Baptist Press Stories for Mar. 1 2012 --------------------------------------- Appeals court: NYC churches can meet in schools (for now) http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37291 Q&A: How NYC churches found new legal life http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37292 Iran pastor: U.S. House calls for his release http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37293 Senate affirms contraceptive/abortion mandate http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37294 Md. gay 'marriage' bill signed, but not legal yet http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37295 'Missionary kids' aid hospital's makeover http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37296 FIRST-PERSON: The debate is about conscience, not contraceptives http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37297 BIBLE STUDY: Sunday, March 1, 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37298 --------------------------------------- Appeals court: NYC churches can meet in schools (for now) By Erin Roach Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37291 NEW YORK (BP) -- New York churches gained a victory in the courts yesterday (Feb. 29) as the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge's injunction against the city's enforcement of a ban to keep churches from meeting for worship in public schools. [IMG=32036@right@300]The Second Circuit, though, instructed U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska to act quickly on the case, encouraging her to issue a final decision by mid-June so the matter can be resolved before the next school year. While churches can continue to meet in New York City schools at least through the end of this school year, some already have moved on to more reliable space. One Southern Baptist congregation in the city moved all three of its campuses out of public schools, and another congregation is sharing its rented meeting space with other churches in an effort to support the body of Christ in New York. [QUOTE@left@180="We wouldn't want to go back to the schools and the next month have to go somewhere else. We'd rather find a place with stability." -- NYC pastor]The Journey Church has three campuses in New York -- an Upper West Side campus in Manhattan, a Village campus in Manhattan and a Queens campus. All three were meeting in public schools before the legal wrangling intensified early this year. Now the Upper West campus is meeting in the Directors Guild of America New York Theater on 57th Street. The Village congregation has temporarily moved to a United Methodist church for an evening service, and in Queens, Journey has moved to a United Artists movie theater. "We're paying a little over double the rent we were paying before, so that definitely affects our budget a great deal," Kerrick Thomas, pastor of the Upper West and Village campuses, told Baptist Press. "We're looking at different meeting location options, and we're looking at the possibility of bringing our two Manhattan campuses together in one central Midtown location and doing all four services in one place," Thomas said. Journey's leaders hope the city's ban will be overturned but they're taking their time and waiting to see where God wants them, Thomas said. "It would depend on what kind of stability the decision has with it," he said. "We wouldn't want to go back to the schools and the next month have to go somewhere else. We'd rather find a place with stability." Thomas said Journey's members have been frustrated by the city's actions against churches, especially because it feels like discrimination. "For our staff, there's been some added stress. Not necessarily knowing where we're going to meet has forced us to trust God," Thomas said. "It has given us the opportunity to communicate to our church the core values of the church and that the church is more than where we meet, it's the people. "It's been a challenge, but we also know that God grows us through those challenges. What we've been telling our church is that we don't know what God is doing yet but He's in control, and it's through tribulations like this that He grows our faith and strengthens us," he said. "We can't wait to see what God is going to do through this." On Easter, Journey will mark 10 years since it began as a Southern Baptist church plant in New York in the shadow of 9/11. The three campuses have a combined attendance of nearly 1,000 people each Sunday. Thomas said Journey is blessed to have resources to meet in alternate locations when schools are not available, but some churches have had to cease meeting because New York is so expensive and meeting space is hard to secure. "The biggest hit are ethnic churches that don't have a lot of funds," Thomas told BP. "To ask them to double or triple their budgets for meeting locations, that's not an option. So there are some churches that are meeting in homes, there are some church plants that thought this was the death knell and they decided to close their doors -- not many, but that's happened. "Without schools being available, it does raise a church planter's budget," he said. "It doesn't mean you can't start a church in New York, but schools do give a lot more options to church planters." GALLERY'S OPEN DOORS The Gallery Church, a six-year-old Southern Baptist congregation in New York, is sharing its rented meeting space with a Korean church that had been meeting on the campus of New York University and with an Australian church plant. The two churches were planning to start meeting in public schools