Posted: 2/28/05

CYBER COLUMN: Lent 101

By Brett Younger

Q: How do you write a helpful, informative column on a subject like Lent?
A: I do meticulous, painstaking research to create insightful, cleverly worded questions. Then I make up answers.

Q: What is Lent?
A: Lent, a tradition that may go back as far as the fifth century, is the forty day period before Easter, excluding Sundays. It begins on Ash Wednesday (this year on February 9) and ends on Holy Saturday (March 26). If you take Lent seriously, it can seem longer.

Q: Why don’t Sundays count?
A: Lent is a time of confession and repentance, but because Sunday is the day on which Christ arose, it’s always a celebration (though some of the deacons in your church haven’t figured this out).

Q: What are your memories of Lent growing up?
A: I believe that GA Coronation Night—the biggest event of the year— may have fallen during Lent. (If you aren’t over 40 or didn’t grow up Baptist, it’s hard to explain.)

Q: Why are the forty days called “Lent”?
A: Lent is the Old English word for spring. You could argue that Lent is spring cleaning for the soul, but it is more likely a reference to the season of the year in which Lent falls. (Lent is longer than spring in Texas.)

Q: Why is Lent forty days?
A: Forty is a biblical number for preparation. Moses was on the mountain forty days. Elijah traveled for forty days before hearing the still, small voice of God. Jesus was in the wilderness praying, I bet you guessed, forty days.

Q: Why do people give up something for Lent?
A: When you skip a meal or alter your routine, you are trying to remember, if not always successfully, Jesus’ sacrificial life and death. In theory, by giving up good things we free ourselves from dependence on them, cultivate the spiritual discipline of sacrifice and remind ourselves of the importance of the spiritual over the material. In practice, I know several people I’ll avoid if they give up coffee.

Q: What do you suggest giving up for Lent?
A: The most common practice is to fast for certain days in Lent. Not eating doesn’t make some of us more spiritual. Think about giving up television, newspapers, eating out, or shopping. Use the time or money you save on something you can imagine Jesus spending the time or money on.

Q: What are you giving up for Lent?
A: I’m planning to add something for Lent. Instead of reading the sports section each day, I’m going to spend each day with a Psalm. (During March Madness I may cheat and read both.)

Q: What’s the best way to observe Lent?
A: Find ways to focus on your need to look carefully at who you are and who you should become. Read the Bible. Read another good book about faith. Minister in a new way. Set time aside to do whatever is necessary to be honest to God about your life. If we stop pursuing pleasure, then, come Easter, we might be caught by Joy.

Brett Younger is pastor of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth and the author of Who Moved My Pulpit? A Hilarious Look at Ministerial Life, available from Smyth & Helwys, (800) 747-3016.

Posted: 2/24/05

Bill Brian to lead Baylor presidential search committee

By Ken Camp

Managing Editor

Bill Brian, an attorney and layman at First Baptist Church in Amarillo, will chair an 11-member search committee charged with finding a successor to Baylor University President Robert Sloan.

In January, Sloan announced he and university regents reached an agreement that he would vacate the presidency June 1 to assume the chancellor’s role, and the board formalized that transition at its February meeting.

Regents Chairman Will Davis, an Austin attorney, in consultation with Vice Chairman Jim Turner of Dallas, appointed both a search committee—made entirely of regents—and an advisory committee comprised of faculty, alumni, students and other Baylor constituents.

In addition to Brian, other regents on the search committee are Jay Allison of Frisco, Joe Armes of Dallas, Joe Coleman of Houston, Randy Ferguson of Austin, Phil Lineberger, pastor of Williams Trace Baptist Church in Sugar Land, Drayton McLane of Temple, David Sibley of Waco and Donell Teaff of Waco. Davis and Turner also will serve on the committee.

“We certainly ask for the prayers of Texas Baptists and for the Baylor family that we will have a clear leading from the Lord in this process,” Brian said.

