2020 was rough. We lost loved ones. Bosses were forced to facilitate layoffs or were laid off themselves. Some entrepreneurs failed to close on essential business deals. Some were evicted from their apartments. And even the most distinguished of influencers, at times, felt like utter failures in the home if their children were unable to adapt to online education, wearing a mask, ad nauseam.

2020 was a tough teacher. 2020 also was a good teacher. Here are four unforgettable discoveries I gathered firsthand in 2020 that have affected my character and leadership.

Polarizing vs. harmonizing

2020 taught me polarizing is easier than harmonizing. Division and polarization are nothing new, but even newly minted leaders instinctively knew 2020 offered something different, something more intense.

In 2020, people were divided over almost everything. Some leaders were cut off from their constituency, venders and even friends for what was posted on their personal social media accounts, or for what was not posted on social media.

I heard a story of someone who accidently shared his political leaning over a casual cup of coffee with a co-worker, only to discover later he had been removed deliberately from a long-standing group text and was no longer included in the traditional company gift exchange.

Republican or Democrat, mask or no mask, Disney+ or Netflix. I’m not sure if 2020 largely created the rift between Americans or simply exposed the rift. Working apart replaced working together. Ideological separatism replaced collaborative teamwork.

Leaders should take the harder road of harmonizing.

Vision and anticipation

One’s vision is only as good as one’s anticipation. Many leaders just prior to 2020 were drunk with vision, and the subsequent 12 months sobered them up. They confidently cast their “2020 vision” before their organizations, only to have their lack of foresight publicly exposed.

For years, notable conference speakers have been warning leaders persistently of the burgeoning gig economy, the inevitability of commercial automation, and the benefits of giving select employees the option to work remotely in order to reduce overhead expenses. The year 2020 came, and these predicted societal shifts made their presence fully known to everyone during the COVID-19 shutdown. But, who was listening?

Sadly, a rare few leaders were positioned to serve their people in these ways, because so many “vision-casting leaders” were not properly anticipating their next steps in light of the greater cultural shifts. Their envisioned steps weren’t intuitive enough, quick enough or desirable enough for the newly repositioned consumer.

It’s important leaders understand 2021 isn’t just the start of a new year; it’s the start of a new decade. Things will change over the next 10 years. Some changes will coincide with one’s leadership preferences; some will not.

Leaders who succeed in the new era will be the ones who humbly and accurately anticipate where culture is headed and then envision a future that better serves a society yet to be served.

Optimism about the future

Over the 12 long months of 2020, I repeatedly observed this poignant truth: Optimism innovates while pessimism stagnates.

Leaders with the “can do attitude” stuck their necks out and did something in 2020. Leaders who couldn’t stomach making a move, did not move.

Leaders who humbly moved forward into the unknown are today—by and large—still moving, and those frozen with the “paralysis of analysis” aren’t just behind the curve, they are buried.

Leadership never has been more obvious. Leaders lead. True leaders invite others to follow—especially when times are tough. How can anyone follow a person who is standing still? While it is true many leaders stepped out too soon, risked too much, and made significant mistakes, leadership is risky.

Pessimistic leadership doesn’t have the power to inspire, and it certainly doesn’t have the power to innovate solutions. Optimistic leaders were busy pinpointing opportunities, prioritizing operations and purifying their organizations during quarantine. Pessimistic leaders slowly withered away while criticizing those “impertinent optimists” who dared to try something that may or may not work.

Again, optimism innovates while pessimism stagnates.

The good alongside the bad

I saw in 2020 that the good shamelessly soldiers on right alongside the bad. I became an uncle again for the 12th time. I was invited to celebrate love-struck couples at wedding ceremonies. My friends still were friendly. Jokes still were funny. And, tacos still were tasty.

When I was younger, my dad told me it takes no skill to complain or point out the bad. This comes naturally. Determining to see the glimmers of hope during a raging storm, now, that’s hard work, he said.

Acknowledging the good during a season of testing isn’t inherently discourteous, as some might think. Rather, finding the good in the midst of the bad is what is most desperately needed to see us through times of adversity.

Perspective isn’t everything, but it is a big thing. And, if you can find the good in 2020, you likely will find the good in about any season waiting for you in the days ahead.

Joshua Gilmore serves as the director of Baptist Collegiate Ministries at North Greenville University in Tigerville, S.C. Prior to serving at NGU, Gilmore was a youth pastor in the Chicago area, a professor and administrator at a small college of missions, and a music minister in New Jersey. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

I think we would all agree this Scripture is a summation of the work and mission of Jesus Christ. Jesus preached good news to the impoverished, the economically maligned. Jesus proclaimed freedom to those held captive. Jesus declared the blind would see, the oppressed would be released. He declared God’s favor had entered into human history. As Jesus’ witnesses, we share his burden.

I say “we,” but there are some concerns about whether or not the recent statement by the presidents of the six Southern Baptist seminaries hinders them from sharing in this burden.

To be sure, I do not offer a full-throated affirmation of all of the tenets of critical race theory and conceptions of intersectionality. I am fully aware these are secular theories, rooted in notions that suggest solutions are wholly secular. I know Christ is the answer to the world and all of its ills. Of this, I have no doubt.

But I take issue with the assertion such theories are “incompatible” with the gospel. As their brother in Christ, as an African American Christian, as a pastor in the Lord’s church, I stand against this assessment, and I strongly disagree with the seminary presidents.

Inconsistency

I am uncertain as to why these men found it necessary even to associate their affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message with a rejection of critical race theory. One would expect, with their sincere rejection of racism, they would speak to instances of it in our culture. They would stand against our president’s attempts to maintain the names of Confederate generals on monuments and military bases.

One would expect they would stand against the rise of anti-Semitism and racism seen in groups like the Proud Boys. They would stand against police violence against Black bodies and stand in solidarity with the Black community. They would call the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery. But they have not done that.

Their stand against racism rings hollow when in their next breath they reject theories that have been helpful in framing the problem of racism.

Are these systems spiritual and on par with the biblical text? Absolutely not. But can one secular theory helpful in human flourishing be named that is not also equally lacking? One could look at economic theories, social theories, etc. Enlightenment conceptions have been upheld, despite having no root in the Bible, because they still offer us some value.

Hesitancy

And yet, in this time, these men chose to castigate a framework that points out a truth that cannot be denied. American history has been tainted with racism. America codified it. And more, our public and private institutions propagated it.

Even in a time when laws were passed in this country to overturn the legalization of racism, America truly did not atone for it. No steps were taken, not in the 1870s nor the 1970s, to say to Black people America was sorry. No recompense was given to the formerly enslaved, their immediate descendants, or to the victims of Jim Crowism. No apologies, no recognition of harm, nothing.

It was not until the 1990s that the SBC apologized for the wrong done. The House of Representatives did so in 2008.

In all this time, do you believe, with this rampant resistance to repentance, that somehow things automatically were better? Yes, voting rights were given and Civil Rights were established. Yes, redlining was disrupted. Social moods shifted slightly. But repentance still was lacking. There still was a lack of acknowledgment of the harms done.

