Have you ever seen the pessimist’s bumper sticker? “Due to budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.” It would be funnier if it didn’t feel so true.

That sticker echoes a classic conversation from the original Star Trek TV show …

Dr. McCoy: “Tell me, Spock. Why are you Vulcans such pessimists?”

Editor Marv KnoxMr. Spock: “Doctor, do you know the difference between an optimist and a pessimist? The pessimist simply has more information.”

We certainly live in pessimism-inducing times.

The rate of war nears unprecedented levels. According to one Internet source, wars—defined as conflicts that result in 1,000 or more battle-related deaths per year—are being waged in 10 countries. Serious armed conflicts—which inflict 200 to 999 casualties per year—are scarring eight more nations. Other armed conflicts have broken out in 14 additional countries.

Beyond war, Ebola is ravaging West Africa, HIV/AIDS still afflicts parts of Africa and elsewhere, planes have fallen from the sky, Russia’s Vladimar Putin is behaving like a bully, and children are immigrating to our border. Congress is gridlocked. The stock market has limped lately. Even paradise, Hawaii, is enduring two hurricanes.

If this feels like déjà vu, you’ve been paying attention to the news. And you may have read the editorial in this space two weeks ago.

Pervasive pessimism

So, it’s not surprising multiple polls show pervasiveness of pessimism across the planet.

How we respond to these conditions often depends upon our mindset. Winston Churchill, who led Great Britain through unspeakable adversity during World War II, acknowledged the same circumstances can produce opposite results: “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty.”

Churchill probably was correct. But with all due respect to the “Last Lion,”  the opposite of pessimism is not optimism. It is hope.

That’s why it’s hard to be a faithful Christian and a pessimist. We possess hope.

Don’t sell hope short. Hope isn’t Pollyannaish. It’s not naïve. It realizes evil exists, and evil sometimes prevails.

Hope in the furnace

But hope does not despair, even in the face of calamity. In the Old Testament book of Daniel, the Hebrew young men Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego held fast to hope, even as they acknowledged they might die in their persecutor’s super-heated oven. They told the king: “If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

They spoke with confidence because they embraced a divine truth: Hope tells us present circumstances are not ultimate.

Hope helps us remember resilience. It recalls occasions when darkness seemed to prevail, but dawn arrived again.

Hope confirms we do not fear evil, because “… the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

Hope is evangelistic

Hope repeats wisdom from the Apostle Peter: “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:13-15).

In that regard, hope is evangelistic. When we lean into hope, it grows in us. When we speak of hope, it grows in others.

This is a season of pessimism. But if you believe in God and have placed your trust in Christ Jesus, live in hope.

Could Baptists change more lives by inviting people to follow Jesus than by encouraging them to be born again?

That’s a question raised by church historian Bill Leonard.  And it’s a compelling evangelistic idea.

Baptists and other evangelical Christians often speak a peculiar religious dialect. “Get saved” and “born again” and “repent of your sins” and “rededicate your life” aren’t phrases that crop up in most people’s conversations.

If you listen as if you did not grow up in church, you wonder how anyone ever understands enough of it to fall in love with Editor Marv KnoxJesus.

Leonard prodded that peculiarity in a breakout session—“Born Again, Again: Revisiting Religious Experience in a Believers’ Church”—at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship general assembly this summer in Atlanta.

His thesis mirrored the theme of a book he’s writing: “Jesus doesn’t talk about conversion apart from the kingdom of God.” And neither should today’s Christians. Because if the conversation isn’t clear and tangible and focused on how Jesus intersects people’s lives right now, they just won’t get it.

It’s a great point. And Leonard is a historian—a professor of church history at Wake Forest University divinity school—so he set the context for Baptists.

Anabaptists and Puritans

Baptists’ 17th century cousins, the Anabaptists, expected to see both individual and corporate signs of salvation, he said: “The church is made up of those individuals who can testify to some experience of grace. … And the community is there to tell you when you’re not (reflecting grace) and throw you out.”

About the same time, the Puritans—who got their name because they wanted to purify the Church of England—emerged. At least some of them made conversion the norm for believers but also baptized infants, who were “children of the elect,” or the people God chose for salvation.

“Baptists are second-generation Protestants” and a bit different from Puritans, he noted. Baptists insist “believers must make a profession of faith that qualifies them for baptism.” Infants—who cannot state Jesus is their Lord—cannot be baptized. So, the church is composed of believers who have participated in baptism as a sign of their conversion.

Baptists emphasize regeneration—Christians are “made new creations by faith in Christ Jesus,” he said. He cited British Baptist historian/theologian Paul Fiddes: “Regeneration means being part of a community in which it is expected members testify to an experience of the grace of God.”

Even with all that in common, “Baptists have two contradictory views of salvation,” Leonard said.

Arminians and Calvinists

Baptists who most closely follow Jacobus Arminius think salvation happens when people “repent, believe and get saved,” he reported. “You have enough free will to enable you to accept regeneration. Repentance and faith are followed by regeneration. But if you’re free to get in, you’re free to get out.”

Baptists who follow John Calvin think salvation happens in the reverse order—“regeneration precedes confession of sin and faith,” he said. “When you’ve been regenerated (an act of God), you can repent and believe.”

Such theological debates have launched entire Christian denominations and splintered others. They contemplate significant issues of understanding God, God’s work in the world and God’s relationship to humans. They’re important for mature Christians to explore and understand.

But let’s face it: They’re not very compelling to unbelievers. A term like “regeneration” makes “born again” sound simple. In fact, explaining “born again” eventually turns back around to explaining “regeneration.”

Cultural expectations

As Leonard noted, cultural events and expectations that helped Americans understand the terms—and consequently facilitated belief in Jesus—have gone extinct or are declining.

For example, revivalism persisted in American culture, particularly in the South, many decades. The public at large knew about revival meetings, which “created a mechanism for telling people how to be saved,” he said. “But by the late 20th century, revivalism as a means of conversionism was gone.”

Similarly, broad support for Sunday school as an institution for nurturing children has fallen off precipitously, he added.

So, Leonard suggested a change in evangelism. “Instead of beginning with Nicodemus and people needing to be ‘born again,’ let’s begin with Jesus on the seashore: ‘Come. Follow me.’”

“We live in a time where people aren’t only biblically illiterate, but they’re Jesus illiterate,” he insisted. “One of the great gifts to a world in which one of three Millennials is a ‘none’ (relates to no religious group) is the power of the gospel, of telling them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near.’”

