(RNS)—“When did the fruit of the Spirit become optional for Christians?”

A friend asked me this as we sat at a laminated table eating big salads in a little take-out restaurant facing a riverway. It was a recent gorgeous September afternoon, that rare kind of day that is neither too hot nor too cold, but just right.

A virtuous day, one might say, drawing on Aristotle’s definition of virtue as the moderation between extremes.

Virtue, however, isn’t just an abstraction of ancient Greek philosophers. Virtue is the fruit of the Spirit-filled Christian.

Virtue vs. vice

This concept of virtue is reflected in Paul’s letter to the Galatians where he contrasts the acts of flesh with the fruit of the Spirit. First, he warns the Christians not to walk in the flesh. He writes: “The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like” (Galatians 5:19-21).

That’s quite a list.

It’s hard to go a day without seeing Christians publicly pointing out the prevalence of certain kinds of sexual immorality and debauchery, whether in the classroom, school bathrooms or the halls of Congress and state capitols. But when was the last time you saw a viral story about hatred, selfish ambition or jealousy in the church?

I suspect Paul would like to have a word. He does, actually.

“I warn you,” Paul continues, “as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

This passage should stop every serious Christian cold. Paul’s “this” covers an awful lot of sins.

However, Paul then goes on to paint a dramatically different picture—full of light and life—that contrasts dramatically with the previous one.

“But the fruit of the Spirit,” he writes, “is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-25).

Thinking about the fruit of the Spirit

I’ve thought a lot about the fruit of the Spirit lately.

Actually, it’s been foremost in my mind since 2015 when I made my pinned post on Twitter—now X—a summary of this passage. I did so because that is when I began to be subjected to vicious attacks from far-right bloggers claiming to be Christians.

Before that, I honestly never knew people who claimed to be Christians would treat one another that way. I think many of us have experienced similar shocks.

I also have thought about the fruit of the Spirit a lot since then, because it hasn’t always been easy to avoid walking in the flesh in response, not only to such attacks, but also to so much that has been happening over the past few years to the church, to the culture, to our nation and to our social discourse. It’s disorienting. It’s disappointing. It’s infuriating. It’s hard.

I’ve thought about the fruit of the Spirit more recently, because I had the joy of digging more deeply into the book of Galatians this year by reading Eugene Peterson’s classic commentary on it—Traveling Light—and writing a foreword to a new edition of the book.

Peterson’s commentary points to how this entire letter by Paul is centered on freedom in Christ. The ultimate fruit of union in Christ is freedom, Paul writes elsewhere in a letter to the Corinthians: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

The fruit metaphor Paul uses is so powerful and apt, Peterson explains, because the process of bearing fruit—natural or spiritual, literal or metaphorical—is long, complex and organic. It’s a process that requires care, attention and intention. And the supernatural fruit of the Spirit requires the work of God and his grace. He makes it possible. But we choose to allow it or not.

Thus, my friend’s very simple but pointed question.

When did the Spirit’s work become optional?

When indeed did the work of the Holy Spirit—which all trinitarian Christians understand to be God himself and Christ himself—become optional? It didn’t, of course.

A while back, I saw a post that said, “‘The way of Jesus’ is code for progressive ‘Christian.’”

I clicked on the account, sure it would be a hilarious parody account. It was not.

Jesus said, “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:16).

Then, just a few verses later in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus offers a chilling warning: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21.).

What is the will of God? Well, the Hebrew Bible sums it up nicely in Micah:

“And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

Paul’s description of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians is a kind of gloss on this passage. Justice, mercy and humility are Christian virtues. To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God both requires and reaps the fruit of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Notice, too, it’s not fruits, plural. It’s fruit, singular. When we are filled with the Spirit, we bear all the fruit, not just some. There is no tree that can bear so many varieties except one: the tree of life.

As I have been tested and tried—and have failed more than I wish to admit—in my very public—and private—Christian life over the past few years, months and even days, the only answer I know is to ask the Lord to fill me, and fill me again, with his Spirit.

It’s not optional.

Karen Swallow Prior was research professor of English and Christianity and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and is the author of several books. The views expressed are those of the author.

(RNS)—It seems as if every time we turn around there’s a new worry about artificial intelligence. AI is going to take over the nuclear launch codes and kill us all. Or was it just going to shut down the electrical grid? Maybe just the internet?

Wait, wasn’t it going to enslave us and use us as sources of energy? Or just replace all the creatives who provide us all of our music and movies? Isn’t that what the Hollywood strike was all about?

Some of these worries are legitimate. Some are fairy tales that already have been explored in dozens of popular movies over the last couple generations. (Paging HAL.)

While we’re obsessed with its dystopic downsides, we fail to account for the good things AI may do for us in the coming years, from cancer screenings to road design. AI is going to change countless lives for the better.

But there is a foundational threat posed by AI we all seem to be ignoring, one very much related to theology and an enchanted view of what academics sometimes call moral anthropology. AI has the capacity to undermine our understanding of the human person.

Let me explain by way of example.

AI’s growing capabilities

This past week, OpenAI announced its algorithmic language model and imaging platform “can now see, hear, and speak.” For instance, show AI an image of a bike and ask it how to lower the seat: Open AI’s platform can analyze the image, determine what kind of bike is in the image, search its databases and spit back the likely answer—in text or voice audio.

AI is not, of course, really thinking. “It” is a series of algorithms and neural networks with access to a very large database made by human beings. As one professor at the University of Michigan who studies machine learning put it, “Stop using anthropomorphic language to describe models.”

There’s that Greek word “anthropos”—human—again. The professor is worried when we use language that assumes the form or structures of the human, we are corrupting implicitly the way we think about AI. We are fooling ourselves into thinking a language model or image platform could be, well, like us.

Our changing concept of humanity

But the worry goes deeper than that, in the opposite direction. While some may be inclined to move closer to the view AI is like us, the broader culture actually is primed to move closer to the view we are like AI.

Indeed, many students in my classes in recent years have said something like: “Well, aren’t we just essentially organic machines? What is substantially different about the way we analyze a photo, engage a database and spit back an answer to a question?”

The underlying problem here is our culture’s advanced state of what the philosopher Charles Taylor called “disenchantment,” especially when it comes to our understanding of ourselves.

In the secular age of the post-Christian West, our cultural subjectivity no longer has a way to make sense of supernatural concepts—such as being made in the image and likeness of God—of the soul, grace, a will that is transcendent and free, or (in some extreme cases) even consciousness.

We do have a way of making sense of machines, computers, algorithms, neural nets—basically all forms of matter in motion.

The last few centuries and especially the last few decades have been preparing us to imagine ourselves as very similar to AI. Our ability to see, hear, speak and other actions of beings—which no longer are considered supernatural—are therefore comparable to the actions of other kinds of neural nets.

Remembering ourselves

If we explained AI to a medieval person, there is zero chance they would confuse it with creatures like us. Their cultural idea of how humans are formed simply wouldn’t allow them to make that mistake.

I, too, fundamentally dissent from our 21st-century reductionist view of the human person. Instead, I choose to go with the wisdom of Jedi Master Yoda, who taught Luke Skywalker in “The Empire Strikes Back” we are not mere “crude matter,” but are, rather, “luminous beings.” We are ensouled creatures whose form reflects the image and likeness of God.