As Christian ministers and theologians, these six men are aware that when there is no repentance—especially for such a long time—worse things can happen (Matthew 12:43-45). The Bible requires wrongs to be righted.

No real, sustained and meaningful attempt to right the wrongs of the past ever has been made in this country with God’s Black children. So, when social theorists find in this country a racist undercurrent, they do not see it for nothing.

As Christians, we know what they do not, that sin has been reigning and has obfuscated our vision to obey the second great commandment. We cannot love our neighbors as ourselves because we, like the lawyer, are asking smugly, “Who is my neighbor?” In this country, for many years, Black people have not been neighbors. Therefore, love, respect and acceptance have not been necessary.

Equality

As it pertains to the gospel, we believe Christ has died for our sins, was buried and was bodily raised on the third day. He lives forevermore. Thus, he reigns over all things in heaven and on earth. He now sits at the right hand of God. He will come back to judge the living and the dead in righteousness (Acts 17:31). And only through him can one attain unto eternal life.

How is this truth at all diminished by anything claimed in critical race theory or intersectionality?

Theorists within both frameworks, we can be assured, deny various aspects of the truth of the gospel, but so did Thomas Jefferson. He was an Epicurean. And yet, SBC seminary presidents all boldly proclaim “all men are created equal.” They say it because it is true; it aligns with the fact that Jesus as Lord reigns over a creation made in the image of God.

But you cannot, at the same time, condemn systems of thought like critical race theory and intersectionality for enlightening us to the realities of wrongs done to tarnish the imago Dei.

If Jesus reigns in righteousness and Jefferson, though a denier of the faith, made statements in agreement with that righteousness, then we are justified to repeat him. Jefferson’s claims were in response to injustices done to the colonists in the context of an imperial framework.

What difference is there in pointing out the flaws of the American system that have for most of its existence and most of the 20th century justified injustice towards people of color?

Determinacy

My dear brothers’ bias is apparent to all of us. Instead of reaching out to fellow brothers and sisters who have lived with the reality of racism in formulating their view, these six men took it upon themselves to dictate how we should think about racism.

Saying they condemn all racism makes them, in effect, no different than the Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that all are equal while still being separate. You cannot claim to uphold equality without attacking the very systems undermining it. The Supreme Court also thought they believed in fairness and justice.

A general condemnation of racism is insufficient in a time when there are specific instances of it that go unaddressed. These men have covered their eyes and ears from seeing the faces and hearing the voices of those who know the truth of it. And thus, these men have given away their authority to speak on these matters.

I am their colleague and a member of the Southern Baptist family. While spending many years in affiliation with and in service of Baylor University, I still have maintained a strong connection to the SBC. I even recently returned to Southwestern to pursue a Ph.D. because of my desire to see Southwestern expand and return to its former state.

When I came back “home” to Southwestern, I even encouraged other ministers to do the same. I took President Adam Greenway’s invitation to return as a statement of good faith, that the seminary wanted to welcome me and many other Black ministers to contribute to its legacy.

The statement on critical race theory and intersectionality has soiled that good faith. I cannot maintain my affiliation any longer and therefore am withdrawing from Southwestern Seminary. Nor will I associate with the SBC any longer.

In the future, my primary seminary affiliation will be with Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary. There, I have been an affiliated faculty member since 2008.

Truett Seminary courageously continues to diversify. Truett boldly engages with the crucial issues concerning students and faculty of color in their community. This is what the body of Christ needs right now.

What the SBC seminary presidents have done has brought division and confusion to the body of Christ. They must repent and seek reconciliation with those who can properly inform them of the wrong they have done. They must ask the Lord to open their hearts to hear the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ and how Jesus’ reign truly should impact our society.

Rev. Dr. Ralph D. West is the founder and pastor of The Church Without Walls in Houston. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

(RNS)—I remember the first time I walked into my first Southern Baptist church. I was 8 years old, a Black child living in the South, when my mother escorted me into the unreal vastness of First Baptist Church of Orlando.

I had grown up to that point in the Greek Orthodox Church, so I was used to majority race culture that was not my own. But I could tell this was different—the sheer magnitude of the sanctuary alone was astonishing. I was not too young to notice, too, the church had no ministerial staff of color, among almost 20 pastors, despite the diverse central Florida community I knew outside its doors. (The church still has no Black pastors on its staff now.)

People of color were welcomed, and the Rev. Jim Henry, the pastor at the time, had helped pass the denomination’s 1995 resolution to apologize for slavery. But it was clear, issues that affected people of color weren’t talked about in the daily life of the church.

First Orlando, as I call it, is still my home church, and I’m grateful for many warm memories. I attended a Southern Baptist university and seminary. I’ve served at several Southern Baptist churches and worked for them as an outside contractor. I now write for Southern Baptist publications. Suffice it to say, I’m pretty embedded within SBC culture.

Yet I wrestle with the racial underpinnings of the SBC I first glimpsed at First Orlando—the same tendencies I see in last week’s announcement by the presidents of six SBC seminaries on the ideas about race and culture called critical race theory.

Critical race theory

There are many versions and definitions of critical race theory. However, at its core, critical race theory analyzes how different social categories—not just race, but class and gender—often work together to advance or stymie the progress of individuals and society as a whole. It began at Harvard Law School in the early 1980s, but since has become accepted widely in many levels of Black culture, and many leaders and people of color accept the theory’s conclusions.

I don’t intend to get into the specifics of critical race theory here, but to share an experience of a Black man when I heard about the perspective of prominent thinkers in the SBC, a denomination founded upon slavery.

I asked Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary’s president, the Rev. Danny Akin, about the meeting where the statement on critical race theory was devised. He shared the six—all of them white men—talked on a Zoom call. He said the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was the principal architect of the statement, but they all were on the same page when it comes to issues of race.

Problematic proclamation

I don’t think Akin and Mohler, both of whom I know, understand how problematic it is to have six white men meeting to discuss race without having anyone of color in the room to represent their experience.

I find it deeply offensive that people would speak for the SBC on race when they themselves have never worn Black skin; never dealt with its historical and cultural inequities; nor had any firsthand experience of navigating the tensions of race in today’s world.

This problem isn’t only one of misunderstanding academic theories. As America’s demographics shift, the SBC’s attitudes toward race will begin to cost the SBC souls.

In 2020, the SBC is led solely by white men. The denomination’s president and the heads of every one of the SBC’s denominational entities are white. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Rolland Slade was elected the first Black chair of the SBC Executive Committee on June 16.)

White male leadership has been ingrained within the denomination since its founding in 1845, when it broke with the Northern churches over slavery.

Decline and demographics

This year, the denomination came up with a new slogan: “Who’s Your One?” The idea is for every Southern Baptist to find one person to pray for and share the gospel with. “Imagine the impact,” the campaign website says, if every Christian did so.

One impact, of course, would be to double the size of the denomination, which has been losing members steadily for nearly 15 years. “Who’s Your One” seems to be a strategy to turn attendance and membership around.

