This time of year—with Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter immediately before us—I find myself pondering the words to a mesmerizing song written and performed by gospel- and folk-singer Darrell Adams. It’s called Friend of Jesus, and one of the lines goes like this: “Jesus was a friend of Matthew, James, on down the line. I do believe I’d been a friend of Jesus in his time.”

That song has haunted me for three decades. It has crawled around my mind and traversed my soul because, when I’m honest, I’m not sure I can sing it with conviction. Would I have been a friend of Jesus in his time? Don’t know.

Of course, you can interpret Friend of Jesus a couple of ways. The straightforward inference acknowledges Jesus was a friend to sinners. He chose Matthew, James and John, as well as unsavory souls the song describes as the “hard-line gang.” Jesus picked people who needed a friend, and he became their friend. He even befriended a traitor like Matthew and a prostitute like Mary Magdalene.

So, when you look at it that way, maybe I would have been a friend of Jesus. He could read people the way a scanner reads a bar code. Maybe he would have seen the need in my life for a truly loving and close friend and responded with compassion—been my friend.

But when I think about the people who were not Jesus’ friends, I’m not so sure. The young ruler, the scribes, the Pharisees. These were conscientious, clean, middle-class, synagogue-going folk. And they weren’t Jesus’ friends. They didn’t need Jesus’ friendship. Or so they thought. Their backgrounds, social standing, faithfulness to status quo religion, education and money all seemed sufficient. They didn’t see the need for one more True Friend, like Jesus.

Still, I wonder if I’m different—may I say, “if we are different”?—only because we live on this side of Easter. We already know about Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Resurrection Sunday, Easter. So, it’s easy to say: “Yeah, sure, I would have been a friend of Jesus. Just look at me now.”

Yet each of us should ask a couple of questions: If I didn’t know what I learned because of Easter, would I have been a friend of Jesus. And more importantly: Do I behave as if I’m a friend of Jesus, anyway?

Jesus provided his followers with a forthright formula for determining if we are his friends. “You are my friends if you do what I command. … This is my command: Love each other” (John 15:14, 17). Sounds simple, doesn’t it? “Love each other.” But how often do we Christians fail to love each other, much less the “hard-line gang” whom Jesus had the compassion to love and serve? We’ve all heard Christians say much-less-than-loving things about and to other Christians. Most of us have said them ourselves. We’ve avoided each other at all cost, when people who love each other want to spend time together. People who love see the loved one’s need and respond to it without being asked. They put the one they love first. People in love want to build up, strengthen and care for the one they love, no matter the personal cost.

If we follow Jesus’ example, we extend that circle of love. Not just to the lovely. Not just to the ones who loved us first. Not just to the ones whose bartered affection benefits us. Not just to the clean and educated and proper. We extend that love to the “hard-line gang,” who don’t even know they need to be loved. Pastor/ missionary/ author Earl Palmer calls this “evangelical ethics.” Jesus’ command to love others doesn’t so much demand that we give up something we own, but that we pass on the treasure that has been give us by Jesus—God’s words, not only expressed in words, but in loving acts of grace, kindness and mercy.

On Palm Sunday, throngs lined the road to praise Jesus as he entered Jerusalem. They appeared to be his friends. By Friday, all but a handful vanished. At Easter, we still cheer for Jesus. However, we demonstrate our friendship and loyalty when we not only say we love Jesus, but also demonstrate our love for each other and his creatures.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his blog at baptiststandard.com.

Texas will suffer if the Legislature slashes one of the most vital educational programs, the Tuition Equalization Grants.

If you’ve ever lived in a farming community, you know the importance of seed. It’s the most valuable grain, because it’s used to plant the next crop. Each single seed represents a multiplied number of seeds, because each will yield a stalk of produce with a head filled with more seeds. In math, that’s called exponential progression.

And if you’ve ever read the history of the Plains, you’ve come across sad stories of drought. In the worst, food shortages caused farm families to eat their seed. They staved off imminent starvation but ensured future failure.

Our state is suffering an epic cash drought. Dire dilemmas call for drastic decisions. Unfortunately, some legislators are casting hungry eyes in the wrong direction.

The Tuition Equalization Grant program represents one of Texas’ most valuable and effective silos of educational seed. (If you read about this in my blog, I’m sorry for the redundancy. But this challenge merits the Standard’s print audience.) The TEG program provides state-funded financial aid to offset some tuition costs for Texas students who attend private colleges and universities. Distribution of TEG aid is based on need, and the grants have been crucial for education of first-generation college students and minorities at those schools.

