Differing opinions make the world go around!

Our poll on "What Should First Baptist Church of Dallas do with its Criswell College?" turned up some surprising results. Before posting the poll, I didn't think the answer that topped the final results—independence for the school—would draw more than a few votes. Actually, I thought that option was too Baylor-like for the Criswellians.

Of course, a poll is a poll is a poll. You conduct a poll to find out that which is not always obvious. This poll surely did turn up the non-obvious.

This poll carried no weight whatsoever except for the opinion of the people who regularly read this blog. Anybody who wanted to do so could vote in it. I set no preconditions, except that a person could only vote once. Through the technological wonder of Google, those who tried to vote twice were ignored and their second votes went into outer space. 

I also don't expect First Baptist Church of Dallas to pay much attention to the results, though a few members may.

 I also don't have a clue who voted or how they voted in this poll. I really don't care to know either. I just wanted to know how my readers generically feel about the issue. Google's report showed my earlier column on Criswell College was the highest-read entry to date on this blog. That surprised me not a little. I would have expected thoughtful columns on more weighty and important matters such as America's changing religious landscape and the troubles in the Republic of Georgia to have attracted the most attention. Even what I said about the firing of John Lilley as Baylor's president seemed a much more likely candidate for blog traffic than the Criswell College column. But then, I do know from my newspaper days that though church people decry controversy and try to act like they are above it, they always run toward it when it occurs within their midst.

The Criswell College poll, however, attracted an unusually high number of new visitors--far more than the original Criswell College column did. Within an hour of its posting, the number of visitors to this blog shot up dramatically. How so many people found out about the poll I'll probably never know. Some 56 people voted in the poll, but nearly 10 times that many dropped by to stare at it. I guess that's what they did, since they didn't bother to cast a ballot. Google's sleuths only recorded their silent stares. I wonder who the visitors thought I might report them to if they voted? The Dallas Police? My blog monitor shows these unnamed visitors mostly arrived from the Dallas area. No influx of Wacoans that I can tell! I suspect the visitors set sail from either Criswell College, First Baptist Church of Dallas, Southwestern Seminary, The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention—all mentioned in the poll—or a combination of all four.

While the poll carries no official weight, it does tell me something about my readers. For one thing, many of you are independent thinkers—like I am. I abhor herd mentality either among journalists who practice pack journalism or among church folks who march lockstep together or demand that others do that, too.  

Apparently you, my friends and readers, reflect my drift, too. Four of you (7% who voted) said the First Baptist-Dallas should close the school; three of you (5% of those who voted) said the church should sell it to the highest bidder; another three of you (again 5% who voted) said the status quo ought to be preserved. Surprisingly only eight of you (14% of those who voted) said the church ought to give the school to the SBTC; the day I launched the poll I thought this option would be the immediate favorite, but it was never in the running for a top spot. 

The option that managed to squeak out a distant second is the one some people are adamantly convinced will ultimately be the solution: give it to Southwestern Seminary. Those who are convinced of this are also the ones who seem to attribute every thing evil in the world to Paige Patterson, too. I just don't buy their line. He walked away from the school years ago and is now president of the world's largest theological seminary, so why would he be itching to get the smaller Criswell College back? Something about that doesn't add up. I see him more as the default player: take it in rather than see it closed or sold to the highest bidder.

Topping the poll were those who said the church should grant the school its independence. Now that's truly a novel idea! Twenty four (44% of the poll) liked this idea. That's more than the next three ideas combined! This option wasn't the majority, but it moved close to it. 

Will independence occur? Don't count on it! Knowledgeable sources have explained the issue to me. It's called money. I'm aware that the college, not the church, owns KCBI radio station. Sources note that KCBI radio is worth somewhere around $25 million. Selling the radio station would reap a nice cash reward for either the college or the church. And when big money, such as this, is involved, church groups tend to behave in strange ways. Taking a Solomonic approach is often not in the formula.