before those plans became uncertain, and they're like several churches in the area that are not being counted in the number of churches affected by the ban because they were not yet in the schools, Kelly Love, executive pastor at Gallery, told Baptist Press. Gallery rents two floors of a building at 1160 Broadway, and the two other churches meet on Sunday afternoons and evenings in the space Gallery uses in the mornings. The meeting space is available to other displaced congregations that would want to meet on Saturday evenings, Love said. "Anyone who is in desperate need of a place to park their congregation, we want to serve the body," he said. In fact, Gallery's leaders previously wondered why they were paying such high rent for their meeting space. "When all the schools issues started happening, we quickly realized it was the sovereign hand of God that put us in this place and that gave us the ability to minister to the body of Christ in New York City and not just our congregation. With that in mind, we really want to use it for churches in a time of need," Love said. Last May, Love was a businessman living in Alabama with his wife and two children when they sensed God calling them to move. "We weren't sure where. Then about eight weeks later we ended up in New York City," he said. Through a conversation with Freddy T. Wyatt, Gallery's lead pastor, Love ended up on staff at the church last July. "We came so quickly we didn't have time to raise funds, and our church is not at a point where they can fund us," Love said. "So I needed to get a fulltime job." He was hired by a Fortune 500 company and now works in the financial district on Wall Street. Love hopes that in the next several months he will have raised enough support to go fulltime with Gallery. Regarding the future of church planting in New York, Love said now is the time for churches around the world to commit to the strategic city. "The dollar figures just went up for what it takes to plant a church in New York City," he said. "So now is not the time for us to regress. Now is not the time for us to tuck tail and run, so to speak. "Now is the time for churches who feel a calling to New York not to let the discouragement make them waver in their commitment but rather step it up," Love said. "We still need churches in New York City. We still have one church for every couple hundred thousand people versus what it is in the South or elsewhere in the Bible Belt. The need is more present than it ever has been." --30-- Read a legal Q&A about the NYC situation at [URL=http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37292]http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37292[/URL] Erin Roach is assistant editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- Q&A: How NYC churches found new legal life By Michael Foust Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37292 NEW YORK (BP) -- If you want to understand how New York City churches won a last-ditch lawsuit in February after losing multiple rounds just months earlier, pull out a copy of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. There, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ..." Each clause is essential to understanding the case. [IMG=32039@right@130]Last year, in a case dating back to 2001, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a New York City law preventing churches from worshiping in public schools was constitutional under the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause -- the first and third clauses in the First Amendment. That court, though, did not base its ruling on the Free Exercise Clause -- the second clause in the First Amendment. That clause is at the heart of the latest legal round. U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled Feb. 24 that New York City churches could meet in schools while the new lawsuit based on the Free Exercise Clause proceeds, and the Second Circuit upheld her ruling Feb. 29. The latest suit also makes a claim based on the Establishment Clause. "A law is not neutral if its object is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation," Preska ruled. All of this means that churches -- which thought they had reached the end of the legal road when the Supreme Court refused to get involved -- have new legal life. Under the city's policy, churches cannot meet in schools but other organizations can. Baptist Press asked Alliance Defend Fund attorney Jordan Lorence to give more details about the lawsuit, the history of the case and the case's future. Following is a transcript: BAPTIST PRESS: How is this lawsuit different from the previous suit in which the Supreme Court declined involvement? JORDAN LORENCE: Basically, it's an extension of the same lawsuit. We brought three legal claims [initially]: free speech, free exercise of religion, and establishment clause. We said the policy violated all three. But all throughout the litigation, the court only dealt [primarily] with the freedom of speech claim. So we went back and asked ourselves: Do we have the opportunity to go back and ask the court to rule on the other two claims? We determined we did, and we renewed our motion, and we have had this success. So now, we won on the grounds that the policy violates the free exercise of religion clause and it violates the establishment clause because the government is defining what is and is not religion. That's excessive entanglement of state and church. BP: So the free exercise claim was made in the previous lawsuit? LORENCE: And nothing happened with it. Yes. We made it