Let us similarly respond to AI with prudence and care, neither rejecting the life-changingly good things that will come with it nor uncritically accepting every dangerous or destructive application. But, above all, let us resist the idea AI is like us or—even worse—that we are like AI. Neither could be further from the truth.

Charlie C. Camosy is a professor of medical humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine and holds the Monsignor Curran Fellowship in Moral Theology at St. Joseph Seminary in New York. The views expressed are those of the author.

Un bebé sobrevivió al viaje hasta el otro lado del río. Este bebé se criaría entre muchos que lo aceptaban, siempre y cuando no mencionara cómo había llegado hasta aquí. Se crio entre quienes hacían trabajar incansablemente a sus padres y acaparaban sus privilegios y libertades.

No es de Moisés de quien escribo, sino de mi cuñado Gama. Entró en este país a través del Río Grande con sólo 9 meses de edad. Lo trajeron a Estados Unidos sus padres, personas respetuosas de la ley y temerosas de Dios que decidieron arriesgar sus vidas para que creciera en un lugar mucho más seguro y prometedor.

Estados Unidos es el único hogar que Gama ha conocido. Aquí creció, se educó y conoció a su esposa, mi hermana.

Gama es una de las mayores bendiciones de nuestra familia. Trabaja para una organización sin ánimo de lucro que acoge y cuida a niños. El papel que más me gusta de Gama es el de padre de mis dos sobrinas. Es un padre fiel, implicado y cariñoso.

Como Gama entró por el río sin autorización, no había ninguna vía o “línea” para que se convirtiera en residente estadounidense, y mucho menos en ciudadano estadounidense. Aunque se crió y educó en Estados Unidos, no estaba autorizado a trabajar. Era un “Soñador”.

“Soñador” es una referencia común a la Ley DREAM aún no aprobada por el Congreso.

Durante décadas, todo intento de aprobar leyes en el Congreso para proteger a jóvenes como Gama fracasaron continuamente. En 2012, el presidente Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva-Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia, o DACA.

Gama, un joven “Dreamer”, cumplía los requisitos para acogerse a DACA. Con DACA, ahora podía pagar y terminar la universidad.

Cuando Gama y mi hermana se casaron, nuestra familia asumió que ahora él tenía un camino hacia la ciudadanía. Nos equivocamos.

Según la Ley de Reforma de la Inmigración Ilegal y Responsabilidad de los Inmigrantes de 1996, como Gama entró en el país sin inspección siendo un bebé, tendría que volver al país en el que nació para solicitar un visado de inmigrante antes de que su esposa pudiera pedir su tarjeta verde (green card).

Pero Gama se enfrentaría entonces a una ley de 1996 que prohíbe el reingreso durante 10 años a cualquier persona que pase más de seis meses sin estatus legal en Estados Unidos, que era el caso de Gama cuando era niño, antes de DACA.

Esta ley no es ampliamente conocida o entendida, pero a muchos “Dreamers” se les ha pedido que salten este obstáculo altamente injusto en su camino hacia la ciudadanía.

Gama tenía otra opción. Podía solicitar la libertad condicional.

Este “permiso” especial permitiría a alguien con estatus DACA salir del país por motivos laborales o humanitarios, y luego volver a entrar a través de un proceso autorizado para ser considerado elegible para la ciudadanía.

Desafortunadamente, Gama no calificó para ninguna de las restricciones en torno a la libertad condicional. Además, la administración Trump detuvo todas las formas de libertad condicional (paroles).

Decisiones difíciles

Las opciones de Gama eran: (A) permanecer en los Estados Unidos y continuar renovando su autorización DACA cada dos años por $495 y esperar que DACA siguiera siendo una opción legal, (B) calificar para el empleo o la libertad condicional humanitaria, o (C) ir a su país de origen y esperar el período de 10 años sin ninguna certeza de reunirse alguna vez con su esposa.

Así, durante cinco años de matrimonio, Gama eligió la opción A y se benefició de DACA.

Entonces, en 2021, el abuelo de Gama falleció. Como el gobierno de Biden reinstauró el sistema de libertad condicional, Gama ahora podía solicitar la libertad condicional humanitaria para asistir al funeral en su país de nacimiento.

El proceso de aprobación de la libertad condicional puede llevar meses, pero Gama tuvo el privilegio de recibirla en tan solo unos días. Aunque fue un momento difícil de pérdida para la familia, también fue un momento de esperanza.

Gama tenía ahora motivos creíbles para salir de Estados Unidos, volver a entrar correctamente y ajustar su estatus migratorio. Pero teníamos mucho miedo y preguntas, nada estaba garantizado.

Aunque se le había concedido la libertad condicional, su reingreso en Estados Unidos dependería de la discreción de un agente de la patrulla fronteriza o de seguridad nacional. Aún corría peligro de ser separado de su familia y del país al que llama hogar.

A su regreso al aeropuerto de Houston, nuestra familia esperó durante horas para saber si se le concedía autorización para volver a entrar. Esas horas parecieron una eternidad. Pero recibimos la llamada tan esperada. Le habían autorizado a volver a casa.

El padre de mi sobrina pequeña volvía a casa. No hay palabras para describir las lágrimas, los gritos de alegría y las alabanzas que experimentó nuestra familia.

Convertirse en residente

Por fin podía comenzar el viaje para convertirse en residente estadounidense. Pero el siguiente paso requería una financiación y un tiempo considerables. Tardaron meses en ahorrar los miles de dólares para el proceso de inmigración y el abogado, y luego simplemente tuvieron que esperar la tarjeta verde.

Pasó un año, la tarjeta verde no había llegado, y el DACA de Gama estaba a punto de expirar. No podían arriesgarse a que perdiera su trabajo si de repente se quedaba sin autorización laboral. Así que Gama tuvo que gastar más dinero para renovar su DACA.

Mientras esperaba la tarjeta verde, mi hermana quedó embarazada de su segunda hija. Fue un embarazo de alto riesgo. Vivían de cheque en cheque mientras todos sus ahorros se iban en ambos procesos de inmigración.

Mi sobrina nació prematura y permaneció en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos durante semanas. Su estrés fue en aumento por la dificultad de conseguir una guardería para poder seguir trabajando. Mientras tanto, las facturas médicas se acumulaban.

Mi hermana, ciudadana estadounidense, sólo trabajaba a tiempo parcial. Como Gama no era residente ni ciudadano estadounidense y tenía un proceso de inmigración pendiente, no podían pedir ayuda al gobierno para cuidar de mi hermana o del bebé. Hacerlo podría significar que no cumpliría los requisitos para convertirse en residente.

En agosto de 2023, la familia de mi hermana recibió el correo más liberador que jamás hubieran podido recibir: la tarjeta verde de Gama. Por fin, Gama podía llamar a Estados Unidos su hogar.

Proteger a los ‘soñadores’

Por desgracia, no todos los “Dreamers” tienen las mismas vías -o ninguna- para convertirse finalmente en ciudadanos estadounidenses. Durante más de 20 años, la acción legislativa en el Congreso ha fracasado.

El 13 de septiembre de 2023, el juez de distrito Andrew S. Hanen de Texas dictaminó que la resolución de la administración Biden que codificaba DACA “no es legal, lo que acerca a DACA un paso más a su posible final”.

Se calcula que unos 600.000 “Dreamers” corren el riesgo de perder la protección de DACA. Si bien no todos los beneficiarios de DACA son de herencia latina, la mayoría lo son, y la mejor manera de honrar y celebrar el Mes de la Herencia Hispana es abogando para que el Congreso apruebe una legislación que proteja a los “Soñadores” y a aquellos que no se benefician de DACA.

