Bob Terry

About Bob Terry

http://thealabamabaptist.org

Posts by Bob Terry:

The cross on the hill, Jesus Christ from the Bible. Easter, Religion. Salvation of sins, sacrifice.

Demonstrating Values in Times of Crisis

0

Most Americans are scared. Maybe that is too strong a word. Anxious might be more appropriate. But we should be scared. When medical experts predict that 2.6 million of us could die in the next few months if the nation does not take drastic efforts to limit the impact of the COVID-19 virus, that is a scary moment. Even with our best efforts, the number of deaths could still top 100,000, they say.

It is getting harder and harder for some outliers to argue the coronavirus scare is overblown or a Deep State plot to discredit President Trump. After all, President Trump is the one telling us to prepare for the “bad times” of the next few weeks.

In Alabama, the number of COVID-19 cases has spiked since March 13 when the first case in the state was diagnosed in Montgomery. Deaths are climbing and officials warn to expect more. One model indicates the state will experience more than 650 COVID-19-related deaths by the end of April and more than 1,700 by the end of August. Obviously, we have a right to be scared.

One reason for these high numbers is limited health care facilities in much of the state. Another is that many people in Alabama have not heeded the guidelines offered by national, state and local officials to shelter in place (see New York Times, April 2, 2020). Evidently, many of us have decided a “me first” attitude is the best approach in the midst of this crisis.

The “me first” mindset can be seen in grocery stores where one shopper piles four of the store’s 10 bundles of toilet paper into a cart leaving none for others in the line. That scene is played out again and again from the meat counter to cleaning supplies. Empty shelves scare us. Food rationing hasn’t occurred in this country since WWII. The temptation is to revert to individualistic survival behaviors.

Will the next step be pushing and shoving where the strong survive and the rest perish?

Until recently the “me first” attitude could be seen on Alabama beaches, on playgrounds and other sites where people ignored guidelines about social distancing and avoiding large groups.

Advertisements tell us “we are all in this together.” Do we believe that? As Christians, we are taught to love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). New York Pastor Timothy Keller recently shared an excerpt from Dionysius, an early Church Father, which reads, “Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick — ministering to them in Christ and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected with the disease, drawing of themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains.”

Keller asked if that description of Christians in 260 AD is true of today’s Christ-followers. Certainly, values are demonstrated more by how one acts in times of crisis than by what one says in the safety of a Bible study.

In a matter of days, Christians will celebrate the holiest day of the year — Easter. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, God “made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Jesus gave Himself so that all who believe in Him might live. Those of us who follow Jesus are called to reflect that kind of attitude. Our lives are to be like the Christian believers described by Dionysius, not the “me first” often seen across society.

This Easter may seem like society stands on shifting sand. The economy is almost in free fall. In Alabama, more people filed for unemployment in the week ending March 28 than filed for the whole month of February. Necessary medical equipment is in short supply. The virus continues to spread and people continue to die.

But the solid rock beneath our feet is that God loves us, that Jesus died that we might have life eternal, that God never leaves us alone and that, as believers, we are called to serve others.

The way we live during this crisis should demonstrate those values to all.

Jindrich2_Beckett

The Consequence of Words

, 0

Stumbling down the street on this mid-July day was the most powerful man in the country. Yet, he was not dressed in the finery of royal office. Sackcloth covered him from head to toe. And instead of the sweet aromas of perfumes that usually dripped from his clothing, ashes fell from his body as baskets of the foul-smelling waste were dumped on his head as he walked.

This man before whom all England bowed was not accompanied by his protectors or his ministers but he was not alone. A horde of monks, about 80 strong, lined the streets. They were not there to praise the king but to punish him. The monks formed gauntlets and struck the man again and again and again with switches as he walked barefooted through the streets of Canterbury.

People who usually drew back in fear of this man openly jeered him.

It had been almost four years since his frustration overflowed in a verbal outburst that cost a man his life. Had he meant to ask that someone kill this ungrateful priest? Over and over he tried to deflect responsibility telling all who would listen that he was not responsible for how people interpreted his words. Over and over he tried to blame others telling all who would listen that the four knights who did the killing were responsible, not him.

But his protests fell on deaf ears. Everyone knew the history of the two men. Once they had been fast friends. One was king, the other appointed Lord of the Chancellery. And it was the king who orchestrated his friend becoming a priest one day and Archbishop of Canterbury the next.

What King Henry ll intended as a step to increase civil control over the church backfired. Once appointed archbishop, Thomas Becket tried to protect the church, even expand its power.

The blowup was scandalous. Henry charged his former friend with malfeasance as Lord of the Chancellery and resisting the authority of the king. Archbishop Thomas fled to the continent. Six years later the intervention of Pope Alexander lll forced Henry to permit Thomas to resume his duties.

