Don’t be creeped out, but Halloween is sneaking up on us.

It should be a hum-dinger this year, what with vampires, werewolves and zombies all the rage on TV and in movies.

Boo!

Editor Marv KnoxOf course, Halloween is the scariest holiday. Nobody knows that better than careful, cautious parents. Black magic, demons and ghouls present paradoxes for moms and dads who try to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: How can they affirm spiritual values, still let the kiddoes enjoy fun and frivolity with their friends, and refuse to romanticize gore, violence and general creepiness, not to mention voodoo and witchcraft?

No doubt, you know parents who don’t allow their children to participate in Halloween festivities. Maybe they let the young ’uns dress up and attend the “Fall Festival” or “Trunk or Treat” at church. Or maybe they stay home, turn off the porch light, hang out in the back of the house and hold on until Nov. 1.

Other parents—Joanna and I were among them—help the kids pick out costumes, carve pumpkins into jack o’lanterns, stand by the door to pass out treats and, after all the little ghosts and goblins trudge home, try to talk their kids out of a few candy bars. They don’t condone dark arts and evil. But they think the worst result of the night is insomnia brought on by too much sugar, not pagan chicanery.

Mutual respect?

Now, I’ve always respected parents who look askance at Halloween. They’ve got the sole responsibility for raising their daughters and sons, and they have a right to set the bounds of propriety. If they don’t want their kids to dress up as Spiderman and Snow White and mix and mingle with headless horsemen and Lord Voldemort, that’s their business. I always hoped they showed us the same respect. That hope rarely received confirmation. But one can hope, can’t one?

Halloween reactions create a microcosm of a larger issue: How should Christians respond to culture and “the world” around us? It’s not a simple question, is it? In fact, one of the greatest books ever written—Christ and Culture  by the late ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr—plumbs the depths of that question and offers five major historic approaches.

Ultimately, Christians who believe Jesus came to redeem the world must work to transform it. Ironically, that can provide cover for parents who hide out until Halloween howls over as well as parents who dress up and stand out on the sidewalk while their kids ring doorbells and shout, “Trick or treat!”

Finding common ground

They can find common ground in how they help children navigate the event. Children love make-believe and enjoy exercising their imaginations. This practice is vital for creativity, resourcefulness and ingenuity—traits vital for a full and meaningful life. Parents provide interpretation, meaning and boundaries, whether they shun or engage culture.

At Halloween, lessons can be learned by contrasting the negative and highlighting the positive. Children can learn the difference between pretend and real. They can hear that love is greater than evil. And they can appreciate good-natured fun and frivolity.

Whether children dress up and fill plastic pumpkins with candy or stay put at home, learning from cultural events is a treat that doesn’t demand a trick.

How should Christians go about meeting their neighbors’ needs?

That question lies at the heart of this edition of the Baptist Standard. It’s also a dispute older than Christianity itself. The prophets, particularly Amos, railed against well-off religious folks who scrupulously tended to the letter of the Law but overlooked the obvious suffering of people they encountered every day. Centuries later, the scribes and Pharisees repeatedly lambasted Jesus for taking care of outcasts and ne’er-do-wells at the expense of religious rules and regulations.

Editor Marv KnoxTwo thousand years later, we still don’t agree. The lead article in this week’s feature package, “Meeting needs: How can Christians really help the poor?”  presents dueling perspectives offered by compassionate, well-meaning Christians.

On one hand, some Christians advocate a spiritual version of tough love. They disavow one-way support for needy people, citing dependency fostered by a welfare mentality. They reason the long-term solution to poverty and need is self-sufficiency.

In contrast, other Christians point to Jesus’ model of unconditional love. They stress the necessity of taking immediate steps to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked and heal the sick. They realize millions of people suffer because of external conditions, which must be ameliorated and relieved.

Both/And

The most obvious answer to this dispute is both/and. Meeting needs requires tangible, immediate acts of compassion as well as discipline-instilling expectations for self-improvement and personal sufficiency.

That’s why churches and other faith-based organizations work on a broad range of fronts. Especially in hard times like these, we need well-stocked food pantries and clothes closets. But we need tutoring programs to keep children in school and parenting classes to help moms and dads understand how they can raise their children in a competitive, education-based society. We need relief programs that provide rent- and utility-assistance. But we need mentoring and practical training programs to help people understand how to get and hold jobs. We need more GED classes and English-as-a-second-language programs.

But that’s not enough, is it?

Advocate for the poor

If Christians hope to make a broad-based and lasting impact, we must advocate on behalf of the poor and powerless. We must demand quality education and economic justice for all people. We must correct social systems that perpetuate poverty. We must champion both private and public strategies that address all these problems on a scale churches and other faith groups cannot handle by themselves.

Of course, this is controversial. Americans divide over the nature and size of government. So, we similarly disagree over the focus and scope of our activity in the public square.

Some—ironically from both the extreme left and far right—decry the engagement of faith in public issues. The extreme left thinks “separation of church and state” means people of faith should have no voice in public policy. The far right believes government has no business doing “the church’s job” of looking after the poor. Both fallacies don’t hold up. Christians are citizens, too, and have a right to advocate for public policy. And poverty and need are so great, they’re beyond the means of the church alone to resolve.