Un elemento que separa la historia de Gama de la del bebé Moisés es la figura de la hija del faraón. La hija del faraón se arriesgó al ver la humanidad y el potencial en un niño hebreo y abogó por él.

Como dijo Zach Lambert durante la reciente Conferencia de Compasión y Justicia de Fellowship Southwest, “[Necesitamos] ser como la hija del Faraón que, aunque fue educada para ser xenófoba y privilegiada en su identidad, salvó al niño hebreo”.

Los “Dreamers”, compañeros de Gama, necesitan que todos nosotros nos despojemos de nuestra xenofobia y utilicemos nuestras voces y privilegios en su nombre.

Anyra Cano es directora de programas y alcance de Fellowship Southwest. Cameron Vickrey, colaboró en este artículo y dirige las comunicaciones y el desarrollo de Fellowship Southwest. Las opiniones expresadas son de la autora.

Since 1609, Baptists have been vocal and persistent advocates for religious liberty. In 17th century England, it was not legal for any religious group to express their faith without permission from the official church.

Baptists could not worship freely, attend a university, hold public office, officiate weddings or observe the Lord’s Supper as they chose. Baptists could not refuse to have their infants baptized. Those who resisted the government found themselves beaten, harassed and jailed.

Religious persecution of Baptists

Thomas Helwys, the founder of the first Baptist church on English soil, wrote a treatise demanding religious liberty in 1612, the first pamphlet devoted to the topic of religious freedom written in English.

Helwys sent his views to King James I with a personal letter attached. He insisted it should not matter to the government if a person was Jewish, Muslim or a heretic. No earthly power should punish people for their religious beliefs. He also added the king was a man and not God.

It did not end well for Helwys. He was tossed into Newgate Prison in London, where he languished until his death.

Baptists in Colonial America found no more freedom in the New World than in the Old. Once again, Baptists were beaten, harassed, fined and jailed.

Their marriages were not valid unless performed by a minister of the government-supported church. Invalid marriages meant children were illegitimate. Illegitimate children could not inherit property and were left impoverished when parents died.

Baptists could not attend college at Harvard or Yale, leaving young Baptists with no educational opportunities and Baptist congregations without trained leaders.

Government officials in Boston tossed a prominent citizen named Thomas Goold into jail over and over again for refusing to have his infant daughter baptized. He stubbornly refused to conform.

Baptist minister John Clarke wrote to an audience in England in 1652 explaining the news was very bad in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Clarke and his friend Obadiah Holmes had been arrested for visiting a church member on Sunday. The men were found guilty of “holding a private meeting on the Lord’s Day.”

Holmes refused to pay the fine imposed by the court. As a result, he was tied to a post and given 30 lashes with a three-corded whip (Clarke, Ill Newes from New England).

For these and other acts of resistance, Baptists earned a reputation for causing trouble.

Baptists defend religious liberty

Roger Williams

A Baptist missionary named Roger Williams railed against the “Bloody” practice of religious persecution in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Williams insisted the colonial government could not force people into religious belief.

He said religious laws could only create hypocrites, not disciples. He pointed to the religious wars that had ravaged Europe as evidence of the brutal policy of persecution. With the conviction of an Old Testament prophet, Williams claimed God would avenge the blood of those persecuted for the “cause of conscience.”

Williams believed every human being is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27) and therefore deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. Christ himself did not force his followers into the faith, although Jesus could have called 10,000 angels. Instead, Jesus respected the individual conscience.

An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (Emphasis added; Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for the Cause of Conscience).

Christ came to proclaim freedom to the captive, recovery of sight to the blind and to set the oppressed free (Luke 4:18). Christ did not come to impose a heavy burden of religious legalism, but to free people to receive the New Covenant written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

The only sword that should be wielded in soul matters, wrote Williams, is the sword of God’s spirit, the word of God. When Williams established Rhode Island, he enshrined the principle of separation of church and state into the colony’s charter and welcomed all religious traditions to settle in his free territory.

John Leland

In the next generation, Baptists followed the trail of religious liberty blazed by Roger Williams. In an act of civil disobedience, Isaac Backus led Baptists to ignore the religious taxes imposed by New England authorities. John Leland, a revival preacher in Virginia, insisted:

“Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics.

“Let every man speak freely without fear—maintain the principles that he believes—worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions.

“Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it.

“When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government” (Emphasis added; John Leland, Right of Conscience Inalienable).

Leland, like Williams and Helwys before him, understood a threat to anyone’s religious freedom is a threat to everyone’s religious freedom.

Establishing religious liberty

By the time of the American Revolution, nine of the 13 colonies had government supported churches that routinely persecuted dissenters like the Baptists. In Virginia, 50 percent of Baptist pastors had been imprisoned for the crime of preaching the gospel without a government license.

Baptists protested loudly and worked with other minority groups to demand religious liberty. Their petitions and pleas fell on deaf ears until they gained the support of a powerful ally named Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson worked with the Baptists to make religious liberty the rule of law in Virginia. Although Jefferson disagreed with the Baptists on nearly every point of faith, he fought for their right to practice their faith freely—demonstrating a democratic principle that people of opposing opinion can work together for common purpose.

Baptists also negotiated with James Madison, promising him political support in exchange for a Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution that would guarantee religious liberty.

Jefferson and Madison kept their promises to the Baptists. The result was the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

After he was elected president, leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter congratulating Jefferson and thanking him for his work on behalf of religious freedom. Jefferson wrote the Baptists a letter in response:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” (Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”).

Religious and secular historians alike have given Baptists the credit for being the loudest and most persistent advocates for religious liberty—not just for themselves, but for all people.

Ongoing Baptist advocacy

Baptist advocacy for religious liberty continues today with organizations like the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., and the Baptist World Alliance.

The Baptist Joint Committee traces its history to 1936, when it was founded by Southern Baptists as a watchdog for religious liberty. While predominantly Baptist, the BJC now welcomes others who share the historic Baptist commitment to religious liberty.

As the BJC website notes: “We are attorneys, Capitol Hill insiders, ministers and scholars who work in the courts, with Congress and in the community to defend the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for every person, including those who don’t claim a faith tradition.”

Established in 1905, the Baptist World Alliance’s devotion to religious liberty has not wavered. “Defending Religious Freedom, Human Rights, and Justice” remains one of the five key areas of ministry to this day.

In 2018, Elijah Brown—a 2002 graduate of University of Mary Hardin-Baylor—was elected general secretary of the BWA. The BWA represents an estimated 51 million people—about twice the population of Texas—with 246 member bodies in 128 countries and territories.

Under the auspices of the BWA, Brown and other global Baptist leaders continue the fight for religious liberty so the gospel may be proclaimed and received freely.

New challenges to religious liberty

Baptists have celebrated this devotion to religious liberty for more than 400 years. Today, some have forgotten or abandoned this story. The suffering of Baptists and other religious minorities at the hands of Christian governments in England and Colonial America has faded from memory.

Some Christians have been seduced by an idea the church needs the power of the state to carry out its work, as if the kingdom of God cannot stand without the support of the government. Nothing good comes from a wedding of church and state.

It is dangerous to ignore our “Bloody” legacy of persecution. We all should heed the words I once heard James Dunn, a colorful Texas Baptist, say when he warned that when the church gets tangled up with the state, it is like being hugged by a bear: “At first it is warm and fuzzy. Then it kills you.”