in our original complaint in 2001. BP: And what did the court do with that claim? LORENCE: We kept raising it and nobody ever talked about it. And then [this year] we found out we could bring it back. BP: Were you surprised that the court this year sided with you after all those years the court ruled against you? LORENCE: We weren't sure how it was going to be received, but we felt the claim was viable -- there was an intelligent argument. But I think the judge definitely could have said, "This case is over and I don't want to deal with it anymore." But instead she agreed with us, in a very powerful and strong way. BP: With this situation in limbo, many churches are finding permanent alternate sites. Do you fear that the city is winning even though they may be losing right now in court? LORENCE: I think that some of these church sites are temporary. I know of churches that are going to be moving back to public schools. The fact that now we have space in schools through the summer is going to bring some of them back. Many of these churches are meeting in places that are less than ideal, and they would move back if they had the opportunity to do so. We want this to be a settled issue like it is in every other major school district in the country -- a religious group renting a public school and it is routine and non-controversial. BP: Will the same Second Circuit panel that ruled against you last year be the one that rules on a future appeal? LORENCE: Yes. That's a little challenging. But we believe that our free exercise arguments can prevail. --30-- Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- Iran pastor: U.S. House calls for his release By Staff Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37293 WASHINGTON (BP) -- Adding pressure to Iranian officials, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a resolution calling for the immediate release of Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, who could be executed any day for his Christian faith. The resolution passed Thursday (March 1) by an official vote of 417-1, although the one representative who voted "no" -- Lois Capps of California -- said she did so by mistake, and she corrected her vote minutes later and said in a floor speech she supports Nadarkhani. [IMG=31545@left@130]Nadarkhani -- whose first name also has been spelled Youcef -- was sentenced to death in 2010 for converting from Islam to Christianity in a case that began in 2009. His plight has gained international attention. Several sources close to Nadarkhani say the death order already may have been issued. The resolution "condemns the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and its continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and calls for the Government of Iran to exonerate and immediately release Youcef Nadarkhani and all other individuals held or charged on account of their religion." The resolution further states that "numerous Government of Iran officials have attempted to coerce Youcef Nadarkhani to recant his Christian faith and accept Islam in exchange for his freedom." A U.N. official, the resolution says, reported that Iran secretly executed 146 people in 2011 and more than 300 people in 2010. The White House and State Department also have released official statements urging Iran to free Nadarkhani. Following is the full text of the resolution: "Condemning the Government of Iran for its continued persecution, imprisonment, and sentencing of Youcef Nadarkhani on the charge of apostasy. "Whereas the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uphold that every individual shall have `the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion', which includes the `freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'; "Whereas Iran is a member of the United Nations and signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; "Whereas articles 23 through 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran provide for freedom of expression, assembly, and association, as well as the freedom to practice one's religion; "Whereas Iran is a religiously diverse society and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran reports that religious minorities including Nematullahi Sufi Muslims, Sunnis, Baha'is, and Christians face human rights violations in Iran; "Whereas in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of incidents of Iranian authorities raiding religious services, detaining worshippers and religious leaders, and harassing and threatening minority religious members; "Whereas the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights reports that Iranian intelligence officials are known to threaten Christian converts with arrest and apostasy charges if they do not return to Islam; "Whereas in October 2009, Youcef Nadarkhani, a minority Christian, protested an Iranian law that would impose Islam on his Christian children; "Whereas in September 2010, an Iranian court accused Youcef Nadarkhani of abandoning the Islamic faith of his ancestors, and condemned him to death for apostasy; "Whereas the Iranian court sentenced Youcef Nadarkhani to death by hanging according to Article 167 of the Iranian Constitution, Article 8 from the book of Tahrir Alvasilah Fi Sofat Alghazi Va Maianaseb Lah, and Fatwas of Shia theologians; "Whereas, on December 5, 2010, Youcef Nadarkhani appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Revolutionary Court in Qom, Iran, and the court held that if it could be proven that he was a practicing Muslim in adulthood, his death sentence should be carried