Lyndon Olson Jr. of Waco, a Baylor alumnus and former U.S. Ambassador to Sweden, will chair the advisory committee.

Clyde Glazener, pastor of Gambrell Street Baptist Church in Fort Worth, will represent the Baptist General Convention of Texas on the advisory committee. Glazener is a BGCT past president and a former chair of the BGCT Executive Board.

Other advisory committee are Baylor Alumni Association President David Malone of Austin; Dianna Vitanza, Baylor Faculty Senate member and associate professor of English; Lynn Tatum, president of the Baylor chapter of the American Association of University Professors and senior lecturer in the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core and religion; Thomas Kidd, assistant professor of history; Nathan Wacker, Baylor senior economics major from Sherman and chair of the Student Congress academic affairs committee; Wallace Daniel, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and history professor; and Kenneth Carlile, chairman of the Baylor Foundation and Baylor alumnus from Marshall.

In a public statement released by the university, Davis said the search committee’s first task be to establish a search protocol and select a presidential search firm to help identify candidates. The first on-campus meeting will include the search committee, the advisory committee and a representative of the search firm. A date has not been set for that meeting.

“I want to publicly thank the individuals who have agreed to serve on these two committees,” Davis said. “We will have the benefit of experienced, knowledgeable people who care deeply about Baylor and are representative of Baylor constituents to guide and advise the board of regents in its search for the university’s next leader.”

Posted: 2/24/05

Tapes show Bush reluctant to 'kick gays' in presidential run

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Prior to his 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush worried about both the need to appeal more to conservative evangelical Christians and the danger of appearing too close to them, private audiotapes reveal.

Doug Wead, who was an informal adviser to Bush during the campaign and who served Bush’s father as a liaison to evangelical Christians, released some of the tapes to a New York Times reporter over recent weeks. The Times published a Feb. 20 story on the subject, followed by several other media outlets.

Wead, a former Asemblies of God minister, said the tapes were of telephone conversations between him and Bush, and dated from the period between 1998 and 2000. Wead said he secretly taped the conversations for their historical value because he believed Bush would become president. Wead also used the tapes for a book he wrote on the lives of presidential children.

In the recordings, news sources report, Bush repeatedly expresses his desire to shore up his support among evangelical Protestants. However, he also expresses reluctance about meeting publicly with evangelical leaders and “kicking gays.”

In discussing a meeting he had with Texas evangelist and one-time Southern Baptist leader James Robison, for example, Bush reportedly confided in Wead, “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals.”

But, the future president said, he told Robison: “‘Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?’”

Bush also expresses concern over an aide’s report from a Christian Coalition meeting, according to the Times article. Reading from the report, he told Wead, “‘This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.’”

“This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Bush continued. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”

However, the tapes reportedly reveal, he also expressed opposition to same-sex marriage in 1998, long before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized it in that state and made it a national issue.

“Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that,” he said, according to the Times.

Nonetheless, Bush also reportedly expressed disapproval at the prospect of a public meeting with prominent evangelical leaders, which he mistakenly thought his aides had arranged.

But regarding another meeting with Christian leaders in 1998, Bush told Wead he knew that, although he would have to use “code words,” he still could be true to his beliefs.

“I am going to say that I’ve accepted Christ into my life. And that’s a true statement,” he said.

The White House has not challenged the tapes’ authenticity, nor commented on their substance.

Posted: 2/24/05

Committee recommends CBF funding cap

By Greg Warner

Associated Baptist Press

ATLANTA (ABP)—A study committee is recommending the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship set a cap on funding of its “partner” organizations and bring more structure to those relationships, including signed covenant agreements and public acknowledgements of those partnerships.

The plan, proposed by an ad hoc partnership study committee, was introduced to the CBF Coordinating Council in February for review and discussion. No vote is scheduled until the council’s June meeting, after a time of consultation with CBF’s current partners and other constituents.

