Conflicted lives

Appointments in Richmond and Charlottesville, Va., gave the opportunity to visit Thomas Jefferson's beautiful home place, Monticello, yesterday morning. The crisp air, changing leaves and sense of historical importance made it enjoyable.

The third president's impact on the foundations of this country is immeasurable. At the top of the list, of course, is his role as author of the Declaration of Independence.

Upon entering the stately plantation home, the guide noted that defining American document that affirms "All men are created equal" and therefore have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Then she somberly confessed: "Yet he died a slaveholder."

In retrospect we see so clearly. In real time, we live so inconsistently.

We are conflicted — or, in spiritual terms, so prone to sin.

Intentional dishonesty or irrational fear?

The possibility (or probability as some polls suggest) that Sen. Barack Obama will be the next U.S. president has some fundamentalist Christian leaders predicting gloom, doom and some very strange other stuff.

According to an Associated Press report, Focus on the Family's policy leaders are warning followers that an Obama-appointed Supreme Court majority could lead to the Boy Scouts being forced to disband or "hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys."

In a rambling Oct. 23 editorial in The Christian Index, newspaper of the Georgia Baptist Convention, editor Gerald Harris warns of direct threats to the church and individual Christians if Obama, a professing Christian, is elected (or, as Harris puts it, "if the present Rasmussen and Zogby polls are any indication of who will be our next president...")

"I can see the day on the near horizon when sermons will be censored, when church services will be randomly monitored, when churches and religious organizations will lose their tax-exempt status, and Christians severely ridiculed for their faith, if not outright persecuted," he writes.

Harris also suggests that the election could result in the pronouncements of atheist comic Bill Maher being given the same validity as ultraconservative Baptist preachers.

"Our society of religious pluralism insists that Maher’s views of God and Christianity should be given the same measure of validity as the views of Charles Stanley or Jerry Vines," Harris lamented.

Harris' expressed fear, though seemingly disconnected from his editorial focus on the upcoming election, is of the growing and unstoppable religious pluralism in America. He completely confuses the freedom to express one's views with the validity of one's views.

Surely Christianity (even the warped expressions of fear-mongers) should seek its validity in the free expressions that are constitutionally guaranteed — not from coercion or as the preferred religion of a secular government. Anything other than full religious liberty for all persons is as un-American and un-Baptist as one can get.

In the aforementioned AP article, Georgetown University political scientist Clyde Wilcox observed: "Everyone uses fear in the last part of a campaign, but evangelicals are especially theologically prone to those sorts of arguments."

How interesting. Evangelicals, during election cycles, are known by their projections of fear.

What we are hearing from these writers are not concerns over political philosophies about economics, defense strategies or social spending. These are last-gasp efforts to scare gullible adherents who share a fear that the cultural dominance for conservative Christians could be lost.

Whether such tactics work is for another to decide. But the sad reality is that such ridiculous claims reveal that the writers of such nonsense do so for one of two reasons.

Either they are being intentionally dishonest in order to persuade voters to their political side or they actually possess such irrational fears.

Carter connects 'generations' with human rights concerns

MACON, GA. — Jimmy Carter flashed his trademark smile and laughed when a well-meaning Mercer University student approached a microphone and said that "generations" in his family had greatly admired the former president.

"Generations?" responded the 84-year-old Carter, joking that he hoped the praise didn't go back to the student's great-grandfather.

President Carter spoke on "Our Endangered Values" (the title of his 2005 best-selling book) yesterday (Oct. 23) in Macon, Ga., for the Mercer University President's Lecture Series begun last year by Bill Underwood, the university president. Carter and Underwood, two Baptist laymen, dreamed and planned the diverse and well-attended Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant held in Atlanta earlier this year.

Carter called for renewed commitments to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly nearly 60 years ago on Dec. 10, 1948, in response to the atrocities of Nazi forces. The declaration affirmed the value and equality of every person and called for specific commitments such as: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The lecture focused heavily on racial and gender equality which the former president has addressed in other settings. But his exchanges with students seemed to create a more personal connection across the "generations."

In 1920, the 19th Amendment to U.S. Constitution was passed, Carter noted. He asked if anyone knew what that amendment provided.