Beyond money, another reason independence for the college isn't likely to happen is that it would be too much like what Baylor did several years ago.  Remember when Herb Reynolds got his regents to vote to change the school's charter, then whisked the paperwork to Austin for recording before anyone at the BGCT or other Baptist entities knew what was happening? Criswell College graduates and staff screamed loudly about Reynolds' actions and Baylor's independence.

Though I think the idea of independence is worth serious consideration, I can't imagine the church seriously pursuing that idea.

Polls are fun. They give us something to think about.  They give readers something to do beyond just reading others' opinions. The Criswell College poll was our first for this blog. From time to time on this blog we'll be conducting more polls on different topics. In fact, we've got another one under way already.  Enjoy these as fun expression of opinion! Don't worry about my knowing who you are or how you vote. I'll only know if you tell me directly. But remember these are only polls—just a random sampling of people's opinions. And differing opinions are what make the world go around!

 

 

Faraway Georgia has had a long fascination with the U.S.

The year was 1991. The Soviet Union was nearing its final gasping breaths. By year's end the hammer-and-sickle red flag would fly no more over the Kremlin or elsewhere in the Evil Empire.

Six years earlier I had traveled to the Soviet Union to write my award-winning newspaper series about Jewish Refusniks—Soviet citizens who wanted to flee their motherland for life in either Israel or the United States but were held back by persecution and sometimes imprisonment. I traveled incognito as a tourist in a group of Texas Jews supposedly vacationing in the land of their ancestors. By day we visited tourist sites; by night we ventured from apartment to apartment for our clandestine meetings with the Refusniks. These Soviet Jews were genuinely scared to death of their political keepers; their paranoia was contagious—something we visiting Americans experienced vicariously for the first time.

This time—in December 1991—I now was among my own Baptist people. Our small delegation traveled by way of Moscow to the Republic of Georgia, one of the new countries that was emerging from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Frankly, I'd never heard of the Republic of Georgia until I was invited to join the group.

We were invited there by Georgia Baptist leaders, who feared their Orthodox brethren almost as much as they had feared their former communist masters. Georgia's Baptists wanted the five of us U.S. Baptists to talk directly with Georgia's Orthodox leader about ending what they perceived as persecution by Georgia's Orthodox majority against their tiny Baptist minority.  In short, they wanted us to bring American influence to bear on the patriarch, who in turn would influence his people to be nicer to the Georgia Baptists. For our part, we never could figure out how much influence we had, except that we were there physically. And we were Americans.

On arrival in Tblisi we thought our proposed talk with the Orthodox patriarch was our goal. Little did we realize the Georgia government was eyeing us with great curiosity and a much bigger game plan. 

I tell this story now because I believe it illustrates the dilemma the U.S. faces in light of the overreaction by Russia starting last Saturday against the little nation of Georgia over Georgia's efforts to reclaim land—called South Ossetia—it believed was stolen from it about the time we visited by revolutionaries aligned with Moscow.

As soon as we arrived in Tblisi in 1991 we started hearing "We love America. We love Americans. We want to be allied with you Americans. Please, can't you get your country to begin diplomatic relations with us?"

Within a few days of our arrival these messages were being delivered by top Georgian government officials, who seemed more than eager to clear their calendars in order to welcome a band of wandering Baptists from America. Each day the top Georgia government official wanting to meet us seemed to be a little higher up in the ranks. 

To everyone we met we kept saying, "We are here representing a large group of Baptists in America, not the U.S. government."

We decided we must be five of only a small handful of Americans in the entire country of Georgia that year. We also decided Americans were certainly greatly loved in that small, faraway country—or else somebody there sure thought they needed us awfully much.

Finally the invitation arrived for a command performance in the office of Zviad Gamsukhurdia, the country's first elected president. I must readily admit that even though I've traveled in more than 45 different countries, I'm not accustomed to spur-of-the-moment invitations to visit heads of state in their executive offices. This was a total surprise.