Universities affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas are slated to receive $29 million of the $101.8 million in TEG funds budgeted for this year. The Texas Baptist institutions verify they distribute TEG aid to students—particularly racial and ethnic minorities—based on financial need. Many of those students could not afford to stay in the schools without the TEG support.

Of course, Texans need to sacrifice during these lean times. And Christians, in particular, need to model behavior that reflects our concern for the common good. We must recognize the importance in unselfish budgeting and legislative decision-making. But gutting the TEG program would be unwise for several reasons:

First, such a cut would disproportionately harm students from poor families, particularly minorities and students who are the first from their families to attend college. This would create a financial gap between the private schools and the state’s population, fostering an air of elitism the schools have worked hard to eliminate.

Second, it would result in the opposite financial effect from what budget-cutters intend. Texas taxpayers spend more than twice as much on each state-school student as they do on each private-school student. So, when a TEG cutback pushes students from private schools into public universities, we’ll more than double our state costs for educating them. Talk about eating your seed. …

Third, it would diminish the positive influence the 40 private schools exert upon our state. Texas enjoys a long history of private college education. Our state’s oldest university (Baylor) is private, and the other private schools cover our territory. They typically offer a unique worldview that complements the fine education provided by the public schools. We need the contributions of both to maintain our state’s strength.

Fourth, now is the worst time in Texas history to cut back on education. The future of our state depends upon a strong base of educated workers. If we don’t properly and thoroughly train as many young people as possible, our strength in the marketplace will falter. The leadership base of our communities will erode. And as both of these events occur, the financial stability of our state will decline. This particularly will be true if we fail to educate young Hispanics—a key recipient cohort of the TEG—who will comprise Texas’ majority population during their lifetimes.

Certainly, we must budget carefully and wisely. But eliminating or drastically reducing the Tuition Equalization Grant program is as bad or worse than eating seed grain.

It’s not just desperate; it’s dumb.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his blog at baptiststandard.com.

Will you invest a quarter-hour to lift millions of people out of poverty and chronic hunger?

That’s all the time you need to participate in Bread for the World’s 2011 Offering of Letters. The Christian hunger-fighting organization sponsors the annual campaign to encourage Congress to adopt policies and budgets that will help end hunger in the United States and around the world.

“Write now, and write often,” urged Bread for the World President David Beckmann. “It takes time to make political change, especially to influence foreign assistance. And Congress is being pressured to cut programs that assist the poor in order to reduce the federal deficit. So, people need to call or write and say: ‘I appreciate the need for deficit reduction, but don’t balance the budget on the backs of the poor.’”

This year’s Offering of Letters focuses on encouraging Congress and the Obama administration to make sure U.S. foreign aid is effective in reducing poverty, Beckmann said. “There really is urgency to this. Washington is log-jammed by partisan conflict to reduce the deficit. But church people can say, ‘This is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it’s not liberal or conservative. It’s about making (aid) programs more effective.’ It’s not about spending more money, but about using dollars well. The challenge in a sharply partisan political environment is to get bipartisan legislation that is long-lasting. We know (House Speaker) John Boehner and President Obama think about the same thing on this. So this is a great year for conservative Christians to offer letters.”

Through the Offering of Letters, Bread for the World is keeping up the pressure to insist on accountability from the two-dozen U.S. agencies that operate foreign-aid programs, Beckmann said.

“Why should Christians impact government on behalf of the world’s poor?” he asked. “Because it’s so important. And because churches and charities can’t meet the need alone.”

For example, all the food provided by churches and other charities nationwide totaled only 6 percent of the food assistance provided by federal programs, he reported. Tax credits provided for the working poor doubled all the support poor people received through food banks and charities.

“Churches and charities can’t do it all. We’ve got to get the government involved. It’s essential,” he said.

“It’s also biblical and central to the Christian faith. In the Old Testament, Moses and the prophets went to the kings and insisted on justice for the poor people. In the New Testament, Jesus showed concern about the laws that marginalized poor people. … Helping people express care for justice and advocating for laws and systems that enable people to care for their kids is close to the heart of God.”

Recent research by Robert Putnam and David Campbell, authors of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, demonstrates “a statistical relationship between people who see God as a loving presence and those who support government programs that help the poor,” Beckmann said. “The living reality of God’s love for us moves us to care about people in need—and to trust God a little bit.”

Bread for the World urges Christians to participate in the Offering of Letters because “letters still work,” noted Marco Grimaldo, a Texas native and regional organizer for Bread. The personal tone touches lawmakers and influences their decisions, he stressed. And direct reports from Christians who have seen poverty on mission fields also make an impact, Beckmann added.