That sounds a lot like the gospel. Good news.

The best way for non-Christians to believe and accept the nearness of God’s kingdom is if they see it expressed practically in our lives. If we live like Jesus—love like Jesus—before them.

Following Jesus

If we embrace the label “Christian,” then let’s be what it actually means. Let’s be “little Christs”—the visible, tangible expression of Jesus. On behalf of Jesus, we can build positive, winsome, compelling relationships. Rather than engage in theological debate or, worse, spout religious gobbledygook, let’s help people feel Jesus’ love and acceptance by the way we love and accept them.

Let’s walk so close to Jesus that when our non-Christian friends walk with us, they will realize they’re walking with him.

That’s clear, compelling evangelism for the 21st century.

Can you recall a time when the world was more torn up than it is right now?

You may have been alive during the Holocaust and World War II. You remember the attempted extermination of the Jews. Bombed-out cities in Europe and Asia. Hundreds of thousands of young men from around the globe slain on battlefields and open seas. Destitution and starvation. The atrocities of that era seem impossible to supersede. Still, a shrinking minority of people were alive then and old enough to have witnessed the carnage.

Editor Marv KnoxYou may suggest the late 1960s and early ’70s. Vietnam carved a scar that still aches, more then four decades later. Meanwhile, China eviscerated its own society with the Cultural Revolution. The Soviet Union tightened its iron grip on Eastern Europe and mid-Asia. And the Cold War threatened the planet with nuclear annihilation. Unless you’re at least middle-aged, those events are not part of your memory.

The death toll of WW II and the Holocaust soared higher. The national pain of Vietnam seared deeper. But the comprehensive calamity of the world’s current crises eclipse any simultaneous set of cataclysms, at least in our lifetimes.

However you view the news—paper, online, TV or radio—you’re treated to a horror show every day. Current events? More like the macabre imagination of a homicidal lunatic. Consider …

The Middle East

The Islamic State—formerly known as ISIS—is hell-bent on creating a caliphate, an Islamic theocracy/police state, out of large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Diplomats and Middle Eastern scholars warn this movement could produce the most terror-ridden, violent regime the region has seen. That’s a high, high bar for ferocity.

In Syria, we’re witnessing not simply a civil war, but genocide. Bashar al Assad ranks among the pantheon of bloodiest dictators for slaughtering his own people.

Violence in Israel/Gaza seems to grow by the day, as the body count mounts. What makes this situation so intractable—beyond millennia of animus—is the amount of sympathy and hostility generated by both sides. Who can’t quiver with compassion for annihilated Palestinian children? And who can’t wretch with fear for Israeli families in the path of bombs. Israel’s literal overkill is balanced by Hamas’ cynical imbedding of missile launchers in civilian residential areas.

Ukraine and Africa

As if the Russian-fomented Ukrainian civil war weren’t bad enough, now somebody is shooting a commercial airplane out of the sky, snuffing out almost 300 innocent lives.

Boko Haram is holding a gun to the head of the entire nation of Nigeria. The ruthless brigade of semi-literate thugs has captured the West African nation’s daughters and is slaughtering its sons.

Volatility in sub-Saharan Africa pits Christian against Muslim and undermines not only the peace but also the economy of the region.

Afghanistan 

Years of war to democratize Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be going for naught, as tribalism and political corruption undo much of the good done by U.S. troops and other international peacekeepers.

Pakistan, ostensibly a United States ally and a nuclear-powered third-world fiefdom, seems perpetually at risk of reverting to a belligerent theocracy.

Human trafficking and immigrant refugees

More than 20 million, and up to 30 million people are slaves today, and about 80 percent of them are exploited sexually. The average price of a slave is $90. The National Human Trafficking Hotline receives more calls from Texas than anywhere else.

Texas’ border with Mexico has been flooded with more than 50,000 child refugees since last fall. While most are in their teens, many are in diapers. They are fleeing poverty, violence, sexual abuse and drug gangs in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico.

Disease and environmental collapse

The deadly ebola virus and AIDS are decimating West Africa.

Environmental collapse is fouling the air, poisoning the streams and killing the oceans.

The litany of woes—and if you’ve been paying attention to the news, you could supplement this list—depresses the spirit. We live in hard times; we face enormous challenges. It feels as if our planet is crumbling beneath our feet.

A friend pleaded over the phone, “Knox, you’ve got to write an editorial about all the pain and agony in this world.” He’s right. Problem is, I don’t know what to say. Nobody has an answer to all our global ills. If someone could lead us to overcome our catalog of catastrophe, she or he surely would earn the world’s accolades. But that’s not likely to happen.

How to respond

In the meantime, here are some suggestions:

• Pray, sisters and brothers, pray. This sounds simplistic, but prayer for the world’s woes is the first place to start if we want to heal them. Prayer is not a magical incantation that fixes everything. We could get in a long debate about divine providence, human free will, evil and suffering, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer. But at the very least, prayer changes us. And if we’re changed, one individual at a time, we can make a difference.

• Learn. Absorb global current events. Watch and read news. And take in an array of news and perspectives. If you’re only watching Fox News or MSNBC, your range is too narrow, and you’re not uncovering truth. Listen to voices with ideas different from your own. Learn from them. And think for yourself. Learning is important if we want to pray intelligently.

• Vote with the world in mind. You don’t need me to tell you: Our politics has degenerated. Unfortunately, primaries award victory to the most partisan candidates who appeal to the narrowest range of self-interest. No wonder politicians rarely rise above the partisan fray. And the crummy state of politics is not their fault; it’s ours. We put them there. Don’t vote for pols with simplistic solutions. Anybody who says our state, national and international problems are simple is either crazy or lying. We need to elect politicians capable of critical thinking and self-sacrifice.

• Live conscientiously. Our lifestyles matter. Our use of our money makes a difference around the world. If Americans were to exercise economic discipline and use our purchases to reward human rights, liberty, freedom and security, then together we could make a difference in parts of the world we’ll never see.

Of course, this is an over-simplification. The world’s problems seem intractable. They won’t be solved any time soon. But we’ve got to start somewhere, and someone’s got to lead. It might as well be us.

So, begin with prayer. Pray without ceasing. And live in hope.

The crisis on our southern border is complicated. Except when it’s not.

