David's Deliberations

"Held at bay by a vicious animal" option 3?

2011-12-23T15:39:00.005-05:00

I had to call Animal Control in Wake County, North Carolina for reasons that are not worth repeating. What is interesting is their current outgoing phone message. It is a long message that gives callers the option of pressing various buttons on their phone for various needs. Before you even get to that part, however, there is a recitation of the holiday schedule. Then, finally, callers are told to "press one" for a long list of services related to the animal shelter, or to "press two" for complaints related to stray animals and other matters related to animal control. But it was option three that really got me. Callers are instructed to "press three" for emergency issues including being "held at bay by a vicious animal."

Shouldn't this third option be number one? If I'm being "held at bay by a vicious animal" I'm thinking I don't want to listen through the listing of the holiday schedule, the animal shelter services, and the stray animal/animal control option before being told how to get help. By the time I'm told the button to push to get assistance, the vicious animal may have done its damage. If a ferocious dog is snapping at my heels or a crazed bear is chasing me, I think I should be at the front of the line for help.

Maybe the outgoing phone message of Wake County, North Carolina Animal Control is a good reminder to all of us to get our priorities in order.

Misunderstood preparations

2011-12-06T16:50:00.005-05:00

Last week Kieon Sharp, 18, of Charleston, West Virginia, applied for a job with a trucking company. On the same day that he filled out the application he saw one of the trucks of the company he hoped to work for parked on the street with the driver sitting inside. He decided to make some preparations for his potential new job by talking to the driver about the day-to-day routine of driving for this company.

Sharp approached the truck and knocked on the driver's window. The driver immediately called the police and Sharp was arrested. You see, Sharp had applied to Brinks Security and he was knocking on the window of one of their armored vehicles parked outside of a bank. The driver thought the young man had a gun and that he was attempting a robbery.

Sharp was held behind bars for several hours before the story was sorted out. The police were apparently impressed with his cooperation. Sharp was offered an application to the city's street department upon his release from jail.

Kieon Sharp was only trying to make preparations for something important in his life, but his preparations were misunderstood. The Advent season is all about making preparations for something important in our lives. We seek to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord. If our preparations are in keeping with the character of the arrival of Jesus then they could easily be misunderstood.

Great kings are supposed to arrive amid scenes of glory but Jesus, the King of kings, chose to enter the world in a lowly, even scandalous, way. A teen pregnancy out of wedlock to a peasant girl. A birth in a stable. His first clothes were rags and his first bed was a feed trough. Behold, your Savior.

According to the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:9, Jesus made himself poor in coming to this world. His ambition was not for power and wealth, but for lowliness and poverty. As Mary said, he brought down the powerful and sent the rich away empty while he lifted up the lowly and filled the hungry with good things (Luke 1:51-53).

This whole approach upsets the ways of our world--our culture in particular. If we all operated this way, Black Friday would be a disaster and our economy would be wrecked. If our Advent preparations follow the original Christmas pattern then I can easily see our efforts causing considerable misunderstanding and concern.

But I hope we realize, to slightly paraphrase John's gospel, "the true light, which enlightens everyone, comes to the world" (1:9). And we need to help our world to see the true light. To do that our Advent prepartions must shine the true light on a new and different way--His way. We will be misunderstood ... at least at first. But if we are faithful to the ways of the one whose ambition was for poverty and lowliness then the wonder of the true light will transform our world in glorious ways.

Is history repeating itself?

2011-11-14T16:37:00.005-05:00

Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church.

Baptist hero Richard Furman wrote the words above in a document entitled "The Views of Baptists Relative to the Coloured Population of the United States." The first edition of this pamphlet was published in 1822 and a second edition was produced in 1838, some 13 years after Furman's death. For decades this biblical defense of slavery became the model for Bible-based arguments in favor of owning people in this country. Baptists and many other Southern evangelicals were just sure that there was nothing wrong with holding slaves and they adamantly claimed to have the Bible on their side. On the other hand, other Christians, mainly in other parts of the country, made biblical arguments against slavery.

These days we think Southern Christians were wrong to defend slavery back then and we are ashamed of the biblical arguments made by Furman and others. We repudiate their take on the scriptures as adamantly as they clung to it.

This bit of history is one thing that concerns me about the prevailing position of evangelicals regarding homosexuality. Most evangelicals, including most Baptists, say today that all homosexual behavior is wrong and they point to a handful of biblical passages to support this claim. But some other Christians interpret the scriptures in a more affirming way regarding homosexuality.

Is it possible that someday Christians will look back on the prevailing position of Baptists and other evangelicals on homosexuality today in much the same way that we look back on the position concerning slavery of Richard Furman and other Baptists of the 1800s? Whatever your answer to that question, we have got to learn to talk about this issue in a healthy way. We've got to figure out a way to discuss this important topic with a humility inherent to the realization that we see as through a glass darkly--we don't know it all.

And we've been wrong before.

A decline in spiritual vitality in churches

2011-11-07T10:10:00.004-05:00

According to a recent survey, the percentage of U.S. congregations reporting high spiritual vitality declined from 43 percent in 2005 to 28 percent in 2010. Did those numbers sink in? That's a drop of 15 percentage points in five years.

The article linked above reporting this news also notes the unsurprising fact that, according to research, "spiritually alive churches are the most likely to grow." Even so, it appears that there has been a precipitous decline in spiritual vitality in churches of this country. Why?

I think one reason for this disturbing decline is that church folks are just too busy, and not necessarily with church work. Oh, there are some church folks who are certainly overworked in doing church work. But I fairly regularly have folks who do not hold many if any positions in the church who tell me that they are too busy to participate in events designed to promote spiritual vitality.

Because so many folks are time poor these days, here at Woodhaven Baptist, we just launched a non-event-based approach to encouraging spiritual vitality to supplement our event-based programs. In a nutshell, the new initiative involves pairing men and pairing women in the church who commit to gather once per week for prayer, fellowship and discussing a reading assignment. Each pair meets at a time and place of its choosing and decides on its own pace of reading. Furthermore, each person in each pair is encouraged to invite an unchurched friend, neighbor or co-worker to join the group. So each group is composed of a maximum of four men or four women, two of whom are church members and two of whom are not.

It is the most flexible plan for relationship building, communal prayer, and outreach that I can imagine. We will continue to hold various church events designed to foster greater spiritual vitality. But it is just getting harder and harder to find times for church events that many folks can attend beyond Sunday morning (and even Sunday morning is not as easy as it used to be it seems).

Will our new non-event-based approach to promoting spiritual vitality help in a time poor culture? We just launched the plan yesterday, so that remains to be seen. But if many folks say they are too busy even for a plan so flexible, then I see only one alternative: Encourage our people to simplify.

We should probably encourage simplification anyway.

Is Halloween evil?

2011-10-31T12:12:00.002-04:00

As with Christmas and Easter, Halloween is a mixture of pagan and Christian traditions. It seems that about this time every year I hear about some Christian leader, local or national, getting upset about the pagan elements connected to the history of Halloween. Perhaps this concern should not be ignored, but I don’t get excited about the shady portion of Halloween history because the overwhelming majority of people in our culture know nothing about it.

For example, our modern practice of trick or treat is apparently connected to something that Christians did to replace the ancient Celtic practice of leaving out food and wine for roaming spirits. (That’s a long story for another day.) The Celts also wore masks to disguise themselves from the wandering spirits which may help to explain our practice of Halloween costumes.

As for our modern Halloween observances, I’ve never heard of anyone these days deliberately trying to keep alive the pagan, Celtic tradition. Have you heard anyone at Halloween time saying, “Honey, did you remember to put some food on the front steps to appease the wandering ghosts?” When is the last time that you told your children or grandchildren, “We’ve got to get you a Halloween costume so that the wandering spirits won’t recognize you.” In my experience there is no deliberate attempt to further pagan rituals on Halloween.

For the most part our observance of Halloween looks like an annual, huge costume party with some candy thrown in. If the evil in such a practice is measured by the motives of one’s heart, then I don’t see Halloween as predominantly evil. Certainly there are some folks who seem bent on getting drunk or violent or destructive on Halloween and these acts must be discouraged in any season. But most folks are just trying to have a little fun and exercise a little creativity on this day. Where’s the evil in that?

Of course, in many ways Christians continue to attempt to redeem Halloween for godly purposes. Many churches hold a “Fall Festival” that is largely for young people as an alternative to less positive Halloween activities. “Trunk or Treat” is another popular church Halloween tradition that involves decorating car trunks and filling them with goodies for young people. Christians frequently use Halloween as an opportunity for fellowship and outreach.

There is some Halloween ugliness every year and, again, this is to be discouraged. But, for the most part, this day is about harmless fun and, for many Christians, a chance for fellowship and outreach. So I don’t see the point in getting all worked up about some pagan Halloween roots that were largely forgotten long ago.

James Madison and Baptists

2011-07-02T10:02:00.004-04:00

Baptists in Virginia were fiercely persecuted by other Christians for a period of about 20 years beginning around 1760. The Anglican Church was the official state church and the Anglican establishment did not look kindly on other faith groups. Baptists were singled out for sometimes brutal assaults because they were a fast growing group that often challenged the uniting of church and state. They were the victims of mob violence, their marriages not recognized by the state, they were fined and they were jailed. Indeed, from 1768 to 1774, more than half of the Baptist ministers in Virginia were imprisoned at some time for preaching.

On this Independence Day weekend I decided to take a look at the way the persecution of Virginia Baptists influence one of the founders of this nation: James Madison. Previously I have written about one legendary account in which the connection between Baptists and Madison played an important role in the establishment of the Bill of Rights. Today I will set that story aside in order to underscore the way Baptists impacted the father of the Constitution more generally.

As a young man Madison was utterly appalled by the persecution of Virginia Baptists. He graduated from Princeton (then called the College of New Jersey) in 1771 but stayed an additional six months in part because of ill health but also to study Hebrew and other subjects. From 1772-1775, Madison stayed at the family estate, Montpelier, which is north of Charlottesville, Virginia. Perhaps he heard about the ill treatment of Baptists from his father who, as a vestryman in the Anglican Church, was charged with enforcing laws against religious dissenters. The young Madison’s outrage is clear in a letter dated January 24, 1774 that he sent to his college friend, William Bradford:

That diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among some and to their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their Quota of Imps for such business. This vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this [time?] in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close [jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are very orthodox.

The jailed men to which Madison referred were six Baptist preachers incarcerated in Culpeper County in early 1774.

Concerning the abuse of Baptists, Madison notes in the same letter that he had “squabbled and scolded abused and ridiculed so long about it, to so little purpose that [he was] without common patience.” The degree to which the future President of the United States intervened on behalf of persecuted Baptists is unclear. Joseph Loconte states that Madison visited the six jailed preachers in Culpeper County. Joseph Martin Dawson cites a few lines from the New Universal Cyclopaedia, published in 1876, that indicate Madison repeatedly appeared in “the Court of his own county to defend the Baptists.” When he was over 80, Madison himself wrote that he “spared no exertion to save [Baptists] from imprisonment [and] to promote their release from it.” While it is unclear whether Madison visited jailed Baptists or defended them in court, his writings leave no doubt that he was infuriated by their imprisonment and that he made his views known. Richard Labunski affirms the difficulty in determining the extent of Madison’s efforts on behalf of Virginia Baptists, but he concludes that, in the setting of Anglican dominated Virginia, Madison was courageous to criticize the persecution of Baptists.

Robert Alley and Lance Banning see the mistreatment of Virginia Baptists as the factor that drove James Madison, later the father of the Constitution of the United States, to get into politics. This view is strengthened by the fact that Madison’s zeal for the subject was undiminished when he again wrote his friend, Bradford, in April, 1774 to inform him that the Virginia legislature would soon meet to consider petitions from “Dissenters” including those of “Persecuted Baptists.” In the same letter his keen interest is evident in a careful assessment of the political landscape confronting dissenters as they sought “greater liberty in matters of Religion.”

Beyond the role that the persecution of Virginia Baptists played in Madison’s initial decision to enter politics, it appears that the oppression of Baptists was important to his future advocacy of republican government. In Federalist Paper Ten, Madison explains that pure democracy can be its own form of tyranny in which strict majority rule can infringe on the fundamental rights of a minority. He does not explicitly mention the jailed Baptists, but they appear to have been on his mind nonetheless. Madison thought the basic rights of a "minor party" may be imperiled by "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." He wrote that "zeal for different opinions concerning religion … have … divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other … " He warned that this “strong … propensity” has been “sufficient to kindle … unfriendly passions and excite … violent conflicts." Therefore Madison proposed a representative republic as the solution to the oppressive tendencies of pure democracy. His language is not conclusive but it appears likely that personal experience with an “overbearing majority” may have weighed on the father of the Constitution as he pressed for a republican form of government.

Garrett Ward Sheldon attributes Madison’s desire for a representative republic to a “Calvinist suspicion about the motives of sinful” humans that he learned in his culture in general and particularly under John Witherspoon at Princeton. There is no question that Madison’s education at Princeton, with its emphasis on Calvinism, was a major influence in all aspects of his life including his political philosophy. Madison biographer Irving Brant sees “the germ” of Madison’s dedication to religious liberty in his 1769 choice to enroll in Princeton rather than William and Mary. At that time the president of William and Mary College “was the head of a powerful group seeking to establish an American Episcopate with himself as the head.” On the other hand, an observer of Princeton wrote in 1769 that the school would be “a bulwark against the Episcopacy.” Brant concludes, “There is more reason to believe that hostility to church establishment led Madison to Princeton, than that the choice of a school fixed his principles.” While Brant is correct that Madison’s choice of Princeton probably provides a clue to his developing views on religious liberty, Sheldon is no doubt accurate in his contention that Madison’s Calvinism-steeped studies influenced the political philosophy of the future president.

However, the obvious passion excited in Madison with the imprisonment of Virginia Baptists made an indelible mark on the father of the Constitution. As mentioned above, he was still writing about “the persecution instituted in his County … against the preachers belonging to the sect of Baptists” when he was beyond 80 years of age. Some of the language of Federalist Paper Ten seems to betray personal experience with a tyrannical majority that could easily be connected to Madison’s rage against the oppression of Baptists. It is fair to conclude that, more than theoretical classroom discussions, the real life example of human depravity seen in the mistreatment of Baptists inspired Madison’s dedication to a form of government that avoided the despotic dangers of pure democracy.

Brant considers Madison’s experience with persecuted Baptists a significant factor in his “lifelong zeal for religious freedom.” For Robert Rutland, Madison’s Princeton experience coupled with his discussions with his father about the oppression of Baptists shaped “a lifelong aversion to religious bigotry” in the mind of the father of the Constitution. So it was that oppression at the hands of the religious establishment inspired not only Baptist dedication to religious liberty but that of one of the most noted founders of the United States. It appears that James Madison, outraged by the mistreatment of Baptists, was serious when he requested that his friend, William Bradford, “[P]ity me and pray for Liberty of conscience. . .” And Baptists had a lot to do with that passion.

Content in any and every situation?

2011-04-27T12:06:00.009-04:00

We are holding our regular, quarterly church business meeting this evening. Earlier I was looking over the financial statement that will be presented tonight and thanked God for some really good news. We are halfway through the 2010-11 church year and our General Fund contributions are up by a little over 20%. For the second quarter, General Fund donations were up 20.49% and, for the first six months of the church year, they were up 20.37%. That's just jaw-dropping.

Actually, our General fund contributions had begun to increase in the 2009-10 church year, but not by 20%. Prior to about halfway through the 2009-10 church year we had a string of quarters in which General Fund donations kept going down. The recession took it's toll on church giving for a while. Looking at financial statements prior to a business meeting was, frankly, kind of depressing when contributions were down.

But, for more than a year, we have seen significant improvement in church finances. So, earlier today, I was looking at the numbers and I was thanking God when God spoke to me. Oh, God didn't speak to me out loud, because God knows I'm a Baptist and so I wouldn't be able to handle that. But I sensed that God said to me, "Did you have less reason to be thankful when contributions were down?"

Oh, but God didn't stop there. On the heels of the word above whispered in my soul, I remembered this passage:

I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. (Philippians 4:11-12, TNIV)

Have I really learned the secret of being content in any and every circumstance? Have you? Do the followers of Christ have fewer reasons to be thankful in lean times? Is the wholeness that is ours in Christ diminished in a recession? In churches, should we thank God less when the financial statement is weak (according to our definition) than when it is strong?

Can we learn to be content (content!) in any and every situation?

"... in any manner whatever ..."

2011-04-05T07:01:00.005-04:00

I suppose Monday was a pretty busy news day, but the Supreme Court yesterday handed down a disturbing and somewhat unnoticed ruling. In a 5-4 decision, the High Court ruled against an Establishment Clause challenge to an Arizona tax credit program, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The tax credit applies to donations to organizations that provide scholarships to students who attend private schools, including private religious schools.

This ruling is distressing on several fronts. First of all, the Court did not consider the substance of the suit, which is ultimately about government aid to religious institutions. I know what a thorny area this is, especially when it comes to private religious schools. But if the issue is to be decided by what the founders of this country had in mind with the language of the First Amendment, then there seems to be little room for debate.

One year after it approved the Bill of Rights, the same congress took up a matter connected to the census. In the discussion, James Madison explained why the census must not include a question of what citizens do for a living. He noted that it would be wrong for the government to list religious professionals because “the general government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who [are] and who are not ministers of the gospel” (emphasis mine). No one argued with Madison’s reasoning.

Note this sweeping interpretation of the First Amendment by the very founders who adopted it. Because it is “proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion,” the government could not even ask people what they do for a living because the question might be posed to a religious professional. The prohibited government action of asking people what they do for a living is a far smaller government involvement in religion than offering tax credits for religious schools.

Even more disturbing is the High Court’s ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue. The suit was brought by taxpayers who claimed their rights under the Establishment Clause were violated by the Arizona law. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said, “The court’s opinion offers a road map — more truly, just a one-step instruction — to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge.” Kagan goes on to list numerous powerful and troubling examples of the can of worms opened by this decision that you can read here. But Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman sums up the problem nicely when she notes that this ruling “denies citizens the right to fight for strong protections against a governmental establishment of religion.”

Finally, this ruling is disturbing because Jesus’ rejection of the temptation to use the power of government to accomplish his mission argues strongly for a separateness between church and state. He died not with the sword of government in his hand, but with the spear of government in his side. Christ’s followers do well to be leery of government efforts to be involved in religion "in any manner whatever."

Getting Charlie of the toilet

2011-04-01T10:10:00.000-04:00

"Christ ... is at the right hand of God ... interceding for us." (Romans 8:34, TNIV)

"... the Spirit ... intercedes for us ..." (Romans 8:26, TNIV)

"I have food to eat that you know nothing about." (John 4:32, TNIV)

I had an experience last night that I won't describe to protect the confidentiality of others involved. But it reminded me of a similar experience of several years ago. In both instances I had got a chance to help someone.

Some years back I got a call at about 11:30 at night. A close friend of Charlie (not his real name) was at his house helping to take care of him. Charlie is dead now. He died several months after the night that I received this call. He was a church member and he was in very poor health. Charlie was on the toilet and he was so weak that he couldn't get up, I was told. I said that I was on my way. As I went to my car, I called Mike (not his real name), another church member and a deacon. Charlie was a very big man--over 300 pounds. I knew that I wouldn't be able to get him off the toilet by myself.

At Charlie's house, Mike and I could see that this would be no simple operation. The bathroom that Charlie was trapped in was very small and there was no room for two guys to get in there and left him. But something else was apparent. It wasn't just that Charlie was weak, he was suffering some sort of episode. He was out of it. I called 911.

When the paramedics arrived they were also at a loss as to how to get Charlie off the toilet. After a few moments, I developed a strategy of positioning a bed sheet in a certain way under Charlie such that it would support his weight, allowing four of us to lift him, two on each side. We tried it and it worked. Moments later, Charlie was in the rescue squad and on his way to the hospital.

It never was determined what sort of episode Charlie was having that night. The next day in the hospital he was lucid again. He had no memory of the experience of the night before but his friend told him about what Mike and I did. Charlie thanked me profusely and he said that Mike and I were working for Jesus when we lifted him off that toilet.

This morning I read today's selection in Oswald Chambers' classic daily devotional, My Utmost for His Highest. In the reading Chambers connects intercession with worship. Using the two verses from Romans above he makes the case that, because intercession is continual act of Jesus and of the Spirit, it should be a vital part of the life of Christ-followers.

Intercession is typically linked to prayer. But is prayer the only way that we intercede for others in the name of the Lord? Is service on behalf of those in need a form of intercession?

Last Sunday I preached on the the account of Jesus' conversation with the woman at the well in John 4. Christ helped the woman at the well--he served her. After the experience he indicated to the disciples that this act of service fed his soul (John 4:32).

Acts of service are seldom convenient. Regularly we cannot see the positive results of service immediately as in the case of successfully lifting a weak man from a toilet and onto a gurney. Sometimes those we serve are not thankful like Charlie was. But, no matter the circumstances, when we fail to intercede in service to assist others I think we miss wonderful opportunities to feed our souls.

It's about accuracy

2011-03-21T10:19:00.007-04:00

Well, it's happening again. The International Bible Society (IBS), which holds the copyright on the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, has released a revision and some groups and individuals are complaining about it. Why are they complaining? The NIV of 2011 uses more gender inclusive language than the NIV of 1984, the previous revision. There was a time in English language usage when the noun "man" and the pronouns "he" and "him" were used in the generic sense to refer to males and females. For decades now English teachers have been instructing writers to avoid generic usages of male nouns and pronouns. When I was in college more than 20 years ago, I was taught to use gender inclusive expressions and if I lapsed into generic usages of "he," "him," or "man," then the professor marked my writing as incorrect. Gender inclusive Bible translation is about taking into account this change in English usage. Here is one example related to the current controversy connected with the new NIV:

Mark 8:36, NIV 1984:"What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?"

Mark 8:36, NIV 2011: "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?"

According to the article linked above, some are complaining that the gender inclusive language in the new NIV distorts the Bible in various ways. I disagree. It seems clear that failing to use gender inclusive translation is likely to result in misunderstandings of the biblical message. The NIV is a thought-for-thought translation. It seeks to convey the thought of the original language in the clearest possible terms according to current English usage. It is a simple fact that writers of our culture have been taught for a long time that they should not employ generic male nouns or pronouns to refer to both males and females. My children, who are all adults, were never instructed to use "he" or "man" in the generic sense. From the beginning they were taught to use gender inclusive language in their writing. English translations of the Bible that do not use gender inclusive language are just not as accurate according to English usage of today, plain and simple. Those who scream "scripture distortion" due to the gender language in the new NIV are guilty of their own brand of distortion by failing to recognize that the English language has changed in this area and that change has been in place for a long time. Gender inclusive translation, generally speaking, results in greater precision in conveying the thought of the original language of the text. Having said all that, I have concerns about the NIV 2011. Back in 2005, the IBS released the Today's New International Version (TNIV), a separate translation very similar to the NIV 1984. However, the TNIV utilized gender inclusive language. I have not read very much of the NIV 2011, but it appears that it is less gender inclusive than the TNIV. For example, it appears the NIV 2011 does not shy away from the term "mankind." The TNIV does not use "mankind." Here is one example:

1 Tim. 2:5, NIV 2011: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus ..."

1 Tim. 2:5, TNIV: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human ..."

I was taught to use other gender inclusive phrases rather including the term "mankind" in my writing. In at least this respect, the NIV 2011 seems to take a step backward in gender inclusive translation. Making matters worse, the article linked above indicates that the IBS is replacing both the TNIV and the NIV 1984 with the new NIV 2011. So it appears that a scenario has been established in which some may reject the NIV 2011 because it goes too far with gender inclusive translation and others may reject it because it does not go far enough in this regard.