Holding politicians accountable

The demand for people of grace and compassion to advocate for the common good never has been more obvious than in the past few weeks. The embarrassing and inconceivable stalemate in Washington illustrated why Americans must hold their politicians accountable. Rather than serving a political party and focusing on the next election, they must serve the greater good and focus on compromise and practical solutions to national need. They must recognize and respect our national heritage for protecting and caring for all people.

U.S. Christians could establish a binding moral imperative and a lasting positive legacy by bridging our national divide. What if Christian politicians—maybe Baptists, just to start—would stand up and say, “What we hold in common and value together is greater than political divisions that threaten to tear us apart”?

Christians cannot operate soup kitchens and jobs-training programs fast enough to heal America. We need unified Christian voices—from both the right and the left—demanding our so-called leaders strive for the common good.

Or God help us all.

Would some people be better off if they didn’t go to church? More significantly, would the world be better off if some people didn’t go to church?

Those aren’t comfortable questions, are they?

They raised their impish little heads the other night. It happened right after my wife, Joanna, related yet another story about someone driven far from Jesus by someone else who claims to love Jesus.

Editor Marv KnoxThe Jesus-lover didn’t like a particular aspect of the other person’s lifestyle. It’s something most God-fearing folks would call a sin. And so the jawbone-for-Jesus got all righteously indignant. Let the sinner have it. With both biblical barrels. The transgressor heard what-for about breaking God’s laws and learned she’s an unforgiven reprobate worthy of scorn by upright Christians.

Bless her heart, she may never come near Jesus again.

From her perspective, I really can’t blame her. All she knows of Jesus is what she hears from people who claim to speak on Jesus’ authority. And they say she’s unworthy. Vile and wicked. A reflection of the moral depravity of our nation.

So, I can’t help but wonder if the world—and the kingdom of God—would be better off if the Lord shuttered some churches and muted some Christians.

On one level, this seems harsh and foreign and hard to comprehend. I love the church. It’s the bride of Christ. It’s my home, the deepest part of me.

God is love

But if it’s true God is love and Jesus came to save and redeem the world, then some churches and the people who populate them actively refute the gospel they claim to proclaim. And, ironically, they project themselves as protectors of the faith.

To be fair, they probably started out hating sin. But in their zeal, they learned to hate sinners, too. Oh, they deny it. But in both words and deeds, they demonstrate only antipathy and revulsion.

And it feels good. In every sphere, our society pits us vs. them. So, what good is righteous belief if it doesn’t help you think you’re superior to others?

To be sure, most of these folks see themselves as on a mission for God. They’re out to protect God’s word from the evils of modernism, relativism and, of course, liberalism. They identify with the prophets and with Jesus, of course.

But their mystical myopia causes them to misread Scripture.

The prophets reserved their vitriol for religious folks and showed compassion to outsiders. They left everybody else up to God.

Speaking on behalf of God, Amos (who, if he could time travel to today, would think the only thing that’s changed in 2,700 years are clothes styles and electronics) told the church-going crowd: “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!”

Jesus’ love for sinners

Over and over, Jesus demonstrated love for the sinners and castigated the religious leaders. Of course, he told the fallen, “Go, and sin no more.” But he said it in such a way that’s what they already wanted to do, more than anything.

Is the world broken and decaying? Of course. Just like it was 2,000 years ago, when Jesus walked the earth, and like it was when King David, “a man after God’s own heart,” committed adultery and murder 3,000 years ago.

Today, God’s heart surely breaks for sin. God grieves when broken people run further and further away because all they have heard on behalf of Jesus is judgment and condemnation. God weeps when smart people think the only intelligent option is unbelief because so many “believers” say such stupid things.

Yes, this world is sinful and wicked. But remember this: The only thing stronger than evil is good. The only thing more forceful than ignorance is truth. The only thing more powerful than hatred is love.

Churches that radiate goodness and truly love people are lighthouses for Jesus. All the rest should lock their doors.

Raise your hand if you’ve been disturbed and/or disgusted in the past week.

I see those hands.

If you haven’t been disturbed and/or disgusted in the past week, meditate on one word: Washington.

Editor Marv KnoxThere, now, I see a sea of hands.

Members of Congress descended to the nadir of their collective abysmal existence when they refused to pass a federal budget before the government’s fiscal year began Oct. 1. Republicans want to defund the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, and the Democrats want to keep it funded. Since Republicans control the House and Democrats rule the Senate, they stalemated.

What we’ve got here is a crisis of leadership.

It’s troubling on so many levels. First, our political system is so broken, millions of Americans are represented by unrepresentative extremists. Second, under pressure, these so-called leaders behave like children. Third, making this list is depressing. I’m going to move on, but you may add many illustrations yourself.

Behaving like children

For now, let’s go back to point No. 2: Our so-called leaders behave like children. Actually, that statement libels children. Sorry, kids.

Two mornings after the government shutdown, a TV program tested that theme with a group of children. A news anchor talked about the government shutdown with fourth graders from a Brooklyn elementary school.

The children put the politicians to shame. They instinctively talked about compromise, sharing, cooperation, fairness and compassion.

Why does prepubescent wisdom trump conventional political wisdom? Prepubescent wisdom is straightforward and logical, while political wisdom is distorted by power, money and a corrupt configuration that rewards extremism.

This corruption particularly influences the House of Representatives and state legislatures, but a form of it also reaches the U.S. Senate.