Carol Crawford Holcomb is a professor of church history and Baptist studies in University of Mary Hardin-Baylor’s College of Christian Studies. The views expressed are those of the author.

A new law takes effect this Friday, Sept. 1, that will allow any school board in the state of Texas to vote on whether its schools may employ or accept as a volunteer a chaplain to serve as an official school representative.

This new law leaves school boards and community members grappling with questions about its legal implications and the effect adopting or not adopting this policy may have on students.

Content of the new law

During this year’s legislative session, Texas lawmakers added a new chapter to the Texas Education Code that allows public schools to employ or accept as a volunteer a chaplain to provide “support, services, and programs for students” as determined by the school board or governing body for the school.

Senate Bill 763, now Chapter 23 of the Texas Education Code, states that any chaplain “employed or volunteering under this chapter is not required to be certified by the State Board for Educator Certification.”

The author of the House version of the bill, Rep. Cole Hefner, stated, “[S]chools may choose to do this or not, and they can put whatever rules and regulations in place that they see fit.”

Put another way, the new law is permissive, not mandatory.

This means each school district and charter school in Texas must decide in the next six months whether to adopt a policy authorizing employed or volunteer school chaplains under Chapter 23.

This is uniquely different from how schools currently utilize chaplains in various ways, like a sports team chaplain who volunteers to help lead Bible studies or prayers with student-athletes, or the local minister who may volunteer to lead an annual See You at the Pole rally.

This law allows a chaplain to serve in an official capacity at the school, thus having total access to students throughout the school, just like any teacher or administrator would have.

Arguments for the bill

First, lawmakers expressed concern in this session about the mental health crisis facing Texas, particularly mental health concerns for Texas students. Several legislators saw this law as a means to ensure students received proper support in districts struggling to staff their schools with counselors for students.

The rationale is many areas of Texas may have easier access to a pastor who could serve as a chaplain in the school, as opposed to finding a certified school counselor willing to live in a smaller rural community for a lower income than many of their bigger city counterparts.

Alternatively, some supporters of the law intend to use it as an attempt to allow Christian groups to evangelize in public schools. They look around culture, see a spiral of moral decay, and believe bringing in a Christian witness could help turn the moral tide of the next generation.

Concerns and considerations

While the Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission understands these observations, there are equally valid concerns regarding this new law.

Many opponents of the law rightly are uncomfortable with the lack of a definition for a “chaplain” and the lack of educational or training standards for chaplains allowed in schools.

According to the Texas Education Agency, “a school counselor guides each student in planning, monitoring, and managing their educational, career, personal, and social development.”

School counselors are more than mental health professionals. They often are key players in helping schools prepare and plan for school transitions, college admissions and other educational goals.

School counselors must have a master’s degree and two years of teaching experience and must pass a certified school counselor exam. For many, the difference in professional qualifications of a “school chaplain” and “school counselor” is alarming.

The concern is even more pronounced when considering several other fields employ chaplains while maintaining high standards of qualification and education.

Over the last 20 years, Texas Baptists’ Baptist Chaplaincy Relations ministry has endorsed more than 1,000 chaplains in the areas of military, correctional, lifestyle, public safety, healthcare, marketplace, crisis response and pastoral counseling. Texas Baptists is the fourth largest endorser of chaplains to the U.S. Armed Forces.

Standing on 20 years of experience and success, Texas Baptists keenly recognize the value of chaplains and the importance of properly training a chaplain before endorsing him or her to work with anyone, especially vulnerable segments of the population like our children.

There also have been significant concerns about respecting the First Amendment rights of Texas students. Without guardrails directing chaplains or protecting students in Texas public schools, there is a genuine risk some chaplains for the purposes of Chapter 23 may violate students’ rights, which could increase legal liability for school districts.

As such, Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission supported several amendments that, if passed, would have added or strengthened guardrails for child safety and protection. Ultimately, the law did not include these necessary protections.

When Chapter 23 takes effect

The new law states, “Each board of trustees of a school district and each governing body of an open-enrollment charter school shall take a record vote not later than six months after the effective date of this Act.”

Chapter 23 takes effect this Friday, Sept. 1, 2023. This means school boards and governing bodies of Texas public schools have until March 1, 2024, to decide whether to adopt a policy.

What school boards and governing bodies should do

Ultimately, each school board should analyze the needs of the district it serves, listen to the desires and concerns of parents and children in the district, and follow the advice of the board’s legal counsel.

With that understanding, the Christian Life Commission suggests several areas of consideration:

• Consider whether the schools in your district need additional help. Many school districts already have excellent, well-qualified school counselors to support students. A chaplain policy may not be beneficial for schools already meeting students’ needs.

• If the school board adopts a policy, include additional safeguards and protections that go beyond what is required by Chapter 23. Several amendments initially were included in versions of the bill that did not make the final version.

The Christian Life Commission and Texas Baptists’ Chaplaincy Relations would welcome the opportunity to consult with any school leadership regarding best practices for such a policy.

• Be careful not to discriminate when employing or accepting volunteer chaplains. Adopting a policy that favors chaplains of certain faiths or disadvantages chaplains of certain faiths may violate First Amendment religious protections and create legal liability for your district.

Similarly, make clear to chaplains that using their position for proselytizing may violate the First Amendment religious protections of students.

• Take the time to evaluate thoroughly. The new policy doesn’t need to be implemented right away. Use the time between now and March 1, 2024, to speak with qualified chaplains, your attorney and with your school counselors.

Listen to stakeholders in your community. Learn from what other districts are doing and pay attention to court cases, as there may be legal challenges regarding the new law.

What school advocates can do

One of the key purposes of the Christian Life Commission is to help equip Texas Baptists to apply their faith as advocates on public policy. The following suggestions may be helpful to anyone desiring to get involved on the issue:

• Pray for your local school board(s) as they carefully consider this issue.
• Write a letter to your local school board explaining your view on the matter.
• Attend a school board meeting either to speak on the matter or as moral support for someone who is speaking.
• Start a petition and gather signatures from other stakeholders in your community with similar views on the matter. This can be included with your letter and/or presented at a school board meeting.

Dr. Katie Frugé serves as the director of Texas Baptists’ Center for Cultural Engagement and the director of Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission. John Litzler serves as the director of Public Policy for the Christian Life Commission and general counsel for Texas Baptists.

Have you ever worked with someone or had someone on your church staff or among your lay leaders or workers who always seemed to do things their own way and sometimes on their own schedule?

Have you ever supervised someone—or been that someone—who had an unconventional way of doing things?

Have you noticed a difference between an unconventional person who ended up being an asset versus one who was a detriment?

Some time ago, I was visiting with a friend about church dynamics, leadership and the type of person who seems to think and work “outside the box.” During that conversation, I began to distinguish between mavericks and rogues.

The distinction I make is, while both are unconventional and want latitude to do things their own way, a maverick is potentially beneficial and truly wants the church to succeed, while a rogue simply is uncooperative and detrimental. It’s important to know the difference.

What is a maverick?

A maverick:

•  “colors outside the lines” and may even re-draw the lines.
•  may improvise and adopt unconventional methods.
•  may act spontaneously without securing approval.
•  may do what he or she believes will accomplish the church’s goals and further its mission with little regard for policies and procedures.
•  may substitute what he or she perceives to be a better and more helpful goal for an existing goal without prior approval.
•  may be perceived as a threat, a risk or even a rogue.