You can sponsor an Offering of Letters in your church or Bible study class. For more information, visit the Bread for the World website, www.bread.org, and click “Bread’s 2011 Offering of Letters,” about halfway down the homepage.

Also, mark your calendar for May 24-25 and plan to attend a symposium on world hunger at Dallas Baptist University, sponsored by Bread, DBU, the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, the National Association of Evangelicals and Micah Challenge. More on this later.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his blog at baptiststandard.com.

Christians are about to receive an unprecedented opportunity to embody Christ in our culture.

If you’ve been following the news, you’ve seen glimmers of it. From Washington to Austin and in statehouses all over the country, lawmakers are scrambling to figure out how to balance government budgets. In many cases, economic recession has eroded tax bases, leading to under-funding and historic deficits. At the federal level, entitlements plus the costs of war and new, expensive programs have pushed the budget beyond balance, creating a deficit estimated at $14 trillion.

So, government officials from the president on out are talking about cutting spending, ostensibly to chip away at deficits and debt.

If you listen carefully, you hear a key word over and over—“discretionary.” Discretionary spending is the part of the federal budget negotiated by the president and Congress. It contrasts with mandatory spending, which is required by law for several programs, dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. For the 2011 budget, total discretionary spending is about $1.4 trillion—with $895 billion allocated to defense and $520 billion covering all other non-mandatory costs.

Because discretionary spending is only a fraction of the federal budget and Congress has been unwilling to change laws to consider cuts in mandatory spending, two things happen. First, all the budget-cutting efforts fail to accomplish their purposes. Politicians use weasel words, but the bottom line is still the same—we’ll spend more than we take in. And second, many of the programs that help the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society suffer the steepest cuts.

The issue is compounded in Texas, where the Legislature likewise is grappling to trim the budget to match expected revenues. Texas has earned its reputation for being tough on children and minorities. Our state maintains the ninth-highest poverty rate in the country. Almost one-quarter of Texas children, 24.4 percent, live in poverty. And Texas has the second-highest food insecurity rate, with 17.4 percent of the overall population and 24.3 percent of children living in households that struggle to provide enough food.

Texas’ failure to help the powerless is exacerbated by our outdated tax structure. As Suzii Paynter, director of the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, notes: “Although our economy has a growing service sector, our sales tax does not apply to services. So, a major portion of the the transactions in Texas are not subject to normal sales tax. Even without the effects of a recent recession, it is hard to provide for a growing population with a shrinking tax sector.”

We’ve discussed and debated this and related issues in this space before. For example, what is society’s obligation to the poor and the vulnerable? Whatever happens to healthy adults, I want to live in a state and nation that make sure children, the elderly and the infirm have food and shelter and every child has access to a solid education. For another example, what is the Christian’s responsibility to advocate for such policies? Voting is an act that compels our consciences, which are shaped by our moral values, which should shape a just society.

By the way, if federal and state budgets are moral documents, and leaving our grandchildren with a debtor nation is a moral failure, then why don’t we demand our politicians do something about it? Should they not change the laws in order to make cuts in mandatory spending?

Christians of goodwill disagree on federal and state budgets and approaches to governance. Fortunately, most of us agree the church has an obligation to care for the poor, the sick and the elderly. And given the shape of federal and state finances, the number of truly needy is about to escalate. If it does not already do so, each church should engage in programs to help the folks Jesus called “the least of these.” More than ever, they’re going to need help with food, healthcare and basic necessities. Their children are going to sit in crowded classrooms, and they will need tutors.

We’ve got plenty of good work—ministry—to do.

The U.S. response to revolution in Egypt raises vital questions for Christians, particularly American Christians, as we ponder our faith-informed responsibility to our world.

Across two centuries, Americans have proclaimed allegiance to democracy. For Christians and Jews, the democratic ideal squares with the theological proposition that humans are created in God’s image. Consequently, individuals are both intrinsically and infinitely valuable, entitled to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Humanists and other children of the Enlightenment hold similar views. So, we affirm democracy based on how we understand humanity. Democracy is the clearest political expression of those religious and philosophical beliefs.

But a place like Egypt—ripe with potential, riven with problems, riddled by politics—tests our commitment to democracy. Are we principled or pragmatic?

Hosni Mubarak assumed leadership of Egypt almost 30 years ago, immediately following the assassination of Anwar Sadat. For three decades, he’s been one of the United States’ strongest allies in the Middle East and North Africa. Mubarak has provided a reliable pro-Western—or at least Western-reasonable—presence in the Arab world. U.S. presidents have depended upon him to watch America’s back in the most dangerous sector of our planet.