Gerrymandered districts

Gerrymandered legislative districts provide pervasive and poisonous political influence. Most U.S. representatives and state legislators hold “safe” seats. Their districts have been drawn to encase strongly Republican or solidly Democratic voting majorities. The party in power when districts are drawn crafts them to maintain control. But minority politicians aid and abet. Their reward is a safe seat, even though their acquiescence means their party doesn’t have a chance to gain a majority or balance the political power.

When a politician runs in a safe district, the only worry is winning the primary. If a politician can defeat all primary challengers from her/his own party, the general election is a shoo-in. That means the real race takes place in the primary, where party extremists dominate.

Consequently, if an officeholder does not vote the will of the zealous party leadership, she or he will be “primaried”—face an even more extreme candidate in the next primary. So, at general elections, voters rarely see an opportunity to elect a statesperson who will apply the wisdom of fourth-graders, seeking compromise, sharing, cooperation, fairness and compassion.

Money compounds the problem

Beyond this, money compounds corruption. Despite cosmetic appearances to the contrary, campaign cash flows unfettered into the coffers of incumbent candidates. Controls and safeguards? Laughable. And so money corrodes and corrupts.

You may be wondering: What’s this got to do with faith? Why should this be a topic of conversation in a Christian publication?

Christians have a mandate—read Luke 4, Matthew 25 and Amos, for starters—to care for the common good, to look after the weak and less fortunate, and to seek and pursue justice. Any Christian who votes solely according to personal interest violates the gospel.

Christians must repair our broken political system. If dysfunction in Washington and our state capitols is to be healed, we must get the process started. Here are initial steps:

• Demand balanced, truly representational legislative districts.

They should be fair and geographically contiguous. The more open, tight and closely contested the general elections, the better. Candidates will realize they must represent all the people, not just party elite, to remain in office. This will supply incentive for compromise.

• Open and improve the primary system.

Fair districts will provide the greatest impetus for open primaries. However, do not underestimate powerful forces’ ability to cheat the system. We must remain vigilant to thwart seemingly innocuous bills and regulations that would corrupt primaries.

• Reform campaign finance laws.

Yes, the Supreme Court has weighed in and shoved us toward the current system. But Congress can enact laws that pass constitutional muster while also providing for fairness. No one who has studied American history can believe the Founding Fathers would be proud of where we are today.

• Consider term limits.

Imagine a political system where no one is running for re-election. How much more willingly would lawmakers and government executives seek the common good if they no longer considered the self-interest of re-election?

I opened a boxed lunch and liked what I saw—turkey sandwich, baked vegetable chips, white-chocolate-chip cookie and an orange.

The orange offered the pleasant surprise. Most boxed lunches come with apples. Usually dry, shriveled, mealy apples. So, an orange down on the bottom, beside the cookie, made me smile.

Editor Marv KnoxWhen I think about smell and taste, oranges are my favorite fruit. A good orange is pungent. And that’s only a set-up for the sweet-tangy-tartness that twists and tickles your tongue.

But when I started eating this orange, I suddenly wished it were a banana.

This has happened before. Usually, when I’m wearing dressy clothes and don’t have a paring knife. And often when I’m in a hurry.

See, bananas come in simple, easy-open containers. Oranges arrive shrink-wrapped in sticky, crumbly, annoying, next-to-impossible-to-remove covers.

Dan Koeppel, author of Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World, reports Americans eat more bananas than apples and oranges combined. It’s not because they stay fresh longer or taste better. It’s because they come in simple, easy-open containers.

Friendly and accessible

Bananas are user-friendly and accessible. Oranges? Not so much.

So, what’s this got to do with church?

While I was trying to peel the orange—making a mess of it, getting more frustrated by the minute—I thought about my younger daughter, Molly, and her husband, David, who moved to a new city this summer.

Molly and David love the Lord and church. So, even before they moved, they got on the Internet and started checking on churches. After they arrived, Sunday by Sunday, they searched for a church home.

In his new position, David works some Sundays. When he couldn’t attend Bible study and worship, Molly explored.

That led her to a Baptist church that seemed like a fit. And that led to frustration and disappointment. This church was much more like my orange—maddeningly inaccessible—than a friendly banana.

Molly walked into the building and looked around. Nobody greeted her or even seemed to notice. She searched out the church office, tracked someone down and asked about a Bible study class.

Churches that don’t care

Over and over, people at this church acted surprised to meet a visitor. They didn’t know what to do with a newcomer, especially a young adult. Worse, they didn’t seem to care.

Molly gave this church the benefit of the doubt. She visited a second time. Same boring song; second lethargic verse.

You might be thinking, “Well, that’s only one church.” Unfortunately, it’s not. I’ve been guest preacher for scores of congregations. I get depressed about the times I walked in and people didn’t seem to notice or pretend to care.

That’s not a problem for me. Jesus is my Savior, and I have a church home.

But I shudder to think about hurting souls who walk onto many church campuses. They limp away, wondering if God loves them. They know God’s people don’t.

A few simple steps

You don’t have to be a megachurch to make guests feel welcome. You can make huge progress by following a few simple steps:

• Recruit your friendliest members and station a couple of them at each main entrance during Bible study and through the early part of worship services.

• Make sure they know how to find classes for every age, as well as where to go for childcare.

• Encourage them to listen, so they sense needs.

• Place at least two people at each door, so if one is helping guests, another is ready.

• If you don’t have enough friendly people to cover all the doors, post signs providing clear directions to your welcome center, where friendly people await them.