I like the TNIV. It is the version of the Pew Bibles that we use here. I'm sorry to see it go.

This is the third time that the IBS has been at the center of an inclusive language controversy. In 1996 a gender inclusive version of the NIV was released in the United Kingdom, which caused a stir here in the United States. When the TNIV was released in 2005 some complained about its gender inclusive language. And now the NIV 2011 is creating the same sort of debate once again.

Movie Mulling: The Adjustment Bureau

2011-03-05T08:22:00.004-05:00

I don't see too many movies in the theater but the previews of The Adjustment Bureau, starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, intrigued me. Based on the trailers it appeared that maybe the story was about an old biblical argument: How much of your life is planned for you by God and how much do you decide for yourself? My wife, Terri, and I went to see it last night and that's exactly what The Adjustment Bureau is about. But the theoretical/philosophical explorations of the movie are wrapped in a story that it is one part romance and one part suspense.

David Norris (Damon) is an ambitious senate candidate who meets a beautiful dancer named Elise Sellas (Blunt). The two fall hard and fast for each other. But there is something or someone trying to keep them apart. David accidentally discovers the forces arrayed against him in his efforts to find and woo the woman of his dreams. Then the stage is set for a struggle between David's will and the will of the Adjustment Bureau.

Whose will would prevail? You'll have have to go see the movie to find out, but I'll clue you in on this much ... It might not really be an either/or proposition in the end.

Underneath a pretty good story of love and suspense, The Adjustment Bureau gives viewers a lot to think about. I'm going to be pondering the implications of this flick for a while. But if you are interested in a good tale that will keep you thinking after the credits begin to roll, then go see The Adjustment Bureau.

We may have to stop reading altogether

2011-03-04T06:38:00.006-05:00

Oh no! What are we going to do? Lifeway bookstores, a chain connected to the Southern Baptist Convention, will no longer warn us about books that might contain heresy. They had this labelling program through which certain books were branded as follows: "This book may contain thoughts, ideas, or concepts that could be considered inconsistent with historical evangelical theology. Therefore we encourage you to read it with extra discernment." Now Lifeway has ended that program.

Isn't that scary? Without this service from Lifeway, how will we ever figure out when to read books with "extra discernment" versus ... um ... normal discernment or maybe no discernment? How will we know which books might contain radical and dangerous ideas and which ones don't? Does Lifeway honestly think we can figure this stuff out on our own? What were they thinking?

Please contact Lifeway right away and demand that they reinstate their warning labels. If they don't, we may have to stop reading altogether.

Jesus: "Let nothing be wasted."

2011-03-02T08:43:00.003-05:00

In doing some Bible reading early this morning I was struck by this simple command of Jesus: "Let nothing be wasted" (John 6:12, TNIV). The context was the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 in which Christ feed thousands of people with five pieces of bread and two small fish. After everyone had eaten, Jesus told the disciples to gather up the leftovers and that's when the Lord expressed his desire that none of that food should be wasted.

What do you think? Should the Lord's desire be our desire in this regard? If so, then we Americans do not typically do a very good job in the area of not wasting food. I poked around a little online and found one nearly eight-year old report saying more than 350 billion pounds of food is wasted each year in the United States. That's a lot of wasted food.

I saw another article about Project MANA of Incline Village, Nevada that last year rescued more than 65,000 pounds of food bound for dumpsters. They collect food from area markets that has nearly expired "best if used by" dates stamped on it and distribute it to those in need. The Loaves and Fishes Community Food Pantry housed here at Brunswick Islands Baptist Church does the same thing in this area. Such efforts by many food pantries across the nation are wonderful missions to heed our Lord's command not to waste food.

Despite the efforts of many food pantries to let nothing be wasted, I wonder how much food ends up in dumpsters in this country? How much food do we waste in in our homes? What steps can we take to better conform to our Lord's desire?

In the context of gathering leftover food, our Lord said, "Let nothing be wasted."

[I turned in my final project report for my DMin work earlier this week, so I plan to get back to blogging bit more now. I still have to defend the report in a few weeks and then I will likely have to make some revisions. But, you should be seeing the number of entries increase, especially after graduation on May 13.]

Back soon

2011-02-09T11:23:00.002-05:00

I have taken a break from blogging while making the final push in finishing my Doctor of Ministry (DMin) work. In fact, for at least the last year I haven't been blogging much because of my studies. But, if all goes well, I'll graduate in May. I hope to have a completed draft of my final project in ministry report by Sunday evening (it's due by March 1). So, for my many readers out there, keep checking. I hope to be back soon.

What are you so worried about?

2010-10-26T09:39:00.002-04:00

I think we received more requests for a recording of the sermon of this past Sunday than any sermon I've ever preached. I'm not convinced the sermon was all that good. It just took up a topic that is a struggle for many people: worry.

Sunday's sermon was the second in a series on the story of a leper named Naaman found in 2 Kings 5. In this installment we focused on verses 4-8 in which the King of Israel received a request that he misinterpreted badly. Naaman was the commander of the military forces of neighboring Aram and he received word that there was a prophet in Israel who could cure him of his leprosy. He went to the King of Israel with a note from the King of Aram requesting healing for Naaman.

Somewhere in the chain of communication there was some confusion because the note from the King of Aram asked that the King of Israel rather than the prophet to cure Naaman. When the King of Israel received this request that he could fill he assumed the worst. He tore his robes in an expression of grief and stated his conviction that this must be part of a plot to start a war.

Well, that wasn't it at all. This was no prelude to war. Naaman just needed some help and he heard that he could find that help in Israel. The King of Israel was very worried about what might happen. He was worried about a threat that did not exist. He thought there was a threat--a very serious threat--but he was wrong.

When Elisha the prophet heard about the King's response to the note, he sent a message to him in which he asked, "Why have you torn your robes?" (2 Kings 5:8, TNIV). Again, the tearing of the robes was an expression of grief and, in this context, it was specifically an expression of the King's worries about what might happen. So, in essence, the prophet asked the King, "What are you so worried about?"

The truth was the King had nothing to worry about.

As we saw on Sunday, this episode points us in the direction of several New Testament teachings that make us aware that the followers of Christ should not be worriers. One of the most significant passages in this regard is this word of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount: "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own" (Matt. 6:34, TNIV).

Don't worry about tomorrow. Don't worry about what might happen in the future. This is the teaching of Jesus to his followers. He didn't say that we won't have any troubles, for we will have troubles. He didn't say that we won't experience pain in this world, for we will experience pain. But the Lord did indicate that we must not worry about such things. Can we do that? Is it realistic?

Do we believe the Bible?

The King of Israel was worried about what might happen but things weren't nearly so bad as he thought. That's often the way it is with the things we worry about. But the really good news is that, even if things are as bad as we think or even worse, Jesus indicates that we still must not worry.

The thing that really gets me about Jesus' saying that we must not worry about tomorrow is that he was on his way to the cross and he knew it. And the the cross was really horrible. Still he said, "Don't worry about tomorrow." In other words, no matter what you face, don't worry about tomorrow. The promise of the resurrection made Jesus that confident.

Do we trust him? Then what are we so worried about?

A hopeful dead tree?

2010-10-05T13:00:00.010-04:00

I saw a headline in the Star News out of Wilmington, NC that the city has nixed the ceremony connected to the lighting of the "World's Largest Living Christmas Tree" this year, a tradition dating back to 1928. Several factors contributed to the decision including construction at the water plant on the site of the tree and budget constraints. But another reality that has been apparent for years is that the Live Oak that is the "World's Largest Living Christmas Tree" is dying, a fact that is readily visible in the photo above. Many years ago a pole had to be added to support Christmas lights that the dying upper branches could no longer bear.

The news of the decision to cancel this year's ceremony aroused a bit of sadness in me. When my daughters were younger, we attended that ceremony numerous times. To this day I try to get by to see the lighted tree every year around Christmas time.

Really I think it is the sight of the tree in the daylight that brings more sadness than the cancelling of the ceremony. I haven't attended the ceremony in years. In the night, when I always see the dying tree, the darkness hides the dead branches to an extent. But the sight of the tree in daylight is a bit depressing. Were it not for the history connected to the tree I doubt anyone these days would choose it to be decorated for Christmas.

But another thought struck me that might remove some of the sadness of the sight of a dying Christmas tree. Perhaps the oak could be viewed in the Advent tradition of the Jesse Tree. Advent is the four-week period before Christmas that many Christians observe as a expectant season of celebrating the first coming of Christ and anticipating his return.

The tradition of the Jesse Tree is based on the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 11:1: "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit" (TNIV). Jesse was the Father of David, and Jesus, the Messiah, came from the line of David. Christ, then, is the shoot from the stump of Jesse. The passage is a portrait of the greatest hope arising from what appears to be utter hopelessness.

In keeping with this imagery, a Jesse Tree is a dead, bare branch typically secured in sand or rocks. The ornaments are all based on the Old Testament to symbolize the "roots" of Jesus. So the Jesse Tree is a dead tree adorned with symbols of biblical promises. It serves to remind Christ-followers that, though our world may at times seem hopeless, through Christ, we always possess a living hope (1 Peter 1:3).

I'm sorry to see the World's Largest Living Christmas Tree in its dying state. Yet, even though it may be a mere shadow of its former glory, it can still be a symbol of hope. If the prophet could see evidence of hope in a tree stump, can't a decorated, dying tree help us to remember not only the cross but an empty tomb?

I'm thinking about adding a Jesse Tree to our Advent tradition this year.

Beyond the sacred page

2010-09-24T09:23:00.007-04:00

In an argument with some of the most respected religious folks of the day, Jesus said, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you possess eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40, TNIV).

It is crucial that we read the Bible because it testifies to Jesus. The words of the scriptures are not just words on a page for us. The written word helps to connect us with the living Word. The Bible is our authoritative guide for our faith in Christ and our authoritative guide of our practice of following Christ. In the words of the old hymn, Break Thou the Bread of Life, "Beyond the sacred page I seek Thee, Lord; My spirit pants for Thee, O living Word!"

"... come to me to have life," Jesus said.

Burning the Quran is wrong

2010-09-07T09:24:00.015-04:00

By now you've heard of the plan of a church in Gainsville, Florida to burn copies of the Quran on September 11. The National Association of Evangelicals said the planned Quran burning would "show disrespect for our Muslim neighbors and would exacerbate tensions between Christians and Muslims throughout the world." Richard Land, director of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the plan of the Florida church is "appalling, disgusting and brainless." Tony Cartledge, associate editor of Baptists Today, said the Quran burning would be a violation of Jesus' call to "spread a gospel of love and peace, even for one's perceived enemies." These are just a few of the evangelical Christians, including many Baptists, who have come out against the planned Quran burning.

Now General David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has said that the planned destruction of Qurans could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide. "Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

The planned Quran burning is not just stupid. It's not just crazy. It's not just unwise. It's not just dangerous. From a Christian perspective the plan to burn the Quran is wrong, just wrong.

From so many angles one could point out the wrongness of this event. It violates Jesus' principle that his followers are to be "as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" (Mat. 10:16, TNIV) in their relations with others. The Golden Rule that we must do to others as we would have them to to us (Mat. 7:12) applies. We wouldn't want for Muslims to burn Bibles so we shouldn't burn copies of the Quran. As Dr. Cartledge points out above, the planned Quran burning, an act certainly designed to be offensive, fails to exhibit love toward those who are considered enemies (Mat. 5:44). The proposed event of the Florida church is hateful and Jesus never called his followers to be hateful--quite the contrary.

One passage that came to my mind when I heard about the planned Quran burning is Luke 9:51-56. In this passage Jesus was heading toward Jerusalem through Samaritan territory. Jesus was, of course, a Jew and Samaritans and Jews did not get along very well. He sent word ahead to a Samaritan village that they should make preparations for his arrival according to the custom of that time but the village refused to welcome Jesus and his followers.

When James and John, two of the disciples, saw what happened they asked Jesus if he wanted for them to call fire down from heaven to destroy the people of that village. I have often wondered if James and John were cracking a joke with this question. There is nothing else in the gospels to indicate they had the power to call fire from heaven and nothing in Jesus' teaching indicates that they should do such a thing. The rejection of the Samaritans was, no doubt, a difficult moment and I wonder if the so-called "sons of thunder" sought to ease the tension with a joke.

If it was a joke, Jesus didn't think it was funny. If James and John were serious in their inquiry, Jesus is clear that he didn't like their suggestion at all: "Jesus turned and rebuked them" (v. 55, TNIV).

The passage says nothing about Jesus rebuking the people who rejected him. No, he rebuked his own followers who spoke of taking action against those who rejected him. Jesus was shunned by a group of people. In response, according to verse 56, he and his disciples simply moved on to another village. They didn't protest. They didn't argue. They certainly didn't burn any scrolls. And the only rebuking in the account was that of Jesus against his own followers at the suggestion that they take action against those who rejected him.

This gospel story speaks pretty directly to the plan of the Florida church to burn the Quran. At the web page of the church that plans this event, ten reasons for burning the Quran are listed. Reason number one indicates that the Quran rejects Jesus because "it teaches that Jesus Christ ... was NOT the Son of God, nor was he crucified ..." So the folks in this church in Florida justify their action against Muslims because Islamic teaching in the Quran effectively rejects Jesus. But Jesus rebuked his followers for even suggesting the idea of taking action against those who rejected him (Luke 9:55). The Lord peacefully moved on and sought not to inflame the tensions.

Based on the teaching of Jesus, burning the Quran is just wrong.

On the mosque near Ground Zero ...

2010-08-16T09:26:00.006-04:00

You've heard about the plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. A lot of people oppose placing a mosque there. I've heard some people say that the government should do something to stop the construction of this Islamic center.

There was a time in this land when government agencies knew the value of restricting the practices of religious groups considered radical, even to the point of placing limits on where the radicals could worship. I know of a case where a government agency in this land sealed off a house of worship, nailing the doors shut, because the beliefs of the group meeting there were considered dangerous. The government passed a law that "no person should erect or make use of a house for public worship, without license from the authorities." Of course the authorities saw to it that no licenses were issued for this disturbing religious sect.

Oh, wait a minute. These restrictions on houses of worship were directed against Baptists. In 1679 Boston Baptists constructed their first building and the government kicked them out of it and passed an ex post facto law to make sure that Baptists would build no more houses of worship. The beliefs of Baptists were considered a blight on society and the majority agreed that they didn't want any Baptist churches built in that city.

It is because of such persecution that Baptists were in the forefront of the struggle to secure complete religious liberty in this nation. They believed that religious freedom should be a fundamental right and so they declared that people of all faiths should be able to worship when they want and where they want. Baptists were instrumental in the effort to establish the United States as the first place on earth that favored no religion and placed no restrictions on the religious practices of anyone of any faith.

I realize there are raw emotions connected to the events of September 11, 2001. But should we allow these emotions to consume a right that is fundamental to defining the United States as a free country?

Managing God's grace

2010-06-18T15:52:00.005-04:00

If you are a Christ-follower then you are a manager--a manager of God's grace.

According to 1 Peter 4:10, the followers of Christ are managers of God's grace in its various forms. Think of it! A manager of the grace of God. Doesn't that sound like an important job?

However, being a member of Christ's management team isn't the same as typical notions of being a manager in corporate America. While management positions are often seen as power positions, 1 Peter 4:10 indicates that we become faithful mangers of God's grace by using the gifts that God has given to us to serve others.

After we have begun a journey of faith with Christ, the Christian life is not primarily about you feeling good or getting the stuff you want or being comfortable in your little version of the American Dream. No, my friends, the name of the game is using whatever God has given you in service to others.

In this way you become a faithful manager of God's grace and it is only as you faithfully manage God's grace that you will find the meaning that you seek.

Above All Else (Part 1)

2010-06-09T14:31:00.004-04:00

This past Sunday I began a series of sermons entitled "Above All Else" that will focus on sayings from the Bible that begin with that phrase or something similar. It seems a little strange to preach a multi-part sermon series with the title "Above All Else." Since "above all else" prefaces what is considered most important, you would think that there would be only one sermon in the series, in which case it would not be a series at all. But the various biblical "above all else" sayings were delivered largely to different audiences at different times and the most important concern for one group at one time was not necessarily the most important concern for another group at another time.

On Sunday we considered Proverbs 4:23: "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life" (NIV). If I could add a subtitle to this verse I would borrow a refrain from a Counting Crows song: "You don't wanna waste your life."

Your life springs from your heart--your inner being. So guard your heart because you don't want to waste your life. But how do you guard your heart?

The answer reveals that, somewhat ironically to the thinking of our culture, there is an inextricable link between your inner life and your outward actions. In Proverbs 4:24-27 you are told to watch your mouth and to walk a path of proper behavior and moral integrity. So you guard your inner being, from which your life springs, by guarding your outward behavior. There is not such a hard and fast division between our inner lives and our outward actions. Each one shapes the other.

We considered this passage as we approached the Lord's Table, an act of worship through which we remember the cross where Jesus showed us his heart through his outward actions. I can't think of a better lens for bringing the teaching of Proverbs 4:23 into sharper focus. How do you guard your heart? Live according to Jesus' example of expressing sacrificial love on behalf of those in need. May our hearts be shaped more like our Lord's as we steadfastly follow him.

Because we don't wanna waste our lives.

The Spirit is in the community of faith

2010-05-22T08:14:00.017-04:00

This morning, on the eve of Pentecost, I was poking around online and pondering the Holy Spirit. I found a few lines of Barry Litfin that are worth mulling over. A few years ago he wrote a book entitled Getting to know the Church Fathers in which he addressed his concern that evangelicals of today tend to cast aside and important part of their heritage. In an interview at christianitytoday.com, Litfin was asked about the role of the Holy Spirit. His response offers an appropriate reminder for evangelicals. Here is that response and, remember, "pneumatology" is the study of the Holy Spirit and "ecclesiology" is the study of the church:

The Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who indwells the believer, but also believers collectively as the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity who indwells the church. What you have to do is
intertwine ecclesiology and pneumatology.

The role of the Holy Spirit that evangelicals typically tap into is "the Spirit in me." So I've got the Spirit and I can sit and look at the text, and I can figure it out. But that's not really the only way to think about the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, but he is also indwelling the fullness of the church.

What a proper pneumatology does is move us away from pure ndividualism and move us toward a high ecclesiology that is willing to then look at the collective witness of the church, which I would define as tradition. The Holy Spirit's role, as much as it is to illumine my personal understanding of Scripture, perhaps even more is to illumine the body as a whole. At which I can partake of that gift of time-honored inheritance.

What do you think? Do we tend to overemphasize the indwelling of the Spirit in the individual believer and downplay the role of the Holy Spirit in the the church as a whole?

God lives here

2010-05-10T09:42:00.004-04:00

Terri and I are trying to decide where to go during an upcoming vacation. One of the options under consideration is the Ellerbe Springs Inn in Ellerbe, North Carolina. This facility is now a bed and breakfast and restaurant. I believe several buildings have been added down through the years, but the original house was built in 1820.

I called the folks at the Ellerbe Springs Inn and asked a few questions about the place. Locals have told me that Eleanor Roosevelt once stayed there so I asked which room she stayed in during her visit. I was told that the First Lady stayed in room 4, which has a queen bed, a full bath and a fireplace.

I don't have a historian's account of Roosevelt's visit to Ellerbe, but locals have told me that she didn't stay overnight. According to the story relayed to me, she rested for a little while in room 4 as her party was passing through town. If this is not an accurate presentation of the facts, perhaps someone familiar with this bit of history will correct me.

Ellerbe locals still talk about Eleanor Roosevelt's visit. Last month Lottie Ussery of Ellerbe celebrated her 91st birthday. According to the local paper, Mrs. Ussery's claim to fame is that "she was secretary at Ellerbe Springs during the time that Eleanor Roosevelt visited Ellerbe." Decades later, the fact that a famous person paused for a few minutes in Ellerbe still generates buzz.

We all tend to get excited when we have contact with famous people. I know someone who had a summer job at a restaurant in Williamsburg, Virginia as a student and she was thrilled that she once served lunch to Robert Redford. I know someone else who was elated that she ran into Julia Roberts on a city street. As a teenager I got to meet Jimmy Carter in the White House Rose Garden and I still remember the event vividly. (If I live to be 91 is that the fact that will make the paper?)

If we get so excited over brief encounters with celebrities you would think the followers of Christ would be ecstatic over a constant spiritual reality in their lives. According to John 14:23-24, God makes God's home with those who love the Lord. We're not talking about a chance encounter of a few moments with an earthly star. We're talking about the almighty God of the universe making God's own dwelling place with those who love the Lord.

That's a reality worth staying excited about. Do we live like we believe it to be true?

Why I love and don't love Mother's Day

2010-05-07T11:50:00.005-04:00

As a son, I love Mother's Day. I have a great mother and I love her and I will tell her these things on the second Sunday in May. As a pastor, however, I confess that I don't like Mother's Day because it is a day that is more hurtful than joyous for many.

I think it was 21 years ago when I was an associate pastor in Texas that I had to handle the recognition of mothers in worship on Mother's Day. The senior pastor was absent and I had been told specifically how to handle the task of honoring mothers in keeping with the tradition of that church. Each mother was to receive a flower and I was to read a sentimental poem about the greatness of mothers.

As instructed, I asked the mothers to stand and the flowers began to be distributed as I began to read the poem. But, only seconds into the flower distribution and the reading of the poem, the church organist on the front pew sat back down and began to sob uncontrollably. Her obvious grief could be heard all through the sanctuary. Her son had died a little less than a year before. Smiles evaporated and tears began forming in the eyes of many in that place of worship as we all connected with the sorrow of one mother.

In my faith tradition many churches, on Mother's Day, recognize the oldest mother, the youngest mother and the mother with the most children. I've never quite understood what was being honored in this practice. Why do these mothers deserve to be singled out above others? How does the age, youth or number of children of a mother merit special recognition? And what about the mothers like that church organist for whom Mother's Day, rather than being a day of celebration, is a day of intense sadness? Should these mothers be ignored?

As a senior pastor I have never followed the typical pattern of recognition on Mother's Day. For many years I asked worshippers who were either mothers or who were born of a mother to stand. Of course everyone stood. I then pointed out that all of us were touched in some way on Mother's Day and for many it is a very difficult day for a host of reasons. I always encourage the congregation to be sensitive to and supportive of those for whom Mother's Day is hard. Often I have made available copies of articles written by mothers and others who had a tough time on Mother's Day.

Over the years I have known numerous regular worshippers who make a point not to go to church on Mother's Day because it is just too hard for them. I am well aware that the second Sunday in May is a joyous celebration for many families. But I also know that Mother's Day really hurts for many. The family of God must attempt to effectively and equally "rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn" (Romans 12:15, TNIV).