The plan would institute significant changes in CBF’s partnerships, which serve as the primary way the Atlanta-based moderate group funds ministries outside its own structure and control. In addition to setting clear guidelines, the plan would limit Fellowship funding to 20 percent of any partner’s revenues. Based on current budgets, three organizations would lose funding to the cap—Associated Baptist Press, Baptist Center for Ethics and Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

None of the 13 theological schools funded by CBF is close to the planned 20 percent ceiling.

However, under the plan, those schools would be placed into one of three categories, with more funding available to a handful of schools with closer and more public ties to CBF.

For partners other than theological schools, the Partnership Study Committee proposed guidelines instead of classifications because of the variety and number of funded organizations, the report said. The CBF lists about 100 partners, of which 18, labeled “historic” partners, have been part of CBF’s budget for years.

The guidelines for theological-education partners creates three levels of relationship: “identity partners,” limited to three to five schools, which can receive institutional or operating funds in addition to other support; “leadership partners,” which can receive only scholarship funding and “collaborative initiative” or project funding; and “global partners,” which are overseas or non-English institutions that can receive only scholarship and collaborative-initiative funding.

The identity partners, which were not yet selected, would have additional requirements. They would be “explicitly identified with CBF,” promote CBF through campus services and activities and list CBF as an affiliation with accrediting agencies.

Theological-education partners at all three levels would have to agree to the mission of CBF, “encourage” CBF’s core values and support CBF’s strategic initiatives. Those partnerships would be re-evaluated every five years. Theological education accounts for about $1.5 million, or about 75 percent, of CBF’s funding of historic partners.

The proposed guidelines would require all partners to acknowledge the relationship with CBF and “appropriately promote CBF.”

The report said the study committee “sought to assure that there will be mutual respect and accountability between CBF and its partners.”

“It is appropriate for CBF to expect those with whom it partners to acknowledge CBF’s role and to promote the greater work of CBF,” the report said. “How this will be done will vary from partner to partner; however the failure of any partner to do so would call into question the validity of continuing that partnership.”

Some CBF supporters have complained that some partners should receive less funding than others because they have not openly acknowledged their relationships with CBF.

Currently 10 theological schools receive “institutional” funding each year—Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, $228,355; McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University, $185,946; Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Kan., $163,110; Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University, $142,722; Christopher White Divinity School, Gardner-Webb University, $97,866; International Baptist Theological Seminary, Prague, $88,080; Campbell University Divinity School, $73,400; Logsdon School of Theology at Hardin-Simmons University, $16,310; and Baptist-studies programs at two non-Baptist universities—Candler School of Theology at Emory University, $24,467, and Duke Divinity School, $20,389.

Wake Forest Divinity School, Winston-Salem, N.C.; Baptist Seminary of Kentucky; and Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University receive scholarship funding but not operating funds.

Other partners receiving operating funds include: Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty $203,888; Associated Baptist Press, $132,119; Baptist Center for Ethics $81,555; Baptists Today newsjournal, $40,778; and Baptist World Alliance, $40,000.

The Partnership Study Committee said capping support for partners is consistent with CBF’s purpose.

“The reason behind the 20 percent cap comes from the philosophy by which CBF has operated from its beginning,” the group said. “In its formation, CBF, through its Coordinating Council and leaders, stated that CBF would not seek to own or control institutions. Instead, it would work in cooperation (partnership) with others to accomplish its goals.”

The report said the 20 percent level is not an automatic or guaranteed funding level, nor should it be viewed as a goal. Any reductions in funding would be phased in over a three-year period. And the percentage of CBF support would be based on the partner’s previous-year revenues.

In other business, the council:

—Approved a proposal to name an annual offering, collected at the CBF general assembly, the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Offering for Religious Liberty and Human Rights. One-third of the proceeds would go to support the Baptist World Alliance.

—Hired Constance McNeill of Kansas City, Kan., as coordinator of administration for the Fellowship's resource center in Atlanta. McNeill, 51, was vice president for development and chief operating officer of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City.