• Recruit someone in each adult class to take newcomers under wing. Help them find everything they need—from where to pick up their children, to how to get to worship, to information about the church and how to contact a minister.

• When guests aren’t around, teach members to identify and welcome people they don’t know.

The churches I love to attend—and want to join—make sure I know they were happy to see me and helped me feel at home.

Church members can get lackadaisical about this, because going to church feels routine. But every Sunday, eternity weighs in the balance for people who drive to church looking for God. A friendly greeter can make a divine difference for a searching soul.

Americans could raise the level of public discourse, improve the quality of life for millions of people and solve most of our political problems if we could agree on the meaning of one word: “Values.”

The ideals we hold reflect our values. The way we act and how we treat others reflect what we value.

Marv KnoxIf we could talk—and listen—reasonably and patiently to people from all segments of society, perhaps we could discover a common set of values. These values, in turn, could shape how we establish public policy, operate institutions and businesses and, in short, behave toward each other.

We continually hear complaints that America’s “values” have declined precipitously across the past five or six decades. Really? How can anyone but white men even take that claim seriously?

To be sure, no television station from 40 or more years ago would have carried a program featuring a young female singer of middling talent “twerking” her behind in the crotch of a male singer almost old enough to be her father. And immodest dress is now ubiquitous, as is rampant sexuality.

But for all the media attention it generates, profligate promiscuity is not the leading indicator of America’s moral values.

Values may have improved

In fact, you can build a case that our values—or at least numerous important values—have improved across the years. Decades ago, Jim Crow laws segregated and repressed people of color, particularly in the flagrantly religious South. Voting rights were not distributed equally (although, now we’re regressing on that front). Girls did not possess equal privileges in academics and athletics. Women, who still haven’t caught up but are making progress, faced repression in the workplace.

Legislation and public policy forced Americans to treat each other differently. Slowly, sometimes imperceptibly, attitudes followed along. Millions of young people today will not condone—and, frankly, find incomprehensible—the racism and sexism their grandparents took for granted. That’s a vastly improved value.

Now, public attitudes about the dignity and worth of all people are changing. We don’t agree about the morality of homosexual activity. But more Americans acknowledge all people, regardless of their orientation, should be respected and their rights protected.

Economic values hit where we live

Economic values seem to be the most intractable, because they hit each of us where we live—in the pocketbook. Any value that doubles as daily reality calcifies into bedrock.

So, many Americans worry about deficit spending and insist on balancing the federal budget and reducing the national deficit. We’ll leave the debate over whether that will work or if it is in fact necessary to the economists. The question of values comes into play when they suggest exactly how to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

Those proposals disproportionately fall on the backs of the weakest and most vulnerable. For example, recent legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives proposes cutting SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by $40 billion over 10 years. This program is designed to expand and contract with the economy so that the most vulnerable—the elderly, children and the working poor—can receive basic nutrition. It’s not extravagant, either; the cost is only about $1.50 per meal. Drastic cuts mean consigning fellow Americans to malnutrition, at the very least, which ultimately further harms the economy.

This is but one example of competing values. A strong economy and a healthy federal budget are important, positive values. But so is the health and well-being of all Americans. Similar illustrations could be drawn from policies and budgets that shape health care, education, the military, housing, the environment and more.

Balancing values

And contrary to partisan politicians (Others are hard to find these days.), while values may compete, they need not be mutually exclusive. If we weigh the values, we must look for solutions that balance them appropriately.

Christians can take at least two steps to help our nation define the values that shape our society.

First, we can insist on balance. It’s past time to reward politicians who have the courage to build consensus and compromise, so all Americans are respected and protected and so the range of legitimate values are respected.

Second, we must insist on placing a premium value on human beings. All people are created in God’s image. It is blasphemy and a sacrilege for political and economic power to run roughshod over the divine stamp in any soul.

Civil war in Syria has produced more than its share of imponderable developments, shocking scenarios and geopolitical conundrums.

Even though we’ve seen such behavior before, we still struggle to imagine how a national leader can mete out brutality as Bashar al-Assad has visited upon the Syrian people. Satellite television delivers horror to our homes 24/7, but we are not so inured to sorrow our hearts did not break when family members scavenged through corpses in search of loved ones. And who would have dreamed Russia’s Vladimir Putin would, for whatever reason, aspire to become an international peace broker?

Editor Marv KnoxAlongside all these ideas and images and issues, one of the most fascinating facets of the Syrian crisis has been Americans’ discussion about whether we should intervene. It’s sounded sincere and open—like we want to do the right thing.

Only partly partisan

To be sure, much talk has divided along political lines. But not all of it. Perhaps that’s because President Obama initially staked out an unpopular position. After 22 years of interventions—two in Iraq, another in Afghanistan, and don’t forget Serbia-Croatia—Americans are leery of wars to straighten out other countries. So, many Democrats sided with Republicans. But don’t forget the Republicans who said the president got it right.

And then we witnessed a sight of historically minimal proportions. The president said he thought we should intervene, but rather than issue an executive order, he would put it to a vote of Congress. (Of course, he caught flak from both directions, and the pundits said he dithered. But isn’t it ironic that when Washington follows the scenario we learned in civics class—honoring the separation of powers between the branches of government—folks don’t know what to do?)