Surely you know the story: Since last fall, 52,000 unaccompanied Latin American children have flooded the U.S. border with Mexico, most of them along the lower Rio Grande.

TEditor Marv Knoxhey have flowed out of Honduras (15,000), Guatemala (12,500), Mexico (12,000) and El Salvador (11,500). Most are teenagers, but many are younger than 10 years old. They’re fleeing gang violence, abysmal education systems, staggering unemployment, crushing poverty and sexual abuse.

Imagine you’re a parent of any of those children. How awful must their lives be for you to send them on such a long and dangerous journey? How pathetic must their lives be for you to turn them and all your savings over to a coyote—a smuggler of human beings?

Maybe you can answer. I can’t even begin to comprehend.

Unspeakable conditions turned on the tap of this stream of children. They’re swamping our nation’s ability to receive them. The vast majority aren’t sneaking into the country. They voluntarily surrender after they cross the border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection detains them up to 72 hours. Then, Health and Human Services houses them in shelters while it attempts to reunite them with relatives in the United States, places them in foster care or begins deportation proceedings. Officials cannot process them as rapidly as they arrive, so their numbers are escalating.

Finger-pointing and name-calling

Since American politics has degenerated to perpetual finger-pointing and name-calling, our government is ill-equipped to respond. Americans know that. A new poll shows 58 percent disapprove of how President Obama is managing the crisis. The same survey reveals 66 percent disapprove of how Republican lawmakers are responding.

So, yes, this humanitarian crisis is complicated.

It involves international relations, public policy, organized crime, federal and state budgets, election-year politics, economics, the judicial system and race relations. Any one of those factors would be sufficient to snarl a solution. Altogether, they comprise a catastrophic mess.

It’s so catastrophic, we tend to overlook a single simplifying factor: We’re talking about children.

Why can’t we start by agreeing nothing like this ever should happen to children? Then, why can’t we work out from there? Treat them with love and respect and nurture, as if they were our very own. Secure their safety, both now and going forward.

Christians should be leading the way

You’d think Christians would be leading the way. After all, God created these children in God’s own image. Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). Jesus told us we will be judged by how we treat “the least of these,” and nobody in this hemisphere is more vulnerable than these children.

But we’re hearing Christians, even a preacher  who should know better, express more concern for the sanctity of our borders than the safety of children.

The problem is our society—Christians included—has made an idol of our nation. We think more highly of what happens within our borders than we do of what happens to people created in God’s image. We worry more about the economy than the ebola virus ravaging western Africa. We care more about the price of gas than the value of a Middle Eastern human life. We fret more about the next election than we do about the fate of women in India.

We have taken something good—patriotic love for and appreciation of a blessed nation. We have perverted it to think our comfort and exceptionally high standard of living are of more concern to God than the grave travesty and injustice suffered by the world’s most vulnerable.

If a prophet on the order of Amos or Isaiah were alive today, what would he say about America? Perhaps he would say the fear and anguish and rage that keeps so many Americans’ veins bulging and hands wringing is God’s punishment for failing to care for the millions of people who live on the world’s fringe.

Of course, the situation on our southern border can’t continue like this. So what do we do?

First, we care for the children. The government will follow due process—following laws implemented by both parties. But that process could take years. Warehousing those children that long is deplorable. What if America’s Christian churches volunteered to provide foster care in the meantime? How would the future of Central America change if its children were exposed to redemptive gospel in loving homes?

Second, we stop the flow. This means helping improve conditions for children and their families in Central America. We’re lousy at nation-building, and we can’t take over their countries. But we can help those governments restore order. We can support their efforts to make their neighborhoods and communities safe.

Similarly, we block the pipeline that fuels the violence. We must cut off the flow of money from illegal drugs and illegal arms. If the Central American cartels went bankrupt, the lives of people there would improve. And if the United States put anywhere near the emphasis on stopping that illicit trade as many in Congress want to put into closing the borders, the people fleeing violence wouldn’t have reason to leave.

Fourth, we spread the word. Central American parents must know the danger facing their children on a trip north. They also must know the end result is not a panacea. They must know their children are far better off staying home in the first place. And that must be true.

Fifth, we reform immigration. Our system doesn’t work—for immigrants, for their families, for states and communities on the border, for U.S. employers.

Not only can we afford to fix the problem; we can’t afford not to fix it.

The Fourth Commandment—“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy”—is the bridge between heaven and earth, Matthew Sleeth insists. He’s absolutely right.

Sleeth was a nonbelieving emergency room doctor who experienced a call to follow Jesus, care for creation and keep the Sabbath almost simultaneously. He now leads Blessed Earth, a nonprofit organization that educates, inspires and equips “people of faith to become better stewards of the earth.” He led a workshop on Sabbath rest at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship annual general assembly in Atlanta this summer.

Editor Marv KnoxSleeth resonated with a conviction that deepens and grows as I examine my own life and observe the lives of fellow Christians: Jesus was right; Sabbath was made for people. And we really, really need to keep the Sabbath.

“Time is something the whole world is having trouble with,” Sleeth noted. For example, when I typed “time management” in a popular online search engine, it turned up 10.4 million possible web pages.

“The world is speeding up and speeding up, and it’s scaring us,” he said. “Time-saving devices don’t save time. The amount of work is going up, and the amount of leisure time is going down.”

Life takes its toll

That takes a toll. “We’re the most depressed nation on earth,” he reported, linking the malady, at least in part, to time pressure, stress and fatigue.

The problem has skyrocketed, he added.

“There’s been a fundamental shift in 50 years,” he said, contrasting current time constraints with his boyhood. “I grew up in dairy country. We milked cows, but we didn’t take in the hay or buy groceries on Sunday. My No. 1 Sunday memory is meals with family. We took naps. We didn’t shop.”

A ‘stop day’

But the escalating pace of life today “is just starting,” he warned, prescribing a “stop day” as the antidote for Christians.

Of the Ten Commandment, the first three are about God, and the last six are about people. “But the Fourth Commandment—the longest—is a bridge,” Sleeth said. “In the Ten Commandments, it’s the link between heaven and earth.”

“Keeping the Sabbath is fundamental to keeping the other commandments,” he stressed, quipping, “You take a nap, you’re not murdering anybody.”

Sabbath has been God’s plan since Creation, he said, adding the Sabbath was the only aspect of Creation God called holy.

