couples stay married.

In my experience virtually everyone for whom I performed a wedding ceremony professed that they were in love. I just take them at their word. Were they in love? . . . maybe they were and maybe they were not. I might have questioned their understanding of  love, their maturity and/or their commitment but never that they believed they were in love. You see I am not interested in why so many marriages fail. I want to know why some last a lifetime.

I have a theory about why some marriages last a lifetime. I have often expressed it by saying, "Love may bring us together but commitment keeps us together." People who live together as husband and wife for a lifetime bring some quality to the relationship that equals longevity. I believe that common quality is a sense of commitment. They are committed to their marriage and making it work. Commitment is certainly strengthened where there is a growing maturity, a developing wisdom, and a deepening loyalty.

People may be in love with each other when they marry but they do not always feel or act lovingly toward each other. Marriages that last face all the same challenges of life as those that do not. Marriage is never easy . . .  it is always demanding . . . and there will be plenty of opportunities for calling it quits. It takes a lot of commitment to persevere. But those who do eventually reach a point where they cannot even image life without each other. Those are the couples who will celebrate a lifetime of loving each other.

Neil Sedaka wrote a song called "Love Will Keep Us Together" and it believe it will if it is accompanied by a good healthy dose of committed to each other.

One More Word About HBU's Name Change

I have written extensively, both here and in other places, about the Board of Trustees appointing a 14 person committee to look into possibly changing the name of Houston Baptist University. It clear from what I have written that I am opposed to any name change. Today's posting will be my final word on the subject until a decision on the name change has been reached.

I have two intentions in writing today. One is to commend and thank the Trustees on the committee exploring the possibility of a name change and second to offer a suggestion if they do.

Today I want to begin by saying a word of gratitude to Mark Denison and his committee for the hard work, time and energy they have invested working on this assignment. I am pretty sure none of these Board members woke up one morning and said, "Let's think about changing our name."

I am also aware that they were not obligated to announce what they were doing let alone hold a couple of Town Meetings. These meetings were on relatively short notice and held on the HBU campus making it difficult for many of us to physically attend. However, we were able to participate via a live Internet stream of both meetings.

Already the The Houston Chronicle and the Houston Business Journal have already picked up the story. You can actually cast an opinion vote on the Collegian's, the University's campus newspaper, website.

I am pretty sure that no one in their right mind would voluntarily take on such a hot button issue. There is no doubt in my mind that this came from the University's administration and is connected to one of the pillars of their "Ten Pillar" Vision statement.

In my view the word "Baptist" promptly displayed in the name on a sign serves to daily remind us who we as an institution. It is bad logic and thinking to draw from having the word "Baptist" in one's name that the University is for Baptists only. The same is true of the conclusion some have that it speaks of a "Bible" School. Based on a blog by a member of the school's marketing department this seems to be the view the school's marketing department has adopted. Their job is not to recommend the easiest way for them to do their job. It is to take who we are and market it. They seem have forgotten that the fundamental job of marketing is to raise awareness of our enterprise so that the public will not simply know our name but (1) know that we exists, (2) know what we offer in the way of a products and/or services, and (3) why they should attend or support us. Public Relations does much the same except (1) it is inexpensive and (2) it is weighted on physically being in the community through as wide a range of civic and community groups as possible. This includes, Rotary Clubs, Lion's Clubs, Chamber of Commerce meetings, churches and church groups, and a thousand others. This is where you utilize you alumni. We are the door to many of these groups. I don't know about you but I graduated 43 years ago and the only thing I have ever been asked to do is write a check. I wonder how many of the 15,000 plus alumni have had the same experience. If it is to work in the long haul we must be clear, open and honest about who we are. Today we declare we are no longer a Baptist School. How long before we declare we are no longer a Christian school? I know this IS NOT the intent of the present action but it might just be an unintended consequence of a name change.

If the University is to work over the long haul we must be clear, open and honest about who we are. By removing the name Baptist from our name, documents and our literature we are by omission declaring that we are no longer a Baptist School. How long before we declare we are no longer a Christian school? I know this IS NOT the intent of the present action but it might just be an unintended consequence of a name change.

When Mid-Continent Bible College changed its name to Mid-Continent University the President at the time, Dr. David Jester, came up with the idea to create two major divisions. One, the Baptist College of the Bible. This was the old Bible college. The other thing he did was to create the Baptist College of Arts and Sciences. This was done in an effort to keep "Baptist" in the forefront of who the school was theologically. while recognizing other realities. As this transpired they also strengthen their by-laws to clearly state that (1) the University's world view was distinctively Christian and that (2) that all Bible college professors must be Baptist. However, the real kicker in their action was that they adopted a "death star" provision in their by-laws that stated that if the school ever strayed from those principles, it would shut down and sold off.

I am NOT suggesting they should change its name. To the contrary, I oppose it at virtually every level. And, I am certainly not suggesting that adopted a death star provision. I do believe there should be a "fail-safe" provision that will preserve both our Christian and Baptist heritage and core.

However, if the name is destined to change then the University owes it to that hundreds and thousands of Baptist who have invested their lives in the school to preserve it's Baptist heritage. This could be done through something as simple as expanding the present Department of Christianity to College status and calling it the Baptist College of Biblical Studies or something like it. It is not enough to preserve the heritage in footnotes and documents of the past or a museum display. Our Baptist heritage should not be just acknowledged with a nod of the head.

Our Christian core values must permeate the entirety of the University an our Baptist heritage must be enshrined through some major ongoing education element. A Baptist College of Biblical Studies would go a long way in doing that. You could even do it without changing the names of the Atwood Buildings.