It is interesting that the mother who inspired the creation of Mother's Day, Ann Maria Reeves Jarvis, was a crusader for positive social change. As an expression of her love for Christ she organized Mother's Day Work Clubs that raised money to help needy people obtain medications they could not afford and promoted peace during the Civil War and healing between the North and South after the war. When her daughter succeeded in establishing Mother's Day as a national observance, the younger Jarvis was appalled that the day established in honor of a woman devoted to social change quickly became a day of profit for flower retailers and greeting card sellers.

I wonder if recovering some of the spirit of Ann Maria Reeves Jarvis in our Mother's Day observances might make them a little less painful for many.

Reasonless love

2010-03-24T10:37:00.007-04:00

Above is a picture of Maxie, a dog belonging to my wife, Terri. I read an article by Mark Galli entitled "Love Needs No Reason" at christianitytoday.com and it reminded me of Maxie. The above picture may not do this dog justice—she may be even, um, less pretty than this photo indicates. Frankly the consensus of Terri’s friends and family members is that Maxie is, well, ugly.

One of Terri's friends, Bruce, works at Brunswick Hospital. Some years back he asked Terri if he could have a picture of Maxie. Terri asked why he wanted such a photo and Bruce explained that the hospital were having an ugliest dog contest and he was pretty sure that he could win with a picture of Maxie.

I think it was sometime last year that my father called Terri and expressed his sympathy to her. Terri wanted to know why he was expressing sympathy and he explained that he had seen a news story that the world’s ugliest dog died and so he was sorry to hear that Maxie passed away. (Maxie was and is fine, by the way.)

Let me tell you how Terri came to have Maxie. This dog wasn’t a stray that showed up at the house and hung around. Terri chose this dog on purpose. She even paid good money for it. A few years ago she took a notion that she wanted a lapdog and she went over to the pound. Maxie was a puppy then and she came over and peed on Terri’s foot. So Terri kept her.

Obviously she did not pick Maxie because of her great beauty. She did not pick her because she was nice to her when they met. Yet, even though she had no apparent reason for it, Terri loved and still loves Maxie. That dog sleeps curled up against Terri.

God’s love for us is sort of like that. God doesn’t love you because you are really pretty or smart or for any other fine attribute that you possess. God even loves us and sacrificed himself for us in spite of the fact that we have all peed on his foot as it were. God loves us for no reason at all. God’s love does not need a reason.

And that’s the way it’s supposed to be with our love for others. Our love must be reasonless because God’s love is reasonless.

'The Blind Side' and 'The Soloist'

2010-03-06T09:39:00.006-05:00

I did not get to see The Blind Side in theaters. I know, I know, I missed out. I'll definitely check it out when it is released on DVD.

I did hear the basics of the true story of The Blind Side in an interview with the family at the center of it. In a nutshell, Leigh Ann Touhy and her family take in a homeless young man named Michael Oher. They lovingly raise Oher as part of the family and he becomes a college football All-American and a first round draft pick in the NFL. It is a great, inspirational story.

There was another movie released in 2009 based on a true story of someone attempting to help a homeless person. This one is entitled The Soloist and it did not do as well at the box office nor did it generate the buzz of The Blind Side. A few weeks back I picked up a previously viewed copy of The Soloist for $1 at a video store that was going out of business. I watched it last night and it too is a great story.

The story begins with Steve Lopez, a writer for the L.A. Times, encountering a homeless man named Nathaniel Ayers who was playing a violin with only two strings. It turns out that Ayers was once a student at the famed Juilliard School but he was living on the streets when Lopez found him. From there a friendship develops that takes many twists and turns. It is a relationship through which both men are transformed for the better.

I'm guessing that The Soloist did not generate the hoopla of The Blindside mostly because it does not have a storybook ending. Oh, don't get me wrong. It is a great ending--an uplifting ending. But Ayers does not move from the streets to become a successful musician in an orchestra somewhere. However, he does move to a much better place than he was when Lopez first found him. But then, in a very real sense, Lopez was also moved to a better place than where he was before he met Ayers.

From what I experienced in viewing The Soloist and from what I heard in an interview of the Touhys both of these movies are worth seeing. They both remind those of us who are not poor that genuine, loving friendships with those who are poor can make a difference for the better in our world. And that's a great lesson.

Even if we lose everything

2010-02-26T11:55:00.009-05:00

It hit me afresh last night. I noticed that I was a couple of items short for a crock pot recipe that I wanted to do today. So I drove to Wal-Mart at 8:00 p.m. and found a parking lot that was jaw-droppingly empty. Inside there were virtually no customers in sight. I did not expect the place to be booming at 8:00 on a Thursday night, but you would have thought it was 3 in the morning. It was truly surreal.

I continue to hear story after story from business owners whose business is way off. I continue to notice the unprecedented length of the foreclosure listings in the local paper. Our food pantry continues to run out of food hours sooner than it used to in the monthly distributions.

The economy continues to be really, really bad in these parts.

The conventional wisdom is that a resort community like this one is the first to go into a recession and the last to come out of it. Much of our economy is dependent on people taking vacations, buying beach houses and retirees adding a deck or a sun room to their place. When people are worried about the future they don't spend much if any money on such things. We've been feeling the pinch in a serious way for several years now.

The empty parking lot and vacant aisles at Wal-Mart last night made me think of Habakkuk 3:17-19a:

Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the
vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though
there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice
in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my
strength ... (TNIV)

In the agrarian culture in which these words were written they depicted a situation of losing everything, economically speaking. It would be sort of like someone saying today:

Though my bank account and my wallet are empty, though my
cupboards are bare and I can't buy any food, though the bank repossesses my car and forecloses on my house, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my strength.

Can we join Habakkuk in such a statement of faith? I do not mean for a moment to diminish the very real pain that many in this area are experiencing in these days. But it is precisely because of such pain that it is a good time to ask ourselves, is the Lord truly our strength? If so, then is it possible for us to be joyful even in these days?

While he was in chains, Paul wrote, "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength" (Philippians 4:12-13).

These are hard times in these parts and there is much heartache associated with them. And it is in these times that we must draw on the deep resources of our faith for strength. Through the mysterious wonder of our connection with Christ the Bible indicates that we can be joyful in our Savior even if we lose everything.

Do we believe this?

Someone(s) tried hard to hide this story from you

2010-02-20T10:53:00.007-05:00

It really bugs me that I can't find it. I thought I knew where it was but I was wrong and I just don't have time to hunt anymore. If anyone actually reads this entry maybe you can help me find it.

I was looking for the portion of Timothy B. Tyson's book entitled Blood Done Sign My Name in which he recounts how he had a really tough time time obtaining the historical documents that would help him to tell the story of a very dark chapter of North Carolina history. I don't remember all the details now, but I remember enough to say that it is obvious to me that someone or some group does not want for this story to be told.

If I remember correctly, Tyson went to Oxford, North Carolina, where this bloody episode unfolded, and discovered that the documents had been removed from the spots they should be. Newspaper issues for the period in question were missing from the library and, as I recall, from the newspaper office as well. At the state archives in Raleigh the pertinent documents were gone.

He went to the police department in Oxford and inquired about the documents and he was told they were lost or destroyed. If I have this right, as he was leaving, he noticed some stairs leading to a basement at the police department. He went down them and found the door unlocked and entered. In the room behind that door he found some old files, including one containing the newspaper clippings of the period in question. He took the file, copied the documents and returned it. Later he returned to that basement and the file was gone. After he completed a Masters thesis on this story and donated it to the public library in Oxford, he returned and found that someone had torn out the pages recounting the ugliest part of the story.

Again, I am obviously fuzzy on the details and I am sure that someone out there can point me to the page number of Blood Done Sign My Name that can help me to get it right. But it is abundantly clear that some individual or group does not want for you to know this story, which is exactly why you should read Blood Done Sign My Name. The movie based on the book was released yesterday and you should see that too. But you need to read the book. There is a lot more in the print version and this story needs to be known and remembered so that we might learn from our mistakes.

Females preach in the Bible so they should preach in our churches

2010-02-12T15:11:00.007-05:00

"Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided." (Judges 4:4-5, TNIV)

"Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter." (2 Kings 22:14, TNIV)

"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy ..." (Acts 2:17, TNIV cf. Joel 2:28)

"Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." (Acts 21:8-9, TNIV)

In the biblical sense, prophesying is proclaiming a message from God. Preaching is all about proclaiming a message from God. Prophesying is preaching. Above are some of the biblical instances of females being called prophets. In other words, we have passages in the Bible that identify females as preachers. Because females preach in the Bible they should be allowed to preach in our churches.

It really is that simple. I am convinced that those who still bar females from preaching do so based on cultural norms rather than biblical teaching. There is just no getting around the fact that the Bible says women proclaimed the word of God and that's preaching.

I once heard a leading evangelical who opposes female preachers say that there is some debate about what exactly the biblical concept of prophecy is all about. I found his analysis terribly flawed. While the exact expression of biblical prophecy varies widely, at a basic level, the fact remains that prophecy is the proclamation of the word of God and that's preaching.

But there is a larger issue. Even that leading evangelical goes so far as to say there is a debate about the meaning of the biblical concept of prophecy. Again, I find his analysis flawed, but even he acknowledged there is a debate.

Okay, we have gifted and dedicated females in our society who believe God has called them to preach. Should those females be disqualified from responding to that calling based on an acknowledged debatable point of biblical interpretation? Again, I don't consider the matter debatable--prophecy is preaching and so females in the Bible preached. But for those who take the other side of this issue I think it is dangerous to bar a whole class of humanity, comprising half the population of the planet, based on a "debatable" point.

It is a serious thing to interfere with a calling from God. Better to let each person answer to God for his or her own calling.

I bring this up because Baptist Women in Ministry is promoting the Martha Stearns Marshall Month of Preaching this month. You let your sons preach. How about following the rest of Acts 2:17 and let your daughters preach too.

The biggest betting day of the year

2010-02-06T12:34:00.006-05:00

Here is the first definition of the word gamble at dictionary.com: "to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes." In this sense of the word I consider gambling a violation of biblical teaching. No, there is no verse in the Bible that specifically says, "Thou shalt not gamble." But betting on games of chance is about placing one's faith in a jackpot rather than Jesus and he said that you cannot serve both God and money (Mat. 6:24).

This is why I have never bought a lottery ticket and I hope you never do. I have never gambled at one of the Sweepstakes places that are becoming as prevalent as grains of sand in our area. Super Bowl Sunday is upon us, the biggest betting day of the year, and I will not be putting any money on the game. Playing games of chance for money is a poor investment that can become addicting and the practice cuts against the grain of biblical teaching.

But there is another sense in which we are all gamblers. Here is definition number five of the word "gamble" at dictionary.com: "to take a chance on; venture; risk." In this sense we all place our bets every day. We bet the moments of our lives on a way of living. On the verge of the biggest betting day of the year it is a good time to ponder where we are betting our lives because we are all placing that bet in every moment that we draw breath.

In Luke 5:11 we learn that the first disciples to follow Jesus "left everything and followed him" (TNIV). They bet it all on following Jesus. Is he worth that sort of gamble?

Yes, he is.

Early American Baptists and the separation of church and state

2010-01-05T09:57:00.006-05:00

There remains some debate today as to whether the founders of this nation truly supported the notion of the separation of church and state. On that question, let it be stated clearly that all of the founders did not agree that church and state should be separate but those who did believe that church-state separation was the only way to properly safeguard religious liberty won the day. But my purpose here is to point out that, regardless of what the founders believed, evangelicals at the founding of this nation, Baptists in particular, adamantly affirmed the complete separation of church and state.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, there was great concern in Virginia about a perceived decline of morality. In response, in 1784, Patrick Henry introduced "A Bill for Establishing a Provision for the Teachers of the Christian Religion," a general tax to be used to support the teaching Christian principles. Evangelicals in the state, led by Baptists, came out strongly against the proposal and it was eventually defeated. In the course of the battle over this legislation, James Madison sent a letter to James Monroe in which he praised Baptists for "standing by their avowed principle of the complete separation of church and state."

In 1786 Virginia Baptists sought the repeal of an act that, following a pre-Revolutionary pattern, formed some connections between the Episcopal Church and the state. John Leland, the foremost leader of Baptists at that time, penned the petition of the Baptist General Committee opposing the act and in it he said the legislation was "a Bitumen to Cement Church and State together: the foundation for Ecclesiastical Tyranny and the first steps towards and Inquisition." In response, nearly all of the provisions of the bill were dismantled. According to Hamiliton Eckenrode, this Baptist led legislative effort "definitely marks the separation of Church and state in Virginia."

In the case of the bill related to the Episcopal Church, Baptists, led by John Leland, opposed a more formal religious establishment. But it should be noted that, beyond their resistance to formal establishments, Leland and his fellow Baptists believed the complete separation of church and state to be the only proper way to safeguard religious liberty. Leland pointedly called "blending ... religion and politics together" an "evil."

Baptists fought for church-state separation in part because of fresh memories of days when they were fiercely persecuted for their religious convictions and practices. But, in their typical pattern, Baptists ultimately stood by the principle of the separation of church and state because they believed the Bible told them to do so. John Leland demanded that someone show him "an instance where Jesus Christ ... or the apostles ... ever gave orders to or intimated that the civil powers on earth ought to force people to observe the rules and doctrine of the gospel." Leland, of course, knew that no such biblical example exists.

The debate will likely continue as to whether or not the founders supported the separation of church and state with many evangelicals of recent times taking the side against separation. But no one can make the historical case that Baptists of the early days of this nation opposed separation. Indeed, Baptists were perhaps the most vocal group calling for the complete separation of church and state. Baptists of today would be wise to continue their heritage as defenders of religious liberty through church-state separation.

I don't want to be an agent of the state in weddings anymore

2009-12-28T19:00:00.010-05:00

For a long time I have been uncomfortable being an agent of the state in performing marriage ceremonies. That discomfort was heightened recently as I have been completing a project on the struggle for religious liberty in Virginia in the late 1700's. Back then, those who were not part of the state-sponsored church, including Baptists, had a hard-fought battle getting their marriages recognized by the state.

As I studied the efforts of Virginia Baptists to be free from state shackles in performing marriages, I remembered what I had to do years ago in order to officiate at a wedding ceremony in the Old Dominion. A member of my old home church in Appomattox County wanted me to do her marriage ceremony and I agreed. Having lived in Texas or North Carolina for my entire ministerial career, I didn't realize that I couldn't just show up in Virginia and solemnize a wedding--I had to go to the courthouse first.

Note these lines from the Domestic Relations section of the Code of Virginia:

When a minister of any religious denomination shall produce before the circuit
court of any county or city in this Commonwealth, or before the judge of such
court or before the clerk of such court at any time, proof of his ordination and
of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is a
reputed member, or proof that he holds a local minister's license and is serving
as a regularly appointed pastor in his denomination, such court, or the judge
thereof, or the clerk of such court at any time, may make an order authorizing
such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth.

At the time I jumped through that hoop rather hurriedly so I could do the ceremony and I did not reflect upon it much. Now it bugs me. I am giving serious consideration to contacting the courthouse in Appomattox to see if it is possible for me to rescind whatever approval I received. The idea of a government official making "an order authorizing" me "to celebrate the rites of matrimony" just galls me. The state has no business in giving me any sort of stamp of approval to perform a religious rite.

Here in North Carolina I didn't have to go to the courthouse with my ordination certificate. They will take my word for it that I am a minister. But I still have to work for the state by filling out certain paper work after a marriage ceremony and if I don't do things right I am subject to a fine. That bugs me too. As a minister of the gospel I don't like working for the government in performing wedding ceremonies.

How about this ... When a couple shows up at the courthouse to get their marriage license, let that process instead be the actual marriage in the eyes of the state. Then, for those who choose to do so, let them be joined in matrimony in the presence of God and before their family and friends with a minister officiating in a religious ceremony that has no government ties whatsoever. Take ministers out of the loop of the state requirements for marriage. We don't belong there.

An excellent screen adaptation of a great story

2009-12-25T19:56:00.005-05:00

When I read Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Road, I was very impressed. So when I first heard that the book was being made into a movie, I was excited. But, after further reflection, I became concerned. I wasn't sure this story would translate well as a movie. Well, tonight I got to see the movie version of The Road and I am happy to report that I was wrong.

The Road is a parable of faith and generosity. It is set several years after a some sort of cataclysm has left the earth a very inhospitable place. At the center of the tale is an unnamed father and an unnamed son trying to survive in a very dangerous world in which people literally kill for food. The father seeks to protect the son and to teach him to stay alive. But in his desperate attempt to train the boy to get by in a cruel world, the father loses something very important.

On several occasions the father and son encounter persons in a weaker position they could help. The son always wants to assist those in need. The father resists. He is always afraid the can of food they share today might be all that stands between them and starvation in a few days. He has the best of intentions, but the father doesn't see that the little chances to share, as risky as they may be, are precious opportunities to experience some light in a very dark world.

I'll stop there in describing the story. All of the performances in the film version are outstanding. Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of the father is compelling. Kobi Smit-McPhee is convincing as the son. The visuals are bleak as they should be but they are also stunning.

I haven't told you much about the movie or the novel, but maybe what I have said is enough to entice you. I am concerned that the film version of The Road will be lost in the holiday movie season. If so, that would be a shame. This is a parable that needs to be experienced today.

I should point out that The Road is rated R--this is definitely not a family movie. But its darkness has the potential to help us see how we might better let our light shine. This story strips away everything in an attempt to expose the emptiness faithless lives.

A Christmas movie worth watching

2009-12-19T10:01:00.007-05:00

If you have never seen it, rent and watch the movie Joyeux Noel in this Christmas season. Even though it was nominated for an Academy Award ("Best Foreign Film") and a Golden Globe I had never heard of this flick. A movie store in Shallotte went out of business a few weeks ago and I saw a sign out front that their remaining DVD's were 99 cents each. I went in and picked up several that sounded good and I am glad Joyeux Noel was among them.

The movie is based on the true story of a spontaneous Christmas Eve truce declared by French, German and Scottish soldiers mired in trench warfare in World War I (1914). It started when the Germans began singing "Silent Night" and the opposing soldiers across the way joined in. I'll stop there, but the result of one night of peace was amazing and costly. I think it would be a great film even if it were purely a work of fiction. But it is astounding that this is a screen adaptation of an a event that really happened.

A tag line is, "How can there be a war if there is no enemy?" There are subtitles, but many scenes, including the ones involving the night of peace, are in English. Christianity Today did an article on the movie that you can find here.

Santa Claus' real face

2009-12-14T20:36:00.004-05:00

Maybe I'm the only one who missed this news two years ago. It appears that a British scientist, using modern forensic techniques based on ancient relics, developed an image of the face of St. Nicholas. As you will note if you read the article and look at the photos at the link above, the scientific reconstruction based on actual skull measurements matches up pretty well with some ancient portraits of the saint.

So much happiness

2009-12-09T09:49:00.004-05:00

I love Charles Dickens' 1843 Christmas tale, "A Christmas Carol." There have been many film adaptations of the story but my favorite remains the 1951 version starring Alastair Sim as Ebeneezer Scrooge (I haven't seen the just-released Disney version starring Jim Carrey). This 58 year-old presentation seems to capture Dickens' tale better than the other versions I have seen. Notably it leaves intact numerous blatantly Christian references found in the original story that many film versions cut.

For some years in our Wednesday worship services during December I have presented popular Christmas stories that I have used to make application to the biblical Christmas story. I have done this with O Henry's "The Gift of the Magi" and Dr. Seuss' "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and Pearl S. Buck's "Christmas Day in the Morning." I have always wanted to present "A Christmas Carol" but it is just too long. A couple of years ago I tried to put together sort of a Reader's Digest condensed version for use in a worship service but very quickly I could see that it just wasn't going to work.

So this week in our mid-week worship service I showed a clip from the final few minutes of the 1951 movie version of "A Christmas Carol." Those of you familiar with the story know that the one overpowering emotion in the final act is joy--great joy. The previously mean and miserly Scrooge was absolutely giddy that he had another chance to use his fortune to help people in need.

In Dickens' telling of the story, Scrooge takes a Christmas day walk in which he sees a man who had come to his office the day before making a collection for the poor. On Christmas Eve Scrooge had angrily sent the man away indicating that he would prefer that needy people just die and decrease the surplus population. But, on Christmas day, after the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future had showed him how his greed had consumed him, Scrooge had a change of heart.

He quickened his pace and caught up with the man and made a commitment to a donation so large that the gentleman collecting for the poor was shocked. Scrooge said the gift included "a great many back-payments." Right after this sacrifice to help the needy, Dickens tells us that Scrooge "never dreamed that any walk could give him so much happiness."

The great joy that Scrooge experienced as he helped those in need reminded me of an important part of the biblical Christmas story. On the first Christmas the angels said to the shepherds, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord" (Luke 2:10-11).

God sent messengers to make the Christmas day proclamation of "good news of great joy" in the context of a sacrificial gift. In the Incarnation God gave on behalf of those in need to the point that, in the language of Paul, "he became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9, TNIV). And God was so excited about giving to the point of becoming poor that the joy would not be contained. Angels were sent to declare it.

God and Scrooge were giddy as they made sacrifices to help those in need. In Scrooge's case he needed to be shown in a vivid way the value of sacrificial giving before he experienced the joy of Christmas. What will it take for us?

On Sunday we will light the candle of joy in the Advent wreath. As we do so we should remember that lasting joy is not about receiving and it is not about giving stuff to people who don't really need it. The example of God shows us that true joy is experienced as we realize the wonder of sacrificial giving for those in need.

"Extremely alarming"

2009-11-19T10:49:00.004-05:00

As I write this an army of volunteers from numerous local churches are preparing to distribute food from the Loaves and Fishes Community Food Pantry which is housed here. For more than a decade laypeople committed to hunger relief have been helping households facing food insecurity in this area through Loaves and Fishes. In the last couple of years we have seen the number of people seeking assistance rise drastically, which is not surprising in light of a report released just a few days ago.

According to figures just released from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of Americans having trouble getting enough food to eat reached an all time high since such records have been kept. In 2008 14.6% of American households (more than one in seven) faced food insecurity. This represents a 3.5 percentage point increase over 2007, the largest percentage increase since the USDA began publishing this data. This latest survey reveals that nearly one child in four (22.5%) in this country is food insecure.

Paula Thornton Greear who works with the hunger-relief charity Feeding America called the USDA numbers "extremely alarming" since they reflect the situation in 2008. With unemployment figures worsening in 2009, she thinks the number of people facing food insecurity this year "may be even higher."

Obviously Christians cannot ignore such news. The Bible tells us that we must feed the hungry. Here at Brunswick Islands Baptist Church, besides our involvement with the Loaves and Fishes Community Food Pantry, we will receive our World Hunger Offering at our Thanksgiving Eve service next Wednesday evening. This offering will support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina Hunger Fund (75%) and the global hunger relief efforts of Baptist World Aid (25%). If you can bring some nonperishable food items for Loaves and Fishes, all the better.

Trying to walk again

2009-11-05T20:27:00.003-05:00

I have not been walking like I used to. Balancing family, church and DMin responsibilities has been a challenge and getting in some exercise ... Well, it just hasn't been happening. But I am going to try to do better.