Since Mubarak has been president, his family wealth has ballooned to between $40 billion and $70 billion. Meanwhile, Egypt’s already-low per capita income has fallen steadily the past 20 years, and inflation has eroded the standard of living of its educated middle class. As if the widening chasm between Egypt’s wealthy elite and its impoverished masses weren’t incendiary enough, Mubarak’s ruthless disdain for human rights created sparks that caught the country on fire.

Now, millions of Egyptians are agitating for change. They want new leadership, and most want to participate in choosing their leaders. A Pew Research survey conducted last spring revealed a strong majority—59 percent—of Egyptians favor democracy as the preferred form of government. This presents a delicate challenge for the United States and Egypt’s other Western allies. That’s because an even stronger majority—85 percent—of Egyptians believe Islam’s influence on government is positive. Combine this with the fact the largest opposition group in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, a powerful Islamic political force that reaches across the Arabic world. While the Muslim Brotherhood disavows violence and claims it “does not seek leadership and will not field candidates for presidency,” it is certain to influence the formation of a new government.

This explains why the U.S. and European governments have taken a measured response to the Egyptian revolution: They can’t afford to prop up their long-term ally, Mubarak. Still, if Egypt adopts democracy, its citizens could vote in an Islamist government opposed to U.S. and Western goals and values. So, a democratically elected Islamic state raises several questions—with spiritual as well as political implications:

• If Americans believe in democracy, what is our responsibility to help ensure democracy for others?

• What is our obligation to nurture democracy, even when democracy could transform a longtime ally into an adversary?

• What is our greater obligation: The U.S. national interest or the good of other humans?

• Would Jesus compel us to preserve our national security, standard of living, borders and worldview if relaxing them would secure a higher standard of living and greater freedom for a larger number of people around the world?

• And what should we do when democracy and evangelism come to cross purposes? Contrast a repressive leader who allows missionaries to operate within his country’s borders with a democratically established Islamic state that does not permit missionaries.

Baptists historically have sought to evangelize all people while guaranteeing their religious liberty. We should continue to trust God and embrace democracy. And pray fervently for the nations of our world.

—Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

Thanks to podcasts and streaming video, many Christians have become connoisseurs of preaching. In a surprising number of churches, this has resulted in discontent, not unlike the marital maelstrom produced when their fellow church members become preoccupied by prodigious amounts of another web-delivered product.

I’m talking about pornography. Hear me out.

Pastors and counselors confirm porn is sadly and shockingly prevalent, even in Christians’ homes, and it wreaks havoc on wedlock. Too often, they’re asked to mend marriages after one partner—usually the husband; sometimes the wife—has descended into smut. Many aspects of porn are harmful. We could discuss how it objectifies and degrades people created in God’s image. We could consider how it fuels sex trafficking and leads to other crime. But porn particularly harms marriages by simulating sur-real fantasy and setting unrealistic expectations. Normal people don’t look like porn stars. Their bodies don’t defy the laws of genetics and/or physics. Most married couples don’t have sex like porn stars—in either frequency, physical positions or exotic locations.

So, when a spouse starts expecting sex to mirror a porn mirage, the marriage is in trouble. Real life can’t compete with chimera. Attempts to insert porn fantasy into a real marriage often result in anger, estrangement and even terror.

Besides everything else that’s wrong with it, pornography is problematic because it’s so unrealistic. And that’s where the comparison to preaching comes along.

Thanks to technology, the best preaching on the planet is available to practically everyone, practically everywhere. Many serious Christians listen to sermons on their computers or their handheld devices. This is wonderful for nurture and inspiration. Great preaching often leads to great faith, as well as to works of astounding courage, commitment and compassion.

The problem develops when church members start wanting, and sometimes demanding, their pastor preach as well as their favorite proclaimers. That’s no more fair or logical than a husband who watches porn expecting his wife to look, dress and make love like a starlet.

Three reasons:

• When you choose a mate or call a pastor, you make the best decision you can (and if you’re a Christian, theoretically, you pray about it and seek God’s guidance), and then you move forward faithfully in light of that decision.

• It’s presumptuous to expect more than you deliver. Most people who want a porn star for a spouse don’t look like one, either. And most people who want a world-class preacher aren’t necessarily world-class church members themselves.

• And it’s not what it seems. Pornography wouldn’t be nearly so popular without surgical enhancements, make-believe sets, flattering lighting and digital editing. That’s a far cry from the real life of birthing babies, raising kids, holding down jobs and making ends meet. This is a crude comparison, but what you can’t see behind a sermon is kind of like the difference between porn and marriage. Sure, the podcast preacher is gifted. But quite likely, his job is structured so he spends most of his time preparing to preach. He may even have a researcher who helps him find those gripping illustrations. No wonder his sermons are splendid. Meanwhile, your preacher is marrying and burying, visiting the sick, looking after the elderly, consulting with committees, counseling the bereaved or confused, working with staff and keeping your too-human church going.