“And what makes Sabbath holy?” he asked. “Rest itself is holy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say work is holy.”

The Sabbath and holiness

In his excellent book 24/6: A Prescription for a Healthier, Happier Life, Sleeth explains the connection between Sabbath and holiness: “God doesn’t need to rest after creating the universe because he’s tired. He rests because he is holy. Everything God does is holy. God rests. God is holy. Therefore, rest is holy.”

(By the way, even if you don’t buy his book, you can see a video here.) 

True confession: I’ve been a lousy Sabbath-keeper.

Simple observation: I don’t think I’m alone.

Fact is, keeping the Sabbath seems like the easiest of the Ten Commandments to break. The first three—put God first, no idols, no cussing—feel frightful to break. The last six—honor your parents and don’t murder, commit adultery, steal, lie or covet—look downright heinous.

But breaking the Sabbath? What could it hurt? Jesus’ disciples “broke” the Sabbath. Even church can wear us out on Sundays, which feels a lot like—and maybe truly is—breaking the Sabbath. With all the stuff that goes on nowadays, it’s almost impossible not to break the Sabbath.

Besides this, many Christians look upon Sabbath-keeping the same way we see the worst of what passes for Christianity. One more set of rules. One more giant “Don’t.” A blah, boring chore. An obligation that gets in the way of what we want to do.

Misunderstandings

Part of that inclination may have to do with misunderstanding Sabbath. For example, Sleeth said, if you sit at a desk all week, then working in the yard on Sunday afternoon probably is keeping the Sabbath. Tell that to the deacons in our little church back in the day.

Christians stagger among the harried and frazzled throughout society. We get depressed, worn out, stressed. With cell phones, tablets and laptops, we can’t unhitch from work. With youth sports and shopping, we can’t stop going.

Jesus said we need the Sabbath. He told his disciples: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Don’t you think he meant it? Don’t you think God designed the Sabbath not as one more rule to keep but the cure for much of what ails us?

So, maybe I’m preaching to myself here. But I sense God has been moving me toward Sabbath for a while now.

Although I almost never make New Year’s resolutions, on Jan. 1, I vowed to turn off email and the Web browser on my phone, tablet and laptop on Sundays. It’s a start. And although life this year has included at least a couple of all-time leading stressors, I’ve experienced divine peace that surpasses all understanding, even in the storms.

Tips for keeping the Sabbath

Sleeth inspired me to pursue Sabbath more passionately. And he provided a few key tips for succeeding:

• If you absolutely cannot keep the Sabbath on Sunday, schedule another Sabbath, another “stop day.” He travels to preach all over the country, so he and his wife, Nancy, block out their Sabbaths four months at a time.

• “Keeping the Sabbath is like exercise. It builds up,” he insisted. “You do it for a couple of weeks, and you don’t notice. You do it for a year, and it changes your life. It changes your character.”

• “Try to do it with somebody else,” he advised.

I’ll be keeping the Sabbath. Care to join me?

Hailed by conservative Christians as a victory for religious liberty, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision provides points to ponder, as well as occasion for both celebration and concern:

• Since the court previously ruled corporations may possess the same free-speech rights as individuals, the outcome of this case involving the exercise of religion was not surprising.

Editor Marv Knox• Conservative Christians should quit complaining about the erosion of U.S. religious freedom. The court is on a roll protecting the free exercise of religion.

• This case strengthened the standing of the enormously valuable Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

• But beware the repercussions of Hobby Lobby. Even if you agree with this court, a future set of justices could turn the religious world upside down.

The case, in brief

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a closely held private company’s right to an exemption from some portions of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

The Green family of Oklahoma City—owners of the Hobby Lobby craft stores—objected to providing four of the 20 contraceptive procedures included in the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandate. They believe those four treatments are abortifacients, which prevent a fertilized egg from developing and thus cause abortions. As conservative Christians opposed to abortion, they contended the ACA mandate for these treatments violates their religious rights.

A key counter-claim asserted the Greens’ protest lacks merit. Since Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company, it does not operate under the same religious-liberty protections as individual citizens enjoy, they contended. So, current law binds a for-profit company, and the Affordable Care Act requires provision of all the contraceptive treatments.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Greens. Although Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, it is a closely held private company and as such merits religious-freedom protection, the court said. It also determined the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That law stipulates, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion … .” Once that is shown, the law provides an exception only when two conditions are met: Any burden on the free exercise of religion must be necessary to further “a compelling government interest” and it may only do so in the least-restrictive way possible.

The court ruled requiring Hobby Lobby to pay for insurance coverage that provides what the Greens see as abortifacients violates their religious liberty. And it ruled the competing claims of employees’ health care needs could be met by less-restrictive means—government provision of that part of the insurance coverage.

Outcome predictable

This ruling should not have surprised observers who paid close attention to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that 2010 case, the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment provides free-speech protection to corporations, associations and labor unions that purchase political advertising. In short, it equated these large organizations with individuals and said they should receive the same guarantees of freedom granted to ordinary people.

Of course, Hobby Lobby is a different type of organization than Citizens United, a conservative lobbying group. But if the court’s reasoning in the Citizens United case granted individual protections to a huge organization comprising thousands of contributing members, then application of such logic to Hobby Lobby—a family-owned business—was not entirely unexpected.

And since religiously affiliated organizations already receive ACA accommodations, then a closely held private business—seen to merit the same protection as individuals—surely would win the case.

Time to stop complaining

The Hobby Lobby case should put to rest conservative Christians’ complaints of “persecution” and erosion of religious liberty in America. It’s the third case in three years in which the high court reinforced the free exercise of religion. This court may be split, but it solidly affirms religious freedom.

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, et al., the court voted 9-0 to support free exercise of religion. The court ruled in favor of a church-run school that fired a teacher. The former teacher contended she was entitled to challenge her firing in civil court. But the Supreme Court applied the “ministerial exception,” which states civil courts do not have jurisdiction in lawsuits between ministerial personnel and their employers.

A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in that case contended the ministerial exception is a “clear and crucial implication of religious liberty, church autonomy and the separation of church and state.” The Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed.

Earlier this year, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court voted 5-4 that official prayers at the beginning of municipal meetings may be constitutional. The court compared such prayers to the traditional chaplain-led prayers offered during sessions of Congress and state legislatures, where members of the public are mere observers.