—Elected Barbara Baldridge coordinator of global missions. Baldridge, 54, was co-coordinator of CBF global missions with her husband, Gary, from 1999 until his retirement Dec. 31. She has been serving as acting coordinator since Jan. 1. Her election as sole coordinator is retroactive to Jan. 1.

Posted: 2/24/05

Lawsuit challenges bill that would allow religious discrimination

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (ABP)—Even as a House panel passed a bill that would allow religious groups receiving federal funds for job training to discriminate in employment decisions, two civil-rights groups filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania challenging the constitutionality of the practice.

The House Education and Workforce Committee split along party lines in voting to send the Job Training Improvement Act to the full chamber for approval. The committee’s 26 Republicans supported the proposal, while its 20 Democrats opposed it.

The bill would reauthorize a large federal job-training program that has existed since 1982, but it would change language to allow religious job-training organizations receiving funds to discriminate on the basis of religion when making hiring decisions.

On the same morning, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a federal lawsuit against a Towanda, Pa., job-training program for prison inmates.

The suit claims the Firm Foundation program at the Bradford County Correctional Center violates the First Amendment’s ban on government funding of religious practice and illegally discriminates on the basis of religion in hiring for taxpayer-funded jobs.

The program—with more than 90 percent of its budget coming from federal, state and local government sources—claims to teach life and vocational skills to inmates, who are sent out to local construction sites under the supervision of program staff.

“A significant proportion of inmates’ time in the program is spent not on the learning of job skills, but on religious discussions, religious lectures and prayer,” the suit says.

The complaint also notes requirements for program staff include religious qualifications. Quoting from a job description for a site-manager’s position for the group, it said the manager will be an “example of a believer in Jesus Christ and Christian life today, sharing these ideals when the opportunity arises.”

The suit also names county officials and the administrator of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, which is part of the state governor’s office and administers some grants for prison-related programs. It also names Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the federal Department of Justice.

Wayne Blow, president of Firm Foundation, did not return requests phone calls requesting a comment on the lawsuit. Donna Pinkham, spokesperson for the Pennsylvania commission, said the organization had not yet seen the lawsuit and thus had no response.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already allows churches and synagogues to discriminate in hiring for most positions on the basis of religious principles. However, the courts have not definitively settled the issue of whether religious groups retain that right when hiring for a position wholly or partly funded by tax dollars.

The issue of employment discrimination in federally funded programs has come to a head in the past few years, as President Bush has pushed for more federal funding of social services through churches and other religious charities. Though he failed to pass his “faith-based initiative” in its entirety through Congress, he has slowly implemented many parts of it via executive orders and other administrative actions.

Meanwhile, the House has done its part to aid piecemeal implementation of Bush’s plan, including adding similar employment-discrimination provisions to a number of bills funding social-service providers. But most of those attempts have been thwarted in the Senate.

In debate on the Job Training Improvement Act, Democrats on the committee attempted to amend it to remove the language exempting religious providers from the program’s discrimination requirements. That would have restored provisions under which the program has operated since its original passage in 1982. The amendment failed.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) then offered what Democrats called a “transparency” amendment to the bill. It would have required religious providers to publish a disclaimer in want ads that reads, in part, “you may be denied employment or discriminated against solely based on your religion, religious practices or religious beliefs, regardless of merit or your qualifications.”

McCarthy referred to a recent Georgia case in which an applicant for a government-subsidized psychiatric position at a Methodist children’s home was told, in the midst of his job interview, that he was not qualified for the position after the interviewer discovered he was Jewish. McCarthy noted that, while she does “not support the underlying provision that allows for job discrimination,” her amendment would “alert job applicants to this offensive” provision and help prevent such situations in the future.

But Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the committee’s chairman, said such a requirement would have “a chilling effect” on religious job-training services attempting to apply for government grants under the program.