Within weeks the two were openly challenging one another again. That is when the exasperated king, on the night of Dec. 29, 1170, uttered that fateful phrase “Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest?”

Four knights — Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, William de Tracy and Richard le Breton — heard their king and acted. They traveled the road to Canterbury to arrest Thomas. When he resisted, they killed him. Individually and collectively the knights were sure they were they were doing their patriotic duty. They were carrying out the wishes of their king. Later they wondered why the king abandoned them. Eventually all four were excommunicated by the church and sentenced to fight for 14 years in the Crusades.

The people, the church, the Pope — all judged King Henry ll responsible for the murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. The king did not swing any of the three swords that mortally wounded Thomas but his words set the events in motion. Words do have consequences.

Now Henry faced the public humiliation decreed as his pence for his part in Thomas’ murder at the altar of the Canterbury Cathedral. The king was physically whipped by the church. He was publically humiliated before his subjects. He had to spend a night in the crypt that held Thomas’ body.

His position as king could protect Henry no longer from responsibility for what he said, for the deed to which his words led. The Bible is true when it warns, “Be sure your sins will find you out” (Num. 32:23).

Words do have consequences.

Henry’s life had been privilege and power. He thought himself accountable to no one. After all, who would dare confront the king? But on July 12, 1174, even King Henry ll had to face his nation’s condemnation for his misuse of kingly powers.

Henry’s humiliation illustrates what is still true. Words have consequences. Words can inspire or they can frighten. Words can praise or they can damn. Words can clarify or they can obscure. Words command or words can confuse. Words create expectations. They help form a culture.

Henry’s words created a culture of violence, even the expectation of violence. His words incited murder. Now all England judged him guilty and demanded accountability.

Communications theorists point out the initiator of communications decides the message to be sent and encodes the message in words to transfer that message to recipients. That means the initiator cannot deflect responsibility for the message or blame others for its results.

As all of England saw through Henry’s denial of responsibility, so people today see through attempts to escape responsibility for the consequence of one’s words.

Today means of communications have expanded — texts, emails, tweets and more. But one thing remains the same. One is still responsible for the consequences of one’s words. From that truth there is no escape.

Dr. Bobby S. (Bob) Terry serves as an Advisor to the President of Samford University for Faith Networks. A native of Alabama, Dr. Terry holds degrees from Mississippi College and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was involved in state Baptist papers for more than 50 years beginning in 1968 and retiring at the end of 2018 from The Alabama Baptist newspaper after serving for more than 23 years as it’s President and Editor.

Follow him on Twitter at @drbobterry.

To contact Bob Terry, email bterry3@samford.edu.

Screen Shot 2019-07-20 at 10.28.28 AM

Responding to Religious Intolerance

, 0

It was passion for religious liberty that prompted Baptists from 50 nations to unanimously adopt a resolution condemning religious intolerance and religiously motivated violence during the July 7–12, 2019, Baptist World Alliance (BWA) Annual Gathering in Nassau, Bahamas.

Baptists believe they should live in peace with everyone just as Romans 12:18 instructs. From earliest beginnings, Baptists have sought the right for all to worship freely and to live at peace in the same geographical area with those of differing beliefs.

Religious liberty is for all

That is why the 2019 resolution condemned attacks on Jews and Muslims as well as Christians. Every human being is created in God’s image and worthy of respect, the Bible teaches. Religious liberty is for all, not just for Christians or Baptist Christians.

Despite the good words of Baptists, two reports also released in July indicate religious intolerance and religiously motivated violence are increasing. And Christians are the most persecuted group in the world.

On July 15, Pew Research released a decade long study of religious restrictions and persecution around the world. Among the many findings was that the number of governments that impose “high or very high” restrictions on religion have increased from 40 in 2007 to 52 in 2017. The number of countries where “social hostilities” are highest because of religious belief has increased from 39 to 56 in the same period of time.

That is more than a 20% increase in each category, Pew observed.

Most of the countries with the highest scores in government favoritism have Islam as their official religion — 27 of the 43 nations with an official religion, Pew reported.

Among nations mentioned by name were Saudi Arabia where it is a criminal offense to “cast doubt on the fundamentals of Islam” and to publish information that “contradict the provisions of Islamic law.” China was cited for reports that the government arrested, tortured and physically abused members of both registered and unregistered religious groups.”

On July 8, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) of the British government released a year-long study focused on the persecution of Christians. The report was led by the Anglican Bishop of Truro, the Right Reverend Philip Mounstephen, at the request of British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Persecution problem is growing

The FCO report concluded about 245 million Christians worldwide face persecution for their faith. And the problem is growing. Between 2015 and 2017 the number of countries where Christians are persecuted rose from 128 to 144, the report said.

Foreign Secretary Hunt concluded there is “widespread evidence showing that Christians are by far the most widely persecuted religion.” He called it a “global phenomenon that is growing in scale and intensity” saying the acts of violence against Christians are becoming more widespread and increasing in severity.