Every metaphor breaks down, and I see a flaw in this one. Listening to sermons is good for you; watching porn is not. But neither is setting unrealistic expectations for pastors. Most admit they could and should preach better.

I’ll choose a durable marriage over sexual fantasy any time. And I’ll thank God for pastors who work hard at preaching and also walk beside church members through all life’s challenges.

–Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

Mass murder and mayhem in Arizona shine a spotlight on at least three issues vital for the future of America—mental health, gun control and public speech.

Most people would rather ignore mental health care in this country, and it seems we cannot discuss gun control and civility without shouting. But for the good of our nation, let’s try to rise above base impulses.

Jared Loughner, the alleged shooter, apparently suffers from mental illness, according to reports from high school friends, college classmates and a teacher, and neighbors. Even before the shooting, a fellow student at Pima County Community College told friends she expected to see Loughner featured on the evening news after a mass murder. She said she always sat by the class door so she could escape if he ever started shooting.

America needs a preventive mental health system that can help people before they harm others. “This … calls for a better mental health system that can identify and deal with these human ticking time bombs before they go off,” noted Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “Why do we have to wait until after they cause mayhem to deal with the problem when they are readily identifiable to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear?”

Unfortunately, mental health treatment has been pushed to the back of the budgetary bus for decades. With federal and state governments facing huge deficits, that’s not likely to change. But we can hope, pray and advocate for a better system—for the sake of the mentally ill and society, too.

The disastrous consequences of mental illness can be multiplied when mentally disturbed people carry easily concealed handguns with high-capacity magazines. Although numerous people around him worried about his mental state, Loughner purchased a Glock 19 pistol with an expanded magazine. Police say this enabled him to fire 31 shots into 20 people before he had to pause to reload.

Gun control is one of the most volatile issues in America. Many citizens believe a “well-regulated militia” may be necessary one day, and so they defend a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, which guarantees, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Can we find a balanced response? Should protecting citizens’ rights to bear arms to hunt, protect their families and even join militias be construed so broadly that we cannot keep high-capacity handguns, automatic weapons and “cop-killer” bullets out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and the dangerously mentally ill? We need a sane and sensible national discussion about who has a right to bear arms and the kinds of arms they can bear. Surely, we can find a solution that protects freedom and maintains the Second Amendment without escalating the national arms race and making our country increasingly dangerous.

We also need a sane and sensible national discussion about how we talk to and about each other. Loughner obviously is troubled, and I won’t join the chorus that says others’ political speech drove him to hatred. But his story is not the entire story. The volume and rancor of our political speech continually escalates. This is beyond dispute. We cannot hope to solve our serious problems—involving economics, education, health care, defense, international relations and others—if we’re shouting at and vilifying each other. We need to talk; we need to listen. We need to seek the good of the whole, not grab for the whole of the goods.

You may wonder why an editorial about mental health, gun control and public speech appears in a Christian newspaper and website. Well, Christians are citizens of this nation and world. The issues that plague society should concern us. We should lead by example—talking softly, listening intently, thinking creatively, seeking win-win solutions.

—Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

This Advent and Christmas season, I keep thinking about a person peeking between the pages of the Bible, an important fellow whose whose identity is ambiguous, at best. Wait a sec; let me check. … Nope. None of the gospel writers clearly identifies Mary’s dad, Jesus’ grandfather.

Many scholars think his name was Heli. They base their case upon the two genealogies of Jesus. Matthew 1:16 tells us Jacob was “the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” This family tree clearly follows Joseph’s lineage, so Jacob would have been Jesus’ step-grandfather. But Luke 3:23 indicates Joseph was the son of Heli. Since Luke’s generations don’t match Matthew’s, the Heli advocates claim Luke meant “father-in-law” and insists his lineup represents Mary’s family tree. Some Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans cite tradition to claim Mary’s father was Joachim. But since he does not appear in either genealogy, it’s hard to imagine Jesus playing catch out in a Nazareth street with a guy named Joachim.

Consider this quasi-canonized character, whatever his name. Mary was just a teenager, so her father wouldn’t have been old himself. And since the Scriptures don’t mention Mary was an orphan or cite anything exceptional about her home life, he probably lived there in Nazareth, in that little peasant home, with Mary and her mother and maybe several other offspring.