McCarthy’s amendment failed, with all Republicans present opposing it and all but one Democrat, freshman Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), supporting it. Barrow is a member of First Baptist Church in Athens, Ga. Barrow also voted twice against earlier attempts to restore the non-discrimination language.

Harper Lawson, a spokesman for Barrow, said his boss voted as he did because he “believes that religious and faith-based organizations should have the freedom to hire individuals of their own faith” and that he thinks “it is unreasonable for the federal government to force a religious or faith-based organization to hire individuals” who may not share the tenets of the group’s faith.

Posted: 2/24/05

Legislators decline to amend Virginia law on religious freedom

By Robert Marus

ABP Washington Bureau

RICHMOND, Va. (ABP)—A Virginia legislative panel killed an amendment that would have altered one of the nation’s oldest religious-freedom laws.

On a bipartisan 10-5 vote, members of the Virginia Senate’s courts of justice committee rejected a proposal that would have amended wording, written by some of the nation’s founding fathers, that has remained essentially unchanged since 1786.

The proposal, by Delegate Charles Carrico (R-Grayson Co.), would have amended the Virginia Constitution to “secure further the people’s right to acknowledge God” and to allow prayer and recognition of “religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including public schools.”

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, whose words Carrico’s amendment would have altered. Those provisions are commonly cited as the model for the religious-freedom clauses of the federal Constitution.

Earlier, the Virginia House of Delegates—the state legislature’s lower chamber—approved Carrico’s amendment on a 69-27 vote.

Carrico said the alteration was necessary to clarify the views of the founding fathers for new times, because Christians in the United States experience persecution at the hands of religious minorities.

“Recently, it’s been to the point where the secular world has said you can only profess your faith within the four walls of your church, or you can pray in a closet,” he said, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

But opponents said the amendment would open the state to litigation by aggressive religious activists and would defile Jefferson and Madison’s intent.

“Jefferson wanted each individual to be free to choose his religious path, without interference of any sort from the state or pressure from people in the majority,” read a Feb. 13 editorial on the subject from the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot. “Jefferson knew well that it is not majorities who need fear trampling.”

Posted: 2/24/05

Winn-Dixie book becomes movie portraying
Baptist pastor's family and a lovable dog

By Ted Parks

Associated Baptist Press

LOS ANGELES (ABP)—It’s a perennial question, like the chicken and the egg. Which was better, the book or the movie?

For one film company, Los Angeles-based Walden Media, the issue is not either-or. Walden hopes its latest production, “Because of Winn-Dixie,” will demonstrate that good children’s literature can spawn quality screen entertainment that in turn inspires kids to read.

Like other Walden movies, including the 2003 “Holes,” “Winn-Dixie” is based on an award-winning children’s book. Written by Kate DiCamillo, the novel behind the new movie was a Newbery Honor Book for 2001. Awarded each year by a division of the American Library Association, the Newbery prizes recognize excellence in American writing for children.

Faithful to its written original, “Winn Dixie” tells the story of young India Opal Buloni (AnnaSophia Robb), daughter of the pastor of Open Arms Baptist Church in Naomi, Fla. Opal and the “Preacher” (Jeff Daniels), as she calls her dad, have just moved to the small town, where the little congregation meets in an old convenience store only partially converted into a house of worship.

Just as the old store provides an atypical church house, so the Preacher and his daughter challenge the comfortable stereotypes of the pastoral family. The minister and his daughter live by themselves in a trailer park where the manager writes off their rent as a church contribution. And the two are alone because Opal’s mom abandoned them, weary of the judgmental gaze of church members and unable to stop drinking.

It’s summer, and Opal feels all alone. But things change when she happens upon a stray dog wreaking havoc in the local grocery. Fibbing that the dog belongs to her to save him from the pound, Opal has to concoct a name on the spot—“Winn-Dixie,” echoing the real-life grocery chain headquartered in Jacksonville.