What is a rogue?

When I think of a rogue, I think of someone who may do one or more of the things listed above but with a different attitude and in a more dangerous way and extent.

A rogue may be reckless, negligent or intentionally malicious and destructive.

A rogue either does not care about the church’s goals and well-being or may harm it intentionally.

While a maverick may be corrected and brings potential benefit to the church and its work, a rogue tends to be less correctable and offers no benefit unless attitude and actions change.

What are some differences between mavericks and rogues?

A maverick is leadable and teachable, whereas a rogue is not. Since the maverick wants the church to succeed but is unconventional in approach and strategies, I believe a maverick will show some willingness—if approached correctly—to cooperate with leadership at key points.

A maverick will demonstrate a willingness to learn the situations and responsibilities in which there is latitude for creativity and those where there is not. However, I believe a maverick needs respectful explanation when his or her creativity must be reined in. Alternatively, a rogue will not cooperate with boundaries and instruction.

A maverick cares about organizational mission and success, while a rogue cares only about his or her agenda.

What might a maverick need from me as a leader?

Mavericks need clear communication and an appropriate and negotiated balance of freedom, supervision, support and respect for their novel ideas.

The maverick needs room for innovation and unconventional strategies when these will not pose a risk to organizational goals and responsibilities.

Additionally, the maverick needs clarity regarding firm and flexible expectations, as well as how and when innovation is acceptable and the way in which it is to be approached.

Finally, the maverick needs the opportunity to explain new approaches and demonstrate the potential effectiveness of innovative ideas and strategies.

What does the leader need from a maverick?

Just as a maverick needs certain things from a leader, a leader needs certain things from a maverick team member.

A leader needs a maverick to care about what already is done and how it is done in the church and understand the reasons behind current expectations, policies and procedures. There are reasons for the current way of doing things, and a leader needs a maverick to understand those reasons before getting creative. Sometimes, things really need to be done a certain way.

A leader needs a maverick to give a heads-up on unconventional plans and help the leader understand the rationale before carrying those out or when he or she wants to break with policy, procedure or expectations.

As a pastor, I am responsible for what my team members do, and it may also be mavericks have not thought through a potential complication their new approaches might set in motion. Discussing things beforehand provides the opportunity to troubleshoot the innovation up front.

A leader needs a maverick to understand the difference between things that do allow for creativity and breaking protocol versus things that do not. When issues of safety or legality come into play, creativity is not a good option.

A leader needs a maverick to understand the leader may need to rein in some things since, if the leader gives this individual the latitude they desire, the leader will have to give others that latitude, which may not be possible.

A leader needs to know how the maverick’s new way of doing things will further overall objectives and will align with and complement other efforts and components within the church.

A leader needs communication, cooperation and respect even as the leader works to grant latitude for creativity, spontaneity and unconventional methods.

A leader needs a maverick to demonstrate he or she is not a rogue.

Ron Danley is the pastor of First Baptist Church in Jefferson. This article is adapted from his blog. The views expressed are those of the author.

Every Sunday morning, Apple releases weekly screen time reports to their users’ devices. This is a recent feature as tech companies seek to adjust to the increasing demand and desire for boundaries around the use of technology.

If you’re like me, this notification usually goes off while I am in church, and I often wonder what it means for me to interact faithfully with my phone.

When the numbers are consolidated and I see I’ve given more than a fifth of my day to my screen, I am challenged knowing our time on Earth is precious and finite. Like the Psalmist, I ask God to teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom (Psalm 90:12).

Cons and pros of digital technology

The research is overwhelming: Our phones and devices are changing us. NeuLine Health Management reports social media has a vastly detrimental impact on the attention capacity and memory information processing of humans.

In a study conducted on cell phone addiction and psychological and physiological health of adolescents, the National Library of Medicine found “excessive use of smartphone paired with negative attitude and feeling of anxiety and dependency on gadgets may increase the risk of anxiety and depression” [sic].

We are not unaffected.

But is the research an overreaction? Phones allow us to call for help in cases of emergency, to navigate new cities and to work remotely.

With these same devices, people can watch edifying sermons or consume pornography. We can keep in touch with family or curse other humans in the comment section of a social media post.

The endless stream of news and content available to help us allows us to remain informed, yet also desensitizes us to horrors and tragedies. This should not be. The question becomes: How do we engage faithfully with digital technology to experience the benefits while resisting its potential pitfalls?

Three ways to relate to digital technology

The following list invites Christians to think critically about our relationship with technology and its impact on our discipleship with Jesus.

1. Divorce your discipleship and spiritual discipline from screens.

Don’t hate me. I’m not trying to kill your streak on your Bible app. Neither am I trying to keep you from the vast resources available to us online. I simply am arguing for us to take our Scripture reading, meditation prompts and other spiritual disciplines and practices offline.

Carry a physical Bible with you. Print off or write down your devotionals. Listen to the audio-only versions of sermons.

The reality is once we are on our devices, we are susceptible to the onslaught of notifications and distractions. We are tempted to multitask and can stray easily from our original intent of opening our devices. These temptations lure us away from Scripture, sermons and other spiritual practices. So, perhaps it would be beneficial to eliminate it altogether.

Our devices do bring benefits to our discipleship with Jesus, and technology is the cause of increasing accessibility for many around the world. More broadly, technology and screens function as an integral aspect for many within the disability community.

When technology serves as a tool, it can contribute toward human flourishing. I am not calling for a prohibition of technology, but to be honest about how its integration into our spiritual lives may be more harmful than helpful.

2. Consume screen time communally.

One of my New Year’s resolutions was to consume only long-form media with at least one other person.

I noticed my access to the unlimited amount of entertainment through streaming services made me feel like I needed to consume content as frequently as possible. As someone who studied cinema and television production, I appreciate the process and art of great storytelling and visually compelling products. However, were we created to consume entertainment endlessly?

Choosing to consume long-form media communally allows us to be more intentional about what we are consuming. You are now positioned to have conversations with those around you, connect with people in real life, and use the movie you just watched as a conversation starter. The media becomes a tool for connection with others instead of a tool for isolation, numbing or replacement.

Consuming long-form media in community highlighted the subtle ways I used media as an escape. When confronted with an insatiable desire to consume more when I am alone, this has been an invitation to invite God to search my heart and reveal my deepest need or the source of my restlessness.

Entertainment is good in its proper place. Consuming it communally allows us to keep it there.

3. Do a digital detox.

When Lent rolls around, we often hear of people deciding to “fast” from social media. The Christian tradition believes in the power of choosing to fast and forsake comfort for deeper connection and awareness of God. According to the Didache, the early church fasted from food every Wednesday.

Perhaps, as modern disciples, we should adopt a consistent rhythm of digital detoxing. This can look like daily limits on when you use your phone or a day when we are device-free. Like weekly or monthly rhythms of fasting or Sabbath, a digital detox rhythm reminds us of our physical existence and our need for God in the present.

Other resources

While these are preliminary considerations, many thoughtful Christian leaders have thought through what it looks like to integrate technology in our worlds faithfully. As you embark on this journey, my hope is you create the realistic boundaries that cause you to awaken further to the movement of God within you and around you.