Right now I am typing this entry while walking on a treadmill and watching the Virginia Tech vs. East Carolina football game. I'm not breaking any speed records. There are about 12 minutes remaining in the 1st half and I have walked 2.7 miles and burned 323 calories according to the meter on this treadmill. I have also answered a few emails and checked some twitter feeds and "facebooked" a little while walking.

It feels good. I hope I remember that the next time that I am impressed with the need to drag myself to the treadmill.

I can make you sick

2009-10-12T09:48:00.003-04:00

It is my practice to get a flu shot because I have the potential to make people sick, including some people who may be particularly vulnerable. As a pastor I spend a lot of time in areas where sick people are--particularly hospitals. Then I go to nursing homes and congregational gatherings where people are not sick.

Because of my age and health I am not in a priority group for receiving a flu shot when there is a shortage of them but I wonder if I should be. I do not think I would be in great danger of being hospitalized or worse if I contracted the H1N1 virus, for example. But I am concerned that I have the potential to spread it to some who are vulnerable to adverse reactions maybe even before I know that I am sick.

According to this report of a few weeks ago Centers for Disease Control has recommended that priority be given to these groups when the H1N1 vaccine first becomes available: pregnant women; people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age; healthcare and emergency medical services personnel; children and young people between the ages of 6 months and 24 years old; and people ages 25 through 64 years of age who are at higher risk for 2009 H1N1 because of chronic health disorders or compromised immune systems. Actually the report says that the priority list includes the groups above. If there is an expanded priority list that also includes members of the clergy I haven't seen it.

Anyway, since members of the clergy move back and forth between large groups of sick people and large groups of people who are not sick, does it make since to include us on the priority list?

Happy "Blasphemy Day"

2009-10-01T19:52:00.004-04:00

I apologize, I am a day late, so a belated happy "Blasphemy Day" to you. According to a CNN report, the first ever blasphemy observance was held yesterday. The event was sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, headed by Ronald Lindsay. He was a devout Roman Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood but now he calls himself a non-believer and he defends the right to "ridicule, criticize--even lambaste God."

The date for Blasphemy Day was chosen to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the publication in a Danish newspaper of a controversial cartoon depicting Mohammed wearing a bomb as a turban. The drawing was protested by many Muslims as blasphemy. Wednesday's observance included a contest for the best blasphemous slogan. The winning phrase was memorialized on a t-shirt.

While I condemn blasphemy, I join with Lindsay in affirming the right of people to speak against God if they so choose. Rightfully the 100,000 supporters of the Center for Inquiry are outraged that some nations seek to execute blasphemers. Furthermore this CNN report made me aware that six states in this country (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wyoming) have laws against blasphemy on the books. This is disturbing.

According to Massachusetts law:

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or
contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars ...

Some of the language of the anti-blasphemy laws of the other five states can be found here.

Baptists in the early days of this country affirmed the right of citizens to speak freely, including those who do not believe in God. John Leland, a Baptist leader, wrote in 1791, “Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing …”

Leland aggressively proclaimed the gospel, baptizing more the 1,500 people in the course of his ministerial career. But he and his fellow Baptists of 200 years ago were equally aggressive in defending complete religious liberty and the separation of church and state. They were utterly against blasphemy, but they were also against blasphemy laws. They were convinced that the Lord would accomplish his purposes just fine without any coercive laws of the state.

They were right too.

Baptist hippies

2009-08-24T08:16:00.003-04:00

In Virginia, Baptists were the hippies of the 1760’s through the 1780’s. They did not take LSD or listen to psychedelic music but, like the hippies of the 1960’s, Virginia Baptists of the latter portion of the eighteenth century opposed much of the political and social orthodoxy of the day. As Rhys Isaac explains in is Pulitzer Prize winning book entitled The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790, Virginia Baptists were “countercultural.” However, unlike the libertine cultural dissent that characterized the hippie movement, Baptists offered an austere reaction to the dominant culture’s typical indulgences. Furthermore the emotional expression encouraged in Baptist gatherings of this period was considered ridiculous to the reserved worship practices of the aristocratic establishment.

At first the Baptist subculture of Virginia was easy for the dominant societal structure to ignore. Robert Baylor Semple, the earliest Virginia Baptist Historian, stated, “When the Baptists first appeared in … Virginia they were viewed by men in power as beneath their notice; none, said they, but the weak and wicked join them; let them alone, they will soon fall out among themselves and come to nothing.” The “men in power” were wrong; the countercultural Baptists grew rapidly. While there is clear evidence of the presence of Baptists in Virginia as early as 1699 their growth accelerated greatly after Daniel Marshall, who hailed from the historic Sandy Creek Baptist Church in North Carolina, began to preach in neighboring Virginia in the late 1750’s. By 1770 there were 18 or 19 Baptist churches with approximately 850 members and by 1774 there were 72 Baptist churches with over 5,000 members. By 1790 there were 210 Baptist churches with 20,861 members.

According to Isaac, Virginia Baptists aggressively pressed “a revolt against the traditional system” in the state. A gentleman from Loudoun County reported that the Baptists were “growing very numerous … and quite destroying pleasure in the Country; for they encourage ardent Pray’r; strong & constant faith, and an intire Banishment of Gaming, Dancing and Sabbath Day Diversions.” The solemn sobriety of Baptists seriously questioned the appropriateness of societal features that were considered crucial to the methods of association of the establishment. Not surprisingly, then, the Virginia power structure became alarmed by Baptist growth.

It may seem strange that a solemn movement that opposed dancing, drinking, games and other forms of merrymaking would become so popular. Isaac attributes the growth of the comparatively stern and sober Baptists to a need that they filled primarily among the poorer and less educated members of society. Isaac reports that the dominant Baptist message offered an escape from many harsh realities of the life of small farmers through a “supportive, and orderly community” that Baptist leader John Leland called “a congregation of faithful persons, called out of the world by divine grace, who mutually agree to live together, and execute gospel discipline among them.”

In Isaac’s view a vitally appealing feature of the supportive fellowship offered in Baptist churches was the comparative equality within the congregations. Baptists “conducted their affairs on a footing of equality so different from the explicit preoccupation with rank and precedence that characterized the world from which they had been called.” To Isaac the fact that numerous Baptist preachers rose from obscurity to assume important leadership roles in the movement is evidence of the equality fostered by the group. Persons of such low position would never have been given opportunities for leadership in the traditional order.

Semple cites a spiritual dimension as the reason for the popularity of the stern and sober Baptists rather than sociological factors only. He reports a revival—a miraculous spiritual awakening—that began in 1760 with a church formed from Daniel Marshall’s missionary efforts from North Carolina. The revival continued until the beginning of the Revolutionary War when a period of serious spiritual decline commenced. Shortly after the war, in 1785, another period of revival began and continued through 1791 or 1792 during which time “[t]housands were converted and baptized.” Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth reports that the latter period of spiritual awakening produced as much as an elevenfold increase in Virginia Baptist numbers.

Whether the growth of Baptists in Virginia in the last half of the eighteenth century should be attributed to sociological factors or spiritual awakening or some combination of the two, there can be no doubt this growing movement that aggressively opposed the customary bonding methods of the establishment and cast aside traditional notions of rank and privilege posed a great threat to those in power. Baptist success in converting slaves also inspired a good deal of hostility from the Virginia aristocracy. According to Semple, among the earliest converts apparently resulting from Daniel Marshall’s missionary work in Virginia “were several white members besides a large number of blacks, belonging chiefly to the large estate of Colonel Byrd.” As these slaves, many of whom “became bright and shining Christians,” scattered from Byrd’s estate, many persons in other areas were “brought to the knowledge of the truth.” The success of Baptists among slaves “was spectacular” according to Isaac and aroused great enmity from the establishment.

Therefore, as Isaac notes, it was because this new religious movement in Virginia was “a rejection of the style of life for which the gentry set the pattern” that Baptists began to be persecuted greatly. In a letter from Urbanna Prison dated August 12, 1771, Baptist minister John Waller relayed his account of the scene when an enraged county magistrate, the pastor from the local parish of the official state church and several others broke up a Saturday gathering of Baptists. Waller and five others were taken into custody. Two of the Baptist prisoners were scourged by one persecutor and then other persecutors, presumably squeamish over the violence, put a stop to the whipping. The Baptist who was most severely scourged before the beatings were halted was released and commanded to leave the county by noon the following day or he would be imprisoned. One Baptist was set free for unknown reasons. The rest were handed over to the sheriff to be placed in jail with the order that they were not to “walk in the air” until their court date which was two weeks later. According to Waller, the offensive gathering of Baptists was listening to a sermon based on James 2:18 when the meeting was broken up by the authorities. The prisoners were held on the charge of “mutiny against the authority of the land.”

This particular incident of persecution was cited because it so explicitly shows how Baptists were the hippies of Virginia for a while in the latter part of the eighteenth century—their worship gatherings were considered “mutiny against the authority of the land.” They were countercultural, struggling mightily against cultural norms. It should be noted that there were many other incidents of persecution of Virginia Baptists in this period, some of them far more severe than the one described above. During this period more than half the Baptist preachers in the state were jailed.

Largely because of their firsthand experience with religious persecution, Baptists became a countercultural force pressing for religious liberty expressed through the complete separation of church and state. Their efforts were effective not only in Virginia but in the nation as Baptists became crucial players in a chain of events that gave us the Bill of Rights. So we can be thankful for the “Baptist hippies” of the late 1700’s.

Do Baptists of today still believe in a believer's church?

2009-08-01T14:17:00.005-04:00

I am reading Rhys Isaac's Pulitzer Prize winning book entitled The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. Baptists were new to Virginia in the period outlined by Isaac's and I was impressed by these lines describing the fast-growing Baptist movement:

Conversion could ultimately be validated among [Baptist] church members only by
a radical reform of conduct. The Baptist church books reveal close concern for
the disciplinary supervision of such changes. Censure, ritual excommunication,
and moving expressions of penitence were invoked as means to deal with
persistent problems like drunkenness. Quarreling, slandering, and disputes over
property were other endemic transgressions that the churches patiently and
endlessly sought to control within their own communities. (p. 169)

Underlying intense Baptist efforts to "patiently and endlessly ... control" sin within their congregations was the insistence on a believer's church. Foundational to Baptist identity was the conviction that local churches were to be made up of baptized believers in Jesus Christ. If church members were known to engage in certain sins or if they failed to attend services faithfully such behavior was confronted. If sinful members failed to repent then they were publicly voted out of the church. In this way Baptists sought to make sure their church rolls were made up of believers only.

Of course, few Baptist churches operate this way anymore. I wonder if any Baptists of our culture really want a full return to our previous method of safeguarding the ideal of a believer's church. Which sins would be worthy of calling a member before the church? Drunkenness? Fornication? How about gluttony or greed?

The old Baptist method of nurturing a believer's church has fallen from favor today but what has replaced it? Do we still take seriously the doctrine of a believer's church? Are we deliberate about holding members accountable to commitment to the Lord and to his body, the church?

Symptomatic of our lack of commitment to a believer's church are the membership rolls of most Baptist congregations. In my old home church in Virginia, founded in the mid-1800's, it used to be that any member missing four weekly business meetings in a row was removed from the roll which, I am told, was a typical practice of Baptist churches some years back. Now the rolls of most Baptist churches are filled with many names of individuals that have not been seen in any church gathering in years. Does it appear that Baptists are truly committed to the principle of a believer's church when they have high numbers of inactive and non-resident members?

We cannot abandon the doctrine of a believer's church because it is ultimately about commitment to Christ. While out methods may vary from generation to generation the followers of Christ must unashamedly demand commitment to Christ among the followers of Christ. And Jesus stated his plan to build his church (Mat. 16:18). He loved the church and gave himself up for the church (Eph. 5:25).

I just don't see how we can stop insisting that our church members be truly committed Christ by being committed to his body, the church.

Reflections on the death penalty at lethal injection number 1,000

2009-07-23T09:48:00.008-04:00

Marvallous Keene and three accomplices went on a three-day murder and robbery rampage in Dayton, Ohio that began on Christmas Eve 1992 and left six people dead. His victims included an 18-year old mother gunned down in a phone booth. He was executed on Tuesday and he became the 1,000th person to be put to death by lethal injection in the U.S. since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

Keene's crime was horrible and the state was right to take his life but it should have done so through life imprisonment rather than execution.

You might respond that the Bible supports the death penalty. If the scriptures support the death penalty, it certainly cannot be argued that they support a mandatory death penalty. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then Moses would have been executed for murdering the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then David would have been executed for murdering Bathsheba’s husband. If the Bible supported a mandatory death penalty then Cain would have been executed for killing Abel.

Cain’s case is particularly interesting. Moses and David went on to become biblical heroes even though they were also murderers. But Cain, according to the Bible, had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In the New Testament, 1 John 3:12, we are told that Cain “belonged to the evil one.” Yet, even though Cain is said to belong to the devil himself, God spared this murderer and warned that anyone who dared to take matters in to their own hands by killing Cain would suffer a harsh punishment. So God punished Cain, the first murderer, but he would not execute him and he took steps to see that no one else executed him either. That’s God’s direct pattern to us for punishing murderers based on his own punishment of the first murderer.

So if you say the Bible supports the death penalty you cannot say it supports a mandatory death penalty. However, if you wish to strictly follow the biblical guidelines for capital punishment, then you need to push for some new laws. You need to press for legislation that makes provision for the execution of rebellious children. The Bible allows this (Deut. 21:18-21). I know some parents who may from time to time wish this were the law of the land, but are you ready to start state executions of rebellious kids?

If you want to do the death penalty strictly as the Bible allows then you need to push for legislation providing for the execution of adulterers. The Bible allows this too (Lev. 20:10). I know some spouses who may wish this were the law of the land, but do you think we should have state sponsored killing of unfaithful spouses?

We as a society have never practiced the death penalty exactly as the biblical law allows.

Our culture outlawed slavery over 140 years ago even though the Bible allows slavery. The Bible regulated slavery in a society in which it was strictly the norm as it regulated the death penalty in a society in which capital punishment was strictly the norm. While it could be argued that the Bible allows slavery, historians say principles of the New Testament ended the practice here and in other Western societies. In like manner it is time that the principles of the New Testament end the death penalty as well.

Romans 1:16 tells us that the gospel is "the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes" (TNIV). The power of God is powerful enough to transform anyone, even murderers, but not if we give them lethal injections first. We can protect society from murderers short of killing them. Because life is precious and because the gospel, the power of God, can transform anyone we must put murderers in prison for life rather than executing them.

Evangelical Christians tend to have a serious inconsistency in their thought process on this point and this inconsistency has shown itself several times down through the years, perhaps most pointedly in one particular case. Back in 1998 Karla Faye Tucker was to be executed in Texas for murdering two people with a pickax. But Tucker had also undergone a jailhouse conversion. You may remember the TV news footage showing her worshipping and reading her Bible. By all accounts she underwent a genuine salvation experience. Because of her profession of faith, many evangelical Christians, including the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, began to plea for Karla Faye Tucker to be spared the death penalty.

If she had been unconverted, hardened criminal headed for hell, many evangelical Christians would have said, “Yeah! Serves her right! Let her have it!” But since she had been converted and headed for heaven many fought to keep her alive in her prison cell. Didn’t these evangelicals have this backwards?

I mean, if we care about keeping people out of hell, shouldn’t we be begging for a little more time to witness to those on death row who are headed for hell? Why fight for the lives of inmates going to heaven while pushing for the deaths of inmates going to hell? It does not seem to make good biblical sense.

Do you see the inconsistency here? We believe the gospel is the power of God that can transform anyone, even murderers. We believe that Jesus wants for us to use the gospel, the power of God, to keep people out of hell. But then many evangelicals want to hurry up and execute inmates headed for hell while they try to save inmates headed for heaven.

There is a serious problem in that thinking, and do you know what the problem is? Hate. We love inmates like Karla Faye Tucker that are headed for heaven, but hate the other inmates that we think are going to hell. Did Jesus call us to hate?

"Life for life" is the principle given in Deuteronomy 19:21 and several other passages. I agree with that principle. I am in full agreement that the state should take the lives of murderers like Keene. But this should be done through life imprisonment. Either way they die in state custody where they are no threat to society and with life imprisonment we uphold the biblical principle of "life for life" while also upholding the crucial scriptural principle of the sanctity of human life.

Being true to the biblical principles related to the punishment of murderers does not require us to execute murderers. We can take their lives behind bars where they are no longer a threat to society and where the gospel, the power of God, can still transform them. Study after study has shown that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Moral questions should not be decided based on money, but if we were to factor in dollars and cents, the death penalty costs a lot more than life imprisonment. Furthermore the Bible does not require the death penalty for murderers even in the Old Testament and it could be argued that principles of the New Testament are against the death penalty.

Would that we could end the death penalty in this country before we get to lethal injection number 1,001. But, since Ohio has another execution scheduled for next month, this seems unlikely.

Hat's off to Albert Mohler

2009-07-20T13:57:00.008-04:00

In case you missed it, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in April that "President Obama's statement [on April 6 in Turkey] that America is not a Christian country is ... both accurate and helpful, though he is being criticized by many conservative Christians for making the claim." Mohler's support of President Obama's comment is in line with another Baptist writing 218 years ago. As noted below, Baptist minister and leader John Leland wrote in 1790, during the ratification process of the Bill of Rights, "The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever."

Dr. Mohler is correct that many conservative Christian leaders (including James Dobson) have attacked Obama's contention that the United States is not a Christian nation. Hat's off to him for breaking ranks and affirming both the veracity of the president's statement and his own Baptist heritage. Making Christianity the official religion of the government would not be a Christian thing to do.

Baptists in Virginia in the days of John Leland knew what it was to be severely persecuted by a "Christian" government establishment. This experience along with the teachings of Christ inspired them to be advocates for the complete separation of church and state. That effort was wise at the founding of this country and it remains wise today.

" ... marriage between church and state ... "

2009-07-20T11:16:00.003-04:00

Consider this opinion concerning the union of church and state:

Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny—the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the [proclamations] of marriage between church and state; their embraces,therefore, must be unlawful.

Who said it? It was Baptist minister and leader John Leland writing on July 5, 1802. His view was typical of Baptists at the founding of the United States. Baptists of today who decry the separation of church and state are at odds with their heritage and the teachings of Jesus who rejected the use of government to achieve his mission.

Which church has the whole truth?

2009-07-16T07:51:00.005-04:00

In 1791 Baptist minister and leader John Leland said, "It is not supposable that any established creed contains the whole truth and nothing but truth; but supposing it did, which established church has got it?" He was underscoring one of the many problems in uniting church and state. If Christian principles are to be promoted by the government, whose version of Christianity is to be advanced? Catholic or Protestant? (Think Northern Ireland here.) If we pick a denomination, which one should we choose? What will we do about the doctrinal differences within the ranks of that denomination?

Would we try to develop a governmental form of Christianity that resolves all the differing views within Christendom? Does anyone think that would ever work? Does anyone like the idea of a government approved gospel?

Better to let the church advance the cause of Christ and leave government out of the effort. After all, when Satan offered Jesus the governments of the world, the Lord turned him down.

A Baptist leader said it too

2009-07-12T19:34:00.010-04:00

In the presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson's political enemies labelled him an infidel largely over this line penned in 1782: "[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." One newspaper declared the choice between John Adams and Jefferson to be a choice between "allegiance to GOD--AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT; or impiously declare for JEFFERSON AND NO GOD!!!"

You might think that Baptists were on the front lines opposing Jefferson who was branded a heretic by many, but such was not the case. Indeed, prominent Baptist minister and leader John Leland borrowed the "twenty gods or no God" phrase from Jefferson on at least two occasions. Commenting on the notion of religious tests for public office, Leland wrote in 1790, "If a man merits the confidence of his neighbors ... let him worship one God, twenty Gods or no God -- be Jew, Turk, Pagan, or infidel, he is eligible to any office ..." In 1791 this Baptist leader wrote, “Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing …”

These words were not written by guy who did not believe in evangelism. Leland preached nearly 8,000 sermons and baptized over 1,500 converts. He was passionate about the gospel and because he was passionate about the gospel he and his fellow Baptists were also advocates of religious liberty expressed through the separation of church and state. It was his zeal for religious freedom that led Leland to write his own version of the "twenty gods or no god" line.

It was dedication to liberty of conscience that also led Baptists to actively campaign for Jefferson in the 1800 election even though he was widely maligned as "an enemy to pure morals and religion" as one newspaper proclaimed. When Jefferson won the election, Leland celebrated saying that his "hero" was victorious. He was glad that Jefferson, "the defender of the rights of man and the rights of conscience", was in the White House.

Baptists preferred a "Godless" constitution

2009-07-04T10:12:00.007-04:00

Today many evangelicals, Baptists in particular, would love to see explicit references to God in the Constitution of the United States. This desire is completely at odds with that of Baptists of the early days of this country. When the Constitution was proposed in 1787, Baptists opposed it because it contained no explicit guarantee of religious liberty. The document contained no reference to God at all, but that did not bother Baptists. Indeed, they preferred it that way.

Baptist minister and leader John Leland led the Baptist charge for the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, including the guarantee of religious liberty for all. But Leland and his fellow Baptists wished the Constitution to remain "Godless." Later Leland pressed a revision to the Massachusetts state Constitution. One item in that document that Leland and his fellow Baptist opposed was the assertion that "it is the right and duty of all men publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being." Leland wrote in 1794 that he agreed with the statement but he and his fellow Baptists maintained that it "would read much better in a catechism than in a state constitution."

Baptists of earlier days preferred "Godless" government Constitutions because they were firm advocates of the complete separation of church and state. Virginia Baptists suffered severe persecution at the hands of fellow Christians in the government sponsored Anglican Church from about 1760-1780. This ugly example of the mingling of church and state taught Baptists that the two should be kept separate.

And so "Godless" government Constitutions were just fine with Baptists of the late 1700's and early 1800's. Would that this were still true today.

"The notion of a Christian commonwealth ..."

2009-06-30T08:10:00.009-04:00

" ... should be exploded forever ..."

That's how the rest of the quote above goes. Here is the whole thing in its fuller context:

No national church, can ... be the Gospel Church. A national church takes in the
whole nation, and no more; whereas, the Gospel Church, takes in no nation, but
those who fear God, and work righteousness in every nation. The notion of a
Christian commonwealth, should be exploded forever, without there was a
commonwealth of real Christians. Not only so, but if all souls in a government,
were saints of God, should they be formed into a society by law, that
society could not be a gospel church, but a creature of the state.

Those words were written in 1790 during the ratification process of the Bill of Rights. Who wrote them? Some deistic politician or Unitarian minister? No, it was Baptist minister and leader John Leland and his sentiments were typical of Baptists in that day.

These days many Baptist ministers argue fiercely that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" and thus it should be today. But Baptists of the early days of this nation believed that efforts to establish a "Christian nation" were efforts to set up something that would not really be Christian at all.

It seems to me that Leland and his fellow Baptists had it right on this point. As I recall Jesus rejected the offer of government power to accomplish his ends--rejected it as a temptation of the devil.