No easy answers

But what has impressed—maybe even inspired—me beyond all this has been the way Americans have talked about what we should do. I’ve heard the radio, read the news sites and papers, watched television and listened to regular people talk in public places. Over and over again, we have acknowledged this is a hard issue, with no easy answers. After so many years of kneejerk partisanship, that’s refreshing.

Suppose you were in a mall, and you saw an adult beating a child. Would you intercede to protect the child? Most healthy adults would say yes. And, at its root, this is the argument for intervention in Syria.

But suppose you interceded, causing a major fight with the person beating the child. The fight critically injures, and perhaps even kills, several other children. Some of your friends get involved, but so do the beater’s friends. The fight causes significant damage to the mall, and you’re charged for the expenses. In the fight, you’re injured grievously, a couple of your friends die and others are crippled. And then, when the fight is over and everybody goes home, the adult who started the whole incident keeps on beating the child. In simple terms, this is the argument for staying out of other countries’ conflicts.

We instinctively know this is a hard issue, without easy answers. Reasonable people can build a case for intervention and nonintervention. And so, to a degree I’ve not noticed in quite a while, Americans have been expressing our feelings, even as we acknowledge our ambivalence. We’ve talked civilly with others who take another position. We’ve agreed to disagree, and we’ve respected each other.

Is a rebirth of civility possible?

A great gift of the Syrian debate could be a rebirth of civil and humble discussion. What if we could disagree and express our positions in respectful, calm terms? What if we could disagree and realize that does not mean we must hate each other? What if we were humble enough to realize we might not always be right?

I don’t think this is so difficult. Many friends and I disagree on significant issues of politics and public policy. We talk over meals, occasionally in church, sometimes in cars. Often, we express our opinions passionately. But we never vilify or denigrate each other. And we always know the bonds of our friendship are far stronger—and more important—than the disagreements of our ideology. We disagree, but we part as friends.

What if America were like that? What if we learned to talk civilly? What if we agreed to argue the issues but not attack each other? What if we opened our minds as well as our hearts, relinquishing a tight grip on our arguments in order to learn from each other? We might not agree, but we could appreciate and respect one another.

This sounds idealistic, but it is possible. Christians should lead the way.

Is it just me, or is knowing and doing the will of God a lot harder than folks let on?

This year, I’ve been reading one of the world’s most famous books of daily devotionals, My Utmost for His Highest, by Oswald Chambers. It’s been in print almost 80 years, and it has shaped millions of Christians all over the world.

Editor Marv KnoxChambers’ masterpiece lands in my devotional reading about every three years. Most days, I think I understand what he means, and he encourages me enormously. But some days, my dominant feeling is simple: “Huh?”

That’s when Chambers matter-of-factly talks about doing God’s will. He often implies God’s will is obvious. This has not been my experience.

Trust myself? Not so much

My problem is trust. God I trust. But trust myself? Not so much. The human inclination toward self-will is just too strong. It’s far too easy to rationalize what I want to do and say it’s “God’s will.” Blessed are the times when God’s will and my will coalesce. But if what God wants and what I want don’t align, never underestimate my ability to bend reasoning to suit my purposes.

And I don’t think I’m alone in this predicament.

Whenever someone says, “God told me …,” my first impulse is to laugh. My second impulse is to duck. I wish I knew the percentage of times what God “told” somebody to do happened to be clearly in that person’s self-interest. I’d bet it’s in the high 90s.

A friend once told about a young pastor who moved into his community. The pastor regularly and emphatically pronounced God’s will on practically every subject. After several months, an elderly clergyman in the community told my friend: “I wish I were as certain about anything as that young man is about everything.”

I’m with the old guy. Hindsight is much clearer than foresight.

No ‘God’s Will-O-Meter’

But that doesn’t alleviate the responsibility of discerning God’s will. Too bad we don’t own a God’swillometer. Ask a question, and the needle moves to “God’s Will” or “Not God’s Will.” Short of that divine discernment breakthrough, five filters help me make decisions. Prayer is the sixth, but it permeates all of them. Here you go …

• Scripture. This is dicey, of course, because Christians are excellent at proof-texting—using the Bible to support whatever they want to do. But the Bible guides both positively and negatively. The first basic question is this: Does the Bible tend to support this action or idea? Of course, the Bible doesn’t speak to millions of specific issues or circumstances, but it addresses the broader range. So, we can ask: Will this glorify God? Will this strengthen the cause of Christ? Will this bless others? The Bible points us toward answers.

The second basic question: Does the Bible oppose this action or idea? This question functions on the same principle as the previous question, but it operates from the other direction.

• Wise counsel. When I face major questions or challenges, I want to know what people I respect think. The most tangible way to test ideas and inclinations is to share them with wise people who will tell you the truth.

Baptists ought to be good with this, because we respect the priesthood of all believers. Yes, that doctrine suggests we each possess the privilege and responsibility to seek God and ask for divine will. But it also acknowledges we are not Lone Rangers; we do not live alone. And so we invite the community—or part of the community—to enter into the discernment process with us.

• Self-interest. A great test of personal inclination is to check it against personal interest vs. the greater good. If it only betters you or your lot in life, then be wary. If it improves the circumstances of others, take it more seriously.

• Time. Sometimes, we get in too big of a rush. Society moves rapidly, and we’re tempted to treat decisions like leftovers—pop them in the microwave and get on with it.