out unless he recants his Christian faith and adopts Islam; "Whereas, on September 25, 2011, through September 28, 2011, the State Court of Gilan Section 11 held hearings to determine if Youcef Nadarkhani was a practicing Muslim in adulthood, and held that he had abandoned the faith of his ancestors and must be sentenced to death if he does not recant his faith; "Whereas on numerous occasions the judiciary of Iran offered to commute Youcef Nadarkhani's sentence if he would recant his faith; "Whereas numerous Government of Iran officials have attempted to coerce Youcef Nadarkhani to recant his Christian faith and accept Islam in exchange for his freedom; "Whereas upon the date of the passing of this resolution, Youcef Nadarkhani has refused to recant his faith; "Whereas the Government of Iran continues to indefinitely imprison Youcef Nadarkhani for choosing to practice Christianity; and "Whereas the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights reported that, at the time of his report, in 2011, Iran had secretly executed 146 people, and in 2010, Iran secretly executed more than 300 people: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- "(1) condemns the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran and its continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and calls for the Government of Iran to exonerate and immediately release Youcef Nadarkhani and all other individuals held or charged on account of their religion; "(2) recognizes that freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal human right and a fundamental freedom of every individual, regardless of race, sex, country, creed, or nationality, and should never be arbitrarily abridged by any government; and "(3) recognizes that governments have a responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens and to pursue justice for all." --30-- Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- Senate affirms contraceptive/abortion mandate By Tom Strode Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37294 WASHINGTON (BP) -- The U.S. Senate has dealt a setback to the effort to protect religious freedom and conscience rights in the Obama administration's controversial contraceptive/abortion mandate. [IMG=32034@right@120]With a 51-48 vote, senators tabled an amendment Thursday (March 1) to guard the "religious beliefs or moral convictions" of those offering and purchasing insurance under the health care law enacted in 2010. By its action, the Senate refused to consider -- and, in essence, killed -- a proposal offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R.-Mo., in response to a requirement under the law that all health insurance plans cover without cost to employees sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions. The contraceptives, as designated by the federal government, include drugs -- such as "ella" and the "morning-after" pill Plan B -- that act after fertilization and destroy a human embryo. Religious liberty advocates have criticized what they have described as an inadequate religious exemption in the mandate since it was issued in January. President Obama announced Feb. 10 an accommodation that he said protects religious organizations by making insurance companies responsible for paying for contraceptives and sterilization, but critics contended his solution was insufficient. Some described it as an "accounting gimmick" that would still require religious organizations to be complicit in paying for employees' abortion-causing contraceptives through their insurance companies. They have pointed out the president's accommodation would not protect faith-based insurance plans or individuals who object to paying for such products. Supporters of the Blunt amendment expressed their disappointment after the Senate vote. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is "outraged by the Senate's decision to kill" the amendment, said Richard Land, the Southern Baptist entity's president. "Make no mistake, the Senate vote was not about contraception but about the right of people of faith to be able to live out the values of their faith free from government coercion," Land said. "This insensitive response to our pleas to the Senate to protect religious freedom from government coercion cannot go unchallenged. "If the government can tell its citizens that their First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom and conscience is subject to its dictates, then the First Amendment offers no protection to people of faith," Land said. Charmaine Yoest was "absolutely appalled" that the Senate failed to defend Americans' First Amendment rights, the president of Americans United for Life said at a Capitol Hill news conference after the vote. Matt Bowman, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written statement, "Every vote for religious freedom should be unanimous, but tragically, our fundamental freedoms didn't seem to matter to enough senators." The 51-48 roll call on the Blunt amendment fell nearly along party lines, with the Democrat majority holding its advantage. Three Democrats -- Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- voted against tabling the proposal. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine was the lone Republican to vote to table it. Snowe announced her retirement only two days before the vote. Supporters of the Blunt amendment will continue to work for stronger conscience protections in the contraceptive/abortion mandate, they said afterward. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R.