What James Madison believed the religious clause accomplished

2009-06-29T22:28:00.004-04:00

When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in 1789, his wording of the religious clasuse went like this: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or any pretext infringed.” In course of the debate in both the House and the Senate, this wording was modified several times until the final phrasing of the religious clause of the First Amendment was settled upon: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

As Donald L. Drakeman points out, “it is possible to debate interminably over the linguistic difference between Madison’s original proposal and the final version of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.” Whatever may be said about Madison’s view concerning the final wording of the religion clause, Madison biographer Irving Brant maintains that “there is no need to guess” about what Madison believed the phrasing accomplished. One year after Congress approved the Bill of Rights, Madison explained why he excluded an enumeration of those in professional occupations from an amendment to the census bill. He did not think it proper to list religious professionals because “the general government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who [are] and who are not ministers of the gospel” (emphasis mine) As Brant says, this represented “the broadest conceivable definition of the constitutional guarantee, made publicly … to the same group of men who had approved it … [and] [n]obody challenged his statement.”

In his first inaugural address, Madison promised “to avoid the slightest interference with the rights of conscience, or the functions of religion so wisely exempt from the civil jurisdiction” (emphasis mine). While Madison was president, the plight of a Baptist church in the Mississippi Territory came before congress in 1811. The congregation had accidentally built its meeting place on federal land due to “an error in surveying.” Congress addressed the problem by passing a bill granting what was considered a “trivial” piece of land to the church, but Madison vetoed the bill. He explained in his veto message that “reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of [a] Baptist church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’”

In retirement Madison wrote in his “Detached Memoranda” that “the appointment of Chaplains to the Houses of Congress” is unconstitutional because “[t]he constitution of the U.S. forbids anything like an establishment of national religion.” Paying ministers with tax dollars to serve as chaplains involved the principle of a “national establishment.” Furthermore, the appointment of chaplains was “a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles” because the beliefs of the chaplains selected “shut the door of worship [against] the members whose creeds [and] consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.”

Repeatedly Madison interpreted the language of the First Amendment to provide for the separation of church and state in the strictest terms. This was certainly pleasing to his Baptist allies in the struggle for religious liberty. John Leland, an influential Baptist minister of that day, believed, with his fellow Baptists, that “the religious opinions of men [should not be] the objects of civil government, nor in any way under its control.”

Beyond toleration

2009-06-20T06:33:00.003-04:00

On April 25, 1776, two delegates were chosen from Orange County, Virginia to participate in the general convention where the state would formally declare its independence from Britain and draft a new frame of government. One of those delegates was 25 year old James Madison whose “Baptist neighbors may have helped him to win election,” according to historian Lance Banning. Madison was not a Baptist, but he actively protested the persecution of Baptists at the hands of the state Anglican establishment. Indeed, numerous historians claim that Madison, the father of the United State Constitution, got into politics to protest the persecution of Baptists.

The young legislator arrived in Williamsburg for the convention on May 6, 1776, “a stranger to most Virginia leaders,” according to Irving Brant. Yet this newcomer to state politics was nonetheless responsible for a great leap forward in thinking on religious liberty.

George Mason was late arriving as a delegate to the convention and he was immediately placed in charge of drafting a Declaration of Rights. Mason was widely respected in the state for his opinions on government and Ralph Ketcham says, “Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson always deferred to him as their mentor in matters of political theory.” However, Madison was not content with Mason’s wording on religious freedom in the Declaration of Rights which included a clause saying “all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience ...” Madison prepared a change which he convinced Patrick Henry to present, but the body rejected the amendment because it was feared that the replacement language would disestablish the Anglican Church. Madison prepared a substitute amendment, this time asking Edmund Pendleton to bring the motion. The new wording passed, replacing Mason’s language on toleration with the radical new thinking that “all men are equally entitled to enjoy the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience ...”

According to Banning, Madison’s “final phrasing ... erected an ideal that no society had ever written into law.” Madison thus went a step further than John Locke’s advocacy of toleration and he was ahead of Thomas Paine who later called toleration a type of despotism. According to Ketcham, Madison’s “experience at Princeton and his struggle against persecution of Baptists in Virginia convinced him that ‘toleration’ was an invidious concept.” Ketcham also maintains that Madison’s success in replacing toleration with equality and free exercise in matters of religion “made possible complete liberty of belief or unbelief, and utter separation of church and state.”

And so James Madison, who got into politics to protest the persecution of Virginia Baptists, took his first step in a lifelong crusade for religious liberty.

Church building lost to presidential veto

2009-05-11T06:00:00.004-04:00

So a Baptist congregation built a meeting house in the Mississippi Territory sometime in the early 1800's. At some point it was realized that, due to a surveying error, the church building had accidentally been constructed on federal property. The church apparently petitioned Congress for relief and a bill was passed granting the congregation what was considered an inconsequential five acre parcel.

President James Madison vetoed the bill on February 28, 1811.

Why would Madison, a lifelong friend of Baptists, be so mean to a Baptist church? Because he saw this bill that gave federal land to a church as a violation of the First Amendment. In his veto message to Congress, Madison wrote that this legislative act comprised "a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

While Madison's action might seem pretty unkind, the principle that he defended is crucial to religious freedom. I don't know what happened to the meeting place of that Baptist congregation after Madison's veto. It must have been tough time for the church. I wonder if the members of the congregation took any comfort in the fact that they lost their meeting house for a good cause?

Angry Anna

2009-05-06T11:22:00.002-04:00

Anna Jarvis was the driving force in establishing Mother’s Day in the U.S. In 1914, after years of hard work, Jarvis saw President Woodrow Wilson sign a joint congressional resolution establishing Mother’s Day as a national observance. It was the realization of a dream for Jarvis but she became disillusioned by what Mother’s Day quickly became.

Jarvis’ mother, Anna Maria Jarvis, dedicated her life to numerous social causes as a way of expressing her Christian faith. Her “Mother’s Day Work Clubs” were designed to improve health and sanitary conditions and to raise money for those who could not afford needed medicine. Her organization assisted families where the mother of the house was stricken with tuberculosis. Anna Maria Jarvis and her fellow mothers organized an inspection process for milk and other foods. During the Civil War the Mother’s Day Clubs declared neutrality and cared for wounded soldiers of the Union and the Confederacy. At the conclusion of the war, Jarvis the elder, through her clubs, deliberately worked to reconcile neighbors that had been at war. Besides all this, she was a Sunday School teacher in her Methodist church for 25 years.

In 1905 the younger Jarvis swore at her mother’s graveside that she would dedicate her life to her mother’s work and establish a Mother’s Day. After Mother’s Day became a national reality Jarvis was horrified that it was soon transformed into what she saw as a day of profit for the flower industry and greeting card companies. Gone was the emphasis on social change led by her mother.

Jarvis was very vocal in her complaints about Mother’s Day. She was once arrested for disrupting the meeting of a mother’s organization that she claimed had turned Mother’s Day into nothing but a day of profit. She began circulating petitions trying to have Mother’s Day rescinded as a national observance and spent the bulk of her inheritance attempting to undo what she saw as the damage of Mother’s Day. She was finally committed to a sanitarium where she died penniless and bitter.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with recognizing the positive contributions that mothers have made to our lives, I wonder if there is any hope of restoring any of Anna Marie Reeves Jarvis' emphasis on Christian social activism to the day. Is Mother's Day destined to remain only a "Hallmark moment" or can it also become, as it once was, an opportunity for obeying Jesus' command to reach out to the least of these?

Satan, the Holy Spirit and Christian education

2009-04-16T06:31:00.008-04:00

Marv Knox, editor of The Baptist Standard, recently reported on the disturbing results of a new Barna survey. According to the study, nearly six out of ten self-described Christians in America believe in neither Satan nor the Holy Spirit. That's right, it appears that nearly 60% of U.S. Christians either strongly agree or somewhat agree that the devil and the Holy Spirit are symbols rather than living beings.

Knox outlines nicely the troubling dimensions of the results of this survey from a biblical and practical perspective and he makes an appropriate application of it to the tendency of Baptists to "avoid the Spirit." Check it out at the link above--good stuff. But I am wondering if this survey underscores the sorry state of Christian instruction in our churches. When nearly six out of ten Christians believe in neither the devil nor the Spirit then something is not working well in our Christian education.

In Baptist life we used to have much more instruction relative to worship services. Now, in most churches, we have fewer opportunities for Christian instruction and these tend to be more sparsely attended than in years past. With the death or near death of Training Union/Discipleship in many Baptist churches, systematic doctrinal instruction is nearly nonexistent.

Acts 2:42 tells us that believers in the early church devoted themselves to teaching. I don't think we do so today and I cite this recent Barna survey as evidence.

Taking H and H Road

2009-03-23T08:35:00.001-04:00

According to Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus said: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (TNIV).

We naturally take the wide roads, not the narrow ones. Jesus invites us to take the narrow road.

If I am taking a long trip south, I check the route on an Internet mapping program or on a GPS device. Every such program that I have used instructs me to take H and H Road, but I never do. H and H Road is almost directly across from my subdivision and it is definitely the shortest way to go if I am headed to points south. The problem is that the road is little more than a dirt path with ruts and holes and some pretty big puddles when it rains. Furthermore, H and H Road only trims maybe 1 or 2 tenths of a mile off the trip. So I take the nice, wide, hard surface Mount Pisgah Road instead taking H and H Road despite what the mapping programs and the GPS devices say.

I don’t know of anyone in my subdivision who routinely takes H and H Road. No sensible person would take that narrow road when there is a nice, easily accessible, wide road.

Jesus invites us to take H and H Road. The Lord invites us to travel the path that seems a strange choice to the prevailing notions of our culture.

Jesus told his followers to sell their possessions and give to the poor (Luke 12:33). He told us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). He said that, if someone strikes you on one cheek, don’t hit them back, just offer them the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). He told us to prize the lowly people of society rather that the prestigious people (Luke 14:12-14; Matthew 25:31-46). He said to give your shirt to the one who takes your coat (Matthew 5:39). He said to give to the one who asks you (Matthew 5:42), and to lend without expecting repayment (Luke 6:43). He said blessed are you who are poor, but woe to you who are rich (Luke 6:20; 24). He said blessed are you who are hungry, but woe to you who are well fed (Luke 6:21; 25). He said blessed are you when people hate you but woe to you when everyone speaks well of you (Luke 6:22; 26). He said blessed are you who weep now, but woe to you who laugh now (Luke 6:21; 25). He followed the path of the cross and he told his followers to take up their own crosses.

Do you see that following Jesus means taking H and H Road? He turns many of our values upside down. His teaching runs counter to the conventional wisdom of our society. Following him means being weird and most of us don’t want to be weird.

I guess that’s why we keep wandering over to the wide road.

The soul's disease and mere church attendance

2009-03-10T14:09:00.007-04:00

In Untamed Hospitality by Elizabeth Newman, she describes the "inward/outward journey ... rooted in accountability and community disciplines" in The Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. which is led by Gordon and Mary Cosby. The church requires that each member be involved in one of its "communal missions." Gordon Cosby said, "We try to make it as difficult for a person to merely attend our church as possible, because we feel this can be detrimental and contribute to the soul's disease rather than the soul's health."

When I read that line, I thought to myself, "In most Baptist churches we would love to get the members on our rolls merely attending."

How far most Baptist congregations stray from the fellowship ideal depicted in the New Testament. Acts 2:42 tells us that believers in the early church devoted themselves to mere attendance? No, "to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (TNIV). Furthermore, in the early church, "no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had" (Acts 3:32, TNIV). Surprisingly by today's standards, "there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need" (Acts 3:34-35, TNIV).

Yes, that does sound like a commitment far exceeding mere attendance. Yet many Baptist churches have members on roll that they haven't seen in some cases for years. We are more interested in stats than the New Testament notion of fellowship. Ironically, if we would just dedicate ourselves to the New Testament ideal of church involvement the stats would probably improve. But no matter what happens to the numbers we really must recover the New Testament ideal of fellowship.

Do we, in our neglect of genuine koinonia, contribute to the soul's disease rather to the soul's health?

Govenment choosing of preferred religions

2009-02-27T05:56:00.010-05:00

Did you hear about the Supreme Court decision this week related to placing religious monuments on government property? There is a park owned by the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah in which stands a donated monument listing the Ten Commandments. Another small religious group called Summum sought to give the city a monument depicting some of its basic precepts called the "Seven Aphorisms of Summum." The city refused the gift from Summum and the sect sued saying their free speech rights had been violated. On Wednesday the high court ruled that Pleasant Grove does not have to accept the gift from Summam.

The Supreme Court concluded that a lower court went too far when it forced a government entity to effectively endorse the views of a private group on public property. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court's decision, wrote, “The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech." In this perhaps narrow sense the ruling makes sense. It seems to me that the lower court ruling could force the government to accept and display monuments from white supremacist religious groups such as the Christian Identity Church or those of Satan worshipping groups.

However, all of this begs the question of whether the city should have accepted the monument to the Ten Commandments in the first place. Now a government entity is placed in the position of deciding which religious teachings should and should not be displayed on public property which opens a different can of worms. It did not escape the notice of the Supreme Court that, while a lower court may have improperly applied the Free Speech Clause, the situation in Pleasant Grove, Utah may run afoul with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In an opinion that concurred with the decision of the court but not with its reasoning, Justice David Souter wrote, "If the monument has some religious character, the specter of violating the Establishment Clause will behoove it to take care to avoid the appearance of a flat-out establishment of religion."

In a statement, J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), said “the government should not be able to pick and choose the favored religion and then erect a monument endorsing the religion’s scriptural precepts.” The BJC had filed a friend of the court brief asking that the Establishment Clause dimension of the case be considered, but the high court did not take up that question. However it probably will in the near future. The attorney for Summam has announced his intention to amend the lawsuit to include church-state separation claims.

It is worth noting that Baptists who were around at the founding of this nation would not have agreed with the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property and they surely would not have quietly accepted the notion of the government picking and choosing what religious teachings it will display. They were strict adherents to the principle of the separation of church and state. John Leland, perhaps the most prominent U.S. Baptist leader of the late 1700's, opposed the closing of Post Offices on Sunday because he said it amounted to government favoritism toward Christian teaching. Leland and the Baptists of his time were firm in their conviction that government should show preference for no religion.

Sadly many Baptists of today reject the view of their spiritual ancestors in this country. Based on the teachings of Christ and their experience as a persecuted minority, Baptists of the late 1700's in this land said what was later affirmed in all three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963 and 2000): "Church and state should be separate." For the good of the church and for the good of the spread of the gospel, Baptists at the founding of this nation were among the strongest proponents of a strict church-state separation. Tragically, in more recent times, some prominent Baptist leaders have called the separation of church and state "a modern fabrication" and "the figment of some infidel's imagination."

Would that all Baptists of today would again embrace authentic religious liberty expressed through the separation of church and state. After all, when Satan tempted Jesus to use the power of government to accomplish his mission, the Lord turned him down.

I wish Eric Holder was right

2009-02-22T19:06:00.009-05:00

Attorney General Eric Holder

I wish Eric Holder was right because I think he gives most Americans more credit than we deserve when he calls us "cowards" on racial matters. Attorney General Holder, in a much-discussed speech delivered on February 18, indicated that we do not talk to each other enough about race because "it is an issue we have never been at ease with ..." Many have criticized the Attorney General as harsh in applying the term "cowards" to American efforts in the realm of race relations. Unfortunately it is probably more accurate to say that Holder was overly kind to us in his assessment.

The Attorney General believes that we do not have many if any serious conversations with each other about race because we find the subject too difficult to broach. To some extent he is right and where we Americans avoid the subject of race due to the level of difficulty involved we are being cowards. Dictionary.com says that a coward is "a person who lacks courage in facing ... difficulty." So, to the degree that we fail to discuss race because of the difficulty in doing so, we are in fact being cowards.

But around here, the main impediment in having serious conversations about racial matters is more sinister than cowardice. We do not avoid the subject of race because we are cowards; we avoid it because we are apathetic. Most of our neighborhoods lack racial diversity and don't care. Most of our churches lack racial diversity and we don't care. Most of our social gatherings lack racial diversity and we don't care. We don't care because, truth be told, most of us like it that way.

Eric Holder suggests that we want to improve race relations and to move ahead but we are just scared to have the necessary conversations. I wish he were correct because it would mean that addressing the ongoing racial divide in this country is simply a matter of overcoming our fear of discussing the problem. But I am afraid that it is more accurate to say that, for the most part, we do not move forward in improving race relations because we do not care about moving forward and we do care about moving forward because we do not want to move forward.

Having said that Holder gives us more credit than we deserve in calling us cowards when it comes to race, it is too bad that one of the suggestions in his speech has been overlooked in the tempest over his perceived inflammatory language. The Attorney General challenged you to "use the opportunity of [Black History] month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters." Holder believes that "in this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America." I am all for any opportunity to have that sort of conversation. Maybe if we talk more about racial matters then we will begin to care more about doing the right thing in race relations.

Shocking entrance requirements

2009-02-17T07:40:00.003-05:00

In a biography of James Madison, Ralph Ketcham quotes the entrance requirements of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1769. Among other things, incoming freshmen had to be able to "render Virgil and Tully's orations into English and to turn English into true and grammatical Latin, and to be so well acquainted with the Greek, as to render any part of the Four Evangelists [Gospels] in that language into Latin or English ..." Again, these were among the entrance requirements for undergraduate work.

I find this incredible. I did not begin to learn Greek until I entered a Masters program in theology and even then I didn't learn it well enough to render any part of the gospels into English without the aid of a Greek dictionary. And translating any part of the gospels from Greek into Latin? I could not begin to do that after graduating from a Masters program in theology. Yet such skill was the expected general base of knowledge for 17 or 18 year-olds entering college in the latter half of the 1700's.

I watched too much TV growing up.

I really did. Now, on top of TVs, we have video games, MP3 players and cell phones to help turn our brains into mush. Most of us need to study more and entertain ourselves with mindless garbage less. Maybe we need to entertain ourselves more with truly enlightening knowledge.

We have become accustomed to junk food for the brain as we have become accustomed to junk food for our bodies. There is a lot of talk about the "obesity epidemic" in America. I think our brains are as out of shape as our bodies.

"Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge" (Proverbs 23:12, TNIV).

"Do whatever we can to combat it"

2009-01-24T09:46:00.003-05:00

I almost didn't make it.

I attend a monthly meeting of Baptist pastors and a few weeks ago a member of the group noticed that our regular meeting day in January was also inauguration day. He suggested that we watch the inauguration and that we discuss the church’s role in the issues facing our communities and country and devote a good amount of time to prayer for our governmental leaders. The rest of the group thought it was a good plan and we decided to meet in Wilmington (35 miles away for me) in a church facility that has a wonderful television room. For the purposes of this entry I should point out that all of the members of this group of Baptist pastors are white.

In mid-afternoon on the day before our meeting I learned that an Inaugural Watch Service would beheld at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church which is a predominantly African-American church just a few miles from my home. I wondered if similar services were being held in Wilmington that our group could attend but I knew that it was too late to explore that possibility and to get the word out to everyone.

On inauguration day I set out for Wilmington to watch the inauguration with some white Baptist ministers. By the time I got maybe 10 miles up Highway 17, what had been rain turned into heavy snow. But the roads remained clear, so I continued my journey. When I arrived I discovered that, besides two ministers from the church that was hosting the gathering, I was the only group member present. Everyone else decided not to brave the snowy driving conditions.

The ministers of the host church, at my request, looked up inaugural watch gatherings in Wilmington. But, after checking my watch, I decided that I should be able to just make the service at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church as the official inaugural ceremonies began. Fortunately the roads were still clear and I arrived at Cedar Grove just after 11:30 a.m. and found the congregation gathered around a large, flat screen TV in the sanctuary. There was one reporter there who was white. I was the only other white person in the place.

I was welcomed and guided to the best seat left in the place—up on the second row on the aisle. The congregation was in a festive mood and it cheered with crowd on TV. After Obama’s inauguration speech, we sang “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory.” Following this song the pastor, Dr. Gause, made a few brief remarks and we sang another song, the name of which I do not know. Then the congregation retired to the fellowship hall to eat and I started to make my way out.

As I was leaving I was stopped numerous times by folks that I know and a bunch of other folks who I don’t know. They all greeted me very warmly and expressed their appreciation for my attendance. The only other white guy in the room, Steve Jones, a reporter for the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, caught me in the vestibule and asked me a few questions. He wrote an article on the event that was published the next day.

Among the things I told Jones was that Christians should be leading the way in racial healing. Yet, too often, especially among many evangelicals, we have brought up the rear instead. The Lord created all people of every race in God's image. In Acts 17:26 we read that from one person God made every person--everyone of every race ultimately has the same ancestor. In Galatians 3:28 we see that the gospel tears down gender barriers, socio-economic barriers and racial barriers--we are all one in Christ Jesus. Billy Graham wrote, "Racism is a sin, and God doesn't want us to ignore it or refuse to do whatever we can to combat it."

I have not done enough to promote racial healing. I really am going to try to do better in this area. However, it was my privilege to stand with my brothers and sisters in Christ at Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Church on inauguration day as we celebrated a milestone together. Many communities in this country, including this one, still have a ways to go in improving race relations. But at least a few of us left a sanctuary here in Brunswick County, North Carolina feeling a little more hopeful.

Seven Pounds and grace

2008-12-30T07:01:00.004-05:00

How about a movie about a man who makes great sacrifices to help those in need. I mean huge sacrifices. And he makes these sacrifices to atone for one mistake that he made--a mistake that had horrible consequences. This is the story in Seven Pounds, a new movie in theaters now, starring Will Smith.

This film may be worth seeing if only as a conversation starter to talk about things like redemption and sacrifice. I wish I could say more but, as one reviewer said, the less you know going in, the better with this movie. I will, however, point out one major flaw in the philosophy revealed in this story--at least from a Christian perspective.

Early in the movie, Ben (Will Smith's character) goes about evaluating a limited number of people that he is able to help in a significant way. He wishes to make his sacrifices for those who are deserving according to his standards. At one point he angrily refuses to assist a nursing home administrator after he finds out the terrible way that the administrator treats the residents.

Ben's approach seems pretty logical. Most of us, if we are going to make significant sacrifices for a few people, would want to help good people. The problem with this thinking from a Christian perspective is that Jesus died for that sleazy nursing home administrator too. According to 1 Tim 1:15 Christ's great sacrifice was for the worst of sinners. According to Romans 5:6 Jesus died for the ungodly.

The sacrifice that is the pattern for Christ-like living was made for those who were and are undeserving. This is what grace is all about.

But you see. even with this philosophical weakness Seven Pounds has now given me an opportunity to highlight the nature of Christian sacrifice, which, again, is why this movie may be worth seeing. There are a slew of conversations that Ben's sin and his sacrifices could spawn.

Hopeful Thanks

2008-11-29T08:39:00.002-05:00

It has long bothered me how quickly we turn the page on Thanksgiving to the Advent season. I know, in the retail business they are playing Christmas songs in the stores before Halloween, never mind Thanksgiving. But the shift from Thanksgiving to Advent is a quick one on the liturgical calendar too with the first Sunday of Advent usually (always?) falling on the Sunday after we have stuffed ourselves with turkey and dressing.

I like Thanksgiving and I would prefer that we pause just a little longer there. But, at the conclusion of our Thanksgiving Eve service on Wednesday, members of our Flower Ministry were getting out wreaths and other Advent supplies in preparation for the Hanging of Greens service to take place tomorrow. I'm not complaining about that--a lot needs to be done in order to get ready for that service. Hey, I was making my own Advent preparations well before Thanksgiving week. It just seems a bit of a shame that, to some degree, we look past Thanksgiving to Advent.