Often, however, we need to slow down and allow God’s guidance to seep into our souls. This is counter-cultural, but it’s vital.

My wife, Joanna, and I recently made one of the most significant decisions of our marriage. We took at least three years, maybe longer, to reach a conclusion. Joanna perceived what we now believe to be the Lord’s leadership much earlier than I. But even if I had climbed on board months ago, I’m not sure that would have been best. Time did its work—on both of us—so we could enter a new phase of our lives with joy and anticipation.

• Peace. Through the years, I’ve learned if I’m not at peace with a decision, I’m not finished deciding. Likewise—and maybe even more importantly—I’ve sometimes been surprised by peace. I’ve wrestled with the issue and maybe even wrestled with God, and suddenly a still, small voice says: “Let go. It’s over. You know what to do.”

Many mornings when I’ve found Oswald Chambers confusing, I’ve felt this is what he was getting at. The Holy Spirit makes God’s direction known through gentle, stillness. Through peace.

It’s not emphatic. It’s usually not certain. I’d still never say, “God told me ….” But it’s steady. You can lean on it. You can rest in it.

You probably would not be surprised to learn we receive quite a bit of mail at our office. In the “olden days” of envelopes and stamps, I thought it arrived in torrents. But “snail mail” trickled compared to the deluge precipitated by the ease and speed of email.

Sometimes, I lament the flood, simply because keeping up can take inordinate time. Still, I’m grateful for letters to the editor and personal mail about the work we do here.

Editor Marv KnoxAs you might imagine, some mail conveys adverse reactions to the way we do our work or the ideas I published in editorials. (People seem motivated to write letters when they’re angry or annoyed.) Across the years, I’ve benefited enormously from the criticism readers took time to send my way. Those letters revealed fresh perspectives that had not been apparent to me. They helped me look at our work and the issues facing Baptists with fresh eyes.

Even when I did not agree or did not change my mind, they forced me to think more critically and hone my statements more carefully. So, from a practical standpoint, I appreciate such mail, because it helps me do my job better, and that serves our readers.

More importantly, I appreciate letters to the editor and constructive criticism because I’m a Baptist: I affirm the priesthood of all believers. Among multiple inferences, this means each person—reader, reporter and editor alike—has both the right and responsibility to seek God’s will on the common issues we face, and then to speak up.

Two exceptions

So, I receive mail and email gratefully, with two notable exceptions. The first occurs when writers present themselves as acting spontaneously, but the evidence of more than one letter points toward collusion. The second happens when a reader seeks to extort a specific action by making threats.

This seems to have occurred recently. Perhaps the letters were coincidental, but similarities indicate otherwise. And from the receiving end, they certainly seem threatening. Rather than explain, I’ll share the primary text from the most recent letter:

“I noticed on Baptist Standard website that the Baptist Standard is supplying the link to the Alliance of Baptists which is a pro-homosexual group. I find it very hard to understand why the Baptist Standard would endorse this group by placing it on its website. (Yes you are endorsing it by having it on your website.) I am asking you to remove the link. I will be talking with some Directors of Missions, Pastors, and others about this and letting them know what the Baptist Standard is doing. I am disappointed Marv in the Baptist Standard and in you if you endorsed doing this.”

A link is not endorsement

Yes, the address to the Alliance of Baptists website is one of 104 “Baptist links” included on our website. And, yes, the Alliance of Baptists has taken a minority position among Baptists by welcoming and affirming homosexuals.

But, no, a link on our website does not indicate endorsement of every position the organization has taken. Shoot, we also include links to 13 Southern Baptist Convention agencies and institutions, and we would need to disconnect most, if not all, of them if inclusion implied endorsement of all their beliefs and actions.

Here’s why we include a broad array of links to other Baptist organizations:

First, we believe we should be helpful and transparent in service to our readers. We cover Baptists across the nation and around the world. If our readers want to know more about a Baptist organization that appears in an article, then we should provide easy access to its website. Due to deadlines and the volume of news, we don’t always remember to link every organization in every story, but readers can get there through our “Baptist links” page. (Who knows? Maybe the Alliance-link complainers found out about the Alliance’s stand on sexuality by using our link.)

We trust our readers

And second, we trust our readers. They’re fully capable of conducting their research and deciding if they agree or disagree with another Baptist organization. We don’t need to protect them from the truth. We would be derelict if we tried.

But now these brothers want us to remove the Alliance of Baptists link, or else they’re going to tattle to “directors of missions, pastors and others.” How Christlike of them. When I must deal with pious extortionists, I glimpse a glimmer of how discouraged and fatigued Jesus must have felt when he dealt with the scribes and the Pharisees. “Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel” makes perfect sense.

Implicit in the threats is the notion these brothers will get the Baptist General Convention of Texas to punish us. Most seem to think they can cut off our funds. But, thank God, the Baptist Standard is the only Baptist news organization not subsidized by a convention. We don’t receive Cooperative Program funds. Never have.

Complacency is dangerous

In the 15 years since a competing convention split from the BGCT, most Texas Baptists have grown complacent about threats to our freedom. We don’t attend BGCT annual meetings to engage in political battle, so most Texas Baptists think we are, well, home free.

That’s not the case, as these threats indicate. A link here, a pulpit there, an agency leader over there. Freedom-deniers think they know what’s best for all Baptists, and they’re happy to force their will onto others. The Baptist Standard will remain a bulwark for freedom. If you’d like to help us, click here.