Opal and her dog join a long line of cinematic canines and kids going back at least as far as the youthful Elizabeth Taylor in the 1943 “Lassie Come Home,” passing through the decades to “Benji” in 1974 and including the bittersweet “My Dog Skip” from 2000. But the creators of “Winn-Dixie” see their mission as more than making another appealing movie about vulnerable children and lovable dogs.

Walden Media forms part of the financial empire of the highly successful entrepreneur Phil Anschutz. According to Bob Beltz, personal adviser and creative consultant for Anshultz, the business leader got into movies out of “a great deal of concern for the moral climate.” Anschutz “recognized that media, especially film, played a large role in sort of setting the tone” in society, Beltz said.

The businessman’s focus is not explicitly religious film. “I think what he’s creating is a much more mainstream film company that really doesn’t specifically fit under ‘religious film company’ or ‘Christian film company,’” said Beltz, who is a minister.

Observing that movies targeting religious audiences, or those made by companies identifying themselves as Christian, often fail to attract the attention of Hollywood distributors despite their worthiness as films. Beltz pointed out Walden has been able to partner with industry powerhouses like Disney and 20th Century Fox to get its productions into the nation’s movie houses.

Walden CEO Micheal Flaherty reiterated his company’s unique commitment to both good movies and the books behind them.

“The big difference with our films is that what we’re trying to do is … to bring great literature, or great ideas, alive, and the experience hopefully doesn’t end with the film,” Flaherty said.

If kids “see a film that really brings a book alive, that will lead them back to the book and lead them back to other books,” he explained.

Cary Granat, Walden’s president and Flaherty’s roommate when the two were students at Tufts University, stressed the company’s respect for the original authors of the stories they put on-screen.

“We as a company really make a big push … to celebrate the author and to try and connect our audience with the author,” Granat said. He added that Walden wants audiences to “really get to understand the author’s philosophy a lot more than just what was literally put on the specific page.”

Experts acknowledge the potentially positive relationship between watching and reading.

Cindy Birden, who worked as children’s librarian at the West Florida Regional Library System in Pensacola more than 20 years, said releasing a film based on a novel often sends young readers scurrying to the library.

“I think it definitely does promote more interest in the book when the film is out,” Birden said. “Even if a book is popular, when the movie comes out, you see another surge of popularity.”

When asked about the pros and cons of putting a good children’s book on film, Birdsen said: “I guess the upside is that it exposes the book and the good story … to more children, to a wider audience. The downside is in how well they adapt it.”

Craig Detweiler, screenwriter and chair of film studies at Biola University near Los Angeles, pointed to the risks involved in taking beloved plots and characters off the printed page and onto the screen.

“When you’re dealing with beloved classic children’s literature, in some cases you’re dealing with both rabid fans and a bit of a sacred trust. And so you adapt these beloved stories with great risk and respect at the same time,” Detweiler said. “To turn a classic literary work into a classic cinematic work is real movie magic.”

Posted: 2/23/05

BaptistWay Bible Series for Feb. 27

The day of judgment without doubt will come

Matthew 25:31-46

By Todd Still

Truett Seminary, Waco

For some three months now, we have been studying the discourses of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel. In doing so, we have read and reflected upon most all of Matthew 5-7, 10, 13, 18 and 23. (We noted last week, however, that most scholars do not regard chapter 23 to be a part of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse, which usually is thought to run from 24:1-25:46.)

This week, we will conclude our quarterly study of Jesus' speeches in Matthew by considering the concluding passage in Jesus' fifth and final discourse in the first Gospel, namely, 25:31-46. This sobering text focuses on the Son of Man's separation of the sheep (or the “righteous”) from the goats (that is, the “unrighteous”) when he comes in glory and in judgment.