As a daddy of daughters, I’ve wondered what Mary’s parents thought and felt that morning their sweet, lovely child sat down at the breakfast table, spread cream cheese on a bagel and said, “Mother and Father, I’ve got some really big news. …” Parental instincts tell me they yearned to protect their unwed, pregnant daughter. People talk as soon as girls begin to show. Everyone knew Mary was a good girl, and gossips just live to take down good people. Mary’s parents worried for their daughter—not only because she would be “with child” out of wedlock, but also because people would think she’d gone crazy as soon as she talked about how she got that way. “The Angel Gabriel came to visit me, and … the Holy Spirit came upon me, … and the Most High overshadowed me. Oh, yeah, and I’m still a virgin.”

One special detail—just as absent from Scripture as their names—says something wonderful and amazing about Mary’s parents. Look for a common denominator in Jesus’ birth narratives: Angels. Time after time, angels show up to help people believe the unbelievable. Old Zechariah and young Mary. Fiancé Joseph. Shepherds and wise men. Angels appeared to them because they needed angels, just to confirm the facts. But not Mary’s mom and dad. No angels necessary. They raised a good and faithful daughter. Her word was enough.

Of course, this is “reading into” the Scripture, but sometimes messages of silence communicate volumes. So it is with the non-stories of angels in those months leading up to Jesus’ birth. I’d like to believe—and for want of scriptural evidence I’m so inclined—that angels did not appear to Mary’s mom and dad simply because an angel’s recitation of the divine conception would have been redundant. Their angel already told them, and they believed her, preposterous or not.

Although they didn’t set out to raise the most important woman of all time, they trained up a little girl in the ways of the Lord. And God Almighty found her faithful. How could they not believe a girl whose faith was so strong that, after hearing the most unbelievable proposal ever, she replied: “I’m the Lord’s maid, ready to serve. Let it be with me just as you say”?

Christmas is a time for angels, fantastic stories and the birth of our Savior. May it also remind us raising children is kingdom work. Let us train up generations who will proclaim to God: “I am the Lord’s, ready to serve. Let it be with me as you say.”

—Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

Do you feel conflicted this time of year?

We can recite a ream of reasons why Thanksgiving/Advent/Christmas makes people feel rotten. It’s the most overly romanticized season, and reality rarely reaches expectations. We remember loved ones who are not here to celebrate with us. The stress of myriad events, shopping, paying for the shopping, planning get-togethers and so much family time drives folks to distraction. You can think up a list of causes for Christmas anxiety that could stretch from Nazareth to Bethlehem and back.

But I’ve been thinking about how often we feel conflicted about giving gifts at Christmas.

The tradition of Christmas gift-giving began with the magi. They brought gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh to the young Jesus, expressing their adoration with luxuries far beyond the means of a first-century carpenter’s family. Gift-giving also traces its roots to our hearts. We’re wired to show our love by lavishing new things upon the objects of our affection. If you’re like most people, you get thrilled watching your spouse or children or special other open that well-thought-out gift far more than you enjoy opening your own gifts. We’re gift-givers by nature, and when we follow that nature, our motives are pure.

Unfortunately, the genesis of much of the world’s evil is corruption of the pure. And so it is with Christmas gifts. History does not record the first time someone spoiled Christmas gift-giving. Maybe it was a merchant who convinced people the only way to demonstrate their true love was by buying and then giving whatever he was selling. Or perhaps it was a peddler who assured people the secret to pure bliss was receiving what she was pushing. And it could have been the very first occasion when someone thought, “Well, I better give her a gift, because I know she’ll give me one.” Somewhere along the way, we corrupted Christmas gift-giving and lost control of our celebration.

We think these thoughts this time of year, especially when someone laments the “commercialization of Christmas.” The easy answer, which some propose, is to quit buying gifts. Of course, that’s too simplistic. A significant portion of our economy depends upon the steady ringing of cash registers between Thanksgiving and Christmas. If everyone stopped buying gifts, businesses would fail and thousands would suffer. So, what can we do? Some ideas:

• Shop thoughtfully. A studiously selected gift—based upon close observation borne of love—reflects a level of care and emotional intimacy in short supply today. If you give thoughtfully, the people you love will appreciate the “fit” of their gifts, but more than that, they will be delighted by the love, attention and intention those gifts represent.

• Benefit others. The primary package in this edition of the Baptist Standard focuses on fair trade practices. If we think and plan in time, we can purchase gifts that help support some of the world’s under-privileged artisans, farmers and micro-entrepreneurs.

• Give yourself. Time is a precious commodity. The busy-ness of life may be pulling you away from the people you love most. So, how about giving the people you love the gift of your time. Make a coupon book filled with gifts of time—a long walk, a trip to the lake/woods/park, 30 minutes on the porch swing, an evening without distractions.