-Neb., has 219 co-sponsors for a similar bill he has introduced in the House of Representatives. The ERLC "will continue to press this battle for freedom to the very end," Land said. "We call on all people who love liberty to join us in this must-win struggle against government tyranny." After the vote, Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, told Baptist Press the House "is absolutely determined to vote on this, and the leadership will make sure that happens. ... So we fully expect the Senate to have another opportunity to vote on it. This isn't done." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee and Family Research Council were among other organizations to declare their intention to continue to work for sufficient religious freedom protections in the mandate. Foes of the Blunt amendment -- including Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America -- applauded the Senate's action. The vote is "an important victory for covering contraceptives just like other preventive health care," said Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's president. Americans United asserted the amendment was too broad and would have harmed religious liberty and public health. Under the Blunt amendment, no plan would have been considered to have failed the requirements of the health care law if it declined to provide coverage because: "[P]roviding coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or "[S]uch coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage." Land urged 20 senators, including 11 Democrats, in a Feb. 28 letter to back the Blunt amendment. They were chosen because they had not yet officially joined the list of cosponsors or were considered open to an appeal. Nine of the 20 voted against tabling the amendment. Another, Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, was the only senator not to vote. --30-- Tom Strode is the Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- Md. gay 'marriage' bill signed, but not legal yet By Michael Foust Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37295 ANNAPOLIS, Md. (BP) -- Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed a bill into law Thursday that would legalize gay "marriage" in the state beginning in January 2013, but churches already are mobilizing to reverse it at the ballot. Technically, the Democratic governor's signature made Maryland the eighth state either with a gay "marriage" law or a law set to go into effect. Maryland, though, is one of two states almost certain to see such a law challenged at the November ballot. Washington state is the other. Under the umbrella name Maryland Marriage Alliance (www.MarylandMarriageAlliance.com), multiple groups -- Baptist congregations, Catholic churches and conservative organizations -- will gather signatures with the goal of giving voters a chance to reverse the law though a referendum. About 56,000 valid signatures are required, although churches will need to collect far more than that to make up for the ones tossed out as invalid. [IMG=32007@left@100]"We are trying to defend an institution that has stood the test of time all the way back to the book of Genesis," Robert Anderson, pastor of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md., told Baptist Press. He said his congregation will be involved in the signature drive. About 500 church members previously signed cards opposing the bill. The cards were given to legislators. The Maryland Board of Elections approved the language of the referendum Wednesday (Feb. 29). "The overwhelming response we heard from the people of Maryland during the debate in the General Assembly made it clear that the people of this state do not support same sex marriage," said Derek McCoy, executive director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance. "We know that thousands upon thousands of Marylanders contacted their legislators, attended our rallies and stood up for marriage. This energy will now be focused on a referendum to give the people the right to vote on marriage, and ultimately, to overturn this act of the General Assembly." Catholic churches figure to be involved heavily. After the bill passed the legislature, Baltimore Cardinal Edwin F. O'Brien released a statement saying the archdiocese will "eagerly and zealously engage its 500,000 members in overturning this radical legislation" and will join with others "throughout Maryland in aggressively protecting the God-given institution of marriage." Anderson said Marylanders have good reason to overturn the law. The state, he said, should promote the ideal for children: marriage as between one man and one woman. "From a sociological level, it's best for the children," Anderson said. "Every child has a right to have a mom and a dad -- to say at the end of the day, 'Good night Mommy' or 'Good night Daddy.' Every study tells you that it's better for a child, overall in the long run, to have both a mother and a father." Six states currently recognize gay "marriage": Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa and New York. Thirty-one states have voted on gay "marriage" at the ballot, and it has lost in every state. Anderson said the issue is one that goes beyond "political lines." African American churches, he said, have been united against the bill. "We're talking about something more basic to society and civilization," Anderson said. "Black churches and black clergy got involved when the homosexual community started to make it an issue of civil rights. That's a sacred cow among African Americans. We know what civil rights are. Our