Mounstephen, the report’s author, went further. In an interim report released in January, he supported a finding that 80% of persecuted believers around the world are Christians.

The final report said, “The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of the sword or other violent means was the specific and stated objective of extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, North-East Nigerian and the Philippines.

“An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of church buildings and other church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the church’s structure and leadership,” the report continued.

A move toward genocide

For the first time, to this writer’s knowledge, the FCO report put a government on record of supporting what some Christian leaders have said for several years. In certain parts of the world Christians face genocide.

The report declared that persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Africa has reached such a “vast scale” that it is coming “close to meeting the international definition of genocide.” The report added, “Where these and other incidents meet the test of genocide, governments will be required to bring perpetrators to justice, aid victims and take preventive measures for the future.”

Specifically mentioned was the Middle East where the report said Christianity “is at risk of disappearing.” Christians in Palestine represent less than 1.5% of the population while in Iraq the number has fallen from 1.5 million before 2003 to less than 120,000.

The report also slammed the British government for not taking religious persecution, especially persecution of Christians, seriously. In response, the British government announced on July 18 that it has accepted all the report’s recommendations including imposing sanctions on foreign governments that violate religious liberty.

That places Great Britain alongside the United States which has begun placing economic sanctions on selected leaders of groups accused of religious persecution in the Middle East and in Myanmar according to an announcement by Vice President Mike Pence the same day at the State Department’s Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. That meeting drew official participation from 106 nations.

Whether religious intolerance and/or religiously motivated violence is carried out by individuals, by groups, by government policy or allowed by government indifference, it is wrong.

Plight of Christians must be addressed

This month there has been an unusual convergence of personal, denominational, governmental and academic concern raised about religious persecution and the persecution of Christians. Now no one can honestly deny or ignore the reality and plight of Christians. That issue must be addressed.

But, again, religious liberty is for all people. That is why the BWA resolution called on Christians everywhere to “offer the hand of sincere friendship” to those of other faiths “as a prophetic response to God’s love in the face of terrorism, violence and religious intolerance.”

May it be so. May God’s love — expressed in respect and friendship among all peoples — ensure everyone enjoys the God-given right to religious liberty and freedom from intolerance and violence.

Source for featured map: “A Closer Look at How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (July 15, 2019) https://www.pewforum.org/2019/07/15/a-closer-look-at-how-religious-restrictions-have-risen-around-the-world/.

american pride

Pride in America

, 0

This Fourth of July country and western singer Lee Greenwood’s gravelly voice will be heard in every part of the United States declaring “I’m proud to be an American…”. But this year there may be fewer voices than ever joining him in that proclamation.

A Gallup Poll released July 2nd found that less than half the adults in the nation are “extremely proud” to be Americans (45%). To be fair, that is only two percent less than last year but it continues a 15-year downward trend. Gallup reports its highest finding of those who were extremely proud to be Americans was 70% in 2004.

Seventy percent of Americans are still “extremely” or “very” proud to be citizens of this nation.

The picture is not as bleak as the headline might indicate. Seventy percent of Americans are still “extremely” or “very” proud to be citizens of this nation. But that, too, shows a downward trend.

When Gallup first asked about Americans’ pride in their country in 2001, 55% said they were extremely proud and 87% said they were either extremely or very proud of their nation. Results stayed near those levels until 2013 when both responses started to slide. In the past six years, extremely proud responses declined from 57% to 45%. The combined response dropped from 85% to 70%.

Men show only slightly more pride in America than women. Seventy-two percent of men are either extremely or very proud of the nation compared to 68% of women, Gallup found.

Age seems to impact responses. In the age bracket 18-29, only 51% of responders indicated they were either extremely or very proud of America. For those in the 30-49 range, 65% fell in this category. The 50-64 age bracket recorded 80% and the 65+ segment showed 85%, Gallup reported.

Cause for the discontent, Gallup said, was easy to identify. To the surprise of many, it was not racial or ethnic tensions. U.S. diversity in race, ethnic background and religion was a source of pride for 72% of responders. That is nearly a three to one favorable evaluation.

Responders also approved of America’s economic achievements (75%), culture and arts (85%), military (89%) and scientific achievements (91%).

What lowered Americans’ pride in their nation, Gallup found, was the nation’s health and welfare system and the nation’s polarized political system.

Only 37% of responders pointed to America’s social safety-net system as something that made them proud. Sixty-seven percent said it did not. That is a 2-1 indictment of the way the nation responds to the sick and hurting – the “least of these” as the Bible says.

The American political system was a source of pride for only 32% of responders. It brought a negative response from 68%.