A bright student on the front row replied: "It gave women the right to vote."

"That's not the right answer," said Carter, causing bewilderment on the student's face and all other hands to go down.

"It gave white women the right to vote," the former president said.

Then Carter told of growing up in the largely African-American community of Archery, outside of Plains, Ga., where his black playmates were not given the same opportunities as whites. He told of riding in different parts of the train into Americus, Ga., with his close black friend and sitting in different parts of the movie theater before heading back home sometimes hand-in-hand.

Social customs forbid blacks to enter a white family's home from the front door or attend white churches or eat in the same restaurants.

"That's the America in which I grew up," said Carter of those customs. "I complied..., but I saw my mother ignore them."

Carter said his "life was transformed" in July 1948 when President Truman called for the elimination of racial discrimination in the military. Carter was a Navy submarine officer at that time.

Returning to Southwest Georgia after his military career, Carter said he "found the racial situation unchanged" from earlier discrimination. His efforts to bridge the gap between races led to boycotts of his farming operations.

Interracial participation in school sports — after public school integration — "changed most Southern attitudes," said Carter.

Yet, following his first inaugural address as Georgia's governor in 1971, in which he stated that "the time for racial discrimination is over," Time magazine considered the statement worthy of prominent coverage and the Ku Klux Klan showed up at the governor's mansion.

Human rights have long been Carter's focus — before, during and after serving as U.S. president. "America did not invent human rights;" he quoted from one of his presidential addresses, "Human rights invented America."

Through the Carter Center, the former president has continued to advance human rights causes as well as counter the impact of poverty. The rights to assemble, worship, vote, etc. "fade away," he noted, if you don't have food, shelter, health and peace.

Though in the homestretch of a contentious presidential race, Carter bit his political tongue and did not address the candidates directly. He did, however, say that "America has abandoned its role as a champion of human rights."

When asked by a student what an incoming president could do in the first 100 days to re-establish America's standing in the world, Carter said such could be accomplished in 10 minutes.

In the opening of the inaugural address, Carter urged the new president to make strong human rights commitments including to torture no person and to abandoned the practice of preemptive war which has "been our policy since George Washington – until six years ago."

Concerning gender equality, Carter said "twisted scriptures" by Catholics, Orthodox and Southern Baptist Christians — among others — have created the "foundation" for inequality. He told a concerned female student to come see him in Plains if she finds the workforce unwilling to pay her the same salary for the same work as a man.

"I'll go to Washington and talk to the president about it," Carter promised.

When asked about his motivation to run for president after serving as a governor, Carter said the opportunity to get involved in foreign affairs attracted him.

"Except for Dwight Eisenhower, I served in the military longer than any other president since the Civil War," he said.

One student, who said she was not religious, asked Carter how she could bridge the gap of trust and understanding between her Middle Eastern friends and relatives in the military. He detailed some of the difficult negotiations between the leaders of Egypt and Israel that led to the Camp David Accords in 1978, a treaty that has held to the present day.

Always the Baptist, Carter added that he would like to talk with the student about her faith and that the Declaration of Human Rights is not a replacement for the New Testament.

Carter said that while his lecture had a "somber" tone and included "some extremely critical remarks," he sees a promising future.

"I'm the ex-president of a remarkable democracy," said the 39th president. "We need to set an unblemished example for the rest of the world to follow."

Carter said being an ex-president is a "very wonderful thing" and that he now writes books for living. His 24th book was sent to the publisher just prior to coming to Mercer.

Remembering Nell Knight

Iva Nell Moseley Knight, 82, died yesterday (Oct. 22) after a long illness. A celebration of her life will be held at 3:00 PM, Sunday, at Oakhurst Baptist Church, (222 East Lake Drive, Decatur, Ga.) where she was a member for 49 years.

Nell was a major factor in her husband Walker Knight's decision to leave the Southern Baptist Home Mission board at great sacrifice to begin an autonomous news journal in 1983 now known as Baptists Today.

"Her family remembers her unwavering faith in family and church, her intense sense of right and wrong, her gentleness, loving strength, unexpected wit and strong support for (me), especially in starting SBC Today..., now titled Baptists Today," said Walker.