skin color -- we didn't have a choice. The color of your skin has nothing to do with sin. "Homosexuality is sin," he added. "To be black, to be Asian, to be Native American, that is not sin." Traditionalists also warn that the legalization of gay "marriage" would impact the religious liberty of private businesses and curriculum in elementary schools. In Massachusetts -- where marriage has been redefined -- a second-grade class read a book, "King & King," about a prince who "marries" another prince. In Vermont, where gay "marriage" is legal, the ACLU sued a bed and breakfast after it declined to host a same-sex "wedding" reception. Illinois saw a similar lawsuit, when a male couple filed a discrimination suit against two bed and breakfasts that refused to host their civil union ceremony. --30-- Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp). -- End of story -- 'Missionary kids' aid hospital's makeover By Mark Kelly Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37296 SANYATI, Zimbabwe (BGR) -- Joining in the "extreme makeover" of Sanyati Baptist Hospital in Zimbabwe, a crew of nine youth, ages 11-18, proved up to the task. [IMGONLY=32038@right@180]In four days, the "missionary kids," whose parents serve in nearby Botswana and South Africa, offloaded 15,000 pounds of roofing metal from a truck and assembled 15,000 screws to help future roofing teams, besides painting a hallway, inventorying supplies and visiting two local churches. Sanyati Baptist Hospital, a 60-year-old icon of Southern Baptist work, had fallen into serious disrepair over the past decade as the African country's economy collapsed. The problems included a broken water system, leaking roofs and rotting, termite-damaged wood. The electrical supply, averaging only four hours a day, was so unreliable that hospital staff had installed auto headlights and a battery in an operating room to be sure doctors weren't plunged into the dark in the middle of surgery. "This team of kids maintained a great attitude of servanthood, flexibility and commitment to the task at hand," said Daren Davis, an International Mission Board missionary in Botswana who was one of four fathers accompanying the youth. "They enjoyed working together, playing together and eating together. It was a great experience for these kids and something they will not soon forget. "They were moved at the conditions the patients must live in and the inadequate resources the nurses and doctors have at their disposal to meet the needs of these patients," Davis said. "They were blessed to be able to do a little to help make the hospital a better place and to share a message of encouragement with area churches." "Even though my jobs were small," said Meredith Davis, 16, daughter of Daren Davis and his wife Shawna, "I know they were important and that I was helping the future teams that are going to come and put the new roof on the hospital." Meredith's brother Micah, 18, added, "When younger generations go on trips like these, they will see that they need to stop complaining about the hard stuff that they are going through because other people are going through things that are twice as hard. "I learned that I need to be happy with what I have and stop wishing for things I don't have." Rhett Warner, 12, was struck by Sanyati Baptist Hospital's importance. It is "the only hospital in that village, and the village is in the middle of nowhere," said Warner, son of missionaries Brandon and Torie Warner in Botswana. "So it was cool being able to repaint the walls and assemble screws for them. If I have another chance to go again, I will definitely go." The hospital handles 35,000 outpatients and 1,800 inpatients a year as well 1,000 surgeries and 1,500 births, said Mark Hatfield, who with his wife Susan directs work in Sub-Saharan Africa for Baptist Global Response, a key partner in the renovation project. "With the economic difficulties Zimbabwe has experienced the past 10 years, many people find it very difficult to feed their families, much less provide medical care," Hatfield said. "Sanyati is the only option for hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans who need medical care. Hospitals in the country struggle to keep their doors open, and volunteer teams like this one are making a difference for Sanyati." The five-year "extreme makeover" of the hospital intends to restore its facilities to where they can be locally maintained, said project director Peter Sierson, missions pastor from Pleasant Heights Baptist Church in Columbia, Tenn. A dozen teams a year will be needed over the course of the project, Sierson added. In 2011, about 125 volunteers came to Sanyati, and another 150 to 200 are expected in 2012, Sierson said. "We were able to replace the roofs on two of the 12 buildings this past year," he said. "I hope we can get at least 10 buildings under new roof by this time next year, then our thoughts can turn to inside the buildings." For 2012, teams already are lined up from Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Georgia, Texas, Sierson noted. "We had Zimbabwe churches involved in the project last year, and we look forward to more of them joining us," Sierson added. Tim Shaw, an International Mission Board missionary in South Africa who also accompanied the youth team in their venture to Sanyati in December, reported that several volunteers from the community showed up to help paint or move steel. "It was a pleasant surprise," Shaw said. "They never asked for anything, just wanted to help." Another boost to the project, Sierson said, is