That finding should concern every American. Our system of representative democracy should be a model for all freedom loving people and for years it was. Unfortunately, some political theorists now argue that democracy is failing as a system of governance. They point to political instability, to short term goals, to corruption and to individual selfishness to shore up their arguments. Parties and individuals seek their own selfish wellbeing at the expenses of the whole. Party, class, economics — these personal identities ultimately become more important than the welfare of the whole or the consent of the governed.

Democracy has always had its challengers beginning with Plato and Aristotle. In the 1600s, democracy was like a curse word for those who discussed government. Some say it is becoming that again.

Gallup found that responders were not referencing representative democracy in their responses about America’s political system. They were referencing the current polarization of the system. Gallup wrote, “Record-low American patriotism is the latest casualty of the sharply polarized political climate in the U.S. today.”

Analysis by Gallup found that neither party – Republicans or Democrats – is proud of the polarization in the U.S. political system. That means leaders recognize the problem. Now the question is whether our leaders, as well as us common citizens, will be more committed to our partisan and personal identities than we are to the welfare of the whole nation.

Pride in America is more than pride in me and mine.

This Fourth of July as I join my voice with Greenwood’s in singing “I’m proud to be an American…”, as I ask God to “bless the USA,” it will be with a prayer that I and others will overcome our partisanship, our short-sightedness, our selfishness and be able to “love one another” as we have been loved by God.”

Dr. Bobby S. (Bob) Terry serves as an Advisor to the President of Samford University for Faith Networks. A native of Alabama, Dr. Terry holds degrees from Mississippi College and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was involved in state Baptist papers for more than 50 years beginning in 1968 and retiring at the end of 2018 from The Alabama Baptist newspaper after serving for more than 23 years as it’s President and Editor.

Follow him on Twitter at @drbobterry.

To contact Bob Terry, email bterry3@samford.edu.

belonging

No Substitute for Belonging

, 0

Like most Christian mothers, Cathy was concerned about her children as they entered their teen years. She had participated in a dynamic church youth program that had been instrumental in shaping her Christian identity. She wanted something like that for her two children – Jim and Ann.

But the church the family attended was a small membership church. Less than a handful of teens attended and all were nearing the end of their teen years while Jim and Ann were just entering that stage of life. Jim and Ann had been about the only regular attendees as older children and Cathy feared for them if that pattern continued into their teens.

It was a painful decision. The church had ministered to Cathy and her family during a crisis time for which she was grateful. And the family liked the church despite the stresses and strains that go with life in a small congregation.

Still, the spiritual welfare of her children was at stake. She had to do what was best for them.

So not long into their teen years, Cathy, Jim, and Ann began attending a nearby large membership church where teens had their own place of worship and a list of activities and ministries that almost never ended. Cathy threw herself into the new congregation becoming active in Bible study and choir. Jim and Ann almost never missed a youth activity and Cathy was a supporting parent.

But something did not seem right.

Neither child complained or said anything until over a year later. Around the dinner table one evening the family talked about their new church. Jim finally said he liked being a member of a church where the adults knew his name and who he was more than being a part of a church offering a never-ending list of activities.

To Jim and Ann, the Wednesday night youth service, complete with a rock band and flashing lights, was not as important as relationships. Being surrounded by other teens was not as important as a sense of belonging to a larger family.

Don’t be surprised. That is a normal reaction.

More than 10 years ago a large study titled National Study of Youth and Religion found religiously serious teens “have a larger number of non-parental adults in their lives whom they can turn to for support, advice, and help.”

The study confirmed what most people already knew. The most important religious influence in a teen’s life is a parent.

But for teens serious about their religious faith, there is a second group of adults to whom the teens can turn to for support, advice, and help. These adults are not strangers to their parents either. Instead, these adults are likely known by the parents well enough to talk with them about their teens’ lives.

It is like a network surrounding and supporting the teens as they “increase in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.”

An African saying contends “it takes a village to raise a child.” Those of us raised in large families know that village includes uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, neighbors, parent’s best friends, Sunday School teachers, church program leaders and more.

The National Study of Youth and Religion concluded, “In sum, the lives of more religious teens are, compared to less religious teens, statistically more likely…to be linked to and surrounded by adults, particularly non-parental adults who know and care about them and who themselves have social ties to the teen’s parents.”

Cathy listened to her children. A few weeks later the family was back at the smaller church, back where they felt part of a family, where the belonged. Jim and Ann became the core of the youth group. They helped build it up by bringing friends and classmates to the church. Their youth experience didn’t have all the bells and whistles of the nearby megachurch but it provided the essentials and more. Just on a smaller scale.

And on Youth Sunday of Jim’s senior year when he preached the Sunday morning sermon, the adults who lined up to congratulate him knew his name, knew his story and knew how God was working in his life.

While this is a true story of one family (with names changed), the experience has been lived out by countless families. Along the way, they have learned there is nothing wrong with a large youth group. But numbers don’t equal helping teens grow in Christ. There is nothing wrong with a rock band and flashing lights but cool technology doesn’t ensure experiencing God and learning His Word.