But the numbers don’t add up—or they won’t add up unless the SBC takes an inclusive approach to evangelism. If the racial composition of the United States is changing rapidly, the attitudes of Americans, especially younger Americans, is changing even faster. It’s no mystery why, while our country has become more diverse, the denomination hasn’t grown.

The decline will only get worse as small groups of white men sit in rooms and make blanket statements regarding racial theories and programs regarding diversity. Rather than “who’s your one,” the SBC might as well build a campaign around “White people are the ones.”

Time to reckon with identity and history

It’s time for the SBC to reckon with itself and its history. It’s time for it to come to the realization it has a race issue and to stop pretending it doesn’t. It’s time for the SBC to include Black and other minority believers in any formative conversation.

Though the denomination only has a limited number of seminary professors of color, its first thought should be to consult them before taking a position, in hopes of avoiding statements so unattractively skewed.

Christians inside and outside of the SBC should consider who is influencing their thinking on race. It’s folly to search for strategies and slogans to help grow the faith in an echo chamber of whiteness.

Akin and I had an enjoyable talk, which ended with prayer. But since our conversation, I can’t stop thinking about the story of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas. The New Testament’s Book of Acts describes how the apostle and his fellow teacher disagreed over another disciple who had abandoned them, and how the two friends separated and went their ways.

I’m a Southern Baptist. I’ve sometimes had reason to question whether the white men who run my denomination have my best interests in mind, as a follower of Jesus and as a person.

But when six men sequester themselves to draw conclusions about people who look like me, the verdict is no longer out.

Maina Mwaura is a writer and a speaker. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

In February 2017, my family and I began a new chapter in the long story that is my career. Until recently, my career path—both in secular and ministry work—never lasted more than two years at a place. It became the expectation I would start a new job, and then something would happen that would require me to resign, or my employer would fire me.

I was really tired of packing up the house we had lived in for a short time, moving to a new place, storing the moving boxes and bubble wrap—after all, bubble wrap isn’t cheap—anticipating the next move. I did not want to uproot my family again, especially our five girls, and for them to have to make new friends and adjust to a new church and school. This had gotten old.

Shortly before arriving at Gunpowder Baptist Church, I began to wonder what in the world was going on with me and all the failed jobs, churches and relationships, as well as social struggles I was encountering.

As I began to research the different symptoms and experiences I had gone through, it was the grace of God that led me to an article in Christianity Today. It was the personal story of Lamar Hardwick, a pastor in Georgia who discovered at age 36 he was on the autism spectrum.

I must have read that article 10 times, each time more intently. What Lamar wrote, to a large extent, could have been my story.

Discovering myself

This discovery opened up a whole new world to me. I didn’t really know what autism was, but everything in the article sounded so familiar to me. After doing some thorough research—often, those on the autism spectrum have interests that they will pour themselves into, and that is exactly what I do—I shared with my wife that I thought I might be on the spectrum and that she needed to read this article.

Well, it didn’t take very long for her to realize this was me. It all made sense to her:

• My very weird need to have all matching hangers in my closet, as well as my clothes coordinated by color, then divided by the type of clothing.
• My very specific interests in things like reptiles and the history of drum companies, which I would research for hours on end, leading to very random pieces of information shared with others at odd times.
• And we cannot forget about my horrible inability to adapt to change, my daily routines which absolutely must take place, my very rigid and logical thinking, as well as a plethora of other strange behaviors.

Searching for explanations

The search for a diagnosis helped us understand why I have struggled to keep jobs and relationships throughout my life. After many tests, the day came to find out the results and to see if my research and assumptions were indeed correct. On Oct. 2, 2017, when I was 36 years old, my psychologist confirmed my belief: I was on the spectrum.

The search for a diagnosis helped my wife and me understand why I have struggled with keeping jobs and relationships throughout my life. In addition to the above, I struggle with social cues, impulse control, anxiety, sensory issues and more. All of these things have contributed to a lot of misunderstandings and problems and ultimately to my job losses, hurt relationships and other difficulties.

Putting a name or diagnosis to my struggles has helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses and how to adjust and plan so I won’t continue the cycle of lost jobs and hurt relationships.

‘God loves and uses all types of people’

There are days I feel having autism is a blessing, but there are also days when it is difficult and I wish I wasn’t on the spectrum. However, I have come to recognize God can use an individual in awesome ways despite their struggles and difficulties.

In John 9, Jesus encounters an individual born blind. Jesus ends up giving him sight, and much debate occurs on why the man was born blind. In verse 3, Jesus says: “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

I have come to believe God has allowed me to be on the spectrum to demonstrate to a watching world that God loves and uses all types of people—even those with disabilities—to show the power and glory of a great God.

Special needs ministries

Through this diagnosis, God has provided many opportunities for me to speak on disability and the church. I serve on the board of The Banquet Network, which assists churches with beginning special needs ministries. I also work with the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware to broaden the convention’s disability ministry.

In February 2020, I went to Puerto Rico with a team from other churches to serve at One Church Comerio and help host the island’s first Night To Shine prom for people with special needs.

My church has also begun to focus intently on reaching the disabled and special needs community. We even hosted the annual end-of-year party for the Baltimore County Special Olympics team.

More individuals with disabilities have become integrated into our weekly youth night, and we seek to find ways to incorporate those with special needs into the life of the church, finding opportunities to use their spiritual gifts to serve God and love the members.

We are a small church with limited funds, but it really does not take much to reach out to a largely unreached group with the love of Jesus. I would encourage every church to find out how they can bless and be blessed by loving the ones society so often marginalizes. After all, Jesus calls us in Luke 14:21 to “[g]o out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.”

After many years of struggling to find where I “fit in,” I believe through my diagnosis and disability, God has shown me where it is I can best serve him. I believe that is through disability ministry.

Jim McCaffrey is pastor of Gunpowder Baptist Church in Freeland, Md. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

It matters that we cast our ballot, whether by absentee, mail-in or in-person balloting, early or on Nov. 3. If we want better government, we can measure our voting by the standards of the Constitution.

The Constitution establishes “citizens” as our only eligible “electorate” entitled to vote in our democracy. No government agency, incumbent, candidate, politician, party, secret clan or foreign accomplice is authorized to “deny or abridge” our citizens’ right to vote.

I love this country, not yet a “perfect union,” and I’m blessed to live here. Since my commitment to Christ as a youth, my mother and Baptist congregations taught me that being a Christian includes responsible citizenship. By the time I started voting at age 21 and pastoring churches, my preaching included regular application of citizenship voting as a practice of Christian faith. I am now 87.

I want to live and serve, making contributions toward the common good and the Christian faith. Applying the biblical principles of my faith to responsible voting is a commitment to this troubled generation.

How does voting contribute to the grand vision stated in our Constitution: “to form a more perfect union?” And what is our part as citizens and believers in Jesus? At least five constitutional standards have increased my sense of hope and direction.

A transcript of the Constitution can be found here.