A native of East Texas, Nell met Walker while he was stationed in Tyler as an Air Force private. Two of their four children (Walker Jr. in 1946, and Kenneth Wayne in 1948) were born while Walker attended Baylor University.

After Walker joined the staff of the Baptist Standard and the family moved to Dallas, daughter Nelda Denise was born in 1954. Then Emily Jill was born in 1959, the year the Knights moved to Atlanta and Walker joined the SBC Home Mission Board and became one of the most respected religion journalists.

Nell and Walker joined Oakhurst Baptist Church in Decatur, Ga., a congregation near and dear to them for nearly a half-century. Nell taught three-year-old children in Sunday school there for 17 years.

Nell was fully supportive of Walker's sacrificial decision to leave the editorship of the popular Home Missions magazine to start a truly independent, national news journal. She assisted in producing the newspaper in its beginning.

She continued to work at the Home Mission Board in the volunteer missions program, enabling Walker to make the risky vocational move.

Baptists Today honored Walker last April with the Judson-Rice Award for founding the news journal 25 years ago. His only regret, he expressed then, was that his wife of 64 years was unable to attend the celebration due to her poor health.

Nell spent her last five years under the good care of Arbor Terrace in Decatur and with the help of family and friends. Her life is one to remember and to celebrate.

The family will greet friends following the Sunday afternoon memorial service. An obituary with additional information appears in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Writing editorials

Part of my weekly routine as a new seminarian in the fall of 1978 was visiting the library's periodical section and reading newspapers on a stick. A variety of news sources were readily available there — for free.

The Georgia Baptist newspaper, The Christian Index, was a familiar sight. Edited by Jack Harwell, it had been a mainstay in my home all my life. My weekly reading somehow connected me to my roots.

Being new to North Carolina, I also read the daily Raleigh News & Observer along with the weekly N.C. Baptist paper, the Biblical Recorder. Marse Grant (whose earthly life ended this week, as noted in Tony Cartledge's blog) was the editor at that time.

Other Baptist papers and various news magazines caught my attention on occasion. But the Index and the Recorder were my regular Baptist reading stops.

Not the foggiest notion entered my head back then that someday my own career path would lead to print and ink. I just liked being "in the know" and tended to read news (of all kinds) critically.

Marse Grant caught my attention during that time with an editorial so good that I remember it to this day. It was titled "Thou shall not bear false witness."

Editor Grant called out Baptist ministers for the dishonest and widespread misrepresentation of their academic credentials. He told of attending a Bible conference in which leader-after-leader was called "doctor."

With just a little inquiry, he discovered that the degrees held by these Baptist ministers were thin papers — either honorary degrees or from mail-order and/or unaccredited schools.

No profession, Grant noted, was more guilty of educational false witnessing than the one that is supposedly rooted in ultimate truth.

Sadly, the problem doesn't seem to have been corrected. In fact, getting "doctored" is easier, if not cheaper, than ever before.

But what impressed me was Editor Grant's willingness to address the issue even though he was challenging some of the very persons whose support he and his publication needed.

Since backing into this business some 14 years ago, I have discovered that Baptist editors choose (sometimes weekly) between three different approaches to editorial writing: devotional, promotional or issue-oriented.

Devotional writing seems to be the favorite of those coming to the editor's desk from the pulpit. Editorials sound a lot like shortened sermons.

Promotional editorials simply advance the denominational calendar. If Senior Adult Sunday is ahead, the editorial speaks of the virtue of aging. If it's Children's Home Sunday, then the importance of nurturing children gets the attention.

Devotional and promotional editorials are safe. No one has ever lost subscriptions or a job for saying Christians should love God more or be nice to kids and old people.

Engaging pertinent and controversial issues, however, requires editorial moxie like Marse Grant showed in addressing ministerial education misrepresentation or Jack Harwell showed in affirming the equality message of Martin Luther King Jr. at a time when racial discrimination was high among Georgia Baptists.

For an editor whose primary goal is job security, there is little effort to engage issues — unless it is simply giving voice to a position already widely held by the vast majority of readers.

But, then, what good does it do to affirm what the readers already believe? There is no room for change. No chance of course correction.

Walker Knight, founding editor of Baptists Today, once said that an editor cannot be effective until he or she comes to the internal conclusion that there are worse things than being fired.