Opponents, such as the Baptist Joint Committee, expressed concern such prayers violate the consciences of religious minorities who attend and actually participate in the meetings. The BJC’s brief made a distinction between observers and participants. The participants, who must attend the meetings, become a de facto, if unwilling, congregation for the ministers who offer the prayers. But the justices provided support for majoritarian expressions of Christian faith in government meetings.

And now we have the Hobby Lobby case. The court came down on the side of a conservative Christian family who owns a multi-million-dollar business.

While adherents of minority religious faiths—such as non-Christians in Greece, N.Y., and employees of family-owned businesses who do not agree with their Christian bosses—may have reason to worry about the practice of their religious faith, conservative Christians are on a legal roll.

It’s time for them to quit whining about losing their religious liberty and feigning persecution.

Good news for RFRA

The undisputed positive outcome of the Hobby Lobby case is the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This case turned on RFRA, and the justices affirmed the 20-year-old law, enacted during the Clinton Administration.

So, government cannot “substantially burden” a person’s free exercise of religious faith. And if in the extreme case religious exercise must be limited, government must demonstrate it has a compelling interest in doing so and must act in the least-restrictive means possible.

This case provided another precedent to support RFRA, one of the most important laws of the late-20th century and, outside of the First Amendment, the strongest guarantee of religious liberty.

Still, stand guard

Although the Hobby Lobby case provided a significant decision on religious liberty, it’s not the definitive decision. Other religion cases will come before the court, and liberty will be at stake. Hobby Lobby points to two causes for concern.

First, as part of the 2014 trend—including Town of Greece v. Galloway—the court has shown a propensity to favor majoritarian religion. In this case, that’s conservative Christianity.

Baptists and others who treasure historic principles of religious liberty and church-state separation will be concerned, lest the consciences of religious minorities and people of no faith be trampled. That certainly could happen in the shadow of the Town of Greece precedent.

But while the court took pains to limit its findings to the specific details of the Hobby Lobby case, that decision also could pose threats to freedom. This could occur if business owners claim other religious beliefs—such as opposition to vaccinations or the inferiority of women or certain races—trump the rights of employees.

Beyond that, what may happen as demographics—and religious preferences—change? Faith groups who are protected today may not be protected similarly tomorrow.

Second, what the court gives, the court can take away. Some pundits have opined the Supreme Court has set itself up as the sole arbiter of religious orthodoxy. That’s an extreme interpretation that simultaneously ignores the fact the Supreme Court always has been assigned the task of making hard calls.

This court handed down a volume of unanimous decisions not seen since the 1940s. Still, in divisive cases, the justices also followed the political lines of the presidents who appointed them. We live in a politically fractious era that may see even greater division before glimpsing renewed signs of unity. If the court follows suit, who is to say religious liberty cases will not be politicized even further?

In the coming week, we will celebrate our nation’s 238th birthday. Time to fly the flag, grill the burgers, churn the ice cream and—assuming you don’t live in the middle of a burn ban—enjoy the fireworks.

Despite real and perceived challenges, we live in a terrific country.

Editor Marv KnoxTo begin with, we’re free: The Bill of Rights remains in effect. More particularly, the First Amendment protects our five foundational freedoms: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”

By virtue of political will, military might and geographic position, Americans feel relatively safe from foreign takeover and oppression.

Our land still possesses abundant natural resources, and our relationships provide access to others.

Decent education generally remains available to children of all races, creeds and socio-economic strata.

We don’t distribute it as well as we should, but we produce enough food to feed all of us sufficiently.

While not evenly available, the scope of health care staggers the imagination. Medical procedures now considered routine would have seemed like science fiction a generation ago.

Availability of jobs is relatively stable again. Wages for many workers should be higher, but the opportunity to work has improved.

We’re situated in the middle of a vast and gorgeous continent. The spectrum of scenic beauty cannot be rivaled by any other single nation.

Celebrate our blessings

You, no doubt, can count many other American blessings. On Independence Day, we celebrate all of them and thank God for our great fortune.

This week, more than any other, Americans tend to talk about patriotism. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, patriotism means “love or devotion to one’s country.” Similarly, a patriot is defined as “a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country.”

Patriotism historically evoked warm feelings—not only for America, but also for how people here feel about our country. It’s singing the National Anthem, signing up for the military, giving blood after a natural disaster, contributing to a worthy cause, exercising and defending free speech.

But across the past decade or so, patriotism has picked up a political connotation. Quite often now, when we hear someone called a patriot, it sounds more like code for “he’s one of us.”

Rather than uniting the nation according to the ideal of our national motto, e pluribus unum—“out of many, one”—people who wear the patriot label often seem intent on dividing and isolating, on aggregating and allocating resources, on keeping what’s theirs.

Blame the media—talk “news” programs and advertising in particular. In those venues, patriot has been contorted to secure votes and/or money. A politician becomes a patriot, not for sacrificing life for country or risking reputation for justice, but for scoring high on a political report card.

A sad, divisive truth

If you listen carefully, you often realize a sad, divisive truth: When someone is labeled a patriot, another person or group typically is castigated as an outsider. So, rather than instilling unity and pride in the entire nation and its glorious pluralistic, welcoming heritage, this twisted vision of patriotism crushes and divides.

This Independence Day, let’s re-claim the meaning of patriotism.

A patriot advocates on behalf of religious liberty for all people. It’s not about protecting evangelical Christians’ right to say prayers wherever and whenever they want. It’s about ensuring all Americans can practice their religion freely. And it’s about people of any and no faith living without coercion.

A patriot remembers nearly all of us arrived here from somewhere else. Of course, we affirm the rule of law and the need for security. But a patriot knows we’ve been made stronger by diversity, and we’ll be stronger in the future when we learn how to assimilate cultures, races, skin colors and ideas.

The good of the whole

A patriot places others ahead of self. Most nobly, this means sacrificing one’s life for others. More broadly and applicably, it means voting for the good of the whole, not for one’s own interest. It means seeking the best for all and not lifting one up at the expense of another.

A patriot realizes “something from nothing” is a myth, and so advocates for and willingly pays fair and equitable taxes. A patriot knows investments in infrastructure and education are investments in the future, and investments that benefit everybody.

A patriot rights injustice, takes a long view of history, expects elected leaders to be honest and objective, and seeks to elevate the downcast.

A true patriot is generous, kind, empathetic. To be sure, a patriot possesses iron will, but a patriot never exercises that will to crush another.