Five constitutional standards

1. The preamble establishes a living purpose for the Constitution.

The preamble is high ground from which we measure the performance of the citizenry and the nation’s elected officials. “We the People” envisions citizens as the principal constituency of this nation: its founding authority, empowering electorate and intended recipients.

2. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Articles I through VII establish the foundation, principles, structure, power, functions, and checks and balances of our representative democracy. The right to vote that is a critical part of our democracy is not determined by elected officials, a majority party, the judicial system or a threat of an uprising. A stable government follows the Constitution, supports the voting of the whole, substantial base, and every vote gets properly counted.

3. Officials are bound to the Constitution by a solemn oath of office.

Every office established by the Constitution is bound by oath to support the Constitution. The president’s oath of office is stated in Article II. Article VI makes reference to the oath others take. This solemn oath retains value when officials practice the five basic essentials of integrity, discipline, performance, accountability and consequences.

A similar oath now is taken by all federal employees other than the president, members of the military and naturalized citizens. The same oath is sworn by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and can be found here.

The oath usually closes with, “So help me God.” Every Christian who takes the oath has the opportunity to fulfill it with a fresh commitment to the service of Christ.

4. Citizenship and rights are established by the Constitution.

Over time, this principle is making ours “a more perfect Union.” Initially seeming to use “persons,” “people” and “citizens” as synonymous terms, the Constitution’s definition of “citizen” was defined further with the Fourteenth Amendment. The significance of this amendment is clear from a simple reading of it.

The Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Furthermore: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges [freedoms] and Immunities [protections] of Citizens in the several States. … The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican [democratic] Form of Government, and shall protect each of them.”

5. The Constitution establishes citizens as the “electorate” in federal and state elections.

Four constitutional amendments—the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th—determine the voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be denied or abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay a poll tax, or age for those 18 and above. The Constitution, as originally ratified, did not establish any such rights.

Citizens of the United States are free to stand with the Constitution and to vote their conscience and convictions.

“May all who come behind us find us faithful.”

As citizens lining up to vote, we are family, friends, neighbors, even strangers. How we cast our vote is a vital expression of our freedom. That we vote is a lifetime contribution to our democracy and posterity.

Let others trust us. Citizens are not frauds; we do not need watchdogs to tend us; we know voting integrity really matters.

One by one and thousands by millions, let’s stand with our Constitution for democracy and freedom. Elections definitely have consequences—at the kitchen table, in finding crisis resolutions, in renewing national character, and in practicing our Christian faith.

“May all who come behind us find us faithful,” words taken from a song made famous by Steve Green, has become my motto in recent years.

As a grateful citizen of the United States and follower of Christ, “my all may be very little,” but I stand with the Constitution. May we all honor our constitutional right and, with Christian responsibility, vote for democracy for ourselves and our posterity.

Lloyd Elder, a Baptist minister for almost 70 years, served as a pastor of churches in Texas and Alaska and was the assistant executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, executive vice president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board (now LifeWay), professor at Belmont University, and a publisher. In retirement, he and his wife Sue live in Nashville, Tenn. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

Jonathan Price and I lifted weights together during our time at Hardin-Simmons University. I didn’t know him well, but I knew him well enough to know he was a good man and a kind soul. I knew him well enough to see the world is worse off without him, and I know the world well enough to see this tragedy isn’t as hard to understand as some make it.

While I appreciate our alma mater dedicating a chapel service and the following panel discussion to Jonathan Price, I wish HSU President Eric Bruntmyer made a more pointed statement in his op-ed by calling out racism.

Why is Jonathan Price dead prematurely? Racism.

His death follows an obvious pattern of police killings of unarmed Black people across the country that isn’t going away or abetting. The statistics don’t lie. Failing to name the problem and address it exacerbates it and leaves our Black friends and all friends of color in harm’s way.

Lives are on the line.

Shaun Lucas is the police officer charged with Jonathan’s murder. Perhaps the most controversial thing I’ll say isn’t that racism is a real and present danger, but that I doubt Lucas is any worse a person than I am.

He may be no more racist than you and me and all who are raised in America, inundated with the racist stereotypes we absorb from movies, TV, news and politicians.

Racism plays out in systems

American individualism and bootstrap mythology give us no adequate lens through which to see and understand the way racism plays out in systems—like American media, higher education, politics and the American police force.

Lucas is a racist in the sense that he is actively involved in a system that consistently produces racist outcomes by sending outrageous numbers of Black people and people of color to prison for crimes their white counterparts commit with more frequency.

Lucas is a racist in the sense that he is actively involved in a system that consistently produces racist outcomes by killing at least twice as many unarmed Black people as white people, according to the most conservative estimates.

Lucas is a racist in the same sense that almost all of us are racist, because we also participate in systems that consistently produce racist outcomes in regard to housing, lending, zoning, gerrymandering, redlining and education.

Jonathan Price is dead, because these systems always have and always will produce racist outcomes. As long as they exist in their present forms, they will continue to lead to the loss of livelihood and of life for Black, Indigenous and people of color.

Address racism in the system

Jonathan Price is a victim of these systems.

Blaming Shaun Lucas is warranted. He is charged with murder, but the problem is far larger than the actions of one police officer.

Whether Lucas is found guilty or not, he was fired from his station. He’ll never be an officer again, yet we can say with certainty it’s only a matter of time before another police killing of another unarmed Black person will be in the headlines.

The problem isn’t only the bad actions of individuals, but the results of the system.

The American police force will continue to produce these outcomes even without Lucas and many like him. Blaming only individuals is like taking Advil for a headache while pretending the brain tumor isn’t there.

There is a cancer in our country, and it is racism. It is killing our friends, and it must be cut out at its roots before it kills our nation.

Addressing racism calls us to think beyond rugged individualism and to work together to reform and/or dismantle the systems that produce racist outcomes.

It is not enough not to be a racist ourselves.

Racist systems produce racist outcomes even without maliciously racist individuals, and we are complicit in these outcomes when we fail to name them what they are: racist.

Jakob Topper is the senior pastor of NorthHaven Church in Norman, Okla. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

(RNS)—The conversation among many church leaders and pastors is how COVID-19 will change how we worship and gather as congregations. There’s another question looming for many houses of worship about the post-pandemic world: How will they keep the lights on?

According to a study by Barna Group, 65 percent of American churches have seen a decrease in contributions during the pandemic. A staggering 1 in 5 churches may be forced to close their doors in the next 18 months, the study said.

It’s a reckoning that has been anticipated for decades as church attendance has slowly waned and Americans have steadily decreased the proportion of their charity designated to churches.

Thirty years ago, about 50 percent of all charitable donations went to houses of worship. By the time the coronavirus struck, that number had shrunk to about 30 percent. Though giving to other sectors was up overall for the 2018-19 fiscal year, donations to religious institutions dropped by a whopping $3 billion.