Many families have learned that to help teens become devoted to the Lord, there is no substitute for parents and other caring, Christian adults who are involved with teens. There is no substitute for helping teens know they are not shuttled aside but belong to a Christian family.

SBTS Photo - Martin Luther King Jr.

Changing a Nation

, , 0

By 1961 the nation had been in the troughs of the civil rights struggle for six years. In truth, the nation had struggled with civil rights since its founding, but the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott started an unprecedented chapter in this on-going struggle.

On April 19, 1961, Martin Luther King stood behind the pulpit in Alumni Chapel of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, to deliver the J.B. Gay Lectures on Christian Ethics. Southern Seminary was the oldest and most prestigious seminary sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention. Much of King’s work the past six years had been centered in places where Southern Baptists formed the largest religious group. It is an understatement to say many Baptists were not pleased with him.

King’s appearance caused a stir among some at the seminary. A few dignitaries invited by other seminary departments to participate in the lecture series withdrew after hearing of King’s participation. But the faculty and administration would not back down. They stood with Henlee Barnett, the seminary’s most distinguished Christian ethicist, who had nominated King for the lectureship.

So on April 19, the nation’s leading civil rights advocate stood to address the leaders of Southern Baptists’ most distinguished educational institution at a time when tensions about civil rights were about to erupt across the nation and especially in the South.

King did not back down either. In clear and unmistakable words he declared,

“Segregation is a moral evil which no Christian can accept. The church must make it clear that if we are to be true witnesses of Jesus Christ, we can no longer give our allegiance to a system of segregation.”

He called segregation more than a political issue. It was a moral issue, he said. “Since the church has a moral responsibility of being the moral guardian of society, then it cannot evade its responsibility in this very tense period…” he declared.

Listen to the audio tape of that address and you will hear previews of themes made famous in King’s “I Have a Dream” speech on the Capitol Mall in August 1963. You will hear King utter that famous line “Let justice roll down like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” The quote is from Amos 5:24, a fact King acknowledged in his seminary address.

In 1961 and, more famously, in 1963 King used the Bible to lay the foundation for his moral crusade against segregation and Jim Crow laws. He fought for the Voting Rights Act based on the Bible’s teaching that in Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male or female (Galatians 3:28). For the Apostle Paul, that teaching was so important he made the same point again in Colossians 3:11.

King crusaded in behalf of the poor, the hungry, the disposed of, because that is what Jesus followers do. Christians demonstrate their Lord’s compassion through such acts and they offer a hand up by working for a society that cares for “the least of these.”

King’s appearance at Southern Seminary created a firestorm for the seminary.

Baptist bodies passed resolutions condemning the school for inviting King whom many labeled a trouble maker. Some stopped supporting Southern Seminary through the Cooperative Program – the primary financial support channel of the denomination. Donors canceled pledges. One church wrote Barnett, who initiated the King invitation, attacking him with such viciousness that Barnett looked up the church’s Cooperative Program giving and calculated the amount of money that eventually found its way to Southern Seminary. He then figured what portion of that money went toward his salary. With that information, he sent the church the amount of their money that went toward his salary – four cents.

Today Southern Baptist seminaries teach that King is a “Christian Hero” according to a January 18, 2019 press release from Baptist Press, a news outlet for Southern Baptists. The release quoted Jason Duesing, provost for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, saying, “I classify him (King) as one of seven chief theologians in the Baptist tradition.”

Leroy Gainey, who teaches education leadership at Gateway Seminary in California, said, “At least during my lifetime, there is no greater Christian or Baptist leader that I can see than Martin Luther King.”

It takes the eyes of history to see how the appraisal of Martin Luther King by Baptists in the South has changed over the years. And history shows that some once prominent leaders who used tortured reasoning and twisted theology to oppose equality and civil rights for all have faded into oblivion.

What has not changed is the church’s commission to be “the moral conscience of the nation” as King said in 1961. That is what Jesus followers do. They demonstrate God’s compassion for all and they work for a society that does the same.

Every time one prays the Lord’s Prayer, every time we say “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” we affirm that mission. The prayer is not for “pie in the sky by and by.” It is for now.

King unapologetically used Bible teachings to influence national policies and to change a nation. So should we.

Dr. Bobby S. (Bob) Terry serves as an Advisor to the President of Samford University for Faith Networks. A native of Alabama, Dr. Terry holds degrees from Mississippi College and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was involved in state Baptist papers for more than 50 years beginning in 1968 and retiring at the end of 2018 from The Alabama Baptist newspaper after serving for more than 23 years as it’s President and Editor.

Follow him on Twitter at @drbobterry.

To contact Bob Terry, email bterry3@samford.edu.