Now, more than ever, America needs generous patriotism.

Americans are kidding themselves—or maybe kidding each other—about church.

The Public Religion Research Institute asked Americans how often they attend church. Is it “weekly or more,” “occasionally” or “seldom or never”?

The answer depends upon how the question is asked.

Editor Marv KnoxThe survey asked Americans identical questions about church attendance. One group received the survey over the phone; the other took the survey online.

Phone participants—who actually talked to another human being—reported higher rates of attendance. By phone, 36 percent said they go to church at least once a week. But in the online poll, that number dropped to 31 percent.

At the other end of the spectrum, the percentages flipped. Thirty percent of respondents told telephone surveyors they rarely or never go to church, but online, 43 percent confessed they seldom darken a church door.

The researchers think the online participants came closer to telling the truth.

“The preponderance of evidence suggests the traditional survey questions that measure religious service attendance produce inflated rates of religious participation,” researchers Daniel Cox, Robert P. Jones and Juhem Navarro-Rivera reported.

‘Social desirability bias’

Such behavior can be explained by “social desirability bias,” they said. “Because religious behaviors such as religious service attendance are widely regarded as positive, self-reported behavior is susceptible to exaggeration.”

This tendency is strongest “when respondents believe they are sharing the information publicly, such as when questions are posed directly by an interviewer,” they added.

So, the bad news is Americans are not as attentive to their spiritual needs as they typically claim. But the good news is perhaps they actually want to be.

“Some of the people who aren’t at church might actually like to be there,” The Christian Century theorized. “They aren’t necessarily opposed or indifferent to worship; they’re just not prioritizing it, for whatever reason.”

This echoes observations ministers have been making for several years.

“It’s not that fewer total members attend church. They just don’t attend as often,” explained an associate pastor of a church where attendance has dipped.

‘Regular’ church attendance

This phenomenon reflects a change in what Christians mean when they say they’re “regular” church attenders. Not long ago, that meant attending church three or four times a month, and certainly half the time. Now, it can mean showing up once a month or even once every six weeks.

This poses multiple challenges for churches.

The deepest is spiritual growth. That’s not to say a Christian cannot mature spiritually on her own. But as with other disciplines, Christians excel in the company of others. When church members skip Bible study and worship, they miss out on opportunities to be challenged and inspired—and mutually encouraged

The writer of Hebrews provides wise counsel: “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another …” (10:23-25).

Practical challenges

Other challenges are practical: Many Christians do not give when they do not attend, so budgets suffer when folks skip church. Also, churches run on volunteers, and when members don’t attend, operating vital programs and ministries is difficult, if not impossible. And don’t forget morale. Empty pews are depressing.

Members miss church for myriad reasons. You know them. They range from kids’ sports, to work, to aging parents’ health, to the lure of leisure. But the bottom line is assembling together at church isn’t the priority it once was.

So, what do we do?

Guilting people back into the pews won’t work. In fact, it’s more likely to drive them further away.

Entertaining them isn’t the answer, either. If attendance depends upon entertainment, then it will slide faster. Even excellent preachers can’t compete with sports and Hollywood and resorts and musicians.

Several approaches come to mind:

• Feed aspirations. The reason many people say they attend church more often than they actually do is because they want to attend more often. Affirm that aspiration. Call people to a higher spiritual plane—not because you want them there, but because God has placed that desire in their hearts. Help them see their longing is God’s way of loving them, drawing them close.

• Think outside the (Sunday morning) box. Provide other options for “being” church besides parking in the same lot and converging on the same building for one or two hours every Sunday. Create and bless other times and places and opportunities for church members to assemble to study the Bible, pray, fellowship, worship and minister.

• Harness technology. Chances are, practically every member of your church age 13 and older carries a personal connector with them wherever they go. It’s a smart phone, and it can provide bountiful spiritual applications. Brad Russell, senior editor of Baptist Standard Publishing’s FaithVillage.com, has written a fascinating paper “tracing the trends and issues that inform how the church can leverage new technology.” Read it here.

Pastoral plagiarism is back in the news. Actually, pulpit pilfering happens so often, it never goes completely away. But it made headlines again this month, when Religion News Service published an article asking, “Is pulpit plagiarism on the rise? …”

The article revisits an old debate over whether preachers sin when they plagiarize. It cites several cases, such as megachurch pastors Mark Driscoll of Seattle and Craig Groeschel of Oklahoma City, both accused of lifting others’ material for books they wrote.

Editor Marv KnoxThe Internet provides a “double-edged sword” for hurried, harried ministers looking to feed the flock, the article notes. Positively, the web provides an inexhaustible source of published and/or videoed sermons and sermonic material. Negatively, search engines enable wary parishioners to type key words and phrases and catch the preacher red-lipped.

Pastors, scholars and ordinary laypeople debate whether preachers transgress when they speak other’s words as if they are their own. That debate isn’t likely to end this side of heaven.

But some churches seem to be lightening up, Ron Cook, professor at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary, told RNS. “Not giving credit is not stigmatized as much as it was a quarter-century or even a decade ago,” he explained. “In some cases I’ve known in recent years, the congregations are more willing to give their pastor a second chance.”

Still, here are some concepts to consider as you ponder pulpit plagiarism:

• If you’ve never wished your preacher plagiarized, then either (a) you’re the most blessed Christian in the history of the church, or (b) you really need to quit daydreaming and listen to the sermons.

Preaching is hard work—much harder than it looks. Many preachers consistently deliver thoughtful, inspired, helpful sermons. But nobody bats 1.000. Between administration, benevolence and bereavement, counseling and committees, drop-in visits and myriad ministries, most pastors are pulled umpteen ways from Sunday. Even excellent preachers have a bad week.

On top of that, some aren’t particularly gifted pulpiteers. Some face all sorts of distractions. And some—not many, but some—don’t try hard enough.

Every weekend, untold thousands of worshippers would benefit if their proclaimer would read a biblical, well-prepared sermon written by someone else.

• Plagiarism isn’t plagiarism when the preacher credits the source.

Honest and well-meaning people can disagree on how much material a pastor should borrow from others. The non-negotiable should be giving credit.

The range of borrowed secondary material could vary. Perhaps a pastor uses someone else’s outline to preach on a Scripture passage. Maybe a pastor cites a particularly appropriate quote or re-tells a poignant illustration.