Alternative sources of revenue

Mark DeYmaz, pastor of Mosaic Church in Arkansas, has been watching the trend for years. In his 2019 book The Coming Revolution in Church Economics, DeYmaz declared “tithes and offerings were no longer enough” to provide for the needs of most congregations. The pandemic, he told me recently, has only accelerated the inevitable.

The decline in giving is part of a bigger story of the American worker. It closely tracks the slow “hollowing out” of the nation’s middle class, the demographic on whose backs churches have been built and funded for generations. As wealth increasingly is concentrated among the rich, debt-stressed middle-class Americans no longer possess the means to shoulder the burden of supporting American Christianity’s sprawling infrastructure.

The pandemic, DeYmaz told me, “is serving as a long overdue and much needed wake-up call for the American church.” He predicts many churches have seven to 10 months either to “adapt or die.”

The only way to survive, he said, is to reduce their dependence on weekly donations and develop alternative sources of revenue that leverage the congregation’s property and personnel in new ways.

“Conventional wisdom says that if a church’s budget is not 100 percent supported by tithes and offerings, then that church is not sustainable,” DeYmaz said. “An increasing number of churches are finding they are unsustainable by that definition. The traditional model based on weekly donations will cease to work in our lifetimes.”

DeYmaz cautions too that, with an increasing number of Americans disaffiliating from religious organizations, many have come to see churches as financial freeloaders that contribute nothing to the tax rolls—or to a rapidly changing society. In a Democratic debate last October, former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke even suggested churches that oppose gay marriage should lose their tax exemptions.

“What government grants, it can detract,” DeYmaz says.

Churches with buildings, he suggests, can turn underutilized space into a gym or a co-working space or rent to medical or legal firms. Coffee shops that rival Starbucks are not uncommon features on some church campuses. Why not let them pay rent? Disused land might be developed into a mall or office complex. An empty or underutilized parsonage could be converted into a rental property.

DeYmaz practicing what he preaches

DeYmaz has put his congregation where his mouth is. In 2016, Mosaic moved into a 100,000-square-foot former Kmart on roughly 10 acres, taking on a mortgage payment of nearly $16,000 a month. Where shoppers once perused aisles, worshippers from more than 25 nations converge to create what Mosaic’s website claims is the region’s most ethnically diverse church.

But Monday through Saturday, when only a portion of the building is needed for ministry programs, the church leases a large portion of the building to a fitness club whose rent alone covers nearly half of the church’s mortgage. The old loading dock is rented by a small appliance store for $1,000 a month; a small nonprofit pays another $400 monthly for office space. Twice a year, a carnival occupies the parking lot, bringing in approximately $16,000 annually.

The church’s main auditorium and classrooms, dually branded as the Rock City Events & Conference Center, often are rented for community events. A wellness and nutrition business, a carpenter’s shop, the University of Central Arkansas’ summer reading program and a security company owned by a former mixed martial arts fighter have all taken space at the church. Today, about 30 percent of Mosaic’s $1.2 million annual budget is funded by other than tithes and worship-hour offerings.

As lucrative as these ventures are, they might expose the church to the risk of losing its real estate tax exemption. To protect the church, Mosaic’s leases require businesses to pay taxes on their space.

Entrepreneurial structuring

Such a bustling business may sound overwhelming to a pastor who knows more about Communion wafers than commerce, but DeYmaz recommends churches hire business managers to lead their for-profit ventures.

Besides, congregations can start small. When Mosaic realized offering free coffee to worshippers was costing it about $3,000 per year, the church didn’t simply place a donation basket beside the coffeepot; it began to sell warm sausage biscuits and “Pastor Mark’s Famous Waffles” to parishioners on Sundays. The on-site barista sales of specialty lattes and other items more than cover the still-free regular coffee.

Mosaic also founded an umbrella nonprofit under which a dozen of its ministries and programs now operate, including Little Rock’s largest food distribution center. The nonprofit offered free groceries to 20,000 people in need last year alone, some via a retired bus that delivers fresh food to the city’s food deserts. An immigration counseling center has helped more than 8,000 undocumented immigrants maintain residency and apply for citizenship.

Importantly, the nonprofit is eligible for financial grants the church would not be, and the nonprofit can solicit donations from individuals who don’t normally give to religious organizations. In other words, his model not only helps the church survive but enables it to expand its capacity for outreach.

DeYmaz’s entrepreneurial approach may be attractive from a purely financial standpoint, but financial incentives could alter the church’s sacred mission. It’s possible that business-minded managers might tilt their portions of the church business away from helping people, preferring to maximize profit.

Opposition to business model

Scot McKnight, Julius R. Mantey Chair of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Illinois and author of A Fellowship of Differents, said he is “vehemently opposed” to running churches like secular businesses. He points to the story in which Jesus grew enraged at merchants selling items in courts of the Jerusalem temple, flipping over their tables, as a specific warning against such thinking.

“The church is called to a holistic nurture of the people of God and to generosity to those whom the church can serve, not to make money for itself,” McKnight said, adding this is just “one more step toward the commodification of the church, the gospel and of Jesus.”

One certainly can find less controversial precedent for what DeYmaz is proposing. For centuries, monastic communities around the world have manufactured and sold products from beer to pottery to jars of jam.

Yet others, however, may hear echoes in DeYmaz’s plan of the kinds of commercial endeavors that helped spark the Protestant Reformation, such as the sale of indulgences to pay down church debts or efforts to secure ecclesial revenue from the British crown.

DeYmaz acknowledged his proposed revolution could carry unforeseen dangers. But well-meaning churches shouldn’t avoid doing something well just because a corrupt congregation down the street does it poorly. For this reason, he encourages church leaders following his advice to seek professional counsel and establish accountability measures from the beginning.

And for the record, DeYmaz said the gospel never prohibited the church from conducting business. He interprets Jesus’ expulsion of the moneylenders as “protesting greedy profiteering and economic injustice rather than the making of fair or reasonable profit.”

Reducing expenses rather than increasing income

There’s another, bigger doubt about DeYmaz’s model: namely, that churches as they exist today, with full-time paid employees and expensive permanent buildings, are worth sustaining.

The majority of church budgets today are allocated to salaries—upward of 50 percent. Buildings are usually the next highest expenditure. Commonly, less than 10 percent of a church’s budget funds ministry programs. Perhaps the revolution will replace the current model, centered on propping up the institution, with a new structure that prioritizes ministry, community development and social justice.

In Philadelphia, Christian activist Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical, helped found a residential religious community called The Simple Way. Claiborne’s group isn’t a church, but rather a community of worshipping Christians living alongside each other and working together to help meet the neighborhood’s needs.

His experience has led him to conclude churches should rethink their entire financial model, perhaps even taking cues from the success of Alcoholics Anonymous, which owns no property and has no professional, paid employees on principle.

“Many of the pastors in my neighborhood are bivocational and have other jobs that help with expenses, just as Jesus was a carpenter and Paul was a tentmaker,” says Claiborne. “Rather than asking how we can increase our income, sometimes we should be asking how we can decrease our expenses.”

Whether you sympathize more with Claiborne’s suggestion to lower expenses or DeYmaz’s proposal to increase revenue, the fact remains something must change if America’s flailing congregations hope to survive.