that the Chick-fil-A corporation is "partnering with us in 2012. They already have led a leadership development conference for the Baptist Convention of Zimbabwe that included hospital leadership." In answer to prayer that God would call an on-site project coordinator to smooth the way for volunteer teams coming from the United States, Ryan Sifford, a member of First Baptist Church in The Colony, Texas, agreed to come with his wife Rashel and three girls, ages 2-7, to help provide coordination. Sifford, who served on a Sanyati work crew last summer, will stay for six months, starting after Easter. Plenty of opportunities to help at Sanyati are still available, Sierson said. "There are still openings in the schedule for more teams," he said. "There is a focus on roofs, but other projects need to be done as well." --30-- Mark Kelly is the media strategist for Baptist Global Response, on the Web at www.gobgr.org where more about the extreme makeover of Sanyati Baptist Hospital is available. For information about volunteering for the project, e-mail psierson@pleasantheights.com. Photos and a blog post about the MK project are available http://k2cluster.blogspot.com/2011/12/extreme-makeover-extreme-mks.html. -- End of story -- FIRST-PERSON: The debate is about conscience, not contraceptives By Richard Land Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37297 NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- Let's begin by making one thing crystal clear. The debate generated by the Obama administration's requirement that virtually all health care insurance plans provide free contraceptives, abortifacients (abortion-causing drugs) and sterilization services is not a debate about contraception or "reproductive services." This debate is about coercion, not Catholics; conscience, not contraception; and freedom, not fertility. We believe as Americans that every human being has a God-given right of freedom of faith and conscience. Due to our forefathers' persecutions, persistence and insistence, this freedom is acknowledged and recognized in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The "free exercise of religion" goes well beyond the "freedom of worship" concept so often used today by those who fail to understand, or reject, the Constitution's religious freedom protections. For them freedom of worship is restricted to church and home, to the space between your ears and the space between your shoulders. But free exercise of religion is far more robust and includes the rights to share one's faith and to live out its implications in the social and economic spheres -- in other words, the freedom to exercise or act and the right not to be coerced. We must not stand by and allow our God-given rights to religious freedom, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, to be atrophied, confined and restricted into mere freedom of worship. The Obama administration's recent actions, as Cardinal Dolan said in his Feb. 22 letter to his fellow Catholic bishops, "have attempted to reduce this free exercise to a 'privilege' arbitrarily granted by the government as a mere exemption from an all-encompassing, extreme form of secularism." Cardinal Dolan has hit the proverbial nail on the head. This controversy is about conscience, not contraception. In America our First Amendment freedom of religion does not depend on government benevolence or toleration. Typical of the secular mindset dominating the media and the higher precincts of the Obama administration is the misguided declaration of New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristoff who wrote in a recent column (Feb. 22): "The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them when we can." Given this secularist mindset one could argue that the HHS mandate violates not only the First Amendment's free exercise clause, but the establishment clause as well. When the federal government asserts the right to universally mandate actions, trample religious convictions, and then grant exemptions to those it chooses, the government is behaving perilously like a secular theocracy granting ecclesiastical indulgences to a chosen few. Our forefathers knew how tenuous, unreliable, and intolerant such government toleration could be. Roger Williams, a 17th-century Baptist minister and the founder of Providence Plantations (later Rhode Island) asserted that, "Man hath no power to make laws to bind conscience," and went on to say that forcing a person's conscience was "the rape of the soul." Thomas Jefferson, chief drafter of the Declaration of Independence and our nation's third president, argued in 1779 during the campaign for the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Jefferson, in the last year of his presidency (1809), looking back on the accomplishments of the American Revolution, declared, "No provision of our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprise of the civil authority." The great 18th-century Baptist leader John Leland, friend and colleague of both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who help framed the First Amendment free exercise clause, declared "that religion is a matter between God and individuals, religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government nor in any way under its control" (1791). Indeed, at the time of the American Revolution, when our forefathers took on the world's first superpower, the British Empire, the Continental Congress (1775), needing every able-bodied man to fight off a powerful invading force intent on crushing the rebellion, granted