Blessed with a Board of Directors that affirms my editorial freedom, I am not in a position to tell other editors how to write editorials. But not venturing beyond devotional and promotional writings seems to short change readers who might need a fresh look at one of the many pressing issues facing the church today.

Confessions of a hypocrite

Those of us who pay attention to words find them in a pretty constant state of change. Meanings, spellings and usage evolve.

Some words come on the scene for a period of time and then leave. They are identified with a particular setting or era. Right on! Groovy.

The "language of Zion" refers to that unique terminology used inside a certain sociological subgroup — churches of various brands. Much of it is Bible-based wording.

However, there is one word that seems to have survived time and settings: hypocrisy. You hear it in the religious and secular realm (particularly in politics) — and have for a long,long time.

A hypocrite, by definition, is someone who pretends to be something they are not. Or one who acts differently than they profess to believe.

Hypocrisy is a false portrayal of oneself. The Greek rendering comes from that of an actor on stage portraying a vastly different character from himself or herself.

Preachers — for generations — have harped on hypocrisy. And it is the most common charge against the church by those looking for justification to stay away.

"They are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites!" we've all heard repeatedly for a long, long time.

Perhaps it would be more constructive if we do not fight the charge. We are hypocrites — or at least I'm willing to speak for myself.

I claim to put my trust in God but find myself fearing the same things (a failing economy, international instability, dangers, etc.) as everyone else.

Intellectually, I embrace ideals that my actions have not completely caught up with yet.

I believe Jesus calls us to a life of risk and sacrifice, yet I play it safe and pay way too much attention to my own needs and desires.

The list goes on. But the greatest act of hypocrisy may be the suggestion that we are not hypocrites.

Two-issue Christians too narrow

Abortion and homosexuality are legitimate ethical issues for Christians to consider. But only within the last quarter-century has the broad field of Christian ethics, for some, been almost exclusively defined by these two issues.

So it is not surprising that religiously and politically conservative individuals and organizations shape every political debate now in terms of these two issues.

In the Oct. 9 issue of the Georgia Baptist Convention newspaper, The Christian Index, one pastor echoed this point to his congregation in intentional defiance of IRS regulations that forbid endorsement of candidates by churches that benefit from tax-exempt status. He endorsed Sen.John McCain from the pulpit as part of the Sept. 28 "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."

"I am clearly not waving McCain's banner and would not call him the embodiment of Christian morality," said Jody Hice, pastor of First Baptist Church of Bethlehem, Ga. "But on the two issues most important to believers in this election — abortion and the definition of marriage — I believe he is closer than Obama."

The opposite page in the Index carried a "voter issue guide" produced by WallBuilders.com and "approved" by the falwellian Liberty Counsel and Liberty Legal Institute."

The guide places "Yes" or "No" answers below the names and photos of the two presidential candidates. Of the 14 political positions listed — nine relate to either abortion or homosexuality.

Aside from one each about cloning and education, the remaining three deal with drilling for oil, removing troops from Iraq and whether or not the candidates oppose a ban on assault weapons.

There is nothing about preemptive war, racism, poverty, infant mortality, the environment, immigration, care for widows and orphans or many other ethical issues. One can only assume that is the result of limited space.

The guide, readers are told, is provided as "a public service to our readers without an endorsement of either candidate."

That clarification is helpful. I just wish biblical texts had been included so I can find more clearly what Jesus said about assault rifles and drilling for oil.

We tend to see what we're looking for

The presidential debate at Baptist-rooted Belmont University in Nashville on Tuesday night had me looking at the slow-moving clock about half-way through. But then, the post-game shows are often more interesting than the main event.

With remote in hand, I like to surf the various news channels to see if commentators' impressions of the debate have any resemblance to mine — or to other commentators.

The primary, but certainly useless, post-debate question is: Who won?

But a presidential debate is unlike a sporting event with a final score emblazoned in lights. Election totals will be tallied on Nov. 4; only then is the winner revealed.

But that does not keep politically minded people from debating the debate winner.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said Sen. McCain won on foreign affairs while Sen. Obama won on the economy.