But this morning as I meditated for a few moments on the theme for tomorrow I decided that the quick shift is not all bad. On the first Sunday of Advent we light the candle of hope. Our culture's understanding of hope is often different from that of New Testament culture. When we say that we hope for something we are often referring to wishing for something that is unlikely to happen like winning the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes. New Testament hope is not like that.

The Greek word translated "hope" is about confident anticipation. It is about a wonderful future that is secure and a glorious, ongoing transformation that is already underway in believers. The hope we celebrate tomorrow is not about something that might be, but about something that is and that will be.

As I pondered all of this just after eating some leftover Thanksgiving ham, a question crossed my mind. Can hopeless people be thankful? Can thankful people be hopeless? In some ways they can when hopes and thanks are misguided. When, for example, we place our hopes in Black Friday specials and we are thankful for them we are only anchoring our hope and offering thanks to the god of consumerism.

But when our hopes and thanks are properly focused on God, then it seems to me that there is a link between thanksgiving and hope. So, on second thought, maybe its not so bad to have a day of offering thanks so close to a day of celebrating our hope.

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope ..." (1 Peter 1:3, TNIV)

Before Election Day ...

2008-11-03T12:38:00.004-05:00

It was quite a few years back that I was in some church that used a video series featuring Herschel Hobbs in a study of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. Hobbs served as the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City for many years. In one of those video installments he said that it was his practice in worship on the Sunday following a presidential election to make the following announcement: "Our nation has elected a president and he is my president."

That might be a good word on the eve of Election Day. I have heard many dire predictions from both sides of the political aisle if this or that candidate is elected. So, to paraphrase Hobbs, tomorrow our nation will elect a president and, whoever that person is, he will be my president.

I know, offically the new president will not be selected until the Electoral College meets in December, but you get the idea. I think it is good that we all, no matter our political preferences, strive for unity after this historic election is over.

The bailout afoul with the free exercise clause?

2008-10-05T17:48:00.011-04:00

A few days ago I saw an article by Ruth Moon at Christianitytoday.com that raises an interesting question about the recently enacted financial bailout legislation. Based on a Howard Friedman blog entry, Moon wonders about the government buying back failed church mortgages. Would the government then be entangled with religion? Both Friedman and Moon link an August article in The Deal reporting that "a surprising number of churches are behind in mortgage payments." So the possibility of the government owning church property as a result of the bailout appears to be more than theoretical at this point.

Moon approaches the possible problems created by this scenario from the standpoint of the Establishment Clause and several law professors agree that the legislation is "unlikely" to create problems in connection to that part of the First Amendment. But Moon does not mention the Free Exercise Clause which seems to be more problematic to this legal layperson.

The First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Suppose a church that has defaulted on a loan is forced to move out of its building. If the government holds that mortgage then isn't this a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion for that congregation?

Sure, some may say that congregations that fail to pay their debts deserve to get booted from their building, but that's not the point. There is no qualifier on the applicable language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law" that prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. It is one thing for a bank to foreclose on a church and evict the congregation from its place of worship but it is another thing for the government to do so thanks to the Bill of Rights.

At least that's the way it looks on the surface to me. What do you think?

Troubling attitudes on religious freedom

2008-10-03T09:49:00.005-04:00

The First Amendment Center released its annual "State of the First Amendment Survey" on September 17, 2008 and some of the results related to religious liberty are troubling.

I was astounded to learn that 29% of those surveyed believe that the "freedom to worship as one chooses ... was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of the people consider extreme or on the fringe." To those 29% who answered this way I say, "Wrong!" It was thanks in no small measure to the persecution of a religious group that the majority of the people considered extreme that James Madison presented the First Amendment guarantee of complete religious liberty. His memory of the mistreatment of Baptists in his home state of Virginia (where there was an Anglican majority at that time) was a large part of the inspiration that led Madison to be one of the foremost advocates of religious freedom for all.

This number seems to be heading in the wrong direction in the survey. The First Amendment Center shows the results of this question for three other years: 1997 (24%), 2000 (19%), and 2007 (27%). Now it is up to 29%. What is happening to cause apparently more and more Americans to believe that the right to worship freely should not necessarily be extended to those in the minority?

On another note, 55% of those surveyed believe that "The U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation." This is simply not true. Indeed, the language of the First Amendment applies broadly to all religions, not just to the Christian religion. Yet a rather strong majority of those surveyed somehow got the notion that the Constitution establishes this as a Christian nation.

In a question related to the freedom of speech but that has a connection to religion, 42% disagree with this statement: "People should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups." So does that mean that if I decide to preach or write in a blog that the so called "health wealth gospel" is a load of garbage that I should be arrested or what? Why do more than 4 in 10 in this survey believe that our freedom to speak freely should be limited when we are speaking about religious groups?

For the first time the First Amendment Center asked whether respondents agreed or disagree with this statement: "Religious leaders should be allowed to openly endorse political candidates from the pulpit without endangering the tax-exempt status of their organizations." Would you believe that 40% of those surveyed agreed with that statement? Setting aside my perception that, thankfully, most church goers do not want for their pastors to endorse political candidates, the recently challenged regulation preventing religious leaders from endorsing candidates while their organizations maintain tax exempt status makes sense. Charitable organizations are tax exempt because they do charitable work, not political work. Churches are free to campaign for any political candidate they wish, but they should pay taxes if they take that step.

This year's annual State of the First Amendment Survey reveals ongoing troubling attitudes and beliefs concerning religious liberty. How do we reverse this trend?

Though the earth give way

2008-09-18T21:22:00.006-04:00

"God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea ..." (Psalm 46:1-2, TNIV)

We read those words when times are good and we find them beautiful and encouraging. I wonder if we can believe them when times are not so good. "We will not fear though the earth give way ..." What about when markets, banks, insurance giants and retirement accounts give way? What about when business slows to a standstill and savings dwindles to nothing?

Someone who I know very well works for a company that has a very large Lehman Brothers bond. Bonds, of course, are supposed to be safer than stocks and Lehman Brothers was supposed to be one of the safest companies in the world, but they filed for bankruptcy earlier this week. My friend is not sure his company will survive the loss of those funds.

I was talking to a church member yesterday who owns a business in a sector deeply affected by the recession. I asked him how things are going. He said that he and his wife are very concerned: "We are
b-r-o-k-e."

Daily people around here express to me how hard these times are.

I don't have any easy answers for the uncertainties of these days. But I wonder if we can proclaim a protest of hope when times are tough. I wonder if we can join with the psalmist in saying that we will not fear no matter how bad the times get. Can we say that God really is our refuge and strength? If we can then maybe we will be less fearful.

Chasing and eating bees

2008-09-03T08:25:00.006-04:00

Maxie

It was clear and 65 degrees here this morning so I decided to go outside and do a little reading before going to the office. Our three dogs, Earl, Maxie and Pickles, were enjoying the beautiful morning with me, although not with books in their paws. As the experience unfolded Maxie engaged in and interesting activity.

She is on the small side of medium size as dogs go and she is ugly. Oh, don't misunderstand, our family loves Maxie and she knows it but she is ugly. One of our church members once asked for a photo of Maxie. When we asked why he wanted it he explained that there was an "ugliest dog" contest going on at his workplace and he was certain that he could win first prize with a picture of her. Maxie is a mixture of unknown breeds with gray wiry hair and legs that seem a little long for her small body. One family member once said that she looks like "a Chinese sewer rat" whatever that is.

This morning Maxie attempted chasing and eating some bees. There is some sort of ugly grass in many yards in this area that seems to spring up overnight to about a foot high. The green stems are topped with mostly black seed heads. Flitting between blades of this annoying grass was a sizable collection of what appeared to be bumble bees. I am not an insect expert, but that's what they looked like.

I noticed that Maxie watched the bees with keen interest. One came within a few feet of her and she chased it and tried to bite it. She missed but then went on a mission catch a bee in her mouth. In short order she succeeded. However, upon accomplishing her goal, Maxie immediately appeared to regret it and she spit the bee out and it flew away apparently unharmed.

I figured that Maxie had learned her lesson but I was wrong. Moments later she began chasing another bee and again imprisoned the insect in her mouth. Again Maxie made a face of discomfort, shook her head and released the second bee which also flew away. Still not satisfied she chased and captured yet a third bee with the same result.

At this point Maxie took a position some distance away from the bees in the grass apparently abandoning the pursuit. But she continued to watch them with what appeared to be longing. It looked like she had decided that chasing and eating bees was not good for her, but she still had the desire to do it anyway.

Maxie's behavior seems foolish, but I wonder if we engage in any bee chasing in our own lives. Are there behaviors that we know to be bad for us that we continue to pursue? "Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise" (Ephesians 5:15, TNIV).

An anniversary for the books and The Book

2008-08-24T21:37:00.004-04:00

The first printing press

Today we mark a momentous anniversary. On August 24, 1456 the very first book to be printed on a movable metal printing press was completed. According to one account some historians call the movable printing press “the most important invention in history.” Before this invention every book had to be copied by hand which was obviously a very tedious and slow process.

After the invention of the printing press, books could be mass produced and they were more affordable which changed the world. According to an article at the Library of Congress web page this invention resulted in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world. The accumulated knowledge of the human race, previously available to only a privileged few, become the common property of every person who knew how to read and the increasing availability of books wrought by the printing press led to more people learning to read. And so that article at the Library of Congress web page says that the invention that was used to complete the printing of a book 552 years ago today was “an immense forward step in the emancipation of the human mind.” Back in the year 2000 an international panel of scientists chose the inventor of the printing press as “most outstanding personality of the millennium.”

In the not too distant future bound books are likely to become less important to humankind. Already there are e-books available so that people can read books on their computers and there are portable e-book readers onto which one can download many books to one small handheld device. We are some years away from it, but we are moving into an age in which printed books will be less important.

But for more than 5 ½ centuries mass produced books have been perhaps the main learning tool of humanity and therefore they have been indispensible to the progress of humankind as it has unfolded. And it all started 552 years ago today.

However this is not only an anniversary for the books, it is also an anniversary for The Book. The man who invented that movable printing press was Johannes Gutenberg and the first book that Gutenberg finished printing on his new printing press on August 24, 1456 after one year of work was the famous Gutenberg Bible.

It is ironic that the book that made books cheap and available to the common person is now so rare and expensive that only the richest and most privileged could possibly own one. Gutenberg made only 180 copies of his famous Bible and only 48 of those are known to still exist today. In 1999 a single page from a Gutenberg Bible sold for $26,000. In 1995 a page from a Gutenberg Bible containing the Ten Commandments sold for $75,000. Estimates on the value of a complete Gutenberg Bible vary greatly between $25 and $100 million.

So if you happen to run across a Gutenberg Bible at a yard sale for $5 you might want to pick it up.

It is also ironic that we live in a culture in which the Bible is more accessible than ever and yet Bible literacy seems to be on the decline. Bound copies of the scriptures are readily available, dozens of complete English versions of the Bible are offered online, and audio Bibles abound. Never have we had more ways and means to read the scriptures but surveys indicate that, as a society, we read the Bible less.

On this day on which we mark the world changing event of the first book completed on the printing press—a Bible—perhaps it is a good day to rededicate our lives to reading the Bible.

Jesus and Chloe

2008-07-24T20:27:00.010-04:00

We are holding Vacation Bible School (VBS) this week and last night there was a very special moment near the conclusion of the session. There was a skit that featured a song in which the most prominent line is the refrain "Come to Jesus." As the song began Jesus came walking down the center aisle of the sanctuary.

Okay, it wasn't really Jesus. It was a man named Rick portraying Jesus. He has long hair and he let his beard grow out for the skit so he looked much like popular portraits of Jesus. Rick also wore a costume like Jesus might have worn. He really looked the part.

The skit was included in our VBS material and it featured "Jesus" hugging and helping various people who were previously selected to come forward as recorded singers continued singing "Come to Jesus." That's the way it was supposed to happen, but things didn't quite work out as planned.

As "Jesus" came down the aisle many of the children could be heard whispering loudly. "It's Jesus!" When people began coming forward and getting hugs from "Jesus" several children who were not part of the script also went to receive hugs from him. Rick handled this very well, staying in character he hugged all comers.

When the program was over Rick was still in costume and he and I were talking at the back of the sanctuary away from the children. But a crowd of kids came and huddled around him asking many questions. They wanted to know if Rick was really Jesus. Again Rick handled the situation with Spirit-led ease. He explained the he was not Jesus but that Jesus was with them all the time. The children wanted to know if his long hair was real and Rick let them tug on it.

Perhaps the highlight of the experience was an energetic little girl named Chloe who is three years old. When her father arrived to pick her up, Chloe just about dragged him into the sanctuary repeating over and over, "Daddy you've got to come and see!" The confused father went with her.

While her father stood near one side of the sanctuary, Chloe ran toward "Jesus" who was now front and center of the sanctuary chatting with some folks. "Jesus" looked at Chloe as she rushed toward him and she motioned toward her father and said, "This is my Daddy!"

Rick smiled and said, "What's your Daddy's name?"

"Daddy." Chloe responded and we all chuckled. Then, still looking at Jesus, Chloe said, "Give him a hug."

Rick said, "Sure." Then he walked toward the man with his arms spread and the two met in an embrace at the front of the sanctuary. Chloe looked very pleased and there were numerous damp eyes around.

Later Rick said that he is going to have to be extra careful about his behavior whenever he is out and about because some of those kids might be around looking at him like he is Jesus.

Tonight VBS workers were still abuzz about the skit and the response of the children, especially Chloe. I started thinking what it would be like if Jesus really did show up like that and I got a chance to hug him and be hugged by him. Joy and thankfulness began to well up inside me and I realized that I really do love Jesus. Sure I have loved Jesus for a long time and I have tried to encourage others to love him too. But Rick and Chloe and some other children who spontaneously rushed to "Jesus" helped me to grasp my own love for Jesus just a little more deeply and for that I am very grateful.

Video images in worship

2008-07-22T07:55:00.009-04:00

We hold three Sunday morning worship services at Brunswick Islands Baptists Church, two traditional services in our sanctuary and a contemporary service in our fellowship hall. We added the contemporary service more than 2 1/2 years ago and from the beginning we utilized a big screen TV screen to display announcements, words to songs, and a presentation that goes along with the sermon. Last month we upgraded the screen in the fellowship hall to a large flat screen HDTV and we also added two such screens to our sanctuary.

Typically, as worshippers arrive, the screens are displaying a slide show that does four things: (1) welcomes them to the church, (2) welcomes guests in particular and informs them of the location of guest slips and guest packets, (3) announces upcoming events, and (4) displays some Bible verses supporting the worship theme for the day. These opening slides play in a continuous loop for 20-30 minutes until the service begins. During the service slides announce various worship elements, display scripture readings, show song or hymn words, and present slides supporting the sermon. The slides displayed during the service are changed manually either by a sound technician (or is it now a sound/video technician?) or by the worship leader.

The screens are an invaluable aid in our worship services for numerous reasons, not the least of which are retention and attention. Long years ago when I was studying to become a school teacher I was taught that repetition and the involvement of more senses helped learners to better retain information. With the screens worshippers now hear and see some information that they formerly only heard. I provide a "listener guide" with my sermons, a sheet listing key sermon statements with key words left blank. As the sermon progresses, these statements are flashed on the screen with the blanks filled in allowing worshippers to hear it, see it and write it down. All of this provides repetition of the material and involves more senses which should in turn improve retention. Furthermore the words on the screen are often accompanied by pictures which give the memory another peg on which to hang the material further enhancing retention.

The screens also improve the attention of worshippers. Members of the congregation can shift their focus between the worship leader and the accompanying information on the screen and thus hopefully avoid being "hypnotized" by looking only at the worship leader. Some years back I remember reading that postmoderns tend to need three simultaneous stimuli to keep their attention. At least during the sermon they have me speaking, the images on the screen and the listener guide that help to fill that need.

Besides weekly worship services we are using the screens in other ways. Our Vacation Bible School material included computer discs designed to put the song words and other information on the screens for the children. It was also set up such that we take particular digital photos of the children during a session and insert those photos into a ready-made slide template that is shown to the group at the end of the evening to reinforce the theme for the day. In addition to the Vacation Bible School application, the Music Minister here tells me that most cantata publishers now offer a disc with a slide presentation to accompany the music.

Worshippers in both the traditional and contemporary services love the screens. I was concerned that older members may have been reluctant to embrace the concept but surprisingly these members were among the most enthusiastic promoters of the idea before we got the screens and they have been the most complimentary of the screens since we added them. Seasoned members particularly voice approval for reading hymn words on the screen so that they no longer have to struggle to read them in the hymnal.

The screens do not detract from the aesthetics of our sanctuary, which was constructed in 1993. In at least one old and historic sanctuary in this area screens were installed behind doors that hide them from view when not in use. Others use projection systems with retractable screens that are easily hidden. We did go that route in part because it is more expensive, but even more important for us was the lighting factor. The images on HDTV screens can be viewed easily in the daytime with all the lights on, something that would not be possible in our sanctuary using a projection system.

For me the biggest downside to video in worship is that it adds to preparation time, whether it is the time of paid staffers or volunteers. In my opinion the dividends of adding the screens more than offset the time investment, but the time required to develop good slide shows is significant.

I'm waiting for someone to ask me why the screens have not made my sermons shorter. After all if a picture really is worth a thousand words then three quick slides should more than cover a sermon.

Reading in the water part two (REVISED)

2008-07-14T21:58:00.011-04:00

Two years ago I wrote a blog entry entitled "Reading in the water." I would link to that entry, but it either no longer exists or the web page is having problems right now. Anyway I explained in the previous post that, when I go to relax at some body of water, I prefer to spend time actually in the water, weather permitting. I also enjoy reading and, several years ago I developed a process through which I read while floating in a lake. This week, while enjoying a few days at White Lake, NC, I enjoyed a new, improved method of reading in the water.

My old method involved carefully positioned foam "swim noodles" that allowed all of my body except my head and shoulders to be beneath the surface of the water as I read. It did not look very distinguished, I suppose, but it beat those floats that would perch my body above the water rather than in the water. Floating on "swim noodles" was also better than placing a beach chair in the water which takes away the weightlessness of floating.

Last year I discovered a webbing of sorts designed to convert those "swim noodles" into a floating chair (see bottom photo above). This works great. In the top photo above you can see me using the seat to read in the water. You may notice that I add one extra "swim noodle" to rest my arms and the book upon. My new floating seat allows me to read in the water without my previous complicated positioning of noodles.

The "swim noodles" were purchased years ago when my children were small, so I don't remember exactly what I paid for them, but they were inexpensive. The webbing that converts the noodles into a floating chair I picked up at a CVS Pharmacy near Myrtle Beach, SC, as I recall, $5.99. So the equipment needed for this method of reading in the water is pretty cheap.

As I explained previously, reading in the water is not recommended for expensive books that you prefer not to receive a few drops of water from nearby splashing kids. Furthermore there is the possibility that one could drop the book into the lake (something that I have not yet done in many hours of water reading). While at White Lake I read a novel recommended by my brother that I managed to find in a thrift store for a quarter. If I had dropped it, oh well. I noticed that the thrift store had a second copy.

I never have understood the attraction of sitting on the beach in hot weather when there is a refreshing body of water only a few feet away. If I wanted to sit in the sun I could do that at home. Sure, I wouldn't have the lake view at home. But as long as I am at the lake I can get a fine view of the lake from in the lake, so why bake in the sun when the water is right there? By the way, I am a stickler for coating myself with heavy doses of the strongest sunblock before going into the water and I re-apply regularly.

I spent a large portion of the early part of this week sitting in White Lake and reading. It was wonderful.

Two unsung American heroes

2008-07-01T20:18:00.016-04:00

Pictured above: James Madison (1751-1836) on the left and John Leland (1754-1842) on the right.

My guess is that 90+ percent of those who regularly attend evangelical churches in general and Baptist churches in particular have heard of the old movie entitled “It’s a Wonderful Life” starring Jimmy Stewart. Most can probably relay the basic storyline and many can probably recite numerous lines after watching the film over and over annually for years.

That’s all fine. What bothers me is that there is a true story about one of the most important events in the history of this country that involves evangelicals, Baptists in particular, that most evangelicals, including most Baptists, don’t know. It is the story of the difficult birth of the most prized and most basic freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. Baptists played a pivotal role in the birth of our foundational freedoms but sadly most Americans and, even worse, most Baptists don’t even know the story.

Evangelicals, Baptists in particular, should know this story backwards and forward. If it takes hearing it every year around the Fourth of July like many revisit the story of “It’s a Wonderful Life” at Christmas time every year so be it. Let us begin right here and now in Independence Day season 2008.

This is the story of two unsung American heroes who I hope you will help me to make famous and give them the credit they are due. The first of these heroes is one that you may be surprised to hear me label as “unsung” and that is James Madison. Besides being the fourth president of the United States he is known as the “Father of the Constitution.”

As the “Father of the Constitution” Madison was the main proponent of the Bill of Rights which should make him a huge American hero. The freedoms that more than anything else define this nation as a free country are fixed in our Constitution because of the efforts of James Madison. That fact alone should earn him a monument in Washington as big as Thomas Jefferson’s and Abraham Lincoln’s, but there is more to the story that I did not know until recently.

We almost did not get the Bill of Rights.

In the last few months I read two books that have given me a new respect for James Madison. One of those books is James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights by Richard Labunski. I had no idea before reading this book how very difficult Madison’s work was in this regard. At nearly every turn the whole effort came close to unraveling. Seriously, the whole thing hung by a frayed thread so many times. Madison’s crusade to pass the Bill of Rights was somewhere between masterful and miraculous.

Ironically, as important as he is to our nation’s heritage, Madison would never be elected to federal office today. He was a small man, physically at five feet, six inches tall. Some of his friends said that he was never bigger than half a bar of soap. He was sickly, constantly struggling with various health issues. He was very soft-spoken. His fellow lawmakers often complained that they could not hear him when he made his speeches. We just do not normally elect puny, sickly, soft-spoken, nerdy type men to congress or to the presidency anymore. But, were it not for Madison’s amazing work on the Bill of Rights in the early days of this country, one wonders where we would be.

Labunski wrote of James Madison, “It is fair to say that no other person in this nation’s history did so much for which he is appreciated so little.” Specifically in the area of religious freedom, Steven Waldman points out in his fine new book entitled Founding Faith that the founders of this nation “tried a radical new approach—and it worked.” While Waldman acknowledges that many played a role in that process “it is James Madison who deserves the greatest thanks.”

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to a puny, sickly, nerdy man named James Madison for the nation defining freedoms that he labored hard and with tremendous sacrifice to secure, but I and many others do not think he gets the credit that he deserves. For our purposes now I am going to focus on one crucial influence on Madison that is connected to the spiritual ancestors of many Baptists in this nation.

About 17 years before Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, he returned home to Orange County, Virginia from college to witness something that appalled him. The horror of what Madison saw would, in the words of Steven Waldman, “shape the course of the struggle for religious freedom.” Madison, in a letter to a friend written in early 1774 called what he witnessed “diabolical” and “hell conceived.” What Madison saw that so moved him was Baptists in Virginia being fiercely persecuted by the government sponsored church in Virginia at that time which was the Anglican Church.