Below is a list of resources to help spark your reconsideration of your relationship to digital technology:

• The Tech-Wise Family: Everyday Steps for Putting Technology in Its Proper Place by Andy Crouch.
• Device and Virtue Podcast.
• Faith for Exiles: 5 Ways for a New Generation to Follow Jesus in Digital Babylon by David Kinnaman, Mark Matlock and Aly Hawkins.
• Always On: Practicing Faith in a New Media Landscape by Angela Williams Gorrell.

Josepha Mbouma is a Master of Divinity student with a concentration in sports ministry and chaplaincy at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. Mbouma grew up in Maryland and is originally from Douala, Cameroon. The views expressed are those of the author.

The church as a whole is realigning in North America. Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians and other historic denominations are reorganizing into three distinct groups that can be designated Group A, Group B and Group C.

These three groups are forming around shared theological convictions and their approach to our current missiological context. As this reorganization happens, these three groups are beginning to work and interrelate with one another, some for the first time.

My experience in working with nearly 100 different regional or national denominational bodies over the last 13 years has shown me smaller, more theologically and missiologically cohesive associations of churches are more effective in their particular mission and the broader mission of the gospel.

Three new alignments

Group A is drawn to a more complementarian approach to male and female roles in leadership and to a historic or orthodox approach to human sexuality.

Group B is drawn to a more mutualist or egalitarian approach to male and female roles in leadership—or they see gender roles as a disputable matter—and to a historic or orthodox approach to human sexuality.

Group C is drawn to a more mutualist or egalitarian approach to female and male—and perhaps even nonbinary—roles and to a more progressive or contemporary approach to human sexuality. Some in Group C consider human sexuality a disputable matter while others consider it something fundamental.

While some suggest the reorganizing is more like a chess game in which multiple pieces are moving in multiple directions at the same time, my experience is friends in each of these groups are moving in a manner similar enough to be cohesive with one another on a range of issues.

Among those stemming from the historic SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is moving into a Group C position, and the SBC keeps doubling down on its Group A position. Centrist evangelical Baptists in both Texas and Virginia long have carried a more Group B disposition, and their number is growing throughout North America.

New possibilities for Baptists

As Baptists realign, what might an SBC-affiliated church do in this moment?

There are some—perhaps many—who will wait for the SBC to take some action against them. There are others looking to be more proactive and to find a missional and theological fit for their congregations and their cooperation in the gospel.

Whether a church waits or is proactive, there are good options for those Baptist churches who want to cooperate with like-minded churches. The following seven options—listed alphabetically—currently appear to be among the best fits.

1. Ascent Movement

Originating from discussion among Baptist leaders from Texas and Virginia, Ascent is a movement of like-minded churches centered on the mission of engaging the world—particularly North America—with the gospel, with a bent toward the post-Christian realities in which we find ourselves.

Ascent is not another denomination, but a new kind of “connectionalism,” nor is it exclusively Baptist. Ascent is “Baptist based but not Baptist bound.” In addition to Baptists, Ascent includes evangelical Methodist, Church of God, Mennonite, Anabaptist, Pentecostal and nondenominational church leaders. Ascent firmly supports women in leadership.

Ascent’s convictions are captured in the Cape Town Commitment of the 3rd Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. Ascent might be a place to look if you believe “denominations” are not the future, but something new—galvanized around mission, yet still maintaining some of the best qualities of our denominational heritage—is.

2. Converge Worldwide (formerly the Baptist General Conference)

One of the most effective denominational bodies today is the former Baptist General Conference.

This national denomination has grown through a fierce commitment to church planting and through a commitment to engage leaders of color at all levels of its leadership. Converge Worldwide also makes space for women in leadership at all levels.

They are a good fit for those looking for a smaller, well-organized and largely conservative Baptist family.

3. Ecclesia Network

Ecclesia is a free church network of congregations started around 2010 primarily as a network of church plants. Today, it has roughly 30 congregations scattered around the United States. These congregations range from house church networks to multi-site congregations of various sizes.

Ecclesia is fundamentally a relational network that stands in sympathy with the Cape Town Commitment and fully supports women in leadership. Almost every Ecclesia congregation has female pastors, leaders or elders.

4. The Evangelical Congregational Church

The Evangelical Congregational Church is a small denomination, largely present in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania through Illinois. They are historically Wesleyan/Arminian with a long-maintained congregational polity.

They tend to be more conservative culturally and might be a great fit for an SBC church unsettled with increasing Calvinistic influence in the SBC. They also make space for the licensing of female leaders as deacons.

5. The Evangelical Free Church of America

Though not Baptist, this free church denomination is theologically similar to the SBC. Like the SBC, they have become increasingly Calvinist in the last few years. However, they are largely without the influence of the political version of conservative Christianity among their leaders that seems present in the SBC.

While they do not recognize the ordination of women denominationally, they do stress local church autonomy on this matter. Within the Evangelical Free Church, you will find a few churches with women leading as elders, through preaching and in other roles.

6. The North American Baptist Conference

Emerging from its German heritage, the North American Baptist Conference is approximately 400 churches scattered across the United States and Canada, with larger concentrations in the western regions of the two countries and across their shared border.

While the NABC reserves the role of senior pastor for men, they support the role of women in other pastoral and ministry leadership positions within the church.

7. Transformation Ministries

Transformation Ministries is the new name of the Pacific Southwest Region that left the American Baptist Churches USA when that denomination wrestled with human sexuality in the 2000s.

Though largely based in Southern California and Arizona, they have grown across the country through church planting. They still have many of the features you might expect a historic denomination to have. They also support women in leadership.

Connectionalism’s new importance

While some bemoan the fracturing of the church over these important matters, I see a new kind of unity emerging.

Instead of being organized for mission together by categories largely important in centuries past, the church is being reorganized according to what it believes is faithful to the gospel now.

This new unity will mean greater cohesion and possibly greater effectiveness for all groups, provided they maintain a high Christology and a call to lead people toward discipleship to Jesus Christ.

Chris Backert is the national director of Fresh Expressions and recently was named Ascent’s movement leader. This article is adapted from a longer treatment of denominational reorganization and realignment available here. For more information about any of the groups listed above, email chris.backert@freshexpressions.com.

This article is 9 of 9 in the Leading from the Center series by three writers.

On Friday nights in the fall, I communicate from the center—the center of a high school football field. Sometimes both the decibels and the emotions are rather high. As a referee—the one with the white hat—clear and compelling communication with everyone involved, including those with competing interests, is as important as my grasp of the rules.

Whether it’s a high school football game, a school with various constituencies or a congregation that values disparate opinions, to hold the center is not easy.

David Brubaker can help us.

Brubaker is a dean at Eastern Mennonite University and a master mediator. I became a fan and student of Brubaker when I was preparing to help churches deal with conflict through the Center for Healthy Churches. His book When the Center Does Not Hold is a helpful resource as we talk about “clear and compelling communication of centrism.”

Brubaker teaches us to communicate with clarity, compassion, courage and connection—four “Cs” he attributes to John Maxwell. Let’s consider each of those, with an emphasis on holding the center of “big tent” congregations.

Clarity

In congregations that value diversity of opinion, it is important that the leader be clear—clear with himself or herself and clear with the church.

To be clear with oneself is to understand one’s values and to act consistent with those values. To be clear with oneself requires investing enough prayerful time and energy to know what he or she believes about matters that really matter. We simply cannot afford not to hold convictions on key topics.

The congregation deserves to know what their spiritual leaders believe. People tend to feel manipulated when their leaders are not forthcoming about their beliefs. I believe the people in the church I serve deserve to know my position on important topics—even the tough, divisive ones.