So, what about transparently preaching an entire sermon someone else wrote? We could speculate which would be better for a congregation—if a time-strapped bivocational pastor or a preacher who simply is not gifted spackles together a patchy, illogical, mish-mash sermon, or if the same pastor takes to heart and reads a fine sermon written by someone with more time and/or talent.

What if a pastor told a congregation: “You know I’m not great at writing sermons. But I’ll work hard and search out the best sermons I can find. I’ll pray for God’s guidance, and I’ll seek sermons that speak to our church. Then I’ll read and re-read them all week, so I can deliver them well. Every week, I’ll pray a public prayer thanking God for the person who wrote it. And I’ll name names”? What if the pastor prayerfully preached someone else’s well-crafted sermon for 20 minutes and finished with five minutes of personal observation about what that means for their church?

Of course, some argue this does not “leave room for the Holy Spirit.” That argument diminishes the Spirit, who certainly possesses the power to inspire both the writer and the searcher/deliverer. Inspiration flows from many directions.

And that doesn’t mean the preacher works any less. The Spirit can honor several hours researching sermons on a specific topic as surely as it can honor the same number of hours writing a sermon.

• Plagiarism takes various forms.

Some pastors lift the idea for entire sermon series—complete with graphics and PowerPoint slides—and allow the congregants to think they originated with the pastor. Some plagiarize specific sermons, or extended quotes, or biblical interpretation or illustrations. The most unseemly plagiarism, the pilfering that receives the harshest criticism, happens when a preacher tells another’s personal story as if it happened to him.

A preacher can rectify all of these improprieties simply by giving credit to the source.

• Nobody wants to listen to an academic address during a worship service.

Well, hardly anybody, anyway. A recitation of sources every-other paragraph would get old. If a preacher named 17 sources, the worshippers might leave thinking more about the fusillade of sources than the focus of the sermon.

The most lasting and discreet solution would be to list the sources in that week’s worship bulletin. In addition to crediting sources, the pastor would be providing interested listeners with resources for further reading and reflection.

• Honesty and integrity—as well as the preacher’s reputation—are at stake.

If a preacher will lie about a sermon—present it as if it were the preacher’s own—then who knows what other lies lurk about? Are they financial, sexual or otherwise personal? Why should a congregation trust a preach

Why should a congregation trust a preacher whose sermon delivery itself is a deception?

Of course, the ideal is a precise and powerful sermon prepared by the one who preaches it. But preachers, of all people, know we live in a broken world. Perhaps they would do a better job of tending to souls if they occasionally—or more often—preach sermons prepared by others. Just as long as they are honest about it.

Is capitalism idolatrous?

That’s the message from one of Pope Francis’ top advisers. Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras called the current free market system “a new idol.”

Editor Marv KnoxMaradiaga leads the group of eight cardinals Francis asked to help him reform the Roman Catholic Church shortly after his election last year. A longtime friend of the pope’s, Maradiaga delivered the keynote address at a Catholic economic conference in Washington, reported by Religion News Service.

Maradiaga particularly focused on libertarian policies popular among many American conservatives. Most notably, libertarian advocates include Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chair of the House Budget Committee, a Catholic and a devotee of libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a possible 2016 presidential candidate.

The free market system increases inequality and excludes the poor from economic opportunity, Maradiaga said, contending, “This economy kills.”

Francis “has a profound knowledge of the life of the poor,” he said. “The elimination of the structural causes for poverty is a matter of urgency that can no longer be postponed,” he added, citing the pope. “The hungry or sick child of the poor cannot wait.”

Dealing with ‘structural causes’

Moreover, charity alone cannot overcome the mammoth challenges faced by the poor around the globe, Maradiaga said. “Solidarity is more than a few sporadic acts of generosity,” he insisted, noting it demands “dealing with the structural causes of poverty and injustice.”

This does not mean the Catholic Church “despises the rich,” and Francis “is also not against the efforts of business to increase the goods of the earth,” he said.

But the world’s resources should serve the common good, he insisted.

Few Baptists would go so far as Maradiaga’s critique of capitalism. Most of us would note free enterprise fuels the world’s leading economies and generally raises the standard of living for all people who participate in free-market systems.

However, Catholics’ admirable moral teaching should be taken seriously. It seeks to apply scriptural teachings to human situations with intellectual rigor and honesty.

For example, whether you agree with them or not, Catholics diligently strive to apply a consistent ethic to sanctity-of-life issues. For the same reasons, Catholics oppose abortion; advocate for the care of the poor, the ill and the aged; promote education for all people; champion human rights; support health care for all people; oppose most war; and resist capital punishment.

We may not come to the same conclusions they reach on all issues. But we should take their positions—and their rationale for reaching them—seriously.

Evaluate our views

Consequently, Baptists and others should evaluate how we view not only capitalism, the free-enterprise system, but also our laws, regulations, policies and international relations that shape and protect it.

The gap between the rich and the poor—both here in the United States and abroad—is obvious and growing. In addition to noble acts of charity, we should vigorously examine the theological implications, philosophical repercussions and practical realities of the laws and systems that facilitate that gap.

Surely we can agree to educational programs, business practices and governmental policies that eliminate poverty. Every household in which healthy adults are willing to work, every retiree and every chronically ill person should live above the poverty level.

In the words of another thoughtful Catholic, Stephen Colbert: “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

What’s your weirdest fantasy?

OK; loaded question. We’re not that kind of publication. I’m talking about strongly desiring to do something highly unusual—and, hopefully, wholesome and productive. It’s something your imagination can hardly comprehend. But if it happened, it would be way cool.

While you’re thinking about yours, I’ll tell you mine.

Editor Marv KnoxOne of my fantasies is to eat dinner with Bill Maher. He’s a stand-up comedian, commentator, movie producer and host of his own show on HBO. He’s brilliant. He’s funny. He’s hard on his enemies and generous to his friends. He’s one of the two or three most effective political satirists in America.

But this is a scares-the-bejabbers-out-of-me fantasy. That’s because Maher also is an atheist. He seems to hate Christians. And from what I can tell, he rejects Jesus.

True confession: I don’t see Maher’s TV program very often. I’m too cheap to subscribe to HBO. But every now and then, when I’m traveling, I’ll watch him in a hotel room somewhere. Usually, Maher and his guests talk politics and current events. Fertile fodder for comedians. They make me laugh. And since laughter is part of the recipe for a good night’s sleep, I enjoy their humor before nodding off.