I am reading right now a book by Keith Durso entitled No Armor for the Back, Baptist Prison Writings, 1600’s-1700’s. It is a great book. I’ll tell you just one story that Durso relays that may give you a flavor of the period that impacted Madison. In 1769, a Baptist preacher in Virginia named James Ireland was slated to preach in a church in Culpeper County, Virginia which was only about 20 miles from Madison’s home. On the day before the engagement Ireland received word that, if he preached, the authorities would throw him in jail. He preached anyway and he was thrown in jail.

The jailor, who also owned a tavern, told those arrested for drunkenness that they could stay in jail for free if they promised to beat up Ireland while there, to which the prisoners readily agreed. Ireland preached through the bars in his cell window to multi-racial crowds outside. But persecutors would ride their horses through the crowd, trampling members of the congregation. They would threaten them or actually hit them with clubs. On at least one occasion someone set up some sort of stand and got high enough to urinate in Ireland’s face while he preached through the jail window.

That was in this land. We commonly fail to acknowledge that, for about 150 years on the soil that would become the United States, in many cases, those who left England to escape religious persecution became persecutors themselves.

That story about James Ireland is just one story of many of the persecution of Baptists in Virginia in the 1700’s. According to Waldman, in the period between 1760 to 1778, there were at least 153 serious instances of persecution involving 78 Baptists, including 56 jailings of 45 different Baptist preachers. At least 14 instances occurred in Orange County where Madison lived, another 25 in Culpeper County about 20 miles away and seven in Spotsylvania County about 30 miles away. Most of the worst persecution of Baptists was clustered near Madison’s home place. Madison was not a Baptist, but the way Baptists were treated had a profound effect on him.

Waldman reports that there is some evidence that, as a young man, Madison represented Baptists in court. Ending their ill-treatment at the hands of the Anglican aristocracy was a long-term passion of his. He wrote in that 1774 letter, “I have squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed so long about [Baptist persecution], to so little purpose.” When he began his career as a Virginia legislator one of the first issues that he focused on was religious liberty. Also in that letter of 1774 Madison wrote, “I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience to all.”

Waldman says that while much has been written about what enlightenment philosophers influenced Madison, his dedication to religious liberty was most likely influenced the most by the persecution of Baptists in Virginia. This leads us to the other unsung American hero: John Leland.

In a spot pretty much in the middle of nowhere in Orange County, Virginia, between Nasons and Grassland on State Route 20 there is a seldom visited historical marker. It marks the spot and tells the story of an important conversation in the history of this country—a conversation between two unsung heroes, one a Baptist minister and the other a politician. One was named John Leland and the other James Madison. But we will come back to that conversation.

According to H. Leon McBeth in his outstanding Baptist history text, during his 15 years in Virginia, John Leland preached 3,009 sermons and he baptized 1,278 converts. He had no formal education but he possessed a very keen mind. As you can imagine, with all the persecution they suffered at the hands of government established religion, Baptists in Virginia were aggressive proponents of religious liberty and the strict separation of church and state. Leland became the leader of that movement among Baptists in Virginia.

When the federal Constitution first appeared in 1787, prior to the state-by-state adoption process, Baptists in Virginia came out very quickly against it because it contained no guarantee of religious liberty. So strong was Virginia Baptist opposition to the Constitution as originally proposed, that they decided to mount an organized campaign against its ratification in Virginia.

John Leland had written a list of ten objections to the Constitution all centering on the absence of a bill of rights and specifically the absence of a guarantee of religious liberty. According to some accounts there was even talk of running John Leland as a candidate for the Virginia Ratification Convention from the area that included Orange County. Well, guess who the other candidate for the Ratification Convention representing Orange County was? James Madison.

Madison heard that his old allies, the Baptists, opposed the proposed Constitution and they were planning to oppose him as a candidate to the ratification convention. So he requested a copy of Leland’s objections to the Constitution and soon requested a meeting with John Leland.

In March of 1788, the Baptist minister and the politician met under an oak tree on Leland’s farm near that marker that I mentioned earlier. They talked for several hours. Leland must have been persuasive with Madison. You see, Madison was originally against a bill of rights. That might surprise you. One of the reasons, not the only one, but one of the reasons he did not support a bill of rights was that he was afraid of what they would get when it came to religious liberty.

Waldman reports that, in correspondence with Thomas Jefferson, Madison expressed the concern that, if he tried to work for a bill of rights, including complete liberty of conscience, the country might easily end up with just the opposite. He pointed out that some in New England were opposing the Constitution because it did not require religious tests before Jews, Muslims and atheists could participate in government. Madison thought they were better off not saying anything about religion in the Constitution than to end up with religious restrictions instead of religious freedom. This was one of the reasons that he was reluctant to at first to propose a bill of rights including a guarantee of religious liberty.

John Leland must have been persuasive in that long meeting with Madison, because he walked away with a deal that represented a stark change in position for Madison. Besides Madison could probably not have won the election without Baptist support anyway. So Madison promised that, if Leland would withdraw his objections to the Constitution and throw his support to him, Madison would introduce amendments guaranteeing religious liberty after the ratification of the Constitution. Leland agreed to the deal.

Only four days after the inauguration of President George Washington in 1789, Madison who was then a member of the House of Representatives announced his intent to introduce amendments citing “constituents who are dissatisfied with [the Constitution].” Historians generally agree that Baptists were among those constituents of whom Madison spoke. He did that year propose the Bill of Rights which, in its final form, included these words in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

McBeth points out that Joseph Dawson, while outlining the emergence of religious freedom in this nation, wrote, “If the researchers of the world were to be asked who was most responsible for the American guarantee for religious liberty, their prompt reply would be ‘James Madison.’” But Dawson went on to say, “If James Madison might answer, he would as quickly reply, ‘John Leland and the Baptists.’”

Frankly I think that statement goes a bit overboard. After reading the details of all Madison did to get the Bill of Rights passed with its guarantee of religious liberty, he deserves the lion’s share of the credit. But John Leland and a group of Baptists played a huge role in that process that is commonly ignored. The persecution of Baptists in Virginia more than any other single factor convinced Madison to advocate “liberty of conscience to all.” John Leland had a lot to do with Madison changing his mind on the need for a bill of rights. Madison probably would not have been elected first to the Ratification Convention in Virginia and then to congress without the support of Baptists. And when Madison attempted the daunting task of getting the Bill of Rights passed, my guess is that he had a bunch of Baptists back in Virginia actively praying for him.

I would not go so far as to say that Baptists were most responsible for the Bill of Rights with its guarantee of religious liberty, but I would go so far as to say that it is highly doubtful that we would have had our current Bill of Rights were it not for John Leland and his fellow Baptists in Virginia.

Baptists at least should know this story of these unsung American heroes backwards and forward. It is not only part of the American story, it is part of the story of our spiritual ancestry. Our Baptist forebears in this country fought and suffered for religious liberty expressed through the separation of church and state because they considered it a biblical, God-given right. “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free,” Paul wrote in Gal. 5:1. They got involved in their society to defend and spread a biblical notion of freedom. We must treasure this story and follow that example of involvement. Furthermore we do well to specifically honor their legacy of defending religious liberty expressed through the separation of church and state.

What the world really admires

2008-06-20T14:42:00.005-04:00

Peggy Noonan wrote these lines in a column on a lesson from the coverage of Tim Russert's recent death:

In a way, the world is a great liar. It shows you it worships and admires money, but at the end of the day it doesn't. It says it adores fame and celebrity, but it doesn't, not really. The world admires, and wants to hold on to, and not lose, goodness. It admires virtue. At the end it gives its greatest tributes to generosity, honesty, courage, mercy, talents well used, talents that, brought into the world, make it better. That's what it really admires. That's what we talk about in eulogies, because that's what's important. We don't say, "The thing about Joe was he was rich." We say, if we can, "The thing about Joe was he took care of people."

Those lines reminded me of a sermon I preached Wednesday before last on a couple of 2008 high school graduates and goodness. Don't worry, I won't reproduce the whole sermon in this blog.

One graduate made such a scene at his commencement that he was arrested. He yelled curses and made obscene gestures from the stage. According to one report he took a swing at the principal instead of shaking hands with him. So this new diploma recipient had a mug shot made in his graduation gown to go along with his senior portrait. He was not a very good boy.

The other graduate is Adam DiPippo, the valedictorian of a small class of 20 students in Derry, New Hampshire. An article on his commencement speech says that DiPippo encouraged his classmates "to seek not self gratification but service to others.” Ultimately he urged them to "do good" explaining this call with these words: "I know that isn't grammatically correct, but I did it on purpose. I don't want you to do well. I want you all to do good."

One graduate was a very bad boy at his graduation and another exhorted his classmates to "do good." Less than a week later Tim Russert died way too early and he is roundly admired for his goodness. All of this reminded me of Ephesians 2:10: "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (TNIV).

We were created to do good works and, in the end, it is our goodness that will be admired more than anything else. Salvation is by grace through faith, of course (Eph. 2:8). We are not saved by good works, but we are saved to good works.

So let us do good.

Who are my family members?

2008-06-16T08:21:00.006-04:00

Father's Day inspired me to think of Jesus' definition of family. But I'll get back to that.

My father lives about five hours away, so I called him and we had a pretty long and very pleasant conversation. My mother answered the phone so I also talked to her for a few minutes before I chatted with Dad. My parents are great persons, outstanding parents, not to mention exemplary followers of Christ. I love them both dearly.

My youngest daughter, Amanda, who just graduated from high school last Saturday, had a card for me and she also gave me one of my favorite desserts for Father's Day. My stepson, Daniel, sent me a message wishing me a "happy Dad's Day." My other stepson, Patrick, is in Iraq right now so communication is a bit tougher in his case. Terri gave me a book that I wanted and prepared a special Father's Day meal for me on Saturday evening. My oldest daughter, Erica, lives 40 miles away and she sent me a sweet Father's Day message.

The gift I received from my 20-year old daughter, Alison, underscored a transition in our relationship. She got married to Heath Dosher on April 20 of this year. They invited me over for supper yesterday evening.

Terri and Amanda along with other members of our youth group left for a youth camp held at Wingate University right after church services yesterday and they will be gone all week. So Alison called as the youth were leaving and asked me to join she and Heath for an evening meal and I accepted.

These newlyweds live only six miles away. They grilled London broil, corn on the cob and potatoes. They also fried some chicken wings using a special batter recipe they had discovered. The food was great, but the fellowship was even better.

This was the first time Alison and Heath have invited me over for a meal in their home. It was most enjoyable but also a little strange. Oh, they made me feel right at home but Alison being married and preparing supper for me with her husband is new and different.

When I arrived Heath was at the grill and I went inside to find Alison busy in the kitchen. After greeting me she pointed out a gift bag saying that it was for me. Inside was a very sweet card and a wonderful gift.

A Styrofoam package in the bag contained a mug with eight photos of various family members made into its surface. The pictures were all taken at the wedding. Around the bottom of the mug was this message: "You're the Best Dad! I love you!"

I was touched.

A loving family is a glorious blessing and I hope I never take it lightly. But I never pass a Mother's Day or Father's day without remembering Jesus' definition of family that is far different than our typical understanding of the term.

While teaching in a very crowded house Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside. The Lord responded, "'Who are my mother and my brothers? ... Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'" (Mark 3:33-34, TNIV).

I really appreciate the family expressions of love that were directed my way in connection with Father's Day. But the day left me wondering, as it always does, what our world would look like if we applied Jesus-style family values.

Source of inspiration

2008-06-06T09:12:00.007-04:00

I am a graduate of Virginia Tech, a school that prides itself on its college football program. Some of you football fans may know that Lane Stadium, the Virginia Tech Hokie’s home field, was voted the number one home field advantage in college football in Rivals.com and the second scariest place to play for opponents at espn.com.

One of the most impressive features of a home game at Lane Stadium is the entrance onto the field of the Hokie team. Just before the team enters, they play the introduction to the song “Enter Sandman” by a group called Metallica. When the Hokie fans hear that song begin, they go crazy. Sixty-some thousand of them jump up and down and scream to the top of their lungs. And when the song reaches a particular fever pitch the team runs onto the field with huge flags spelling out “Hokies.” The whole thing is a trademark, deafening display of football frenzy that gets everybody’s adrenaline pumping, fans and players alike.

After all of that you might think that I am going to tell you a story about the Virginia Tech football team, but I’m not. I am going to tell you a story about the Virginia Tech lady’s softball team instead. Actually, it is THE Virginia Tech softball team, because there is no men’s softball team. About three weeks ago my brother sent me an article about an interesting occurrence at one of their games.

The Hokie’s softball team was playing in the regional finals of the NCAA Softball Tournament against the Tennessee Volunteers. Tennessee was the number one seed in the Hokie’s bracket. They have played in the Softball World Series for the last three years. The Hokies have never been in the World Series.

But the ladies from Virginia Tech managed to win the first game of the best of three regional series. The next night there was a double-header that would decide the regional winner of the tournament. In the first game Tennessee crushed the Hokies 7-1 and the Hokies were losing in the second game in the fourth inning when there was a rain delay of about an hour.

At the end of the rain delay as play was just about to resume, the announcer played a song. You need to know that this game was being played in Tennessee, not Virginia. Guess what song the Tennessee announcer played over the loud speaker just as play was about to resume? “Enter Sandman,” the Metallica song that is famous to all Virginia Tech fans as the one that is played when the football team enters the field. Well, the softball players for Virginia Tech went nuts. They jumped up and down and screamed just like the fans and players do when that song is played at a football game. Many of the fans in Tennessee along with that announcer who played the song must have wondered what in the world was going on with them.

The Hokies were at bat and they scored four runs in that half of the inning after that song was played. Those were the only runs they scored in the entire game. Before the rain delay the Hokies had one runner on base. Misty Hall came up to bat, the first batter after the rain delay, and she smacked a 2-run homer that put the Hokies up 2-1. She said, “When we heard 'Enter ... Sandman,' we all pretty much got our adrenaline going. My adrenaline was at the peak when I was up to bat …”

The Hokies went on to win the game 4-2 to advance to the Super-Regionals for the first time in the history of the program, and the team said it was because the announcer played “Enter Sandman.” Angela Tincher, the picher, said that song “Got us pumped up—it was awesome.”

By the way, the Hokies wound up making it to the World Series for the first time ever too.

What is your source of inspiration in the game of life? What gets you pumped up to accomplish what God has called you to do. The apostle Paul seemed to be inspired by the source of his strength: "We proclaim [Christ], admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me" (Col. 1:28-29, TNIV).

Do you think Christ provides energy to us all for accomplishing his mission? I think so and that seems like a pretty good reason to get pumped up.

No more beach to mountains exchange?

2008-05-20T09:31:00.011-04:00

I am sitting on a deck at a place about seven miles north of Boone, North Carolina and I am looking at a gorgeous view of the mountains. Terri and I are on vacation this week and, for at least the first part of the week, we are enjoying the mountains thanks to some friends who very kindly allowed us to use their mountain getaway. Included in this entry are several photos from a short journey along the Blue Ridge Parkway to Grandfather Mountain, Linville Caverns and Linville Falls.

Strange how beach folks like us go to the mountains to take a break and mountain folks often go to the beach to take a break. Living on the coast I regularly meet people from here who vacation there and I know quite a few people who live at the coast who enjoy trips to the mountains. I suppose the mixture of relaxation with the adventure of a change of scenery inspires mountaineers to periodically trade places with beach bums and vise versa.

I wonder if gas prices will put a significant damper on this unofficial exchange program. If so, that's a shame. Not too many years ago it would have taken several days of difficult travel for people to take a journey that took Terri and me only six hours. One of the advantages of being such a mobile society is that we can experience a part of God's creation with which we are unaccustomed with relative ease. But with gas at about $4 a gallon such trips will be tougher for everyone and impossible for many. Were it not for free lodging Terri and I would not have made the trip this time.

So it has taken me longer than it should have to write this short entry because I have been glancing at the view of the mountains frequently. It may be a good while before I see such a view again.

Government sponsored spiritual decline

2008-05-02T08:04:00.006-04:00

I used to watch The West Wing, a TV show about presidential politics starring Martin Sheen as President Jed Bartlett. In one episode I vaguely remember a conversation Bartlett was having with a young assistant about a report indicating that Americans were saving a little more and spending a little less. Bartlett was concerned about the report and the young staffer was confused thinking that savings was a good thing. Bartlett explained that he needed for the people to wait for the next administration to start saving because a healthy economy depends on Americans spending more.

I thought about that episode when I heard the news and commentary about the funds from a government stimulus package beginning to arrive this week. The plan is supposed to stimulate the economy by putting some money in the pockets of Americans--$300 to $1,200 or more depending on family size and circumstances. Many reports of recent days say, like one I read, "Proponents of the stimulus package hope people will use the money for purchases that will give the American economy a boost "

In the days leading up to the release of the stimulus funds I heard numerous government officials and economic experts express the concern that many Americans, worried about the economic outlook, might save that money or use it only for groceries or gas. If we do that rather than blowing that government money on HDTV's or iPods or video games or eating out or other non-essential purchases then the stimulus package will not do much to stimulate the economy.

I have a degree in economics and I know that it is true that our economy depends on our spending. But here my economic knowledge and my theology collide. I heard Brian McLaren say that, spiritually speaking, "consumerism is more dangerous than terrorism," and he is right. Jesus said, "You cannot serve both God and Money" (Mat. 6:24, TNIV). For years I have preached against the obvious spiritual perils of consumerism even as I have struggled to escape those perils myself.

Now, with this stimulus package, we have blatant government sponsored consumerism, complete with worries that Americans will save rather than spend. What does this say about the whole structure of our society? Who do we really serve? Our currency pardoxically proclaims "in God we trust," but I'm not so sure.

Too risky for dogs but not for humans

2008-04-27T20:30:00.004-04:00

I was surprised by something that Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion in the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the lethal injection execution procedure of the state of Kentucky. By way of background, you need to know that the ruling relates, again, to the state of Kentucky and that pancuronium bromide is one of the drugs used in executions there. Stevens wrote:

"Because it masks any outward sign of distress, pancuronium bromide creates a risk that the inmate will suffer excruciating pain before death
occurs. There is a general understanding among veterinarians that the risk of pain is sufficiently serious that the use of the drug should be proscribed when
an animal’s life is being terminated. As a result of this understanding among knowledgeable professionals, several States—including Kentucky—have enacted legislation prohibiting use of the drug in animal euthanasia. It is unseemly—to say the least—that Kentucky may well kill petitioners using a drug that it would not permit to be used on their pets."

A friend of mine asked a great question: "What happens if a pit bull gets put on death row?"

"Substantial risk of severe pain" not cruel?

2008-04-25T08:29:00.008-04:00

I'm on vacation, so I am reading a long Supreme Court decision. Doesn't that sound relaxing?

Last week the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's method of lethal injection used to execute death row inmates. I am reading the 97-page decision in Baze v. Rees. Of course I am reading it as a pastor and a citizen--not as a legal scholar. I did not start reading at the beginning of the decision and I may not read the whole thing. But my guess is there may be more than one blog entry in my musings over the high court's judgment.

For the time being I confess to experiencing some shock over the conclusions of Justice Clarence Thomas with Antonin Scalia concurring. Thomas agreed with the final judgment but disagreed with a particular legal standard that it set. Follow his logic with me.

Thomas is concerned that the "governing standard" of the decision holds that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment "if it poses a substantial risk of severe pain that could be significantly reduced by adopting readily available alternative procedures." Justice Thomas rejects this standard as finding "no support in the original understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause." He is convinced that "a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain" (emphasis mine).

Did you follow that? If we think a method of execution "poses a substantial risk of severe pain" and we are aware of an alternative that is readily available that could greatly reduce that risk of pain and yet we choose not to adopt that alternative we are not being cruel. Indeed, for Thomas and Scalia, an execution mode is cruel only "if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain."

Again, I am no legal scholar. Yet the formulation of Thomas and Scalia seems to completely dismiss the cruelty of neglect by defining a punishment as "cruel" only if it "is deliberately designed to inflict pain." It seems to me that the neglect of any procedure that could significantly reduce "the risk of severe pain" is inherently cruel.

Thomas recites his version of the historical context of the adoption of the Eighth Amendment along with applicable case law to show that the clause related to cruel and unusual punishment should be applied only to "purposely tortuous punishments." He is concerned that getting into the business of comparing one mode of execution to another threatens to "transform courts into boards of inquiry charged with determining ‘best practices’ for executions.'" Thomas and Scalia think that going down this road will "require courts to resolve medical and scientific controversies that are largely beyond judicial ken."

It seems to me that a connection between medicine, science and law is unavoidable when taking up a discussion on whether or not injections into human bodies of certain chemicals are cruel behavior. The same would apply if we are discussing the effects of other modes of execution including inhaling poisonous gas or high voltage electricity pulsing through the body. How can the possibility of cruelty in such actions be pondered apart from some consideration of science and medicine?

Beyond this, Thomas' analysis of history and case law notwithstanding, it is difficult to view the failure to adopt a readily available procedure that could reduce the risk of severe pain as anything but cruel. I do not claim to know the law but this logic seems cruel by any reasonable standard.

Death Sentence

2008-04-23T21:17:00.010-04:00

I saw a preview of Death Sentence, starring Kevin Bacon, months ago and I was intrigued. Not only did I end up missing this movie in the theater, but it has been out on DVD long enough for me to find a copy at a discount price on the "previously viewed" rack in a local movie rental store. I'm on vacation, so I decided to watch the DVD this evening.

Death Sentence got lousy reviews and maybe it deserved them. Based on the preview I watched the movie expecting a sort of reverse commentary on one of the teachings of the apostle Paul. I was not disappointed.

This is definitely not a film for the kids. It is violent and foul language flows freely. But, for all the ugliness, Death Sentence does illustrate the possible consequences of failing to heed the teaching of Romans 12:17-21.

Nick Hume (Kevin Bacon) is a good father and an executive for Starfish Capital. Tragically he and his oldest son were in the wrong gas station at the wrong time and Nick watched helplessly as the apple of his eye was slain in a gang initiation rite. When the courts failed to mete out justice to his liking, the grieving and angry father took matters into his own hands. What follows is an escalating cycle of revenge.

At the beginning of the movie a gang member/murderer was twice called an animal, once by a detective and once by Nick's wife. By the end of the movie Nick looked like an animal himself. At one point well into the cycle of revenge the gang leader told Nick: "You look like one of us. Look what I made you."

I won't spoil the story any more than that. However, I will tell you that the preview and the movie itself made me think of these words of the apostle Paul: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil ... Do not take revenge ... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17; 19; 21, TNIV). Death Sentence exposes the wisdom of this biblical teaching by showing the repulsiveness of ignoring it.

A dark, worthy parable

2008-04-10T16:28:00.008-04:00

I was on vacation in May of last year and I picked Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel entitled The Road. It is a wonderful story written by a man who is, according to one reviewer, “our greatest living author.”

The Road is a dark story. I recommended it to my brother and he said, “That is the most depressing book I ever read. I can’t believe you liked it.” In a sense it is a depressing book, but it makes a wonderful point that our society desperately needs to hear.