Matthew 25:31-46 is part of a larger unit wherein Jesus speaks of the temple's destruction (24:1-2), as well as of various signs harbingering the end of the age and the coming of the Son of Man (24:3-35). In his Eschatological Discourse, Jesus also calls his disciples to be faithful and watchful until he comes (24:36-44). Thereafter, three story-parables follow that reinforce and extend Jesus' instruction regarding fidelity and vigilance with respect to his return–The Parable of the Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (24:45-51), The Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids (25:1-13), and The Parable of the Talents (25:14-30).

For a printer-friendly version, click on the printer icon at bottom of page.

Not a few interpreters also consider 25:31-46 to be a parable. Whether or not one classifies these verses as such, it needs to be noted that various figures of speech are employed to depict the coming Son of Man's judgment of the nations. Nowhere is this clearer than in 25:32, where Jesus likens himself to a shepherd and those he will judge the sheep and goats respectively.

As it happens, interpretive conundrums arising from this passage are not limited to how it is best labeled. In fact, one no more than begins to read the text for this week's lesson before encountering an exegetical nettle.

It is clear enough that 25:31 refers to the Lord's coming in judgment. But precisely who are “the nations” to be judged by him? Although Matthean commentators have construed “the nations” variously, given the way Matthew employs the term nations (Greek, “ethnï”) elsewhere in his Gospel, I think it most probable that the people referred to in 25:32 are those (Gentile) nations/persons Jesus' disciples are to evangelize between their Lord's ascension and return (28:19).

At the time of his coming, the text indicates the Son of Man will be like a shepherd separating the “sheep” from the “goats.” In ancient Israel, it was not uncommon for sheep and goats to intermingle. What is more, from a distance or for the unskilled shepherd, the two were not easily distinguishable.

While Ezekiel 34:17 refers to God judging between sheep and goats, John the Baptist declares in Matthew 3:12 that differentiating between the “wheat” (sheep) and the “chaff” (goats) would be a mark of Jesus' ministry. At this point, one may see congruity between Jesus' earthly and kingly ministry.

According to verse 33, when the Son of Man comes in judgment, he will place the sheep at his right hand, the hand of honor and power, and the goats on the left, the place of disgrace. Thereafter, the “king” will invite the sheep, whom he further depicts as blessed by his Father, to come and to inherit the kingdom prepared for them (and others like them) from time immemorial (v. 34).

This invitation, as 25:35-36 indicates, is predicated upon their generosity and hospitality towards none other than the king himself (note the six-time recurring “I” in these two verses). Unaware as to when it was they fed the Lord or offered him a drink or welcomed, clothed, cared for or visited him, the “righteous ones” will inquire regarding the timing of said acts (vv. 37-39). In response, the king will answer that even as they did unto the least of his “brothers” (or “family members”) they had done so unto him (v. 40).

The identity of the least of the Lord's brothers is another interpretive hurdle to negotiate. In the Baptist circles in which I have run, people have tended to equate “the least of these” with individuals who are materially impoverished and needy. While it is true that Jesus' disciples should care about and for the destitute in society, this does not appear to be what Matthew 25:40 and 25:45 mean. Rather, based on Matthew's use of “brothers” and the closely related descriptor “little ones” elsewhere in his Gospel (see especially 10:42), one can be relatively confident in concluding “the least of these my brethren” spoken of in verses 40 and 45 respectively are Jesus' followers in general or perhaps the Lord's messengers in particular.

If this interpretation is accurate, then this passage indicates the way non-Christian people respond to Christ's disciples (and the gospel they herald) simultaneously reflects their response to Christ. This in turn will determine the Lord's subsequent response to them.

For the sheep, as we have seen, there awaits a warm reception (v. 34). For the goats, however, rejection and exclusion are to come, for they failed to extend care to “the least of these,” and by extension, their Lord (vv. 41-46).

This week's text iterates the importance of the Christian mission to the world and assures Christ's disciples of his presence while they are in the world (28:18-20). It may also prompt some believers to anticipate afresh that day when “The kingdom of the world [becomes] the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15).

Discussion questions

Does the separation of the “sheep” from the “goats” cause you alarm? Why?