• Put yourself into it. If you’re crafty, or a cook, or good with almost any skill, turn it into a cornucopia of hand-made gifts. The people you love will love having a piece of you.

• Multiply ministry. This time of year, Christians collect offerings to support missions and ministries. Think about how you can give the gift of faith, food, healing and mercy by participating in and supporting missions and ministries. What would happen if we all matched what we spend for gifts in contributions to missions and ministries? The world—or at least our corner of it—could be changed.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

By almost every indicator, Texas Baptists enjoyed a terrific annual meeting in McAllen last week. We engaged in lively and serious business decisions. We experienced compelling worship. We encountered front-line evangelism and ministry. We enjoyed warm fellowship.

But one indicator—only 783 messengers, by far the lowest total on record—pointed beyond mere attendance. Sure, we can expect a relatively small crowd when we gather at the edges of our state. Still, the locale doesn’t totally explain the low participation in our convention. And even though we ratified an innovative plan to improve the annual meeting, the program isn’t the main problem.

As we discussed last week on this page, apathy poses the gravest threat to our convention. Widespread apathy—reflected in the decision by myriad members of thousands of churches to stay home—contrasts ironically with the passion preached down in the Valley.

A population tidal wave is deluging Texas, Executive Director Randel Everett reported. And Texas is a national leader in hunger, child poverty and dropouts, outgoing President David Lowrie acknowledged. Still, our hope is in Christ, and we can overcome our state’s challenges with God’s help, new President Victor Rodriguez affirmed.

These messages challenged and inspired messengers. But let’s be honest: We’ve known about Texas’ demographic shifts for years. We’ve heard laments before. And we’ve always believed the power of God is greater than this world.

It’s time to admit believing is not enough. Hope is hollow if we don’t possess the vision and summon the courage to act. If we’re going to replace apathy with passion and also succeed at our most vital tasks, then the way forward becomes clear. We must enjoin the agenda outlined by convention leadership last week—starting churches to reach the lost and sustaining ministries to meet the tangible needs of Texas’ most vulnerable and hurting residents.

We must go back to the basics and focus our convention on tasks that (a) require broad cooperation and (b) address our state’s pressing needs—spiritual lostness and human misery. So, we must pour all our funding and resources into:

• Church starting, evangelism, missions and collegiate ministry, to ensure we compellingly present the gospel to every Texan in her own language, his own context.

• Education, to train pastors and other clergy to start and equip churches and to educate strong, vital laypeople to lead the churches, shine in their communities and make money primarily to fund God’s tasks. (Seminaries and religion departments should team with business schools to train savvy entrepreneurial church planters and bivocational pastors.)

• Benevolence and advocacy, to nurture the orphans, feed the hungry, lift children and families out of poverty, care for the aged and the afflicted, and guide our society to be just, equitable and caring.

Of course, this means the convention no longer would sponsor other tasks we cherish and value. This is hard to say, because it means the end to some longstanding ministries and programs. But we cannot afford to do everything. Besides, we already underfund and understaff them. Discontinuing signals no disrespect or lack of love for either the ministries or the individuals who carry them out. We should affirm their value but proclaim they be taken up through other means—associations, strong churches, institutions, or highly competent and energetic individuals. In such an environment, they may become even more valuable, because they must adapt to true and felt needs.

Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” The next annual meeting is 11 months and two weeks away. Now is the time to start planning a new budget and defining a new, laser-focused vision for reaching the lost and helping the hurting. Now is the time for sanity.

Will messengers to the Baptist General Convention of Texas annual meeting talk about the elephant in McAllen Convention Center this week?

Of course, messengers will have a great time, focusing on the Texas Hope 2010 and Hope 1:8 missions emphases. They will take part in a “morning of missions,” nurture their souls in worship and feed their minds in seminars.

Messengers will vote on a $38 million budget for 2011. It reflects a drop of $3 million from the current allocation. It will be the fourth straight decrease and a decline of 26.9 percent in just a decade.

They also will consider a report from a special committee asked to figure out how to attract more participation in BGCT annual meetings. Last year, only 11.6 percent of all eligible congregations sent messengers.

Narrowing budgets and thinning participation in convention events provide glimpses of the elephant that will walk the corridors and hang out in the meeting rooms in McAllen.

For sure, $38 million is huge money. And 5,600 congregations comprise a large denomination. But if the trendlines represented by contributions and participation showed up on your medical charts, you’d be off to the ER before you could ask, “What’s wrong?”