Richard Land, our group leader, tried to explain to the Georgian president about our interest in Orthodox persecution of Baptists. Gamsakhurdia was much more interested in whether we had connections with George H.W. Bush, then-President of the U.S, and influential people in the U.S. Congress. He specifically wanted to know if we could help him secure diplomatic recognition of Georgia by the U.S. government. Richard finally told him we would do what we could to help him—which wasn't much.

Returning in a taxi from the president's office/palace to our hotel, we were astonished to see so many military tanks and personnel on the Tblisi streets near the capital.

The next day we flew out of Tblisi to Moscow during the worst snowstorm I've ever seen on the smelliest and worst-maintained Soviet aircraft that I could possibly imagine.

Days after we met Gamsakhurdia, a coup ousted him from office. A few weeks later he and his family members all were murdered as they fled the rebels. In the upheaval the office in which we met him was burned.  

In so many ways, the Baptist trip was more unnerving than was the previous Jewish trip, which itself was hair-raising. Georgia was a strange, strange place. Men walked around holding hands with each other. They even kissed each other goodbye in very unmanly ways.  The military looked like something straight out of World War II. Why the government officials thought a tiny band of visiting Baptists from America might help them unlock their political fortunes in the U.S. would have been laughable had they not seemed to be so desperate.

Still, in 1991 the Georgians communicated beautifully several important messages: We love America. We need America. We will do anything we can to align with America. 

Why did they love and need us so much?  Probably because they hated the Soviets (translate today: Russians) so much. 

Those are the messages they still are communicating this week.

My heart goes out to the Georgians now as the Russians have taken out their pent-up frustrations on those poor people. I just wish, however, that Georgia's government had not acted so stupidly last Friday night. Didn't it know the bully in its back yard was still a real threat and the country its people love so much was half a world away mired down in its own problems including Iraq and Afghanistan? 

But now that the Russians have over-reacted so severely, maybe the Georgians will still get what they've sought for so long—the reciprocal U.S. interest in them accompanied by sympathy, awareness, and massive financial aid. Sometimes you have to lose in order to win. In this situation, Georgia still may turn out to be the big winner in its losing war with the Russians.

  

Criswell College battle is yet another example of the Orwellian drama

(Shortly after posting this blog, I received word that Jerry Johnson this morning resigned as president of Criswell College. See http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=5856&issue=8/25/2008)

For months the rumor mill has flourished with juicy morsels about the simmering battle forming behind the scenes between First Baptist Church of Dallas' new pastor, Robert Jeffress, and the leaders of the college created by First Baptist Church of Dallas honoring its legendary and controversial pastor, Wallie Amos Criswell.

Despite efforts to keep the brouhaha out of the public arena, the story last week finally leaked to the Dallas Morning News, so now Baptist Press and other media this week are picking it up.

On the surface, the issue seems to be about one issue: money. Like so many big-church preachers, Jeffress wants to build yet another monstrosity of a church building. Some say costs for his new building may run $150 million or higher. Depending on whose version of the rumors you believe, Jeffress either wants to sell the college and its popular Christian radio station, KCBI, for cash for the expansion, or wants to get rid of both institutions to get rich First Baptist Dallas members who presently underwrite the college and radio station to shift their giving to the church's new building fund.

Jeffress denies the rumors—all except his desire to build the new monstrously expensive worship facility. 

The school's president, Jerry Johnson, weighed in publicly last weekend and undergirded the allegations against Jeffress. So have some school trustees. They also allege that Jeffress is using his influence at the church to load the school's trustee board with like-minded individuals committed to his cause. 

Why should anybody care whether First Baptist Dallas sells, disposes of, or junks what is tantamount to a small four-year, 350-student Bible college?