At the center of the story are a father and son trying to survive in the dark world that exists after an apparent nuclear holocaust. The father is fixated on keeping his son alive in a very dangerous and ugly world. From time to time they have opportunities to aid others along the road and the boy always wants for his father to extend a helping hand. The father never wants to. He avoids human contact fearing that others might be dangerous and they often are. The father sometimes allows limited contact with those in an obvious weaker position who do not represent a threat. The son always wants the father to help the weaker ones, but the father resists. Sometimes he does help a little, but not much. Often the father does not help others at all.

For much of the book I identified with the father and I understood his reluctance to help others. The others might be dangerous to himself and to his son. The can of food they share might be all that stands between themselves and starvation in a few days.

But as they continued down the road I realized that the strict path of self-preservation followed by the father reduces his life and that of his son to, literally, an animal existence. Those little chances that they have to help others, risky as they are, offer their only chances to experience a little light in a dark world.

Finally the son has an opportunity to take a tiny step of faith and he does. In that tiny step of faith, dangerous though it was, he has a chance to experience a different way than that revealed to him by his father. He got a chance to speak with someone who would talk to him about God instead of talking to him only about how to get by in the world.

The Road is a dark story, and it is supposed to be. In the tradition of the dark biblical book of Ecclesiastes, Cormac McCarthy reveals the way the world looks when goodness, faith and the spiritual are stripped away. The disturbing thing is that the life of the father and son in The Road is the life of many in our society. Indeed, too often the goals of that father are very much like our goals in life.

By stripping away all the extras McCarthy hopes to show us the ugliness and emptiness of the road that many walk. Because of all the stuff we have, because of all the distractions we enjoy, we cannot easily see that our lives often follow the same repulsive road that the father in the story tried to teach to his son.

One person who read the story told me that I was too hard on the father. After all, he was only trying to protect his son. My response was that the father went too far to try to protect his son. Look how far Jesus’ Father went to protect his Son. While he possessed the power to stop it, Jesus’ Father let him die a horrible, unfair death. But revealing a path of goodness and love and forgiveness and grace was more important than saving the life of his Son.

The parable that is Cormac McCarthy’s The Road helped me to see the ugliness of the ways we often cling to desperately and reminded me afresh of the superior path offered by Jesus: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor” (Luke 12:32-33, TNIV).

Experiencing peace

2008-04-02T11:14:00.007-04:00

Last week it was reported that a minister in Duesseldorf, Germany had what he thought was a great idea to bring church folks more peace of mind. Thorsten Nolting invited parishioners, one at a time, to lie in open graves which he then covered up with boards. This was meant to be an exercise in meditation. Nolting said, “I wanted people to think about what weighs on them down in the darkness and gather the energy to resist it.”

It did not work very well at all. Nolting said the exercise went “horribly wrong” because reporters did not allow silence. Journalists kept bothering the participants with questions ruining the whole meditative atmosphere. Nolting implored the reporters to be quiet or go away, but they would not.

Whether it was the noisy reporters or the disconcerting feeling generated by lying in a grave, Nolting’s attempt to improve peace of mind appeared to have the reverse effect in at least one case. One man was still trembling 20-minutes after spending a mere seven minutes laid to rest in the grave.

While it is admirable that this German minister sought a deeper experience of peace among church folks in Duesseldorf, I just don’t think that’s the way Jesus intended for us to experience his peace in this world. In the gospel reading for the second Sunday of Easter, the risen Jesus twice pronounced peace upon his followers and then he said, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21, TNIV).

Certainly meditation has an often overlooked place in the practice of our faith. But we should not miss the fact that Jesus, on the evening of the first Easter, connected the experience of peace to his mission of love and grace. Jesus never said that his peace would be with us in our own selfish pursuit of the pervasive consumerism of our culture. The wholeness we long for is linked to the Lord's way of sacrificial service.

"Jesus said, 'Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you'" (John 20:21, TNIV).

Easter in the desert

2008-03-21T10:29:00.002-04:00

Next year I propose that we all take a trip at Easter time. A long trip. Let’s go further south. A lot further south. Let’s go way down south of the equator to the Southern Hemisphere. Why go down there at Easter? Because it’s not springtime.

I confess that I borrowed this idea from similar one offered by Martin Marty in a sermon that I remember reading. Marty thinks that our perspective on Easter may be affected in an unfortunate way by springtime. Have you heard the sermons about Easter being about reawakening and rebirth? Chirping birds and awakening plants tell us life returns where there had been apparent death. Many preachers in this part of the world say that it is the same with the resurrection of Jesus.

But Marty says that we should forget that sort of perspective. He thinks believers in the Southern Hemisphere have it better. They have to ponder the resurrection in the midst of scenes of grass turning brown and trees turning gray. With dead leaves and dead flowers on the ground they must celebrate the living, resurrected Jesus.

So I have a place picked out for an Easter pilgrimage next year. How about we go to the Atacama Desert that runs from the southern border of Peru into northern Chile in South America? That’s in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atacama Desert will definitely give us a very different setting to celebrate the resurrection.

At its center, climatologists describe the Atacama as absolute desert. It is known as the driest place on earth. There has been no rainfall in portions of the Atacama Desert as long as humans have kept records of it. Now that’s a long dry spell.

We will see no plants at all in the deepest part of the Atacama—not even a stump of a cactus. We will see no animals, not even a lizard, not even a gnat or any other sort of bug. There is essentially no life in the deepest part of the Atacama. The landscape is moon-like. I read that it was chosen as a testing ground for a lunar rover.

While we will find no evidence of life in the Atacama Desert, we may find evidence of death. Because there is no moisture in the Atacama, nothing rots. One visitor to the region reported seeing seemingly petrified human remains on the dessert floor—even those of children.

What would it be like to go to such a desolate place of no life and ample evidence of death to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus? No birds singing. No trees budding. No flowers blooming. No birds, trees, or flowers, period. Only a ghostly wind amid the remains of the dead.

Sounds great, huh? Are y’all ready to go?

While the Atacama Desert is not the sort of Easter setting that we are used to, let me tell you something: The power of the resurrection is no less real there than it is here. Whether your life is full of sunny joy like springtime, or whether it is full of dark and lonely despair like the Atacama Desert, Jesus is alive. He died in a cruel and unjust way on Good Friday, but he was raised to life again on Easter Sunday.

The Easter story does not offer us an easy formula for joy. Indeed, were we to try to establish a formula out of this story, many in our society might not like it a whole lot.

Jesus prayed earnestly and repeatedly for the heavenly Father to stop his impending suffering, but the answer was no. Jesus’ perfect obedience to the heavenly Father did not cause him to escape sorrow and heartache and physical suffering. As Dorothy Sayers wrote, “God did not abolish the fact of evil: He transformed it . . . He did not stop the crucifixion: He rose from the dead.”

The Easter story is not a quick fix, simple formula of joy. If you think it is, then you have it all wrong. But when we choose begin and nurture a relationship with the one named Jesus who was crucified and then was raised to life, then we have the chance to give in to what Philip Yancey described as “a long, slow undertow of joy.”

The brightness of Easter in springtime is beautiful. But the undertow of joy offered by the resurrection of Jesus is just as real in the dead of winter. Maybe celebrating Easter in a barren desert would give us a new sense of resurrection joy.

I wonder if my local travel agent has a last minute Easter package to the Atacama Desert available?

Not worth comparing

2008-03-04T08:04:00.005-05:00

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:18, TNIV).

That phrase "not worth comparing" always gets me. The difficulties we endure now are "not worth comparing" to the glory that awaits the followers of Christ. If this is true, what does it mean for us today?

Years ago I read an article on Richard Baxter who has been called "the most prominent English churchman of the 1600s." Baxter suffered from a physical ailment that caused him nearly constant pain from the time he was a teenager until he died. Because of his efforts to reform the Church of England he was persecuted fiercely. He was imprisoned at one point and his property was confiscated. On one occasion the bed on which he was lying sick was taken from him by the state church authorities.

Even with all his suffering Baxter accomplished a great deal. He sought to find common ground among squabbling Christian factions of his time. Baxter is probably best known for his prolific writing. He wrote hundreds of books some of which are still widely read today, over 300 years later.

How was Baxter able to accomplish so much in service to the Lord while suffering constant physical pain and enduring intense persecution? For one thing Baxter said that it was his practice to meditate upon heaven for at least a half-hour every day.

How could a guy who produced over 200 written works, many of which are very long, find time to meditate on heaven for a half-hour every day? Could it be that such meditation is more productive than we may tend to believe today? Could it be that Baxter's discipline of thinking of heaven helped him to remember that his trails, though they were fierce, were "not worth comparing" to the glory to come?

C. S. Lewis once wrote to his friend Malcolm, "The hills and valleys of Heaven will be to those you now experience not as a copy is to an original, nor as a substitute to the genuine article, but as the flower to the root, or the diamond to the coal."

I have heard the saying that one can be so heavenly minded that he or she is no earthly good. It could be that the reverse is more accurate. Maybe the more heavenly minded we are the more earthly good we accomplish.

"Essence of union of church and state"

2008-02-24T18:20:00.006-05:00

There is a quote concerning the separation of church and state that I am going to relay in a moment. But first, I noticed that the Faith-Based Initiative is back in the news in recent weeks. On January 29 President Bush celebrated the seventh anniversary of this program which channels federal funds to religious organizations that provide certain services. Last Thursday Christianitytoday.com featured a Q&A with John Dilulio, the first director of the Faith-Based Initiative, on the future of the program after Bush leaves office. On January 29 Dilulio along with David Kuo, former deputy director of the Faith-Based Initiative, wrote a New York Times Op-Ed in which they were critical of Bush's efforts in this area but they voiced support for the concept. Then, on February 3, Jay Hein, current director of the Faith-Based Initiative, responded to Kuo and Dilulio's Op-Ed with a defense of this Bush legacy at this point.

All three editions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963 and 2000) thankfully contain this simple but profound sentence: "Church and state should be separate." This brings me to that quote I mentioned above. Baptist hero E. Y. Mullins in his book entitled The Axioms of Religion said, "Direct gifts of money to religious bodies by the general government is of the essence of union of church and state."

Advocacy in action

2008-02-15T11:00:00.004-05:00

I did something new for me earlier this week: I lobbied a couple of members of congress.

I was privileged to participate in Advocacy in Action, sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) and Bread for the World (BFW). The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina (CBFNC) invited me to this event and took care of my travel to and from Washington, DC where the meeting was held. Numerous pastors and curriculum writers of the CBF attended Advocacy in Action. There is a lot I could say about this trip but, for now at least, I will limit myself to my lobbying efforts.

In 2000 the United States was one of 189 nations to adopt the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations (UN) which are eight objectives designed to improve the quality of life of millions of poor people around the world by the year 2015. In a speech delivered in September of 2005 at UN headquarters, President George W. Bush stated, "To spread a vision of hope, the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty. We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals." So, under two different administrations, one Democratic and one Republican, this nation has affirmed its commitment to the MDGs.

The Coordinating Council of the CBF endorsed the MDGs in October of 2007. In the church I serve we included the efforts of Baptist World Aid to achieve the MDGs in our World Hunger Offering of 2007.

Certainly the MDG's are worthy objectives for Christians. Jesus said that we should see his face in the faces of the poor and the sick and to help them accordingly (Mat. 25:31-46). However, as stated in an article in the Texas Baptist Standard last month, helping the poor effectively "requires response from both congregations and government." Jimmy Dorrell, executive director of Mission Waco, pointed to research suggesting that "each church, synagogue and mosque in America would have to contribute $300,000 each year to fund the basic poverty-relief programs provided by the government." No wonder Dorrell said that "people who say only the church, and not the government, should care for the needs of poor people aren’t thinking clearly."

So, as a Christian, I must help the poor generouly. As a pastor I must lead a congregation to help the poor generously. And, as a citizen, I must encourage the government to help the poor generously. It is the last of these duties that received some attention earlier this week.

On Tuesday morning Advocacy in Action participants assembled at the headquarters of BFW. It was there that I learned that the U.S. is not on track to do its part in achieving the MDGs. We currently devote less that one-half of one percent of the federal budget to poverty-focused development assistance. A recent study reveals that this nation needs to add $25 billion to poverty relief efforts in order meet our commitments. I was asked to speak to a couple of members of congress about adding only a portion of this amount, $5 billion, to the budget for fiscal year 2009.

Armed with talking points we struck out for Capitol Hill. First I, along with five other pastors, met with a staffer of Senator Elizabeth Dole. In addition to the budget request already mentioned, we were asked to chat with senators about the Global Poverty Act which is currently before that body.

The Global Poverty Act (GPA) would make the first MDG a part of officail U.S. policy and require the development of a coordinated strategy to achieve this through aid, debt relief, and trade policies. The first MDG is to cut in half the number of people who are hungry and living on less than $1 a day. The GPA passed the House in September of 2007. We were to ask Sen. Dole to become a co-sponsor to this legislation and, of course, to otherwise support it.

I was designated the leader of the delegation visiting Sen. Dole's office, but all of us got to speak with the aide. She was very attentive to our concerns. At one point she mentioned how gratifying it was to listen to evangelicals that have a passion for helping those in poverty. We were told that our message would be delivered to Sen. Dole. I asked the aide if she would relay to me Sen. Dole's response and she said that she would.

Then I was off to the office of Congressman Mike McIntyre where I met with one of his staffers. I was accompanied by a lady from BFW as was the case with the delegation that visited Sen. Dole. Once again I experienced a warm and attentive reception. I was told that my request would be given to Rep. McIntyre. Again I asked that the response be relayed to me and I was told that it would be.

I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state. However, this safeguard to our liberty does not mean that Christians have no voice in the public square. The government should in no way endorse any religion and I should not ask it to. Yet, as a citizen of this country and a follower of Jesus, I have a responsibility to speak up where Christain duty and governmental duty intersect.

The MDGs line up well with the teachings of Jesus. They have been affirmed by a mission body that I support and by the government of the nation in which I live. The church I serve should do more to reach these goals and so should the government of the nation in which I live. As a church we will consider ways that we can do more to achieve these Christ-like objectives. I am thankful to the CBF and BFW for helping me to ask the government to do more as well. I learned a lot and I had fun too.

Next steps for the New Baptist Covenant

2008-02-07T07:41:00.000-05:00

I know, I'm talking about the next steps for the participants in the New Baptist Covenant Celebration (NBCC) when I never really blogged about the meeting itself. But here's the thing . . . One of the main objectives of the NBCC was and is forming new relationships. I didn't want to miss my chance at the meeting to connect with new people and to re-connect with old friends by being holed up somewhere staring at my laptop. Then, when I got back home, there were pressing pastoral matters to handle, so there wasn't time. Read the great blogs on the NBCC of Tony Cartledge and John Pierce to get a report on the gathering itself.

On the meeting, I will only agree with Walter Shurden that the origin, nature, purpose and mission of the NBCC along with the opportunity for racial reconciliation and gender recognition make the gathering a most significant event in Baptist history. I cannot recall ever going to a convention-style Baptist event and coming away feeling so good about being Baptist.

While I have not had time or made time to seriously blog on the New Baptist Covenant (NBC) until now, I did, at nearly midnight last Sunday night, compose an email that I sent to the organizers of the gathering. Besides thanking them for their efforts, I responded to Jimmy Allen's request for suggestions on where we go from here found on page 60 of the NBCC program.

At the Mainstream Baptist breakfast held in conjunction with the Atlanta meeting, Walter "Buddy" Shurden did a little comparing and contrasting of the NBCC to the Triennial Convention of 1814. In that discussion he mentioned that there will be no "super convention" to come out of the NBCC. Shurden noted that there was no national Baptist body before 1814, only regional associations. Now there are plenty of national Baptist bodies so we really do not need another one. This comment started me thinking that perhaps we need a little bit of the reverse of the Triennial Convention.

It was so great to sit in meetings with Baptists whose skin is a different color than mine. I made some effort in Atlanta to strike up conversations with Baptists of other races. These conversations were wonderful, but altogether too brief and too superficial. Between sessions I often ran into fellow Baptists of the same denominational grouping and same skin color that I had not seen in a while and spent time with them. It was nice to talk with these old friends, but I sense that perhaps an opportunity was missed to reach across some old lines in a more profound way.

What if the NBC could spawn regional connections that cross old lines among Baptists? I am a white Baptist. Wouldn't it be great if I could reach out to African-American Baptists in this region who attended the NBC or who might be interested in attending a future convocation? We could get to know one another and maybe facilitate cooperation on local mission projects. Perhaps there could be joint worship and fellowship events.

Then, maybe in three years, there would be another national convocation. Maybe I would then travel to that event with a new African-American Baptist friend. Maybe instead of renewing only old acquaintances with only my fellow white friends of the same denominational group I would start running into black Baptists with whom I connected through regional NBC efforts to work together and get to know each other.

At the breakfast meeting mentioned above Shurden said that the NBC, rather than being about forming some new denominational structure, is "an effort to say something together about what we should be doing together." I think he's right and what happened in Atlanta was nothing short of miraculous in that regard. Is there a way for us to move beyond "saying" to "doing" more together through regional connections?

I assume, through the registration process, there is a data base of names and addresses of NBCC attendees. Is it possible to identify regional groupings of NBCC participants? Can potential facilitators be contacted to investigate bringing these Baptists together to discuss the possibilities of fellowship and cooperation across old Baptist lines in keeping with the spirit of the NBCC?

Maybe in a particular locale the only participants are all white or all black. Could those Baptists get together and discuss ways to deliberately reach across racial lines to share the message of the NBC with a view toward local fellowship and cooperation and perhaps participation in a convocation in 2011?

I am not suggesting any formal regional structure for the NBC. Let the area connections evolve as they will. In some cases there may be only one white Baptist pastor and one black Baptist pastor who didn't know each other before and they will form a relationship and explore ways for their two congregations to get together. In other cases perhaps the grouping will be larger and it may, on its own, decide to elect a leader and develop more structure for working together.

I know that what I suggest is no small task, but it may be possible and it may be the only way for us to try to really get to know one another in a more profound way. If the NBCC can lead to regional connections that tear down old walls that may be crumbling already then a moment in Atlanta will certainly become a powerful movement.

I'll get back to you

2008-01-31T22:27:00.000-05:00

I just can't write about the New Baptist Covenant and also chat with the friend I came with. I'll have something to say when I get home.

First Impressions of the First Session of the New Baptist Covenant

2008-01-30T23:20:00.000-05:00

I got back to the hotel after the first session of the New Baptist Covenant shortly before 11 p.m., answered a few emails, and now here I am. It is late and I am tired. Just a few first impressions, briefly:

1. The session tonight was wonderful. It was so exciting to go to such a large and diverse gathering of Baptists who all appeared eager to be "one" in Christ. The preaching, speaking and music were all great too.
2. The shuttle system for getting participants to and from the convocation site really stinks. I am thankful for friends who helped get me back tonight. I plan to walk the 1.1 miles from the hotel to the Georgia World Congress Center tomorrow even though it is supposed to be 29 degrees here in the morning.
3. I am really, really glad I came. The words of Bill Underwood, William Shaw and President Carter tonight were worth the trip.

Dogs and Baptists

2008-01-27T16:43:00.000-05:00

We have a dog. Imparting this information to you doesn't really tell you much. Dogs come in many shapes, sizes and colors. Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are both dogs but one breed is far different than the other.

In like manner the Baptist family is a diverse group. I don't know how many types of Baptists there are, but one year and 18 days ago leaders of 40 Baptist organizations representing 20 million Baptists throughout North America met at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia and announced plans for a big meeting celebrating a "New Baptist Covenant." The announced gathering will begin in three days in Atlanta. A press release from the meeting last year mentioned above reported this ambitious aim:

"The covenant – endorsed by a racially, geographically and theologically diverse assembly of Baptists – underscores the group’s desire to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in North America. It goes on to reaffirm traditional Baptist values, including sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and its implications for public and private morality. The group has specifically committed themselves to their obligations as Christians to fulfill the biblical mandate to promote peace with justice, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and the marginalized, and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity."

President Jimmy Carter, a well known Baptist, said of the meeting, "This has been what may turn out to be one of the most historic events, at least in the history of Baptists in this country, and perhaps Christianity."

Actually we have three dogs. Earl is a big, red doberman. Pickles is a little, black miniature dachshund. Maxie is a gray mutt that is bigger than Pickles but smaller than Earl. It is a diverse group, but the three of them get along famously. They play together and they snuggle together when they are cold.

I wonder if a diverse group of Baptists will get along as well as my diverse group of dogs? I intend to find out. I'll be leaving for Atlanta on Wednesday morning with a fellow Baptist pastor to attend the New Baptist Covenant. I'll let you know how it goes.

A rampant, preventable disease

2008-01-20T21:21:00.000-05:00

Malaria kills a child in Africa every 30 seconds. It is the single leading cause of death of children under five in that continent. Malaria causes around 350 to 500 million illnesses and more than one million deaths annually. Making these facts all the more tragic is the reality that malaria is preventable and treatable.

You may have seen the news back in October that the Coordinating Council of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship endorsed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of the United Nations. The MDGs are eight goals targeted for completion by 2015, including the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, promotion of gender equality, reduction of child mortality, improvement of maternal health, and achievement of universal primary education.

Another of the eight goals is about combating "HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases." I confess that I was unaware of the plague that is malaria until a little over 13 months ago. I had, of course, heard of the disease but I had no idea that it infects and kills so many people every year until First Lady, Laura Bush, made headlines a little over a year ago by hosting America's first malaria summit. On one of the news shows on which Mrs. Bush appeared in conjunction with the summit she mentioned the work of Malaria No More. I got the statistics above from their web page.

For a donation of $10 Malaria No More will purchase a bed net that will protect several people from malaria for up to five years. The organization will also transport the net and educate the recipient on using it. A portion of the donation also supports the comprehensive malaria elimination strategies of Malaria No More.

This is an effort worth supporting. After all Jesus did say that we should look after the sick as if we were looking after him (Mat. 25:36). I'm sure that he would say that the same applies to preventing sickness, especially when the lives of so many are at risk.

A new slimy, gooey fuel?

2008-01-13T20:28:00.000-05:00

This morning I read an article in the Wilmington Star News about a potential new fuel supply. Instead of slimy, gooey oil our vehicles may one day be powered by slimy, gooey algae. Yes, that yucky green stuff that is an ugly nuisance in aquariums and ponds might become a renewable fuel.

The pollution created by fossil fuels along with our dependence on foreign oil are big concerns in the United States. Biofuels, fuels made from plan material, are one possible solution,

Brunswick Community College (BCC) here in Brunswick County, North Carolina is about to begin research into algae as a biofuel. Because this water-borne plant can be grown vertically it uses less space to produce than current biofuel sources. We don't eat algae so we can use as much as we want for fuel and it will not affect food prices.

The plan at BCC is to secure the funds to build algae tanks at a wastewater treatment plant in the county. Kim Jones, a chemistry teacher and grant writer, hopes to see the school produce algae in industrial quantities and then extract oils that could be sold to companies for the mass production of biofuel. Treated wastewater would be used for growing the algae.

"Wouldn't it be a wonderful vision to have every wastewater treatment facility ... growing algae for oil to produce biodiesel?" Jones said.

Anything that helps us to protect creation and reduces our potential to fight over a finite supply of oil is indeed a wonderful vision.