A lack of clarity is unhealthy even for the leader. Russell Moore observed in his latest book, Losing Our Religion, “[Y]ear after year of playing to whatever ‘the base’ wants or expects from the church of Jesus Christ does something not only to the institution … but also to the souls of those playing the game.”

Cognitive dissonance weighs heavy on the spiritual leader.

Brubaker quotes Brené Brown: “Daring leaders who live into their values are never silent about hard things.”

He also echoed the observation by Speed Leas that murkiness is as dangerous as authoritarianism.

Compassion

Brubaker notes: “Clarity compels us to speak with conviction. Compassion invites us to listen with concentration.”

Arrogance and indifference from the leader are lethal. After all, we are shepherds, not CEOs. It requires a loving heart and a thick skin to deal compassionately with people whose views differ radically from our own—especially if we often find ourselves in their crosshairs. But if Jesus is our model of leadership, we have to love people enough to hurt.

Courage

Because so many of us lead with our hearts, it requires a great deal of valor to risk having those hearts broken. We are tempted to be reticent regarding divisive issues. Nonetheless, people deserve clarity, honesty and the willingness to make tough calls from those who lead and serve them. Clarity, honesty and the willingness to make tough calls require grit.

The desire for approval, so common among us, makes leadership in conflict difficult. Yet, the willingness to endure criticism and disapproval is a brave choice good leaders make.

Connection

I admit my natural response to conflict is to withdraw emotionally from those who oppose my leadership. It’s easier emotionally to write people off—to dismiss them. But in my heart of hearts, I recognize how gutless and unhealthy that is. So, when I’m at my best, I engage them.

It is a hard choice, for example, to visit our detractors in the hospital, to write them notes of congratulations after significant events or to officiate the funerals of their parents. A commitment to remaining connected means the choice to care for people who really don’t like us.

Treating people with dignity does not require our admiration. It does require intentional connection, unless, as Brubaker notes, the relationship had become abusive.

Those are the four “Cs” I learned from Brubaker. I would add one word of my own: Infrequency. Too bad it doesn’t start with a ‘c.’

Infrequency

The Bible spends little time on the topics that dominate today’s culture wars. So should we.

Out of respect for the authority of the Bible, I believe we should speak as clearly and courageously as the Bible speaks about hot topics. But, out of that same respect for the authority of the Bible, we should hesitate to speak more frequently than Scripture does about those divisive subjects.

The spiritual lostness of humankind, the injustices experienced by the marginalized, the Great Commission and the Great Commandment—the Bible speaks often of such things. Our preaching should reflect the priorities of the Bible.

If we are going to be salt and light, we must tackle—from a biblical perspective—the issues being debated in our wider culture. Yet, hot topics should not define us. We should be known for timeless truths, of which grace is a principal.

When we spend a lot more time than the Bible does on particular issues, we begin to sound like we are driven by agendas rather than God’s Spirit. Some ministers seem to like a good fight, and that seems like more of a personality flaw than faithfulness to Scripture.

As I saw somewhere, “Anyone can steer the ship when the seas are calm.” These days of such polarization demand our clear and compelling communication. They require the courage of conviction and the choice of compassion. These days require the wisdom to know when to speak and when to remain silent.

So, buckle up, friend. Holding the Baptist center will require the best leadership we can offer.

Travis Collins is senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Huntsville, Ala. The views expressed are those of the author. This article is 9 of 9 in the Leading from the Center series by three writers.

This article is 8 of 9 in the Leading from the Center series by three writers.

When the North African theologian Tertullian (c. A.D. 155–220) posed the now famous question, “What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic?” in Prescriptions against Heretics 7, he intentionally was contrasting the “sacred” with the “secular” and divine revelation with philosophical speculation.

Paul, the apostle whom Tertullian loved, also could think in opposing pairs. He did so, for example, when he juxtaposed light and darkness, day and night, and waking and sleeping (see 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; compare 2 Corinthians 7:14).

Jesus, the Lord whom Paul loved, was equally apt in pitting, for example, truth against lies, night against darkness, and life against death (note John 8:44; 9:4-5; 11:25).

In concert with other ancient teachers, Jesus, Paul and Tertullian set believers (or insiders) over against unbelievers (or outsiders) in an effort to convey they were poles apart. A chasm, as it were, was fixed between the two (see Luke 16:26). In Sesame Street parlance: “One of these things is not like the other. Come on, can you tell which one?”

While such binary pairings, which also feature in the Old Testament (see, for instance, Deuteronomy 30:19; Psalm 1), are invaluable in shaping the identity and morality of believing communities, if used exclusively, an imbalance may develop, “a binary bias,” if you will.

Scripture, for example, instructs us not to be “squeezed into the world’s mold” (Romans 12:2), but it also calls us to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16) and “to do good to all people” (1 Thessalonians 5:15; Galatians 6:10).

‘Why can’t we be friends?’

The subject of the present essay is not how Christians might best relate to non-Christians. Rather, this article focuses upon how Christ-followers who have decidedly different views on various matters might relate and cooperate with one another constructively, on which the above paragraphs arguably cast some valuable light.

Not a few of us who self-identify as centrists have experienced (sometimes significant) disagreement with sisters and brothers both to our left and right. As it happens, fundamentalism is not the preserve of either extreme conservatism or liberalism. Indeed, it can be sobering to realize how wide the divide between the two poles actually is.

If, for example, the “right” can fashion the Bible into an idol by making it in principle—if not practice—an object of worship, thereby turning the Trinity into Father, Son and Holy Scripture, the “left” can diminish or even dismiss God’s word.

To take another example, if the “right” engages in “civil religion” by dangerously conflating God and country, reducing God to a totem and wrapping the LORD in a national symbol, the “left” embraces a form of civic life that tends to privatize religion, cordoning it off from the public square.

Additionally, if the “right” has adopted wholesale a contemporary iteration of the “moral majority,” the “left” has jettisoned time-honored commitments to Judeo-Christian values.

Controversy and conflict between Christ-followers on the left and the right can grow especially acute over political affiliations, preferred media outlets and “hot button” ethical issues, not to mention a myriad of biblical and theological issues, some of which are foundational to “traditional, orthodox” Christianity—for example, how one perceives God and understands and speaks of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

Meeting in the middle for the good of the gospel

In forming my own theological convictional world and in relating to believers across the theological spectrum, I have benefited from something referred to as the “Wesleyan quadrilateral.”

This valuable approach to Christian life and faith posits the primacy and centrality of Scripture in shaping belief and behavior, while simultaneously recognizing the importance of tradition, reason and experience.

When seeking to find common ground with other Christ-followers, I start with Scripture, which I regard to be authoritative for matters of faith and practice. Common ground also might be found with other believers through the orthodox Christian tradition. Reason—though limited and tainted—and experience—though contextual and personal— also may assist when seeking to find a place to stand together.

The latter three, however helpful they may be, ultimately are—in my view and according to the Wesleyan quadrilateral—subject to Scripture, under which we must stand and seek to understand, as it does not interpret itself.

In my admittedly limited experience and exposure, I often have found it possible and profitable to collaborate with those who, arguably, are to my theological right when evangelistic emphases and efforts are in view. The same has been true with large group gatherings, such as concerts, camps and conferences, and with times set aside for spiritual renewal, praise and prayer.