Beyond the jockeying going on between Jeffress and Johnson is a significant point lost in all the talk about money: Had Criswell College not existed, the conservatives (a.k.a. the fundamentalists) probably wouldn't be ruling and reigning in the Southern Baptist Convention today. The school played (and its former staff and students continue to play) a crucial role in providing the personpower and political muscle that was necessary to literally remove the SBC from the hands of the so-called moderates and place the reins of power in the hands of the conservatives.

Paige Patterson, now president of Southwestern Baptist Seminary in Fort Worth, was once the president of Criswell College. From that post, he joined with Judge Paul Pressler of Houston in launching the so-called Conservative Resurgence (a.k.a. The Fundamentalist Takeover) of the SBC. Patterson's administrative team, faculty, and students today hold the reins of political power in the SBC. For instance, Richard Land, now exec of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, once was Patterson's right-hand man as dean of the school. David Dockery, president of Tennessee Baptist's Union University and one of the SBC's leading theologians, once was a Criswell College faculty member. SBC trustee boards and SBC agencies are filled with Criswell College graduates, who occupy strategic power positions—far beyond the percentage of power positions occupied by any other Baptist college or university.

Johnson himself left an indelible historic mark on the SBC. He was chair of the Southern Seminary trustee board that trumped the mother seminary's moderate leadership and catapaulted the conservatives into power in Louisville. 

So this is no little ordinary Bible college that Jeffress is messing with. This is the school which housed some of the key chiefs and many of the important warriors of the Conservative Resurgence. And, by the way, Jeffress now occupies the office once held by the granddaddy of the Conservative Resurgence, W.A. Criswell.

Granted, many of the players in the Conservative Resurgence now have moved on to bigger and better institutions. Their new jobs are accompanied by bigger and better salaries, perks, benefits, and political prestige. But Criswell College is the place where it all began for many of them.

Given this background I find great irony in the fact that the battle now rages over the college's future. It also raises the question whether all along the college was merely a Trojan Horse created as a staging ground for the troops to assault their moderate foes.  If it is not worth saving now, what was its purpose originally?

This latest battle pitting SBC conservatives against each other over the future of Criswell College is one more example of a pattern I've been observing among the conservatives for several years now. 

In my book, "Witness to the Truth", I note how the Conservative Resurgence reminds me more and more of the pigs in George Orwell's classic "Animal Farm", itself a satire on Soviet communism. In that story, the farm animals rise up against their human masters and overthrow them on a platform which points out the evil the humans had committed.  Slowly at first, then eventually pall-mall, the animals—led by the pigs—become every bit as contentious, if not more so, than the humans they had overthrown, including squabbles among themselves. In my book I reported that I see many indications today that the conservatives have taken on the role of the pigs in their own version of "Animal Farm". High on my list of reasons is the squabbling occurring both publicly and privately among the ruling conservatives themselves.

As the scrape over Criswell College unfolds, we apparently need to score yet another one for the pigs!

Watch out churches, the future is now overtaking us!

Forty years ago, if someone had described religious life in America today, that person would have been branded as some kind of kook for thinking such thoughts.

• The Roman Catholic-Protestant-Jewish culture then couldn't begin to conceive that America four decades hence could more aptly be described as Christian-Jewish-Muslim-Hindu-Buddhist with a smattering of just about every other religion known to the human race.
  
• The Charismatic (neo-Pentecostal) Movement was just beginning to emerge 40 years ago; its significant impact on almost every Christian denomination in the country, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, was unimaginable to most religious leaders then.
  
• The Gay Rights Movement was miniscule and its future impact on just about every American denomination unfathomable; who then could have foreseen large denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, would be torn apart over the issue?
  
• The Pro-Life Movement within Evangelical and Roman Catholic churches was so weak, hardly anyone took it seriously. No one 40 years ago could have accurately predicted the role the churches would play in the pro-life movement today.
  
• The shrinking size and influence on the church on secular society was not on anyone's drawing board either. Who knew the downdraft would be so significant?
• The divorce rate was growing rapidly, but who then could have foreseen its impact today on so many churches, church leaders, and American society in general? 