Featured image from SBTS.edu. 

pexels-photo-175389

The Farm Bill and the Bible

, 1

One of the major pieces of legislation approved by the Congress of the United States this year was the Farm Bill. Every five years Congress is supposed to reauthorize the Farm Bill, which subsidizes agriculture production in the United States and funds various food assistance programs.

The debate over the Farm Bill was acrimonious. The bitterness over the bill which has a $876 billion price tag over 10 years was not over support prices for corn, cotton, soybeans and the rest. It was over nutrition programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, school lunches and other social safety net programs.

Statistics indicate 42 million Americans now live below the poverty line and rely on SNAP to help purchase food. The majority of recipients are women with children. The next largest percentage is the elderly.

At the root of the rancorous disagreement is whether the government should provide a social safety net for the poor and disabled of the nation. If so, what kind of safety net it should be? If not, who should take that responsibility—the church perhaps?

The disagreement provides an opportunity to look at the Bible to see what God’s Word says about the roles individuals and society as a whole have in caring for the least of these.

Christians frequently tell the story of God’s providential care of Joseph in Egypt. Less frequently do Christians reflect on the way God used government to gather, store and distribute food during the years of plenty and want.

Only government had the resources to address the seven years of famine that stretched beyond Egypt to surrounding areas. It was because of government programs that Egypt weathered the crisis and that others like the House of Jacob could find food to survive the severe famine.

A one-time event? Perhaps. But before the Hebrews became a people, God established guidelines indicating community responsibility for caring for the poor and needy.

Leviticus 19:9-10 introduces the practice of gleaning. The Hebrews were instructed not to harvest every corner of their fields or gather the fallen fruit of their vineyards. Deuteronomy 24:19-20 expands that principle to olive trees where trying to get a second harvest from the trees was forbidden.

The grain, the grapes and the olives were all left for the widow, the orphan, the needy, the stranger and the alien.

Additionally, every third year each family was instructed to contribute a tithe of their produce to the Levites “because (they) have no portion or inheritance among you.” This tithe, in addition to the regular tithe, was to be used by the Levite, the alien, the orphan, the widow and the needy “who are in your town” (Deuteronomy 14:22-29).

Deuteronomy 15:1 declares, “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a remission of debts.” Creditors were instructed to forgive the debt of a fellow Hebrew. Exodus 21 explains that one who has sold himself into slavery was to be released at the end of seven years.

After seven Sabbath years, the principle of debt forgiveness was extended. Every 50 years, called the Year of Jubilee, all land was returned to its original owner no matter how many times it had been bought and sold (Leviticus 25:8).

Laws laid down by the Bible concerning working conditions, wages, a sliding economic scale for sacrifices, equal justice for the rich, poor and the alien, plus much more.

Instructions given by God to the community did not lessen the responsibilities of individual members of society to care for the poor. Many of Israel’s prophets pleaded with rulers and citizens alike to care for the poor and needy.

Isaiah said, “Learn to do good. Seek justice. Reprove the ruthless. Defend the orphan. Plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:17). Jeremiah 22:16 quotes God as saying, “He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy. Then it was well. Is not that what it means to know me?” Zechariah 7:10 adds, “Do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor. And do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.”

In Jesus day all the Old Testament rules guiding the community’s care for the poor and needy were still in place. He spoke against none of them but emphasized the importance of individual action adding to what the community provided.

In Luke 10 Jesus held up the model of the Good Samaritan. In Luke 11:41 He commended “giving that which is within to charity.” Luke 12:32-33 shows Jesus urging His “little flock” to give to charity which He calls an “unfailing treasure in heaven.”

Perhaps it is because the Bible so clearly teaches that Christians are to care for the poor and needy that historians conclude that Christians were the first group to care about individuals beyond their family or tribe. Christians have always been at the forefront of ministries such as education, healthcare, hunger relief, prison reform, child labor and caring for the poor, the widow and the orphan.

Christians have sacrificed themselves in personal service, and Christians have sought to establish policies and practices that helped the community offer care and relief.

Recently a media outlet reported a poll indicating 80 percent of Americans opposed cutting Medicaid, 78 percent opposed cutting Social Security disability insurance and 66 percent opposed cutting food stamps.

Some say the results indicate the strong self-reliant spirit of America is failing.

Others point to the Bible and conclude the results show the church has helped people realize that care for the poor and needy is the responsibility of the community as well as of individuals.

Personally, I believe Christians are called to contend for what the Bible teaches. That means impacting public policy as well as in their individual lives.

freely-drew-murphy-82015

How Ethical is the Clergy?

, 0

It may not be surprising to learn that non-Christians have a lower view of the clergy than self-identified Christians. What may be surprising is how low an opinion of the clergy both groups hold.

According to a study released by Gallup on December 26, 2017, only 25 percent of non-Christians rated the honesty and ethics of clergy as very high or high. That was far behind other professions such as nurses (83 percent), grade school teachers (71 percent), pharmacists (63 percent), and medical doctors (62 percent) to mention only some.