Too disturbed to sleep

But sometimes, I’m too disturbed to go to sleep. That’s when Maher’s conversation has turned to Christians, and he’s gotten all angry and exercised. Wound up for a good rant. Usually, it’s because somebody who claims to be a Christian has done something mean or said something stupid. Think the Westboro (“God Hates Fags”) Baptist Church showing up to protest at a military funeral. Sometimes, a Christian has acted unapologetically, flagrantly, disgustingly hypocritically. Think pedophile priests or adulterous preachers.

With the TV off, I lie in the dark, thinking.

“Of course, Maher hates Christianity. If that’s all I knew about Christianity, I’d hate it too. No wonder Maher rejects Jesus. If all I knew of Jesus were the lascivious, selfish and/or vindictive actions of people who say they follow Jesus, I’d reject him too. Maher doesn’t believe in God? Makes perfect sense. If all God’s ambassadors were as lousy as the charlatans Maher’s been talking about, I’d think Nobody lives behind the curtain too.”

So, I wish we could go to dinner. Spend the evening talking.

In our fantasy conversation, I’d steer clear of debate. For one thing, Maher’s probably smarter than I am. For another, even if we’re equally smart, he debates people for a living; he’s sure to be better at it. And for a third, arguing about God and faith rarely, rarely, rarely changes anybody’s mind.

(Well, maybe we would talk about the problem of evil and suffering. But that’s only because he’d be shocked by my theory, and maybe the surprise might make him think about it later that night.)

First, I’d want to tell him what I like about him. I hope he’d realize not all Christians hate atheists, people of other faiths and religious outliers. And some of us aren’t offended by criticism, even vile criticism. I’d hope—and be praying—he would feel blessed, even if he couldn’t identify the sensation.

The other Christians

But mostly, I’d want to talk to him about the kinds of Christians who never get discussed on his program. We’d talk about …

• Folks who follow Jesus into the poorest, hardest neighborhoods to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

• Believers who spend their weekends in prisons, loving the unlovely.

• Disaster relievers who put their own lives at risk to help victims of violent nature put their lives back together.

• Christians who live modestly so they can buy food and shelter for the less fortunate.

• Pastors who work for less than minimum wage to give and give of themselves to comfort the afflicted.

• Brave Christians who buck political trends and popular opinion to stand up for justice and mercy.

• Women who rescue other women trafficked for their bodies.

• Foster parents who never, ever get a good night’s rest but show shattered little ones the meaning of unconditional love.

• Gentle folks who wake up thinking about who they can show kindness to before nightfall.

Chances are, I’ll never meet Bill Maher. But that doesn’t let me off the hook. Who knows when I’ll meet someone who’s been roughed up by religious people who emphasize law over love, who feel judgment rather than compassion. That’s when I need to be “another kind” of Christian to them. Maybe I’ll be the only Bible they ever read, as the old preachers used to say.

I pray they’ll feel loved. And maybe catch a glimpse of grace.

So, how about you? What’s your weirdest fantasy?

Sometimes, life is so upside-down you couldn’t make it up.

For example, Paige Patterson has emerged as an ecumenical leader among Baptists.

You may remember Patterson. He’s the president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. In the past few days, he’s created a stir, because Baptists have learned he admitted a Muslim student  to the Fort Worth school.

Marv KnoxPatterson broke seminary rules to accept a practicing Muslim into Southwestern’s Ph.D. program in archaeology. According to the school’s catalog, prospective students must give evidence of “mature Christian character.” They must demonstrate a desire to enter Christian ministry and show a record of active church involvement. Presumably, a devout Muslim fails to meet these requirements.

On the seminary’s website, Patterson acknowledges admitting the Muslim student to the seminary. Patterson calls him “a man of peace” who “loved our people and asked to study with us.” Patterson says the student’s admission to the seminary has enabled Christians “to share biblical truths” with him.

Reaction has run the gamut. Positively, Patterson’s action affords opportunities to evangelize a non-Christian and/or engage in interfaith dialogue. Negatively, the admission violates seminary policy, squanders funds Southern Baptists provided to educate Christians and counters the seminary’s mission to train ministers.

But here’s the real irony: Patterson extended the kind of grace to a Muslim he has spent his lifetime denying to fellow Baptists.

A little history

From the 1970s into the ’90s, Patterson led a revolt that upended the Southern Baptist Convention. Depending upon perspective, observers call it the “fundamentalist takeover” or the “conservative resurgence.” Patterson led the charge from the far right, claiming the SBC—and particularly the seminaries—were led by “liberals.”

Patterson provided the theological fuel to the political fire. He understood theology well enough to know questions of biblical interpretation require complex answers, particularly from scholars whose inclination is precision. He recognized the political power of demanding yes-or-no answers to complicated questions. He realized his faction could translate a pause, a halting answer into a steady refrain: SBC leaders are liberals. They don’t believe the Bible.

Politically? Brilliant. Morally and ethically? Abhorrent.

So, Patterson led the charge to cast out from the convention legions of faithful, Bible-believing lifelong Baptists. And now he admits a Muslim to his seminary. You couldn’t make this up.

But maybe you could see it coming.

More than three decades ago—when Patterson’s movement within the SBC was just beginning—Baptist historian Bill Leonard predicted U.S. Christians would realign. They would shift from affiliation by denominations to groupings along a spectrum from liberal to moderate to conservative to fundamentalist.

Denominations still exist, but history soon validated Leonard’s prediction. With the rise of the religious right, Christians jumped denominations to cluster around social issues, such as opposition to abortion and, later, other conservative issues such as homosexual marriage—to cite two examples. On the left, Christians vaulted denominations to oppose nuclear armament and, later, to affirm other progressive issues such as homosexual marriage.

Social issues trump theology

Now, Patterson’s acceptance of a Muslim student to a Southern Baptist seminary extends that trend toward its logical conclusion.

Patterson is willing to override longstanding seminary policy and practice that requires students to hold traditional, orthodox beliefs about the Christian faith. Devout Muslims don’t believe the same things about the Bible and Jesus as any Baptist—either fundamentalist or liberal.

But Muslims embrace social values that apparently run deeper than theology. They don’t drink or smoke or go with girls who do. They oppose all abortions and gay marriage. They deny full equality to women.

Logical consistency links ideology to ideology, fundamentalism to fundamentalism. Theology must not be so important, after all.