Fifty years ago this week, a black pastor from the South stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial and delivered the gold standard of social and political oratory.

I wish we could say Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech became the most important and effective political proclamation of all time, or at least in our nation’s history. But we cannot say that, because it’s not true. At least not yet. Reticence does not reflect Dr. King’s vision and eloquence. Rather, it reflects our nation’s moral timidity, fear and greed.

Editor Marv KnoxOften imitated, never duplicated, Dr. King’s speech moved millions of Americans with its power, poignancy and passion. It articulated the aspirations of Americans who did not enjoy the promises of our founding fathers’ principles.

“In a sense, we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check,” King told 250,000 participants in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’”

After Birmingham

King spoke three months after horrified Americans tuned in to the evening news and watched police in Birmingham, Ala., turn attack dogs and fire hoses on women and children who protested for integration. He spoke in the shadow of bus boycotts, lunch-counter sit-ins and Freedom Rides—all peaceful protests to lift the yoke of injustice.

Indeed, even as King spoke, more than two-thirds of African-Americans lacked the right to vote, attend integrated schools and use the same water fountains, restrooms and other public facilities as white people, according to USA Today.

King began his speech as most African-American preachers launch their sermons—slowly, deliberately. His prepared text included the line, “I have a dream,” which he had spoken before, at least in Chicago and Detroit.

Well into the speech, Mahalia Jackson, a gospel singer and King’s good friend, called out to him: “Tell ’em about the dream, Martin. Tell ’em about the dream.”

Departing from the text

That’s when King departed from his text and told the world about “the dream”—King’s dream, of course, but also the dream of African-Americans and others who envision true liberty and equality.

“I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream,” King said. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal.’

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. … I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. …

“This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. …

“And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!’”

King’s dream inspired African-Americans and awakened millions of middle-class whites. The next year, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the year after that, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law. Schools integrated. Forty-five years later, Americans elected an African-American president.

But don’t be confused. Dr. King’s dream has not been fulfilled.

A dream still deferred

Just this summer, the George Zimmerman trial reminded Americans of the pungent fear that leads to racial profiling and resulted in the death of an African-American teenager, Trayvon Martin.

An even more craven and calculating fear pressed the Supreme Court to undermine the Voting Rights Act and—in moves that confirm the justices’ myopic failure—propelled states to enact practices that once again curtail minorities’ access to the ballot. To our shame, Texas is among them.

If you pay even the slightest attention, you realize race is an underlying theme of strikes and other protests by fast-food workers. Far too many jobs do not pay a wage sufficient to raise a family, mocking the “American dream.”

To be sure, racial liberty and equality is one of the thorniest issues of this and any age. Responsibility lies with all parties. But as long as racial injustice exists—and any reasonable person must recognize its existence among not only African-Americans, but also Hispanic-Americans and other people of color—we all must press for liberty, equality, freedom.

Otherwise, Dr. King’s hallowed dream will remain deferred.

Texas Baptists should support steps to secure one of our most valuable ministries—the Christian Life Commission.

Editor Marv KnoxFor more than six decades, the Christian Life Commission has provided prophetic leadership to Texas Baptists. The CLC began its ministry in 1950, helping Texas Baptists think about race relations and integration biblically and ethically, years before Brown v. Board of Education.

Through the CLC, we have worked together to apply Christian faith to daily living and public policy. The CLC is renowned for opposing gambling expansion, fighting human trafficking, addressing hunger, curbing predatory lending and standing up for religious liberty.

The Christian Life Commission not only is a Texas Baptist treasure; it is an asset to the entire state. For all our faults, Texas Baptists are more Christlike and Texas is a better place because of the CLC.

Inadvertent action

But this summer, messengers to the Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting inadvertently took an action that could erode the CLC’s strength.

Messengers approved a recommendation to clean up the convention’s bylaws. Primarily, the proposal removed descriptions of the BGCT Executive Board’s operational committees from the bylaws and moved them to the board’s policy manual.

That was a good idea. Those committees help the Executive Board do its basic, day-in and day-out work. When their descriptions were included in the bylaws, they could be changed only by vote of the convention in annual session. The Executive Board needed authority to tend to its internal committees directly and promptly.

Unfortunately, along with the committees, the recommendation also removed the description of the Christian Life Commission from the bylaws. So, now the function and operation of the CLC could be modified by the Executive Board with no input from, much less approval by, the convention at large.

Some have contended the change actually did not alter policy, since the BGCT constitution already gave the Executive Board authority to organize itself. But until this year’s BGCT annual meeting, the convention’s bylaws specifically named and outlined the duties of the CLC. So, the CLC was mandated, which provided a parliamentary limit to the Executive Board’s authority with regard to the CLC.

CLC left vulnerable

Under the recently amended bylaws, however, a future Executive Board could decide it wants to do away with the CLC, and the convention at large would have no say in that decision.

More specifically, the language removed from the bylaws transcended mere description. It expressed the ethos of the CLC. For example, this is where the commission was instructed to “speak to and not for the convention and the churches.” Given Baptists’ polity, this is a vital distinction. Without this policy, a future Executive Board could command the CLC to speak “for” the convention without the careful study and approval by, as well as safeguard of, the commission members.

The removed language also charges the CLC with ecumenical work. This is not always popular, but it is vital—both for the commission’s effectiveness and for Texas Baptists’ credibility.