Non-Christians ranked the honesty and ethics of clergy behind newspaper reporters (31 percent) and even with local politicians (25 percent).

Obviously, the public perception of the clergy is not high among non-Christians. That may not be surprising since non-believers may not have much personal contact with Christian ministers. Their image of God’s vocational servants may be formed more by news reports and public media than firsthand experience.

If that is the case, the reports of clergy sexual abuse, religious hucksters on the airwaves and the negative depiction of clergy in media may have all contributed to this negative image. Few films and fewer news stories chronicle the self-sacrificing service of most ministers for the good of their parishioners and communities.

One would expect the appraisal of self-identified Christians, those who should have firsthand experience with ministers, to reflect a high appreciation for the honesty and ethics of clergy. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Fewer than half of the self-identified Christians in the Gallup survey (48 percent) rated the honesty and ethics of ministers very high or high. Again, these are the people who interact with pastors and other ministers and still, the ratings are low.

More self-identified Christians said nurses (82 percent), military officers (74 percent), grade school teachers (65 percent), medical doctors (65 percent), pharmacists (62 percent) and police officers (59 percent) have very high or high ethical standards than clergy.

When the two groups were combined, 42 percent of Americans view honesty and ethical standards of clergy as very high or high. That is the lowest rating in the 33 years Gallup has polled on this issue.

Ministers may never be able to change the opinions of those whose paths they seldom cross, but something can be done and should be done about the views of self-identified Christians. That this group expresses so little confidence in the honesty and ethics of their ministers is a tragedy that deserves focused attention.

In 1 Peter 5:3 the Apostle Peter writes to pastors urging them to “be examples to the flock.” He urges pastors not to do this from selfish motivation. He warns them against acting greedily for money or lording authority and power over others. Peter tells them they should “be eager to serve,” understanding that rewards come ultimately from Christ in glory.

In many places, the Bible outlines the kind of example ministers are to be. For instance, 1 Corinthians 4:2 declares, “It is required of those who have been given a trust to prove faithful.” That “trust” could be a position of leadership and influence. It could be responsibility for money. It might be privileged information. Whatever it is, the minister is not to use the information selfishly but is to be faithful to the one who gave the trust, whether it is a group or an individual.

Jesus addressed the issue of trust in Luke 16:10 when he said, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can be trusted with very much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will be dishonest with much.” Honesty and ethics do not apply only to momentous situations. They are demonstrated most clearly in everyday experiences.

Writing to young minister Timothy, the Apostle Paul urged him to set an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity (1 Timothy 4:12). There must not even be a hint of sexual immorality, Paul adds in Ephesians 5:3a.

Integrity, honesty and ethical behaviors are required for all who follow God. That applies to leadership, to personal relations, to finances, to sexual conduct and more.

Perhaps the Apostle Paul summed it up when he wrote to the church at Corinth, “Men ought to regard us as servants of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:1). When that is the case, honesty and ethics of the servants of Christ will go without saying.

pexels-photo-1222438

Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord

, 0

It is not called a “National Day” but that is what July 4th is for those of us living in the United States of America. It is a day when citizens everywhere celebrate our nation, our freedoms and our ability to worship God according to the dictates of our hearts.

July 4th is a national holiday and Americans will celebrate with picnics and fireworks. There are parades, musical concerts and a variety of other events all designed to acknowledge the rights, privileges and responsibilities of every citizen blessed to live in this “land of the free.”

Social commentators wax eloquently about the many components that make America great.

Some will point to the nation’s economic leadership. One study valued the US economy at $19.42 trillion annually making it the largest economy in the world. The United States accounts for 25 percent of the gross world’s product, the study said.

China, the second largest economy, was rated at $11.8 trillion.

Most indicators point to a strong economy this July 4th. Nationally, unemployment has steadily fallen from 9.9 percent in 2009 to 3.9 percent the end of April. Alabama unemployment has fallen from 11 percent in 2009 to 3.9 percent in August 2018.

Still some people ask when salaries for average workers will rise and wonder about the dwindling number of good jobs – jobs that offer a livable wage along with basic benefits. Stakeholders in a business should be considered along with stockholders some contend.

Unlike many countries, America’s “National Day” will not focus on government officials. Not the president or the Congress. Not on governors or mayors. Focus for America is on the individual citizen. It is his day. It is her day. It is a time for every citizen to celebrate the gifts of freedom and opportunity available in the United States.

Government officials are certainly important. We pray for them regularly just as God’s Word teaches (1 Timothy 2:1-2). And these servants need our prayers. President Abraham Lincoln observed, “Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man’s character give him power.”

John Adams, the nation’s second president, stated, “Because power corrupts, society demands for moral authority and character to increase as the importance of the position increases.”