I also believe that such an announcement should be made at the same time as a name change is announced. By the way in coming up with a name you might want to consider that the name Morris adorns at least one other college in Texas already . . . Lon Morris. Not to mention a number of institutes and public schools. Let's Keep Houston Baptist University just that Houston Baptist University.

Let There Be No Doubt -- I Am A Baptist! There I said it.

As you may know from the past several posting I have been having a running conversation about the name change proposal for my Alma Mater, Houston Baptist University. Last Monday evening I attended via a live Internet feed a Trustee Town Hall meeting. The meeting was handled very well . . . pretty much as I expected. Ive been involved in these things on both the "hot seat" and the audience sides and have come to find that they all seem to follow the same pattern. It seemed to be principally focused on "how we got here" and "the benefits of a name change" with an acknowledgement without delineation that "there are some negatives." However, it is not the meeting itself or the issue for which it was held that is on my mind today. It is two things that I heard at the meeting that may or may not be connected.

I begin by saying there is not enough space here to say everything I would like on this. I just want to touch on one or two items. I am troubled by the superficial attitude toward the word "Baptist" in the name. Apparently the only reason for wanting to remove it is that a survey of non-Baptist potential students and their parents as well as a smattering of non-Baptist religious leaders stated that it would make it difficult for them to attend or donate to the University. As that survey was explained it consisted of about 1100 total people: 300 per potential non-Baptist students; 300 parents of potential non-Baptist students; the faculty; the Alumni Officers; selected Alumni and a few others. I could have saved them some money and told them what the results would be. What I am saying is that in my judgement the survey was flawed and the data it produced not very useful to an honest evaluation of the issue. Again, I digress.

The conclusion drawn from that survey is that the name Baptist is a barrier to recruiting and fund raising because it has taken on a negative connotation by the public in general. Now what got my attention was that the word Baptist had a negative connotation to the public. In defense of the founding father's choice of name it was explained that when the school was founded Baptist was a respected name but that over time and for a lot of reason it now has become a burden too heavy to carry. This movement was started by mega-churches or those whose church growth goals included becoming a mega-church. I could not help but notice that the great mega-church, Second Baptist Church of Houston, that once was known as "The Fellowship of Excitement" has placed its name in back on its signage and done so in huge letters.

Don't miss understand me. I am not questioning whether or not the word Baptist has become a burden for those who wear it and a barrier to those who do not agree with our theology. I would question whether or not it has ever been held in high regard outside of Baptist circles. However, it is a burden because it calls on us to live up to a high standard of Christian living and it is a barrier for the same reason. I see nothing in the meaning of the word etymologically, theologically or morally/ethically that would cause me to be pull back from wearing it proudly.

In fact, if I read the founding documents of my University correctly, that is precisely what the founder intended. They wanted a Christian institution that presented the gospel from a distinctively Baptist perspective. They wanted everyone to know that when you enroll in this University you are going to be exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ from a Baptist theological perspective. That's why from the beginning all the Christianity teachers were Baptist. That's why all the administrative staff, and virtually all the faculty was Baptist. It was to insure that in every discipline being taught on the campus there was a Baptist witness to the Gospel. These were by-in-large middle ground Baptist.

Now understand I am a Baptist and that means I was already a Christian when I became a Baptist. You see my theology teaches me that you cannot be a Baptist until first you are a Christian. That is the door through which you must pass to become a part of the Baptist family. Every Baptist church charter, Constitution and Bi-Laws I have ever seen clearly state that the membership of a Baptist church is restricted to those people who have become believers in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord and have been Scripturally baptized.

Not all Christians are Baptist but all Baptist are supposed to be Christian. Main stream Baptist have never taught that they were the only people going to heaven. What they have taught is that only people who by faith receive Jesus Christ into their heart and life will go to heaven. It is not the denominational label that defines them as Christian . . . it is their relationship with Jesus Christ. Baptist reject all teachings that would allow for an alternative way of becoming a Christian. Baptist are not the only ones going to heaven but they are going to heaven the only way one can.

The term Baptist defines the kind of Christian I am as to doctrine. I am a Christian by birth and a Baptist by choice. Being a Baptist is my pedigree as a believer. Other Christian pedigrees would be Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. Over time I have come to question whether or not there has been a Christian whose pedigree is pure. I am grateful to God that I can be called Christian and I am proud to be called a Baptist.

Our task is to so live and express our distinctive Baptist Christian faith so as to remain true to its tenants and to do so by living as peacefully as possible with all men. We as Baptist must conduct our business in and with the world at such a level of integrity that the non-Baptist world will see who the "real" Baptists are. Is that easy? No, in fact, it is nigh unto impossible. It requires us to lean heavily upon the indwelling Christ.

I do not believe that the word Baptist" or for that matter the word "Houston" in the schools name presents a significant problem regarding recruitment and/or fund raising. I believe both recruitment and fund raising require a clear explanation of the schools core values; a definitive demonstration how the school's curriculum, faculty and placement services meet the prospective students needs; an openness and honesty that fosters trust; and a clear demonstration to donors how their gifts to the school (1) provide a quality education (2) in a distinctively Christian context. Keep in mind that all school recruitment and fund-raising, like politics, is local. There must be a core of recruitment and funding that comes from the community where the school is located. International students are not going to be the answer to student growth and benefactors are not going to be found in distant states. Most people are going to build their legacy through donations to causes they endorse, and this is important, in THEIR communities. By the way - building a significant endowment should have been a priority from the beginning. Why not ask the College of the Ozarks how they have done it for the 106 years without federal student loan programs and where every student attends without tuition and graduates without any education related debt. Might be worth a look --- perhaps there are some lessons to be learned.