So what about religious life in America 40 more years from now? Besides the trends I've named above, what will be the trends that will mark religious culture in the year 2050? 

Like the past 40 years, the next 40 years will be colored by trends difficult to discern now. Any list viewed in retrospect is likely to seem naive and off-base. Nevertheless, presuming the past is a good indicator of the future, I offer some suggestions for what I think these next trends will be:

1. For better or for worse, the Green Revolution will make its mark on future religious life. How large its impact will be throughout the next 40 years is yet to be determined. The worse Global Warming becomes and the more the America-Must-Become-Energy-Self-Sufficient movement flourishes, the greater will be the Green Revolution's impact on America's religious life. Could the movements spark a return to neighborhood churches and the demise of megachurches with their massive buildings and long commutes? Will churches and church leaders that scoff today at Global Warming wake up one day and discover that as some of their predecessors did during the Civil Rights Movement that they were on the wrong side of the issue and that their opposition nearly cost them their credibility?
   
2. We Baby Boomers won't go quietly into the night. We never have been wallflowers; we won't be in this era, either. Count on us to change the whole image of retirement, the senior years, death, dying, and all the other issues associated with the later-in-life years. Churches and other religious institutions won't be able to avoid us and our aging ways and needs any more than will society as a whole. 
3. The Internet already has revolutionized America's social, financial, and cultural fabric. It's only just begun to impact religious life. Will the current email prayer requests and church newsletters eventually give way to such things as iChat and video conference/church business and committee meetings? How about Sunday School classes conducted totally over the Internet? And maybe even interactive worship services tailored to individual needs and tastes, forming congregations from literally all over the world?
4. The end of the white/Anglo male domination of the American culture already spells some serious changes for the U.S. culture as a whole. How will Anglo, male-dominated churches particularly respond to the escalating political, financial, and social power of women, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and Native Americans? Tokenism won't work this time around; neither will the old head-in-the-sand approach. Will white-dominated churches finally find a way to blend all people into a multi-cultural congregation and sing with the children: "Red and yellow, black and white. They are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world"?
   

Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain: change will be its primary characteristic.

Baylor's "palace coup" shows moderates act increasingly like their stereotype of fundamentalists

When during the late 1980s and early 1990s the so-called fundmentalists (also known as the conservatives) opted to clean the Southern Baptist Convention's top bureaucracy of outspoken moderates, hardcore moderates at Baylor University screamed their heads off about the ruthless, vicious way they believed the conservatives were going about their task. Because of those firings, even when good reasons existed for some of them, Baylor's moderates painted the conservatives as people lacking in decency, honor, and just plain good manners. 

So why now—more than a decade later—are Baylor's moderates acting as boorish and ruthless as those they accused back in the 1990s? Somebody needs to pin them to the floor and get them to explain their contradictory actions today.

I say this because on Thursday, July 24, for the second time in recent memory, Baylor's regents fired the university's president.  Of course, they didn't use the word "fired", but that's what they did. Their public-relations staff issued a press release that danced all around the facts.  You had to read deep inside the whitewash to garner the information: President John Lilley refused to go quietly into the night, so he was uncerimoniously dumped, with a regent named immediately as acting president.

I was not a supporter of Lilley's presidency--nothing personal against President Lilley, but simply because he was replacement for Robert Sloan, his predecessor. I've never met the man. I did think, however, that he brought at least a sense of respectable calm and dignity after the storm Baylor's moderates stirred up against former President Sloan.

According to the press release, Lilley was fired to help unite Baylor's warring factions. I'm trying to figure out that one; I thought that was the same reason the regents hired Lilley in the first place. He was supposed to be a peacekeeper and quiet interim, not a lightning rod for moderate anger like Sloan became. 

So who is at war at Baylor right now anyway? Those of us who supported Robert Sloan have mostly sat on the sidelines for the past three years and watched Lilley's benign style with less-than-enthusiastic interest. He seemed to mean no harm, though issues that plagued Sloan also seemed to dog him, too. 