A decade ago, Texas Baptists engaged in a ferocious fight for Baptist principles. The BGCT was one of few state conventions to resist the ultraconservative movement that swept the Southern Baptist Convention. But now the state convention is afflicted with a malady far more pernicious than politics—acute apathy.

That’s right. Increasingly, churches are disengaging from the convention because they just don’t care about it anymore. Many reasons exist: Some grew weary in the fight with the SBC. Some were appalled by that fight. Some have found other avenues for doing missions and ministry and equipping their churches, so they don’t need the convention the way they once did. Some are so concerned with local issues they don’t think much about partnering with others, particularly at the state level. Some don’t see the convention as supporting them, so they won’t support the convention.

In one respect, the BGCT’s challenge reflects macro economics—the widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots. Every time a strong church votes to cut its contribution, the BGCT becomes more of a convention for the churches that rely upon the convention’s resources but can’t afford to contribute much. And so the convention increasingly becomes the burden of churches that can’t bear it.

That said, it’s fair to ask—particularly in an era of ever-thinning budgets—exactly what the convention should be doing. Baptists created conventions to do the big things churches can’t do by themselves—missions, education and large-scale ministry. Somewhere along the way, probably because Southern Baptists operated a huge, successful full-service publishing house, their conventions began to see themselves as resource providers for local churches. This is enormously expensive. We’ve passed the point where the BGCT can afford to do—at least with excellence—all it has committed to do. So, we should ask some hard questions:

• Should we go back to basics, and only fund missions, education and benevolence?

• Should we adopt a free-market system—requiring churches to purchase all services and eliminating the services that don’t pay their own way?

• Should more independent churches adopt a missional attitude toward dependent churches, funding programs and services—which they may not use themselves—for others?

• Should weak churches consolidate with other weak churches, increasing income and decreasing overhead so they can afford to purchase services and support missions?

These are hard questions. Nobody likes to ask them. But the BGCT won’t get better until we provide answers.

Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.

The intersection of Church Street and State Avenue has been a crash zone. U.S. Senate candidates from Delaware wrangled over whether “separation of church and state” exists in the Constitution. Similarly, a Senate candidate from Colorado argued against the distinct boundary between religion and government. These debates echo at water coolers, around lunch tables and in church pews nationwide.

The heat they generate illustrates why many Americans don’t like to discuss religion or politics—or certainly both of them together. They’re an incendiary mix, precisely because both are vital to life and culture.

In the Delaware debate, Christine O’Donnell sought to refute Chris Coons’ assertion the Constitution disallows integration of religion and government. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked. Coons pointed to the First Amendment. She retorted: “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

Religion is the first of five freedoms protected by the First Amendment, which begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”

Law students in the Delaware debate’s audience laughed when O’Donnell appeared not to know the contents of the First Amendment. Later, her campaign clarified she knows the First Amendment but was pointing out “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. That’s the same tack taken by Ken Buck in Colorado. In a Senate candidate forum, he said: "I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It was not written into the Constitution.”

Buck and O’Donnell share a popular opinion held by millions of Americans. But it is not supported by history, plain English and judicial precedent. Also, it’s dangerous.

While many settlers traveled to the New World for religious liberty, they came for their religious liberty. As witnesses to persecution and religious warfare among the state churches of Europe, they wanted to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences. But they did not honor others’ consciences. Ironically, most colonies mirrored Europe, with government sponsoring favored religion and persecuting others. Fortunately, leaders of the young United States learned from the past. They sealed religious liberty protection in the First Amendment.

Unlike today’s simplistic solutionists, they recognized religious liberty is complicated. Not only must government be prohibited from sponsoring religion—“no law respecting an establishment of religion”—but it also must not interfere with faith—“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Religion of and for people all faiths and no faith always has occupied vital space in the American public square. But religion is not government’s domain, whether Congress, state legislatures or local school boards. (Ironically, the people who trust government the least are the very ones who clamor against church-state separation. Why would they risk government involvement with their faith?)

Thomas Jefferson, father of the Declaration of Independence and a champion of the Bill of Rights, affirmed and amplified this principle. In a letter to Danville Baptist Association, he coined the term “wall of separation” to distinguish the space between church and state. No, the term is not in the Constitution, but an advocate of the Constitution used the term to explain the concept.

All Americans—especially people of faith—should fear a breach in that wall. Most wars and coordinated violence of the last 1,700 years, including many conflicts today, arose from discord between religious groups. By prohibiting state sponsorship of religion while protecting religious exercise, our American experiment has provided 234 years of peaceful coexistence and the world’s most fertile field for faith.

—-Marv Knox is editor of the Baptist Standard. Visit his FaithWorks Blog.