(THE CONVERSATION)—The year 2020 hasn’t been one to remember. In fact, for a lot of people, it has been an outright nightmare. The pandemic, along with political turmoil and social unrest, has brought anxiety, heartbreak, righteous anger and discord to many.

Amid such suffering, people need some joy.

As a scholar who has investigated the role of joy in day-to-day life, I believe joy is an incredibly powerful companion during suffering.

Speaking at funerals, teaching joy

This is more than academic work for me. In late 2016, less than a year after I was hired to be on a team researching joy at Yale University, three of my family members unexpectedly died within four weeks: my cousin’s husband Dustin at 30 by suicide, my sister’s son Mason at 22 of sudden cardiac arrest, and my dad David at 70 after years of opioid use.

While researching joy, I was speaking at funerals. At times, even reading about joy felt so absurd I almost vowed to be anything but joyful.

In 2020, many people can relate to this.

I want to be clear: Joy is not the same as happiness. Happiness tends to be the pleasurable feeling we get from having the sense life is going well.

Joy, on the other hand, has a mysterious capacity to be felt alongside sorrow and even—sometimes, most especially—in the midst of suffering. This is because joy is what we feel deep in our bones when we realize and feel connected to others—and to what is genuinely good, beautiful and meaningful—which is possible even in pain.

Whereas happiness is generally the effect of evaluating our circumstances and being satisfied with our lives, joy does not depend on good circumstances.

An illumination

A couple of days after my cousin’s husband died, a small group of family members and I were shopping for funeral items when the group decided to go to the place where Dustin had died by suicide. It was getting dark, and the sun had almost set.

As we were taking in the landscape, we suddenly noticed a star above the trees. Standing next to one another in a line, we looked across the sky, and one of us asked whether any other stars could be seen. There were none. We realized there was just this one exceedingly bright shining star in the sky.

Gazing at the star, we felt as if Dustin had met us there, that he’d allowed that single star to be seen in the sky so we would know he was all right. It was not the kind of relief we wanted for him. But for a few minutes, we allowed the tragedy of what had occurred in this very space just two days before to hang in the background, and we focused instead on the star. We were filled with a kind of transformative, quiet joy. And we all gave ourselves over to this moment.

As scholar Adam Potkay noted in his 2007 book The Story of Joy, “Joy is an illumination,” the ability to see beyond to something more.

Similarly, Nel Noddings, Stanford professor and author of the 2013 book Caring, describes joy as a feeling that “accompanies a realization of our relatedness.” What Noddings meant by relatedness was the special feeling we get from caring about other people or ideas.

Joy is also the feeling that can arise from sensing kinship with others, experiencing harmony between what we are doing and our values, or seeing the significance in an action, a place, a conversation or even an inanimate object.

When I teach about joy, I use an example from my family to explain this. When my sister looks at a Mason jar now—whether in someone’s hand filled with tea or bursting with flowers on a friend’s coffee table—it reminds her of her son Mason. It is not just an object she is seeing, but a relationship imbued with beauty, goodness and meaning. It gives her a feeling that can be described only as joy.

We cannot put joy on our to-do lists; it does not work that way. But there are ways we can prepare ourselves for joy. There are “gateways” to joy that help us to become more open to it.

Gratitude involves bringing to mind the good in the world, which makes rejoicing possible. The feeling that follows contemplating nature or art we find inspiring is often joy, as these are experiences that help people feel connected to something beyond themselves, whether to the natural world or to others’ feelings or experiences.

Since “hope,” as theologian Jürgen Moltmann has said, is “the anticipation of joy,” writing out our hopes helps us to expect joy.

Three types of joy

In my book, The Gravity of Joy, I identify multiple kinds of joy that can be expressed even in today’s troubled times.

Retrospective joy comes in vividly recalling a previous experience of unspeakable joy. For example, we can imagine in our minds an occasion when we helped someone else, or someone unexpectedly helped us, a time we felt deeply loved, or the moment we saw our child for the first time. We can close our eyes and meditate on the memory, even walk through the details with someone else or in a journal and, often, experience that joy again, sometimes even more acutely.

There is a kind of joy, too, that is redemptive, restorative—resurrection joy. It is the feeling that follows things that are broken getting repaired, things we thought were dead coming back to life. This kind of joy can be found in apologizing to someone we have hurt, or the feeling that follows recommitting ourselves to sobriety, a marriage or a dream we feel called to.

Futuristic joy comes from rejoicing that we will again glimpse meaning, beauty or goodness, and seemingly against all odds feel they are connected to our very life. This type of joy can be found, for example, through singing in a religious service, gathering at a protest demanding change or imagining a hope we have being realized.

In the midst of a year in which it is not difficult to stumble onto suffering, the good news is we also can stumble onto joy. There is no imprisoned mind, heartbreaking time or deafening silence joy cannot breakthrough.

Joy can always find you.

Angela Gorrell is assistant professor of practical theology at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. This article first appeared in The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content.

I appreciate Adam Greenway’s call for integrity, commitment and cooperation among Southern Baptists. His call for belief in inerrancy, not so much.

I am his sister in Baptist faith, but not Southern Baptist faith. I was part of the Southern Baptist Convention and was a student at the Southern Baptist seminary in Louisville, Ky., when the conservatives “surged” against it—and against me as a woman student in the Master of Divinity program.

I left the SBC when the “conservative resurgence” was complete, because I had seen conservatives use inerrancy as a club against faithful scholarship, generally, and against women answering God’s call to ministry, especially.

Inerrancy supplanted a traditional high view of Scripture in service of a denominational power grab that all but destroyed the extensive, varied and cooperative system of education generations of Southern Baptists worked hard and sacrificed to create and maintain.

The resurgence damaged the careers of my teachers, my colleagues, my friends. It has left a lasting scar on the SBC, whose reputation has been diminished ever since. More importantly, it hindered God’s work through the SBC, both within its member churches and in its outreach to the world.

Apart from the effects of the resurgence, though, what are the problems with the inerrancy doctrine itself?

Problems with inerrancy

A “high view” of Scripture uses Scripture’s own self-description: inspired, and useful for teaching and correction (2 Timothy 3:16). The original Baptist Faith and Message described it as authoritative in matters of faith and practice.

The Bible is not a science book, or a history book, or an ethics text, or a “biography” of Jesus of Nazareth. None of those genres of writing existed then. It is an inspired testament of faith in God—in the New Testament, faith in Jesus Christ the Lord. Christian Scripture bears witness to the Incarnate Word of God and does not claim its own perfection.

The 1980s version of “inerrancy” claimed perfect inspiration—God-breathed dictation—for the original manuscripts, which no one has seen in centuries and presumably no longer exist. It is meaningless for faith and practice today, when we cannot have any direct knowledge of those texts. All we have are less-than-perfect translations of less-than-perfect copies of copies of copies. The central tenet of inerrancy is an implicit lie, which renders the doctrine false.