The way Baylor's hardcore moderates treated Robert Sloan was a disgrace, but Sloan has gone to Houston now. I trust he is continuing to do well and has a happy, good life as president of Houston Baptist University. Many of us who supported him are still exhausted from watching in horror as the children of Sloan's predecessors, Dr. Herb Reynolds and Dr. Abner V. McCall, and their moderate buddies bludgeoned Sloan unmercifully, including slanders calling him a "fundmentalist" (which he was not). Apparently the Reynolds-McCall mob couldn't cope with all the good things Sloan accomplished for the school! 

If Sloan's supporters were not fighting against poor Lilley, then who was? As Sesame Street's Big Bird would say, "Today's program was brought to you by the letter M." The "M", of course, stands for the word "moderates". 

The situation right now gives every appearance that the hardcore Baylor moderates saw their chance to strike down Lilley quickly to set the stage to put one of their own on the throne at Baylor.

For several months now I have heard the rumors that Lilley was "on the way out". Since he was hired so late in his life, I've always figured his tenure as president would be short. Since I've been hearing about this for two months now, I presume what happened today was not a big surprise to a lot of Baylor insiders. My hunch is behind the scenes some political scheming and deal-making have been going on.

But firing the poor fellow? In such a cruel manner? And at an age where he is unlikely to ever get another job in a university administration? Did the regents also lock this Baylor alum's office door and refuse to let him re-enter it to claim his personal possessions? Is this and the scene beforehand with BU graduate Sloan the way an alma mater treats distinguished alumni?

And the moderate-dominated Baylor Alumni Association's response?  Its lack of indignation over the regents' ugly behavior is puzzling. Its less-than-convincing statement about the upheaval makes one wonder what role the alumni organization actually played behind the scenes in this latest palace coup. Sloan supporters also couldn't help but notice that during the past three years the BAA has been rewarding Sloan's critics, especially the Reynolds family and its friends, with seats on its own board. So, I'm not surprised at the BAA's actions at the moment.

What did Lilley do wrong?  Fail to grant tenure to a handful of professors? Did the moderates' beloved Herb Reynolds not do that also? Or was that OK because he only shunned conservatives and truth-telling journalists—banishing even liberals who questioned him?

Baylor students and alumni deserve better than the sorry politics that have engulfed the university during the past decade, thanks to Reynolds and his ilk.  Robert Sloan deserved better. John Lilley deserved better, too.

Next time Baylor's moderates point fingers at the SBC's conservative leadership, somebody needs to tell them to first go look in the mirror. After protesting so loudly for years about the SBC's so-called fundamentalists, apparently Baylor's moderates have now morphed into what they hated so much!

If an opinion is worth holding, it can stand up in the midst of objective information on all sides of the opinion

Many in the religion world focus on one part of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—the freedom of religion clause—but overlook or ignore another equally important freedom—that of freedom of the press.

Perhaps this is because they simply don't understand what freedom of the press really is.

For some odd reason, denominational journalists and their superiors seem to think freedom of the press is their right to proclaim their religious beliefs through the written or electronic media.  I see that as part of the "free exercise of religion" guaranteed in the First Amendment. I don't equate that with Freedom of the Press.

I daily receive emails from a host of various religious groups. In my inbox an evangelical denominational press service and a liberal denominational press service are among the most prolific. In so many ways those two represent the ying and the yang of the issue. I seldom find objective, opinion-free, compelling, in-depth articles in either publication. Whatever they do always seems to point to supporting some opinion or position their respective group is hawking.

The popular issue of global warming is a primary example of the differences between opinion-based versus information-based press reporting. Denominational news services, both left and right, tend to round up people who support their position and quote them. I would find these articles so much more appealing if they quoted or at least cited in a balanced and fair manner people with opposing opinions, too. Unfortunately these articles appear more sermonic than they do balanced, fair, and objective journalism from which I and others can draw our own conclusions.