Others gave Sen. Obama the edge if, for nothing else, not making a big error while in the lead. It's something like a tie going to the runner.

Politically, most observers I heard or read felt it was a better night for Democratic ticket. But opinions varied widely.

Because the question is irrelevant and no trophies are handed out yet, it really doesn't matter which observer thought which candidate won.

Intriguing to me, however, were a couple of the network call-in polls. Viewers of MSNBC gave the debate victory to Sen. Obama by a margin of 88 percent.

Yet over at Fox News, 87 percent of the respondents said Sen. McCain won the debate. My guess is that the results would have been the same if the polls had been taken before the debate.

Indeed, we tend to see what we are looking for. That applies not only to politics, but to faith issues as well.

When was the last time one of us read the Bible or heard a sermon and actually changed our mind?

Finding, making community

Time was set aside last Friday for an annual physical exam. When one is past 50, doctors like to do a lot of poking around.

The hour spent in the waiting room was a window into the world of others. All around me were African-American patients with diabetes.

Mercer University Medical School received a $3.1 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to conduct a 5-year church-based diabetes prevention/translation program. (This topic was added to my story list)

My physician, Dr. Paul Seale, a former Baptist missionary to the Philippines, talked with me about the study (while poking around) and introduced me to his colleague, Dr. John Boltri, who is directing the program.

Diabetes is a serious problem among African Americans — and greasy church dinners don't help much. So the program is being taken to the churches in order to provide diabetes education and treatment.

In the waiting room, I was inspired by the shared journeys and encouragement of those tackling this disease.

"You better exercise," one chubby woman said to a chubby man sitting nearby.

"Eat baked fish, not fried," said another.

A sense of community developed among these persons. It was spontaneous.

But whether community is planned or "just happens," it certainly feels good. It is the sense that one is not alone on the journey of life — and that someone really does care.

Making community is an important part of what it means to be church. We can do it well — or watch it pop up somewhere else.

Loyal to the end

President George W. Bush is at home in conservative Christian circles. He speaks the language of conversion — though one story relates to the influence of Arthur Blessitt and the other to Billy Graham.

He credits God for releasing him from the bonds of alcohol and freely evokes God's name in formal speeches and casual conversations. That comfort with church language and the consistent support of conservative political causes have secured his closeness to many evangelicals.

Over his two terms as president, he has engaged the fundamentalist-controlled Southern Baptist Convention — inviting SBC presidents to the Oval Office and addressing convention messengers via video or an administrative representative.

In turn, messengers have heartily applauded the president. He is their man.

As his presidency winds down, few Americans approve of the job President Bush has done. His popularity fluctuates on the low end of the scale between one-quarter and one-third of the population.

However, as a recent Pew Research Center poll revealed, many conservative Christians are still in his corner. Thirty-five percent of the small pool of remaining supporters of the president identified themselves as "white evangelical Protestants" — the largest religious subgroup, by far.

Why? Do they like the economy? Are they pleased with his handling of the war in Iraq?

That is doubtful. Two other reasons seem more likely.

First, some Christian conservatives see all politics solely in terms of the emotional issue of abortion. Pres. Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court give them hope.

That hope, of course, is rooted in the naive notion that the Court will one day overturn Roe v. Wade, making abortion illegal. In response, abortions in America will cease.

They ignore the more likely course that would follow the unlikely overturn of that judicial decision. That is, regulation of abortion would shift to the states.

Some states (like Massachusetts) would likely ensure that abortion procedures are legal. Others (like Mississippi) would likely outlaw all or most procedures.

In turn, those with unwanted pregnancies in Mississippi would go to Massachusetts — if they could afford it. Poorer persons would likely look to illegal and possibly unsafe sources nearby. Abortion would not end with a Supreme Court decision.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was wrong when he said during the Saddleback Forum that abortion has not declined in recent years. It has declined as an apparent result of education, birth control and ease of adoption.

It seems that those most concerned with ending abortion would stick with — and enhance — the methods that work. Their answer is more likely found in these widespread responses than in the marble buildings of Washington.

And what is the second reason so many Southern Baptists and other very conservative Christians still support Pres. Bush despite his overall unpopularity? They must do so or confess that God was wrong in picking him — or that they were wrong in saying he was God's choice.