To be sure, the immediate impact on the CLC is not dire. It still functions as it has historically, with offices in Dallas and Austin. The CLC educates Texas Baptists about applied Christianity, helping us bring our faith to bear on everyday ethics and on the great moral issues of the day. The CLC also leads Texas Baptists in public policy engagement. Although it speaks to and not for Texas Baptists, it enables us to address matters considered by state government.

BGCT Executive Director David Hardage affirmed the commission and its work. “The CLC is a vital part of who we are and what we do,” he said. “There was no intention to de-emphasize the CLC. Any conclusion that it has been de-emphasized is incorrect.”

Commission ‘reinstated’

In fact, although recent plans called for the CLC director—a position currently vacant—to report to BGCT Associate Executive Director Steve Vernon, the ethics leader will report directly to Hardage. The CLC has been “reinstated” at the upper echelon of staff leadership, he said.

Still, the Executive Board should recommend reinserting the CLC in the convention’s bylaws at next year’s BGCT annual meeting.

This idea does not reflect on Hardage and Vernon, whose affirmation of the CLC and its role in the convention is strong and consistent. Vernon is a former member and vice chair of the commission. Diminution of the CLC is not likely to take place on their watch.

But Texas Baptists should take a longer view of history. In both state and national spheres of Baptist life, we have seen values and policies shift with the accession of leadership. The Christian Life Commission is far too important to Texas Baptists and to the Lone Star State to be susceptible to changes in executive administration or board rotation.

All Texas Baptists have a stake in the Christian Life Commission. We should maintain a say in its future.

Here’s a nomination for the most interesting question of the month: “Is Francis too radical for the flock?”

That question dominates a fascinating essay by Michael D’Antonio, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, in the latest edition of Foreign Policy  magazine. Religion News Service referenced the question, as did dozens of websites and newspapers.

Pope Francis started piquing curiosity—not to mention raising hackles—moments after his election to lead the Roman Catholic Church. He emphasized Christians’ responsibility to imitate Jesus by caring for the poor and disenfranchised. He buttressed that theme with his simple lifestyle and proclivity for reaching out to the dispossessed, disabled and diseased.

Editor Marv KnoxMost recently, in an impromptu conversation with reporters, he expressed a nonjudgmental attitude toward priests with homosexual orientation.

D’Antonio’s essay explores the consequential question—whether Francis risks alienating conservative Catholics, who reveled in the rightward papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

And that raises a practical question: What is the duty of spiritual leaders?

Churches have become so complex—and even businessy—we often forget the primary task of spiritual leaders is “to equip (Jesus’) people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-13).

Spiritual leaders are responsible for training and guiding Christians so they reflect Jesus. This will result in serving others, strengthening the church and attaining faithful unity.

Tough Duty

That’s tough duty in an era when churches—and worldviews—often are shaped more by the prevailing culture than by the gospel. Ironically, while many church-attenders complain about declining moral values (usually having to do with sex), they embrace moral values far below those of Jesus (usually having to do with economic justice and care for the poor).

Unfortunately, following the teachings and practice of Jesus looks “radical,” to use D’Atonio’s term. It runs counter to American middle class capitalistic values, which most church members equate with Christianity.

So, pastors and other would-be Christian leaders face a dilemma: If you’re out front but nobody is following, you’re not leading. That fact seems to inhibit many pastors from teaching lessons about human relationships and economics and justice they know Jesus taught and practiced. They can read their Bibles, and Jesus is unambiguous. But our churches often aren’t on the same page with Jesus.

So, what’s a spiritual leader to do?

• Talk the talk. Too often, church people skip over Scriptures that make them uncomfortable. Or they turn them inside out and spiritualize everything, ignoring the fact Jesus clearly talked about everyday, real-world problems.

Baptists, of all people, should not be afraid to talk about racism, economics, sexuality, hunger, poverty and even politics. We say we believe in the priesthood of all believers. So, we should be believer-priests to one another, and the only way to do that is by talking civilly, honestly and constructively.

• Walk the walk. The most effective sermons are performance art. Sure, structured speeches on Sunday mornings are helpful and important. But the best way to make certain people hear a sermon is to show them. That means integrating teachings about economics, justice, race and the like into daily living—both personally and with others who also know Jesus meant what he said.

Applied Christianity bears at least two kinds of fruit. First, acts of ministry and grace change the people directly involved—both the givers and receivers. And second, people prone to argue about abstract interpretations of Scripture grow tongue-tied arguing with the results of lived-out gospel.

• Take courage. While the pope has a job for life, pastors and other ministers can be fired. So, fear and intimidation are powerful. But ultimately, we answer to God, not other people. If we’re going to be afraid, we should fear facing God after failing to do justice and mercy, not what others may do in the meantime. And through that, we should receive day-to-day courage.

Once, I sat with a pastor and wife who provided remarkable leadership for the cause of justice. They gently but persistently guided their congregation—in both word and deed—to embrace Jesus’ values. “Wow, you spent quite a bit of political capital to lead your church to do this,” I told them. They looked at me incredulously, and I don’t remember who spoke first, but their response was: “Well, what’s it for if you don’t use it?”

We need more Christian leaders like that. We need leaders—pastors and laity alike—brave enough to live like Jesus and to advocate for the things that broke Jesus’ heart.

That’s not “radical.” It’s simply Christian.