If you are pretty connected in Baptist circles, you may have already heard that the new SBC president with be Johnny Hunt. In addition to the winner (who received 52% of the vote), there were five other candidates for the position, all of whom appear to be conservatives in every sense.

The conference, which is attended by more than 7,000 Baptists from all over the map, has included big name speakers like Al Mohler and Paige Patterson. After tonight’s dinner break, Dr. Richard Land is set to speak.

The resolutions committee meets tomorrow, so things could get even more interesting there. Until next time …

The first link didn’t say, so clicked the link at the end of the story to read the original article written by the Fox affiliate in Orlando.  This article, too, lacked the all important detail for which I was searching, so I turned to Google News.  A search for the boy’s name (Tre Burgos) turned up four articles, some of which had questionable relevance.  The search did, though, turn up an article that brought an end to my short search.

The New Smyrna Beach Observer had an article on the boys plight,  but with much more detail, including the object of my quest.  Written prior to the Fox News articles above, the NSB Observer reports (emphasis added):

On Feb. 21, of 2008, Elioe [Tre's real name] will travel with his mother and father, to Bieke Biotech Treatment Center in Hangzhou, China and undergo 4-6 umbilical stem cell injections, which consist of 10-15 million cells per injection.

The miracle treatment, then, was not embryonic stem cells, but umbilical, or “adult” stem cells.  Now, you can call me paranoid if you want, but why is that the Fox News story doesn’t mention what kind of stem cell was used?  Could it be that by trumpeting the success of this stem cell treatment (and omitting the type of stem cells involved), someone hopes to sway the popular opinion with regard to any type of stem cell treatments (namely embryonic), thus removing the political and emotional barriers to emryo-destructive research in the future?  Nah, surely not.

If you can’t tell, I totally detest the phrase. The loathing I possess goes beyond the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. It may equate ice picks in eye sockets.

Who actually qualifies for “reproductive rights”? What about women who are barren? What are their so-called “reproductive rights”?

And what happens when a woman who tries to demonstrate this monstrosity and aborts her child, only to discover that the baby survives the procedure?

Am I being ridiculous? Am I over-dramatic? Not at all.

As reported in this article, Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, decided to abort her unborn son eight weeks in her pregnancy. She decided to do so because he was projected to have a life-threatening kidney condition.

The abortion failed. Percival was angry at first, but her frustration turned to joy.

“I just couldn’t believe this child had got through it all and looked so perfect,” she said.

Her son Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life. 

“He may need an operation but as only one of his kidneys is affected he can survive,” said Percival. “I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he’s here I wouldn’t change it for the world.”

So I ask again, how does this wonderful occurrence fit in the absurd philosophy that promotes “reproductive rights”? 

The birth is described as “a medical phenomenon” as such pregnancy usually miscarries or is terminated by doctors because of the threat it can cause to the mother.

A justifiable argument for the practice of abortion is potential harm to the birth mother. However, I believe this wonderful event demonstrates God’s sovereignty. This is why I believe whoever came up with the horrible term of “reproductive rights” is foolish.

The former White House press secretary’s recent book release is a so-called ”tell all” about his time serving the Bush administration. I have no intentions of reading this book because I don’t see, in the long run, how it can benefit.

It will not change anybody’s mind about President Bush or going to war in Iraq. It won’t affect the upcoming election. The only thing it does is stir the water cooler and provide another media headline for the week.

McClellan will sell some books, but I believe there will be long-term damage for him. McClellan already was forgotten when the ever-impressive Tony Snow replaced him. Whatever smear this book reveals will cause McClellan to be considered a weasel more so than a patriot.

I remember a statement my pastor once said. “What I say about you says more about me than it does about you.”

Whatever truth McClellan believes he’s sharing in his book will not bode well for himself. I may be in the minority for now, but I believe history will look favorably on President George W. Bush. McClellan will only enjoy his riches for a brief season.

In Numbers 12, the Bible calls Moses was the meekest (or most humble) man in all the earth. We also know that Moses himself composed the Book of Numbers. Here you have a rare case in which someone became aware of their humble nature and yet somehow retained it.

Recall in his masterpiece, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says, “The vice I am talking about is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere flea-bites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”

He goes on to say, “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it’s thinking of yourself less.”

I may have stumbled upon two other Christians who have realized the danger of pride, but are calling for wearing the badge of humilty. The first is the author of this book who calls for “humble apologetics,” the second is this group calling for “a humble orthodoxy.”

A very interesting and sobering thought, especially after just hearing about the possibility of a new service at my church becoming even “edgier” and more like a “TV church” (which is a topic for another day).