In America and in Alabama, we have witnessed firsthand the corrupting nature of political power. We know our elected officials need the fortifying power that can come through the prayers of God’s people.

Economic power, military strength, courageous leaders – these are important. But they are not what God looks for in a great nation.

In 1 Samuel 17:7, the Lord said to the Prophet Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance but the Lord look on the heart.”

When the Lord looks at the heart of America what does He want to see?

Part of the answer is provided in the Apostle Paul’s letter to Timothy. He writes in 1 Timothy 2:11, “But you, man of God, flee from all this and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.”

Paul’s instructions to Timothy are consistent with the teaching of Micah 6:8 where the Prophet said, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God.”

Many scholars consider this verse to be an accurate summary of the Old Testament teachings about righteousness.

Both biblical references relate to one’s relationship with others, with one’s self and with God.

How can what is inside the heart of an individual show what is inside the heart of America? Because what constitutes the character of a nation is the character of the many individuals who make up that nation.

If the majority of individuals tolerate hate, stimulate violence, pursue selfish ends and make life important only when it agrees with their own views, then that will be the character of the nation. History will show the nation as inhumane to all who did not choose its side.

But if a people can show righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness in their daily lives, then history will show a “nation whose God is the Lord.”

While there are many “outward” things about America to celebrate this July 4th, let us not forget that God looks at the heart of our nation, the hearts of our people. May God see a people who do justice, who love mercy, who walk humbly before Him.

May God see a people whose God is the Lord.

pexels-photo-1112120

Are we losing religious liberty?

, 0

For years some observers have warned that the day is coming when religious groups in the United States will have to silence their voices about certain moral and ethical issues or be “punished” by governmental entities.

Most people scoffed at that message, believing religious liberty was so thoroughly ingrained in the nation through the U.S. Constitution and in the people through generations of practice that government forces would never attempt to force citizens to compromise their “inalienable right” of religious liberty.

More recent developments are causing some thoughtful people to listen more closely to voices predicting the loss of religious liberty. Today the United States seems caught up in a struggle between religious liberty and other competing values.

Current antagonists are sexual ethics and religious liberty.  Media outlets have carried an array of stories about bakers, florists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians, hospitals and others. These stories shared the tensions between people trying to live out their religious liberty in the face of national values linked to abortion, sexual identity and same-sex marriage.

Some of these cases are headed for the U.S. Supreme Court for greater clarification. However, signs are not encouraging for those committed to religious liberty as the dominant value.

At the University of Iowa, a student organization called Business Leaders in Christ lost its status as an official on-campus organization because it requires leaders to hold biblical beliefs about sexuality.

In accordance with school requirements, the organization is open to everyone, but organizational leaders must affirm the group’s statement of faith, which upholds marriage between one man and one woman adding that “every other sexual relationship beyond this is outside of God’s design and is not in keeping with God’s original plan for humanity.”

That requirement, school administrators concluded, violates the university’s nondiscrimination policy. The Business Leaders in Christ organization was prohibited from reserving campus meeting space, participating in student recruitment fairs, use of university-wide communications services and more.

Interestingly, fraternities and sororities are able to restrict membership based on gender but remain officially recognized even though they are not open to all comers.

The Christian group argues that all groups, religious or not, should be allowed to ensure leaders chosen by the group who embrace the mission of the organization.

Instances like these cause some observers to worry that what is now taking place in Canada may soon take place in the United States. Their churches and other Christian groups must affirm support for abortion or lose eligibility for a government program that helps provide over 70,000 summer jobs annually.

The summer jobs program provides jobs for a student in places like summer camps, daycares, drop-in centers and other program run by church groups and other religious organizations. Canada’s Employment Minister Patty Hajdu now requires that each organization seeking to participate in the summer jobs grant program check a box stipulating they have a “core mandate” which respects “reproductive rights.”

Unless the box is checked, the application cannot be accepted.

One source argued this stipulation was purposely aimed at groups opposing abortion like the Roman Catholic Church, evangelicals and other religious organizations.

During an interview at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, “This is a really important right that we have established and there are organizations out there that couch themselves as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience.

“Of course, you’re more than allowed to have whatever beliefs you like, but when those beliefs lead to actions determined to restrict a woman’s right to control her own body, that’s where I, and I think we, draw the line as a country,” he added.

In light of these and many other cases, it should not be surprising that people who value religious liberty are beginning to worry about its role in the future of this nation and the world. As Christians, we believe religious liberty is a God-given right. No one, including no government, can stand in the sacred space between the created and the Creator except for Jesus Christ, the great High Priest.

Commitment to religious liberty has been part of the foundation of this nation and championed by churches for generations. Religious liberty is an inalienable right in this nation. It must always be an inalienable right. That will only happen when the church champions religious liberty for all and defends it against other competing values.