The doctrine of inerrancy ignores the practical truth that no translation is ever a perfect one-to-one correspondence with its original.

We are taught the biblical Greek word “agape” means love, but it doesn’t. It means “agape.” “Agape” is a word with its own history, connotations and shades of meaning that speakers of English never will understand fully. We translate it, with reasonable accuracy, to the word “love,” which also has history, connotations and shades of meaning.

In every language, readers bring their own experience to the concept, whatever word-equivalent is used; it has as many histories as there are grains of sand by the sea. God understands and speaks through each one of those words to those who are willing to hear.

Inerrancy further ignores how context matters for the way we understand words, events and stories. We cannot fully grasp Scripture’s original meaning, because we do not live in a first century world—and we should not try to.

We are called to live and be faithful here and now, with whatever light we are given. We must acknowledge human beings do not know everything there is to know about God’s message to us. Much less will human words ever express perfectly the mind of God.

Inerrancy and Baptist principles

Inerrancy violates the foundational Baptist principles of soul competency and freedom of conscience, turning the book into a rigid intermediary standing between God and the believer, rather than a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit speaks.

Every soul must be free to hear God’s voice without the constraint of a predetermined one-size-fits-all concept of what God is allowed to say. Sometimes God is speaking a new word. In our time God has been saying, “Daughter, I am calling you to preach and pastor.”

Each soul must be free to hear and respond as God speaks to each, even though all our responses always are imperfect. We all stand in, and in need of, grace.

Jesus asks obedience, not to every jot and title, but to the weightier matters of justice, mercy and faithfulness. God writes on our hearts, not on the pages of our books.

Rachel Tedards Keeney is a retired church secretary and a 1984 graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a Master of Divinity degree in Christian education. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

FORT WORTH (BP)—I believe in inerrancy. I also believe in integrity. One would think if one affirms the former to be true, then it would be obvious the latter also would be true—both in word and in deed.

After all, what we believe about a virtuous Christian life, including matters of personal integrity, is a necessary consequence of the conviction that God has spoken on these matters clearly and unambiguously through his inerrant written word.

Tragically, however, such too often is not the case.

There is a great deal of talk among Southern Baptists presently about our views concerning Scripture—including issues of authority, sufficiency and inerrancy. These conversations are important; indeed, as people of the Book, it is important for every generation of Southern Baptists to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the Bible as the word of God.

I believe these discussions are moments where we need to be able to speak to one another with a level of conviction and civility, but also a level of honesty about who we are and where we find ourselves.

“I am unashamedly … a biblical inerrantist”

I am unashamedly proud to call myself a biblical inerrantist. As an inheritor of the legacy of the movement of God among Southern Baptists known as the conservative resurgence, I believe in the inspiration, truthfulness, infallibility and indestructibility of the Bible as the written word of God, and do so without any hesitation or mental reservation.

As president of Southwestern Seminary, I lead an institution long marked by a commitment to inerrancy, beginning with our founder and first president, the great Baptist pastor and statesman Benajah Harvey Carroll. Our seminary’s legacy of holding unswervingly to a high view of Scripture continues today.

Under my leadership, every faculty member of Southern Baptists’ “crown jewel” seminary not only has signed the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) as their confession of faith, but also has affirmed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as a fuller explanation of what we mean when we say the Bible is true.

In the last six months, our publishing arm, Seminary Hill Press, has republished two seminal works about the Bible: a 40th anniversary edition of Baptists and the Bible by L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles—both professors at Southwestern Seminary when the book was first released in 1980—which arguably was the critical scholarly work substantiating the historicity of the inerrancy claims of the conservative resurgence; and The Doctrine of the Bible by David S. Dockery, an important book released during those years of debate, which also strongly affirmed and explained inerrancy.

Personal integrity equally important

As vital as the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is, so is the demonstration of personal integrity. It is not enough to affirm the Bible is true if one does not actually do what the Bible requires.

That is to say, claiming to believe in inerrancy does not have true meaning in mere affirmation; it must be backed up with a life of integrity lived out in humble submission and surrender to all the inerrant Scriptures call me to be and to do as a disciple of Jesus and minister of the gospel.

What is needed is not just our verbal allegiance to an inerrant Bible, but a vivid and visceral commitment to a life of integrity, lived out in keeping with the ethical and moral teachings of our Lord.

To that end, I challenge all of us to consider these questions:

• By our actions, is it evident that we love one another?
• Do we treat one another with Christian dignity and respect?
• Do we seek to believe the best about each other, rather than assume the worst?
• Do we truly work to find ways to come together, rather than to tear each other apart?

False and inaccurate claims about fellow Southern Baptists, sister churches or our Southern Baptist entities are made far too often by those who never have asked the brother, pastor or leader about the matter in question.

As Southwestern Seminary’s president, it almost is routine—tragically so—that untruthful claims about my leadership and our institution finding their way to my desk fall into that category.

We Southern Baptists must do and be better than this; after all, God’s inerrant word teaches us it simply is what Christ expects from all believers.

My vision for Southwestern and Southern Baptists

As the ninth president of Southwestern Seminary, I often have said my desire for this institution is to be Southern Baptists’ “big tent” seminary, committed to a high view of Scripture, confessional fidelity, the Great Commission and cooperation.

I believe these four pegs of the “big tent” simply represent a reanimation of B.H. Carroll’s original vision for this school. And I believe these commitments not only should characterize our seminary, but our entire Great Commission Baptist family.

In short, I believe inerrancy without integrity is meaningless. May the Lord bind these two things together in us, afresh and anew, in our daily lives.

Furthermore, may the Lord make each of us agents of reconciliation and grace with each other and to those outside our faith family.

Yes, inerrancy matters. But so does integrity. It truly is not “either/or,” but “both/and.”

I pray for all of us across the entire Southern Baptist Convention landscape, that a watching world will increasingly see a people of God who do not just say we “believe the Book,” but who truly live according to the Book.

Let any talk about our love for and our commitment to the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture be seen in the light of lives lived in authenticity and humility, empowered by the Spirit of God and dependent upon the Lord, as we go and make disciples, until Jesus comes again.

Adam Greenway is president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Amid our current politically charged environment, we increasingly are facing a battle over truth. Conspiracy theories are seducing believers. There is increasing mistrust among evangelicals of mainstream media. And social media platforms continue to take action to remove false and misleading posts from their sites.

Does truth matter?

Among this backdrop, it can be hard to know what to believe and what the facts are.

In the political arena where winning is often paramount, it can seem like the truth becomes irrelevant. We want to believe the worst about our political adversaries and want to believe the best about our candidates.

We are quick to discount unfavorable stories and news we don’t want to hear. Social media often gives us that power—the power to block sites or individuals with whom we disagree.

As Christians, though, we have a responsibility to something more. As Christians, we are called to “put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1).

Likewise: “Whatsoever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8).

Timothy was instructed to exhort the Macedonians “not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.” “The aim of our faith,” he argues, “is love that issues from a clear conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:4-5).