Freedom of the press is so much more to me than just being able to preach one's religion through the printed or electronic media.

I like to think of "freedom of the press" as the "freedom of the marketplace of ideas".

Having worked both in the secular and denominational media, I know my definition is a key reason why secular religion journalism seemed so much more in line with my basic style than did the denominational media. I revel in freedom; I resist control. I found more freedom in the secular world and more control in the denominational world.

The concept of the marketplace of ideas is different from that of people pounding away with their opinions on their pulpits regardless whether they are left, right or in between.

I like to start with gathering information before I make a decision.  That's different than those who start with an opinion and then begin gathering facts to support their opinions. If an opinion is worth holding, it can stand up in the midst of objective information on all sides of the opinion.

Does that mean I believe everything I read in the newspaper or hear on the TV news? Or even on blogs? Absolutely not! I do like, however, to read opposing opinions and even articles that simply provide information and facts without ever drawing an opinion. That's why on some days I watch CNN, then the next day watch FOX network, then other networks on days after that. I like to have a 360-degree view, not a narrow slice of it.

Sadly, too often I find religious leaders—on both the left and the right—too busy with their opinions and trying to control rather than with enabling people to make up their own minds. 

Freedom of the press is freedom from controls. Freedom of the press promotes discussion, openness, and candor. To me, press controls point to insecurity of beliefs. "Tell the truth and trust the people" is an old journalism expression, but it is as appropriate today as it ever has been.

We'll talk more about this important topic as the days go by.

Annual CBA retailer's show illustrates changes under way

At the annual International Christian Retail Show in Orlando, FL, this week, the trends besieging the U.S. economy are self-evident in this large assemblage of companies that supply books, music, and other Christian products.

Ridiculously high gasoline prices appear to have cut into the usually robust attendance. Empty booth spaces and less than booming sales appear to reflect the hysteria surrounding the supposed recession impacting the U.S. economy coast to coast. The absence of huge, expensive advertising banners reflect the credit crunch. 

Or are these things really as they seem?

The wild card here is the role that Internet shopping and online advertising and promotion play in today's sales of books and other items. Is business really slowing down as it appears? Or it is changing and morphing into some new forms?

Fifteen years ago Internet shopping was more like a pipe dream that only a small portion of the population understood. Today, it's as common as bluebonnets in spring in Texas. I rarely venture into a retail store to purchase clothes, books, and a whole array of other products and services; instead I travel to my favorite shopping websites such as amazon.com and landsend.com. Every time I do this I marvel that I never need to leave my computer. I pay bills, do my banking, read the daily news, and receive and send prayer requests using my computer.

I also marvel how much of my business itself is conducted on the Internet. Five years ago, books-on-demand printing was in its diaper stage.  Today, knowing whether a book was produced one book at a time or printed on traditional presses rolling out thousands of copies an hour requires an expert eye and a lot of luck. On most computers the work of artists and writers travels at the speed of email.

Change is a hallmark of life these days. It seems to travel at the speed of lightning. This means old ways are passing away; new ways are emerging—all this at breakneck speed.

That's what makes assessing this year's show, sponsored by Christian Booksellers Association, so difficult. I asked a fellow participant what he thought of the world's largest Christian retail show. He responded, "I just met a man whose whole bookstore is online. He only purchases books one at a time from the wholesaler after he already has sold them through his online store". He seemed shocked at what he had learned.  I was shocked that he was shocked at what he had heard.

Websites now feature all the new book titles launching into the market this year (a main reason store buyers once attended CBA each year). Even CBA offers online seminars like it formerly reserved only for this annual show. 

I have no crystal ball on the future of CBA's International Christian Retail Show, but I do know that all the hubbub about the high gasoline prices, the so-called recession, and the hysteria of the "credit crunch" caused by the overheated real-estate market earlier this decade will force us to change—perhaps in some very drastic ways.  But change is not always bad. God always can use change for His good.