Meanwhile, I also have found it valuable and meaningful to join together with those who might be to my theological left to combat, for example, racism, poverty and ecological concerns and to support women in ministry, religious liberty and interreligious dialogue.

The previous two paragraphs are not necessarily meant to suggest the left has no interest in the former or the right in the latter. I simply am seeking to offer examples, upon which others might care to tweak or improve.

Not infrequently, “conservatives” and “progressives” can meet in the middle for common cause and gospel good. Centrist Christian educational institutions, denominations, organizations and congregations often are able to rise above polarities for the expansion of God’s kingdom and for the benefit of many.

Building bridges instead of blowing them up

Although I am no expert in bringing together people across theological divides and, arguably, can do a better job in doing so than I have done until now, I would like to offer a few suggestions for those who would care to engage in this painstaking work, which can be risky business.

1. Be in contact and conversation with people who are not your theological clones. If we are not careful, we can create theological echo chambers. We must resist the temptation to retreat to our own theological corners and playgrounds.

2. Forego labelling and name-calling. Vilifying the other to glorify oneself is not helpful. We do well to remember people are far more complex than a simple label allows. As one wag once quipped, “God created people, and people create pigeonholes.”

3. Try to work through your theological differences with others in person or by Zoom, not on Twitter. Small (Zoom) rooms are a better venue for working through conflict than social media.

4. Relatedly, do not “cancel” those with whom you disagree and experience conflict.

5. Finally, remember those with whom you have theological differences are to be loved and prayed for, as they, too, were created in the image and likeness of God and are people for whom Christ died.

Todd Still is dean and professor of Christian Scriptures at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. This article is 8 of 9 in the Leading from the Center series by three writers.

This article is 7 of 9 in the Leading from the Center series by three writers.

Perhaps you have heard this anonymous “little ditty” somewhere along the way: “To dwell above with saints we love / Oh that will be grace and glory! / But to live below with saints we know / Ah! That’s a different story!”

While humorous to most of us, this hackneyed turn of phrase accurately captures a common Christian experience—namely annoyance, aggravation or even anger toward other Christ-followers.

As it happens, not a few of us have become rather adroit at rubbing one another the wrong way as we seek to follow the Way. Like porcupines on a cold winter’s night, we need one another, yet we needle one another.

Over the span of my ministry—some 40 years now—I have observed and experienced a curious, if troubling, phenomenon. Conflict often is most disconcerting and acute with those with whom we hold most in common. Given that I majored in sociology as an undergraduate, this should not have surprised me.

Based, at least in part, upon the classic work of Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict, it is all but axiomatic—at least in social-scientific circles—that close contact with others—including family members, for example—can create meaningful, mutual relationships.

If or when something goes south, however, division and discord, not to mention rancor and resentment, can rear their ugly heads and grow like a rapidly spreading wildfire. While such thankfully is not always the case, it has been so among evangelicals of late.

What differences might obscure

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear to me that “convictional congruence” can sometimes eclipse “denominational allegiance” in importance. For my part, “I am BGCT-born and BGCT-bred, and when I die, I will be BGCT-dead”—or something like that.

That being said, I have found it both surprising and significant that I sometimes seem to share as much, if not more, in common with Christians from other denominations with respect to certain theological convictions and ethical commitments, if not ecclesial and liturgical patterns, than I do with some people within my own, bewilderingly broad Baptist tribe.

If this strikes you as a far-fetched notion, it is worth framing and reflecting upon a question like this: What do Alliance Baptists, for example, have in common with Southern Baptists? Once one moves beyond the denominational label, congregational polity and certain observable liturgical practices, theological and ethical differences appear to be greater than not.

Evangelicals generally defined

Though fraught because the term has been hijacked by those with certain political agendas, not a few Baptists regard and describe themselves not only as “orthodox” believers—embracing and espousing what most Christians in most places at most times have embraced and espoused—but also as “evangelicals.”

For my part, with respect to what constitutes an evangelical, I have been aided by the so-called “Bebbington quadrilateral,” posited by the British Baptist historian David W. Bebbington.

Bebbington maintains there are four primary components and commitments that demarcate and animate evangelicals:

1. Biblicism—the belief that all essential spiritual truth is found in the Bible, which is authoritative for matters of faith and practice.

2. Crucicentrism—a focus upon Christ Jesus and his life-giving, atoning death upon the cross.

3. Conversionism—the view that all people need to experience conversion and regeneration through Jesus Christ.

4. Activism—the belief that the gospel is to be expressed through effort, that is, good works.

Although not all church historians would describe and delineate evangelicals or evangelicalism precisely as Bebbington does, his quadrilateral has been adopted by many as a “rough and ready” description of the movement.

Finding common ground

As it happens, however, evangelicals are anything but monochrome. If evangelicals are united by the four aforementioned convictions, one does not have to look too hard to discover decided differences within evangelicalism.

For example, while some evangelicals are content to speak of the Bible as authoritative and inspired, others insist on using the word “inerrancy.” While some evangelicals are “Calvinists,” other evangelicals are “Arminians.” While some evangelicals are “dispensationalists,” other evangelicals are “amillenialists.”

While some evangelicals are “complimentarians,” other evangelicals are “egalitarians.” While some evangelicals are political and social “conservatives,” other evangelicals are political and social “progressives.”

Given this complex though realistic picture, one may reasonably ask if it is even possible to find “common ground with different centers.” My answer is a qualified “yes.” It requires, however, a habit of heart and mind willing to say: “In the essentials, unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things charity.”

It also requires piety, patience, perseverance and not a little bit of humility in seeking to discern what the (non)essentials are. This is as simple and as hard as it sounds.

On loving a five-point Calvinist

Although I now have been on the faculty of Baylor’s Truett Seminary for 20 years, I started my academic career at Dallas Baptist University at the invitation of then-President Gary Cook.

I was delighted to be there and have wonderful memories of the five years I spent at DBU teaching courses in New Testament and Greek to wonderful students.

Yet, it was clear to me from the beginning that a goodly and sometimes vocal majority of the faculty in the Mary C. Crowley College of Christian Faith were very wary of me. Indeed, a few of them made it crystal clear they wished I never had been hired and did what they could to cast aspersions on me and my theology.

If this was the rule in the college, there was an exception in the person of David Naugle, now of blessed memory. Early and protracted theological conversations with my learned colleague in philosophy revealed he was a five-point Calvinist.

Although I was and am highly allergic to that theological vantage point—for reasons I have neither time nor space to consider here—I dare say I never have been closer to a professional colleague than I was to “Davey.”

We shared many meals together, played many rounds of golf together, played many games of racquetball together, played in a band together and spent hours on end talking about family and theology, students and school.

How could and did this happen? I am not entirely certain. We certainly did not lay down our well-known theological differences. We did, however, let down our guard and agreed to disagree about this thing and that.

Furthermore, we opted to focus on all we shared in common. Others were puzzled how we could be so close. We might have been too had we ever stopped to give it much thought, but there were more important things for us to do together.

Davey Naugle left a legacy in various and sundry ways. One way his life has impacted my life indelibly and irrevocably is through his magnanimous, generous spirit.

On my better days, I am able “to keep the main thing the main thing” like Davey did. On my lesser days, I allow the secondary and tertiary to become primary. I know better. Perhaps you do, too.

Todd Still is dean and professor of Christian Scriptures at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. This article is 7 of 9 in the Leading from the Center series by three writers.