As image-bearers of Christ, we are called to bear witness to the truth, to reject lies and slander, and to act honorably toward others, even those with whom we disagree.

Recognize the agenda of others

As we seek to bear witness to the truth, we first must recognize there are those among us who would propagate falsehoods. It is not surprising to many of us that this especially is true in politics. It also is true in our faith.

Throughout his ministry, Jesus reminded us there would be false prophets among us, those who would seek to deceive and mislead intentionally: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

We are called to be vigilant and discerning about the truth, to not be deceived and not to deceive others.

Five simple practices

So, then how can we be wise and discerning? How can we know who and what to believe? Here are five simple practices that can help us be better truth-bearers:

1. Understand media biases and sources.—Yes, mainstream news sources are sometimes biased, yet they also hold to long held, deeply rooted journalistic standards. This is the difference between the Wall Street Journal, the National Enquirer or your everyday blogger. Know the difference between news, analysis, opinion and entertainment. Check out the Media Bias Chart for a detailed analysis of different news outlets, and identify those that are reliable sources.

2. Diversify your sources.—Explore how an article is reported differently from different sources. Just as we have a deeper perspective of Jesus through the telling of four different Gospel writers, looking at an article from different perspectives can help us get a more complete picture and a deeper understanding of the issue. All Sides.org is a valuable tool that shows headlines reported from left, center and right leaning outlets.

3. Avoid memes.—Memes can be fun and lighthearted ways to convey emotion, bring humor and create powerful visual imagery. They are not good vehicles for conveying facts or providing context and are ripe for false and misleading information. Truth can be disregarded easily as we wield stingers to score points for our “side.”

4. Respond, instead of react.—It often is wise not to react immediately, even when we are outraged at a headline or offended by a post. Instead of reacting rashly, it can be helpful to slow down and reflect. Sometimes even a quick moment to do some research will show a report to be false. If you can’t confirm something is true, don’t pass it along. Sometimes, that moment of reflection also will change our posture and allow us to respond more honorably.

5. Pray.—Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When you don’t know who to believe or what to believe, pray. God will reveal himself. He will grant us wisdom and discernment as we draw near to him.

What difference does it make?

The way we manage truth affects our witness to the world. If Christians are carriers of falsehood, it makes it much harder for us to have credibility when we talk about the gospel—the good news of Jesus Christ.

We are exhorted to be honorable, to put away deceit and falsehoods, and to reflect God’s goodness to the world: “So, put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. … Keep your conduct honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God” (1 Peter 2:1, 12).

Jesus revealed himself to be the source of all truth to his disciples: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6).

As we focus on him, we discern truth, we know truth, we walk in truth—truth that transcends political party or election season; truth that transforms our hearts, our politics and our social media.

Erin Payseur Oeth is profoundly interested in exploring faith and the public square. Her day job is helping college students develop civic literacy, skills and practice through community engagement at the University of Mississippi. She also serves as part of the Faith & Deliberation initiative with Baylor University and the Kettering Foundation and has co-authored faith-based issue guides including The Role of the Church in a Divided Society. Although a lifelong Baptist, she currently attends Oxford University United Methodist Church in Oxford, Miss., with her husband Steven. The views expressed are those solely of the author.

“She told me to follow her to the edge.
I said, ‘No, I am afraid.’
She told me again to come to the edge.
I said, ‘No, I am afraid I will fall.’
I came to the edge, and she pushed me,
and I flew.” (Anonymous)

Why do we Christians long for control, knowing it is only when we let go—abdicating all certainty and control—that we overcome our innermost fears?

Surrendering control—not drinking—terrifies us alcoholics. Based on my disease’s penchant for denial, stopping is the last thing I ever wanted to do.

Why is it so difficult for me to surrender, to let go? The irony is to “win” in life—to know sobriety—necessitates my letting go with unconditional surrender.

Anyone like me who is reading this and is battling alcoholism knows reaching out for help is what we should do. But we don’t. Surrender flies in the face of everything we have been taught since childhood and does not come easy to us.

My personal recovery teaches me my alcoholism is a chronic, progressive brain disease characterized by an impaired ability to control alcohol, despite the certainty of incurring adverse social, occupational or health consequences.

Letting go to survive

A helpful metaphor of “letting go” places me all alone, stranded in the middle of the ocean and on the verge of exhaustion. I am relentless in my continuing efforts to survive, frantically treading water, convinced no other alternative to drowning exists for me.

Surrender takes place at this very point of vulnerability. It is not until I realize that by surrendering and becoming perfectly still, floating on my back looking toward the sky, am I at peace, knowing I can and will survive.

I simply need to let go. The experience of surrendered release frequently surfaces in exhaustion—the moment I “give up” my efforts and permit myself simply to float and survive.

No matter how hard I denied it to myself, family, loved ones and friends, I knew in my heart I no longer was in control of my drinking. This knowing brings me closer to surrendering.

Often, alcoholics will resort to seeking help only when our addiction leads to hitting our “bottom,” allowing us to become ready and willing to let go, surrender and finally give up being sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Surrender was and is crucial

Surrender was and is crucial to me getting sober. The first step in every 12-step program is the admission of powerlessness and the need for absolute surrender to win the addiction battle. I must continue to seek help for what I cannot face or accomplish alone. In seeking help, I accept my own powerlessness.

Again, it is my denial that most often stops me in my tracks. My spiritual journey begins, though, in acceptance and admission, in acknowledging I am not in control. Peace and serenity are obtained only by relinquishing my ego-driven demand for control.

Taking ourselves too seriously often prohibits our ability to let go. The 17th century spiritual teacher Jean-Pierre Caussade described such self-destructive reasoning and an inability to let go as “pious pig-headedness.” Simply being able to lighten up about ourselves goes a long way toward our success in letting go.

I always believed I could control my drinking any time it became necessary. The simple truth is, I was living a lie and possessed a secret I dared not share with anyone. Deep down inside, I knew I was not able to control my drinking. My self-discipline and ability to control my alcohol intake essentially had evaporated.

Prayer and forgiveness

Prayer and forgiveness follow surrender.

Prayer is my response to the realization I am not in charge, not in control and not God. Often my prayers are a silent cry, a plea for help and guidance from God, who is greater than me.

To forgive our loved ones who are battling addiction involves letting go of the deep-seated feeling of resentment, the identification of oneself as victim. For me, forgiveness appears when I let go of the feeling of resentment by surrendering the vision of myself as victim.

Forgiveness means giving up claim to controlling the past and refusing to be controlled by it.

If you, a family member or a friend can relate to any of this and would like to talk, please call me. And if you do not reach out to me, reach out to someone.

There are countless resources available, including Rational Recovery, Celebrate Recovery, 12-step programs, clergy and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Association.

Lawrence (Laurie) Traynor is a former national drug and alcohol treatment executive with 28 years of sobriety who now volunteers to help Christian addicts and alcoholics and their loved ones locate public and private drug and alcohol assistance resources. He can be reached by phone at (904) 553-1600 and email at RugbyTrayn5858@gmail.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.