exemption from military service to the Moravian and Quaker colonists whose religious convictions included the renunciation of participating in war. Of course this tradition has been continued with the government granting conscientious objector status from a military draft for those with similar religious convictions throughout our history, even when the government was under dire threat. In modern times Pope John Paul II correctly identified religious freedom as the "first freedom" and as "the premise and guarantee of all freedoms that ensure the common good." In his 1999 papal letter, "Respect for Human Rights" Pope John Paul II explained: "Religion expresses the deepest aspirations of the human person, shapes people's vision of the world and affects their relationships with others; basically, it offers the answer to question of the true meaning of life, both personal and communal. Religious freedom therefore constitutes the very heart of human rights." People of all faiths -- and no faith -- should rise up and demand that the Obama administration rescind its HHS mandate that insurance-subsidized and free contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization procedures be required of all but churches. Such government coercion of conscience is intolerable. The president's supposed "compromise" of having insurance companies pay for these services is an accounting trick, a distinction without a difference. The cost to the insurance companies will be built into the premiums, paid by the religious organization or the individual. This controversy is about freedom, not fertility. As Cardinal Dolan asks in his letter, "If the government can, for example, tell Catholics that they cannot be in the insurance business today without violating their religious convictions, where does it end?" Indeed! Let's all understand what is at stake here. Unless you are a priest or a minister working for a church or you work for a firm with less than 50 employees, here is the dilemma you will face. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not strike down Obamacare's mandate that all people purchase health insurance upon penalty of a substantial fine, and if Obamacare, unimpeded, takes effect as scheduled Jan. 1, 2014, millions of Americans will be faced with a tortuous choice. If you have religious conscience objections to subsidizing contraception, or abortifacients, or sterilization in your health insurance program, you will face a stark choice. Under Obamacare, all health insurance programs will be required to offer free reproductive services (i.e. contraception, abortifacients, sterilization), which means that many Americans will face the choice of violating their deeply held religious convictions and purchasing health insurance which forces them to financially subsidize that which they find unconscionable (i.e. reproductive services) or pay a substantial fine for declining to purchase health insurance and not having health insurance for their families. A government imposed fine for following your religious convictions? In America? Say it isn't so! Our Founding Fathers would be aghast. --30-- Richard Land is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. -- End of story -- BIBLE STUDY: Sunday, March 1, 2012 By Staff/LifeWay Christian Resources Mar. 1 2012 http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37298 NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- This Bible study appears in Baptist Press each week in a partnership with LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. Through its Leadership and Adult Publishing team, LifeWay publishes Sunday School curriculum and additional resources for all age groups. This week's Bible study is adapted from the Bible Studies for Life curriculum. Bible Passages: Psalms 42 & 43 Discussion Question: The last time you faced a trial, did you run to God or did you run from Him? Food for Thought: Everyone faces trials in their lives, and we're conditioned to believe that our response to those issues is the true measure of our character. However, the measure of our Christian character lies in whether we run to or from God during a trial. In the 2011 movie "Courageous," Adam Mitchell's family suffers a tragedy. While the standard Hollywood fare expects audiences to anticipate it, viewers don't see a man who retreats from his family and turns to worldly coping techniques for relief. We see a man who seeks the Lord's guidance to become a better husband and father than he has been in the past. Ultimately, Adam and his friends help bring about a change in their congregation as they seek to empower men to stand up courageously for their families. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." As Christians we know that infinite hope is found in Christ alone. Bible Studies for Life is a life-stage family of resources that addresses key issues facing adults and students. Consisting of seven curriculum lines developed for various life and generational stages plus two others designed for deeper study, all of these resources focus on the same Bible passage for each week. Information about the seven curriculum lines and more information can be found on the Internet at LifeWay.com/BibleStudiesforLife. Other ongoing Bible study options for all ages offered by LifeWay can be found at LifeWay.com/SundaySchool. --30-- -- End of story -- Copyright (c) 2013 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press 901 Commerce Street Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: 615.244.2355 Fax: 615.782.8736 email: bpress@sbc.net